EPA-600/5-73-001
July 1973
Socioeconomic Environmental Studies Series
conomic Damages To
Household Items From
Water Supply Use
SSE
111
CD
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C 20460
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into five series. These five broad
categories were established to facilitate further development and appli-
cation of environmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping
was consciously planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum inter-
face in related fields. The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
series. This series includes research that will assist EPA in implement-
ing its environmental protection responsibilities. This includes examining
alternative approaches to environmental protection; supporting social and
economic research; identifying new pollution control needs and alternate
control strategies; and estimating direct social, physical, and economic
cost impacts of environmental pollution.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the Office of Research and Development,
EPA, and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the
contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental
Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
EPA-600/5-73-001
July 1973
ECONOMIC DAMAGES TO HOUSEHOLD.ITEMS
FROM WATEB. SUPPLY USE
by
Dennis P. Tihansky
Economic Analysis Branch
Washington Environmental Research Center
Washington, D.C.
Program Element 1HA094
WASHINGTON ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
-------
ABSTRACT
Household appliances and personal items in contact with water
supply are subject to physical damages from chemical and other
t * , ' '
constituents of the water. This study translates these damages into
economic losses for a typical household. Then it aggregates these
losses at the national and individual state levels. To do so requires
several stages of analysis. First, the types of physical damages
expected and associated water quality determinants are identified.
The physical effects are next translated into economic losses.
Second, damage functions are formulated to predict likely impacts of
water quality changes on each household unit affected. Third, a
computer program based on these functions is designed to estimate
total damages per typical household and to aggregate them over
selected regions. Finally, the program is applied to state-by-state
data on water supply sources and socioeconotnic descriptors. Total
damages to U.S. residents in 1970 are estimated in the range, $0.65 to
$3.45 billion, with a mean of $1.75 billion. The mean translates into
$8.60 per person. States contributing most to total damages are
California ($230 million) and Illinois ($164 million). On a per
capita basis, Arizona ($22.53) and New Mexico ($18.58) rank highest,
whereas South Carolina ($1.15) and Oregon ($1.73) are at the other end
of the spectrum. When per capita damages are compared by source of
water supply, those from private wells are worst at an average of
$12.34, treated ground water next at $11.20, and treated surface water
ii
-------
sources at only $5.83. The relative contribution of man-made activities
to damages from all water supply sources is roughly estimated as a minimum
of 15 percent. For surface water sources, the typical figure is higher
at 30 percent, while it drops to 10 percent for groundwater supplies.
This report was funded under Program Element 1HA094 of the Office
of Research and Development, Washington Environmental Research Center,
Environmental Protection Agency.
iii
-------
PREFACE
This report was prepared as part of a more comprehensive research program on
the socio-economic impacts of environmental policy, under the direction
of Alan P.. Carlin,Director of the Implementation Research Division, and under the
immediate supervision of Fred H. Abel, Chief of the Economic Analysis
Branch. It addresses an important segment of an EPA research program
to estimate the relationship of improved water quality to economic
damages incurred by water uses. Specifically, this study estimates the
damage to household items and extra household costs resulting from use
of water containing TDS and hardness. It formulates damage functions
in the context of a computer program, which can be used by local planners
in a regional cost/benefit analysis. It also presents annualized estimates
of economic damages incurred by each state and aggregated over the nation
for 1970. These estimates pertain to various levels of water quality
control and alternate sources of water supply, e.g., private wells.
Much of the TDS and hardness pollution comes from natural sources,
although water use and reuse and the disposal of salts by man greatly
increase the level of these pollutants. Many of the high pollution levels
occur in parts of the country where water reuse is high. Yet almost no
attempt is currently made in municipal plants to treat wastewater or
effluent to remove TDS and hardness.
This report presents basic pollutant-damage relationships that can be
used in models comprehensively evaluating national water quality improvement
programs. They can be used to design and implement water quality improvement
plans for river basins and municipalities. The contributions of man-made
iv
-------
versus natural sources of these pollutants are also assessed. An under-
standing of the relative importance and geographical distribution of these
damages is necessary for national policy decisions on water quality goals
and programs.
The work reported herein is part of a broader study on economic benefit
assessments of environmental quality. This broader program will allow the
estimation and analysis of economic impacts of environmental policies
whose goal is the enhancement of societal welfare.
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Abstract ii
Preface iv
List of Figures vii
List of Tables viii
Sections
I Conclusions 1
II Recommendations 3
III Introduction 4
IV Physical Impairment of Household Units 7
V Economic Costs to the Consumer 13
VI Methodology for Estimating Benefits 19
VII Regional Estimates of Economic Damages 30
VIII Results at the National Level 45
IX Special Water Quality Considerations 64
X Man-Made and Natural Resources 66
XI Concluding Remarks 70
XII Acknowledgements 72
XIII References 73
XIV Appendix 77
vi
-------
FIGURES
No..
1 Schematic Diagram of Water Quality Damage 20
Calculations for each Household Unit.
2 Aggregation Scheme for Regional Water Quality 21
Benefit Calculations.
3 1970 Household Damages of Water Supply Use by 44
Selected State.
4 1970 Per Capita Benefits of Water Supply Treat- 58
ment in the United States by Water Supply
Parameter.
5 1970 Total Household Benefits of Water Supply 60
Treatment in the United States, Cumulated by
Source.
6 1970 Per Capita Benefits of Water Supply Treat- 61
ment in the United States by Individual Source.
7 1970 Per Capita Damages from Domestic Water 62
Supply Use in the United States.
vii
-------
TABLES
No. Page
1 Typical Damage Functions for Household Units 23
2 Household Damages of Water Supply Use by State 31
for 1970 at a Discount Rate of 5%.
3 Household Damages of Water Supply Use by State 35
for 1970 at a Discount Rate of 7.5%.
4 Household Damages of Water Supply Use by State 39
for 1970 at a Discount Rate of 10%.
5 Household Benefits of Water Supply Treatment 46
in the U.S. for 1970 at a Discount Rate of 5%.
6 Household Benefits of Water Supply Treatment 48
in the U.S. for 1970 at a Discount Rate of
7.5%.
7 Household Benefits of Water Supply Treatment 50
in the U.S. for 1970 at a Discount Rate of 10%.
8 Household Benefits of Water Supply Treatment 52
in the U.S. for 1970 at e Discount Rate of 5%.
9 Household Benefits of Water Supply Treatment 54
in the U.S. for 1970 at a Discount Rate of
7.5%.
10 Household Benefits of Water Supply Treatment 56
in the U.S. for 1970 at a Discount Rate of 10%.
viii
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
Some of the key conclusions drawn from this household damage study
are summarized in the following items. Additional insights may be
obtained by surveying the list of references in Section XI.
1. In the United States, total 1970 damages to household items from
water supply use were in the range, $0.65 - $3,45 billion, with
a mean of $1.75 billion.
2. On a per capita basis, the mean damage estimate is $8.60 in 1970.
3. Those states with the highest mean estimate of damages include
California at $230 million and Illinois at $164 million.
4. Per capita damages are highest for Arizona, $22.53, and New
Mexico, $18.58,
5. Per capita damages differ significantly with respect to the
source of water supply. Those consumers using surface water
supplied by public systems incur damages averaging $5.83,
compared with $12.34 for private well owners.
6. The most significant water quality parameters affecting household
expenditures include hardness, total dissolved solids, chlorides
and sulfates, and acidity.
7. Economic impacts of water supply use on household items
are measurable in terms of increased investment and operating
costs.
1
-------
8. Damage functions are formulated to estimate the impact of water
quality on the service life and operating levels of nearly twenty
household items.
9. The household items most vulnerable to deteriorating effects of
water quality parameters include piping, water heaters and other
appliances, washable fabrics, water utility systems, and soap
purchases.
10. The man-made portion of total U. S. damages is at least $300 million.
Thus, the complete control of municipal, industrial, or agricultural
discharges of mineral loads would provide this benefit.
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
Several recommendations on treatment strategies and research
priorities are listed below as implied by this household damage study.
1. Economic tradeoffs of controlling water quality parameters,
such as hardness and total dissolved solids, in a central
plant vs. residential homes should be analyzed on a regional
basis.
2. Household damage functions from water supply use should be
derived from local conditions. Although communities with water
supply containing excessive amounts of certain constituents
have been observed to some degree, other communities within
"recommended standards" should not be ignored. The latter
group must also contend with significant damages in the
residential sector.
3. More information about water quality data and water use patterns
should be collected on private water distribution systems.
4. More research should focus on household damages incurred by
the use of water with very low concentrations of constituents.
Synergistic effects of constituents at these quality levels
should also be explored.
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
The primary objective of water supply control is to protect the
public health and welfare in the use and enjoyment of water resources.
The health aspect of water quality criteria has been under
investigation for many years, while aesthetic properties have also
influenced the development of water treatment technologies.
Obviously, the protection of human health and aesthetic factors are of
paramount concern (e.g., CDC, 1971; J. Lackner, 1973), but other
welfare aspects also relate to drinking water characteristics. Beyond
its direct consumption, water is used in household activities,.such as
dish washing. Household appliances and plumbing, which come into
daily contact with water supply, are subject to abrasive, corrosive,
and other damaging effects of certain constituents in water.
This study focuses on household damages while recognizing the
importance of other welfare aspects. Economic impacts of water supply
use affect household costs in both the long and the short run. The
service life of household items increases from contact with improved
water quality. In addition, daily expenditures for soap and
detergents as well as operating costs of appliance usage can decline.
Unfortunately, these impacts are usually neglected, even in
comprehensive water quality damage studies. A major study of estuarlne
pollution problems (FWPCA, 1966), for example, concludes that the
4
-------
benefits of more stritigent control are probably not large given the
existence of treatment plants which are necessary in any case.
The misconception underlying this rationale is that treatment
supposedly removes all objectionable pollutants prior to household
water distribution. Such is not the case, however, in normal
treatment plants. Total dissolved solids (TDS) and hardness are among
those elements not treated extensively in public systems. It is well
documented that these and other constituents can inflict severe
damages on households. Although there are suggested limits of
concentration for these parameters, standards have not yet been
promulgated. According to some economists, "... little rigorous
evidence is available on which to base a limiting standard for
drinking water with respect to total dissolved solids" (Kneese and
Bower, 1968).
This study demonstrates that the economic damages from domestic
water supply use are substantial and should thus be considered in
defining water quality standards. Empirical evidence is reviewed from
the literature and cast into a model framework to predict total
damages in a specific region. The first section of the paper
identifies major pollutants and their physical impacts on household
items. The next section presents a method of translating these
damages into economic equivalents. Following this, a predictive model
is derived, after which total damage estimates are calculated by
state. These values are based on complete removal of objectionable
-------
wastes. Moreover, they Include all residents served by either public
or private water distribution systems. Finally, partial damages are
estimated in meeting recommended standards of water supply rather than
complete removal.
-------
SECTION IV
PHYSICAL IMPAIRMENT OF HOUSEHOLD UNITS
Water supply should be of sufficient quality to be safe for
direct consumption and to provide for its normal uses in household
activities. Most contaminants in water supply are captured and
removed at the water treatment plant. But not all constituents are
removed, the most notable exceptions including the components,
hardness and total dissolved solids (TDS). Plants seldom reduce
hardness below 85-100 ppm (Larson, 1963). Conventional water
treatment processes do not readily or economically remove a
significant portion of the mineral content.
Most public water supplies are within Federal recommendations
limiting total dissolved solids concentration to 500 ppm (USPHS,
1963). Only 2 percent of water distributed through these systems,
serving 160 million Americans, does not meet this criterion (Patterson
and Banker, 1969). Yet compliance with this criterion does not imply
that economic damages from water use are avoided. Corrosion and
accelerated depreciation of household appurtenances have been observed
at low concentrations of the water constituents. Moreover, it is
generally less costly to improve water at the plant than in the homes.
Sonnen (1973) demonstrated that household and industrial damages from
mineralized water supplies in a California community exceeded the cost
of water and waste treatment by conventional processes. Howson (1962)
reported that water softening in some Wisconsin towns was ten times
7
-------
more expensive than municipal treatment.
The costs of water supply thus extend beyond municipal treatment
and distribution to include the customer's use of water. Water
quality-related consumer costs are delineated into two basic
categories, as defined by the Santa Ana Watershed Planning Agency
(Leeds, Hill, and Jewett, Inc., 1969). Under direct control by the
user Is the cost of specialized treatment for the removal of
objectionable water constituents. The other cost measures the penalty
attributed to the use of degraded water supply. According to the
Planning Agency, the latter cost occurs "as a result of using water of
particular quality. Such items as Increased use of soap, scaling of
pipes, and rapid deterioration of plumbing fixtures and water-using
appliances are examples of the penalties incurred by the domestic user
... ." These two categories are interdependent since specialized
treatment reduces penalty costs. Ideally the household degree of
treatment should be optimized by setting the marginal increase of
treatment cost equal to the incremental decrease of penalty costs at
the desired quality of water intake.*
*For some residents, the optimal solution must be constrained by
other preferences of drinking water. Although there may be
significant physical damages from certain water quality
characteristics, many consumers are willing to undergo these costs
because of a taste preference for this water. Should these
8
-------
Damaging effects of water supply result primarily from
corrosion, encrustation, and despoiling of household items that come
into frequent contact with poor quality water. Affected items in the
home include piping systems, plumbing fixtures, water heaters and
other appliances, washable clothing and fabrics, dishes, and
miscellaneous goods. Specialized water treatment, i.e., water
softening, extra demand for soap and detergents, and the purchase of
bottled water represent additional costs. Degraded water can inhibit
houseplant growth and necessitate more frequent lawn irrigation. In
addition, damages are incurred by water utility systems and customer
facilities. A breakdown of these items includes water tanks, meters,
pumps, and municipal water distribution systems.
Water quality parameters having the greatest economic impact on
household use are (Leeds, Hill and Jewett, Inc., 1970; Metcalf & Eddy,
1972) :
(1) Total dissolved solids (TDS). The useful service life
of household plumbing fixtures and appliances is sensitive
to the mineral content of water (Black and Veatch, 1967).
(cont'd)
constituents be removed, the water would then become objectionable.
Senate Drinking Water Bill 43^ in early 1973 recognized these
preferences by recommending local options for secondary (aesthetic as
opposed to health oriented) drinking water standards.
9
-------
Corrosion of metallic surfaces and precipitation of scale
are the most apparent damages linked to the presence of
minerals including calcium, magnesium, iron, manganese,
sodium, potassium, sulfate, and chloride. Iron and
manganese, in particular, cause staining and can even
clog piping and fixtures. The demand for bottled water
and extensive lawn watering are strongly related to the
level of mineralization. There are no legal restrictions
on the TDS content of water supplies. The U.S. Public
Health Service recommends that treated water not exceed
500 ppm of TDS, but this criterion is based on potability
rather than physical damages in the household sector.
Indeed, there are no commonly accepted criteria for any
parameters that affect consumer costs.
(2) Hardness. Water softening, scale deposits in water
heaters, and purchases of soap and detergents are likely
to increase with the use of hard water, whose primary
constituents are calcium and magnesium compounds.
Although high degrees of hardness are detrimental to
water systems, low concentrations can be beneficial
since the resultant scaling reduces corrosion by
applying a "uniform deposit that completely covers the
metallic surfaces" (Black and Veatch, 1967). The U.S.
