COST OF CLEAN WATER
Volume I
MUNICIPAL INVESTMENT NEEDS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WATER QUALITY OFFICE
MARCH 1971
-------
COST OF CLEAN WATER
VOLUME 1
MUNICIPAL INVESTMENT
NEEDS
ENVIORNMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WATER QUALITY OFFICE
MARCH 1971
-------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, TJ.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 40 cents
Stock Number 5501-0058
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D. C. 20460
OFFICE OF THE
ADMINISTRATOR
Honorable Spiro T. Agnew
President of the Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Mr. President:
I am transmitting to the Congress the fourth annual report on
the national requirements and costs of water pollution control as
required under Section 26{a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended.
Our current estimate of investment requirements for municipal
treatment works is $12 billion as reflected in the legislative
proposal transmitted last month
Volume I of the report, Municipal Investment Meeds, describes the
analyses and surveys which were undertaken in arriving at this estimate
of investment needs. The results of these studies led to a request
for a $6 billion Federal program, $2 billion in each of the, Fiscal
Years 1972-1974 to meet total investment goals of $12 billion.
The several analyses of investment requirements made over time, by
contacts with communities, construction grant project reporting systems
and statistical models, showed a substantial variability in the
investment needs as reported over time by individual States and
municipalities. The reasons for variability include changes in treatment
requirements imnosed by water quality standards, impacts of inflation
in the construction sector, construction schedule changes, refinement
of individual plant cost estimates as construction nears, and
community expectations with respect to magnitude and direction of
Federal and State assistance programs.
The size, complexity and dynamic nature of the municipal investment
in waste treatment systems prevent the development of fixed long term
estimates and point instead toward a need for periodic reappraisal. It
is also abundantly clear that reappraisals must make adequate provisions
for incorporating new solutions to waste problems rather than
continuing commitment to out-dated plans or technologies.
Our analyses this year, as in previous years, have addressed the
issues of cost-effectiveness, industrial utilization of municipal
facilities and sewerage service charges. There is no doubt that a
massive investment program is needed, but the absolute magnitude of
the investment required to produce a given set of waste reduction
-------
effects will vary depending upon the allocation of resources to
projects and the degree of cost-effectiveness with which investments
are made.
Volume II, Cost-Effectiveness and Clear. Hater addresses several
of the issues associated with planning, design and operating
inefficiencies. While construction sector inflation and changing
requirements will operate to increase costs, there is convincing
evidence that substantial savings in investment requirements can result
from cost-effective planning of municipal waste systems. This
has been clearly demonstrated through our experience in reviewing
community waste treatment proposals. We are working to influence such
decisions through our administration of the Federal grant program.
The results of user charge and cost analyses lead us to believe
that a high order of municipal utility management coupled with an
adequate user charge systen could lead to self-sufficient utility
based municipal systems freeing them from dependence on Federally
dominated categorical grant programs. In addition, such user charge
systems should encourage industries to reduce their wastes.
Our recent legislative proposal, the regulations promulgated on
July 2, 1970, directed toward planning requirements, and nav planning
guidelines published on January 29, 1971, direct themselves to the
significant questions of self-sufficiency and cost-effectiveness.
'• Further intensive efforts in this important area are underway in the
Environmental Protection Agency.
The Administration has taken action to control the impact of
sectoral inflation in the construction industry. As pointed out
in the current report, past construction sector inflation has
served to raise investment needs. These actions, coupled with
cost-effective investment planning, can be expected to increase
productivity of the waste facilities dollar.
In the broader scope of water quality management, we must not
ignore the problems posed by waste sources other than municipal
sources and which are in many cases infinitely more complex to solve.
Volume II therefore includes an initial assessment of the relative
cost-effectiveness of investments in terms of these several problem
areas. These analyses provide a point of departure for developing
and implementing cost-effective abatement of water pollution across
-------
its many sources. This approach is part of the Environmental Protection
Agency's effort to develop more effective integrated approaches to
environmental management.
Sincerely yours,
William D. Ruckelshaus
Administrator
Enclosure
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460
OFFICE or THE
ADMINISTRATOR
Honorable Carl B. Albert
Speaker of the House of
Representatives
Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Mr. Speaker:
I am transmitting to the Congress the fourth annual report on
the national requirements and costs of water pollution control as
required under Section 26(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended.
