EPA 600/5-74-014
August 1974
Socioeconomic Environmental Studies Series
ating Water Quality Benefits
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC. 20460
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office ot Research and
Monitoring, Environmental Protection Agency, have
been grouped into five series. These five bread
categories were established to facilitate further
development and application of environmental
technology. Elimination of traditional grouping
was consciously planned to foster technology
transfer and a maximum interface in related
fields. The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
U. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the SOCIOECONOMIC
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES series. This series
describes research on the socioeconomic impact of
environmental problems. This covers recycling and
other recovery operations with emphasis on
monetary incentives. The non-scientific realms of
legal systems, cultural values, and business
systems are also involved. Because of their
interdisciplinary scope, system evaluations and
environmental management reports are included in
this series.
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been revieved by the Office of Research and
Development, EPA, and approved for publication. Approval
does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
vievs and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency,
nor does mention of trade names or commercial products consti-
tute endorsement or recommendation for use.
For sale by the Superintendent ol Documents, V.S. (Jovernnient 1'rlnting Office, Washington, IJ.C. 20402 - 1'rlce JI..V
-------
EPA-600/5-74-014
August 19jit
ESTIMATING WATER QUALITY BENEFITS
by
David L. Jordening
Contract No. 68-01-0744
Project 21-AQJ-05
Program Element 1BA030
Project Officer:
Fred H. Abel
Economic Analysis Branch
Implementation Research Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, B.C. 20**60
Prepared for
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND MONITORING
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D C. 20460
-------
ABSTRACT
The objective of this report-is to present a state of the arts summary
concerning estimating water quality associated benefits. This summary
is viewed as a useful administrative tool to those that have been assigned
the task of directing current and future research activity.
Insofar as possible, this summary is presented by specific pollutants
by beneficial use, devoting special attention to hypothesized and docu-
mented use-quality relationships. A discussion of the economic quan-
tification of these relationships is also included. The beneficial uses
considered include recreation, esthetics, property values and ecology
with only limited attention devoted to water quality associated health
and production impacts. Specific references and methodologies are
discussed with the ultimate objective of providing a state of the arts
assessment by beneficial use. This assessment was also useful in
deriving conclusions concerning research priorities and possible
results of future water quality related research.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Project Number 21-AQJ-05,
Contract Number 68-01-0744 by Development Planning and Research
Associates, Inc., Manhattan, Kansas, under the sponsorship of the
Environmental Protection Agency. Work was completed as of April,
1974.
ii
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Abstract ii
List of Exhibits iv
SECTIONS
I Nature and Objectives of the R'eport 1
II Recreational Benefits of Water Quality Enhancement 8
in Water Quality and Esthetics 32
IV Water Quality and Property Values 42
V Ecology and Water Quality 47
VI Other Beneficial Uses and General Summary 49
VII References 56
VIII Appendices 68
111
-------
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit
II-1 Water Characteristics or Constituents Detrimental
to Water Based Recreational Activity 10
11^2- Reported Damages and Established Critical Levels
by Specific Pollutant 13
II-3 Site User's Concern of Possible Detrimental
Effects of Water Pollution on Boats, Fishing
Equipment and Fish in Nine Illinois Lakes 18
II-4 Use Avoidance or curtailed Usage of Recreational
Waters as a Result of Increased Pollution 19
II-5 Economic Studies of Recreational Damages and
Benefits by Specific Pollutant 21
II-6 Summary of Hypothesized, Documented and Econ-
omic Appraisal of Water Quality Associated Recre-
ational Benefits and Damages by Pollutant 23
III-l Factors that Must be Considered in Assessing the
Esthetic Value of Surface Water Bodies and Other
Natural Resources 34
III-2 Unappealing Esthetic Qualities Reported by Users
and Nonusers of Recreational Areas 37
IV-1 Public Perception of Pollution 44
V-l State of the arts of pollution-beneficial use potential
relationships, over all ranges of water quality 51
V-Z Selected References Concerned with Economies of
Water Quality Management Use Avoidance, Per-
ception or Value of Natural Resources by Bene-
ficial Use 53
-------
SECTION I
NATURE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE REPORT
A. INTRODUCTION
Recent public concern for environmental quality management and the
accompanying deluge of literature on the subject would seem to indi-
cate that the topics of resource conservation and the optimal utilization
of renewable and nonrenewable natural resources are areas of concern
that have not been explored until very recently. This, however, is not
the case in that economics has long been concerned with a wide diversity
of topics related to the maximization of temporal social welfare which
encompasses many specific topics directly or indirectly related to re-
source allocation, and the optimal extraction and utilization of both
renewable and nonrenewable resources. For example, an article
entitled "The Economics of Exhaustible Resources," authored by Harold
Hotelling was published in 1931 (Hotelling).
It is true, however, that most of the previous endeavors have not been
overly concerned with resource utilization and conservation of resources
as affected by pollution. The general area of environmental protection
or environmental quality management has inevitably been overshadowed
by other material welfare topics such as unemployment and the general
oscillations in business activity. These topics have occupied or enjoyed
a higher social and academic priority than the implications of alternative
waste disposal practices.
In this regard the recent environmental management movement has pro-
vided the impetus for additional work on quality of life considerations
which are intrinsically related to prevailing production techniques and
practices (including both on-site and off-site waste disposal practices).
This effort has also resulted in the recognition of the need to ascertain
optimum surface water qualities which will complement social welfare
maximization objectives which again encompasses both tangible and in-
tangible considerations.
These renewed and increased efforts have resulted in a variety of suggested
remedies which range from zero emissions to zero control. The suggested
remedy is in part determined by whether one is the emitter or the recipient
of pollution and there have been strong arguments for both extremes.
-------
The deluge and diversity of suggested remedies has created a dilemma
for those that have been assigned the responsibility of selecting and im-
plementing appropriate environmental protection measures. It is de-
sirable that the ultimate pollution abatement strategy be selected on the
basis of the net social benefit derived. Unfortunately, due to the fact
that estimating benefits of water quality enhancement per se is a rela-
tively new area of endeavor with many inherent complexities, the selection
of the appropriate strategy at the present time must be made on rather
preliminary and tenuous information at best.
A sizable portion of the effort that has been devoted to estimating the
net benefits of water quality enhancement has been problem, project
and crisis oriented in nature. Many studies have been concerned with
the unique problems associated with small and sometimes isolated
and atypical geographical areas. This type of approach has lead to the
development of a variety of methodologies and techniques that have been
designed to assess the economic impacts of a variety of specific pollu-
tants and regional water quality management problems. While many
of these studies provide insight into the benefits of water quality manage-
ment for a specific region, it is nevertheless frequently difficult to
assimilate the results into a national net benefit estimation framework.
The diversity of methods, techniques and results makes it desirable to
periodically engage in a state of the arts assessment to insure that the
overall direction or approach of national policy is consistent with the
results of numerous research projects. Such a state of the arts assess-
ment is further desirable so that specific areas requiring additional re-
search or refinement can be isolated and supportative research measures
instituted.
B. OBJECTIVES
The literature review that has preceded this report has clearly indicated
that the general area of greatest need is that of estimating the benefits
of water quality enhancement. For this reason this report will address
the specific objective of providing a state of the arts assessment of the
success of past endeavors that have been concerned with estimating
the benefits of water quality enhancement and will not address other
facets of water quality management, e.g., cost of pollution abatement.
-------
C. METHOD OF APPROACH
The value of water is determined by use. Any value reduction or use
impairment can therefore be associated with the presence of one or
more undesirable water quality constituent or characteristic. One way
to approach the state of the arts assessment is therefore to present a
benefit summary by specific pollutant by beneficial use. Intuitively the
approach is appealing and straightforward but nevertheless possesses
several limitations.
The first limitation encountered is that of developing a meaningful
beneficial use taxonomy. A broad classification scheme -- such as the
one used -- is admittedly overlapping and not mutually exclusive. On
the other hand a highly refined or disaggregated system rapidly becomes
too cumbersome to handle. The taxonomy selected incorporates four
broad categories, i.e., esthetics, ecological, production and health.
The complete beneficial use taxonomy to be used to structure the state
of the arts assessment is presented below.
I. Esthetics
Esthetic enjoyment
Recreation
Contact recreation
Non-contact recreation
Property values
II. Ecological
III. Human Health
IV. Production
Municipal pre-use treatment
Domestic uses
Agriculture
Commercial fishing
Power generation
Navigation
Food and kindred products
Textile mills
Lumber and wood products
Paper and allied products
Chemical and allied products
Petroleum and coal products
Rubber and plastics
Leathe r
Stone, clay and glass
Primary metal
-------
A brief explanation of the above beneficial use taxonomy is presented
below.
Esthetic Benefits - include pecuniary and non-pecuniary benefits which
result from greater esthetic enjoyment of surface water. Representative
examples would include contact recreation, non-contact recreation,
property values and other esthetic benefits. Many of these non-pecuniary
benefits are difficult to quantify due to the complications associated with
converting non-pecuniary benefits into economic terms.
A variety of techniques and concepts have been developed in an attempt
to quantify intangible, non-monetary benefits. These include concepts
such as option demand and latent demand which are designed to quantify
various benefits of water quality enhancement.
Other benefits such as physic benefits would also be included in the above
category. Additional methodological refinements are required before all
esthetic benefits of water quality enhancement are quantified.
Ecological benefits of water quality enhancement include damage reduc-
tions to the ecosystem that do not directly or initially affect recreational
usage or the above mentioned esthetic benefits. In some respects this
category is a residual category which exists primarily due to the fact that
we can not accurately assess in monetary terms the value of each com-
ponent of the ecosystem to human welfare.
Human health benefits include all direct and indirect benefits that accrue
as a result of environmental quality enhancement. This would include
reduced medical expenses, increased efficiency, reduced sick days,
reduced mortality and reduced health risks associated with water borne
diseases or epidemics. While these benefits are difficult to quantify,
there is evidence which indicates that they do in fact exist.
Production benefits include reduced damages and increased efficiency
in all production processes which utilize water. This includes but is
not limited to reduced scaling, reduced corrosion and increased efficiency
of water as a productive imput.
A cursory survey of the above classification scheme quickly reveals
that there is--at best--a very fine distinction between many of the
major and minor items listed. For example, as defined herein
esthetics includes, one, esthetic enjoyment not related to recreational
activity, two, recreational usage of surface water bodies (both con-
tact and noncontact water based recreation)and, three, property value
benefits. However a rather fine and illdefined line exists between
-------
esthetic enjoyment and noncontact recreational activity such as hiking
or sightseeing.
Property value changes due to water quality changes are also related
and intrinsically tied to esthetic appreciation of surface water. This
problem, however, is not a major obstacle in that the above taxonomy
therefore serves only as a broad general guide which is useful to ex-
pedite and organize the discussion.
It should also be obvious from the beginning that there is a great dis-
parity in the degree of detail that can be presented in the state of the
arts assessment by beneficial use. A great deal has been written in
reference to water quality enhancement and recreation but very little
has been done to quantify the ecological benefits of water quality en-
hancement.
The major emphasis of the report will be confined to a discussion of
the first major categories or beneficial uses with less effort devoted
to the remaining areas. It is also expedient to emphasize that the docu-
mentation will be confined to completed and published studies. It is
recognized that there are perhaps several ongoing or recently completed
studies that have not been included in the discussion herein. Only the
passage of time, acceptance and finalization of recently completed and
on-going studies can correct this deficiency.
In some cases it is not possible to consider the affects of individual
pollutants separately. For example, the lethal dosage or toxicity level
of various pollutants on aquatic life is determined by not only the con-
centration of the toxic substance but also the prevailing water temper-
ature, dissolved oxygen level, season of the year and the life cycle of
the affected species. Another example is sediment. Sediment is nor-
mally viewed as harmful to aquatic life, recreational activity, esthetic
appreciation, and other withdrawal and nonwithdrawal uses of water.
However, sediment reduction and reduced turbidity does not always pro-
duce a benefit. Reduced turbidity allows greater sun penetration resulting
in increased algae blooms if sufficient nutrients are present. Sediment
also absorbs taste and odor producing materials as well as reducing
water-borne nutrients by entra'pment. The reduction or elimination of
one pollutant may therefore be accompanied by increased problems
associated with other pollutants.
By considering the specific pollutants individually, important syngeristic
effects are overlooked. At this point in time, however, it is not desirable
or expedient to become overly concerned with complex synergistic effects
when there is much to be learned about the damaging influences of specific
pollutants considered individually. It would also be desirable to distinguish
-------
between natural and man-made pollutants. In most cases, however,
the state of the arts is such that it is not possible to make the additional
refinement or distinction.
Even though there are obvious limitations, much can be gained by pro-
viding a state of the arts assessment of estimating water quality assoc-
iated benefits by specific pollutant by beneficial use. The primary ob-
jective is to provide a brief summary of the state of knowledge concerning
the benefits of water quality enhancement. This also includes a brief
evaluation of the adequacy of the data and methodologies employed in ac-
quiring the respective benefit estimates. This summary is viewed as
an administrative tool to guide and direct future research activity and
is not intended to be a comprehensive critique of currently employed
methodology, theory and data.
D. PROCEDURES EMPLOYED
In view of the breadth of the subject matter involved, it is instructive
to briefly describe the procedures employed in the literature search
so as to provide the reader with some insight into the thoroughness
of the final product.
The search for empirical benefit estimates of water quality enhancement
was initiated by consulting a recently compiled bibliography containing
approximately 4,000 entries of current water related publications. The
complete bibliography will be published by EPA under separate cover.
This bibliography along with the "Cost Analysis of Water Pollution Con-
trol," (Dr. Tihansky, EPA) represents one of the most complete and
up-to-date available.
Attempts were employed to acquire and review all listings relevant to
the area of endeavor. This procedure further isolated other relevant
publications that were not initially included in the bibliography. Other
procedures such as literature searches were also provided by the
National Technical Information Service and the Smithsonian Science
Information Exchange. Additional contacts were made with qualified
researchers and in this regard the services of Dr. Tihansky of EPA,
Economic Analysis Branch, Implementation Research Division, were
particularly valuable. All of the information acquired by these pro-
cedures was critically reviewed by DPRA staff members. It is believed
that the above efforts have been successful in isolating most of the rele-
vant publications containing empirical estimates of water quality assoc-
iated benefits. In view of the vast amount of literature related to water
quality and water quality management, it is possible, and indeed quite
likely, that several relevant publications have ben inadvertently overlooked
even though efforts were employed to produce a comprehensive product.
-------
E. ORDER OF PRESENTATION
The state of the arts assessment of water quality associated benefits
is initiated with a discussion of the beneficial use that is believed to
be the singularly most important source of monetary benefits from
water quality enhancement—recreation. This discussion is followed
by a summary of other beneficial uses--esthetics, property values
and ecological.
An attempt has been made to present the results of each section in a
brief and concise manner which will be useful to administrators in their
attempts to direct further research activity to areas which currently
need further research or additional refinement.
-------
SECTION II
RECREATIONAL BENEFITS OF WATER QUALITY ENHANCEMENT
A. INTRODUCTION
A tremendous quantity of literature has been published on the economics
of water based recreation. Past and projected demand trends indicate that
water based recreation has been, and will be in the foreseeable future,
the outlet for increase leisure time activity and personal consumption
expenditures (84, 11, 61, 85). Increasing demand for this activity
further reiterates the need to quantify the economics of pollution and
recreation. The possible elimination or reduction of this leisure time
activity must be explored.
The importance of recreational benefits relative to the total benefits of
water quality enhancement is supported by the results of various studies
that have undertaken the task of quantifying the areal benefits of water
quality enhancement. Such studies invariably conclude that recreational
benefits are the largest single source of direct monetary benefits (85, 64,
10, 79). This beneficial use has been estimated to comprise as much as
75 percent or more of the total benefits of water quality enhancement
(85, 10).
Others have succinctly summarized the importance of water based recrea-
tional activity and water quality by stating that the justification of pollution
abatement measures may well hinge on the ability to quantify recreational
benefits (63).