Geological Survey (1964) classifies water hardness in
10
-------
terms of the concentration of. calcium carbonates:
0-60 ppro soft
60 - 120 moderately soft
120 - 130 hard
180 4- very hard.
Generally, household users become Irritated with
hardness exceeding 150 ppm while that above 300 ppn is
considered excessive (FWCA, 1968).*
(3) Chlorides and sulfates. Corrosion and scaling are
caused by chemical action involving these anions. Alone
they do not cause corrosion, but they lover the p^ of •
water and thus hasten deterioration. Chlorides arc
statistically shown (Patterson and Ranker, 1968) to
decrease the service period of water heaters, while
sulfaten in conjunction with magnesium ions, due to
*Tho effects of hardness on human health are not addressed here,
although they are frequently debated in the literature. For example,
many researchers found strong associations between heart ailments and
water softness (e.g., Shroeder, I960; Morris, et al, 1961), while
others claimed that these results were spurious since all causal
factors xjere not considered, (Dingle, et nl, 1964).
II
-------
their laxative effect, promote bottled water consumption
(Metcalf & Eddy, 1972).
(4) Acidity. Reduced service life of customer facilities
may he expected from contact with highly acidic water.
Acidity is corrosive at levels below 5.0. But it Is not
a factor of concern in most treated water, where the pH level
falls between 6.5 and 8.5 (McKee and Wolf, 1971).
Other important water quality parameters include sodium,
potassium, phosphates, silicates, and dissolved gases. But the above
four categories are most often recognized as damaging to household
items.
In estimating household damages in economic terms, this study
proposes to use only two water quality measures, total dissolved
solids and hardness, for several reasons. First, most empirical
results reported in the literature are based on these parameters.
Second, there is ample data on these descriptors of water supply
throughout the United States. It must be recognized, however, that
these agents are not solely responsible for gross damages. For
example, without an adequate supply of dissolved oxygen in water,
corrosion is seriously retarded. And warmer water tends to hasten
corrosive or scaling actions. Synergistic effects of water quality
conditions must therefore be recognized, but for the sake of
computational simplicity, the most fundamental parameters are used in
estimating damages.
,12
-------
SECTION V
ECONOMIC COSTS TO THE CONSUMER
The literature contains numerous estimates, by household item,
of the economic impacts of degraded water supply. Some of these
results are useful in calculating state and national benefits of water
pollution control. Cost impacts are generally separated into
investment outlays for the replacement or disposal of damaged
household units and daily operation and repair expenses. The most
comprehensive estimate of consumer costs is reported by Black and
Veatch (1967). Annualized capital costs (discounted at 6 percent
interest) and annual operating costs are estimated for a number of
household or household-related units, ranging from water piping and
clothing to water meters and distribution storage systems. Even
expenses for soap, bottled water, and lawn over-irrigation are
itemized. Curves are plotted to predict the average useful life of
facilities over various qiialities of water supply.
The Black and Veatch report restricts its water quality data
base to total dissolved solids. Damages primarily attributed to
hardness are omitted from discussion, although later estimates in this
study show that hardness has greater economic effects than TPS.
Moreover, total damage estimates are provided for only two extreme
water quality cases with TDS concentrations of 250 and 1,750 ppm.
Intermediate cases are not easily interpreted from these results
because some of the damage functions per household unit are nonlinear
13
-------
while others arc linear over the water quality range. The extreme
case estimates arc based on interviews in thirty-eight western
Municipalities, most of which are quite snail. To extrapolate these
results to other regions would require adjustments for household
expenditures and water consumption. Yet ttie report distinguishes
average vs. modern urban residential costs of using the same quality
water, for these resident groups, the difference3, in per capita
damages for the extreme water quality cases is $46.70 and $60.55,
respectively.A But these estimates include bottled water and lawn
over-irrigation costs, which are specific to an area and to a small
percentage of all families. Without these items the respective
damages are lowered to $17.22 and $28.97.
Two other estimates (Ilamner, 1964; AWWA, 1961), both reported by
the American Water Works Association, relate average TBS effects on
household facilities only (excluding soap, fabrics, bottled water,
irrigation, and water utility systems). These figures are $12.95 and
012.63-018.96, respectively, which compare favorably with a
*The urban residential family consumes, on the average, 130,000
gallons of water per year compared to 100,000 gallons in the typical
home. The per capita figures pertain to a typical household with 3.8
persons.
14
-------
corresponding value of $13.13 by Black and veatch. Their estimates of
bottled water purchases, however, are somewhat lower than Black and
Veatch figures by roughly 20 percent. Patterson and Banker (1968) use
data in the Black and Veatch report to estimate effects of TDS on
appliances and plumbing facilities. Their conclusions are. thus
similar to the latter study, although they contend that due to the
subjective nature of some estimates, "the results ... should be looked
upon as an initial investigation, certainly subject to more complete
survey investigation and analysis."
Leeds, Hill and Jewett, Inc. (1969) estimate specialized
treatment and penalty costs associated with household facilities,
using both TPS and hardness parameters. Damages are assumed directly
proportional to the water quality level. For the Santa Ana River
Basin, per capita damages for 1970 are assessed at $18.85, with
hardness contributing about two-thirds of the total. This figure is
probably higher than the national average since water quality is
relatively low and household expenditures high in this area.
Metcalf and Eddy (1972) conducted on-site interviews for damage
estimates mainly from Southwestern communities with supplemental data
from industry. Unlike most other studies that simply aggregate
damages over each household unit, this report statistically verifies
the significance of water quality effects. The most important
relations are found to be bottled water purchases vs. TI>S, softening
costs and soap demand vs. hardness, and frequency of water heater
15
-------
replacement vs. chlorides. No significant effects of water quality
are identified with lawn watering, clothing expenses, and plumbing
repairs. Other studies, on the other hand, reach opposite
conclusions. Certain minerals are found to have detrimental effects
on dishes, glassware, and appliances (Syracuse Chine Corp., 1971;
Anchor Hocking Glass Corp., 1971; Frigidaire Div., 1971), Dissolved
solids can stain, discolor, and shorten fabric life (Loeb, 1963;
Olson, 1939; Rein, 1970; Aultman, 195R). Metcalf and Eddy derive two
exponential curves for total household costs vs, hardness with and
without softening devices. For excessive water hardness of 400 ppn,
per capita damages are $22.33. A serious problem with this study is
that it derives total household costs only in terms of hardness
levels. The interviews are conducted primarily with housewives, most
of whom lack awareness of damaging minerals other than hardness, since
the latter affects soap costs. As a result, cost estimates are biased
in favor of hardness and omit other important water quality factors
(Bovet, 1972).
An Orange County Study (1972) estimates the average per capita
economic damage resulting from use of Colorado River water. Household
items include water softeners, bottled water, water heaters, plumbing,
water-using appliances, and swimming pools. Linear damage relations
are assumed. Annual costs from both dissolved solids and hardness are
quite high at $39.84, since water quality (average TDS load of 746
ppra; hardness, 349 ppm) of the riverwater supplied to households is
16
-------
quite poor*
Several studies examine damages for specific household items.
Every 100 ppm rise in water hardness increases soap consumption. For
example, the annual per capita cost of cleaning products varies
considerably by study, i.e., $1.55 in an Illinois study (DeBoer and
Larson, 1961), $2.52 in a Purdue University study (Aultman, 1958),
S5.85 in a Southern California study (Metropolitan Water District,
1970), $8.21 for upper middle income residents in an Orange County
survey (1970), and $3.32 for all respondents in this survey.* In a
report on the Ohio River Valley (Bratner, 1960), hardness-related costs
of soap are based on the Purdue University data. However, when total
basin costs are derived, only customers using publicly treated surface
water supplies are counted. Other residents on private wells and
ground water are excluded since these sources, as the author contends,
are not "primarily subject to the effects of pollution." This
assumption is questionable since ground water is subject to (man-made)
contamination from salts and toxic materials from surfaces and deep
wells or through diffusion of soluble compounds from septic tank
systems (Todd, 1970).
*These figures are inflated by suitable price indices to base
year 1970. The final estimate is based on a straight-line fitted
through all data points in the Orange County survey.
17
-------
Williams (1968) determined home water softening costs at 526.64
per person in Southern California. In a related study, the per capita
cost of cleaning agents due to all water constituents is estimated in
the range, S12.63-S15.79, for most American cities (AWWA, 1961).
Another measure of benefit estimates is based on the
willingness-to-pay concept. Orange County residents were asked what
additional expenses they would accept for top quality water (Orange
County Water District, 1972). Average yearly payments were S5.6R and
$R.8A for water with respective TDS loads below and above 600
-------
SECTION VI
METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING BENEFITS
The sequence of calculations for marginal benefits of water
quality improvement is outlined in Figs, 1 and 2. In the first
diagram, damages are calculated for each household item. These costs
are partitioned into (1) investment and (2) operation. The former
cost involves annualizing total capital cost over its period of
usefulness. The reduced service life of unit I, resulting from
contact with low vs. high quality water, is estimated by damage
function F^C"). The appropriate water quality index — IDS or hardness
level— is an independent variable in this function. A standard
capital recovery factor is defined in terms of the service life n and
discount rate r, as follows:
rn(l+r)n
This value, multiplied times the original value of the item,
effectively amortizes the original cost into n equal yearly payments
at interest r. The annualized cost decreases with improving water
quality. This change represents the damage estimate for equipment
corrosion or depreciation.
The other cost element arises from greater operation and
maintenance of household items. This annual cost is calculated by the
damage function G. (••). After total costs are estimated for the two
19
-------
Damage
Impact
Investment
Operation
Total Unit
Total
Household
Description Water Quality Level
of unit u Actual (W ) Improved (!;l.)
Useful service n = Fu (W0)
life
= F
Capital recovery
factor
Base year value
,
uo
Vu
Annualized value aj(r,n )-Vu
Incremental
damage
Base year cost
Incremental
damage
Incremental
damage
Incremental
damage
u (W^-Gy (W0)
D =2;D
u u t
*Note: Water supply source, j, is implicit In these symbols
i.e., D^D...
Fig. 1. SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF WATER QUALITY DAMAGE CALCULATIONS
FOR EACH HOUSEHOLD UNIT.
20
-------
Land Description
Area of Region
State Household Damages
Typical
Adjusted for State
Number of Households
Total Damages by
Source
Total Damages
Total Population
Per Capita Damages
Nation Total Damages by
Source
Total Damages
Total Population
Per Capita Damages
Water Supply Source
Public: Public: Private:
Surface Ground Well
jsujs
Ps - Ts/gs
I f, D, £ f0 D0
s Is Is s 2s 2s
3s
3s
f3s°3s
P = T/g
Fig. 2. AGGREGATION SCHEME FOR REGIONAL WATER QUALITY BENEFIT
CALCULATIONS.
21
-------
water quality conditions, they are subtracted to yield incremental
damages.
Unit damage functions and input data for these calculations are
extracted from the literature. For most units, damage curves have
been formulated from manufacturers' data and personal interviews.
Otherwise, curves must be fitted through available data points. If
only two (extreme water quality) observations are available, a linear
segment is drawn through these points. In those cases where several
data sources are available, averages are taken. There are also
household items owned by a portion of all households, i.e., water
softeners. This portion is assumed to be linearly related to the
level of water quality (Orange County Water District, 1972). As a
result, the average damage is a product of item cost and percent
ownership, both functions of water quality. Price indices (Census,
1971) of household items are multiplied times original cost to adjust
damages to base year 1970.
Table 1 presents a list of household units included in this
study. Corresponding (uninflated) damage functions are formulated for
capital and operating costs in a typical residence. Functional
dependence on specific water quality conditions is also identified.
(Note that soap and detergent costs are apportioned between TPS and
hardness.) Each function is assumed valid over the observed range of
water quality, although some studies caution the use of extrapolated
results.* Not all household units are considered in estimating
22
-------
Table 1
TYPICAL DAMAGE FUNCTIONS FOR HOUSEHOLD UNITS
UNIT
Bottled Water
Cooking Utensils
Faucets
Garbage Grinder
Sewage Facilities
Soap & Detergents (1)
Soap & Detergents (2)**
Toilet Facilities
Washable Fabrics
Washing Appliances
Wastewater Piping
Water Heater
INVESTMENT/ FAMILY *
ORIGINAL LIFE SPAN
COST ($) (YR)
0 0
20 10.2 - 7.0~4W
165 11.5 - 2.7~4W
8 5.0 + exp(1.6-1.2~3W)
90 30.8 - 3.3"3W
0 0
0 0
20 2.0 + exp(2.4-i:5"3W)
1,080 4.6 - 1.3'4W
120 5.0 + exp(1.8-7.9~4N)
450 10.0 + exp(3. 8-6. 4~4N)
110 5.0 +exp(2.4-1.4"3W)
OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE *
($/YR)
exp(-3.7)-W'8
0
7.0~4W + 1.6
5.0'4W + 1.1-1
2.3"4W + 3.4
2.7-3W + 11.7
i.e'Vo-x) + n.7,
X = 7.0~4W
i.6~3w + e.r1
0
1.0" 3W + 3.3
7.0"4W + 1.6
1.3'3w + 16.8
WATER QUALITY
VARIABLE (W)
TDS HARDNESS
«
0
0
0
•
•
0
0
•
^
^
•
ro
CO
-------
Table 1 (continued).
UNIT
Water Piping
Water Softeners **
Water Utility Systems
Distribution
Production
Service Lines
Storage
Water Meter
INVESTMENT/FAMILY *
ORIGINAL LIFE SPAN
COST ($) (YR)
250 12.0 + exp(3.4-1.8~3W)
2.r]w 12.0
450 60.0 + exp(3.9»9.1~4W)
120 30.8 - 3.3~3W
100 46.7 - 6.7~3W
60 50.8 - 3.3~3W
40 30.5 - 2.0~3W
OPERATION AND
MAINTENANCE *
($/YR)
l.T3W + 2.0
i.rV
1.2~3W + 3.2
3.2~4W + 4.5
0
6.3~4W + 3.4"1
2.3"^ + 5.9"1
WATER QUALITY
VARIABLE (W)
TDS HARDNESS
m
%
%
•
0
•
•
,-n
* Any number of the form, a.b~n, is an abbreviation of the scientific notation, a.b x 10 .
** Damages for this unit are adjusted by the proportion of households owning water softeners.
-------
damages. Only those with adequate documentation and proven dependence
on water quality are summarized. Other likely items include
ornamental shrubbery, swimming pools, home garden crops, and extra
fertilizer demand.
After typical household damages are derived, state and national
totals follow according to Figure 2. Each unit estimate is first
adjusted to reflect state differences in housing expenditures, This
adjustment is based on findings (Orange County Water District, 1972)
of a strong correlation between damage levels and home value or rent
payment. The factor used to reflect this standard of living
adjustment is the ratio of average family income by state over the
U.S. mean (Census, 1972).
Levels of drinking water quality for the largest U.K. cities
(Durfor and Becker, I?fi5) are closely related to the quality of the
the communities surveyed by Metcalf and Eddy (1972), for
example, TDS always exceeded 31 ppra in water supplies, so that any
damage estimate based on purer water is subject to greater uncertainty
than interpolated results, Sonnen (1973) and others assume that
damages are negligible below certain concentrations of minerals, i.e.,
100 ppm for hardness, since no observations were surveyed in this
range. Another survey (Aultman, 1958) refutes this assumption.