Our current estimate of investment requirements for municipal
treatment works is $12 billion as reflected in the legislative
proposal transmitted last month.
Volume I of the report, Municipal Investment Needs, describes the
analyses and surveys which were undertaken in arriving at this estimate
of investment needs. The results of these studies led to a request
for a $6 billion Federal program, $2 billion in each of the Fiscal
Years 1972-1974 to meet total investment goals of $12 billion.
The several analyses of investment requirements made over time, by
contacts with communities, construction grant project reporting systems
and statistical models, showed a substantial variability in the
investment needs as reported over time by individual States and
municipalities. The reasons for variability include changes in treatment
requirements imposed by water quality standards, impacts of inflation
in the construction sector, construction schedule changes, refinement
of individual plant cost estimates as construction nears, and
communitv expectations with respect to magnitude and direction of
Federal and State assistance programs.
The size, complexity and dynamic nature of the municipal investment
in waste treatment systems prevent the development of fixed long term
estimates and point instead toward a need for periodic reappraisal. It
is also abundantly clear that reappraisals must make adequate provisions
for incorporating new solutions to waste problems rather than
continuing commitment to out-dated plans or technologies.
Our analyses this year, as in previous years, have addressed the
issues of cost-effectiveness, industrial utilization of municipal
facilities and sewerage service charges. There is no doubt that a
massive investment program is needed, but the absolute magnitude of
the investment required to produce a given set of waste reduction
-------
effects will vary depending upon the allocation of resources to
projects and the degree of cost-effectiveness with which investments
are made.
Volume II, Cost-Effectiveness and Clean Water addresses several
of the issues associated with planning, design and operating
inefficiencies. While construction sector inflation and changing
requirements will operate to increase costs, there is convincing
evidence that substantial savings in investment requirements can result
from cost-effective planning of municipal waste systems. This
has been clearly demonstrated through our experience in reviewing
community waste treatment proposals. We are working to influence such
decisions through our administration of the Federal grant program.
The results of user charge and cost analyses lead us to believe
that a high order of municipal utility management coupled with an
adequate user charge system could lead to self-sufficient utility
based municipal systems freeing them from dependence on Federally
dominated categorical grant programs. In addition, such user charge
systems should encourage industries to reduce their wastes.
Our recent legislative proposal, the regulations promulgated on
July 2, 1970, directed toward planning requirements, and new planning
guidelines published on January 29, 1971, direct themselves to the
significant questions of self-sufficiency and cost-effectiveness.
'Further intensive efforts in this important area are underway in the
Environmental Protection Agency.
The Administration has taken action to control the impact of
sectoral inflation in the construction industry. As pointed out
1n the current report, past construction sector inflation has
served to raise investment needs. These actions, coupled with
cost-effective investment planning, can be expected to increase
productivity of the waste facilities dollar.
In the broader scope of water quality management, we must not
ignore the problems posed by waste sources other than municipal
sources and which are in many cases infinitely more complex to solve.
Volume II therefore includes an initial assessment of the relative
cost-effectiveness of investments in terms of these several problem
areas. These analyses provide a point of departure for developing
and implementing cost-effective abatement of water pollution across
-------
its many sources. This approach is part of the Environmental Protection
Agency's effort to develop more effective integrated approaches to
environmental management.
Sincerely yours,
William D. Ruckelshaus
Administrator
Enclosure
-------
VOLUME I
CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Summary and Conclusions 2
The Needs Assessment System and How It Has Evolved 5
The Problem
Past Related Efforts
Historical Perspective 6
1970 Studies 9
Assessment of Needs Method
Results of Assessments 11
Discussion
Cost Effectiveness and Investment Needs 15
XI
-------
ATTACHMENTS
A. Estimates of Backlog of Needs for Construction of 17
Sewage Treatment Facilities (Estimates as of
December 31, 1969)
B. Estimated Cost of Construction of Municipal Sewage 18
Treatment Works for the Period December 1970
through June 1974
C. Percent Industrial Waste to be Treated by Projects 19
to be Initiated through FY 1974 1n Cities with
Projects Costing $5 Million or More
D. Portion of Cost of Construction of Sewage Treatment 20
Facilities through FY 1974 In Cities with Projects
Costing $5 Million or More Related to Industrial
Waste (by Flow)
E. Estimated Cost of Construction through FY 1974 21
According to Regulatory Requirements
XII
-------
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this volume is to report to the Congress the results of
the cost estimates for municipal needs as of December 1970, based upon
a survey made by the Water Quality Office, Environmental Protection
Agency. The report also compares the results of the most recent survey
with the January 1970, cost estimates for municipal waste treatment
systems which were provided to the Congress last year.
