Irrigating with
Municipal Effluent
A Socioeconomic Study of
Community Experiences
Lee A. Christensen
In Cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory

-------
Use of brand names (or company names) in
this publication is for identification
only and does not imply endorsement by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

-------
2682G
IRRIGATING WITH MUNICIPAL EFFLUENT: A SOCIOECONOMIC STUDY OF
COMMUNITY EXPERIENCES. Lee A. Christensen. Natural Resource
Economics Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department
of Agriculture. ERS-672.
ABSTRACT	This study examines experiences of eight communities using
land to treat municipal effluents. Most systems evolved
without long-range planning. No distinct methods for land
acquisition and management related to the size of the
community were identified. Factors identified as important
for successful systems operation included a long planning
horizon and good working relationships between community
officials and landowners. Legal contracts were of secondary
importance. Farmers did not adjust their fertilization rates,
although they recognized the value of nutrients in the
effluent.
Keywords: Land application, agricultural and community
impacts, case studies, planning guidance, resource
recycling
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS	This report was prepared with the support of the Environmental
Protection Agency through Interagency Agreement
EPA-IA6-DS-0799. The author thanks Curtis Harlin, Jr.,
project officer for EPA, for his insights, reviews, and
administrative guidance. Richard Thomas, EPA, also provided
useful review comments and suggestions. C. Edwin Young, ERS,
provided useful input and review to the report, and was
particularly helpful in the preparation of the section on the
comparison of irrigation systems.
The author is also grateful for the insights and information
provided by farmers and city officials of Camarillo, Calif.,
Dickinson, N. Dak., Lake George, N. Y., Mesa, Ariz., Roswell,
N. Mex., San Angelo, Tex., Tooele, Utah, and Vineland, N. J.
Thanks is also extended to the principal investigators from
the other Environmental Protection Agency contractors for
assistance in onsite investigation arrangements in each
community. These included Engineering Enterprises, Inc.,
Ralph Stone and Associates, Utah State University, and
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
Washington, D.C. 20250	January 1982

-------
CONTENTS SUMMARY 				iii
INTRODUCTION 		1
Increased Interest in Land Treatment 			2
Land Treatment Concepts 		2
Historical Perspective 		3
ALTERNATIVES FOR LAND ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT 		5
Acquisition and Management Options 		6
Implications for Communities and Farmers 		13
COMMUNITY EXPERIENCES WITH LAND TREATMENT SYSTEMS 		14
Camarillo, California 		15
Dickinson, North Dakota 		18
Mesa, Arizona 				22
Roswell, New Mexico 		25
Tooele, Utah 					28
San Angelo, Texas 		30
Lake George, New York 					31
Vineland, New Jersey 						33
COMPARISON OF THE IRRIGATION SYSTEMS 		34
Economic and Demographic Characteristics 		34
Wastewater Pretreatment 					36
Site Acquisition and Management 				36
Farming Operations 		40
Reflections on the Operation of the Systems 		42
BIBLIOGRAPHY 		44
ii

-------
SUMMARY	IjEight representative communities are examined in this report
to identify their long-term experiences with land treatment of
municipal effluent and to provide information on socioeconomic
issues to other communities considering the adoption of land
treatment systems (.
Communities and farmers have several options for establishing
agreements for use and management of land needed for municipal
effluent treatment systems. Communities can obtain rights to
land through purchases, easements, or contractual agreements.
A community which purchases a treatment site can manage it
directly or lease it to another party. Or access to land can
be obtained without purchase through contracts with individual
landowners or through the formation of a wastewater
cooperative.
No distinct ownership and management patterns emerged among
the communities studied, nor were there obvious reasons why
one method was selected over another. Community size had
little influence on the choice. Factors which seemed to
influence the methods selected included site specific
technical factors; the political, social, and regulatory
environment; and local custom and entrepreneurship.
Much more variety existed in acquisition and management
methods for slow rate or irrigation systems than for rapid
infiltration systems. This reflects the smaller land
requirements needed for the rapid infiltration systems and
that such systems do not involve agricultural production. All
rapid infiltration systems were owned and managed by the
community they served. Greater variety existed among
communities irrigating crops with effluent. Four communities
provided effluent to privately owned land adjacent to the
treatment sites. One city owned the treatment site and leased
it to a farmer, and another community owned and operated the
farm used for land treatment of effluent.
Both community officials and farmers were aware of the
economic value of effluent, both as a source of irrigation
water and a source of nutrients. But, the resources were not
being used economically. Farmers generally paid the
communities for the use of effluent, either in cash or by
providing access to land, but they had not reduced commercial
fertilizer application rates to reflect the nutrient content
of the effluent. City officials recognized the value of
effluent, but did not charge for its full value.
Community needs for wastewater treatment, together with
farmers who perceived an opportunity for improving their
supply of water and nutrients at a low cost, led to the
iii

-------
initial development of several of the systems. The land treat-
ment systems then developed as the communities expanded; but
little of the expansion of the systems was planned. Important
ingredients to the successful operation of such a system are
understanding and a good working relationship between the farmer
and the community. Legal terms of an agreement can be specified
in a contract, but such a contract is not as important as the
informal understandings developed between the involved parties.

-------
Irrigating With Municipal Effluent
A Socioeconomic Study of
Community Experiences
Lee A. Christensen
INTRODUCTION	Environmental regulations to increase the treatment given
municipal effluents have focused additional attention on land
treatment of municipal effluent. Land treatment of effluent
from municipal wastewater treatment plants involves the use of
plants, the soil surface, and the soil matrix to remove many
wastewater constituents, and, in many cases, to recycle these
constituents in agricultural crop systems.
Land treatment has recently been adopted by several
communities and is being considered by many others. This
study assesses the economic and institutional factors
influencing the selection, design, and operation of municipal
land treatment systems for eight representative communities.
It is part of a comprehensive study of the long-term effects
initiated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The
overall study also reported the results of the water quality
and environmental investigations of the long-term effects of
the systems. These reports are by Aulenbach (3) Hossner (20),
Weaver (54), Koerner and Haus (23), Benham-Blair (5_), Stone
(41, 42), and Reynolds (34). 1/
Specific study objectives include:
1. Development of a framework of acquisition and
management options for use by farmers and communities
in establishing land treatment systems, with a
discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of
each.
T7Underscored numbers in parentheses refer to items in the
Bibliography.
1

-------
2.	Description of the operation of the community systems,
emphasizing methods used to acquire and operate sites
and the legal agreements used.
3.	Analysis of the evolution of the acquisition and
management systems used, and an assessment of the
strength of systems used.
4.	Analysis of associated effects of the specific systems
on the local economy.
Increased Interest Land treatment offers resource recovery and reuse options
in Land Treatment rather than treatment and disposal. Numerous opportunities
exist to reclaim water and nutrients for crop production and
to recharge ground water supplies.
When Federal water quality goals were augmented with the
passage of the 1972 Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (PL 92-500), land treatment, because of its
potential for recycling, received special recognition as a
treatment alternative. The purchase of land, an integral part
of a land treatment system, became eligible for a Federal
construction subsidy for the first time. Added emphasis was
given land treatment by EPA policy statements and by
provisions of the Clean Water Act of 1977 (16^ £6^, 51).
Receipt of a Federal construction subsidy requires that land
treatment alternatives be evaluated. Since October 1, 1978,
land treatment systems have been considered innovative and/or
alternative treatment technologies eligible for an additional
10-percent construction subsidy. An innovative or alternative
treatment system is deemed cost effective If Its costs are 115
percent or less of the least cost conventional treatment
alternative.
Numerous studies were undertaken in the early seventies to
define the process of land treatment of municipal wastewater,
identify technical parameters, and assess costs (28, 29, 30,
40, 50^ 52). These studies supported land treatment as a
viable treatment alternative. But, questions remained about
the long-term effects of land treatment systems. While some
studies concluded that land treatment was effective, little
data were available describing the effects on factors
influencing the viability of a system over a long period of
time.
Land treatment is the application of wastewater to land for
treatment, renovation, recycling, and reuse. One objective is
the utilization and adsorption of nitrates and phosphates by
soil and plants to purify the water. Land treatment uses
plants, the soil surface, and the soil matrix to remove many
Land Treatment
Concepts
2