25
-------
original water supply. Thus damages in each residence depend on the
supply source, which is usually distinguished as publicly treated
surface water, publicly treated ground water, or well water and other
private sources. To estimate the number of households served by each
supply source requires the integration of several data sets. The
Environmental Protection Agency (Division of Water Hygiene, 1971)
summarizes the percent of each state's population served in 1970 by
public water supply systems. The remaining (unreported) population
receives water from private systems. Of the proportion on public
supply, a USCS report (Murray and Reeves, 1972) divides it by state
into population served by surface, ground water, or combination
thereof. For purposes of this study the "combination" group (which is
relatively small) is partitioned among pure surface and ground water
users according to their relative magnitudes. These estimates thus
give a breakdown of state customers served by the three major water
sources. The number of households on each source equals the percent
served by source times total number of families (used as a proxy for
households).
This analysis concerns itself not so much with the origin of
damages as with the total use of water. Yet the distinction among
household damages by supply source is important for several reasons.
First, pollution of surface sources is more often identified with
man-nade activities than ground water contamination (Bramer, 1960).
Water quality standards are generally designed to control
26
-------
anthropogenic wastes in surface water bodies. Second, water quality
levels differ significantly by source. According to chemical analyses
of raw water from large public supplies in the United States (U.S.
Geological Survey, 1954), average hardness as CaCO (weighted by
population on each supply source) is 96 ppm from surface supplies but
200 ppm from ground supplies. If the water is treated publicly, these
figures are reduced to 82 and 162 ppm. Total dissolved solids
(measured as residue at 180 deg. F.) levels also vary considerably and
are notably high in western and midwestern ground water aquifers.
These high variations account in large measure for differential
household damages.
Water quality varies enormously by geographic area. TBS levels
ranging from less than 50 ppm in the South to well over 100,000 ppm in
the West have been observed. Furthermore, extreme variability can
even occur within the same aquifer. Near Sedgwick, Colorado, for
instance, TDS and hardness were measured as 21AO and 990 ppm,
respectively, in one private well but only 330 and 199 ppm in another
well less than one mile away (Hurr, 1972). To obtain typical TPS or
hardness values is thus meaningless for most areas of the country,
especially the West and Southwest. 7or purposes of estimating
aggregate damages, however, average values are useful inputs.
Water quality data were compiled from annual water resources
reports, special state ground water reports, and information files in
state agencies. Public water supply data was extracted from two USGS
27
-------
surveys (Durfor and Becker, 1965 j Schneider, 1968) of major cities in
the United States. The more recent data was selected if given the
choice. Water quality observations were first separated into surface
and ground sources. Then they were weighted by customers served in
each municipality to yield a state average. Private well water data
were more difficult to obtain. Observations were few in number and
scattered in various documents. Some raw ground water records were
compiled in annual surveys (U.S. Geological Survey, 1967-1970), but
they covered fewer than half of all states. Other state data were
taken from ground water analyses in the above mentioned USGS surveys
of major cities. For another group of states, representative well
samples were released by officials in USGS Water Resources District
Offices. Still other information was found in special state ground
water circulars. For each state a typical value of raw water quality
was obtained by finding the mean of sample values. While caution must
be exercised in using this as a representative value, the samples were
chosen in heavily used aquifers. If water quality was found to be
highly variable across the state, more than one of the above data
references was used to assure better coverage.
From these data observations, water quality levels were
estimated for each major supply source. In a few states, i.e., Maine
and Minnesota, sample data for public ground water supplies were not
readily available. A typical value was then calculated as the average
of treated surface and well water quality.* By substituting water
28
-------
quality levels into the damage functions (Table 1), economic
assessments of typical household, damages from water use can be
obtained.
*Uhere water quality estimates for all supply sources by state
are available, this averaging principle gives mixed results. For
example, in Oeorpia and Idaho, treated ground water quality is roujthly
the average of values from other sources. In New York and California,
this assumption yields underestimates, while the opposite occurs in
Nebraska and Colorado.
29
-------
SECTION
REGIONAL ESTIMATES OF ECONOMIC DAMAGES
A computer program was written to calculate 1^70 household
damages aggregated by state (including the District of Columbia).
Tables 2-4 present a facsimile of the computer output. Damages are
calculated for three discount rates: 5, 7.5, and 1051. In each table
the first two columns estimate the annualized value (capital and
operation) of all household items affected by observed (original)
water quality. Next the damages are totalled over the number of
households served by each supply source. Finally, these estimates are
translated into per capita rankings. All damage values are based upon
complete elimination of TDS and hardness prior to household use of
water. This assumption results in a conservative value since
household activities generally add more salts and minerals to the
water supply (Bovet, 1973).
When the discount rate increases, household expenditures also
rise, as expected. But the total per capita damage decreases.
Intuitively, one would expect damages to change in the same ratio as
expenditures. Examination of the capital recovery factor explains
this discrepancy. For illustration, damages are calculated for water
piping (unit 1) as affected by treated surface water in the state of
Maine. With original water quality the annualized capital value
increases 89% as interest goes from 5 to 10%. On the other hand, as
water quality improves, this value decreases (because the service life
30
-------
Table 2
HOUSEHOLD DAMAGES OF WATER SUPPLY BY STATE
FOR 1970
DISCOUNT RATE = 5%
STATE
MAINE
MASSACHUSETTS
VERMONT
NEW HAMPSHIRE
CONNECTICUT
RHODE ISLAND
NEW YORK
NEW JERSEY
DIST. COLUMBIA
PENNSYLVANIA
WEST VIRGINIA
MARYLAND
VIRGINIA
DELAWARE
KENTUCKY
TENNESSEE
MISSISSIPPI
ALABAMA
GEORGIA
NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORIDA
OHIO
HOUSEHLD EXPND
TOTAL PER CAPITA
($M)
TOTAL DAMAGES ($1 M) BY SOURCE
SURFACE TR.GROUND RAW WELL TOTAL
105.5
792.6
51.4
93.3
497.4
121.8
2753.7
1133.7
97.9
1584.6
180.5
583.4
588.1
77.3
347.9
419.2
184.0
350.3
516.5
542.6
250.0
905.3
1542.7
106.34
139.32
115.73
126.46
164.05
128.65
150.99
158.16
129.39
134.36
103.48
148.74
126.52
140.99
108.09
106.84
82.98
101.70
112.53
106.77
96.51
133.34
144.83
0.7
3.7
0.5
0.3
5.8
1.4
39.1
8.9
6.3
50.2
3.4
13.3
11.6
0.8
11.2
8.2
0.6
6.4
2.9
5.2
2.0
5.4
48.8
0.5
5.3
0.4
1.0
2.9
0.5
61.3
12.9
0.0
13.0
2.7
1.8
2.9
1.9
2.4
2.8
3.4
3.5
3.7
2.4
0.4
41.4
19.2
1.5
3.8
0.8
1.3
3.5
0.2
15.6
14.7
0.3
21.0
3.7
2.4
11.0
0.7
10.7
3.7
1.4
3.3
10.0
9.8
0.6
18.8
58.4
2.7
12.8
1.7
2.5
12.2
2.1
115.9
36.5
6.6
84.2
9.9
17.4
25.4
3.4
24.3
14.7
5.4
13.2
16.6
17.3
3.0
65.6
126.4
-------
Table 2 (continued).
OJ
ro
STATE
INDIANA
ILLINOIS
MICHIGAN
WISCONSIN
MINNESOTA
ARKANSAS
LOUISIANA
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
NEW MEXICO
MISSOURI
IOWA
NEBRASKA
KANSAS
NORTH DAKOTA
SOUTH DAKOTA
MONTANA
WYOMING
UTAH
COLORADO
CALIFORNIA
ARIZONA
NEVADA
HAWAII
WASHINGTON
OREGON
IDAHO
ALASKA
HOUSEHLD EXPND
TOTAL PER CAPITA
($M)
TOTAL DAMAGES ($1 M) BY SOURCE
SURFACE TR.GROUND RAW WELL TOTAL
758.2
1750.3
1318.4
612.7
505.8
180.5
365.4
313.4
1406.2
121.4
614.3
377.0
186.2
297.2
69.3
77.0
82.1
*3.2
135.5
292.0
3031.2
250.4
72.7
107.0
469.7
269.7
84.3
42.0
145.98
157.49
148.56
138.70
132.9-
93.86
100.35
122.46
125.59
110.49
131.36
133.48
125.51
132.30
112.15
115.63
118.25
129.99
127.91
132.27
151.92
141.38
148.64
139.26
137.78
128.98
118.25
139.66
26.8
51.9
41.1
12.7
5.8
0.7
7.2
13.0
39.5
0.4
17.7
4.5
2.5
11.1
1.7
0.5
2.4
1.0
3.6
9.1
103.3
9.7
0.6
0.2
3.1
0.6
0.4
0.4
35.2
62.1
16.0
26.7
16.1
2.3
3.8
6.2
69.2
10.2
15.4
26.2
11.0
8.8
2.2
3.3
1.3
1.3
6.3
2.3
111.6
21.7
3.4
3.4
9.4
1.6
3.3
0.6
32.5
57.0
27.5
23.7
15.4
4.9
2.6
11.0
12.4
8.6
16.2
13.0
4.9
9.1
3.8
7.9
2.4
1.7
6.3
8.0
14.9
8.0
l.T
1.2
2.4
1.8
2.8
1.0
94.6
171.0
84.7
63.1
37.3
7.9
13.6
30.2
121.0
19.2
49.4
43.6
18.3
29.0
7.6
11.7
6.1
3.9
16.2
19.4
229.8
39.5
5.1
4.7
14.9
4.0
6.5
2.1
-------
Table 2 (continued).
OJ
to
STATE
MAINE
MASSACHUSETTS
VERMONT
NEW HAMPSHIRE
CONNECTICUT
RHODE ISLAND
NEW YORK
NEW JERSEY
DIST. COLUMBIA
PENNSYLVANIA
WEST VIRGINIA
MARYLAND
VIRGINIA
DELAWARE
KENTUCKY
TENNESSEE
MISSISSIPPI
ALABAMA
GEORGIA
NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORIDA
OHIO
INDIANA
ILLINOIS
PER CAPITA DAMAGES ($) BY SOURCE
SURFACE TR. GROUND RAVI WELL TOTAL
1.16
0.99
.91
,07
,03
.14
.19
.61
8.72
.75
,81
.48
.00
,75
6.05
4.
2.
3.
1,
2,
1
9.
58
.80
.48
.41
,18
.68
8.53
12.95
9.18
3.
3.
3.
.41
.83
.95
3.75
4.92
2.33
14.80
5.87
0.0
9.22
6.35
4.42
6.26
7.93
8.05
2.
2.
3,
3,
3.
1,
50
42
85
13
39
15
9.13
8.10
22.54
19.19
5.60
6.60
4.96
6.39
6.76
2.45
8.53
5.87
8.72
12.70
8.88
4.29
8.47
8.03
10.04
3.66
2.61
3.88
6.80
4.37
1.09
11.05
22.84
20.89
25.64
2.69
2.24
3.90
3.44
4.03
2.21
6.36
5.10
8.72
7.14
5.65
4.45
5.47
6.29
7.56
3.75
2.44
3.83
3.61
3.41
1.16
9.65
11.87
18.22
15.38
-------
Table 2 (continued).
STATE
MICHIGAN
WISCONSIN
MINNESOTA
ARKANSAS
LOUISIANA
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
NEW MEXICO
MISSOURI
IOWA
NEBRASKA
KANSAS
NORTH DAKOTA
SOUTH DAKOTA
MONTANA
WYOMING
UTAH
COLORADO
CALIFORNIA
ARIZONA
NEVADA
HAWA11
WASHINGTON
OREGON
IDAHO
ALASKA
PER CAPITA DAMAGES ($) BY SOURCE
SURFACE TR.GROUND RAW WELL
7.23
8.15
4.51
1.11
4.82
8.77
44
61
6.21
7
11
99
02
12.33
8.43
5.30
7.02
8.02
10.40
40
5,
9,
52
20.76
3.
6.
1
.48
,18
.67
0.57
5.75
4.77
11.36
17.43
10.34
3,
2.
.96
,70
11.03
13.26
16.56
17.37
15.45
11.40
9.81
11.98
14.37
9.08
10.01
16.23
7.36
13.78
23.84
14.09
6.18
8.32
36
82
TOTAL
7.73
15.49
17.86
16.20
6.84
3.52
21.49
18.39
25.67
17.37
22.93
16.53
20.21
15.63
23.60
11.18
19.95
19.26
36.42
14.96
20.49
13.49
6.18
5.84
3.36
12.80
7.73
9.54
14.29
9.81
4.11
3.74
11.81
10,81
18.88
10.56
15.45
12.37
12.90
12.27
17.59
8.74
11.78
15.28
8.77
11.52
22.29
10.47
6.18
4.36
.1.89
9.17
6.91
-------
Table 3
HOUSEHOLD DAMAGES OF WATER SUPPLY USE BY STATE
FOR 1970
DISCOUNT RATE = 7.5%
to
in
STATE
MAINE
MASSACHUSETTS
VERMONT
NEW HAMPSHIRE
CONNECTICUT
RHODE ISLAND
NEW YORK
NEW JERSEY
DIST. COLUMBIA
PENNSYLVANIA
WEST VIRGINIA
MARYLAND
VIRGINIA
DELAWARE
KENTUCKY
TENNESSEE
MISSISSIPPI
ALABAMA
GEORGIA
NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORIDA
OHIO
HOUSEHLD EXPND
TOTAL PER CAPITA
($M)
119.0
895.1
58.0
105.2
561.1
137.5
3099.9
1277.7
109.8
1781.4
202.8
657.7
662.0
87.0
390.3
472,3
207.3
394.5
582.2
611.5
282.5
1015.1
1728.1
119.97
157.33
130.43
142.60
185.06
145.27
169.98
178.25
145.20
151.04
116.30
167.68
142.41
158.64
121.25
120.38
93.52
114.53
126.84
120.33
109.03
149.51
162.23
TOTAL DAMAGES ($1 M) BY SOURCE
SURFACE TR.GROUND RAW WELL TOTAL
2.6
12.5
1.7
2.5
12.0
2.1
114.8
36.0
6.5
83.4
9.8
17.2
25.2
3.4
24.1
14.6
5.3
13.0
16.4
17.0
2.9
64.7
125.3
0.7
3.6
0.5
0.3
5.7
1.3
38.7
8.8
6.2
49.6
3.4
13.2
11.4
0.8
11.0
8.1
0.6
6.3
2.8
5.1
1.9
5.3
48.2
0.5
5.2
0.4
1.0
2.9
0.5
60.7
12.8
0.0
13.0
2.7
1.7
2.8
1.9
2.4
2.7
3.3
3.4
3.7
2.3
0.4
40.8
19.0
1.5
3.7
0.8
1.3
3.4
0.2
15.4
14.5
0.3
20.9
3.7
2.3
11.0
0.7
10.6
3.7
1.4
3.3
9.9
9.6
0.5
18.6
58.1
-------
Table 3 (continued).