The objectives of the December survey were to produce the best possible
estimate of needs, using the most current and accurate information
available at that point and time. Simultaneously with conducting the
survey we also sought to identify the problems which existed and needed
to be resolved.in the evolving WQO system for needs assessment. This
report describes in summary form, how this system has evolved over the
past several years.
This volume of the report concerns itself with documentation of planned
facilities for municipal waste handling as developed historically and
most important through the December 1970 assessment. It describes the
present needs assessment system, and the techniques utilized in the
December 1970 analysis. The estimate is compared with the January
1970 estimate of $10.2 billion, on a national and State-by-State basis.
-------
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The Federal Water Quality Administration made three assessments in 1970.
The first assessment was undertaken in January 1970 and was basically
a compilation of information provided by States. The second assessment,
in July 1970, was unique in that, for the first time, large scale
contacts were made directly with the major cities around the nation to
ascertain estimates of their construction requirements. The December
1970 study was undertaken to obtain the most up-to-date data on construc-
tion needs necessary for the development of meaningful future authorization
levels concomitant with the preparation of new legislation and followed
the pattern of the July survey.
The December 1970, assessment yielded a total investment need of $12.6
billion for municipal waste treatment facilities covering the period
December 1970 through the end of Fiscal Year 1974. To provide a
consistent time-frame for comparison of analysis made in January 1970
and December 1970, it was necessary to adjust for the construction
supported by grants made between January and December which amounted to
approximately $1.9 billion.
The difference between the January 1970 and the December 1970 estimates
is mostly accounted for by increased expenditures associated with
Enforcement Conferences, upgrading of requirements in water quality
5implementation plans, changes in State legislation, and generally
improved quality of the estimates. (The latter was particularly
affected by the imposition of new policies, standards, and regulations
and their effect upon individual States and cities; the refinement
of cost estimates as projects proceed to the construction stage;
the revision of estimates to take account of construction industry cost
increases.)
The December 1970 estimate for municipal waste facilities needs is
believed to be the best representation of National needs obtainable at
this time. At the same time it must be recognized that municipal waste
treatment investment needs are the results of a dynamic process of
assessment and reassessment. In addition, many exogenous factors
which are described elsewhere in this report operate to make this an
elusive and rapidly changing value. However, the dynamic nature of
investment means that we must accept a reasonable magnitude of this
need at any point in time for policy decisions. Continual checking of
progress made against investment goals as well as changes in this
target itself must be monitored closely and any system of investment
assistance must have the flexibility to adjust to these changes in
circumstances.
-------
In addition, other analyses have indicated that proper cost-effectiveness
considerations can serve to reduce investment needs by increasing the
facility productivity. While inflation has been working to increase
needs, cost-effectiveness improvements in planning and technology
transfer can be expected to reduce costs. Because of the gains expected
to be achieved by ongoing efforts in EPA, the total needs estimate was
reduced to $12.0 billion from the assessment value of $12.6 billion.
-------
THE NEEDS ASSESSMENT SYSTEM AND HOW IT HAS EVOLVED
The Problem
The problem of determining needs for sewage facilities and related costs
has plagued program administrators for years. Not only is he faced with
the dynamic nature of investment needs described earlier, exogenous
factors act to change the need at the same time he is attempting
to measure it. He is also faced with the problem of definition and
interpretation of what is being measured and what costs are involved
as well as the availability of appropriate data to resolve these questions
to a high degree of certainty. At least three basic elements are involved
in the technical assessment process.
A. Requirements for Waste Handling Facilities
—Quantity of sewage
—Uses of receiving water: water supply, recreation, navigation,
irrigation, etc.