-------
wastewater constituents (52). Three principal processes are
available: slow rate, rapid infiltration, and overland flow
(29, 52).
Application rates with irrigation or slow rate systems are
low, with annual application rates of between 0.6 and 6 meters
(m) [2-20 feet (ft)]. Vegetative cover and soil microorganisms
act to remove and alter the characteristics of the pollutants
as the wastewater percolates through the soil. Depending upon
the goals for the system, the vegetative cover may or may not
be harvested.
In rapid infiltration systems, most of the applied wastewater
percolates through the soil and the treated effluent
eventually reaches the ground water. Annual application rates
for this type of system range from 6 to 171 m (20-560 ft).
Wastewater constituents are removed by the filtering and
straining action of the soil.
In overland flow, wastewater is applied over the upper reaches
of sloped terraces and is allowed to flow across the vegetated
surface to runoff collection ditches. Application rates range
from 3 to 21 m (10-70 ft) per year depending on the level of
preapplication treatment. The wastewater is cleansed by
physical, chemical, and biological means as it flows In a thin
film down a relatively impermeable slope.
Historical Per-	Water quality concerns transcend generations. Great Britain,
spective	working for water quality improvement over a century ago,
passed the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act of 1876. This act
required that treatment of wastes discharged into British
waterways be "the best or only practical and available means
under the circumstances" (19). Nearly a century later, PL
92-500 established "the best practical waste treatment
technology" as a 1983 minimum requirement for publicly owned
treatment works discharging wastewaters into navigable waters.
Current emphasis on land treatment in the United States
started in the early seventies. However, a historical review
of early land treatment systems reveals how human experiences
and interests are repeated. References to early systems are
numerous (21, 29, 32, 33). Present interest in water quality
improvement and particularly applying wastewater to land has
precedence in earlier experiences of the United States.
Problems and issues addressed by Rafter are currently being
addressed through planning efforts for land treatment of
wastewater. The current efforts have the added dimension of
reuse and recycling of the resources in wastes. Rafter's
first article noted that under the right conditions sewage may
be profitably utilized (32). He identified general principles
3

-------
applicable now as well as then: the need for properly trained
sewage plant operators, the need for site specific analysis so
that "each case must be studied by itself on its own merits,"
and the need to take into account the attitudes of surrounding
residents in farm locations. Other early issues that are
current today include tradeoffs between waste purification and
utilization, compatibility of application rates with
agricultural production, the need for storage or sites for
intermittent use when effluent flow exceeds crop reuse
capacity, and the potential problems arising when profit
maximization from using effluent in farming conflicts with the
goal of effluent treatment.
The beginnings of an applied scientific approach to sewage
farming has been attributed to England in the middle of the
19th century (32). This resulted from concerns in general
about water pollution associated with the growth of cities and
industry, and the search for solutions. The first effort at
sewage irrigation in the eastern United States was in 1872 at
an asylum in Augusta, Maine. Approximately 0.3 liters per
second (1/s) [7,000 gallons per day (gpd)] passed by gravity
into large tanks where it was mixed with absorbents such as
straw and leaves. The solids were then periodically carted
onto the land while the liquid portion was used to irrigate
approximately 1.2 ha (3 ac) of hay and vegetables (33).
Cheyenne, Wyo. , was the first western U.S. city to irrigate
with sewage in 1881 (29). Other early systems were developed
at Los Angeles, Calif., San Antonio, Tex., and Lubbock, Tex.
Los Angeles began using sewage for irrigation about 1883, and
by 1897 had the most extensive privately owned sewage farming
operation in the Nation. In 1883, Los Angeles contracted to
give its sewage to the South Side Irrigation Company. This
contract was renewed in 1895 with the provision that the city
would deliver more sewage. In exchange, the company built a
lengthy 24-inch delivery pipe, which became city property in
1903. About 891 ha (2,200 ac) of private land in vegetable
crops were irrigated with the sewage conveyed by ditches from
the main outfall sewer. The rent for land receiving sewage
irrigation was $18 per acre compared to $12 an acre for that
irrigated with river water. As the city grew, the irrigated
area became city property. Residents who bought nearby land
objected to the sewage Irrigation and the system was
eventually closed (33).
San Antonio was the first Texas community to use irrigation as
a means to dispose of its sewage. The city purchased 214 ha
(530 ac) of land in 1895, expecting to establish a sewage farm
(33). In 1900, the city contracted with a private company to
irrigate land with effluent (17).
4

-------
A 1953 review of the San Antonio system found farmers were
satisfied with the use of effluent for their crops. Mitchell
Lake, a 275-ha (680-ac) artificial lake about 19.4 kilometers
(km) [12 miles (mi)] southwest of the city, has received San
Antonio sewage in various stages of treatment. Numerous farms
and ranches used the sewage water for irrigation. The four
largest farms totaled 1,093 ha (2,700 ac) and irrigated 740 ha
(1,827 ac). Significant increases in hay yields and pasture
carrying capacities were attributed to the use of effluent
(39)-
Lubbock's effluent has been used for irrigation since 1925.
Prior to 1925, treated wastewater was discharged into a stream
flowing through the city. The existence of several privately
owned recreation lakes in the canyon below the sewage
treatment plant in 1925, coupled with poor water quality in
the normally dry water course, prompted the city to look for
alternative means of disposal.
Lubbock has contracted with Frank Gray and Associates for
reuse of effluent for irrigation since 1937. The original
20-year contract was for the use of 44 to 66 1/s {1-1.5
million gallons per day (mgd)] of effluent on 80 ha (200 ac)
of land, 40 ha of which was leased from the city and another
40 from an individual. Effluent volume had increased to 723
1/s (16.5 mgd) by 1976. Gray has expanded his farming
operation to control 1,214 ha (3,000 ac) of land, and supplies
water on a periodic basis to about 810 ha (2,000 ac) of his
neighbors' land. The contract directs the city to
continuously deliver all its wastewater to Gray, and for Gray
to use it in a manner acceptable to State and local health
departments. Gray historically has a surplus of water,
sometimes irrigating at an annual rate of 3.6 to 4.6 m (12-15
ft) (56).
ALTERNATIVES FOR	Land treatment systems require greater land area than
LAND ACQUISITION	conventional treatment systems. While land is needed for
AND MANAGEMENT	plant location for all systems, it is an integral part of the
treatment process for land treatment systems. Type and
location of land is also much more Important for land
treatment systems. Acquisition of rights to this necessary
land base is an important planning variable for wastewater
authorities.
Although rights to land may be obtained in a number of ways,
the alternatives are normally defined by the institutions
governing ownership and use of land. Institutions have been
defined as "sets of ordered relationships among people which
5

-------
define their rights, exposure to the rights of others,
privileges, and responsibilities" (37). They reflect people's
perspectives and values and a distribution of political and
economic power to influence and control individual behavior
and group action.
Property rights are an important legal-economic institution
affecting land treatment systems. They govern the contracts
and conditions for the acquisition and use of the total
"bundle of rights" ascribed to landownership. The bundle of
rights to property represents the total of several distinct
interests or rights. It may be optimal from a management and
environmental viewpoint for a community wastewater authority
to acquire the total bundle of rights for land used in such
integral operations as treatment lagoons, pretreatment
facilities, and pumping and distribution facilities. Access
to land for the actual application of wastewater can be
acquired without acquiring the complete bundle of rights.
Land costs influence the adoption of land treatment systems.
However, while the monetary cost of purchasing land can be
large it may not exert as large an impact on costs as might be
anticipated (61). Even more important, landowner opposition
can prevent the adoption and development of land treatment
systems. Land acquisition and management need to be handled
carefully, balancing the respective views and goals of both
the community and the landowner.
Land is a basic input for diverse and potentially conflicting
goals. The community needs land for the primary goal of
wastewater treatment. This same land is also a vital resource
which farmers need to earn their living. Thus, a community
seeking farmland for treating municipal effluent needs to
consider the farmer's perspective.
Acquisition and Man- Institutional analysis focuses on how land will be acquired
agement Options	and managed and the impact of methods selected on Issues of
equity, system management, treatment reliability,
implementation, and acceptability. Property rights govern the
transfer and use of land needed for several purposes including
treatment lagoons, pretreatment facilities, conveyance
systems, pumping stations, and application sites. Options for
acquiring land provide control over the resource itself.
Management options obtain certain behavioral actions from both
farmers and communities in the use of land. A number of
management options can be exercised in conjunction with
acquisition options, particularly with fee simple acquisition
(purchase) and contracts. Decisionmakers need to evaluate
these options in light of site requirements, and impacts on
costs, control, and public opinion.
6