STATE
INDIANA
ILLINOIS
MICHIGAN
WISCONSIN
MINNESOTA
ARKANSAS
LOUISIANA
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
NEW MEXICO
MISSOURI
IOWA
NEBRASKA
KANSAS
NORTH DAKOTA
SOUTH DAKOTA
MONTANA
WYOMING
UTAH
COLORADO
CALIFORNIA
ARIZONA
NEVADA
HAWAII
WASHINGTON
OREGON
IDAHO
ALASKA
HOUSEHLD EXPND
TOTAL PER CAPITA
TOTAL DAMAGES ($1 M) BY SOURCE
SURFACE TR.GROUND RAW WELL TOTAL
345.1
1957.5
1480.4
684.9
567.2
203.1
411.2
350.3
1573.3
134.6
687.9
420.4
208.1
332.1
77.2
85.3
92.0
48.4
151.0
327.6
3395.7
277.5
81.5
120.4
529.5
304.7
94.4
47.2
162.71
176.13
166.80
155.03
149.07
105.61
112.94
136.87
140.51
132.48
147.09
148.86
140.25
147.82
124.96
128.23
132.48
145.46
142.57
148.44
170.19
156.70
166.76
156.61
155.32
145.67
132.52
157.09
26.6
51.6
40.8
12.6
5.8
0.7
7.1
12.9
38.8
0.3
17.3
4.4
2.4
10.9
1.6
0.5
2.3
0.9
3.6
9.0
101.4
9.6
0.6
0.2
3.1
0.6
0.4
0.4
35.1
61.9
15.9
26.7
16.0
2.3
3.6
6.1
68.0
10.1
15.2
25.9
10.8
8.6
2.1
3.2
1.3
1.3
6.2
2.2
109.4
21.4
3.4
3.3
9.3
1.5
3.3
0.6
32.4
56.7
27.4
23.6
15.4
4.8
2.5
10.9
12.1
8.5
16.0
12.9
4.9
9.0
3.6
7.7
2.3
1.6
6.3
8.0
14.7
7.8
1.1
1.2
2.4
1.7
2.8
1.0
94.1
170.2
84.1
62.9
37.1
7.8
13.1
29.8
118.8
18.9
48.6
43.2
18.1
28.5
7.4
11.5
5.9
3.9
16.0
19.1
225.5
38.8
5.1
4.6
14.8
3.9
6.5
2.1
-------
Table 3 (continued).
STATE
MAINE
MASSACHUSETTS
VERMONT
NEW HAMPSHIRE
CONNECTICUT
RHODE ISLAND
NEW YORK
NEW JERSEY
DIST. COLUMBIA
PENNSYLVANIA
WEST VIRGINIA
MARYLAND
VIRGINIA
DELAWARE
KENTUCKY
TENNESSEE
MISSISSIPPI
ALABAMA
GEORGIA
NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORIDA
OHIO
INDIANA
ILLINOIS
PER CAPITA DAMAGES ($) 8V SOURCE
SURFACE TR.GROUND RAW WELL TOTAL
1.15
0.97
.89
.04
.99
.11
.15
.56
8.64
68
77
4.43
.95
.69
.96
4.53
2.17
,76
.46
,38
,15
3.
3.
5.
3.
1
2,
1
9.60
8.42
12.86
9.12
3.37
3.77
.92
.69
.84
.29
3.
3.
4.
2.
14.67
5.80
0.0
9.15
6.28
4.35
6.21
.82
.97
.46
.37
.79
.09
7.
7.
2,
2.
3.
3.
3.33
1.11
8.99
7.99
22.44
19.14
5.56
6.50
4.91
6.29
6.64
2.40
8.44
5.80
8.64
12.64
8.79
4.20
8.43
7.92
9.98
3.62
2.53
3.81
6.76
4.29
1.04
10.97
22.73
20.81
25.49
.67
.21
.86
.38
.97
,18
.29
5.03
8.64
.07
.59
2.
2.
3.
3.
3.
2.
6.
7,
5.
4.39
.43
.20
.47
.71
,38
,78
.58
.35
.12
9.53
11.76
18.13
15.31
5.
6.
7,
3.
2.
3.
3.
3.
1
-------
Table 3 (continued).
STATE
PER CAPITA DAMAGES ($) BY SOURCE
SURFACE TR.GROUND RAW WELL TOTAL
co
oo
MICHIGAN
WISCONSIN
MINNESOTA
ARKANSAS
LOUISIANA
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
NEW MEXICO
MISSOURI
IOWA
NEBRASKA
KANSAS
NORTH DAKOTA
SOUTH DAKOTA
MONTANA
WYOMING
UTAH
COLORADO
CALIFORNIA
ARIZONA
NEVADA
HAWAII
WASHINGTON
OREGON
IDAHO
ALASKA
7.18
8.10
4.45
1.09
4.73
8.68
7.30
5.46
6.07
7.85
10.80
12.12
8.28
5.
6.
7.
20
94
93
10.34
5.33
9.34
20.37
.41
.01
,64
3.
6.
1
0.55
5.71
4.72
11.29
17.39
10.28
3.
2.
.90
.52
10.79
13.03
16.30
17.13
16.29
11.26
9.61
11.64
14.09
8.86
9.96
15.95
7.24
13.51
23.49
14.03
6.01
8.28
3.29
7.74
7.68
15.42
17.79
16.14
6.73
3.38
21.22
18.00
25.38
17.13
22.76
16.37
20.02
15.14
23.20
10.83
19.76
19.09
36.09
14.72
20.15
13.39
9.48
14.23
9.75
4.04
3.60
11.65
10.61
18.61
10.38
15.29
12.21
12.70
11.93
17.28
8.54
11.68
15.11
8.67
11.30
21.93
10.40
6.01
5.79
3.29
12.66
7.68
6.01
4.33
1.85
9.08
6.86
-------
Table 4
HOUSEHOLD DAMAGES OF WATER SUPPLY BY STATE
FOR 1970
DISCOUNT RATE = 10%
CO
us
STATE
MAINE
MASSACHUSETTS
VERMONT
NEW HAMPSHIRE
CONNECTICUT
RHODE ISLAND
NEW YORK
NEW JERSEY
DIST. COLUMBIA
PENNSYLVANIA
WEST VIRGINIA
MARYLAND
VIRGINIA
DELAWARE
KENTUCKY
TENNESSEE
MISSISSIPPI
ALABAMA
GEORGIA
NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORIDA
OHIO
HOUSEHLD EXPND
TOTAL PER CAPITA
($M)
133.2
1002.3
64.8
117.7
627.7
154.0
3462.3
1428.5
122.4
1987.5
226.3
735.5
739.4
97.1
434.7
527.9
231.8
440.7
650.9
683.7
316.4
1130.1
1922.4
134.22
176.18
145.81
159.50
207.05
162.66
189.85
199.28
161.77
168.52
129.72
187.51
159.06
177.13
135.04
134.55
104.56
127.96
141.82
134.52
122.14
166.45
180.47
TOTAL DAMAGES ($1 M) BY SOURCE
SURFACE TR.GROUND RAW WELL TOTAL
2.6
12.4
1.7
2.5
11.9
2.0
114.1
35.7
6.5
82.9
9.7
17.1
25.1
3.4
23.9
14.5
5.2
12.9
16.3
16.9
2.8
64.2
124.6
0.7
3.6
0.5
0.3
5.7
1.3
38.4
8.7
6.2
49.2
3.4
13.1
11.3
0.8
10.9
8.1
0.5
6.2
2.8
5.1
1.9
5.3
47.8
0.5
5.2
0.4
0.9
2.9
0.5
60.4
12.6
0.0
12.9
2.7
1.7
2.8
1.9
2.4
2.7
3.3
3.4
3.6
2.3
0.4
40.3
18.8
1.5
3.7
0.8
1.2
3.4
0.2
15.3
14.4
0.3
20.8
3.7
2.3
11.0
0.4
10.6
3.7
1.4
3.2
9.9
9.5
0.5
18.5
58.0
-------
Table 4 (continued).
o
STATE
INDIANA
ILLINOIS
MICHIGAN
WISCONSIN
MINNESOTA
ARKANSAS
LOUISIANA
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
NEW MEXICO
MISSOURI
IOWA
NEBRASKA
KANSAS
NORTH DAKOTA
SOUTH DAKOTA
MONTANS
WYOMING
UTAH
COLORADO
CALIFORNIA
ARIZONA
NEVADA
HAWAII
WASHINGTON
OREGON
IDAHO
ALASKA
HOUSEHLD EXPND
TOTAL PER CAPITA
($M)
TOTAL DAMAGES ($1 M) BY SOURCE
SURFACE TR.GROUND RAW WELL TOTAL
936.2
2174.6
1650.0
760.5
631.6
226.8
459.3
389.0
1748.5
148.5
765.0
466.0
231.0
368.7
85.5
94.1
102.4
53.7
167.3
365.0
3778.0
306.0
90.8
134.3
592.1
341.2
105.1
52.7
180.26
195.67
185.91
172.14
166.00
117.92
126.13
151.99
156.16
146.12
163.59
165.00
155.72
164.10
138.42
141.46
147.40
161.68
157.95
165.37
189.34
172.79
185.75
174.80
173.67
163.14
147.48
175.34
26.5
51.5
40.7
12.6
5.7
0.7
7.0
12.8
38.2
0.3
17.0
4.4
2.4
10.8
1.6
0.5
2.3
0.9
3.5
8.9
99.9
9.4
0.5
0.2
3.0
0.6
0.4
0.4
35.0
61.9
15.9
26.7
16.0
2.3
3,3
6.0
67.0
9.9
15.1
25.7
10.8
8.5
2.0
3.2
1.2
1.3
6.1
2.2
107.7
21.2
3.4
3.2
9.3
1.5
3.3
0.6
32.4
56.5
27.3
23.5
15.3
4.7
2.4
10.7
11.9
8.4
15.8
12.8
4.8
8.9
3.5
7.6
2.3
1.6
6.2
7.9
14.5
7.7
1.1
1.1
2.4
1.7
2.8
1.0
93.9
169.9
83.9
62.8
37.0
7.7
12.7
29.5
117.1
18.7
47.9
42.9
18.0
28.2
7.2
11.3
5.8
3.9
15.9
19.0
222.1
38.3
5.1
4.5
14.7
3.8
6.4
2.1
-------
Table 4 (continued).
STATE
MAINE
MASSACHUSETTS
VERMONT
NEW HAMPSHIRE
CONNECTICUT
RHODE ISLAND
NEW YORK
NEW JERSEY
DIST. COLUMBIA
PENNSYLVANIA
WEST VIRGINIA
MARYLAND
VIRGINIA
DELAWARE
KENTUCKY
TENNESSEE
MISSISSIPPI
ALABAMA
GEORGIA
NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORIDA
OHIO
INDIANA
ILLINOIS
PER CAPITA DAMAGES ($) BY SOURCE
SURFACE TR.GROUND RAW WELL
TOTAL
1.14
0.96
2.88
1.02
2.96
2.09
3.13
3.53
8.60
64
74
40
92
66
89
4.51
2.15
3.73
1.44
2.37
1.13
9.55
8.36
12.81
9.10
3.
3.
3.
3.
4.
2.
.36
.73
.90
.64
.78
.26
14.59
5.74
0.0
9.12
6.23
.30
.19
.74
.92
.43
2.32
3.75
.06
.30
.08
8.89
7.92
22.40
19.15
4.
6.
7.
7.
2.
3.
3.
1.
5.53
6.43
4.88
6.22
6.55
2.36
8.37
5.74
8.60
12.62
8.73
4.13
8.43
7.84
9.95
3.61
2.47
3.76
6.75
4.23
1.00
10.92
22.68
20.78
25.41
2.66
2.18
3.84
3.34
3.93
2.16
6.25
4.99
8.60
7.03
5.55
4.35
5.41
6.14
7.42
3.69
2.34
3.74
3.56
3.32
1.09
9.45
11.70
18.09
15.29
-------
Table 4 (continued).
STATE
MICHIGAN
WISCONSIN
MINNESOTA
ARKANSAS
LOUISIANA
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
NEW MEXICO
MISSOURI
IOWA
NEBRASKA
KANSAS
NORTH DAKOTA
SOUTH DAKOTA
MONTANA
WYOMING
UTAH
COLORADO
CALIFORNIA
ARIZONA
NEVADA
HAWAII
WASHINGTON
OREGON
IDAHO
ALASKA
PER CAPITA DAMAGES ($) BY SOURCE
SURFACE TR.GROUND RAW WELL TOTAL
7.15
8.08
4.41
1.08
4.66
8.63
7.20
5.35
5.96
7.74
10.63
11.96
8.16
5..13
6.89
7.88
10.32
5.29
9.20
20.03
3.37
5.88
1.63
0.54
5.69
4.70
11.27
17.39
10.25
3.85
2.37
10.59
12.84
16.09
16.94
15.17
11.17
9.45
11.34
13.86
8.68
9.94
15.72
7.16
13.29
23.21
14.01
5.88
8.28
3.25
7.69
7.66
15.40
17.77
16.13
6.64
3.26
21.00
17.65
25.13
16.94
22.64
16.26
19.88
14.69
22.85
10.52
19.63
18.98
35.84
14.53
19.86
13.33
5.88
5.77
3.25
12.57
7.66
9.45
14.22
9.73
3.99
3.49
11.54
10.46
18.40
10.25
15.18
12.10
12.54
11,63
17.01
8.39
11.62
14.98
8.60
11.13
21.63
10.37
5.88
4.32
1.82
9.02
6.83
-------
of the unit lengthens) by 1.31% at 5% interest but only by 0.33% at
10%. The ratio of decreases Is thus 398?! (=1.31/.33), which equals
the ratio of. changes in the capital recovery factor. Since the ratio
of decreases exceeds the annualized value increase, the net result
implies lover damages.
The highest per capita damages are identified with Arizona, New
Mexico, Indiana, and South Dakota. In spite of the fact that South
Dakotans have relatively good treated surface water, a high percentage
of them own private wells whose water has high TT1S loads. The other
states have high concentrations of minerals from all supply sources.
Because these states are not populous, their high per capita damages
do not translate into the highest totals. Rather, this distinction
belongs to California, Illinois, Texas, Ohio, and New York, in that
order. New York has relatively clean water within this group of
states, hut its large population and high standard of living rank it
in the top five. Figure 3 compares per capita and total damages for
the nost populous state in each EPA region. State abbreviations are
as follows: Massachusetts-MA, New York-NY, Pennsylvania-PA,
Florida-FL, Illinois-IL, Missouri-MO, Texas-TX, Color-ado-CO,
California-CA, and Washington-UA. Damages are consistently low in the
New England and Southern states (except Florida) because of their
relatively pure natural water supplies.
43
-------
$15.00
12.00
a:
o
a
CO
•=£
I—
i—i
Q_
<
O
a:
ui
D_
9.00
6.00
3.00
.00
_ CO
WA
MA
IL
TX
MO
FL
PA
NY
CA
U.S.
•*
($1747M)
$0 50 100 150 200
TOTAL ANNUAL DAMAGES (MILLION DOLLARS)
Fig. 3 1970 HOUSEHOLD DAMAGES OF WATER SUPPLY USE BY SELECTED STATE
250
44
-------
SECTION VIII
RESULTS AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL
For the United States (see Table 3), household damages at 7.5%
interest total around $1.75 billion or $8.60 per person. These
estimates relate to complete removal of water constituents. Tables
5-10 list benefits of improving water quality at intermediate levels,
Each pair of tables pertains to the same discount rate, comparing
total and per capita benefits. The effects of TDS and hardness are
separated for each source of water supply, with the latter accounting
for almost two-thirds of all household expenses. Most TDS-related
damages reduce investment life, whereas hardness contributes primarily
to daily operating costs (soap and water softening).