—Degree of treatment required: secondary, advanced waste
treatment, etc.
B. Costing Factors
—Climate (choice of unit process)
-,-Regionalization (economies or diseconomies of scale) and inter-
ceptor/waste treatment plant cost ratio
—Dispersal of customers
—Soil properties
—Topography (gravity flow vs. pumping)
--"Ineligible" costs as collection sewers, trunk sewers, others
—Time schedule
—Existing urbanization
—Treatment technology
C. Aggregation
The method of obtaining projections of costs versus time for communi-
ties, and summing these for the nation.
Past Related Efforts
The first major effort at consolidating case-by-case estimates into a
national waste treatment cost estimate was the annual reports by the
Conference of State Sanitary Engineers from 1959 to 1966.
-------
The Water Quality Office's "Cost of Clean Water" (1968) used information
from a previous inventory of current urban facilities and a previous
survey of present and anticipated urban needs to make a five-year
projection of capital outlay for waste treatment.
The "Economics of Clean Water" (1970) derived its dollar estimate of
national waste treatment needs from two sources: from an existing
case-by-case inventory and from a statistical model approach. These
two approaches yielded very similar cost estimates on a national aggregate
basis.
The estimates contained in this current report are predominantly based
on detailed case-by-case (locality-by-locality) assessment of present
and planned construction of facilities for municipal waste management.
Hi stor1ca1 Pers pect i ve
The Water Quality Office needs assessment system .has evolved over a
14-year period, a period marked by great changes in the national
attitudes toward water quality control. In dealing with "the problem"
on a national basis, a number of relevant events led to the present
situation.
—1956: Public Law 84-660, approved July 9, did not provide for a
Federal survey of needs—determination of needs was considered
a State responsibility.
—1957: DWSPC, PHS program established "monthly reporting" of applica-
< tions in the regional offices, applications reported by the
' State agencies as being under preparation in the communities,
for short-term work estimates. This covered applications for
funds only, not future needs.
—1959: Conference of State Sanitary Engineers (CSSE) agreed to make
annual survey of States to establish long-term needs.
—1966: FWPCA "monthly report" was expanded to include under "applica-
tions in preparation" all identifiable needs for which an
application had not been filed with the State agency. The
time frame for the needs was not yet established.
—1967: CSSE withdrew from survey after criticism by the Congress of
that annual survey of States to establish long-term needs.
—1968: State Program Plan (SPP) instructions were revised to require
a listing of needs on a one-year basis and a five-year basis.
FWQA experience has shown great variation in States' methodol-
ogy in responding.
—1969: FWQA began conversion of "monthly reports" to provide a
continuous appraisal of treatment plant construction related
to water quality standards.
-------
—1969- FWQA "monthly report" was revised to cover only applications
in the Regional Offices, and needs on the SPP one-year and
five-year lists for Fiscal Year 1970.
--1969/
1970: WQO's "Cost of Clean Water" (1969) and "Economics of Clean
Water" (1970) developed projected needs data using statistical
techniques. These are described in detail in those reports.
—1970: Monthly reports incorporated the SPP one-year and five-year
lists for Fiscal Year 1971. Regulations now require River
Basin and/or Regional Plans; this will have great impact on
structuring long-range planning, and more valid estimates of
long-range needs should result.
-------
1970 STUDIES
The first special assessment took place in January 1970, and was basically
a State-oriented effort. States were contacted and requested to examine
their list of projects and costs, which had been reported to the Federal
Water Quality Administration in December 1969, to determine if they
represented the appropriate construction needs at that time. In general,
there was not sufficient time available for the States to reevaluate
their December submissions and update them accordingly. In States such
as the New England States, New York, Maryland, Indiana and Missouri,
where major programs were initiated in the mid-60's, the information
on needs was well defined. However in the other States assistance
programs were either in the early stage of development (such as
New Jersey, Michigan etc.) or in the early stages of consideration.
Estimates from these States did not include the kind of data needed for
indepth analyses.
The assessment performed in July 1970 was different from previous
studies in that, for the first time, large scale contacts were made
directly with approximately 1,000 major cities throughout the nation
to ascertain estimates of their construction plans. This interim
estimate utilized updated information from contacts with States and
municipalities, more recently submitted States needs lists, and approx-
imations of other known needs prepared by the Federal Water Quality
Administration Offices.