-------
Fee Simple Acquisi- Rights obtained through fee simple acquisition include all
tion	rights to land including the right to possess, use, buy, sell,
or enter into contractual arrangements. These rights are
exclusive rather than absolute as government places
limitations on them through the use of taxation, eminent
domain, escheat, and police power (4). The use of the land
itself is subject to the nuisance doctrine which precludes use
of the land that unreasonably interferes with the rights of
others.
When fee simple interest is obtained voluntarily, the
landowner is presumably paid the full value of the land and
thus bears no cost of public action. The community may
acquire a fee simple interest through the exercise of its
eminent domain authority, if the land is to be used for public
purposes• In this instance, the community is required to
compensate the landowner for the fair market value of the
property taken. However, some of the public costs may be
transferred to the displaced landowner. For instance, the
State might restrict land use to a specific purpose, such as
land treatment. Courts however would probably view this as a
taking Which requires compensation under eminent domain.
Use of the fee simple acquisition option permits a municipal
authority to use the land in any manner compatible with its
objectives without obtaining agreement from a second party.
This is particularly important since it subjects the
engineering and environmental considerations of the treatment
system to a unilateral rather than a bilateral decisionmaking
process. Fee simple acquisition insures a long-term planning
horizon for the treatment site. Disadvantages to the
community include the high purchase costs of fee simple
interests and the public opposition that may be encountered
with large-scale government involvement in the real estate
market. Large land purchases by a tax-exempt body could have
a significant impact on property tax revenues and on budgets
of taxing districts. Such impacts need to be considered in
the planning process (14).
With fee simple acquisition, landowners exchange their rights
for some dollar amount. With either a voluntary or
involuntary property sale, the owner generally can relocate or
leave farming entirely, or perhaps continue to farm through a
leaseback agreement or as a municipal, employee. Social
benefits may be realized from fee simple acquisition as it
insures continued operation of the waste treatment site. Fee
simple acquisition also facilitates using the lands to serve
broader public planning objectives. Sites can be specifically
selected for soil type, location, and secondary uses such as
7

-------
preservation of open space, protection of water table recharge
areas, and planned urban expansion. The acquisition of large
tracts of farmland may impose a social cost if communities are
disrupted and social and economic bonds are broken.
Options for the management of land acquired in fee simple
include purchase and manage, purchase and leaseback, and
purchase and resale on condition. The wastewater authority
makes the managerial and operational decisions with the
purchase and manage option. With the purchase and leaseback
option, most managerial and operational responsibilities are
transferred to the lessee. The purchase and resale on
condition option enables the authority to buy the required
land and then resell it with conditions attached compatible
with land treatment requirements.
Purchase and Manage—When fee simple title is acquired, a
wastewater authority may choose to manage the farming
operations as a subsystem of the overall wastewater treatment
operation. These additional responsibilities may tax the
managerial resources of the wastewater authority, leading to
some type of subcontracting arrangement for custom farm
operations. However, custom farming may be impractical for a
large metropolitan system with a large farming operation. The
wastewater authority would have to negotiate numerous
contracts with custom operators, provided there were enough
operators in the area. An alternative arrangement would be to
negotiate a contract with a management firm to run the farming
operations. Such a contract existed between a private
corporation and Muskegon County, Mich., in the early years of
the Muskegon land treatment system. It covered the operation
and monitoring of the treatment system, including the farming
operation. However, the county subsequently assumed direct
responsibility for the operation of the system.
Purchase and Leaseback—Under the purchase and leaseback
option the operating authority acquires fee simple title to
land and leases it to another party for farming operations.
The lessee may be the previous landowner or a third party.
This option may require that the authority provide some
managerial services. Purchase and leaseback has the potential
for establishing subsequent uses for the land. Moreover,
purchase and leaseback can be done within the well-established
legal framework of the landlord-tenant law. Enforcement of
use limitations is not difficult, especially if the terms of
the lease spell out the rights and duties of each party and
the remedies available for breach of contract.
8

-------
There is relatively little experience with the purchase and
leaseback option on a large scale in the United States. Such
an arrangement might be attractive to a farmer approaching
retirement age and wanting to relinquish part of his ownership
responsibilities. The amount of land acquired by purchase and
leaseback would depend upon community size, the farm
operator's cooperation, and the public's acceptance of the
program.
The usefulness of the purchase and leaseback option is
influenced by the term and form of a negotiated lease. The
term may vary from less than 3 years to longer periods, up to
99 years. Long-term leases usually run for periods of 15
years or more. Such long planning horizons are important for
land treatment sites. Main forms of leases include cash rent
and share rent. Cash rent leases typically call for a
specific annual cash payment. A cash rent lease protects the
landowner but leaves the tenant subject to the risk and
uncertainties of the farming activities. Share rents specify
a division of the crop yields and the production costs between
the landlord and tenant. A major effect of share rents is to
shift some risks and responsibilities of management from the
tenant to the landlord (4^). Since land treatment is a
relatively new technology for humid areas, tenants may prefer
sharing risks with the treatment authority.
Purchase and Resale on Condition—This option entails the
public purchase of land and its subsequent resale for private
use, under conditions designed to achieve legitimate public
ends. It has been used most frequently in urban renewal
projects, and is a means of insuring that land acquired by a
public body shall be properly transferred so that development
and use will conform to the development plan.
Purchase and resale enables a wastewater authority to obtain
the rights to land without making a long-term capital
investment. It reduces administrative problems by getting the
authority out of the real estate business. Conditions
important to the operation, such as amounts of wastewater to
be accepted and necessary environmental protection, can be
prescribed in the resale conditions and can be enforced by a
suit for damage or injunctive relief. Operation from the time
of purchase to the time of resale can be accomplished under
lease options or other agreements. Once resale occurs, land
is returned to the tax rolls and public land maintenance costs
are eliminated.
A variation of purchase and resale under condition is the
purchase and resale when the land is no longer needed for
wastewater application. Gains realized from lease
9

-------
arrangements or subsequent sale of the land could help finance
the wastewater authority, or compensate the community for any
tax loss resulting from the reduction in taxable property.
Real Property In- An alternative to fee simple acquisition is acquisition of
terest Other Than only that portion of the total bundle of rights necessary to
Fee	meet specific objectives. Easements are a prime example of
real interest other than fee. An easement is a transfer of
only a part of the total bundle of rights vested in fee simple
ownership, from an individual to a government body. The
easement concept is well established in agriculture as a
method to maintain agricultural land in the path of urban
development (49). The California Land Conservation Act is a
prime example (12). Easements have a common property
character as they represent governmental action to secure
property rights for nonowners.
There are two general classes of easements, positive and
negative (57). A positive easement is a right held by the
purchaser or recipient of that easement to use the property
according to some set agreement. Examples of positive
easements include fishing rights, and a utility company's
right to install lines on, in, or above one's property.
Rights for wastewater conveyance lines are another example. A
negative easement is a transfer of rights that prevents the
landowner from exercising a specific right. Negative
easements have most commonly been designated for scenic,
conservation, and wetland purposes. An example of a negative
easement would be a farmer transferring his rights to drain
lands used by waterfowl during migration. In such cases, his
rights to drain his land are transferred in exchange for a
consideration.
Easements can be donated, purchased, or acquired through
condemnation by public agencies. Authority for the
acquisition of easements is not as widespread as the authority
to purchase the fee simple title. In several instances,
legislation has been passed which permits acquisition of less
than fee simple Interests but excludes use of the power of
eminent domain to acquire such rights.
As with fee simple acquisition, the easement concept has
characteristics which influence the distribution of impacts
among farmers, the community, and society in general.
Easements allow farmers to maintain ownership even though they
relinquish certain rights in exchange for negotiated
compensation. A disadvantage to farmers is that they may have
difficulties enforcing their individual rights.
10