Again at 7.5% interest, Figure 4 relates damages to various
degrees of removal. For 10% improvement in overall water quality,
total benefits increase by more than $175 million. At 50%
improvement, per capita benefits are slightly less than half of
potential benefits from complete removal. TDS-related damages
maintain a fairly constant share of total costs, except below 40%
removal. Their dominance in this range is influenced largely by the
concavity of the damage curve for bottled water. The damage functions
are very flat S-curves, concave in the lower water quality improvement
range, convex in the upper range, with the flex point around 75%
removal. In the lower range, concavity of household unit damage
functions, i.e., bottled water and water softeners, is most important.
45
-------
Table 5
HOUSEHOLD BENEFITS OF WATER SUPPLY TREATMENT IN THE U.S.
FOR 1970
DISCOUNT RATE = 5%
SUPPLY SOURCE
10%
TOTAL BENEFITS ($1 M) AT VARIOUS LEVELS (PCT)
OF WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
20% 30% 40%
50%
TDS AND HARDNESS
TREATED SURFACE
TREATED GROUND
PRIVATE WELL
TOTAL
60.8
67.3
50.4
178.5
121.6
134.5
100.6
356.7
182.3
201.4
150.7
534.5
242.9
268.2
200.7
711.9
303.5
334.8
250.6
888.9
TDS ONLY
TREATED SURFACE
TREATED GROUND
PRIVATE WELL
TOTAL
22.7
25.8
17.5
65.9
45.2
51.4
34.9
131.5
67.8
76.9
52.1
196.8
90.2
102.1
69.3
261.6
112.6
127.2
86.3
326.1
HARDNESS ONLY
TREATED SURFACE
TREATED GROUND
PRIVATE WELL
TOTAL
38.2
41.5
32.9
112.6
76.4
83.1
65.7
225.2
114.6
124.6
98.6
337.7
152.7
166.1
131.4
450.3
190.9
207.6
164.3
562.8
-------
Table 5 (continued).
SUPPLY SOURCE
60%
TOTAL BENEFITS ($1 M) AT VARIOUS LEVELS (PCT)
OF WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
70% 80% 90%
100%
TDS AND HARDNESS
TREATED SURFACE
TREATED GROUND
PRIVATE WELL
TOTAL
364.0
401.2
300.3
1065.5
424.5
467.5
349.9
1241.9
485.1
533.7
399.4
1418.2
545.9
600.0
448.9
1594.8
607.9
667.2
499.0
1774.1
TDS ONLY
TREATED SURFACE
TREATED GROUND
PRIVATE WELL
TOTAL
134.9
152.2
103.2
390.3
157.3
177.0
120.0
454.2
179.7
201.7
136.7
518.1
202.4
226.5
153.4
582.3
226.2
252.3
170.7
649.2
HARDNESS ONLY
TREATED SURFACE
TREATED GROUND
PRIVATE WELL
TOTAL
229.1
249.1
197.1
675.2
267.2
290.5
229.9
787.7
305.4
332.0
262.7
900.1
343.5
373.4
295.5
1012.5
381.7
414.9
328.3
1124.9
-------
Table 6
HOUSEHOLD BENEFITS OF WATER SUPPLY TREATMENT IN THE U.S.
FOR 1970
DISCOUNT RATE =7.5%
SUPPLY SOURCE
10%
TOTAL BENEFITS ($1 M) AT VARIOUS LEVELS (PCT)
OF WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
20% 30% 40%
50%
OO
TDS AND HARDNESS
TREATED SURFACE
TREATED GROUND
PRIVATE WELL
TOTAL
60.1
66.6
50.0
176.7
120.1
133.0
99.9
353.0
180.1
199.2
149.6
528.9
239.9
265.2
199.2
704.3
299.7
330.9
248.6
879.2
TDS ONLY
TREATED SURFACE
TREATED GROUND
PRIVATE WELL
TOTAL
21.2
24.3
16.5
62.0
42.3
48.4
32.9
123.6
63.3
72.3
49.1
184.1
84.3
96.0
65.2
245.5
105.1
119.4
81.2
305.7
HARDNESS ONLY
TREATED SURFACE
TREATED GROUND
PRIVATE WELL
TOTAL
38.9
42.3
33.5
114.7
77.8
84.6
67.0
229.5
116.7
126.9
100.5
344.1
155.6
169.2
133.9
458.8
194.5
211.5
167.4
573.4
-------
Table 6 (continued).
.SUPPLY SOURCE
60%
TOTAL BENEFITS ($1 M) AT VARIOUS LEVELS (PCT)
OF WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
70% 80% 90%
100%
TDS AND HARDNESS
TREATED SURFACE
TREATED GROUND
PRIVATE WELL
TOTAL
359.4
396.5
297.8
1053.7
419.1
461.9
346.9
1227.9
478.8
527.2
395.9
1401.9
538.8
592.5
444.9
1576.2
599.9
658.8
494.5
1753.2
TDS ONLY
TREATED SURFACE
TREATED GROUND
PRIVATE WELL
TOTAL
125.9
142.7
97.0
365. &
146.8
165.8
112.6
425.2
167.6
188.9
128.2
484.7
188.7
212.0
143.8
544.4
211.0
236.0
159.9
606.9
HARDNESS ONLY
TREATED SURFACE
TREATED GROUND
PRIVATE WELL
TOTAL
233.4
253.8
200.8
688.1
272.3
296.0
234.3
802.7
311.2
338.3
267.7
917.2
350.1
380.5
301.1
1031.8
389.0
422.8
334.5
1146.3
-------
Table 7
HOUSEHOLD BENEFITS OF WATER SUPPLY TREATMENT IN THE U.S.
FOR 1970
DISCOUNT RATE =
SUPPLY SOURCE
10%
TOTAL BENEFITS ($1 M) AT VARIOUS LEVELS (PCT)
OF WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
20% 30% 40%
50%
en
o
T.DS AND HARDNESS
TREATED SURFACE
TREATED GROUND
PRIVATE WELL
TOTAL
59.6
66.0
49.8
175.4
119.1
131.9
99.4
350.3
178.4
197.5
148.8
524.7
237.7
262.9
198.1
698.7
297.0
328.0
247.2
872.2
TDS ONLY
TREATED SURFACE
TREATED GROUND
PRIVATE WELL
TOTAL
19.9
22.9
15.6
58.4
39.7
45.6
31.T
116.3
59.4
68.0
46.4
173.8
79.0
90.3
61.5
230.8
98.6
112.3
76.5
287.4
HARDNESS ONLY
TREATED SURFACE
TREATED GROUND
PRIVATE WELL
TOTAL
39.7
43.2
34.2
117.0
79.4
86.3
68.3
234.0
119.1
129.5
102.5
351.0
158.7
172.6
136.6
467.9
198.4
215.7
170.7
584.8
-------
Table 7 (continued).
SUPPLY SOURCE
60%
TOTAL BENEFITS ($1 M) AT VARIOUS LEVELS (PCT)
OF WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
70% 80% 90%
100%
TDS AND HARDNESS
TREATED SURFACE
TREATED GROUND
PRIVATE WELL
TOTAL
356.1
392.9
296.1
1045.2
415.3
457.7
344.9
1217.9
474.5
522.4
393.6
1390.5
533.9
587.1
442.3
1563.3
594.5
652.8
491.5
1738.8
TDS ONLY
TREATED SURFACE
TREATED GROUND
PRIVATE WELL
TOTAL
118.0
134.1
91.3
343.5
137.6
155.8
106.0
399.3
157.1
177.4
120.6
455.1
176.9
199.0
135.2
511.2
197.8
221.6
150.4
569.8
HARDNESS ONLY
TREATED SURFACE
TREATED GROUND
PRIVATE WELL
TOTAL
238.1
258.8
204,8
701.7
277.7
301.9
238.9
818.6
317.4
345.0
273.0
935.4
357.0
388.1
307.1
1052.2
396.7
431.2
341.2
1169.0
-------
Table 8
HOUSEHOLD BENEFITS OF WATER SUPPLY TREATMENT IN THE U.S.
FOR 1970
DISCOUNT RATE = 5%
SUPPLY SOURCE
10%
PER CAPITA BENEFITS ($) AT VARIOUS LEVELS (PCT)
OF WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
20% 30% 40%
50%
en
po
TDS AND HARDNESS
TREATED SURFACE
TREATED GROUND
PRIVATE WELL
TOTAL
0.59
1.12
1.25
0.88
1.18
2.24
2.49
1.76
1.77
3.36
3.73
2.63
2.36
4.47
4.96
3.50
2.95
5.58
6.20
4.37
TDS ONLY
TREATED SURFACE
TREATED GROUND
PRIVATE WELL
TOTAL
0.22
0.43
0.43
0.32
0.44
0.86
0.86
0.65
0.66
1.28
1.29
0.97
0.88
1.70
1.71
1.29
1.10
2.12
2.13
1.60
HARDNESS ONLY
TREATED SURFACE
TREATED GROUND
PRIVATE WELL
TOTAL
0.37
0.69
0.81
0.55
0.74
1.39
1.63
1.11
1.11
2.08
2.44
1.66
1.49
2.77
3.25
2.22
1.86
3.46
4.06
2.77
-------
Table 8 (continued).
SUPPLY SOURCE
608/
PER CAPITA BENEFITS ($) AT VARIOUS LEVELS (PCT)
OF WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
70% 80% 90% 100%
TDS AND HARDNESS
TREATED SURFACE
TREATED GROUND
PRIVATE WELL
TOTAL
3.54
6.69
7.43
5.24
4.13
7.80
8.65
6.11
4.72
8.90
9.88
6.98
5.31
10.01
11.10
7.85
5.91
11.13
12.34
8.73
en
CO
TDS ONLY
TREATED SURFACE
TREATED GROUND
PRIVATE WELL
TOTAL
1,31
2.54
2.55
1.92
1.53
2.95
2.97
2.24
1.75
3.36
3.38
2.55
1.97
3.78
3.79
2.87
2.20
4.21
4.22
3.19
HARDNESS ONLY
TREATED SURFACE
TREATED GROUND
PRIVATE WELL
TOTAL
2.23
4.15
4.87
3.32
2.60
4.85
5.69
3.88
2.97
5.54
6.50
4.43
3.34
6.23
7.31
4.98
3.71
6.92
8.12
5.54
-------
Table 9
HOUSEHOLD BENEFITS OF WATER SUPPLY TREATMENT IN THE U.S.
FOR 1970
DISCOUNT RATE =7.5%
SUPPLY SOURCE
10%
PER CAPITA BENEFITS ($) AT VARIOUS LEVELS (PCT)
OF WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
20% 30% 40%
50%
TDS AND HARDNESS
TREATED SURFACE
TREATED GROUND
PRIVATE WELL
TOTAL
0.58
1.11
1.24
0.87
1.17
2.22
2.47
1.74
1.75
3.32
3.70
2.60
2.33
4.42
4.93
3.47
2.91
5.52
6.15
4.33
TDS ONLY
TREATED SURFACE
TREATED GROUND
PRIVATE WELL
TOTAL
0.21
0.41
0.41
0.30
0.41
0.81
0.81
0.61
0.62
1.21
1.22
0.91
0.82
1.60
1.61
1.21
1.02
1.99
2.01
1.50
HARDNESS ONLY
TREATED SURFACE
TREATED GROUND
PRIVATE WELL
TOTAL
0.38
0.71
0.83
0.56
0.76
1.41
1.66
1.13
1.14
2.12
2.48
1.69
1.51
2.82
3.31
2.26
1.89
3.53
4.14
2.82
-------
Table 9 (continued).
SUPPLY SOURCE
60%
PER CAPITA BENEFITS ($) AT VARIOUS LEVIES (PCT)
OF WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
70% 80% 90% 100%
TDS AND HARDNESS
TREATED SURFACE
TREATED GROUND
PRIVATE WELL
TOTAL
3.49
6.61
7.36
5.19
4.08
7.70
8.58
6.04
4.66
8.79
9.79
6.90
5.24
ll!oo
7.76
5.83
10.99
12.23
8.63
en
in
TDS ONLY
TREATED SURFACE
TREATED GROUND
PRIVATE WELL
TOTAL
1.22
2.38
2.40
1.80
1.43
2.77
2.79
2.09
1.63
3.15
3.17
2.39
1.84
3.54
3.56
2.68
2.05
3.94
3.96
2.99
HARDNESS ONLY
TREATED SURFACE
TREATED GROUND
PRIVATE WELL
TOTAL
2.27
4.23
4.97
3.39
2.65
4.94
5.79
3.95
3.03
5.64
6.62
4.51
3.40
6.35
7.45
5.08
3.78
7.05
8.27
5.64
-------
Table 10
HOUSEHOLD BENEFITS OF WATER SUPPLY TREATMENT IN THE U.S.
FOR 1970
DISCOUNT RATE = 10%
SUPPLY SOURCE
10%
PER CAPITA BENEFITS ($) AT VARIOUS LEVELS (PCT)
OF WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
20% 30% 40%
50%
JDS AND HARDNESS
TREATED SURFACE
TREATED GROUND
PRIVATE WELL
TOTAL
0.58
1.10
1.23
0.86
1.16
2.20
2.46
1.72
1.74
3.29
3.68
2.58
2.31
4.38
4.90
3.44
2.89
5.47
6.11
4.29
TDS ONLY
TREATED SURFACE
TREATED GROUND
PRIVATE WELL
TOTAL
0.19
0.38
0.39
0.29
0.39
0.76
0.77
0.57
0.58
1.13
1.15
0.86
0.77
1.51
1.52
1.14
0.96
1.87
1.89
1.41
HARDNESS ONLY
TREATED SURFACE
TREATED GROUND
PRIVATE WELL
TOTAL
0.39
0.72
0.84
0.58
0.77
1.44
1.69
1.15
1.16
2.16
2.53
1.73
1.54
2.88
3.38
2.30
1.93
3.60
4.22
2.88
-------
Table 10 (continued).
SUPPLY SOURCE
PER CAPITA BENEFITS ($) AT VARIOUS LEVELS (PCT)
OF WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
70% 80% 90% 100%
TDS AND HARDNESS
TREATED SURFACE
TREATED GROUND
PRIVATE WELL
TOTAL
3.46
6.55
7.32
5.14
4.04
7.64
8.53
5.99
4.61
8.71
9.73
6.84
5.19
9.79
10.94
7.69
5.78
10.89
12.15
8.56
TDS ONLY
TREATED SURFACE
TREATED GROUND
PRIVATE WELL
TOTAL
1.15
2.24
2.26
1.69
1.34
2.60
2.62
1.97
1.53
2.96
2.98
2.24
1.72
3.32
3.34
2.51
1.92
3.70
3.72
2.80
HARDNESS ONLY
TREATED SURFACE
TREATED GROUND
PRIVATE WELL
TOTAL
2.32
4.32
5.07
3.45
2.70
5.04
5.91
4.03
3.09
5.76
6.75
4.60
3.47
6.47
7.59
5.18
3.86
7.19
8.44
5.75
-------
O
O
u_
UJ
CO
D-
•<
CJ
UJ
D_
HARDNESS-RELATED
. • **
t i i i i i i i
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100%
WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT (PER CENT)
Fig. A 1970 PER CAPITA BENEFITS OF WATER SUPPLY TREATMENT IN THE
UNITED STATES BY WATER QUALITY PARAMETER.