The need for the December 1970 assessment was based on the fact that
the present Water Quality Office legislation, with its appropriation
authorization, would expire at the end of Fiscal Year 1971. Accordingly,
to effectively prepare new legislation and, more particularly, develop
meaningful future authorization levels, it was necessary to have avail-
able the best possible up-to-date data on construction needs. The
approach selected was to reassess the construction costs for all
communities whose proposed projects were estimated to cost $5 million
or more. Since the cost of these projects represented about 3/4 of the
total cost of all projects, it was believed that, by validating the
cost of this block of projects, considerable reliability could be
attributed to the resultant total figure (which includes data for
approximately 9,000 projects identified in the WQO Pending Needs file).
Assessment of Needs Method
The assessment method alluded to above (Needs Assessment System and
How it Evolved) was used in each of the three studies made in 1970.
The basis of the method are the case-by-case (locality-by-locality)
documentations of facilities for municipal waste treatment. Results
-------
are incorporated in the Facilities Construction Program's "Pending"
File and are updated monthly with new and revised project information
received from the States.
As part of the perspective in "needs estimation", it is important to
point out that the costs depend on the level of treatment required.
Although State interstate water quality standards must be approved by
the Federal government, each State has latitude in setting goals for
intrastate waters and these goals greatly affect costs. Some States
have not yet received approval of their interstate standards, and some
do not have intrastate standards so investments approximated for them
are not as firm as for others. Other States, as a result of national
awareness of the environment, have-reacted by upgrading both water
quality criteria and implementation schedules. The difference between
Water Quality Office's January and July estimates is, in a way, a
measure of this increased response over a six-month period.
Additional information was gathered in the December assessment (with
special emphasis on data for major cities) so that a more detailed
analysis of the needs could be performed. In particular, estimates
were obtained on the volume of industrial waste associated with the
proposed construction, and on construction needed to comply with
water quality standards and enforcement actions.
10
-------
RESULTS OF ASSESSMENT
The results are summarized on the lists attached:
Attachment A - Estimates of Backlog of Needs for Construction of
Sewage Treatment Facilities (Estimates as of
December 31, 1969)
Attachment B - Estimated Cost of Construction of Municipal Sewage
Treatment for the Period December 1970 Through
June 1974
Attachment C -
Percent Industrial Waste to be Treated by Projects to
be Initiated Through FY 1974 in Cities With Projects
Costing $5 Million or More
Attachment D - Portion of Cost of Construction of Sewage Treatment
Facilities Through FY 1974, in Cities With Projects
Costing $5 Million or More Related to Industrial
Waste (By Flow)
Attachment E -
Estimated Cost of Construction Through FY 1974,
According to Regulatory Requirements
Discussion
As previously mentioned from an overall point of view the January 1970
figures were lower than the second two estimates. In fact, the $10.2
billion projected in January would have been lower still had not some
of the States, at FWQA urging, prepared revised estimates based on their
own knowledge regarding shortcomings of their previously reported
estimates.
The $12.2 billion estimate obtained in July 1970 and projected through
FY 1974 represented an assessment in which individual community estimates
for the first time, were given detailed scrutiny. The $12.2 billion
figure was revised to $12.6 billion on the basis of reassessments made
in December 1970 chiefly from cities planning the construction of
sewage treatment facilities costing $5 million or more (in States
without cities planning projects of this magnitude, the city having
the largest cost under $5 million was selected). A large part of the
total increase was accounted for in one major city—Chicago.
11
-------
From an overall point of view there are some general factors which
have had a pronounced effect on the quality and accuracy of the estimates
of construction needs. These factors include:
1. Availability of more Federal and State funds. The combination
of greatly increased levels of Federal appropriations and the
establishment by more States of matching grant programs has
changed the indebtedness requirements of many communities
planning or required to construct waste treatment facilities.
Debt ridden cities can be more responsive to meeting their needs
in this area when their financial requirements are reduced from
70% to 25%. of the eligible cost of construction. Communities
have been more willing to define needs and develop concrete
plans for moving ahead with construction programs.