-------
Some major advantages of easements to an authority include
lower costs and financing requirements relative to fee simple
acquisition, and tailoring of the rights obtained to a
specific objective. For example, some easements may permit
irrigation, while others may acquire the right for wastewater
transmission pipes to pass. Also, less community opposition
would be encountered as land remains in private ownership and
on the tax rolls.
Major disadvantages to an authority of easements include
difficulty in establishing easement values for negotiation
purposes, administrative problems in enforcing authority
rights, and a potential problem of enforcement against
subsequent fee purchases or land uses if the easement is not
properly recorded. A disadvantage in rapidly developing areas
is that the easement cost can approximate the cost of fee
simple ownership. Administrative authorities in such areas
may be reluctant to acquire easements that may cost as much as
60 to 80 percent of fee simple ownership.
Contracts With No The third category of acquisition options are those which
Real Property In- provide access to land without any transfer of real property
terest	rights. In this case, negotiation between the involved
parties determines the terms of the agreement, usually
specified in a contractual agreement. Examples of this
acquisition option are a contract between a farmer and a
wastewater authority and formation of wastewater
cooperatives.
Contracts—Contracts between two or more parties generally
specify an agreement of actions to be taken or refrained from
in exchange for a specified consideration. Most contracts for
land application in the United States have been between a
farmer and a community, specifying agreements for applying
effluent to private farms or to land owned by the city.
The terms of a contract vary from location to location
reflecting site specific conditions. Contracts can specify
agreements on the construction of irrigation delivery and
drainage systems, distribution of crops from the farming
operation, cost sharing, duration of the contract, review
procedures, and termination clauses (24). Contracts can also
specify the annual amount of effluent that farmers will
receive from the authority. Farmers could then allocate the
wastewater to crops compatible with their management
objectives. A wastewater authority may contract to sell
effluent to farmers, although a survey of operating land
disposal systems found that such sales have generally been
unsuccessful, and there have been few cases where a public
11

-------
agency was able to obtain more than token payment for the
treated effluent (43).
The land treatment system at Lubbock is an example of a
contractual agreement between a municipality and farmers.
Approximately 1,174 ha (2,900 ac) are involved in a system
operating since 1937. Approximately 1.2 to 1.8 m (4-6 ft) of
effluent are applied annually for use in forage and livestock
farming. A prime contractor (farmer) is the intermediary
between the municipality and other farmers using the
effluent. Some land is owned by the city of Lubbock, some
owned by the prime contractor, and some is leased from
adjoining farms. A 20-year cash lease was negotiated for
city-owned land. The prime contractor is required to take all
the effluent from the holding tanks at all times. Land
preparation, construction of ditches, installation of
pipelines, and related costs are paid by the irrigators,
rather than by the city. A cooperative and understanding
attitude between the municipal government and the operator of
the project was identified as essential to the success of the
system. Just as a city wants to insure a place to dispose of
its wastes, the farmer must be protected with a long-term
contract in order to make the investments necessary to handle
the effluent (18).
Wastewater Cooperatives—An alternative to a two-party
contract is a cooperative venture where a number of farmers
enter into a contract with a city to provide land for
wastewater treatment. Such a cooperative approach has not
been used in the United States, but has been evaluated as a
possibility for a large-scale land treatment system (10).
Although farmers form cooperatives to purchase production
supplies and sell their crops, these cooperative ventures are
not generally extended to land use. It is likely that
increasing partnerships and greater cooperative action will be
necessary for farmers to function in an environment of
contractual systems of control (7_).
The cooperative approach to the utilization of land waste
treatment has been used successfully in Germany (36, 44). The
Sewage Utilization Association of Braunschweig was organized
in 1954 to expand the activities of a sewage farm operating in
the area since the 1890's. The association is made up of the
city of Braunschweig (population 325,000), 476 farmers, and 26
nearby communities. Approximately 30.3 million liters per day
(8 mgd) of raw sewage are applied to 4,210 ha (10,400 ac) of
land. The total irrigation area consists of land in 12
communities which is divided into four districts of comparable
acreage which are further divided into three rural districts
and three government districts. Policy decisions for the

-------
association are made by a committee of 20 farmers and four
city representatives. Farmers pay 25 percent and the city
pays 75 percent of the cost of the systems. Many communities
bordering the irrigation area have joined the association,
paying an annual charge for sewer and pumping station
networks.
The cooperative approach would build upon the existing
economic and social structure of the rural community. Such a
cooperative might also serve as a basis for planning and
implementing other community goals. Irrigation districts in
the Western United States are a form of cooperative venture
with a successful tradition.
A disadvantage in cooperative land use decisions could be the
perceived or real loss of highly valued individual freedom of
choice. The history of the cooperative movement, however,
indicates that mutual gains from cooperation on input
purchases and commodity sales adequately compensate
cooperators for any perceived loss of freedom.
Implications for	Each acquisition and management option affects the respective
Communities and	goals of the farmer and community differently and these need
Farmers	to he considered in evaluating land treatment systems. Both
parties are motivated by a combination of economic and other
goals. Water and nutrients in effluent may be used to
increase agricultural production, which in turn can increase
farm income and reduce community treatment costs.
The goals of a community and farmers are diverse and sometimes
conflicting. A community orients Its goals towards the health
and well-being of its residents. Public health concerns
translate in part to wastewater treatment objectives and the
need to meet them in an economic and politically acceptable
manner. Farmer's goals include income generation, wealth
accumulation, firm growth, freedom of decisionmaking, and the
sense of community (9).
Farmers	The impact on farmer's goals is the greatest when fee simple
title is acquired by the wastewater authority. Easement
acquisition and contractual arrangements have less impact as
the farmer continues to farm, influenced only by the terms of
the easement or contract.
With fee simple transfer of title, the impact on the farmer is
influenced by the management option selected by the
community. The impact is less severe when the farmer can
remain on the land under a tenancy or employment arrangement
rather than relocating. A lease arrangement affords a former
13

-------
owner the greatest stake in the operation, particularly if the
former owner shares in successes as well as in failures.
Contractual arrangements between the farmer and the community
should be reviewed on a regular basis. The initial agreement
should indicate agreement over the distribution of benefits
and costs, but changes in the underlying factors would require
a regular review of contractual terms.
Communities	Fee simple acquisition gives a community complete ownership of
the land, but at a high cost, particularly for large systems.
But, such acquisition enables a community to unilaterally plan
to meet its primary objective of wastewater treatment and
renovation. With other than fee simple acquisition, the
treatment goals of the community and the income goals of the
farmers are likely to require more land to treat wastewater
and maintain agricultural production simultaneously.
Fee simple acquisition provides a community greater
flexibility in planning for multipurpose land use, such as
parks and open space.
Real property interest other than fee may be obtained through
the use of easements. Title to the treatment site would be
retained by the current owner and the community acquires only
those property rights necessary to carry out the particular
management practices and controls required by the land
treatment system. Easements do not remove land from the local
property tax base.
Even when land remains in private ownership, the large amount
of acreage required for high wastewater volumes suggests that
land treatment is most applicable for smaller communities or
to treat only a part of the total wastewater volume of a large
metropolitan area.
COMMUNITY EXPERT- This study addresses the long-term experiences of communities
ENCES WITH LAND	with land treatment systems. Ten communities were selected by
TREATMENT SYSTEMS EPA for a detailed study. Selection criteria included
long-term continuous operation of the system, availability of
current and historical data on the operation of the system,
ability to monitor current land treatment sites, geographical
dispersion, and type of system. Sites were not selected on
the basis of the economic and institutional characteristics,
which are the focus of this study. The communities selected
by EPA are:
14