It is therefore only fitting that a major portion of the state of the arts
summary be devoted to a discussion of recreational benefits of water
quality enhancement. Another reason for initiating the report with a
discussion of recreational benefits of water quality enhancement is that
several other very closely related beneficial uses that have received less
emphasis are at least partially covered in the recreation discussion, i. e. ,
esthetic and ecological benefits.
One difficulty that is immediately encountered that adds to the breadth of
the problem is that water based recreational activity includes a diverse
number of activities that require various water quality standards. Water
based recreation as defined herein includes activities such as swimming,
boating, hiking, sport fishing, camping, sightseeing, and other activities.
8
-------
The state of the arts assessment of the estimation of recreational benefits
of water quality enhancement is perhaps best presented in a multipha'se
format. Considerable insight into the number of relevant factors that
must be included is provided by first presenting a list of hypothesized use-
quality relationships, i.e., hypothesized relationships between specific
pollutants and water quality characteristics that can potentially limit or
deter recreational activity or the pleasure experienced therefrom. The
second step is to present documentation of specific damages and estab-
lished critical levels based on either reported damages or expected
damages as established by various use-quality relationships derived from
environmental assessments and laboratory experiments. The third and
final step is to present and evaluate economic studies that have attempted
to quantify in economic terms various recreational use-quality relation-
ships.
By approaching the problem in this manner the reader is provided with:
one, a listing of potentially damaging pollutants; two, a listing of
reported damages; and three, a list of studies that have quantified the
damages or benefits of water quality enhancement in economic terms.
This format also provides considerable insight into those areas that have
been researched and further identifies those use-quality relationships
that have not been quantified as of this time in economic terms.
B. HYPOTHESIZED RELATIONSHIPS
It is relatively easy to hypothesize that a particular pollutant is damaging
or that it influences a particular activity with or without providing the
basis for the hypothesized relationships. Most hypothesized relationships
presented in the literature do, however, possess at least some theoretical
justification or foundation. Exhibit II-1, Water Characteristics or Con-
stituents Detrimental to Water Based Recreational Activity, is presented
with the expressed purpose of providing insight and documentation into
the number of relevant pollutants that are potentially detrimental to water
based recreation. All of the articles or references included in Exhibit II-1
have been reviewed and have been found to include the use-quality relation-
ship as presented. It should be emphasized that Exhibit II-1 is not intended
to be a comprehensive summary of all publications that have purported
specific relationships but should be viewed as only a representative selec-
tion of studies that have suggested use-quality relationships. The inclusion
of additional studies would, in all likelihood, merely increase the number
of references by specific pollutant. There is, of course, the possibility
that a few more specific pollutants would be added to an already rather
lengthy list.
-------
Exhibit II-1.
Water Characteristics or Constituents Detrimental
to Water Based Recreational Activity
Characteristic or Constituent
Reference Number .1
*/
Physical:
Clarity
Color
Odor
Temperature
Turbidity
Sediment
Floating solids
**/6
TSS—'
Foam, slime, and scum
Algae
Weeds and plants
Litter and debris
Microbiological:
Coliforms and other organisms
Inorganic:
Pesticides
Herbicides
Ha rdne s s
PH
TDS
Nutrients (nitrogen and phosphates)
Toxic substances
Phenols
Other inorganics
***/
8, 83, 126, 3, 7, 84,40
8, 117, 126, 3, 85, 10,40, 121, 130, 76
8, 117, 126, 3, 64,40, 121, 130
8, 114, 117, 126, 3, 11, 85, 10, 40, 121,
130,76, 78, 120
8, 117, 126, 84, 2, 85, 10, 121, 130,
76, 78, 120
8, 3, 84, 2,40, 76, 78
126,40, 121
117, 2, 85, 121
8, 117, 126, 11,40, 130, 78
8, 117, 3, 7, 11,40, 121, 130, 76, 118, 78
8, 117, 126, 3, 7, 11, 40, 78
8, 117, 126, 3, 7, 84, 11,40
8, 19, 42, 52, 46, 5, 117, 126, 3, 84, 85, 10,
40, 121, 76, 118, 78, 120
8,117,3,40,121,78
117, 121
3, 85
75, 117, 11, 2, 85, 10, 40, 121, 78, 120
117, 85, 121, 130, 76, 120
8, 117, 3, 11, 2, 85,40, 121, 1, 130,
118, 78, 120
114, 117, 3, 115, 40, 121, 130, 76
40, 121, 1, 76, 118, 120
8, 3, 2, 85,40, 121, 130, 76, 118, 78
10
-------
Exhibits II- 1. (continued)
Characteristic or Constituent
Reference Number
Organic:
BOD
DO
Oil and gasoline
Organic poisons
Other organics
Radioactivity
Taste
117, 85, 115, 10, 79,40, 121, 130,
33, 120
75, 117, 11, 2, 85, 64, 10,40, 121, 78, 120
8, 117, 126, 3, 10,40, 121, 1, 78
117, 115, 121
8,3,40
11, 61
117, 121, 130
—' Reference numbers refer to the numerical listing of references at the end
of the report.
— Includes settable solids.
***/
Includes heavy metals.
11
-------
The conclusion that must be reached, however, at this rather premature
point is that there are many specific pollutants that have been hypothe-
sized as potentially detrimental to water based recreational activity.
Some of these use-quality relationships would not be sufficiently important
to result in use avoidance or substantially alter the recreational ex-
perience of the participant but do possess the potential for decreasing
(perhaps only slightly) the quality of the recreational experience.
C. REPORTED DAMAGES
The second step is to present a listing of documented damages or im-
pacts by specific pollutant. This information is presented in Exhibit
II-2. The basis for inclusion in this exhibit is that reference has been
made to reported damages or concentrations of specific pollutants at
which damage may reasonably be expected--based on actual water quality
analysis or laboratory simulation of environmental conditions. Again
the exhibit must not be viewed as a comprehensive listing of all re-
ported damages or critical levels at which damage may be expected but
rather a representative listing.
One final word of caution is perhaps appropriate at this point. Some of
the studies were not intended to relate damages by specific pollutants
to beneficial uses as classified herein. Some extensions were therefore
required. For example, several studies have referenced specific levels
of nutrients at which algae blooms may be expected. In view of the fact
that other studies have documented that perceptible algae growths are
undesirable and are responsible for nuisance conditions that have the
potential of deterring recreational activity or reducing the pleasure of
the recreational experience, the specified nutrient levels associated
with algae blooms have been viewed or interpreted as reported damages.
The conclusion that must be reached is analogous to the results derived
by reviewing Exhibit II-1. That is, there are many pollutants that can
and have influenced either expenditures or participation in water based
recreational activity or can, in some way, reduce the satisfaction
derived from participating in water based recreational activity.
Several representative examples and further documentation of established
damage levels or damage thresholds referenced in Exhibit II-2 are also
included as separate attachments in the Appendix of this report. It is
possible that some of the established critical levels or damage thresholds
can be traced back to arbitrary standards established by various agencies.
In that there is considerable evidence that some established standards
are not sensitive or responsive to actual water quality requirements, an
attempt has been made to avoid this type of damage documentation.
12
-------
Exhibit II-2. Reported Damages and Established. Critical Levels
by Specific Pollutant
Characteristic
or
Constituent
Critical
Level
Reference
Number
Effect
Physical;
Clarity
Color
8,94
8,94
Undesirable physical characteristic
deterring recreational activity
Odor
Temperature
85°F
76
Change of
3°F 76
76
76
1.5°F 76
Turbidity
Sediment
Algae
Weeds and aquatic
plants
33,21, 73
99,100
2, 78, 35
35,73,94,
99,2
8, 11, 80,
78,99,9
78,9
Undesirable physiological effect on
swimmers
Undesirable effect on fish and other
aquatic life depending on species,
life cycle and season of the year
(See Attachment A, Appendix A)
Other undesirable attributes of
temperature changes on recreational
activity
Reduced fish catches and undesirable
effects of increased turbidity on
recreational activity
Increased reservoir deposits, reduced
fish catches and reduced recreational
value of streams and reservoirs
Use avoidance, aquatic life effects and
reduction in recreational value resulting
in increased algae growth
Reduced usability of recreational
water bodies resulting from aquatic
weed and plant pests
13
-------
Exhibit II-2 (continued)
Characteristic
or
Constituent
Critical
Level
Reference
Number
Effect
Mic robiologicaj.;
Coliform & Other
200 FC/
100 ml
46
Health risks associated with primary
contact recreation in polluted waters
19,5, 11,118
Inorganic Pollutants
Pesticides 0.5 ppm
(endrine)
pH
Alkalinity
TDS
5-9
6-9
6.7-8.5
Change of
0. 1
16, 11, 33,
41, 21,73
76
76
76
76
107
20mg/l 78
20-40
mg/1
78
90 mg/1 78
1.5 g/1
of NaCl
76
Toxicity of pesticides affecting fish
and other aquatic life including species
change (See Attachment B, Appendix A)
Acceptable range for contact recreation
Acceptable range for aquatic life
Acceptable range for aquatic plants
pH change of 0. 1 of saline water has
been shown to be fatal to some species
of fish
Damages to recreational resources
(See Attachment C , Appendix A)
Water with alkalinity of 20 mg/1 is
low in fish and aquatic plant produc-
tivity
Water with alkalinity of 20-40 mg/1 is
low to medium in fish and aquatic plant
productivity
Water with total alkalinity of greater
than 90 mg/1 has been shown to be high
in fish and aquatic plant productivity
Concentrations of 50 millimoles (1.5
g/1 of NaCl) have been shown to ad-
versely affect aquatic plant life
14
-------
Exhibit II-2 (continued)
Characteristic
or
Constituent
Inorganic Pollutants
Boron
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Sulfate & Sulfide
Chlorophenol
Critical
Level
(continued)
1 mg/1 -
15 mg/1
0.01 mg/1
5 mg/1
0.5 mg/1
0.1 mg/1
0.5 mg/1
1.0 - 25.0
mg/1
.0001
mg/1
Reference
Numbe r
76
76
76
76
76
76
76
61,76, 118,
16
Effect
Inhibits growth of aquatic life
Inhibits growth of aquatic life
Adversely affects plant life
Adversely affects fish life
Adversely affects plant life
Adversely affects animal life
Lethal to some species of fish
Taints fish flesh. (See Attachment D
& E, Appendix A)
Mercury
Other toxic sub-
stances
Phosphorus
43
Economic damage due to mercury
scare including sport fishing
61, 115, 68, Aquatic plant and animal impacts
20, 73 associated with toxic substances (See
Attachment F,G,H,I and J, Appendix A)
.015 mg/1 118
.015 mg/1
50 mg/1
80
76
Critical level above which algae blooms
may be expected
Nuisance algae conditions may be
expected
Undesirable plant life can generally be
expected to exist in water with greater
than 50 m phosphorus
11,2,16, Reduced recreation value, lethal fish
78,94 dosages, and nuisance condition have
been as-sociated with excessive con-
centration of phosphorus
15
-------
Exhibit II-2 (continued)
Characteristic
or
Constituent
Critical
Level
Reference
Numbe r
Effect
Inorganic Pollutants (continued)
Nitrogen 0.3 mg/1
Nutrients (in
general)
118 Algae blooms may be expected
94 Reduced recreational value of surface
water bodies resulting from excessive
concentration of nitrogen
11,80,9, Reduced recreational value and
94 usability associated with excessive
concentration of nutrients
Organic Pollutants
DO
BOD
Oil
200-400
ppm
2, 73, 100,
94,9
61
15 lb/acre 16
/day
(0. 2 ppm/
day
50 gal/sq. 76
mile
5-50 mg/1 76
61
81,89,21
73
Undesirable effects on fish life and the
general desirability of recreational
water
Odor problems associated with ex-
cessive BOD levels. (See Attachment
K, Appendix A)
Associated with oxygen deficient water
Perceptible water discoloration (See
Attachment L, Appendix A)
Toxic to some forms of wild life
Beach closings
Undesirable recreational impacts
associated with oil pollution
16
-------
In addition to the reported damages and critical levels portrayed in the
above exhibit, there is a group of researchers that have been concerned
with quantifying public perception, attitudes and use avoidance associated
with water quality degradation. While changing public attitudes and the
reluctance to utilize surface water bodies for recreational purposes
may not constitute a physical damage per se, the results are the same
since reluctance to recreate or the reduced pleasure derived from
recreating in polluted waters may result in decreased usage, reduced
expenditures and a possible reduction in human welfare.
Several studies have attempted to quantify use avoidance, public aware-
ness, perception and concern through the use of interview techniques.
The results of these studies are depicted in Exhibits II-3 and II-4. Exhibit
II-3 presents a listing of site user's concern of the possible detrimental
effects of water pollution on boats, fishing equipment and aquatic life.
Exhibit II-4 presents the results of several use avoidance studies. .The
latter exhibit presents the percentage of those interviewed that reportedly
had or would curtail their recreational activities as a direct result of
increased pollution.
The obvious question that now arises is, what has been done to quantify
the above mentioned physical damages in economic terms?
D. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF RECREATIONAL DAMAGES AND BENEFITS
Summarizing the economic studies in a manner similar to that employed
above reduces the rather lengthy presentations to an astonishingly brief
summary.
It appears that the deluge of literature on the subject has resulted in
very few studies that have attempted to empirically quantify the economics
of waste disposal alternatives. Coomber and Biswas have succinctly
summarized their feeling concerning the success of the environmental
movement in the following material.
"In recent years, the conservation movement has received support for
environmental programs by virtue of its popularity among the public at
large, and not independently with the media. The non-profit making,
voluntary and sometimes heroic actions of a few concerned individuals,
with their few perceptible achievements, have contrasted sharply with
a deluge of literature issued on the subject. Rarely has a cause with
such acclaim and documentation achieved so little." (23)
17
-------
Exhibit II-3. Site user's concern of possible detrimental effects
of water pollution on boats, fishing equipment
and fish in nine Illinois lakes —
r
Possible Effect of Water Pollution
Percent of Site Users Reporting
Concern over the Possible Harm-
ful Effects of Pollution on Boats,
Fishing Equipment and Fish
Water stains on boats
Rusts, corrodes, or rots boats
Dirt or deposits on boats
Wears paint on boats
Stains fishing equipment
Corrodes or rots fishing equipment
Dirt and deposits on fishing equipment
Reduces number of fish
Reduces size of fish
Affects taste of fish
Affects odor of fish
Makes fish undesirable to handle
81.1
86.2
69.5
75.6
72.7
100.0
100.0
90.9
95.9
97.5
90.8
94.9
*Reference 3
18
-------
Exhibit n-4. Use avoidance or curtailed usage of recreational waters as a
result of increased pollution
General Recreation: Swimming: Percent Inter-
Percent of site users viewed reporting specific
interviewed reporting pollutants that would deter
reduced recreational swimming in surface
usage of surface waters^.' water—'
Unclean
Dirty
Odor
Algae
Dead fish
Litter debris
Weeds and plants
Fertilizer
Soap and detergents
Mud, silt or sand
Sharp stones
Glass
Oil, grease and gas
Insecticides
Chemicals
Bacteria
Sewage
Manure or animal waste
Suds and foam
Pollution in general
12.7 40
19.1 40
14.9
5.6 80
12.2
10.7 40
7.7 40
16.3
8.6
14.2
9.9
7.3 70
8. 1
11.4
30. 1
12.8
20.8
16.3 30
20
***/
Po-rr~»nt Interviewed Pepo^ting ^Ts6 Avoidan^0
Swimming Water Skiing Fishing Boating
20 522
*/
— Reference 3 (Study of use avoidance or curtailed usage of site users
in nine Illinois Lakes.)
##/
Reference 29 (Study of specific pollutants potentially detrimental to
swimming in Wisconsin Lakes.)
***/
Reference 12.6 (Percent of respondents indicating they would refrain
from engaging in various water related activities in San Francisco
Bay because of pollution.)