58
-------
Toward the upper end, some convex relations, i.e., equipment service
life and excess detergents to counteract hardness, prevail. For
practical purposes, however, the damage curve can be assumed as
approximately linear over the removal efficiency range.
Figures 5 and 6 contrast damages associated with the primary
sources of intake water. Per capita damages are ostensibly higher
with ground water since it generally contains more minerals than
surface supplies. Municipal plants normally bypass these constituents
without treatment, while the absence of economies of scale preclude
their removal from private systems. The next figure transforms these
benefits into total population equivalents. In spite of the low per
capita contribution from surface supplies, its share of total benefits
exceeds one-third. Total benefits to private well owners rank last.
This ordering follows from the distribution of water supplies among
U.S. households: surface, 50.8%; treated ground, 29.3%{ and private
well water, 19.9%.
It is important to recognize that these estimates are derived
from mean values of household unit damage observations. Because most
observations are few in number, the sample mean may not accurately
reflect the actual mean for U.S. households. Moreover, "typical"
water quality data are compiled for these calculations, but again
these figures may not be representative of actual conditions. Because
of the uncertainties involved, a range of estimates is preferable to a
point value, figure 7 presents "interval estimates" in each state.
59
-------
CO
o
Q
UJ
CQ
•=£
rs
z=
-------
co
cr
«=C
O
Q
CO
(X
_1
-------
D
$15.00 - $24.99
$10.00 - $14.99
$ 5.00 - $ 9.99
$ .00 - $ 4.99
Fig. 7. 1970 PER CAPITA DAMAGES FROM DOMESTIC WATER
SUPPLY USE IN THE UNITED STATES.
.•
-------
A range of values can be obtained by deriving confidence limits
for each damage function and statistically aggregating them to yield
confidence bands of total damages. To do so requires calculations and
data requirements beyond the scope of this study. However, an
approximate range is derivable by a straightforward method.
Extra soap costs due to hardness contribute almost two-thirds of
total damages. From above referenced surveys, per capita costs for
every 100 ppm increase in hardness vary from $1.55 to $8.21. If this
range is applied to national estimates, total damages from hardness
are between $0.43 and $2.27 billion with a mean of $1.15 billion.
Standard errors of regressions for other household units also show a
large spread about the mean. Assuming the same proportionate range as
hardness-related costs, total U.S. damages are within $0.65 - $3.45
billion. On a per capita basis, the corresponding range is $3.21 -
$17.06 given a mean of $8.63.
63
-------
SECTION IX
SPECIAL WATER QUALITY CONSIDERATIONS
The above benefits are based on typical water quality
observations, which are generally within recommended TDS standards of
500 ppm. It is thus unlikely that damaging agents in these water
supplies will be removed in municipal plants' unless benefit-cost
comparisons show otherwise. Consequently, these benefits will
probably not be realized in the near future. On the other hand, U.S.
communities whose public water supplies contain TDS in excess of
mandatory limits of 1,000 ppm are monitored (Patterson and Banker,
1970) if their population exceeds 1,000. Because these concentrations
are so high, they are prime candidates for special treatment or
control.
Economic damages for these communities are estimated by above
methods, where TDS levels in each community are weighted by population
served. Hardness levels in state calculations are assumed, although
levels in these communities are probably higher. This assumption
contributes, of course, to an underestimate of total damages.
Economic damages to these communities are in the range, $8.2 -
$43.5 million with a mean of $22.0 million (at 7.5% interest). The
number of people served is slightly over 900,000, which gives per
capita damages of $9.09 - $48.26 with an average of $24.41. These
estimates assume complete removal of water quality constituents.
The average benefits realized by meeting TDS limits of 500 ppm
64
-------
are almost $10.00 per individual. For the nation these savings amount
to $fi.9 million. This total is probably quite low since communities
with fewer than 1,000 people are not added in the calculations.
65
-------
SECTION X
MAN-MADE AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Although minerals reduction prior to domestic water use could
provide worthwhile benefits in many states, controls may ultimately
depend upon non-economic factors. Of primary concern is the identification
of sources of mineral loads as they contribute to the extent of water
pollution. Some policymakers define pollution as "the impairment of water
quality with resultant significant interference with beneficial water use"
(Haney, 1966). To them, minerals are classified as pollutants irrespective
of their origin. There are others, however, who view pollution more
narrowly in terms of its impacts "as a result of man's domestic,
industrial, agricultural, and recreational activities" (Kneese, and
Bower, 1968). Equivalently, this concept refers to the incremental
minerals content above natural background levels.
Damage estimates in Figure 7 pertain to the former definition of
minerals pollution, since they are based on total ambient water quality
conditions. To isolate man-made damages and thus to satisfy the latter
definition, one is faced with the complex task of tracing the flow of
minerals in natural waters. If the relative magnitude of these sources
cannot be identified, then it is unlikely that the economic impact of
controlling waste discharges (from human activities) can be properly
assessed.
Minerals and salts enter surface waters from a variety of sources.
Man contributes his share chiefly through irrigation, although salt
de-icing of streets, domestic routines such as washing and laundering,
66
-------
and industrial waste emissions add to this burden. In some regions,
mining and oil drilling operations extract large quantities of brackish
water from aquifers .and discharge them onto the surface. Natural origins
of minerals are traced to springs, seepages, and runoffs from heavy
precipitation or melting snow. By itself, spring runoff often accounts
for greater mineral loads than all other natural and man-made sources
combined.
With respect to groundwater aquifers, very little evidence points
toward causal factors of mineral quality. Sources of constituents vary
from direct flow through wells and springs, percolation of water supply
from surface and near-surface locations, and intrusion of salt water along
the coastal belt. Man—made causes include leaking sewers and pipelines,
deep well waste disposal, and losses from waste-storage lagoons, in
addition to infiltration from mineralized surface waters. But natural
leaching and filtration processes generally reduce their potential threat
to aquifers, although there are many exceptions to this rule.
Empirically reliable surveys of mineral quality trends in water
bodies are indeed rare. Past studies have alluded to such changes, but
until recently there was no segregation of changes due to human activities
and normal fluctuations in hydrologic patterns. Within most areas,
historical data on these trends are non-existent. Moreover, non-point
discharges of minerals, e.g., spring runoff, are difficult to monitor.
A trend analysis of mineral loads was conducted for the Colorado
River Basin (EPA, 1971) . It was found that in the Upper Basin, irrigation
is responsible for 37 percent of the TDS load, while domestic and industrial
(mining) water uses introduce barely 2 percent. The remaining 61 percent
67
-------
originates from net runoff and, to a lesser extent, natural springs and
wells. The Lower Basin derives almost the same proportion, 38 percent,
from man-related sources. In this arid region, however, runoff is less
important than natural point sources. In another study, IDS levels were
investigated for the Passaic River in New Jersey (Anderson and Faust.
1965). These findings indicate that municipal and industrial waste
discharges contribute, on the average, at least 30 percent of dissolved
solids. Natural sources are primarily from weathering or dissolution
of soils and rocks over which water passes," as well as overland runoff
and some groundwater inflow to streams.
Trend analyses of subsurface mineralization are usually qualitative
because of uncertainties in tracing groundwater movement. Most surveys
in the West conclude that natural processes account for an overwhelming
share of mineral content, although irrigation and oil field brine
disposal cause localized problems (Fukriinan and Barton, 1971). Near
towns in Massachusetts, road salts were blamed for more than 50 percent
of the minerals level of groundwater supplies (Ruling and Hollocher, 1972).
In general, however, man's role in contaminating these supplies is minimized
by adsorption, dilution, and microbial degradation of minerals as they
pass through the soil and into subsurface aquifers. Supporting this
observation, a nationwide survey of aquifers located beneath waste
disposal sites revealed that only 10 percent of them were polluted
(Stone and Friedland, 1973). Similar studies in Illinois, California,
and South Dakota concluded that high concentrations of groundwater
hardness were confined close to these sites, while little proof of
man's influence was found elsewhere (Stone and Friedland, 1969).
68
-------
On the basis of these literature references, a rough estimate can
be derived for man-induced damages to household water use. For all
surface water supplies, the man-made proportion of minerals content is
assumed to average 30 percent, which is conservative with respect to
above references of 30+, 38 and 39 percent in river basins. On the
other hand, infiltration of groundwater supplies is assumed to add only
10 percent to natural levels. Near population centers and mining areas,
the proportion is probably higher, but to counteract this trend, man's
input to other regions is likely to be minor.
These assumptions are then applied to previously derived national
estimates of total damages in order to approximate man-related impacts.
Annual damages pertaining to surface water supplies totalled $600 million
in 1970; thus the man-induced portion is 30 percent, or equivalently
$180 million. For private or public groundwater supplies, similar
calculations give $115 million. Together, these estimates imply almost
$300 million per year as the most likely value of marginal damages to all
U. S. households. The actual value lies somewhere in the interval
between $110 and $590 million. This assessment is based on complete
removal of minerals generated by human activities. Almost directly
proportional to the degree of removal, this estimate can be adjusted to
reflect partial treatment. For example, a 20 percent reduction of TDS
and hardness levels in waste emissions would yield incremental benefits
of $60 million for domestic water users.
69
-------
SECTION XI
CONCLUDING REMARKS
This study presented damage estimates for the residential use
of water. First, the literature was culled, and methods for
calculating damages were evaluated. Next, based on these results, a
computational algorithm was derived to predict household benefits from
water quality enhancement. Last, state and national estimates were
predicted for various discount rates and sources of water supply.
Total damages to U.S. households are in the range, $0.65 to $3.45
billion. The mean estimate is almost $1.75 billion, of which $0,66
billion is attributed to treated ground water supplies, $0.59 billion
to surface water bodies, and $0.49 to privately owned wells (and, in a
few instances, local streams). Hardness is the most damaging water
constituent, costing $1.14 billion annually compared to $0.61 billion
for total dissolved solids. Every 10% improvement of water quality
increases national benefits by approximately $175 million. Average
damages to the individual exceed $8.50. The typical rural resident on
well water, however, faces $12.23 in damages, compared to $5.75 for
the majority of urban residents supplied with surface water. On an
individual state basis, per capita damages are highest in the
Southwest (Arizona, $22.18) and the Midwest (Illinois, $18.24), but
lowest in the Southeast (South Carolina, $1,12), Hew England
(Massachusetts, $2.14), and the Northwest (Oregon, $1.69). Total
70
-------
damages, proportional to population, are highest in California ($225.7
million), Illinois ($163.3 million), and Texas ($126.6 million).
These estimates are conservative since they neglect household
expenses for lawn irrigation, disposal of water softening salts and
other residues, swimming pool maintenance, extra purchase of dishes,
etc. Municipal water quality data were selected for the largest
cities, which usually have cleaner water than small towns. The recent
Patterson and Banker survey (1969) lists over 400 small U.S.
communities whose public water supplies contain more than 1,000 ppm
TDS. Only the major water quality factors, TDS and hardness, are
assessed in this study. A more complete analysis would include other
damaging agents, such as chlorides, iron, and acidity.
71
-------
SECTION XII
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author expresses appreciation to F.H. Abel and A.P. Carlin,
Implementation Research Division, Office of Research and Monitoring,
Environmental Protection Agency, for their guidance and encouragement.
Many state officials from USGS Water Resources District Offices
provided water quality data.
Reviewers of this document include A.A. Sokoloski and E.
Bellack, Water Supply Division, Office of Air and Water Programs, and
H. Torno, Municipal Technology Division, Office of Research and
Development, Environmental Protection Agency.
The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author and
do not represent the official position of the Environmental Protection
Agency.
72
-------
SECTION XIII
REFERENCES
1. American Water Works Assn., Task Group 27709, "Saline Water
Conversion," Journal of the American Water Works Association.
September 1961.
2. Anchor Hocking Glass Corporation, private communication, 1971.
3. Anderson, P. W., and Faust, S. D., "Changes in Quality of Water in
the Passaic River at Little Falls, N. J., as Shown by Long-term Data,"
U. S. Department of the Interior, U. S. Geological Survey Professional
Paper No. 525-D, Washington, D. C., 1965, pp. 214-218.
4. Aultman, W. W., "Synthetic Detergents as a Factor in Water Softening
Economics," Journal of the American Water Works Association 50,
October 1958, pp. 1353-1361.
5. Black and Veatch, Consulting Engineers, Economic Effects of
Mineral Content in Municipal Water Supplies, Office of Saline
Water, Research and Development Progress Report No. 260,
Washington, D. C., May 1967, pp. 42-7, Figs. 2-9.
6. Bovet, E., consultant, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, private
communication, 1973.
7. Bramer, H. C., The Economic Aspects of the Water Pollution
Abatement Program iti the Ohio River. Valley, Ph.D. thesis,
University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1960, pp. 51-63.
8. Bureau of the Census, U. S. Department of Commerce, General
Social and Economic Characteristics, United States Summary,
Washington, D. C., 1972, Table 178.
9. Bureau of the Census, U. S. Department of Commerce, Statistical
Abstract of the United States 1970, Washington, D. C., 1971,
pp. 332-339.
10. Center for Disease Control, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, Morbidity and Mortality; Summary 1970, Annual Supplement,
Atlanta, Georgia, 1971.
11. DeBoer, LM M., and Larson, T. E., "Water Hardness and Domestic
Use of Detergents," Journal of the American Water Works Association
53, July 1961, p. 809.
12. Dingle, J. H., et al, "Water Composition and Cardiovascular Health,"
Illinois Medical Journal 125, January 1964, pp. 25-31.
73
-------
13. Division of Water Hygiene, Environmental Protection Agency,
"Estimate of Expenditures for State Drinking Water Supply
Programs Compiled as of June 1971," Washington, D. C., 1971,
p. 4.
14. Durfor, C. N., and Becker, E., Public Water Supplies of the 100
Largest Cities in the United States, 1962, U. S. Geological
Survey Water-Supply Paper 1812, U. S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, D. C., 1965.
15. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, U. S. Department
of the Interior, Delaware Estuary Comprehensive Study, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, 1966, p. 71.
16. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, U. S. Department
of the Interior, Water Quality Criteria, Washington, D. C.,
April 1968, p. 23.
17. Fisher, A. C., "The Evaluation of Benefits from Pollution Abatement,"
Resources for the Future, Inc., Washington, D. C., 1972.
18. Frigidaire Division, General Motors Corporation, private communication^
1971.
19. Fukriman, D. K., and Barton, J. R., Groundwater Pollution in Arizona,
California, Nevada, and Utah, Fukriman, Barton and Associates, Provo,
Utah, 1971.
20. Hamner, W. G., "Electrodialysis in Buckeye - Operation," Journal
of the American Water Works Association, December 1964.
21. Haney, P. D., "What is Pollution?—an Engineer's Viewpoint," Journal
Sanitary Engineering Division, ASCE, Vol. 92, No. SA1, Feb., 1966,
pp. 109-113.
22. Hein, L. H., "How Soft Water Lengthens Line Supply Life," The
Laundryman, 1955.