-------
Rapid infiltration
Slow rate (irrigation)
Lake George, N.Y.
Hollister, Calif»
Vineland, N.J.
Milton* Wis.
Dickinson, N. Dak.
Roswell, N. Mex.
San Angelo, Tex.
Tooele, Utah
Mesa, Ariz.
Camarillo, Calif.
This report focuses on communities which use effluent for crop
irrigation. (Thus, only two rapid infiltration
systems—Vineland and Lake George—were studied here since
such systems were owned and managed by municipalities with no
linkages between agricultural production and treatment
management. Hollister, Calif., and Milton, Wis., were not
considered in this report.) Issues of control, management,
and responsibilities are more complex in crop irrigation cases
than with rapid infiltration and overland flow systems where
land is typically owned and managed by the community. Much
less land is needed in the latter two systems, and
agricultural production is of little importance to the total
operation.
A case study approach was used to obtain insights from
municipal officials, farmers, and landowners of potential use
by other communities considering land treatment. Community
experiences with effluent irrigation are described, including
a brief community profile, an exploration of the evolution of
the system, and a discussion of current operations. The
farming operations and interactions between the city and
farmer are described, focusing on the costs of the systems and
the contracts used to govern the use of effluent in
agriculture.
Camarillo, Cali-	Camarillo is a coastal community situated in Ventura County,
fornia	northwest of Los Angeles on the agriculturally rich Oxnard
Plain. Its climate is Mediterranean or dry subtropical with
warm dry summers and cool moderately rainy winters, with
rainfall primarily in January and February. Average annual
rainfall for the past 100 years was approximately 43
centimeters (cm) [17 inches (in)]. The 1980 population of
Camarillo was approximately 37,500. Agriculture continues to
be important in the economic life of the community. Major
manufactured products include magnetic tape and recorders,
fiberboard cartons, business forms, aerospace metals, and
precision machines. Military bases, State hospitals, and
schools provide most of the nonmanufacturing employment (8^.
15

-------
System History and The Camarillo Sanitary District was formed in April 1955
Operation	(under the Sanitary District Code of 1923) to construct a
replacement for the existing cesspool system. In 1955, the
city obtained an option to purchase land for construction of
the sewage collection system and treatment plant. A bond
issue was authorized in 1956 to raise revenue to buy land and
construct a sewage disposal facility. In September 1957,
$675,000 of bonds were sold for that purpose. The present
system began operation in 1958. One major incentive for use
of effluent on the land at the inception of the project was
that it was a source of irrigation water. There was no water
available from beneath the ground nor from the nearby
irrigation district. Initially, the California State Health
Department officials would not allow effluent applications to
the land. However, as water quality improved and demand for
water increased, restrictions were relaxed.
The present treatment system consists of primary and secondary
clarification, with effluent discharge to a chlorine chamber,
then to holding ponds, with eventual irrigation of cropland
and a nearby cemetery or discharge in Conejo creek. Sludge
undergoes anaerobic digestion, Is dried on sludge beds, and is
stored for eventual reuse on a nearby sod farm. The present
treatment plant has a design capacity of 208 1/s (4.75 mgd),
which may be reached within the next two decades.
Farming Operation Effluent is applied through surface irrigation to 192 ha (475
ac), of which 81 ha (200 ac) are doublecropped. Truck crops
are raised; single crops are dry beans and peppers, while
broccoli and tomatoes are typically doublecropped. The
current operator has farmed the land since 1966. He respects
the regulatory power of the California State Health
Department, and closely follows specified guidelines for
effluent use. For example, effluent is not applied after the
tomatoes start to change color. It is never applied on
lettuce or root crops. Broccoli can be irrigated as soon as
its heads are above the water level.
The farmer controls the application of the wastewater to the
land. He owns the pipes, and starts the pumps at the storage
lagoons according to the water needs of his crops. Pumping
and maintenance costs are paid by the city. The fertilizer
content in the effluent is recognized by the farmer, but no
adjustments are made in the fertilizer practices.
The biggest drawback experienced by the farmer due to effluent
use was soil crusting. Without adequate rains to break up the
crust, effluent water could not be used effectively. There
were also problems with sprinkler head plugging and increased
pipe corrosion due to the wastewater. However, without the
16

-------
effluent, the high cost of water from the irrigation district
could force him out of farming.
City-Farmer Inter- Effluent is applied to agricultural land governed by two
action	agreements. The landowner has an agreement with the city over
water use, and also has a separate lease agreement with a
local farmer covering his use of the land. The farmer pays
cash rent of between $495 and $680 per ha ($200-275 per ac),
depending upon the quality of the land. The better quality
land is doublecropped.
The land currently under agreement with the city handles the
present flow, but will not handle the design flow of 208 1/s
(4.7 5 mgd) which is expected to be met within the next 10 to
20 years. The city must file a plan with the California Water
Quality Control Board as soon as 75 percent of the plant
capacity is reached.
The city is renegotiating the lease with the landowner to
clarify the quantities of water involved. The landowner has a
total of 324 ha (800 ac) available, but only 192 ha (475 ac)
are presently used for wastewater irrigation. Plans are to
expand on the present treatment site to provide sufficient
water for the entire 324 ha (800 ac). As this is not enough
land for the total projected flow, the city will determine
where the remainder of the water will be used.
Key provisions specified in the 1955 agreement between the
landowner and the city include:
1.	Water from the sewage treatment plant is available to
the landowner without charge for irrigation. A
pipeline would be constructed from the treatment plant
to an earthen reservoir on the landowner's property at
Camarillo Sanitary District expense. Pumping costs to
fill the reservoir are paid by the Camarillo Sanitary
District.
2.	The Sanitary District reserves absolute discretion to
determine when it is safe to pump effluent. It does
not guarantee a minimum flow of water, nor a continuous
flow of water. It also specifies that the district
shall not occupy the position of a public utility
towards the landowners.
3.	The landowner is responsible for maintenance and
continued existence of the earthen reservoir. All
claims against the District arising out of flood or
other damage to crops due to overflow or washing out of
the lagoon are waived.
17

-------
4.	The landowner provides a drainage easement to the
Sanitary District to Conejo creek and permits drainage
of effluent into a creek as required.
5.	The landowner waives all causes of action for damage to
crops, or other real personal property, arising from
the use of effluent water.
6.	The District agrees to lay sewage and effluent pipes at
least 76 cm (30 in) below the surface. Any breakage to
these due to farming activities would be paid by the
landowner.
7.	Should any of the areas near the treatment plant become
residential in character, and effluent irrigation
become offensive to neighbors, or should become a
public nuisance, or if effluent irrigation should
become the subject of a lawsuit, the District is
immediately released from further obligations to supply
the landowner with sewage effluent.
An agreement exists between the Camarillo Sanitary District
and Pacific Sod Farms, Inc. for removal of dry sludge from
Camarillo Sanitary District Treatment Plant. Key provisions
include:
1.	The Sanitary District provides an area for stockpiling
sludge, will stockpile sludge at its expense, and will
notify Pacific Sod Farms 1 week in advance of when dry
sludge is available.
2.	Pacific Sod Farms, at its expense, will treat the
sludge stockpile to retard weed growth, load the dried
sludge into its own hauling vehicles, and haul from the
treatment plant site.
3.	Pacific Sod Farms recognizes that the District does not
guarantee the quantity or quality of dry sludge. It
also agrees that the District may continue to supply
dry sludge to local residents.
4.	The consideration for the terms of the agreement is $1
per year, Pacific Sod Farms paying the District. The
agreement is renewable annually, and can be cancelled
by either party providing 30 days notice.
Dickinson, North	Dickinson, located in Stark County in southwestern North
Dakota	Dakota, is in farming and ranching country. Its population in
1970 was 12,400, approximately 63 percent of the total
18