19
-------
Exhibit II-5 presents a list of economic studies containing estimates of
recreational damages or benefits by specific pollutant. The criteria
for inclusion in the exhibit is restricted to those studies that contain
estimates of recreational damages or benefits accompanied by the
methodology employed to derive these estimates. It is recognized that
there are numerous other estimates of the economic damage of pollution
or estimates of the benefits of water quality enhancement that frequently
appear in popular publications. While there is considerable value in this
type of estimate, they cannot be evaluated without the knowledge of the
methodology employed. For this reason, this type of estimate has not
been included herein.
Prior to commenting on the methodologies utilized and the adequacy of the
data of each study, it is perhaps expedient to summarize the above three
exhibits into one concise summary which is intended to portray those
specific areas that have been the subject of past studies and those areas
presently lacking economic quantification. Exhibit II-6 clearly shows that
even though there are numerous hypothesized damages and reported
damages there are relatively few studies concerned with the economics
of water quality degradation or enhancement.
E. EVALUATION
Exhibits II-5 and II-6 include a total of eight studies that have in some
way attempted to quantify in economic terms the recreational benefits
or damages of water quality degradation or enhancement. There is,
however, a great disparity in the methods adopted and the adequacy
of the resulting estimates. Before one can ascertain the appropriate
direction of future research, the adequacy of the data and methodology
incorporated in existing studies should be discussed. For this reason
a very brief evaluation of the above eight studies is presented below.
This evaluation is not intended to be an indepth study or complete review
of all theoretical and methodological considerations but is instead con-
cerned with briefly reiterating what has been measured and how it has
been quantified.
A variety of techniques have been proposed to measure or evaluate
environmental intangibles in monetary terms. These include, but are
not limited to, the following techniques and methods:
20
-------
Exhibit II-5. Economic Studies of Recreational Damages
and Benefits by Specific Pollutant
Characteristic or Constituent
*/
Reference Number —
BOD
DO
Algae
Beach Improvement
Sedimentation
Temperature
Toxic Substances
General Quality Indices
pH (acid mine drainage)
10,79
115, 64
99
99
35
99
115
85
59
(kraft mill effluents only)
*/
85. Nemerow, Nelson L. and Hisashi Sumitomo, Benefits of Water
Quality Enhancement (Onondago Lake), Water Pollution Control
Research Series, 16110 DAJ 12/70.
115. Stoevener, Herbert H. , etal. , Multi-Disciplinary Study of Watej:
Quality Relationships: A Case Study of Yaquina Bay, Oregon,
Oregon State University, Special Report 348, Feb. , 1972.
64.. Kneese, Allen V. and Stephen C. Smith, "The Social Value of Water
Recreational Facilities Resulting from an Improvement in Water
Quality: The Delaware Estuary," by Davidson, Paul, F. Gerard
Adams and Joseph Seneca, from Water Research, Resources for
the Future, Inc. , 1965.
10. Bramer, H. C. , The Economic Aspects of the Water Pollution
Abatement Program in the Ohio River Valley, Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Pittsburg, I960.
79. Matson, Jack V. , "Cost of Industrial and Municipal Water Pollution
Abatement in the Maumee River Basin," MS Thesis, University of
Toledo, January 1968.
35. Dow Chemical Co. , Midland, Michigan, "An Economic Analysis of
Erosion and Sediment Control Methods for Watersheds Undergoing
Urbanization (C-1677), Final Report Feb. 15, 1971 -Feb. 14, 1972.
21
-------
Exhibit II-3 (continued) footnote s
99. Reiling, S. D., et al. , "Economic Benefits from an Improvement in
Water Quality," Office of Research and Monitoring, U.S. EPA,
EPA-R5-73-008, January, 1973.
59. Kinney, Edward C. , "Extent of Acid Mine Pollution in the United
States Affecting Fish and Wildlife," U. S. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
Wildlife, Circular 191, 1964.
22
-------
Exhibit H-6. Summary of Hypothesized, Documented and Economic
Appraisal of Water Quality Associated Recreational Benefits
and Damages by Pollutant
Hypothesized
Relationships
Physical;
Clarity
Color
Odor
Temperature
Turbidity
Sediment
Floating solids
TSS
Foam, slime and scum
Algae
Weeds and plants
Litter and debris
Microbiological;
Coliform and other organisms
Inorganic:
Pesticides
Herbicides
Hardness
PH
TDS
Nutrients
Toxic substances
Other inorganics
Organic:
BOD
DO
Oil and gasoline
Other organics
X-'
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Documented
Damages
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Economic
Analysis
Reference No.
99
35
99
59
1 1 5 (kraf t
mill efflu-
ent only)
10.79
115, 64
Radioactivity X X
Taste X X
General Water Quality Indices
Pollution Index X X 85
*/ Recreational use-quality relationships (hypothesized and documented) pre-
viously discussed and presented in Exhibits II-l and II-2 are denoted by X's,
23
-------
Willingness to Pay
Hotelling-Trice-Wood Method
Claws on's Method
Consumers' Surplus
Non-discriminating Monopolist
Expenditures Method
Cost Method
Gross National Product
Value Added
While the above list is not exhaustive, it does include most of the methods
currently employed. The problem that is encountered is that some studies
(some successfully and others unsuccessfully) incorporate several of
the above techniques in various segments of the analysis and consequently
a classification of studies by methodology employed is again difficult.
It is also obvious that as of this time there is not complete unanimity
concerning the technique that should be employed in quantifying water
quality associated benefits. Should the Clawon method which utilizes
site-user data be utilized to construct the recreationalist's demand func-
tion or are other methods which utilize nonuser data preferred? The
results are not analogous (101). Is the relevant portion under the demand
curve the maximum revenue of the non-discriminating monopolist or is
the consumer's surplus to be included? These are a few of the methodolog-
ical controversies that are still being debated at this time.
This lack of agreement is partially explained by the fact that some
authors are concerned with quantifying the value of recreation in very
small and perhaps isolated regional'economy while others are concerned
with the impacts of larger and more diverse geographical areas. The
major reason for the source of controversy, however, stems from the
fact that quantification of the benefits of water quality enhancement
involves assigning values to or measuring intangible, incommensurate
factors. This requires the development of appropriate techniques
designed to circumvent the problem which inevitably leads to further
discussions of the relative merits of alternative techniques.
It is also expedient to mention at this point that few have undertaken
the task of systematically estimating national recreational benefits
of water quality enhancement. Factors such as the substitution
phenomenon (areal substitution within water based recreation and
substitution within other nonwater based recreational activities)
maybe expected to intensify the methodological controversey.
Z4
-------
Without further elaboration, we shall briefly comment on the adequacy
of the above mentioned studies which is followed by a concise summary
statement concerning the current state of the arts of estimating recrea-
tional benefits of water quality enhancement.
Onondaga Lake (85)
The Onondaga Lake study entitled "Benefits of Water Quality Enhance-
ment" resulted in an estimate of the benefits of improved water quality
in Onondaga Lake at 4.4 million dollars, most of which consist of recrea-
tional benefits (3. 7 million dollars). The recreational benefits included
those derived from increased fishing and general recreational activity.
The technique employed is essentially a comparative demand analysis,
i.e. , estimating direct expenditures at the existing water quality and
at a higher water quality with the difference being entitled net annual
measurable social benefits for Onondaga Lake at improved water quality.
This is a rather unfortunate use of terminology in that the term net
benefits is normally net of the cost of pollution abatement which is not
reflected in the "net benefit" number derived.
The specific procedures employed, i.e., decaying demand functions
associated with greater distance and per capita unit demand adds a
distinct Clawson flavor to the study.
While the above study is one of the few that undertakes the unprecedented
task of empirically estimating a wide variety of benefits of water quality
enhancement, there are several features that limit its usefulness. First,
the study quantifies only the direct expenditure incurred in the pursuit of
recreational activity. Second round influences are not included. Secondly,
the procedures utilized to estimate the recreational demand at the present
water quality and at improved water quality are not sufficiently specified.
Other authors have explored and utilized more sophisticated and highly
specified recreational participation models which we believe are preferred
on the basis that a more detailed explanation of the recreationalists be-
havior results. An additional criticism, in no way unique to this study,
is that only direct monetary benefits are considered. The authors do
not explore the possibility of estimating option demand, latent demand,
time spent in travel, time spent recreating, or secondary effects of in-
creased expenditures. The simplistic demand functions developed
possess value but can not and were not represented as anything more
than a. partial quantification of direct monetary benefits of water quality
enhancement. It is believed that these features are serious enough to
prevent the results to be construed as being accurate measures of the
net social benefits of water quality enhancement.
25
-------
Yaguina Bay (115)
The Yaquina Bay study, (115) provides an example of attempts to
develop a more adequate methodological base to estimate the benefits
of alternative waste disposal practices. The methodology developed
incorporates the input from several disciplines to explain the biological
and economic effects of pollution. This is accomplished by constructing
a biological production function responsive to increased pollution which
also influences angling success and therefore angling behavior.
The use of input-output procedures also provides an excellent way of
quantifying the interindustry relations and impacts of recreational ex-
penditures on the local community. The portion of the report con-
cerning the interpretation of the economic alternatives associated with
waste disposal is unique and far superior to any other study reviewed
in that it clearly and adequately discusses various economic alternatives.
In summary, the biological aspects of pollution, recreational demand
specification and estimation with and without pollution, explanation of
the area economic structure and the economic interpretation of the
results are clearly preferred to most existing studies concerned with
the recreational impacts of waste disposal.
Due to the fact that the geographical area studied possess a highly
specialized recreational resource and only the monetary effects of
kraftmill effluent on sport fishing were explored; there is only limited
appliability to other geographical areas.
Delaware Estuary (64)
The Delaware Estuary study -- perhaps the most comprehensively
studied basin in the U.S. -- provides a third source of benefit estimates.
This particular area is one of the most heavily populated and polluted
areas of the country. As a result, the basin has been the source of
a great deal of water quality management research.
The Delaware Estuary study provides a good illustration of how cost-
sensitivity analysis can be applied to alternative goals and further pro-
vides a rigorous mathematical representation of waste assimilative and
transport capacity of the estuary. The various objective functions con-
sider the source and impact of a large number of pollutants. The con-
cern here, however, is confined to the contributions of the study to
estimating recreation benefits.
26
-------
In this regard the Delaware estuary study considers the influence of
dissolved oxygen levels on recreational activity. The major contribu-
tions lie in the highly specified recreation participation model indicating
a large latent recreational demand. Beyond this, however, its con-
tributions concerning estimating recreational benefits are quite limited.
The benefit values derived are based on ascribed values (from $1 to $5)
for an additional recreational day's activity resulting from water quality
enhancement.
It therefore appears that its contribution to empirical recreational
benefit estimation are rather limited with the exception of the recrea-
tion participation model and the latent demand concept.
Ohio and Maumee Basins (10, 79)
Studies by Bramer and Matson provide another source of empirical
estimates of recreational benefits. Both of these studies are concerned
with the benefits associated with primary and secondary waste water
treatment and associated BOD reduction. The technique utilized to
estimate the benefits of water quality enhancement is the total ex-
penditure method. Bramer's assumptions concerning recreational
benefits of water quality enhancement are not highly refined. The in-
auguration of secondary treatment is assumed to increase recreational
expenditure by 50 percent. The basis of this assumption is not well
specified and may be questioned. While the study was a pioneering effort
it is in need of additional refinement.
The study by Matson incorporates similar assumptions and methods
as employed by Bramer and therefore makes no additional contribution
to benefit estimation but does provide an estimate of recreation benefits
for another geographical area.
Other Studies
The effects of sediment on recreation have been estimated in "An
Economic Analysis of Erosion and Sediment Control Methods for Water-
sheds Undergoing Urbanization, " by the Dow Chemical Company.
Recreational benefits are estimated by projecting the number of recrea-
tionalists and estimating the present value of benefits per ton of sediment
removed. While the major portion of the paper is concerned with
engineering aspects of sediment control, it is one of the only estimates
of benefits of sediment removal and therefore has considerable value.
Various features of the study could be (with slight modification) applied
to other hydrologic regions.
27
-------
A publication sponsored by the Office of Research and Monitoring, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, entitled "Economic Benefits from an
Improvement in Water Quality," provides empirical .estimates of the bene-
fits of algae removal, temperature reduction and beach improvement. The
estimates of recreational expenditures with and without water quality im-
provement provides an opportunity to estimate the benefits of water quality
enhancement using the consumer surplus method. Both primary and
secondary effects of increased recreational expenditures are provided for
the case study area -- Klamath Lake, Oregon. In general, the methodology
and data appears to be much more comprehensive and well specified than
most of the previously discussed studies. Even the latter study is con-
cerned primarily with estimating the demand shifts resulting from water
quality enhancement but does not consider complex substitution and many
other factors which may be expected to change as water quality in this lake
and other surface water bodies improves.
The last benefit estimate is that provided by the U.S. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wild-
life. This estimate is derived by inventorying the extent of acid mine
damage and assigning utilization and daily expenditure data to obtain esti-
mates of national recreational benefits to be realized from the restoration
of acid mine waters.
F. SUMMARY
The evaluation of the feasibility of environmental policies and controls
will, in all likelihood, be couched in traditional benefit cost framework.
Since the implementing agency is a federal agency and the costs of con-
trol are at the present time formulated in terms of national costs in the
form of various national water bills, it is desirable that the benefits of
water quality enhancement be formulated in a similar manner to achieve
the required comparability of benefits and costs. It is therefore expedient
to briefly evaluate the existing work on estimating water quality benefits
in terms of their contributions to deriving national benefit estimates.
This type of summary or evaluation is somewhat unfortunate in that all
of the above economic studies have (with the exception of reference 59)
addressed the question of regional benefits of water quality enhancement.
Notwithstanding, the urgency of acquiring national benefit estimates re-
quires that such a summary be undertaken so as to focus more sharply
on areas requiring additional research.
28
-------
As has been previously stated, many (indeed most) studies concerning
water based recreation are concerned with water availability or water
quantity as opposed to water quality. A sizable portion of the remaining
studies is concerned with evaluating water quality standards that have
been adopted by various state, local or federal agencies. Even within
this group of studies, there is considerable controversy. While many
researchers conclude that there is little relationship between established
standards and the occurrence of actual damages, there are also those
who prefer restrictive standards based on potential risks as opposed to
actual damages. In the area of establishing national standards, there
is even more controversy due to the geographic variation in the effects of
various pollutants due to differential effects of various hydrologic and
climatic conditions. While it is not the purpose herein to engage in a
long discussion of the merits of existing or established standards, the
controversy encountered is indicative of the entire area of water quality
mana ge me nt.
Considerable attention has also been devoted to various methodological
aspects of estimating water quality associated benefits and damages
(114, 117, 86, 72, 51, 124, 85). The results are inconclusive. There
is little agreement on the appropriate methodology to be employed in
estimating water quality associated benefits, e.g. , is the consumer
surplus or the nondiscriminating method more appropriate. There does,
however, appear to be some evidence that the consumer surplus method
is gaining in popularity as a method to be used in assessing regional
benefits of water quality enhancement (99, 115). Few have attempted,
however, to expound on the applicable methodology for estimating
national recreational benefits of water quality enhancement. While
little has been done in this area, it is safe to say that techniques and
methods applicable for regional studies are not equally apropos to the
estimation of national water quality benefits without at least some alter-
ations. The sum of the regional impacts is not necessarily the desired
national estimate.
What then do the above cited economic studies contribute to the esti-
mation of national water quality associated recreational benefits? Our
opinion is that while the above studies have made many contributions to
estimating the regional recreational benefits, they can not be used per se
in the quest for national water quality associated benefits. The essential
building blocks or foundations have perhaps been established.
29
-------
The first reason is that all of the studies are incomplete, i.e. , some
essential considerations have been deleted from all of them. Their in-
tent, in some cases, was to concentrate on only one facet of recreational
benefits, e. g. , sport fishing or some other beneficial use. Secondly,
even those studies that attempted to estimate all benefits failed to include
various factors. Recreational benefits of water quality enhancement
encompasses much more than merely a subset of the monetary measur-
able benefits of water quality enhancement. Consideration should be
given to option demand, latent demand, psychic income, second round
effects and substitution effects. It is well recognized that the quantifi-
cation of these factors is currently impossible, however, recognition
of some of these factors is essential.