2. Recognition of the need for better estimates. Just as the
Federal government, in the course of providing abatement needs,
recognizes the necessity for reliable assessments in order to
better manage the program from a financial point of view, so
the States, which must borrow or appropriate funds to meet
expected matching grant requirements, recognize a similar (if
not greater) need for such accuracy. The combination of pressures
from these two directions is helping to bring about the desired
end—a more complete identification of the needs and a more
accurate estimate of the associated costs.
3. Imposition of new policies, standards, and regulations and their
effect upon individual States and cities. Federal and State
water quality standards, enforcement proceedings, basin planning
and regionalization requirements do not remain static nationwide,
nor are the timeframes fixed or unalterable. As a result,
construction plans and schedules must adjust to fit these changes,
and almost without exception the changes result in significant
cost increases. Thus the needs figure is a dynamic rather than
static quantity.
4. Refinement of cost estimates as projects proceed to the construc-
tion stage. As a project proceeds from the conception to the
construction stages, in addition to undergoing cost refinements,
it may also undergo changes in scope as well as in plant capacity
or levels of treatment. Clearly, such changes have an effect
upon costs. Clearly, too, the larger the project, the greater
may be the cost changes.
12
-------
5. Cost increases in the construction industry. For example,
unprecedented cost increases in 1970, have resulted in an
upward revision of the previous year's figures.
In the main, the above general reasons account for the cost changes
during calendar year 1970 for the cities identified in the December
1970 assessment.
13
-------
COST EFFECTIVENESS AND INVESTMENT NEEDS
The December 1970, assessment indicated an investment need of $12.6
billion. Consideration of the influence of better reviews to assure
cost-effective projects, better planning of waste management systems
and more rapid utilization of new technology in practical situa-
tions led to a reduction of this need estimate to $12.0 billion in
planning the Federal program.
Our evaluation has revealed that relatively minor adjustments in project
features can yield equivalent waste treatment at a lower cost. A few
examples drawn from actual situations will illustrate the potentials
for better analysis of projects.
First, consider the case of three communities located sequentially along
the same river, with Community A lying upstream of B and B upstream of
C. Communities B and C have adequate waste treatment facilities;_indeed
Community C has excess capacity in its treatment plant and Community B s
facility, funded partially by a Federal grant was explicitly designed_
to handle the wastes of upstream Community A and approved on that basis.
Subsequently Community A submitted a grant aoplication to fund an inter-
ceptor sewer to convey its wastes to Community C's treatment plant,
passing directly by the previously intended treatment point at Community
B. Apparently there had been a local problem leading to a rift between
A and B.
Analysis of this situation showed that this "falling out" would cost an
additional $1 million to be expended on a total project cost of $5.2
million. Returning to the original regional system concept would show
a saving of about 20% over reported needs.
A second case is even more simple in nature. A single community apply-
ing for a grant assumed a growth in per capita sewage flows 3 1/2% per
year whereas something on the order of 1/2% would have been more
relevant to the situation. The difficulty lay in the fact that the
growth rate was only implicit in the application information requiring
thorough analysis to detect it. The project cost, using a more reason-
able rate of per capita sewage flow growth would be reduced from
$820 000 to about $615,000 or a saving of some 25% in what would have
been'unused excess capacity. (See Volume II for a detailed discussion
of the overcapacity problem.)
A third illustration hinges on the time phasing of a regional system
development. Existing plans called for a series of local treatment
plants to be constructed now and abandoned at a specified date in the
15
-------
future at which time a centralized waste transmission and treatment
facility would be constructed. This might be a conclusion reached in
a situation where future growth was thought to be necessary to develop-
ment of a larger regional system to achieve economics of scale in
transmission. More careful analysis of this situation revealed that a
cost saving of 16% could be achieved by skipping over the local treatment
phase and moving immediately to the regional system.