-------
population of Stark County. Its 1980 population was about
16,000. Population growth occurs because Dickinson is a
regional center of economic activity and because of
energy-related expansion. A population of around 28,000 has
been projected by the year 2000.
System History	The first waste treatment system for the community was a
and Operation	trickling filter with sludge digestion built by the Works
Progress Administration in 1938. This underdesigned system
developed capacity problems in 1945-46. It was revamped in
1957 as a two-cell lagoon system, with discharges into the
Heart River, which were permissible at the time. It was at
this time that utilization of effluent for irrigation began.
A lagoon treatment system was selected because of the
influence of a strong advocate of lagoon systems and because
of relatively low cost and land availability. The city
purchased 48 ha (120 ac) of prime agricultural land from a
local farmer for the lagoon site. The seller, as part of the
agreement of sale, requested the use of the water from the
lagoons. He was well aware of the water's value as he had
been irrigating with water from the Heart River since the
early forties. The city agreed to provide the farmer
irrigation water for the city-owned 7-hectare (18-acre) field
adjacent to the treatment plant.
The city-owned land was leveled for flood irrigation, which
began in 1960. In addition to the land flooded, sprinkler
irrigation was used on 20 ha (50 ac). By 1966, 53 ha (130 ac)
were irrigated with lagoon water. The area irrigated had
expanded to 101 ha (250 ac) by 1976, with all increases on
privately owned land.
The city has considered the construction of a secondary
wastewater treatment plant to handle projected growth, but
ruled out that alternative due to high construction costs and
long-term maintenance costs. The existing system will be
expanded by the addition of an aeration cell prior to the
primary and secondary cell. A third cell will be added to
provide additional area for most of the winter storage
required (180 days). Discharges from this system into the
Heart River could be made after 1980, if flow volumes exceeded
the amounts that could be used by crop irrigation.
Farming Operation Wastewater use from the Dickinson treatment lagoon is
integrated into a single diverse farming operation of
approximately 546 ha (1,350 ac), including irrigated pasture,
hay land, and dryland farming. All pasture and forage
produced on acreage receiving effluent is fed to livestock.
In addition to water from the lagoon, water for 73 ha (180 ac)
19

-------
is purchased from the Heart River Irrigation Association at a
fixed cost of $3.70 per ha ($1.50 per ac) for a maximum of
1,850 cubic meters (1.5 acre-feet) per year.
Timing of effluent application to crops is the farmer's
decision. In the earlier periods of the system operation, the
city controlled application times and rates. However, this
resulted in applications that were too great, resulting in
crop damage and water seepage. The farmer has rights to all
the excess water in the lagoon and has agreed to take all
water to avoid discharges to the Heart River.
The present system is a combination of flood and sprinkler
systems. Sprinklers are favored over flooding, due to better
water distribution. Annual application rates from sprinklers
are 51 to 61 cm (20-24 in). The city pays the pumping costs
to the distribution points within each field. The farmer has
access to the city-owned pumps and starts them whenever water
is needed.
City-Farmer Inter- The operation of the system was discussed with the city
action	engineer, the treatment plant operator, the farmer, and city
auditor. All emphasized the importance of mutual respect and
understanding for land application to succeed. Good
relationships are necessary for successful day-to-day
operations. This group makes the following recommendations to
others planning a land application system:
1.	A long-range plan should be developed between the
community and the farmer. The city should look at its
projected growth and land requirements and develop a
plan with the farmer to use the water In an efficient
manner. A 50—year plan was suggested to guide all
involved parties.
2.	It is vital that the farmer, treatment plant operator,
and city engineer clearly understand each other's
operation, especially the constraints under which each
operates. Such understanding was aided in Dickinson's
case by the appreciation on the part of the city
officials for agriculture and the role of water in its
operation.
3.	The need for mutual understanding was considered more
important than having all details explicitly outlined
in legal contracts.
A. Working arrangements should be stated more clearly in
contracts, particularly for the benefit of city
officials not directly involved in operational
details. Such documentation would insure continuity if
20

-------
the city engineer or other key people left, or if for
some other reason smooth working relationships
dissolved.
One of the results of the sale of land to the city for initial
lagoon construction in 1957 was an agreement for the city to
provide water to the farmer for agricultural operations.
Terms of this first agreement may have been established in a
verbal contract, but the first formal lease agreement found in
this investigation was not initiated until 1969.
The contract has four major elements: the term, a paragraph
on construction of the irrigation project, a paragraph on the
use of water, and a cancellation clause. The formal lease of
1969 sets forth the conditions wherein the city leases to the
farmer 7.3 ha (18 ac) for 5 years, automatically renewable for
an additional 5 years unless the land was needed for sewage
lagoon purposes. In this lease agreement, the farmer agrees
to develop an irrigation system utilizing water from the
sewage lagoon. The city contributes a flat amount to the
construction of the irrigation system. The use paragraph
covers use of water on the prescribed city-owned land as well
as on adjoining land of the lessee, as needed to prevent
discharge into the Heart River. The cancellation clause
protects the city from default on any of the provisions by the
farmer. There is no reciprocal protection clause for the
farmer.	,
In 1972, an agreement was entered into by the city and farmer
to insure that the city would be able to continue to drain
water upon land adjacent to the lagoon owned by the farmer.
This would be land in addition to the city-owned land
previously leased to the farmer.
The main purpose of the agreement was to insure that the city
would have a place to discharge effluents, other than the
Heart River, until the city had completed construction of
adequate treatment facilities. The term of the agreement was
a maximum of 5 years. A key paragraph indicated that the
farmer agreed to continue to allow the city to spread water on
his land. The city was to furnish all energy costs for
pumping water, whether the irrigation is done by the city or
by the farmer. The city agreed to furnish labor when
irrigation was required to drain excess amounts of water. The
farmer agreed to let the city irrigate at any time, subject to
compatibility with farming operations. If at any time the
water discharge from the lagoons became harmful to the grass
or land, the farmer had the right to dilute it by utilizing
water from the Heart River.
21

-------
In anticipation of increased wastewater flow, the city entered
into an agreement with the farmer to make excess wastewater
available solely and exclusively for the farmer's use upon his
land adjacent to the lagoons. The farmer in turn agreed to
take all excess wastewater.
Conditions of this agreement include:
1.	The city is the sole and exclusive judge of when excess
wastewater is available.
2.	If effluent use is found to damage the land, the
farmer's obligation to take water is terminated.
However, the city shall not be liable for damage or
deterioration to land.
3.	The city provides a suitable pump at the wastewater
lagoon site and provides all energy costs for such pump
operations. The farmer agrees to furnish all pipe and
other materials and labor to receive the excess
wastewater from the pump.
Mesa, Arizona	Mesa Is located in the Salt River Valley 26 km (16 mi) east of
Phoenix. The climate is dry, with annual rainfall of
approximately 18 cm (7 in). Population growth in Mesa has
exploded in the last 25 years. Population was about 17,000 in
1950, 63,000 in 1970, 118,000 in 1980, and projected to be
270,000 by the year 2000.
System History	Prior to 1949, Mesa's sewage treatment was provided by a
and Operation	septic tank located at the present treatment plant site.
Effluent from the plant was discharged into the Salt River.
Two primary settling basins, and one primary and one secondary
digester were constructed in 1949, with discharge going to the
Salt River. A 6.9-ha (17-ac) oxidation pond was added in 1955
which met the city's needs until 1960 when plant flow reached
the design capacity of 98 1/s (2.25 mgd). The second phase of
the expansion program began in 1960, consisting of two more
settling basins, a large primary and secondary digester,
trickling filter, and a secondary settling basin. Present
treatment plant facilities are designed for an average flow of
219 1/s (5 mgd), with peak load capacity of 350 1/s (8 mgd).
Effluent from the 4.8-ha (12-ac) oxidation pond is pumped to a
city-owned site of 65 ha (160 ac) for crop irrigation. There
is no chlorination prior to irrigation. Tailwater from the
irrigation activities is discharged into the Salt River.
Sludge is dried on adjoining beds for up to 90 days prior to
being buried or stacked in the desert. Only limited use has
been made of sludge, primarily on highway right of ways.
22