Still another factor limiting the usefulness of the above studies is that
almost all of the above studies are problem, project and crisis oriented
in nature and as such apply to the specific problems of specialized geo-
graphical areas, i.e. , the problems associated with Yaquina Bay
Klamath Lake are not typical of the nation as a whole. The generalization
of the results may therefore be questionable. One study looks at sport
fishing and another the benefits of algae removal. The benefits to the
sport fishing industry in the Northwest may have little correspondence
with the sport fishing industry of the Southeast. To further reiterate the
point, the studies tend to be noncomparable and unique for several reasons,
Some consider primary benefits only while others include secondary bene-
fits. Others include only very crude and arbitrary benefit estimates while
others include highly specified recreational participation models. Others
look at only specific pollutants while some discuss the effects of pollution
in general or utilize various pollution indices.
The studies as such are not amenable to aggregation but much can be
gained by incorporating various features of each study into further
research endeavors which are explicitly designed to estimate national
recreational benefits of water quality enhancement. Regional studies
have merit in themselves and efforts should be focused on extending
the analysis on a national basis.
30
-------
G. RECOMMENDATIONS
Many of the limitations encountered seem to stem from the fact that as
of the present time the research conducted has been rather piecemeal,
problem, project and crisis oriented in nature. While much has been
gained in the way of quantifying recreational participation and the effects
of water quality enhancement for specific uses and areas, much could be
gained by restructuring the emphasis to include the development of national
estimates of the benefits of water quality enhancement. The scope of
the national recreation benefit study must be expanded to consider in
greater detail the complex behavioral and economic impacts associated
with estimating demand shifts associated with multibasin water quality
enhancement. The scope can not be couched in the traditional and
simplistic demand shifts associated with water quality enhancement in
a specific reservoir exogenous of other surface water bodies. Such a
study must consider all water based recreational activities, second round
effects and other concepts such as latent demand, option demand, esthetic
satisfaction of the recreationalist and the substitution phenomenon. The
study must also recognize from the inception that the objective is to de-
rive national estimates of recreational benefits of pollution abatement
and must therefore select representative areas for which the results can
be generalized to acquire the desired national totals.
31
-------
SECTION III
WATER QUALITY AND ESTHETICS
A. INTRODUCTION
The results of the preceding section -- the inability or as some would say,
the unwillingness of the economist to quantify recreational benefits or the
damages of water quality degradation in monetary terms -- provides con-
siderable insight into the results that can be expected in this section. This
anticipated result stems from the fact that esthetics, like recreation, in-
volves many intangible nonmonetary considerations that do not as such
enter the market mechanism.
The beneficial use discussed herein -- esthetics enjoyment -- has been
included as a subcategory or subset of the first major beneficial use. This
section could be included in the recreation section previously discussed
in that the beneficial use distinction is admittedly rather germane. In fact
it is quite difficult at times to differentiate recreational benefits from
esthetic benefits. For example, it is esthetically pleasing to fishermen
and nonfishermen alike to view a cool, clear surface water body with a
thriving trout population. Even the knowledge -- without intended use --
that such a stream exists provides the source of esthetic satisfaction.
Some may be inclined to differentiate on the basis of activity, i.e. , acti-
vities which directly involve the use of surface water for recreation
(swimming, boating, etc.) as opposed to activities such as sight-seeing
where surface water may be only a secondary consideration. This
criteria is not appreciably superior in that it is equally difficult to dif-
ferentiate on this basis, i.e. , the fisherman may derive greater satis-
faction from the scenic or esthetic qualities of the area than from fishing.
There are, however, several studies that do not conveniently fall into
the recreation category and are therefore classified as studies concerned
with the general esthetic benefits of pollution abatement.
Attempts have been made to keep the format of this section similar to
that utilized in the recreation section. There will, however, be devi-
ations necessitated because of varying methodologies employed and
differences in the state of knowledge.
32
-------
B. HYPOTHESIZED CHARACTERISTICS AFFECTING ESTHETIC
SATISFACTION
The list of specific pollutants or water quality constituents potentially
detrimental to esthetic satisfaction could conceivably include every known
pollutant. The inclusion of the option demand concept virtually guarantees
a lengthy list of specific pollutants that are potentially detrimental to
esthetic satisfaction or appreciation.
One problem that is immediately encountered is that few authors have
attempted to compile a complete list of pollutants capable of impacting
esthetic appreciation. This is to be expected considering the evasive
nature of esthetic satisfaction and the complexities encountered in their
quantification. Since, however, esthetic appreciation and recreation are
so closely aligned, the list of pollutants may include all of the hypothe-
sized pollutants effecting water based recreation presented earlier.
All of the pollutants included in the earlier exhibit affect aquatic life,
wild life support potential or human usability or surface water bodies and
therefore esthetic appreciation.
In addition to these factors, there are other considerations that influence
the esthetic satisfaction derived from surface water bodies and natural
resources in general. Many of these considerations include unique physical
attributes associated with surface water bodies or the surrounding environs.
Some of these factors are not directly related to water pollution but instead
relate to other factors such as accessibility, historical value, urbanization,
remoteness or other "indirect" consideration. These factors are, never-
theless, important considerations that must be appraised in ascertaining the
value of natural resources which in turn may be affected by increased water
quality degradation. These hypothesized characteristics and constituents
are presented in Exhibit III-l. The documentation has been deleted from
this exhibit in that they come from one of three other sources (i.e. ,
reference 71, 31, 2).
It is recognized that Exhibit ni-1 presents a slight deviation from the
procedure established in Exhibit II-1 in that the latter exhibit includes
many considerations other than strictly water quality factors.
The second step in the state of the arts assessment of recreation benefits
and damages was to present a listing or summary of reported or docu-
mented damages. A comparable procedure was undertaken for esthetic
benefits and damages of water quality enhancement or water quality de-
gradation.
33
-------
Exhibit III-l. Factors that Must be Considered in Assessing the
Esthetic Value of Surface Water Bodies
and Other Natural Resources
I. Physical
Water Quality Characteristics
Clarity
Color
Odor
Temperature
Turbidity
Sediment
Floating solids
TSS
Foalm slime and scum
Algae
Weeds and plants
Litter and debris
Other Physical Characteristics
Drainage area
Stream order
Average gradient
Total relief
Average flood plain width
Average valley height/average valley width
Stream width
Stream depth
Stream velocity
Bed material
Floatability
Invertebrates - total no.
Invertebrates - diversity
34
-------
Exhibit III-1 (continued)
II. Land Use Measures
Other Physical Attributes
Forest cover
Slopes
Land use
Remoteness
Artificial controls
Water supply and sewage plants
Productive industry
Extraactive industry
Valley terrestial habitat
Hillsides terrestial habitat
III. Esthetic Impression Measures
Including Natural and Man-made Considerations
Visual pattern quality
Land husbandry
Degree of change
Recovery potential
Local scene
View confinement
Serenity
Naturalness
Geological values
Historical values
Diversity - flora and fauna
Artificial controls (dams, etc.)
Accessibility
Vistas
View confinement
Utilities
Urbanization
35
-------
C. DOCUMENTED ESTHETIC DAMAGES AND BENEFITS OF WATER
QUALITY ENHANCEMENT
In the case of recreational benefits and damages bf water quality enhance-
ment, it was possible to construct a list of documented damages and spec-
ific pollutant levels at which damage could reasonably be expected. In the
case of esthetic benefits and damages, it is exceedingly difficult to attach
a specific level or concentration at which damage occurs. For example,
how many pieces of litter are required before esthetic appreciation is
reduced? What is the value of game fish relative to rough fish? There
have, however, been several studies which have utilized interview tech-
niques to ascertain percentages of participants that object to various
natural and man-made attributes of or associated with the esthetic
appreciation of natural resources.
Exhibit ni-2 presents a list of unattractive features and the percentages
of participants interviewed that find specific features objectionable. Several
of the studies have been oriented to recreational usage of water, however,
many of the undesirable esthetic attributes listed may well be displeasing
to the nonrecreationalist as well.
Other undesirable esthetic considerations that concern recreationalists
and other users of surface water bodies are listed in the Appendix of this
report. These unappealing aspects include a variety of esthetic con-
siderations reported by both users and nonusers, only a. few of which
are directly related to water quality. These characteristics have been
assessed to determine public perception, attitudes and behavior in
references 126, 7 and 27.
D. ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF ESTHETIC QUALITIES OF WATER
The quantification of esthetic considerations of water quality enhance-
ment is lagging even the quantification of recreational benefits. Most of
the work at this time has been confined merely to ascertaining desirable
and undesirable environmental impacts and has not at this time undertaken
to quantify in monetary terms the esthetic benefits or damages. Any attempt
to do so has -- out of desperation -- taken the approach of ascertaining the
magnitude of the benefits needed to equal or exceed the benefits of a specific
development project (62). While such an approach is understandable in
36
-------
Exhibit HI-2. Unappealing Esthetic Qualities Reported by Users
and Nonusers of Recreational Areas
Percent Interviewed Indicating
Unappealing Response to
Esthetic Characteristics Specific Esthetic Factors —'
Water pollution 51
View 8
Water Characteristics (general) 10
Recreation opportunities 5
Climate 6
Commercial factors 8
Nothing in particular 28
Irrelevant responses 4
Water characteristics 27.5
Natural surroundings 8. 1
Facilities and man-made surroundings 17.7
Opportunities for specific activities 6.8
Generally attractive or pleasant 3.2
Nothing 62.5
Unclear 8. 1
Dirty 14.2
Bottom quality 3. 5
Odor 1.7
Temperature 1.7
Too small 1.2
Too shallow 2. 5
Weeds, plants, algae 3.8
Other pollutants 2.5
Surroundings 1.3
Lack of activities Sc facilities 3.4
Generally unattractive or unpleasant 1.3
Othe r 7.2
Nothing 47.7
*/
— The first eight characteristics and responses are in reference to the
effects of water pollution in San Francisco Bay (126) while the remainder
of the responses are in reference to user response for nine Illinois lakes.
37
-------
view of the difficulties encountered in assessing intangible benefits, it
does leave something to be desired when the evaluation technique is
couched in terms of benefit cost analysis. Other than the above reference
(62) which is concerned with the option value of Hells Canyon -- essentially
a decision making model -- the review of literature has failed to uncover
a single study that successfully quantifies the esthetic benefits of water
quality enhancement by methods other than assigning ascribed values.
One study, the earlier referenced Dow Chemical Study (35), has
ascribed various monetary values to reflect esthetic benefits of
pollution abatement. For example, a value of $.25 - .50 per visitor
per day was used to reflect the monetary value of sediment removal
in the Potomac River estuary. Even this rather arbitrary assignment
of values produces damages of $1.60 - $2.20/ton of sediment per year
which produced sizable estimates of the damages of sediment to esthet-
ically pleasing natural and man-made resources.
This actually leaves us with only two estimates of the esthetic damages
of water quality degradation, one a residual method or decision making
model for estimating the esthetic benefits required to equal or exceed
the alternative development projects proposed for a unique natural re-
source (Hells Canyon Project) and the other an ascribed value for the
damages of sediment to the esthetic qualities of the Potomac River and
surrounding environs.
E. SUMMARY OF WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND ESTHETICS
Many have recognized that esthetic benefits of water quality enhancement
may represent one of the larger sources of potential benefits of water
quality enhancement. The problems associated with the quantification
of these uncommensurate benefits have proven to be exceedingly complex.
Other than ascribing arbitrary values to esthetic benefits or the development
of elaborate decision making models to assist in evaluating development
projects (references 35 and 62 respectively) the literature search has
failed to uncover a single definative measure of the esthetic benefits of
water quality management .
Research in this specific area falls into two broad categories. One,
studies that have attempted to determine the desirable or undesirable
aspects or attributes of natural resources including surface water
bodies. This first group consists of the following studies that have
devoted at least a portion of their emphasis to the above mentioned
area of endeavor.
38
-------
Reference Number Title/Author
8 Bishop, Doyle W. , and Robert Aukerman, Water
Quality Criteria For Selected Recreational Uses^
Research Report No. 33, University of Illinois
Water Resources Center, University of Illinois,
Sept., 1970.
83 Munson, K. F. , "Opinions of Providers and Users
About Site Quality for Water-Oriented Recreation
on Eight Small Lakes in Arkansas," Ph.D.
Disseration, University of Illinois, Jan., 1968.
126 Willeke, G. , "Effects of Water Pollution in San
Francisco Bay," Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford,
University, 1969.
3 Aukerman, R. , "Water Quality Criteria for Selected
Recreational Uses—Site Comparisons," Thesis,
University of Illinois, 1971.
7 Bevins, Malcolm I. , Attitudes on Environmental
Quality in Six Vermont Lake shore Communities,
Northeast Regional Research Publication, Vermont
Ag. Exp. Sta. , University of Vermont, Bulletin 67 1
June, 1972.
84 Myles, George A. , "Effect of Quality Factors on
Water Based Recreation in Western Nevada," Desert
Res. Inst. , No. 3E, Progress Report Series, Center
for Water Resources Res. (Max C. Fleischmann
College of Agriculture Report Series B 16), Reno,
February 1970.
28 David, Elizabeth L. , "Public Perceptions of Water
Quality," Water Resources Res. , June 1971 (3),
pp. 453-57.
29 David, Elizabeth L. ,. Richard S. Howe, and John T.
Quigley, "Institutional Design for Water Quality Manage-
ment: A Case Study of the Wisconsin River Basin, "
The Univ. of Wisconsin Water Resources Center,
Tech.; Report OWRR C-1228, 1970.
39
-------
The second type of study related to esthetic considerations includes
those recently published works that develop and/or implement inven-
torial procedures and methodologies designed to quantify the unique-
ness of various natural resources. Studies related to or devoting
some discussion to the above area include the following:
Reference Number Title/Author
86 Nighswonger, James J. , "A Methodology for Inventorying
and Evaluating the Scenic Quality and Related Recre-
ational Value of Kansas Streams," {Includes Four
Selected Streams) State of Kansas, Dept. Econ. Devel. ,
Outdoor Recreation Planning for Kansas, Report No. 32.
31 Dearinger, John A. and George M. Woolwine, "Meas-
uring the Intangible Values of Natural Streams, Part I,
Application of the Uniqueness Concept," Research Report
No. 40, University of Kentucky, Water Resources Insti-
tute, Lexington, 1971.
2 Arner, D. , et al. , "An Ecological and Recreational
Use Survey of the Luxapalila River," page 367. Water
Resources Bulletin V. 8, April 1972, No. 2, Permagon
Press, Oxford, England.
71 Leopold, Luna B. , "Landscape Esthetics," Natural
History, Oct. 1969.
32 Dee, Norbert et al. , "Environmental Evaluation System
for Water Resource Planning," Battelle, Columbus
Laboratories, January, 1972.
57 Kansas Park and Resources Authority, "An Outdoor
Recreation Plan for Central Kansas - Appendix III,"
Kansas Planning for Development Report No. 38-IH,
November, 1972.
66 Krumholz, Louis A., "A Preliminary Ecological Study
of Areas to be Impounded in the Salt River Basin of
Kentucky," Univ. of Kentucky Water Resources Insti-
tute, Research Report No. 43, September 1971.
67 Krumholz, Louis A. and Stuart E. Neff. "A Prelim-
inary Ecological Study of Areas to be Impounded in
the Salt River Basin of Kentucky," Univ. of Kentucky,
Water Resources Institute, Research Report No. 48,
October, 1971.
40
-------
Although these studies may not achieve the objective of quantifying
esthetic benefits in economic terms, they do successfully contribute
to the requisite task of providing and implementing methods designed
to ascertain (perhaps only by ranking) the relative value of natural re-
sources. The development of uniqueness models is a logical step or
activity that should be further developed or explored if the quantification
of ecological benefits of water quality enhancement is to be pursued.