These are only a few of the many examples which could be cited to
illustrate the point of investment need reduction by wider application
of cost-effectiveness measures. Implementation of the July 2, 1970,
regulations dealing with adequate planning on both a basin and utility
system basis as well as the planning guidelines issued on January 29,
1971, are important steps toward achieving better utilization of the
investment dollar. Design, operation and maintenance guidelines issued
initially in September 1970, and to be supplemented by timely technical
guidelines will serve to further enhance productivity of the waste
facility investment dollar. Continued efforts in this direction are
underway in the Environmental Protection Agency as a realization of the
significant effort that must be devoted to a major public policy problem
of the 1970's--efficient investment of the greatly increased resources
proposed to be invested in waste treatment facilities.
16
-------
ATTACHMENT A
Estimates of Backlog of Needs for
Construction of Sewage Treatment Facilities*
(Estimates as of December 31, 1969)
TOTALS
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas .
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Pist.of Columbia
Florida
freoreis
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
lova
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan ,
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
Nev Hampshire
He-w Jgrsej
Nev Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Bhode Island
South Carolina .
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas .
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wi scorisin
Wyoming
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
Need for
Construction
Funds 1n
$1 ,000
$10,217,076 .
35.000
12,025
86.000
32.952
~~ CC1 Qdl "
133,000 ~~
' pon A"7ft ~ ~
"28.000 "
iii nnn ~
200,000
150.000
14.442
493 . - -
437.225
152,585 . --
33.334
61 T000 - -
62.598
140.000
140,924
236.900 - -
438.045
253.683 . -
136,265
40.000
390.000
13.455
62 .000
28.550
138,000 ......
880, OOP
9.913
i,
-------
ATTACHMENT B
Estimated Cost* of Construction of Municipal Sewage Treatment WorKs
For the Period December 1970 through June
(mi I I ion dollars)
Total
TOTALS
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Comec-fcicirt,
Delavare
Dist.of Colimbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
. . $ 12,S6S.2
27.0
?«-!
51.0
1*2.0
737.5
1*7.1*
229. 5
62.0
31+7.2
1(1+1*. 2
7**.0
50.8
1^.5
1,01*3.6
Irstiiana 17U.&
I3*i 111.9
Kansas
Kencucky
52.7
117.0
Louisiana 132.7
Maine
157.1*
Her/land 31+9.7
M&? sachucetts
Mio.iit;c.ti
Minnesota
Mississippi
MJ.ESO11.r-1
1*22.6
788. 8
295.2
31*.!
268/2
Montana 31.1*
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
18 e» Jersey
Ne'H Mexico
New York
1*9.0
1*7.2
137.8
1.308.7
19.6
1,721.0
North Carolina 125.3
North Dakota
8.1*
Ohio itt, 5
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
69.3
78.6
616. U
37-7
57-6
13-5
88.9
Texas 398 ,_7
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
22.6
38.0
280.1
216.3
West Virginia 51-1*
Wisconsin
Wyoming
3uaQ
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
190.8
1.7
9-7
93-0
ll*.6
*Based on WO dollars.
**Exc1udinq Storm Water OverflowFacllities.
18
-------
ATTACHMENT C
Percent Industrial Waste To Be Treated By Projects To Be Initiated
Through FY 191k In Cities With Projects Costing $5 Million or More
TOTA7^
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
0- V*
787
1
_7
7
8
A6
^
11
31* - 50* 51* - 70* 11* - 100*
5U 22 10
_-
--
..
—
3 1
2 1
Total
Projects
873*
1
7
7
8
150
5
14
Delaware ^ -- -- — ^
Dist.of Cclunitia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky'
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nehraska
Nevada
Ne-w Hampshire
Hew Jersev
Hew Mexico
Nev York
North Carolina
Borth Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
s
IP,
1
6
1
25
10
5
4
?6
2
50
]C
21
. 10
1
1
7
1*3
1
14-7
5
1
38
J.1
8
2
—
1
2 -- . — .. .
__
17 1 1
U 2 '1
1
2
li 2 1
3 . 2
--
-_ -- ~-
1 _—__--
_ — „_
^ 2
61 —
-.
211
23--
3 1
__
-_
5
39
3
6
1
Uit-
10
12
h
h
26
^
50
22
26
19
1
21
2 _
4
. ... . 7
8
50
3
51
10
1
te
11
8
23
2
fimit.h Carol ina k — -- -- ^
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
»„
2
71
2
1
H7
7
1
10
1
1
12
1
1 —
—
_-
— , — —
2
1
311
_-
-_
__
--
1
2
71 .