-------
Mesa treats wastewater in its own plant, as well as relying
upon a regional treatment plant, the 91st Avenue Wastewater
Treatment Plant in Phoenix. This plant is jointly owned by
seven communities, along with the pipeline which discharge to
the Salt River outfall. Most of the industrial wastes of Mesa
are discharged to the Phoenix system. The effluent treated in
the Mesa plant is thus almost entirely municipal sewage. All
of the water treated at the Mesa plant is used for crop
irrigation. The alternative to irrigation is discharge to the
dry riverbed of the Salt River where it would percolate into
the groundwater.
Mesa owns a 438-1/s (10-mgd) share of the treatment capacity
at the 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plant. Mesa's
separate plant has a 144-1/s (3.3-mgd) biological treatment
capacity with a 219-1/s (5-mgd) hydraulic capacity scheduled
for standby status in 1980. Mesa has rights to discharge an
average daily flow of 1,183 1/s (27 mgd) to the Salt River
outfall. Mesa's 438-l/s (10-mgd) share of the pipeline to the
city plant will be utilized by the early eighties, requiring
either an expansion of the existing plant or construction of
another plant, either separately or as a joint venture with
the city of Tempe.
Farming Operation Effluent has been applied to city-owned land since about
1957. Serious management problems in the early stages
occurred due to rapid turnover of the farm managers. The
present farmer has operated the treatment farm for about 6
years, and is the first to manage the land intensively.
Primary crops are wheat, corn, and sorghum which are chopped
and sold to local dairies as silage. Wheat and barley crops
have produced a total of 44.8 metric tons per hectare (mt/ha)
[20 tons/ac] in two winter cuttings. A corn/sorghum mix in
the summer averages 56 mt/ac (25 tons/ac). Sorghum alone
yields about 26.9 mt/ha (12 tons/ac).
The farmer owns and maintains the pumps. The city pays for
electricity for pumps and provides the water at no charge. No
fertilizer or pesticide is applied.
The city-owned land could not be operated profitably with
purchase of regular irrigation water from the Salt River.
Water rights exist for only 10 acres. The soil is too poor to
justify the purchase of the minimum amount required, 2 ac-ft
per year.
23

-------
City-Farmer Inter- The city initially considered managing the farming operation
action	directly, but later decided to lease the land to farmers,
specifying that the primary objective was proper wastewater
treatment. Difficulties arose due to conflicting objectives
of the city (wastewater treatment) and farmers (profit
maximization). Difficulties also arose from the lessee
subletting land to third parties. Lessees overestimated the
value of the contract with the city when they sublet the land
to others. As a result, overgrazing occurred, resulting in
insufficient pasture growth for treatment purposes, especially
in the winter months. When these sublessees found themselves
overextended, they sought financial relief from the city.
They sought concessions from the city such as payment of pump
costs and repairs. The city paid rather than let the system
collapse. These stopgap measures failed in 1972 and all
leases had to be renegotiated.. Cash rent of $123 per ha ($50
per ac) was established. The city pays the power costs. Any
subleasing must have prior approval by the city.
Since the early years of the system, numerous contracts have
been developed to specify the terms of agreement between the
city and lessees, and between lessees and sublessees. The
process of this development is highlighted below, and
indicates the complexities that can arise in multiparty
agreements.
The first agreement between the city and a lessee was a 5-year
contract developed in July 1957 for the use of 3.7 ha (9.2 ac)
of land adjoining the treatment plant. The city wanted the
water from the treatment plant utilized and the land it owned
west of the treatment plant cultivated and improved. The
lessee wanted a right of way across the city-owned land as
well as the use of the effluent. Rental payment for the first
year of the contract was construction of a fence around the
site by the farmer. Subsequent year rental payments were $300
per year. It gave the lessee access across the treatment
plant and to the irrigation sites, and gave rights to all the
water at no additional charge to the lessee.
The first lease was sold in 1958. In December 1959, Mesa, the
lessor, entered into a lease agreement with the new lessee for
the use of additional land purchased by the city of Mesa. The
city leased the land for agricultural purposes, on the basis
of the highest bid. The term of the lease was for 3 years,
January 1, 1960, to December 31, 1962. The acreage involved
was to be determined each year by the city engineer and the
lessee. The lessee had the option to extend the lease for 5
years, with the right to another 5-year extension if the first
option was exercised. Under this agreement, the lessee agreed
to level land on the premises economically feasible to level
24

-------
for agricultural purposes. The lessee got the newly leveled
land rent free until the initial investment was recouped.
After that, rent of $52/ha ($21/ac) was charged.
The agreement gave the lessee the right to sell to other
parties any excess effluent water. Such parties were given
the right to construct necessary pumping and transmission
facilities on the city's land.
Numerous transfers of agreements between lessees and
sublessees occurred between 1962 and 1972. It was in
connection with these transactions that the previously
mentioned difficulties occurred. The city canceled all leases
in 1972 and developed a new lease.
In this agreement, approximately 38 ha (95 ac) of land were
leased for a 3-year period starting on January 1, 1975, with
the option to extend it for another 3 years. The rental rate
was $123 per ha ($50 per ac). Any leveling work was done by
the lessee, with appropriate adjustments in his rental charges
to defray these expenses. The city owns the engine powering
the irrigation pump and pays the operation and maintenance
costs. An important clause in this agreement was that the
lessee agreed not to assign the agreement, or sublet any
portion of the premises, without securing the written consent
of the city.
There was a supplemental agreement added in June 1975 which
added 19 ha (47 ac) to the parcel of land involved, bringing
the total to 57.5 ha (142 ac). This supplemental agreement
also increased the annual cash rent to $128 per ha ($52 per
ac) to include the applicable sales tax.
Roswell, New	Roswell, located in the southeastern part of the State, is the
Mexico	county seat and population center of Chaves County. The
population of Roswell grew from 7,000 in 1920 to 34,000 in
1970 and to about 40,000 in 1980. It is a semiarld region
with an average rainfall of 17.8 cm (7 in), requiring
irrigation for agricultural crop production. The county is
entirely grassland with the exception of the Roswell-Lake
Arthur corridor, which contains most of the cultivated lands.
Nearly 33 percent of the land in the county is federally owned.
Water has been one of the most important factors in the area's
development. A large artesian belt is the county's most
outstanding phenomenon. Flowing artesian water was discovered
in 1891, resulting in rapid irrigation development. One well
drilled in 1931 was the largest artesian well in the world,
with an initial flow of 582 1/s [9,225 gallons per minute
(gpm)]. Overuse of the artesian water began to deplete the
25

-------
supply, resulting in public regulation over the past 30
years. There is now an annual limitation on pump water use of
3	feet per acre plus 0.5-foot carriage loss.
Agriculture is the most important industry in Chaves County,
with mining (primarily crude oil and natural gas) the second
most important economic activity. It is one of the few
counties in New Mexico in which both crops and livestock are
produced in significant amounts. The main agricultural
activities are livestock production of both range and feedyard
stock and cultivation of cotton, hay, and sorghum. Alfalfa
and sorghum are grown on contract basis for livestock feeders,
who typically do not raise their own forage crops. Alfalfa
hay raised in the Roswell area is of very high quality, with a
protein content as high as 22 percent. Much of this hay is
sold to dairies or cattle feeders in western Texas.
Water is the limiting factor for crop production in the area.
Approximately 39,670 ha (98,000 ac) or 2.5 percent of the
total land area in the county is cultivated. All cultivated
land is irrigated and is found in the corridor between Roswell
and Lake Arthur in the Pecos Valley. Farm size ranges between
4	and 1,620 ha (10-4,000 ac), with 81 ha (200 ac) the average
farm size. Each acre with rights is allotted 3 ft/ac/yr
(3,700 cubic meters) of water. This water scarcity, combined
with the soil alkalinity, influences the crops grown.
System History	The early sewage treatment system, started in the thirties,
and Operation	was an Imhoff tank at the end of a sewage outfall line 8 km (5
mi) out of town. Secondary treatment in the form of a
trickling filter was added in 1944. Plant capacity was
expanded in 1961 and again in 1974. The 1974 expansion
consisted of an oxidation ditch and chlorination added to the
trickling filter process.
The present treatment process consists of the following:
preaeration, primary settling, trickling filter, oxidation
ditch, final settling, and chlorination. The effluent is
discharged into an outfall pipeline to the Pecos River. Water
for agricultural irrigation is drawn from the outfall line.
The volume treated is approximately 175 1/s (4 mgd) of typical
domestic effluent. Effluent is delivered from the outfall
line through metered outlets to six or seven farmers who
purchase the water on a contractual basis. There are no
additional costs to the city associated with providing this
water to the farmers, other than the maintenance of the
meters.
26