41
-------
SECTION IV
WATER QUALITY AND PROPERTY VALUES
A. INTRODUCTION
Water quality impacts on property values are again closely aligned or
related to esthetic and recreational considerations. Shoreline property
values surrounding lakes, reservoirs and streams are characteristically
higher than the value of similarly used nonshoreline property of equal
quality. This stems from several factors which surely must include
water access and esthetic considerations. The intrinsically pleasing
qualities of high quality water enhances the attractiveness and value of
shoreline properties for seasonal or year round dwelling and possible
location sites for various commercial activities.
Increasing effluent loads and the degradation of surface water bodies
reduces the esthetic appreciation and the desirability of shoreline
property sites. The reduction in attractiveness is conceivably reflected
in declining property values. The total dollar value of all shoreline
property in the U.S. again makes this beneficial use of substantial im-
portance. The encouraging factor that is encountered in estimating
property value benefits of water quality enhancement is that the market
mechanism provides a possibility of assessing the property value
benefits of water quality enhancement. By observing changes in the
sale price of shoreline property, a model can be formulated which can
include subjective or objective water quality measures to determine the
effects of water quality changes. While there are many complicating
factors encountered and considerable simultaneity involved, the
market mechanism provides a possibility of sorting out various in-
fluences with the aid of econometric techniques.
B. HYPOTHESIZE WATER QUALITY RELATIONSHIPS
The number of water quality constituents or characteristics that potentially
influence shoreline property values are numerous, varied and perhaps
need not be expanded beyond those included in Exhibits II-1 and III-l. It
can again be argued that all of these pollutants are potentially important
when considering property value impacts of water quality degradation.
Realistically, however, the important factors would be those that are
perceptable to the homeowner or site user.
42
-------
Exhibit IV-1 presents the results of pollution perception studies which
indicates the meaning of pollution to those interviewed. While the
results of this study are couched in very vague general terms, needing
some refinement, it must be recognized that public perception of pollu-
tion is not in terms of incremental units of BOD or some other pollutant
but rather in the perceptible influences of pollution such as fish kills,
litter, debris and similar measures.
C. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WATER QUALITY CHANGES AND
PROPERTY VALUES
Several researchers have addressed the question or problem of quantifying
property value impacts of surface water quality degradation. These in-
clude several that have made only passing reference to the problem and
others that have faced the issue directly. These studies are listed below.
Reference Title/Author
85 Nemerow, Nelson L. and Hisashi Sumitomo,
"Benefits of Water Quality Enhancement, "
(Onondago Lake,) Water Pollution Control
Research Series, 16110 DAJ 12/70.
10 Bramer, H.C. , "The Economic Aspects of the
Water Pollution Abatement Program in the Ohio
River Valley, " Ph.D. Dissertation, University
of Pittsburgh, I960.
81 McClellan, Grant S. , Protecting Our Environment,
The H. W. Wilson Company, New York, 1971,
Vol. 42, No. 1.
27 David, Elizabeth L. , "Lakeshore Property Values:
A Guide to Public Investment in Recreation,"
Water Resources Research, August, 1968.
30 David, Elizabeth L. and William B. Lord,
"Determinants of Property Value on Artificial
Lakes," Univ. of Wisconsin, Dept. of Agricultural
Economics, Ag. EC. 54, May 1969.
43
-------
*/
Exhibit IV-1. Public perception of pollution _'
Water Quality Characteristics
Association of Specific Character-
istics with Pollution by Percent
Interviewed
Algae
Cans and Glass
Suds and Foam
Debris
Merky, dark
Weeds
40
1
25
10
20
3
_' Results of pollution perception study in selected Wisconsin study area (29).
44
-------
The first two (10 and 81) can be quickly summarized. Bramer (10)
was concerned with the benefits of pollution abatement in the Ohio
River Valley and included a brief section on property value benefits.
The procedures employed were quite crude and must be further refined.
The approach that was utilized in this study assumes that inauguration
of secondary treatment everywhere would enhance the value of shore-
line property by 10 percent which was assumed to be one percent of
the total land area in the geographical area under consideration. This
obviously can be accepted only in the absence of more sophisticated
methods.
Reference 81 is not a study of property values per se but instead simply
makes reference to a documented damage that is interesting and intriguing.
Reference is made to the effects of increased salinity in Hudspeth County,
Texas which is purported to be the cause of agricultural land values
declining from $1, 000 per acre to $50 per acre. Such a drastic decline
must be viewed as an extreme example and atypical of the effects of
salinity on agricultural land values.
The latter group (references 85, 27 and 30) consists of those studies
that have devoted more than just passing reference to the property value
affects of increased water quality degradation.
The procedure utilized in the Onondago Lake study (85) was essentially
a procedure which compared the value of shoreline property for various
reservoirs with different water quality. The differences in property
values of similarly used property was attributed to water quality differ-
ences. The total difference was prorated over a five year period to
reflect the annual property value benefits of water quality enhancement.
As previously encountered, the property value changes were not well
specified. Many influences -- distance from reservoirs, value of im-
provements, access, variations in seasonal as opposed to year around
dwellings and general land uses -- should be refined or further explored
to increase the acceptability of the resulting estimates.
The other studies (27 and 30), both by the same author, have utilized
multiple regression methods to explain variation in property values. A
water quality variable was included in the model and was found to
explain four percent of the variations in property values in the study
area. These studies formulate several regression models with several
independent variables to explain variation in property values as influenced
by water quality. While the study includes only subjective measures of
pollution, the model developed and utilized is preferred to any of the
above previously mentioned property value studies.
45
-------
D. SUMMARY OF PROPERTY VALUE BENEFITS AND WATER
QUALITY ENHANCEMENT
There is reason to be encouraged with the prfcgress that has been
made in assessing property value benefits of water quality enhance-
ment. This encouragement stems from the fact that the market
mechanism affords an opportunity to model and estimate the economic
benefits of water quality degradation or water quality enhancement by
econometric analysis of observed property value changes.
The second source of encouragement stems from the fact that several
researchers have developed and implemented regional property value
models. While there may be significant aggregation problems the
format for regional property value models is reasonably well established.
In this regard it is also encouraging to note that a national property value
study has been recently completed for EPA. This study is entitled,
lrBenefits of Water Pollution Control on Property Values, " and was
sponsored by the office of Research and Monitoring.
46
-------
SECTION V
ECOLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
A. INTRODUCTION
The amount of literature that has been published in reference to ecology
and water quality is voluminous. This includes discussions on nearly
every conceivable facet of water quality management related to ecology.
This includes esoteric discussions of the impacts of water quality de-
gradation on a large variety of terrestrial or aquatic life. Specific
impacts such as DDT concentrations in wildlife, destruction of kelp
growth or the interruption of the feeding and spawning habits of aquatic
life are representative examples.
Even when couched in terms of damages or potential damages by spec-
ific pollutants, the documentation is virtually endless. Much of the
work is formulated in a very esoteric manner which has emanated
from numerous controlled environmental simulations or bioassay
procedures conducted by various researchers.
It is beyond the scope or level of effort of this report to include a com-
prehensive listing of references dealing with ecology and water quality
management. We will therefore deviate from the previously adopted
format and present only a general discussion of the state of the arts
assessment of estimating ecological benefits of water quality enhance-
ment.
B. GENERAL SUMMARY
A representative sampling of literature relevant to ecology and water
quality management was reviewed by DPRA staff members. This in-
cludes numerous previously cited references which are directly or in-
directly concerned with various ecological aspects of water quality
degradation. The results of this review are presented below in a very
brief, verbal summary.
A sizable portion of the literature concerned with ecology and water
quality degradation is focused on presenting the undesirable effects
of specific pollutants on various species of fish. This includes the
undesirable effects of toxic substances, thermo pollution, sedimentation
and numerous other pollutants on a wide variety of species. Since the
47
-------
tolerance level varies by species, life cycle, season of the year, and
numerous other water quality conditions, there is an endless number of
specific effects or combinations of specific pollutants that can be dis-
cussed. A cursory review of the bibliography reveals the diversity of
topics considered.
The objective of presenting documentation of hypothesized or potential
ecological damages, by specific pollutant would be unobstructed if time
permitted. An excellent example of two very comprehensive studies is
reference 37 and 38. These studies summarize the effect of a large
number of pesticides and chemical compounds on a variety of nontarget
species. These two sources contain data on the ecological effects of
hundreds of pesticides and chemical compounds and hundreds of non-
target species;
Not all of the relerences are as comprehensive in their coverage or as
esoteric in their presentation. For example, reference 41 contains data
of fish kills in the U.S. in 1971. The number of kills, source of pollution
and location is covered in this EPA publication.
The rhetorical question that is again encountered is, "What has been
done to quantify these ecological damages in economic terms." While
only limited time was available to explore the work that has been done
concerning the economics of ecological damages or benefits, the know-
ledge, experience and results derived in seeking estimates of other
intangible or incommensurate benefits of water quality management
are believed to be equally appropriate for the state of the arts summary
concerning the economic quantification of ecological benefits of water
quality enhancement. That is, while there has been a great deal said
and done in reference to ecological benefits of water quality enhancement,
very little (virtually nothing) has been accomplished in the area of expressing
these damages in economic terms.
While it is understandable that this specific area has not been compre-
hensively studied by the economist, there is a conspicuous absence of
even the inclination to undertake such an endeavor. There is very little
evidence that a significant amount of effort has been devoted to initiating
work on quantifying the economic impacts of ecological changes associated
with environmental degradation. Of all the areas discussed as of this
point, this specific area is the most neglected. The general articles
addressing this problem are filled with terms such as incommensurate,
immeasurable, inseparable or other equally vague phrases. As of this
time, these descriptions are most appropriate.
48
-------
SECTION VI
OTHER BENEFICIAL USES AND GENERAL SUMMARY
A. OTHER BENEFICIAL USES
The beneficial uses that have not as of this time even entered the dis-
cussion include human health and the entire area of production, (i.e.,
beneficial use categories III and IV respectively). We are not, as of
this time, prepared to submit a complete discussion of these areas
but the exposure has been sufficiently great to extend a few summary
comments.
Health
There are a great many unknowns encountered when discussing water
quality associated health impacts. The widespread utilization of pre-
use chlorination has eliminated many adverse water quality associated
health impacts. Notwithstanding, there is considerable evidence that
water quality degradation is responsible for a variety of human health
disorders and associated effects.
References 22, 26, 77, and 128 are representative of much of the work
that has been done in the area. Again the work tends to be highly esoteric
discussing very specific health impacts associated with specific pollutants.
The task of estimating the national economic impacts relating to adverse
health effects of water quality degradation has not, as of this time, been
undertaken. This endeavor will again be hampered by problems asso-
ciated with evaluating intangible, nonmonetary considerations such as the
value of pain, suffering or the loss of human life. When all factors have
adequately been accounted for, i.e., loss of life, work days lost, reduced
productivity and other costs such as that expended for medication and pro-
fessional health care; the total benefits and/or damages may be rather
substantial. It is also likely that the fear of health impacts or the epidemic
risks associated with deteriorating water quality may be sufficiently great
to justify restrictive water quality standards. These considerations,
including risk, must be properly accounted for when estimating water
quality associated health impacts.
Production
The other broad area and as of this point untouched, is beneficial use
IV, i.e., production. While no one has estimated national production
49
-------
benefits of water quality enhancement, there are fewer methodological
problems encountered in that the procedure will possibly involve esti-
mating of additional costs associated with physical damages or the cost
of damage prevention.
Very little time was spent searching for publications relevant to the
production area. The work that has surfaced which deserves special
mention includes the following articles or publications.
Researchers concentrating on the production area should devote special
attention to reference 82 which is one of the most comprehensive em-
pirical studies of the cost of water quality degradation to residential and
nonresidential water users. Reference 74 is of interest to these esti-
mating the industrial costs of thermo pollution. In addition there are
several other presently unpublished studies by EPA staff members which
represent the best current single source of information concerning the
economics of water quality degradation and domestic water usage and
commercial fishing. Both of these studies were undertaken and
completed by Dr. Dennis Thansky, Office of Research and Monitoring,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The economic quantification or assessment of the production benefits
of water quality enhancement has not at this time been completed, even
though much of the data is available and the methodological problems
are relatively few.
B. GENERAL SUMMARY
The major impetus for this report emanates from the construction
and presentation of a benefit matrix (Exhibit A-15) in Phase II Research
Needs and Priorities: Pollution Control Benefits and Costs with Em-
phasis on Water, by DPRA. This benefit matrix is presented below
as Exhibit VI-1.
The documentation of the use-quality relationships presented in this
matrix (indicated by a ID notation) was somewhat subjective and also
utilized established state and/or federal water quality criteria that
have been known to be rather insensitive of actual use-quality relation-
ships. It was therefore decided that a subsequent literature search
would be advisable to further document specific use-quality relationships
and to present a brief state of the arts summary. A brief summary of
the current state of the arts (with emphasis on estimating water quality
associated benefits) is presented below.
50
-------
ExhibitVI~ 1 .State-of-the-arls of pollution-beneficial use potential relationships, over all ranges of water quality
HEALTH
PRODUCTION
Industrial
BOD
COD
pH
Coliform
Nitrogen
Phosphate
Toxic Sub. */
Hardness
TDS
TSS**
Temperature
Oil
Color
Turbidity
Odor
Taste
Radionucles
V
01
S£
a-S .-
6*« S w
34) 3 ^
SI 2 H
OU ID
OU ID
ID ID
ID ID
ID ID
OU ID
ID ID
ID ID
ID ID
ID ID
OU OU
ID ID
OU ID
ID ID
OD ID
OD ID
ID ID
Floating Solids OU ID
- Includes
**/
— Includes
References:
heavy metals.
sellable solids.
" 0
f « 3>
Q3 «:£
OU ID
OU ID
ID ID
OU ID
OU ID
OU OU
ID ID
ID ID
ID ID
ID ID
ID ID
ID ID
ID OU
ID OU
OU OU
OU OU
OU ID
1U OD
1. "Water Quality Criteria. '
2. Todd, "The
3. "Manual on
4. Zajic, J. I.
5. Lund. H. F
pollutant has an effect upon usability
=> pollutant has no effect upon usability
= > a pollutant-use relationship has been
(30) (31)
•g.
, •-' 1-
sl 1
3 ^ V
OD OU
OD OU
ID ID
OU ID
OD OU
OU OU
1U ID
ID ID
ID ID
ID 1U
OU OU
1U 1U
ID ID
ID ID
OD OU
OU OU
OU OU
1U 1U
(32)
«"»
«o
(ft a
OD
OD
ID
OD
OU
OU
1U
OD
ID
ID
OU
1U
OD
OU
OU
OU
OU
1U
(33)
" «
.C 4)
0.
ID
ID
ID
OU
OU
OU
1U
ID
ID
ID
1U
ID
OU
OU
OU
OU
OU
1U
ESTHETICS
i
W „
5 £
w
ID
ID
OD
ID
1U
ID
OD
OD
OD
ID
OD
ID
ID
ID
ID
OU
ID
ID
Recreation
u
~ X
C ^ w
O u Li
0 « U
i _i n.
C CO
O O IH
Z OB.
ECOLOGICAL
W
V
D
CO
ID ID ID ID
ID ID ID ID
ID ID 1U ID
ID ID 1U 1U
ID ID ID ID
ID ID ID ID
ID ID 1U ID
OD OU OU ID
1U 1U 1U ID
ID ID 1U ID
ID ID 1U ID
ID ID 1U ID
ID ID 1U 1U
ID ID ID ID
ID ID ID 1U
OD ID OU 1U
ID ID 1U ID
ID ID ID 1U
within water quality ranges normally encountered
documented
= > documentation of a pollutant-use relationship (or lack
(or lack of one) seems plausible
of one)
has not been found, but such a
relationship
Water Encyclopedia," 1970.
Industrial Water and Industrial Waste Water,", ASTM Special Technical Publication No. 148
, "Water Pollution--Disposal
. , "Industrial
and
Reuse." 1971.
-I, 1966.
Pollution Control Handbook," 1971.
6. "Cleaning our Environment the Chemical
Basis for Action," Am. Chem. Soc . 1969.