2
1
39
8
1
15
1
1
12
1
*Excludes 6 projects which provide storm overflow treatment only.
19
-------
ATTACHMENT D
Portion of Cost of Construction of Sewage Treatment Facilities
Through FT 197lt In Cities With Projects Costing $5" Million or More
Belated To Industrial Waste (By Flow)*
(million Hollars)
Indu strial Share
TOTALS
Alabama
Alaska _____
Ari zona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Dist.of Columbia
Florida
Georqia
Havaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
lova
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Mas sachuE ett s
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Ne'er a ska
Nevada
Set? Hampshire
Nev Jersey
Nev Mexico
Nev York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rh<->ri«> I"l and
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington -_
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
9 , 302 . 9
5-9
JL6.9
19.2
16.1
1*75 It
43.5
175-7
35-5
347.2
3^7.9
33-1
27-8
3 1
914.6
72 0
80.4
28.5
65.3
92.4
71.3
P87,0
282.6
•584.8
238 2
6.0
239.4
12.0
33.7
38.8
97.4
1.283.8
11.2
1.337.0
49-7
1.5
580.7
36.3
64.4
172.7
12.0
9.2
5_jO
44.J
329.5
2.6
2 2
213.9
140.0
6.0
213.9
.6
1-9
88-4
3.1
1,629.5
.6
0
67.7
0
38.3
4.3
0
15-0
S.4
2.3
0
316.7
10.0
37-1
0
11.6
0
12.5
1.6
76-7
117.1
50.1
1.1
4^
3.7
0
1.8
58.^
380; 1
141.0
5.8
0
74.0
0
9.1
24.4
2.6
0
3.0
11.2
0
.4
0
22.1
5.2
.6
66.0
0
0
4.1
.8
*Exc1uding cost of treating storm water overflow facilities.
20
-------
ATTACHMENT E
Estijmated Cost of Construction Through FT 197k*
According to Regulatory Requirements
(million dollars)
TOTALS
A.I abama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist.of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washi rjgton
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Guam
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
"A" "B"
5,1*83.2 2J.1+1.3
P8.1
29.0
129.1
229.5
25.1
. 31*7.2
151*. 6
6l.o
50.8
ll*.5
911*. 2
23.1 66.1
1*8.8
105.3
39.0
88.1
1*9.0
385.0
518.2 1*1.0
186.0
225-3
31. U
31-7
1*0.9
120.1*
999.9
1*32.0 509.1*
112.0 1*70.2
60.1
37.7
13.8
13-5
398.7
22.6
1*3.1* 111.2
P1O.O
51.1*
ll*5.6
9.7
"C" Other
871*. 9 l*,o65.8
27.0
51.0
13.0
608.1*
1*7.1*
36.9
7l*. 6 215.0
i^_o
63.7 65.7
1*8.6 37.0
111.9
3-9
11.7
93-7
69.3
109.1 191.6
37.6
229.6
109.2
31*. 1
1*2.9
17.3
6.3
7.2 10.2
157.0 151.8
1*1.5 5.1
11*1.1 638.5
12_5.3
8.1*
1*9.9 100.5
69.8
1.3 17.2
6l6.lt
1*3.8
88.9
38.0
28.9 96.6
6.3
1*5.2
1.7
93.0
ll*.6
Total
12,565.2
27.0
28.1
51.0
1*2.0
737.5
1*7.1*
229.5
62.0
31*7.2
1*1*1*. 2
7!*.o
50.8
11*. 5
1.01*3.6
171*. 8
111.9
52.7
117.0
132.7
157.1*
31*9.7
1*22.6
788.8
295.2
31*. 1
268.2
31.lt
1*9.0
1*7.2
137.8
1,308.7
19.6
1,721.0
125 . 3
8.1*
733.5
69.8
78.6
616.1*
37.7
57.6
13-5
88.9
398.7
22.6
38.0
280.1
216.3
51.lt
190.8
1.7
9.7
93.0
11*. 6
*Excludinq Storm Overflow Facilities.
"A" Implementation plans
"B" Enforcement actions
"C" State orders or other State regulatory requirements
21
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1971 O - 424-781
------- |