23. Howson, L. R., "Economics of Water Softening," Journal of the
American Water Works Association 54, February 1963, pp. 161-166.
24. Ruling, E. E., and Hollocher, T. C., "Groundwater Contamination by
Road Salt: Steady-State Concentrations in East Central Massachusetts,"
.Science, Vol. 176, No. 4032, Apr. 21, 1972, pp. 288-290.
25. Hurr, T., District Office Water Resources Division, U. S. Geological
Survey, Lakewood, Colorado, private communication, October 1972.
26. Kneese, A. V., and Bower, B. T., Managing Water Quality: Economics,
Technology, Institutions, The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Maryland,
1968, p. 34.
74
-------
27. Leeds, Hill and Jewett, Inc., Consumer Costs as Related to
Quality of Water Supply, A Report on Task VII - 1 for Santa Ana
Watershed Planning Agency, San Francisco, California, July 1970, pp.
13-23.
28. Leeds, Hill and Jewett, Inc., Development of a Least Cost Methodology
for Evaluating Water Quality Management Plans for the Santa Ana River
Basin, San Francisco, California, July 1969, pp. 10-11.
29. Lerner, J., "Safe Drinking Water Act of 1973 Estimated Benefits
and Costs," Office of Planning and Evaluation, U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D. C., 1973, p. 3.
30. Loeb, L., "Effective Laundering Aids, Techniques," Proceedings
of the 17th National Home Laundry Conference, November 1963,
p. 62.
31. McKee, J. E., and Wolf, H. W., Water Quality Criteria. 2nd edition
California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, California,
April 1971, p. 93.
32. Metcalf & Eddy, Engineers, The Economic Value of Water Quality,
Office of Saline Water, Research and Development Progress
Report No. 770, Washington, D. C., January 1972, pp. 33-69.
33. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Thirty-Second
Annual Report, 1970.
34. Morris, J., Crawford, M. D., and Heady, J. A., Hardness of Local
Water Supplies and Mortality from Cardiovascular Disease," Lancet 1,
April 1961, p. 860.
35. Murray, C. R., and Reeves, E. B., U. S. Geological Survey,
"Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 1970," Circular
No. 676, U. S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D. C.,
1972, pp. 18-19.
36. "Natural and Man-Made Conditions Affecting Mineral Quality,"
Appendix A, The Mineral Quality Problem in the Colorado River
Basin, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Denver, Colo., 1971.
37. Olson, H. M., "Benefits and Savings from Softened Water for
Municipal Supply," Journal of the American Water Works Association
31, April 1939, p. 607.
38. Orange County Water District, Water Quality and Consumer Costs,
Santa Ana, California, May 1972, pp. 45-63.
75
-------
39. Patterson, W. L., and Banker, R. F., Communities of Over 1000
Population with Water Containing in Excess of 1000 ppm of Total
Dissolved Solids, Black and Veatch, Consulting Engineers, Office
of Saline Water, Research and Development Progress Report No. 462,
Washington, D. C., October 1969, pp. 1-4.
40. Patterson, W. L., and Banker, R. F., "Effects of Highly Mineralized
Water on Household Plumbing and Appliances," Journal of the American
Water Works Association 60, September 1968, p. 1060.
41. Schneider, W. J., Water Data for Metropolitan Areas, U. S. Geological
Survey Water-Supply Paper 1871, Washington, D. C., 1968.
42. Schroeder, H. A., "Relation Between Mortality from Cardiovascular
Disease and Treated Water Supplies," Journal American Medical
Association 172, April 1960, pp. 1902-1908.
43. Sonnen, M. B., "Quality Related Costs of Regional Water Users,"
paper presented at the ASCE National Meeting on Water Resources
Engineering, Washington, D. C., January 29-February 2, 1973.
44. Stone, R., and Friedland, H., "National Survey of Sanitary Landfill
Practices," Public Works, Vol. 100, No. 8, Aug., 1969, pp. 88-89.
45. Syracuse Chine Corporation, private communication, 1971.
46. Todd, D. K., The Water Encyclopedia, Water Information Center,
Port Washington, New York, 1970, p. 311.
47. U. S. Geological Survey, The Industrial Utility of Public Water
Supplies in the United States, 1952, Parts 1 and 2, Water-Supply
Paper 1300, Washington, D. C., 1954.
48. U. S. Public Health Service, U. S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, Drinking Water Standards 1962, Washington, D. C., 1963.
49. Williams, J. W., "Effect of Water Conditioning on Waste Water
Quality," Journal of the American Water Works Association 60,
December 1968, p. 1329.
50. Zononi, A. E., "Ground-Water Pollution and Sanitary Landfills—
A Critical Review," Ground Water, Vol. 10, No. 1, Jan-Feb., 1972.
76
-------
SECTION XIV
APPENDIX
COMPUTER PROGRAM
AND
INPUT DATA
77
-------
COMPUTER PROGRAM
xv o LEVEL 20
Hill
D*TE » 72310
15/33/29
tlSI 0001
0001
9002
0003
000»
OOC5
0006
0007
OOC8
0009
0010
0011
0012
0013
001»
0015
OOU
0017
001*
0019
0020
0021
0022
0023
002*
0025
0026
OC27
0028
0(529
3030
0031
0032
0033
003*
0035
0036
0037
c
C
C
c
C
C'
C
C
C
C
c
C
rtufosi...
CUCOIATB 1970 BHKEriTS, BI St»tE *»D Bf DISCOUST EAIZ, JOB
HOUSEHOLD OSI! OF KATEB SOPPLT AT ViSIOOS QUALITIES.
DisTiscaiss USAGE or TSKI.IED sumcz, TBEITED GBOUHO, »«D
PRIVATE »BLl (TitES SOQECBS.
DIBEKSIOaBKI! 09,2,51,3,2) , I V'COHP, (52) , POPUL<52| . OSBEH (», 1 1) .
U»!lILItS2),ST3E»(52,llt,rtl1,3>,t(51,J),SUP!>LK(S2,U)JSllIEt52,l»|,
2STCCSI(52,U) , saDRCE(U,U) ,qSH»BD(l4,11) ,OSTDS(U,11)
EEll i.n.IKCOBE
cmm. SECO»ESI
IHPDT DJkTl...
I(I.J)»TDS 18 3T1T8 I rROl WATEB SOPPLI SOUBCB J,
I(I,JJ»H»RBHESS IK STtTE I fBOB HATEB SOPPLr SOUKE J,
I!ICOSE(I)«IltCO»E IH ST1TE I ("52 FOR H. S.) »
POtOltD-POPHLATIOM IK ST1TZ I,
riBiir{i)*?*Hii-r POPSLHTIOH m sriTt i,
SOPPLV{I,J) -PZBCEHTASE Or STATE I POPDLiTIO» USIH3 SOOEIB J.
CO 50 1-1,52
S Z»D {S, «20) (STATE (1, 1) , L»1 , «) , IDCOKZ (I) , POPDL (I) ,1 ASILI {I) »
53 COK1IKOE
PO 60 1-1,51
»Z»D<5.1010)
60 COHTIHUS
1013 rCS!*AT(JH,6riO. 1) •
1020 FOSKA'I(«l»it,iU,3MO.O,2Pr10', 1 .2PF10. 1 .2PT10. 1)
f£»D(5, 1025| j(SO«ICS (J.L) .L'1,4) ,J«1,»)
1025 ?CRa»t('M»X,'»Ai4})
IKITItLIZE DISCOOST 2ATI. ..
5-.02S
CMCOtiTE ALL BESEriTS OSI8G T18IOOS BI3C008T S4TES...
DO 950 IP»1,3
3*3*. 025
BESKFITS BT DESSBB Or giTEB QOALITI IHPBOTEHEMT. . .
CO «CO IP»P.1=1,11
If(IPA3T.GT.1) IP»2
PCT»11C-1C*IPABT
EEHEPITS Br SBPPLI SOOBCE...
CO 38C J=1,3
DO 300 1=1,51
1P»8T=I (I,0)*PCT/100,
IPA?T«r (I,J)»PCT/IOO,
»SmLIE£B CAPITAL C05TS BT HOOSIHOLD OSIT...
ADJ«tKCO»E(l)/INc6nS(52)
t-.00179*XPART)
{R, X) »ADJ»SOPPLT |I, J)
tEN(2,1,I,JlIP)*«5Cl.*1. i:0* ALPHA (B,«) «ADJ«SSPPLT (I, J)
K»- .00275«IP»PTt 11.5
581S)«EIP(-. C0116«IPA»T)
gE»(6,1,I,J,IP)»8.*U050»tLPHA(a,H) «
, 116«»LPF.A
78
-------
P08TE1B 11 S IEVBL 20
Hill
DATE - 72310
15/33/29
PICK 0002
0038
0039
OGitO
0011
0012
00t3
G0
BEI(7,1rI,J,IP)«t"2C>.*1.p50*ALPaJk{B.'I)«AD.)*StiPPI.T£I,J)
S--.0007MPARTH0.17S6
BES{8,1,I,J,IP!»20.*1.C50»*t.PaA(B.H)»ADJ»SgpPLtCI,a)
S»-.OOQ13*IPA°T»1.032*AtPHA(B,*}»ADJ*SUPPI.T(r,,J)
H"—.Q033*X?Ai
S*«0.»SXP<3.91927)»EIP<-.00091*XPART)
«=-. 0333* XPA8T»50. 8333
Bt»t12,1,I,J,IP)=60.»1.l20»»LBHl{R,B)*lDJ*SOPPLI(I,J)
S=-.OQ67*IP»BI«-<16.6667
BH»(13,1,I,J,IP)»103.»1.120*iLPH»(H,Kj »*DJ»SOPPLr (I, JJ
)i*-.002C«XP»RT»30. 5
BEH(1t,1,I,J,IP)»i(0.»1.120*iI.PH»{a,JI)*»DJ*SBPPir{I,J)
«=-.0033«XPiRT»30.8333
EEK(15,1,I,JrIP)»90.»1.120«»I.PH»(a,H)»iDJ»SOPPir{rrJ)
EEH«16,1,I,J,1P>»0,
BE»{17,1,I,J,IP)=0.
11-12.
BIX (18, 1,r.J,IPJ».0007*TPA.1T»300.*1.000*4lPBifB,»)*JW*SOPPLr(I,J)
EH»{19,1,I,J,IP>=0.
XSSUAL 0?EB&Tio« ASD MlIHTEHiSCE COSTS Br HOOSEBOiD USIT...
BE«(1r2,I,J,IP)=1.120*(.00113*IPART»2.01667)*ADJ»SDPPtlt(I,J>
BES{2»2rI.J, IP) "1.1 20* (. 0007*19 HHT + 1 . 6250} *ISJ»S6B?U (1,3)
BE* (3,2,I,JflP)»1.050*{.00127*XPAFTH6.8117),»ADJ*SUPPLt(I,J)
8E»(«,2,I,J,IP)*1,116«{.0007«XPAST*1,6250!*SDJ*SOPPLI(I,JJ
BE»J6,2,I,J
PES(7,2,I,3.IP)^1.050*£.00102*XPaST*3. 3»5)*ADJ*SOPPI.r (I,J)
EEI{8,2,I,J,IP)=0.
BE!I(9,2,I,J,IP)=0.
EEM(10,2,I,J,rp)=1.120*(.00031»XPAaT«-».5225}«ADJ*SOPPI.T(I,J)
8EH(11.2,I,J,IP)=T.l2C«{.OOt15*XPJiaT*3.1633) »ADJ*SaPPtr (I,J)
BEH (12,2.I,J,IP) = 1.120»<.00063«XPA2T*.3in67) *ADJ*SOPPLr {I, J)
BES(13,2,I,J, IP)=0,
BE.'I(1«,2,I,J,IP) = 1.120*(.OOC23«XP»5T*. 5917) »ADJ«SBPPLI {I, J)
BfM (15,2,I,J,IP)=1.12C*(.00023*XPAaT»3.3919) «ADJ*SOPPL)r (I, J>
5EH(15,2,I, a.IP} = 1.082«(.0027*trAK"+11,65CO}«ADJ*SOPPL5[(I,J}
BEM (17,2,I,J,IP)=rnOOO*EXP(-3.72725)«(XPAaT»*.80U20)»ADJ»SOP?LT(I,
1J»
BEH (18,2,I,J,IP)»1.000«.1S9»*XP»RT*(.OC07*IPART) *A0J«SOPPLT (I, J)
BEHO9,2,r,J,IP)=1.COO«(. 1578*TP&HI* (ll.O-.C007«t PART} +11.6500) «
1ACJ»SBPPLJ(I,a)
300 COSTIIIOE
HATIOKAL BEHEFITS SOHSED 0*EB StiTB BE REFITS...
0SBE»(J.IPABT)=0.
OSHASD(J,IPART)»0.
IFDS3EH(J,IPiBT}
310 COHTIStJS
ySHABD(J,IPlHT)a(9SS(18,ICOST,I.J,1)tBEK(19,ICOST,r,J,1)-
79
-------
FOBIBii XT « intl 20 8*11 D»TS > 72310 15/33/29 PISE 0003
0090 350 COVTIXOE
009 1 OSTDS (J, I PHHI) "OSBBI (J, IPUT) -OSHIBO {J, IPilT]
0092 CO TO 380
0093 360 COimiHg
009» 10 370 ICOST-1,2
0095 BO 370 I»1,S1
0096 DO 365 IBJIT-1,19
C TOTAL DmSBS OF 051X6 POOREST WASTES Q0*tl«...
0097 USBE»(J,IPiaT)»8EH(IUHrT,ICOST,I,J,1)*?ABILr(I) »flSBZll(J,IPiSI)
0098 365 COII1IHOE
0099 OSHIRD(J.IPHPT) " (BEI (ia,ICOST,I,J,1) »BS» (19,ICOST,I,J,1))»
IFAIULT(I) *OSHlSD
-------
roim* zr a tan 20 sin BITS » 72310 15/33/29 p*se ooo«
0137 DO 700 1-1,52
0136 ir(r.f0.52) KBITE(6,1060) (STA«(I,L) ,L«1,») ,POPOt ,POPUL(I) ,miLT(I) ,I»COBB(I),
Olttl 700 COJUVOt
0142 1C60 FOBBAT(/,3X,»A»,U,F10.0,1X,r9.0,2X,F6.0,«I,2PP« ,111, .
1'TQTM. DH.llGRS (II it) BT SOURCE', 1HX, 'PE8 CAPITA DIHIGES {$) BI 30
208CE',/,8X, 'STATE', 1ir,'TOT*l', 31, 'PEB CAPITA ', HI, 'SBBPACE", 31,
3'TR.OBODKD',3X,'BAi liELI.' ,51, TOTAL', 5X, 'SOSFACE',31, »TB.OBOOIO',
43X,»B»» »Etl',SX, 'TOTAL',/}
OU7 CO 810 1-1,52
0 1U8 COS KPC-STCOST (T , U) /POPOL (I)
01I«9 BEM1PO»STBES(I,1)/(POPUt(I)*SOPPlI
0150 BEH2PC«STBSB(I,2)/(POPOMI)»SOPPLT(r,2))
0151 BEN3PC-STBEN (I, 3) /(POPOt (I) "SUPPIT (1,3) )
0152 BESI*POSTBEM(I,I|)/POPOL(I)
0153 B BIT* (6,1090) (STATE (I,L) ,L«1,U) .STCOST (1,1) ,COS«PC,3TBE»(I,1) ,
1STB£NU,2) ,STBEH(I,3) ,STBEH(I,») ,BEN 1 PC, 8EK2PC,BES 3PC, BSSUPC
0154 810 COKTISUE
0155 1090 POR(tlT««X,i»Att,2X,-8Pr7.1,3X,OPF7.2,6X,-6PP7.1,itX,F7,1,4X,F7, J,
15X,T7. 1,»X,OPF7.2,3(W,F7,2))
C LIST BENEFITS FOB THE UHITED STATES...