-------
The literature review indicates that virtually every use-quality rela-
tionship denoted by a ID presented in the initial benefit matrix could
be further supported by several references. This could be accomplished
without utilizing established and arbitrary state or federal water quality
criteria. It is also quite likely that several of the use-quality relation-
ships initially presented as having no effect on usability, i.e. , denoted
by the notation OD, could be changed to the former notation indicating
that the pollutant has a potential effect on usability.
If, however, the criteria is to present a summary of the economic
studies that have quantified such use-quality relationships, it is quickly
discovered that there are many use-quality relationships that have not
been explored by the economist. While the economic relationships have
not been adequately explored at this time, there are many studies that
are potentially useful. Some of the relevant references for the beneficial
uses discussed are presented below in Exhibit VI-2, As indicated in
this exhibit, there is a conspicuous absence of references concerned with
the economics of ecological damages of water quality degradation. Two
beneficial uses, i.e. , health and production, were not included in the
above summary table. These have been briefly summarized in the text.
While there is a great disparity in the value of the above cited references,
there is something'to be gained from all.
The following conclusions are also presented at this time.
Recreational Benefits of Water Quality Enhancement
While many methodological questions are, as of this time unanswered,
there are indications that this single area is where much of the future
research time and money should be focused. This particular water use
is perhaps the largest single source of benefits of water quality enhance-
ment. Research efforts should be devoted to estimating national recre-
ational benefits of pollution abatement.
Property Value Benefits of Water Quality Enhancement
The methodology and estimates of property value benefits should be
reasonably well in hand in the immediate future and should not be the
subject of additional emphasis until some of the other deficient areas
have been satisfied.
52
-------
Exhibit VI-2. Selected References Concerned with Economies of
Water Quality Management Use Avoidance, Perception
or Value of Natural Resources by Beneficial Use
Beneficial Use/Reference Specific Use or Topic Pollutant or Emphasis
Recreation
Esthetics
85 General Recreation
115 Sport Fishing
64 General Recreation
10 General Recreation
79 General Recreation
35 General Recreation
99 General Recreation
59 Sport Fishing
35 General Esthetics
62 General Esthetics
8,83,126 Use avoidance, public
3, 7, 84, perception and/or
28, 29 desirable qualities
86, 31, 2, Methodology or inven-
71, 32, 57 torial procedures
66,67
Property Values
85,10,81 Methodology and/or
27, 30 empirical estimate
of property value
benefits
Pollution Index
Kraft mill effluents
DO
BOD
BOD
Sedimentation
Algae and Beach Improvement
and temperature
PH
Sedimentation
Resource Development
General undesirable con-
stituents
Ascertaining unique attri-
butes and/or desirable or
undesirable qualities
BOD, perceptible water
quality characteristics or
subjective measures of
pollution
Ecological
53
-------
Esthetic Benefits of Water Quality Enhancement
Estimating the esthetic benefits emanating from pollution abatement is
somewhat less refined or developed than estimating recreational bene-
fits. The recent emphasis on methodology designed to evaluate the
uniquenesses of natural resources offers some encouragement but, in
all likelyhood, progress in this area will be only nominal for some time.
Ecological Benefits of Water Quality Enhancement
Little has been done in this country to quantify the ecological benefits of
water quality enhancement in economic terms. While this area may be
the source of sizable benefit estimates, the lack of background work
probably prevents immediate returns on time invested. It is our under-
standing, however, that several studies in other countries have been
recently completed.
Researchers estimating the health benefits of water quality enhancement
will without a doubt also encounter difficult methodological problems.
While this area may be the source of sizable benefits, they are viewed
as small relative to other water uses.
The entire area of estimating the production benefits of water quality
enhancement will be less difficult (relative to the above mentioned
areas). The data and methodology is reasonably well in hand to initiate
such an endeavor. Notwithstanding, it will be a time consuming and
laborious task.
For the above, as well as other reasons, it is believed that the following
list indicates the relative priorities that should be attached to estimating
the benefits of water quality management.
1. Recreation
2. Esthetics
3. Ecological
4. Production
5. Health
6. Property values
Considerable insight into the progress and accomplishments of the
economist in estimating the benefits of water quality enhancement is
provided by the following material.
54
-------
"From the replies of 36 States to a questionnaire seeking
data on which to base an estimate of the economic and social
effects of the destruction offish, water-fowl, and other wild
life by pollution, it is evident that available data permit only
general conclusions. Reasonably comprehensive and accurate
surveys of this group of problems are generally lacking in this
country. Such studies are essential before any close evaluation
of the large economic losses in this field is possible. An exten-
sion of such studies as those made on the upper Mississippi
River jointly by the State Boards of Health of Minnesota and
Wisconsin would be very helpful. In that study, for example, it
was reported that the annual loss to commercial fishing and
clamming is $95, 000; the annual damage to sport fishing and
attendant industries $35,000; while decreased property value
in the Twin Cities was estimated at $2,000,000 and damage
to lands for recreational purposes at $ 1, 500, 000.
Other states, such as Indiana, Iowa and Virginia, have made
efforts to evaluate similar economic losses which they believe
would aggregate millions of dollars annually. Most of the states
report acute situations in restricted localities.
Without doubt an extended study of the many published reports
on the subject and a thorough analysis of records in possession
of the State Conservation Departments and Fish and Game Com-
missions would be revealing. As a rule, however, the relevant
data are so scattered, so incomplete, and, because of the
intangible nature of some of the losses so inconclusive, that
it is impossible at present to state any figure as representing
the national economic burden of pollution." (108)
It is interesting and indeed disappointing to note that the basic problems
mentioned above, i.e. , quantification of intangible losses and the diffi-
culties associated with estimating national pollution losses are still
the basic problems encountered today. This takes on even greater
meaning when it is realized that the above excerpt was taken from an
article published in 1935.
55
-------
SECTION VII
REFERENCES
1. American Society for Testing and Materials, Manual on Industrial
Water and Industrial Waste Water, Second Edition -- 1966
Printing, With New and Revised Methods, ASTM Special
Technical Publication No. 148-1.
2. Arner, D. , et al. , "An Ecological and Recreational Use Survey
of the Luxapalila River," page 367. Water Resources Bulletin
V. 8, April 1972, No. 2, Permagon Press, Oxford, England.
3. Aukerman, R. , "Water Quality Criteria for Selected Recreational
' Uses—Site Comparisons," Thesis, University of Illinois,
1971.
4. Baker, J. M. , "The Effects of Oils on Plants", Environmental
Pollution, (1) 1970.
5. Barbaro, R. D., B. J. Carroll, L. B. Tebo, and L. C. Walters,
"Bacteriological Water Quality of Several Recreational Areas
in the Ross Barnett Reservoir," Jour. WPCF, July 1969,
p. 1330.
6. Belding, David L. , "Toxicity Experiments with Fish in Reference to
Trade Waste Pollution", Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 57, 1927.
7. Bevins, Malcolm I., Attitudes on Environmental Quality in Six
Vermont Lakeshore Communities, Northeast Regional
Research Publication, Vermont Ag Exp. Sta. , University
of Vermont, Bulletin 671, June 1972.
8. Bishop, Doyle W. , and Robert Aukerman, Water Quality Criteria
For Selected Recreational Uses, Research Report No. 33,
University of Illinois Water Resources Center, University
of Illinois, Sept., 1970.
9. Born, Stephen M., et al. , "Inland Lake Demonstration Project, "
A Joint Venture of the University of Wisconsin and the
Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources, 1972.
10. Bramer, H. C., The Economic Aspects of the Water Pollution
Abatement Program in the Ohio River Valley, Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Pittsburg, I960.
56
-------
11. Bregman, J. I. and Sergei Lenormand, The Pollution Paradox,
A Spartan Book, Books, Inc., New York and Washington,
1966.
12. Buelow, Ralph W. , and Graham Walton, "Bacteriological Quality
vs. Residual Chlorine", Jour. Am. Water Works Assoc. ,
63, 95, 1971.
13. Bureau of Water Resources Research, "Critical Review of The
Oklahoma State Water Resources Quality Criteria," Univ.
of Oklahoma, 1967.
14. Cairns, John Jr., "Ecological Management Problems Caused by
Heated Waste Water Discharge into the Aquatic Environment",
Water Resources Bulletin, Nov.-Dec. 1970, No. 6.
15. Cairns, John Jr., and Kenneth L. Dickson, "A Simple Method for
the Biological Assessment of the Effects of Waste Discharges
on Aquatic Bottom-Dwelling Organisms", Jour. Water Pol-
lution Control Fed. , Nov. 1968, Vol. 43, No. 5.
16. Ciaccio, Leonard L. , Water and Water Pollution Handbook,
Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, Vols. I, II, III, IV,
1973.
17. Ciriacy-Wantrup, S. V. , Resource Conservation: Economics and
Policies, Univ. of California Press, Berkeley and Los
Angeles, 1952.
18. Clarke, N. A., G. Berg, P. W. Kabler and S. L. Chang, "Human
Enteric Viruses in Water: Source, Survival and Removability,"
Ed. W. W. Eckenfelder, Advancement in Water Pollution Res.,
Proc. Int. Conf. , London, Sept. 1962, Vol. 2, pp. 523-532.
19. Claudon, D. G. , et al. , "Prolonged Salmonella Contamination of a
Recreational Lake by Runoff Waters, " Appl. Microbiology,
May, 1971, 875-877. Vol. 21, No. 5.
20. Cole, Arch E., "Water Pollution Studies in Wisconsin, Effects of
Industrial (Pulp and Paper Mill) Wastes on Fish," Water
Pollution Studies, Vol. 7, No. 2, March, 1935.
21. Cole, Lamont C., "Thermal Pollution: Man's Impact on the Waters,"
from Man's Impact on Environment by Detwyler.
57
-------
22. Committee on Environmental Quality Management of the Sanitary
Engineering Division, "Engineering Evaluation of Virus
Hazard in Water", Jour, of the Sanitary Engineering Division,
February, }970.
23. Coomber, Nicholas H. and Asit K. Biswas, Evaluation of Environ-
mental Intangibles, Genera Press, New York, 1972.
24. Copeland, B. J., Neal E. Armstrong and Earnest F. Gloyna,
"Ecological Aspects of Stream Pollution", Advances in
Water Quality Improvement, 1968.
25. Cowell, E. B. , ed., The Ecological Effects of Oil Pollution on
Littoral Communities, Institute of Petroleum, London, 1971.
26. Craun, Gunther F., and Leland J. McCabe, "Review of the Causes
of Waterborne-Disease Outbreaks", Water Technology/Quality,
Jour. Am. Water Works Assoc. , January, 1973.
27. David, Elizabeth L., "Lakeshore Property Values: A Guide to Public
Investment in Recreation, " Water Resources Res., Aug. 1968.
28. David, Elizabeth, L. , "Public Perceptions of Water Quality, "
Water Resources Res., June, 1971 (3), pp. 453-57.
29. David, Elizabeth L. , Richard S. Howe, and John T. Quigley,
"Institutional Design for Water Quality Management: A
Case Study of the Wisconsin River Basin, " The Univ. of
Wisconsin Water Resources Center, Tech. Report OWRR
C-1228, 1970.
30. David, Elizabeth L. and William B. Lord, "Determinants of Property
Value on Artificial Lakes, " Univ. of Wisconsin, Dept. of
Agricultural Economics, Ag. EC. 54, May, 1969.
31. Dearinger, John A. and George M. Woolwine, "Measuring the
Intangible Values of Natural Streams, Part I, Application
of the Uniqueness Concept, " Research Report No. 40,
University of Kentucky, Water Resources Institute, Lexington,
1971.
32. Dee, Norbert, et al. , "Environmental Evaluation System for Water
Resource Planning," Columbus Laboratories, January, 1972.
33. Detwyler, Thomas R., Man's Impact on Environment, University
of Michigan, McGraw-Hill Book Co. , 1 97T7
58
-------
34. Ditton, Robert and Thomas Goodale, "Marine Recreational Uses of
Green Bay: A Study of Human Behavior and Attitude Patterns, "
University of Wisconsin, Sea Grant Prog. , Tech. Rept. 17,
December, 1972.
35. Dow Chemical Co., Midland, Michigan, "An Economic Analysis
of Erosion and Sediment Control Methods for Watersheds
Undergoing Urbanization (C-1677)," Final Report Feb. 15,
1971, - Feb. 14, 1972.
36. Dunn, Dorothy and Thurston E. Larson, "Relationship of Domestic
Water Use to Assessed Valuation with Selected Demographic
and Socioeconomic Variables, " Jour. Am. Water Works
Assoc., 55, pp. 441-450, 1963.
37. "Ecological Effects of Pesticides on Non-Target Species,"
Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and
Technology, June, 1971.
38. Environmental Protection Agency, "Effects of Chemicals on
Aquatic Life," Water Quality Criteria Data Book, Vol. 3,
May, 1971.
39. Feasibility of Evaluation of Benefits from Improved Great Lakes
Water Quality, Water Resources Center, University of Illinois,
Special Report #2, (Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers), May, 1968.
40. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Water Quality
Criteria, National Technical Advisory Committee, U. S.
Dept. of Interior, April 1, 1968.
41. 1971 Fish Kills - Twelfth Annual Report, Office of Air and Water
Programs, Monitoring and Data Support Division, Data
Reporting Branch, Wash., D. C.
42. Foster, David H. et al. , "A Critical Examination of Bathing Water
Quality Standards," Jour. Water Poll. Control Fed., Vol. 43,
1971, p. 2229.
43. Foster, M. , M. Neushul and R. Zingmark, "The Santa Barbara Oil
Spill Part 2: Initial Effects on Intertidal and Kelp Bed Organisms,
Environ. Pollution (2), 1971.
44. Frazier, Frank R. , "Why Congress Acted" Feedstuffs, Oct. 2,
1972.
59
-------
45. Freyre, Lauce, "Pollution of the 'El Carpincho' Pond (Pampasic
Region, Argentina) and its Effects on Plankton and Fish
Communities", Environmental Pollution (4), 1973.
46. Geldreich, E. E. , "Applying Bacteriological Parameters to
Recreational Water Quality," Jour. Amer. Water Works Assn.,
62, 113, 1970.
47. Geldreich, E. E., L. C. Best, B. A. Kenner, and D. J. Van Donsel,
"The Bacteriological Aspects of Stormwater Pollution," Jour.
Water Pollution Control Fed., November, 1968, Vol. 40,
No. 11.
48. Goldsmith, Edward, "The Cost of Pollution, " The Ecologist, Vol. 1,
No. 15, Sept. 1971.
49. Gorman, Arthur E., and Wolman, Abel, "Water-borne Outbreaks
in the United States and Canada, and Their Significance, "
Jour. Am. Water Works Assoc., Vol. 31, No. 2.
50. Granstrom, M. L. , M. Dutta, J. DeRooy, "Water Resources and
the Chemical Industry in New Jersey, " New Jersey Water
Resources Research Institute, October, 1969.
51. Harberger, Arnold C., et al. , "Three Basic Postulates for Applied
Welfare Economics; An Interpretive Essay," Economic
Literature, Sept. 1971, Vol. IX, No. 3.
52. Henderson, J. M. , "Enteric Disease Criteria for Recreational
Waters," Jour, of the Sanitary Engineering Division, Proc.
of the American Society of Civil Engineers.
53. Hepple, Peter, ed. , The Joint Problems of the Oil and Water
Industries, The Elsevier Publishing Company, London, 1967.
54. Hepple, Peter, ed. Water Pollution by Oil, The Elsevier Publishing
Co. Ltd., London, 1971.
55. Hotelling, Harold, "The Economics of Exhaustible Resources, " The
Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 39, University of Chicago
Press, 1931.
56. Jones, J. R. Erichsen, Fijh and River Pollution, Dept. of Zoology,
University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, London,
Butterworths, 1964.
60
-------
57. Kansas Park and Resources Authority, "An Outdoor Recreation Plan
for Central Kansas - Appendix III," Kansas Planning for
Development Report No. 38-111, November, 1972.
58. Katz, Max, Richard S. LeGore, Donald Weitkamp, Joseph M. Cummins,
David Anderson and Dora R. May, "Effects on Freshwater Fish,"
Jour. Water Pollution Control Fed. , Vol. 44, No. 6, June, 1972.
59. Kinney, Edward C., "Extent of Acid Mine Pollution in the United
States Affecting Fish and Wildlife," U.S. Dept. of the Interior,
Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wild-
life, Circular 191, 1964.
60. Klein, David H., and Edward D. Goldberg, "Mercury in the Marine
Environment," Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 4,
No. 9, September, 1970.
61. Klein, L., River Pollution, Vol. 2: Cures and Effects, Butterworth,
London, 1962, 456 pp.
62. Kneese, Allen V. and Blair T. Bower, Environmental Quality
Analysis, John Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1972.
63. Kneese, Allen V. and Blair T. Bower, Managing Water Quality:
Economics, Technology, Institutions, Re sources for the
Future, Inc., John Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1968.
64. Kneese, Allen V. and Stephen C. Smith, "The Social Value of Water
Recreational Facilities Resulting from an Improvement in
Water Quality: The Delaware Estuary, " by Davidson, Paul,
F. Gerard Adams and Joseph Seneca, from Water Research
Resources for the Future, Inc., 1965.
65. Kontogiannis, John E. and Craig J. Barnett, "The Effect of Oil
Pollution on Survival of the Tidal Pool Copepod, TIGRIOPUS
CALIFORNICUS, " Environmental Pollution (4), 1973.
66. Krumholz, Louis A. , "A Preliminary Ecological Study of Areas
to be Impounded in the Salt River Basin of Kentucky, "
Univ. of Kentucky Water Resources Institute, Research
Report No. 43, September, 1971.
67. Krumholz, Louis A. and Stuart E. Neff, "A Preliminary Ecological
Study of Areas to be Impounded in the Salt River Basin of
Kentucky," Univ. of Kentucky, Water Resources Institute,
Research Report No. 48, October, 1971.
61
-------
68. "Lake Erie, Dying But Not Dead, " Environmental Science and
Technology, Vol. 1, 1967.
69. Larson, T. E. , "Municipal and Home Water Softening," Jour. Am.
Water Works Assoc., June, 1953.
70. Lee, Roger D. , James M. Symons, and Gordon G. Robeck, "Water-
shed Human Use Level and Water Quality," Jour. Am. Water
Works Assoc., 62, 1970.
71. Leopold, LunaB., "Landscape Esthetics, " Natural History,
Oct., 1969.
72. Lerner, Lionel J., "Quantitative Indices of Recreational Values, "
Water Resources and Economic Development of the West:
Economics in Outdoor Recreational Policy, Report No. 11,
Conference Proceedings of the Committee on the Economics
of Water Resources Development of the Western Agricultural
Economics Research Council, jointly with the Western Farm
Economics Association, pp. 55-80, University of Nevada,
Reno, 1962.
73. Limitations on Recreational Use of Water Resources, Chapter Two,
ORRR, Report #10.
74. Lot, George O. G., and John C. Ward, "Economics of Thermal
Pollution Control, " Jour. Water Pollution Control Fed. ,
December, 1970.
75. Long, Wesley, H. , "A Sample Design for Investigating the Effects
of Stream Pollution on Water Based Recreation Expenditures, "
Water Resources Bull., Vol. 4, N. 3, pp. 19-26, Sept. 1968.
76. Lund, Herbert F. , Industrial Pollution Control Handbook, McGraw-
Hill Book Company.
77. Lyon, Walter A. , "Water and Health-Are We Concerned Enough? "
Jour, of the Sanitary Engineering Division, October, 1970.
78. Mackenthun, Kenneth M. , and William Marcus Ingram, Biological
Associated Problems in Freshwater Environments, Their
Identification, Investigation and Control, U.S. Dept. of
Interior, Fed. Water Pollution Control Admin., 1967.
62
-------
79. Matson, Jack V. , "Cost of Industrial and Municipal Water Pollution
Abatement in the Maumee River Basin, " MS Thesis, University
of Toledo, January 1968.
80. McCarty, P. L., et al. , "Nutrient-Associated Problems in Water
Quality and Treatment, " Jour. Am. Water Works Assoc.,
Vol. 58, 1966.
81. McClellan, Grant S. , Protecting Our Environment, The H. W. Wilson
Company, New York, 1971, Vol. 42, No. 1.
82. Metcalf & Eddy Engineers, The Economic Value of Water Quality,
Report to the Office of Saline Water, U.S. Dept. of Int. ,
March, 1967.
83. Munson, K. F. , "Opinions of Providers and Users about Site
Quality for Water-Oriented Recreation on Eight Small Lakes
in Arkansas," Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Illinois,
Jan. 1968.
84. Myles, George A. , "Effect of Quality Factors on Water Based
Recreation in Western Nevada, " Desert Research Institute,
No. 3E, Progress Report Series, Center for Water Resources
Research (Max C. Fleischmann College of Agriculture Report
Series B 16), Reno, February, 1970.
85. Nemerow, Nelson L. and Hisashi Sumitomo, Benefits of Water
Quality Enhancement, (Onondago Lake), Water Pollution
Control Research Series, 16110 DAJ 12/70.
86. Nighswonger, James J. , "A Methodology for Inventorying and
Evaluating the Scenic Quality and Related Recreational Value
of Kansas Streams," (Includes Four Selected Streams), State
of Kansas, Dept. Econ. Devel. , Outdoor Recreation Planning
for Kansas, Report No. 32, March, 1970.
87. Nordell, Eskel, Water Treatment for Industrial and Other Uses,
Reinhold Publishing Corporation, New York, 1961.
88. O'Connor, Donald J. , John P. St. John, and Dominic M. DiToro,
"Water Quality Analysis of the Delaware River Estuary, "
Jour, of the Sanitary Engineering Division, December, 1968.
89. "Oil Pollution of the Sea," The Ecologist, Vol. 2, No. 3, March, 1972.
63
-------
90. Olson, H. M., "Benefits and Savings from Softened Water for
Municipal Supply, " Jour, of the Am. Water Works Assoc. ,
April, 1939, Vol. 31, No. 4.
91. Olson, Theodore A., Fredrick J. Burgess, Pollution and Marine
Ecology, Interscience Publishers, 1967.
92. Packer, Randall K. and William A. Dunson, "Effects of Low Environ-
mental pH on Blood pH and Sodium Balance of Brook Trout, "
Jour. Exp. Zool., 174, 65, 1970.
93. Patterson, W. L. and R. F. Banker, "Effects of Highly Mineralized
Water on Household Plumbing and Appliances, " Jour.- Am.
Water Works Assoc. , Sept. 1968.
94. Peterson, James O. , et al. , "Eutrophication Control: Nutrient
Inactivation by Chemical Precipitation at Horseshoe Lake, Wisconsin,"
Tech. Bulletin No. 62, Dept. of Natural Resources, Madison, 1973.
95. Pfischner, F. L. , Jr., "Relation Between Land Use and Chemical
Characteristics of Lakes in Southwestern Orange County,
Florida," Geological Survey Research, 1968.
96. Presnell, Maynard W. and John J. Miescier, "Coliforms and Fecal
Coliforms in an Oyster-Growing Area, " Jour. Water Pollution
Control Fed., March, 1971, Vol. 43, No. 3, Part 1.
97. Price, FredC., et al. , Mc-Graw-Hill's 1972 Report on Business and
the Environment, McGraw-Hill Publications Co., New York.
98. Randall, Allan D. , "Movement of Bacteria from a River to a
Municipal Well—A Case History," Jour. Am. Water Works
Assoc., November, 1970.
99. Reiling, S. D. , et al., "Economic Benefits from an Improvement in
Water Quality, " Office of Research and Monitoring, U.S. EPA,
EPA-R5-73-008, January, 1973.
100. Reservoir Release Research Project, SFI Bulletin, Published by the
Sport Fishing Institute, "The Quality of Fishing Reflects the
Quality of Living, " No. 243, April, 1973.
101. Romm, Jeff, "The Value of Reservoir Recreation, " Cornell Univ.
Water Resources and Marine Sciences Center, New York,
Technical Report No. 19, A.E. Res. 296, August, 1969.
64
-------
102. Schenker, Eric, "Impact of the Port of Green Bay on the Economy
of the Community, '.' University of Wisconsin, Sea Grant Pro-
gram, Tech. Report 16, November, 1972.
103. Seckler, David W. and L. M. Hartman, "The Methodology of
Economics in Public Outdoor Recreation Research, " (Source
Unknown).
104. Smith, J. E., '"Torrey Canyon' Pollution and Marine Life",
Cambridge University Press, 1968.
105. Smith, L. L. and D. M. Oseid, "Effects of Hydrogen Sulfide on
Fish Eggs and Fry," Water Research, Pergamon Press, 1972,
Vol. 6, pp. 711-720, Printed in Great Britain.
106. Snyder, George R. and Theodore H. Blahm, "Effects of Increased
Temperature on Cold-Water Organisms," Jour. Water Pol-
lution Control Fed. , (43), 1971.
107. Spaulding, Willard M. , Jr. and Ronald D. Ogden, "Effects of Surface
Mining on the Fish and Wildlife Resources of the United States, "
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, U.S. Dept. of the
Interior, Aug. 28, 1968.
108. Special Advisory Committee on Water Pollution, "Report on Water
Pollution," National Resources Committee, Water Resources
Section, July, 1935.
109. Sprague, J. B., "Measurement of Pollutant Toxicity to Fish," Water
Research, Pergamon Press, 1969, Vol. 3.
110. Sprague, J. B., "Measurement of Pollutant Toxicity to Fish-Ill, "
Water Research, Pergamon Press, 1971, Vol. 5.
111. Sprague, J. B. and D. W. McLeese, "Different Toxic Mechanisms
in Kraft Pulp Mill Effluent for Two Aquatic Animals, " Water
Research, Pergamon Press, 1968, Vol. 2.
112. Sprague, J. B., and D. W. McLeese, "Toxicity of Kraft Pulp Mill
Effluent for Larval and Adult Lobsters, and Juvenile Salmon,"
Water Research, Pergamon Press, 1968, Vol. 2.
1.13. Stanley, Maxwell C., "Economics of Water Softening, " Jour. Am.
Water Works Assoc. , Vol. 28, No. 4.
65
-------
114. Stevens, Joe B. , "Recreation Benefits from Water Pollution
Control," Water Resources Research 2:-l67-182, Second
Quarter, 1966.
115. Stoevener, Herbert H. , et al., Multi-Disciplinary Study of Water
Quality Relationships: A Case Study of Yaquina Bay, Oregon,
Oregon State University, Special Report 348, Feb. 1972.
116. Stone, Ralph, William Garber, and Helen Frieland, "Water Quality:
Cost Benefits of Irreducibles, " Jour, of the Sanitary Engineering
Division, June, 1970.
117. Storey, E. H. and Ditton, R. B., Water Quality Requirements for
Recreation, Water Resources Symp. No. 3, April, 1969,
Univ. of Texas Press, Austin, 57, 1970.
118. Subcommittee on Environmental Improvement, Committee on
Chemistry and Public Affairs, Cleaning Our Environment
The Chemical Basis for Action, American Chemical Society,
Washington, D. C., 1969.
119. Tarzwell, Clarence M. , "Thermal Requirements to Protect Aquatic
Life," Jour. Water Pollution Control Fed., May, 1970, Vol. 42,
No. 5, Part 1.
120. Technical Advisory Committee on Water Resources, Water for
Illinois, A Plan for Action, 1967.
121. Todd, David Keith, The Water Encyclopedia, Water Information
Center, Water Research Building, Manhasset Isle, Port
Washington, N. Y. , 1970.
122. Vickery, Tom Rusk, ed. , Man and His Environment: The Effects
of Pollution on Man^ Syracuse University Press, Syracuse,
New York, 1972.
123. Water Quality and Recreation in Ohio, Proceedings, Second Annual
Symposium on Water Resources Research, State of Ohio,
Water Resources Center, Ohio State Univ., June 15-16, 1966.
124. Whipple, William Jr., Economic Considerations Relative to Water
Quality, " N. J. Water Resources Research Institute Report,
Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N. J.
66
-------
125. Whiteley, Virgil and Bill B. Dendy, "Conceptual Problems in
Water-Quality Economics, " Jour, of the Sanitary Engineering
Division, Oct. 1968.
126. Willeke, G. , "Effects of Water Pollution in San Francisco Bay, "
Ph.D. Dissertation, Stanford University, 1969.
127. Winton, E. F. , R. G. Tardiff, and L. J. McCabe, "Nitrate in
Drinking Water, " Jour, of Am. Water Works Assoc. ,
63, 95, 1971.
128, Winton, Elliott F. , "Studies Relating to Water Mineralization and
Health," Jour. Am. Water Works Assoc., 63, 26, 1971.
129. Wright, James F. , "Water Resources of the Delaware River
Estuary," Jour. Am. Water Works Assoc., Vol. 58, No. 7,
1966.
130. Zajic, J. E. , Water Pollution Disposa^ and Reuse, Vol.L,
University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada
Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, 1971.
131. Zitko, V., "Determination of Residual Fuel Oil Contamination of
Aquatic Animals, " Bulletin of Environmental Contamination
and Toxicology, Vol. 5, No. 6, 1971.
(See Addendum, page 82 for additional references. )
67
-------
SEC TION VII
APPENDICES
Two brief appendices have been included in this section. The first is
concerned with further documentation of recreational and ecological
damages and the second is concerned with undesirable human and
natural environmental qualities.
A. Appendix A -- Damage Documentation
Appendix A includes additional documentation of water quality associated
damages and critical damage levels or thresholds. These are primarily
related to recreational and esthetic water quality consideration but also
includes selected production damages such as reduced commercial fish
catches. These damages are also cross referenced in Exhibit II-2 in the
text and identified separately as attachments.
68
-------
ATTACHMENT A- Reference 76
Lund, Herbert F. , Industrial Pollution Control Handbook, McGraw-Hill
Book Company.
Maximum Recommended Temperatures for
Development of Various Fishes
Max
temp, °F
Spawning and/or egg development
Growth
48
55
68
75
80
84
90
93
Lake trout, walleye, northern pike,
Atlantic salmon
Salmon, trout
Perch, smallniouth bass
Largemouth and other bass
Catfish, shad
Salmon, trout
Pike, perch, smullmouth bass, walleye
Largemouth bass, blucgill, crnppie
Catfish, gnr, other bass, shad
69
-------
ATTACHMENT B - Reference 33
Detwyler, Thomas R. , Man's Impact on Environment, University of Michigan,
McGraw-Hill Book Co. , 1971
Catch of major species and total commercial catch (thousands of pounds) per year in Lake Michigan for various periods.
Period
1898-1909
5910-1919
1920-1929
1930-1934
1935-1939
1940-1944
1945-1949
1950-1954
1955-1959
19(1(1
19ol
1962
196.!
1964
1965
1966
Lake
trout
7,225
6.763
7.001
5.342
5.038
6.579
2,675
14
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
<1
Lake
herring
16,977
8.642
4. 015
4,985
4,621
1.830
6,044
8.000
3,639
233
177
116
41
34
47
49
Native
Suckers
1.810
4.035
2.117
2,258
2.280
2,125
1.901
882
652
767
494
263
299
215
168
402
species
Whitefish
2.715
1.670
2.111
3,730
1,201
1,351
3.756
1,436
105
124
412
278
298
788
995
1.422
Total major species
Chubs
2.061
3,525
2.902
4.387
5.295
1,971
5.435
10.482
9,947
12,695
12,133
11,115
7,460
5,172
7.441
7.228
Yellow
perch
3.866
2.411
1.537
1.199
2,406
2,729
1,446
1.963
3,055
3,285
4.959
4.050
4,872
5.835
1,297
654
New species
Carp*
261
247
679
769
1,605
1.702
1.319
1.170
1,785
1.416
1.842
1.206
1.277
1.320
2.016
2.713
Sme!tb
_
-
-
425
1.462
2.913
765
4.384
6,983
3,267
2,152
1.546
1.203
969
927
1,110
Alewife"
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
568
2.370
3.199
4.742
5.396
11.744
14.007
29.002
Percentage
of total Other
Pounds catch species
34.915
27.293
20.362
23.075
23,908
21.200
23.324
28,334
26.735
24.158
25,370
23,317
20.795
26,080
26,900
42,580
_
-
_
98.0
98.7
97.8
95.6
97.1
97.8
99.4
99.3
99.3
98.9
99.5
99.7
99.8
-. d
_ d
- d
465
312
474
1.066
848
592
153
189
158
226
121
94
97
Total
catch
35 . 149
27.059
20,477
23.540
24.220
21.674
24.407
29.182
27,327
24.311
25.559
23.475
21.021
26.201
26.994
42,677
" Introduced in the late 1800's.