0156 HRI1E(6,11CO) B
0157 1100 rCfl.«AT(1H1, UU, 'HOUSEHOLD 8EKEFITS OF V»TEB SOPPLI TBEAIHENT I» IB
1E U.S.',/,60X,'POB 1970',
1/A!5X»'DISCOUHT RATE • ' ,F». 3,///,22X,«TOTAt' ,/,21X,
2'HOOSIBLB',16X, 'TOTAL BENEFITS (»1 «) AT TABIOOS LETELS (PCT) OF I
3ATEB QUAIITT IflPBO?E«EST* ,/, 3X, ' SOPPLI SOURCE' ,5X, 'EXPKD',51, ' 10*"
571, '90S', fit, MOOS',/)
0158 mil (6, 1130)
0159 1130 FORRATf//,' IDS ADD fUBDSSSS'J
0160 CO 850 J«1,»
0161 »HITE(6,1110) (300BCE(J,L) ,1-1,1) , (BSBES(J,IPJaT) ,IPABT« 1,11)
0162 850 CONTINOE
0163 «?ITE(6,1160)
016» 1160 rCBHATt//,' TDS OUT')
0165 CO 860 J»1,ft
0166 If BITS (6, 1110) (SOOaC!(J,L) ,L"1,«), (OSTDS (J,IPABT) ,IPA8T«1 ,11)
0167 860 COHUXOE
0168 HSrtE (6,1170)
0169 1170 FOSHAT(//,' BABDKESS CULT')
OJ70 DO «79 J»1,»
0171 » SITE (&, 1110) (SOOSCE(J.L) ,L«1,ft) , (DSHXED ( J.IPABT) , IPAET- 1, 1 1)
0172 870 CONTtROE
0173 SFITZ(6,1150) R
81
-------
fOSTB»ll IV S LEVEL 20
ItllB
D»TE « 72310
1S/3J/29
P&SB 0005
017«
0175
0176
0177
0178
0179
0180
0181
0182
0183
018»
0185
0136
0187
0188
0139
0190
0191
0192
0193
019H
0195
0196
1150 FCBIUT(1B1, 361, 'HOUSEHOLD BEHEFITS OF WEB SUPPLt TBEiTSBHt It IS
1S U.S.'./. 601, -FOB 1970',
I//, 55*,' DISCOUNT HATE » ' ,FS. 3,///. 1ST, 'PER C»Pm'./,
219I,«HOOSEBLD',12X,"PER CAPITH BBKEFITS (S> iT VRRIOOS LEVELS (PCT
3) OF KATEB OUALITt IMPBOVEHEST' ,/,3X,' SUPPLt SOURCE' ,5X,'EXPKD»f
nsx.'iox'.Tt.'zct'.Tr.'aox'.Ti.'dox'.vi.'SOX'^x.'eox'^x.^oj'^i,
5' eCH'. 7 1, '90V, 61, MOO*' ,/)
»BIIE(6,1130)
BO 900 J=1,8
IF(J.Efl.«) SOPPiT(52,J) = 1.0a
DO 890 IPm=1,11
BSBEH(J,IPJi!>T)=USBEH(J,!P»RT)/(POPaL!52)*S0PPl,T(52,J))
OSHSBD(J,IP»RT)=DSH»BB(J,IPABT)/(EOPUL(52)»SUPPLr(52,J»
OSTBS (J.IPfcRT) "OSTOS (J. IPAST) / (POPOL (52) 'SUPPLY (52, J) )
690 COHtllHJE
1110 FORKATt2X,l*lU,1I,-6PF7.1,11{3X,-6PF7.1))
K»rTE<6,1120) (SOURCE (J,L> ,L=1.«). (BS3E»
-------
INPUT DATA
FOR
DAMAGE CALCULATIONS
00
STATE
MAINE
MASSACHUSETTS
VERMONT
NEW HAMPSHIRE
CONNECTICUT
RHODE ISLAND
NEW YORK
NEW JERSEY
DIST. COLUMBIA
PENNSYLVANIA
WEST VIRGINIA
MARYLAND
VIRGINIA
DELAWARE
KENTUCKY
TENNESSEE
MISSISSIPPI
ALABAMA
GEORGIA
NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORIDA
OHIO
POPULATION
992048
5689170
444330
737681
3031709
946725
18236960
7168164
756510
11793909
1744237
3922399
4648494
548104
3218706
3923687
2216912
3444165
4589575
5082059
2590516
6789443
10652017
FAMILIES
248154
1390982
107411
183825
767651
236667
4609638
1838809
163482
3011130
454493
974143
1162256
136915
825222
1024446
534444
874659
1149771
1292466
628689
1811367
2691130
INCOME
($)
9045
12238
10099
10776
13795
11041
12491
13025
12189
10877
8195
12682
10568
11771
8560
8619
7292
8412
9491
8872
8577
10120
11488
WATER SUPPLY SOURCE (PCT)
SURFACE TR.GROUND RAW WELL
58.1
65.7
41.2
38.0
63.3
67.4
67.3
34.3
95.0
74.0
51.4
75.8
62.2
39.5
57.6
45.8
11
48
42
42
65.6
8.2
53.7
14.9
24.3
21.8
35.0
19.7
22.6
22.7
30.7
0.0
12.0
24.6
10.2
9.8
44.5
9.4
28.2
63.5
26.3
25.8
13.8
14.4
66.8
22.3
27.0
10.0
37.0
27.0
17.0
10.0
10.0
35.0
5.0
14.0
24.0
14.0
28.0
16.0
33.0
26.0
25.0
25.0
32.0
44.0
20.0
25.0
24.0
-------
INPUT DATA (continued).
00
STATE
INDIANA
ILLINOIS
MICHIGAN
WISCONSIN
MINNESOTA
ARKANSAS
LOUISIANA
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
NEW MEXICO
MISSOURI
IOWA
NEBRASKA
KANSAS
NORTH DAKOTA
SOUTH DAKOTA
MONTANA
WYOMING
UTAH
COLORADO
CALIFORNIA
ARIZONA
NEVADA
HAWAII
WASHINGTON
OREGON
IDAHO
ALASKA
POPULATION
5193669
11113976
8875083
4417731
3804971
1923295
3641306
2559229
11196730
1016000
4676501
2824376
1483493
2246578
617761
665507
694409
332416
1059273
2207259
19953120
1770900
488783
768561
3409169
2091385
712567
300382
FAMILIES
1321674
2794194
2190269
1077475
921332
505195
872772
679256
2818123
242740
1204751
717776
374160
581849
148235
161941
171812
84703
249741
547165
5001255
438389
124170
170729
862542
542483
179448
66670
INCOME
($)
10959
12338
12296
11135
11098
7459
8799
9100
9955
9193
10236
10138
9792
10063
9086
8795
9662
10127
10428
10875
12227
10501
11872
13077
11511
10695
9455
13056
WATER SUPPLY SOURCE (PCT)
SURFACE TR.GROUND RAW WELL
39.9
50.9
64.1
35.3
34.1
32.3
41.2
58.0
47.4
6.3
61.0
20.0
15.1
40.1
31.8
15.4
48.3
36.0
32.4
76.1
.4
.5
,1
54.
26.
33.
3.5
55.0
52.8
9.2
27.9
30.1
29.1
15.9
34.7
40.9
30.7
38.8
22.0
46.6
60.7
19.0
60.0
64.9
39.9
29.2
34.6
20.7
39.0
36.6
13.9
40.6
51.5
49.9
71.5
33.0
22.2
59.8
27.1
30.0
20.0
20.0
30.0
25.0
37.0
20.0
20.0
6.0
33.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
39.0
50.0
31.0
25.0
31.0
10.0
5.0
22.0
17.0
25.0
12.0
25.0
31.0
45.0
-------
INPUT DATA (continued),
STATE
MAINE
MASSACHUSETTS
VERMONT
NEW HAMPSHIRE
CONNECTICUT
RHODE ISLAND
NEW YORK
NEW JERSEY
DIST. COLUMBIA
PENNSYLVANIA
WEST VIRGINIA
MARYLAND
VIRGINIA
DELAWARE
KENTUCKY
TENNESSEE
MISSISSIPPI
ALABAMA
GEORGIA
NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORIDA
OHIO
INDIANA
ILLINOIS
TDS IN SOURCE (PPM)
SURF. TR.GR, RAW WL.
HARD, IN SOURCE (PPM)
SURF. TR.GR. RAW WL.
33.0
27.0
64.0
36.0
59.0
51.0
64.0
71. C
201.0
136.0
117.0
89.0
100.0
89.0
202.0
123.0
95.0
119.0
44.0
69.0
52.0
212.0
196.0
263.0
157.0
89.0
93.0
95.0
106.0
105.0
64.0
283.0
121.0
201.0
184.0
190.0
104.0
130.0
191.0
227.0
83.0
124.0
132.0
91.0
110.0
62.0
250.0
190.0
419.0
291.0
144.0
158.0
126.0
175.0
151.0
72.0
177.0
121.0
201.0
232.0
262.0
118.0
160.0
191.0
251.0
96.0
153.0
144.0
151.0
151.0
72.0
235.0
420.0
382.0
460.0
20.0
11. 0
51.0
12.0
33.0
30.0
40.0
42.0
135.0
81.0
70.0
57.0
59.0
48.0
101.0
83.0
45.0
69.0
23.0
42.0
17.0
148.0
114.0
195.0
128.0
62.0
47.0
67.0
50.0
51.0
30.0
191.0
67.0
135.0
141.0
118.0
51.0
101.0
101.0
148.0
40.0
43.0
66.0
50.0
55.0
13.0
123.0
107.0
350.0
279.0
103.0
82.0
82.0
87*0
68.0
30.0
106.0
67.0
135.0
201.0
166.0
44.0
142.0
103.0
195.0
67.0
40.0
63.0
124.0
68.0
8.0
171.0
337.0
327.0
347.0
-------
INPUT DATA (continued),
00
STATE
MICHIGAN
WISCONSIN
MINNESOTA
ARKANSAS
LOUISIANA
OKLAHOMA
TEXAS
NEW MEXICO
MISSOURI
IOWA
NEBRASKA
CANSAS
WRTH DAKOTA
SOUTH DAKOTA
MONTANA
WYOMING
UTAH
COLORADO
CALIFORNIA
ARIZONA
NEVADA
HAWAII
WASHINGTON
OREGON
IDAHO
ALASKA
TDS IN SOURCE (PPM)
SURF. TR.GR. RAW WL.
136.0
162.0
112.0
40.0
185.0
223.0
238.0
250.0
207.0
244.0
382.0
374.0
314.0
196.0
193.0
200.0
224.0
136.0
254.0
720.0
91.0
211.0
41.0
22.0
136.0
100.0
198.0
303.0
205.0
155.0
231.0
418.0
429.0
604.0
488.0
393.0
312.0
325.0
602.0
596.0
364.0
202.0
548.0
200.0
382.0
730.0
235.0
211.0
141.0
99.0
208.0
146.0
260.0
331.0
298.0
270.0
215,0
664.0
706.0
873.0
488.0
542.0
428.0
504.0
890,0
994.0
535.0
500.0
492.0
937.0
380.0
550.0
256.0
211.0
118.0
99.0
350.0
146.0
HARD.
SURF.
100.0
129-.0
65.0
21.0
78.0
147.0
102.0
73.0
75.0
108.0
144.0
163.0
131.0
86.0
115.0
123.0
183.0
77.0
105.0
239.0
40.0
60.0
21.0
5.0
102.0
67.0
IN SOURCE (PPM)
TR?GR.
162.0
289.0
166.0
72.0
2.0
138.0
178.0
263.0
236.0
233.0
177.0
121.0
130.0
206.0
110.0
169.0
216.0
100.0
146.0
307.0
206.0
60.0
127.0
41.0
131.0
114.0
RAW WL
224.0
289.0
267.0
123.0
31.0
314.0
205.0
408.0
236.0
357.0
263.0
301 jO
129.0
325.0
104.0
301.0
310.0
495.0
T70.0
254.0
187.0
60.0
83.0
41.0
210.0
114.0
-------
SELECTED WATER
RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
. No.
w
"Economic Damages to Household Items from Water
Supply Use"
5. Rer-:«rt D
Dennis P. Tihansky
Economic Analysis Branch
Washington Environmental Research Center
Office of Research and Development
12. sponsoring or .
lype ti' i i;, n and
n.s-. Environmental Protection 'Agency
Environmental Protection Agency report number,
EPA-600/5-73-Q01, July 1973.
Household appliances and personal items in contact with water supply are subject
to physical damages from chemical and other constituents of the water. This study trans-
lates these damages into economic losses for a typical household. Then it aggregates
these losses at the national and individual state levels. To do so requires several
stages of analysis. First, the types of physical damages expected and associated water
quality determinants are identified. The physical effects are next translated into
economic losses. Second, damage functions are formulated to predict likely impacts of
water quality changes on each household unit affected. Third, a computer program based
on these functions is designed to estimate total damages per typical household and to
aggregate them over selected regions. Finally, the program is applied to state-to-state
data on water supply sources and socioeconomic descriptors. Total damages to U.S. resi-
dents in 1970 are estimated in the range, $0.65-$3.>45 billion, with a mean of $1.75 bil-
lion. The mean translates into $8.60 per person. States contributing most to total
damages are California ($230 million) and Illinois ($164 million). On a per capita basis
Arizona ($22.53) and New Mexico ($18.58) rank highest, whereas South Carolina ($1.15) and
Oregon ($1.73) are at the other end of the spectrum. When per capita damages are com-
pared by source of water supply, those from private wells are worst at an average of
$12.34, treated ground next at $11.20, and treated surface water sources at only $5,83.
This report was funded under Program Element 1H1094 of the Office of Research and
Development, Washington Environmental Research Center, Economic Analysis Branch, E.P.A.
Domestic Water, Water Quality, Economic Impact, Damages, Estimated Benefits,
Engineers Estimates, Computer Models, Annual Benefits
'). Sewrity Class,
24). SectiiH- Class.
(Page)
Dennis P. Tihansky
21 No. of
Pages
Send To:
WATER RESOURCES *C1CNTIP1C INFORMATION CENTCR
U J. DEPARTMENT Of THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON. OjC. I014O
Environmental Protection Agency
-------
RD 674
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A6ENCY
Forms and Publications Center
Route 8, Box 116, Hwy. 7O, West
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
Official Business
PO*TAOC AND FKCa PAID
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AOBNCY
EPA-335
^SPECIAL FOURTH-CUSS RATE
BOOK
If your addreu u incorrect, pteaje change on the above label;
tear off; and return to the above addreu.
If you do not dean to continue receiving thii technical report
•eriei, CHECK HERE Q ; tear off label, and return it to the
above acUre*«,
------- |