'' Introduced into Crystal Luke tributary lu Lake Michigan in 1912.
" Invaded the upper Great Lakes via the Wclland Canal and was first reported in Lake Michigan in 1949.
d Data incomplete.
-------
ATTACHMENT B (continued)
Production of lake trout, chubs, and alewives, and estimated pounds of fish destroyed
by spawning run sea lampreys in Lake Michigan in 1935-66.
Year
1935
1936
1937
1938
1939
1940
1941
1942
1943
1944
1945
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
196(1
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
Lake trout
4,873
4.763
4,988
4.906
5,660
6.266
6,787
6.484
6.860
6.498
5,437
3.974
2,425
1.197
342
54
11
4
b
b
b
0
0
0
b
b
ll
1,
26
b
b
b
Gillnet
(Thousands
5,794
5.674
5.579
5.404
4.025
1.648
1.630
1.755
2.214
2.607
4,221-
4.525
5.087
5.929
7.421
9,291
10,301
11,098
11.151
10,568
10,895
10,913
10,546
9,583
6.392
5,530
5,915
6,346
4,050
3,381
6,857
6.990
Chubs
Trawl
of pounds
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
_
-
_
-
_
_
_
_
_
-
-
t ,404
7.129
6.218
4.769
3.410
1.791
583
238
Total
of fish)
5,794
5.674
5.579 ,
5,404 '
4.025
1.648
1,630
1.755
2.214
2.607
4.221
4.525
5.087
5,929
7.421
9.291
10.301
11.098
11.151
10.568
10,895
10.913
10.546
9.583
7.796
12,695
12.133
11,115
7.460
5.172
7.440
7.228
Alewife
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
_.
_
-
_
_
_
220
1,357
1,264
2,370
3 , 199
4.742
5.396
11.744
14,007
29.002
Fish
destroyed
by sea
lamprey*
-
_
-
_
_
-
_
_
_
_
-
116
554
919
1,467
5,046
11,744
3,068
8,591
6,762
5,576
5,275
5,622
2,711
2,313
1.782
3.452
2,167
1,999
1,230
877
313
* Based upon a proportional expansion of (he abundance index (Table 44.2) to reflect the sea lamprey count in
1958 when the maximum number of streams were blocked with counting barriers (Great Lakes Fishery Commiv
sion, 1958) which was doubled on the assumption that one-half of the spawning streams were blocked, and thai
each lamprey killed 37 Ib offish to reach maturity (Packer and Lcnnon, 1956).
" Less than 500 Ib. Most lake trout caught since 1953 were hatchery-reared fish planted to measure survival and
planting techniques.
71
-------
ATTACHMENT C - Reference 107
"Effects of Surface
Spaulding, Willard M. , Jr. and Ronald D. Ogden,
Mining on the Fish and Wildlife Resources of the United States," Bureau
of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Aug. 28, 1968.
Estimated annual fishing and hunting benefits from reclamation of- surface-mined areas, by
census regions
(Values calculated from average present-day fishing and hunting use figures evaluated on basis of the Interim Schedule of Values Issued May 24. 1960, and
Supplement 1, Evaluation Standards for Primary Outdoor Recreation Benefits, Ad Hoc Water Resources Council, June 4,1964]
Census region
Present use
Use with basic reclamation Use with full development
Man-days
Value
Man-days
Value
Man-days
Toul.
Value
New England
Middle Atlantic
South Atlantic
East North Central
East South Central
West North Central
West South Central
Mountain
Pacific
82, 500
55, 600
180,600
297, 200
327, 200
1,204,500
5, 183, 000
1 10, 800
67, 900
$186,000
157,000
325,000
733,000
425,000
2, 165,000
5, 309, 000
292,000
201,000
302, 500
2,218,600
2, 686, 600
1,842,200
3, 723, 200
5,410,500
22,521,000
959, 800
504,900
$712,000
6, 329, 000
4, 253, 000
4, 097, 000
4,501,000
9,417,000
24, 296, 000
2,731,000
1,503,000
601, 500
9, 882, 600
6, 828, 600
4, 767, 200
7, 069, 200
7, 111,500
27, 157, 000
3, 111,800
1,833,900
51,365,000
23,873,000
9, 932, 000
9, 799, 000
8, 474, 000
12,089,000
30,901,000
7,791,000
4, 572, 000
7, 509, 300 9, 793,000 40, 169, 300 57, 839, 000 68, 363, 300 108, 796, 000
72
-------
ATTACHEMENT D - Reference 16
Ciccio, Leonard L. , Water and Water Pollution.Handbook, Marcel Dekker,
Inc., New York, Vols. I, II, III, IV, 1973.
Threshold Concentrations of Various
Substances that Taint Fish Flesh"
Compound Concentration, mg/liter
p-Quinone 0.5
p-Toluidine 20.0
Pyridine 5.0
Quinoline 0.5-0.1
Naphthalene 1.0
a-Naphthol 0.5
0-Naphthol 1.0
o-Naphihylamine 3.0
Xylenol 1.0-5.0
Pyrocatecho) 2.5
Resorcinol 30.0
Pyrogallol 20.0-30.0
Phloroglucinol 10.0
"From Ref. 68, by courtesy of Academic
Verlag, Berlin.
73
-------
ATTACHMENT E - Reference 61
Klein, L. , River Pollution, Vol 2: Cures and Effects, Butterworth,
London, 1962, 456pp.
Concentrations of phenols and other organic compounds present
in coal carbonization effluents having adverse effects on taste of fish
Compound
Phenol .
Crcsols .
Coke oven wastes .
Phenols in polluted!
river . . ./
I:3:4-xylcnol
l:3:5-xylcnol
l:2:4-xylcnol
Pyrocatechol
Rcsorcinol
p-toluidine
Pyridine
Quinoline
Naphthalene
a-naphthol
|9-naphthol
a-naphthylamine
Fish
tested
trout, carp
trout, carp
freshwater fish
minnows
carp
rudd
rudd
carp
carp
rudd
carp, rudd
carp
rudd
rudd
carp, rudd
rudd
Toxicity to fish
(threshold value)
p.p.m.
9-5
10-15
3-5
0-08
10
18
5
15
35
50
160-200
10
—
2
2
6
Approximate
concentration (thres-
hold value) at ivhick
Jishjlesh is tainted
p.p.m.
25
10
0-02-0-1
0-02-0-15
5
1
1
2-5
30
20
5
0-5-1
1
0-5
1
3
74
-------
ATTACHMENT F - Reference 115
Stoevener, Herbert H. , et al. , Multi-DiscipliD.ary Study of Water
Quality Relationships: A Case Study of
Yaquina Bay, Oregon, Oregon
State University, Special Report 348, Feb., 1972.
Percent Survival of Species in Various Concentrations of
KME, and Median Tolerance Limits of KME for Each Species
Species
White
Seaperch
(N - 18)
Striped
Seaperch
(N = 10)
Starry
Flounder
(N » 18)
English
Sole
(N = 20)
Kelp
Greenling
(N » 10)
Time
(hrs)
48
96
48
96
48
96
48
96
48
96
Percent Concentration
of KME
6.0
94
83
4^0
100
100
5.0
100
94
5.0
100
100
8.0
80
80
9.4
100
72
6.0,
90
80
10.0
94
67
10.0
95
35
12.0
90
70
14.0
61
0
.9.0.
90
60
20.0
72
6
20.0
45
0
17.0
80
40
21.0
39
0
13.0
100
0
30.0
30
0
30.0
0
0
24.0
70
0
30.0
32.0
0
0
20.0
20
0
40.0 50.0
0 0
0 0
40.0 50.0
0 0
0 0
35.0
40
0
40.0 50.0
TL
m
(% KME)
17.0
10.6
17.3
9.6
25.0
12.2
18.7
8.5
31.0
15.2
Control
100
100
100
80
94
94
100
100
100
100
Dungeness
Crabs 48 100 100 100 — 88
(N - 17
small) 96 100 100 94 — 82
75
-------
ATTACHMENT G - Reference 61
Klein, L. , River Pollution, Vol. 2: Cures and Effects, Butterworth,
London, 1962, 456 pp.
RIVER POLLUTION
to fi^h of some common inorganic gases in aqueous solution
Cos
Hydrogen sulphide (sulphuretted hydrogen)*.
Chlorinef .......
Ozone .......
?hosphinc .......
Formula
H2S
C12
03
PHj
Approximate
toxic concentration
to fish
p.p.m.
0-5-1-0
0-05-0-2
0-1-1-0
about 3-6
76
-------
ATTACHMENT H - Reference 61
Klein, L. , River Pollution, Vol 2: Cures and Effects, Butterworth,
London, 1962, 456 pp.
Concentrations of phenols and other organic compounds present
in coal carboniEalion effluents having advei-sc effects on taste offish
Compound
Phenol .
Crcsols .
Coke oven wastes -
Phenols in polluted^
river . . ./
I:3:4-xylcnol
l:3:5-xylcnol
l:2:4-xylcnol
Pyrocatechol .
Rcsorcinol
/Moluidinc
1'yridinc
Quinoline
Naphthalene .
«-naphthol
;S-naphthol
a-naphthylaminc
JT.'rA
risn
tested
trout, carp
trout, carp
freshwater fish
minnows
carp
rudd
rudd
carp
carp
rudd
carp, rudd
carp
rudd
rudd
carp, rudd
rudd
Toxicity tojish
(threshold value)
p.p.m.
9-5
10-15
3-5
0-08
10
18
5
15
35
50
160-200
10
—
2
2
6
Approximate
concentration (litres-
hold value) at which
Jishjlesh is tainted
p.p.m.
25
10
0-02-0-1
0-02-0-15
5
1
1
2-5
30
20
5
0-5-1
1
0-5
1
3
77
-------
ATTACHMENT I - Reference 61
Klein, L., River Pollution, Vol. 2: Cures and Effects, Butterworth,
London, 1962, 456 pp.
Relation between thickness of oil film on water, appearance and
amount of oil present"
Approximate thickness
of oil film
(decimals of an inch)
0-0000015
0 '0000030
0-0000060
0-0000120
0-OOOMOO
0-0000800
Appearance of oil on surface
of water
Barely visible
Visible as silvery sheen
First traces of colour
Bright bands of colour
Colours begin to turn dull
Colours much darker
Approximate amount of oil
for film I sq. mile in area
(Imperial gallons)
21
42
83
J67
555
1,110
78
-------
B. Appendix B -- Undesirable Esthetic Qualities
Appendix B includes a variety of esthetic considerations that have been
shown to be undesirable by recreational and nonrecreational users.
This list contains many factors that are not directly related to water
quality but have been shown to be important esthetic considerations in
references
79
-------
SELECTED UNDESIRABLE ESTHETIC QUALITIES
Water clarity in swimming area
Algae, weeds, and plant growth
Litter and trash in water
Cleanliness compared with past years
Quality of lake for recreation
Fishing compared with past years
Odors evident from burning garbage or trash
Odors evident from improper handling of sewage
Community cleanliness: evidence of litter and trash
Evidence of sewage disposal problem
Evidence of trash disposal problem
General community attractiveness
Attractiveness of homes
Quality of home construction
Maintenance level of homes
Landscaping between homes
Layout of streets and lots
Si ze of home lots
Spacing between homes
Size of homes
Traffic and congestion
Deterioration of natural beauty
Crowded conditions for water recreation
Noise from activities of people
Restrictions on use of pesticides
Restrictions on use of detergents
Further muffling of outboard motors
Limit on total number of seasonal homes
Restricted areas for trail bikes , etc.
Restricted zones for water skiing
Off limit areas for automobiles
Restricted-zones for motor boating
Restricted time periods for water skiing
Restricted time period for motor boating
Restrictions on architectural design
Source number: 7, 27 and 126
80
-------
SELECTED UNDESIRABLE ESTHETIC QUALITIES
Too cluttered with buildings
Unesthetic
Skyline destroys view
Not good to look, at
Signs
Cars too close to Bay
Tract houses
Signs
Salt flats
Swamps
Mud flats
Water too shallow
Too cold
Too rough
Not good for water skiing, fishing, swimming, sailing
Beaches inaccessible
Beaches unmanaged
Need more recreation areas
Fog
Smog
Humidity
Dampness
Windy
Port facilities antiquated
Industries dirty looking
Shoreline too industrialized
Too much Traffic
Freeways near Bay
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
Biological oxygen demand (BOD)
Temperature
Toxic it y
Acidity
Alkalinity
Source number: 7, 27 and 126
81
-------
ADDENDUM
Several important references have been inadvertently omitted from the
bibliography and the text of the report. These references are as follows:
Dornbusch, David M. & Co. , Inc. , Benefit of Water Pollution Control
on Property Values, San Francisco, California, 1973.
Scaiola, G. , "Public Intervention Against Pollution: Estimates of the
Economic Costs and Benefits Related to a Project for Eliminating
the Principal Forms of Atmospheric and Water Pollution in Italy, "
Rapportio di Sintesi, pp. 137-173, June 1971.
Tihansky, Dennis P. , "Economic Damages from Residential Use of
Mineralized Water Supply," Water Resources Research, 10,
(4) pp. 145-154.
The first of the above references, i. e. , Dornbusch and Co. , is the only
property value study that includes estimates of national property value
benefits accruing from water quality enhancement. This reference 'should
be included in the bibliography and in Section IV of the report.
The last reference, i.e., Tihansky, provides estimates of the economic
damages from residential use of mineralized water. This important
reference should be included in Section VI of the text and the bibliography.
At the present time DPRA has not had the opportunity to review the
work by Scaiola. Various reviewers have, however, studied the article
and recommended that it be included in the bibliography.
82
-------
SELECTED WATER
RESOURCES ABSTRACTS
INPUT TRANSACTION FORM
W
Estimating Water Quality Benefits
David L. Jordening, Development Planning and
Research Associates, Inc., Manhattan, Kansas
21-AQJ-05
68-01-0744
Environmental Protection Agency report number, EPA-600/5-7^-OlU, August
The objective of this report is to present a state of the arts summary concerning
estimating water quality associated benefits. This summary is viewed as a useful
administrative tool to those that have been assigned the task of directing current
and future research activity.
Insofar as possible, this summary is presented by specific pollutants by beneficia
use, devoting special attention to hypothesized and documented use-quality relationship
A discussion of the economic quantification of these relationships is also included.
The beneficial uses considered include recreation, esthetics, property values and
ecology with only limited attention devoted to water quality associated health and
production impacts. Specific references and methodologies are discussed with the
ultimate objective of providing a state of the arts assessment by beneficial use.
This assessment was also useful in deriving conclusions concerning research priorities
and possible results of future water quality related research.
*Economic analysis, water quality, cost-benefit analysis, *benefit assessment,
*literature search
Send To:
WATER RESOURCES SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION CENTER
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON. DX. 2O24O
Dennis P. Tihansky
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
FD 674
UNITED STATES
PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
Official Business
PO*TME AND FVK* PAID
ENVIRONMENTAL PMOTSCTION AOCNCT
EPA-33S
SPECIAL FOURTH-CLASS RATE
BOOK
If your addreu b incorrect, pkaie change on the above label;
tear off; and return to the above addrcw.
If you do not deiire to continue receiving thfa technkal report
MTkt, CHECK HERE Q ; tear off label, and return it to the
above addreu.
------- |