-------
Details are sketchy on how the land treatment system evolved.
Serious saltwater encroachments of the underground aquifers
occurred due to droughts and drawdowns in the early fifties.
A farmer recognized effluent as an additional source of water,
both for direct use and for mixing with the more saline ground
water. Land for a municipal treatment plant was made
available in exchange for rights to the effluent. The early
informal agreement evolved into a contract whereby the farmer
paid a fixed amount ($975 per year) to take up to a specified
quantity of water, 481,065 cubic meters (390 ac-ft/yr).
Similar agreements were made with other users of the
effluent. However, in recent years, the number using the
water has decreased. One of the primary irrigators has not
used the full amount of water specified in the contract
because of adequate rainfall during the growing season.
Given the semiarid climate of the Roswell area, storage
facilities could have been constructed along the outfall line
to impound effluent for use during times of critical dryness.
But, this has not been done.
Farming Operation Effluent is applied to a 115-ha (285 ac) farm, of which 74.8
ha (185 ac) were irrigated with ground water and 28.3 ha (70
ac) were irrigated with effluent. Effluent was sometimes
mixed with ground water because of the high salinity content
of the ground water.
Annual application rates of the effluent were about 1.2 to 1.8
m (4-6 ft). The farmer followed the same fertilization
program for crops receiving effluent as those irrigated with
ground water, though he had an implicit awareness of the value
of nutrients in the effluent. Silage is sold to a local
dairy. Corn silage yields are approximately 38 mt/ha (17
tons/ac), and alfalfa hay yields about 13.4 mt/ha (6
tons/ac).
City-Farmer Inter- Agreements exist between the city and farmers located along
action	the outfall line governing water use for irrigation. These
are 5-year leases with an annual review. All leases were
reviewed in 1976, the end of the 5-year period. The contracts
are viewed by the city as a means of protecting their
Interests. There are no contracts with several users,
primarily because the city cannot establish that there were
easements of record for the discharge pipe across the land in
question. Court attempts to settle this have been
unsuccessful and the city has dropped the issue.
The city is interested in increasing revenues from the sale of
water. In the fiscal year 1976-77, only $4,000 was received
from irrigation contracts, while total operating costs for the
27

-------
entire treatment system were $150,000. Contract payments from
the farmers are based upon monthly meter readings completed by
the treatment plant operator.
The city's interest in obtaining more revenues from water
sales makes it reluctant to enter into long-term agreements
with farmers for fear of precluding future profitable
opportunities. State and Federal water quality regulations
were other issues identified as impeding the development of
long-term agreements. Uncertainties regarding these
agreements preclude long-term commitments which might have to
be dissolved if more stringent regulations are imposed.
The lease agreements between the city and the farmers contain
eight paragraphs. The first and second paragraphs specify the
annual amount of water that will be made available for a
specified acreage for which a legal description is provided.
The second also specifies that water may be taken from the
sewage outfall line only at metered points and that taking of
water from any other point constitutes a termination of the
agreement. Paragraphs three and four specify the type of
measuring meter to be used and make the farmers responsible
for meter malfunctions due to tampering or interference.
Paragraph five provides a means to adjust the amount of water
to be used annually by plus or minus 10 percent of that
specified in paragraph one. A 10-percent increase in water
taken through the meter will be sold at the rate of $2.50 per
acre-foot. Unmetered water will cost $3.50 per acre-foot.
Paragraph six provides for renegotiation of the contract for
an additional 5-year term contingent upon agreement on a price
per acre-foot.
An important provision of paragraph seven excuses the city
from any liabilities associated with inability to deliver
water as promised. It also specifies that all costs, save the
installation of measuring meters by the city, shall be borne
by the farmer.
Paragraph eight specifies a mechanism for termination of the
contract for the city, that is, a 6-month written notice is
required for termination, which would become effective at the
end of the annual crop growing season.
Tooele, Utah	Tooele, the county seat of Tooele County which is Utah's
second largest county, is located 33 miles southwest of Salt
Lake City. The city population grew from about 12,500 people
in 1970 to about 14,300 in 1980. Approximately 60 percent of
the county's population is in the city.
28

-------
Tooele is 1,539 m (5,050 ft) above sea level, with an average
annual temperature of 11 degrees Celsius (C) [51 degrees
Fahrenheit (F)]. The average July temperature is 24 degrees C
(74 degrees F), and the average January temperature is -4
degrees C (25 degrees F). Average rainfall is 42 cm (16.5 in).
The largest employer, the Tooele Army Depot, one of the Army's
major logistical commands, employs about 4,500 people. The
largest manufacturing employer is Anaconda Copper.
Tooele County has approximately 202,400 ha (500,000 ac) in
farms, about 11 percent of the county's total acreage.
Approximately 82 percent of the land in the county is publicly
owned. Average farm size is 1,012 ha (2,500 ac) and the
average farm value is $150,000. Major products are livestock
and livestock products, alfalfa hay, and grain.
System History	Municipal sewage treatment in Tooele began in the thirties
and Operation	with central collection facilities connected to a septic
tank. The grandfather of the current landowner using the
effluent recognized the value of the water from the septic
tank and used it to irrigate corn.
Prior to construction of the present treatment plant, the city
entered into an agreement covering the use of excess water
flowing from the municipal septic tank. In 1952, a landowner
granted the city the right to construct and maintain an open
ditch over and across real property, in exchange for the use
of excess overflow water. This ditch transported water from
the treatment plant to a distribution point on the landowner's
farm. The landowner agreed to take care of surplus water once
it reached the farm, and to save the city from all
responsibility of any problems resulting from the surplus
water flowing onto the lands of any other persons. In
consideration, the city provided the water free of charge.
As the city expanded, the septic tank's capacity was exceeded,
and a centralized treatment plant was constructed in 1957.
Treatment is provided by a trickling filter plant with a
design capacity of 96 1/s (2.2 ragd). Currently about 61 l/s
(1.4 mgd) are treated. Effluent from the plant travels to a
holding pond, through an earth-lined ditch 1 mile in length,
and then through two small reservoirs before being applied to
the land. The holding pond was added after problems arose due
to excess suspended solid materials remaining after the
treatment process.
Farming Operation The farm receiving effluent covers approximately 486 ha (1,200
ac) of privately owned crop and pasture land. Water sources
29

-------
for Irrigation include mountain reservoirs, effluent, and
ground water. However, ground water wells have to be drilled
122 to 183 m (400-600 ft) deep, at considerable expense.
Effluent has been applied on some of this land for 19 years,
and on other parts for only 2 years.
Approximately 223 ha (550 ac) are irrigated with effluent from
a holding pond, using both flood and sprinkler irrigation.
Since the land has not been leveled, sprinkler irrigation is
being used more frequently due to ponding problems with the
flood irrigation. Application rates are about 76 cm (30 in)
per year, with hay, grain, and forage crops being the
principal crops grown. The irrigation season lasts
approximately 5 months. Crops grown include 162 ha (400 ac)
of hay and 61 ha (150 ac) of grain. Cattle are grazed on the
fields during the winter.
The effluent provides all nutrients; no commercial fertilizer
is used. Wheat yields are between 3.4 and 4.7 mt/ha [50 and
70 bushels per acre (bu/ac)]. Alfalfa hay yields about 15.7
mt/ha (7 tons/ac), as contrasted with 11.2 mt/ha (5 tons/ac)
when irrigated with mountain reservoir water and 6.7 mt/ha (3
tons/ac) without any irrigation.
The farmer determines the rate of applications, which are
heaviest in the fall. No crusting or noticeable changes in
soil conditions have been noted where crops are grown. Some
crusting was noted in the ditches. During the winter,
effluent runs down the water course, seeping into the ground
or filling up ponds.
City-Farmer Inter- The farmer pays the city a fixed annual amount for the use of
action	the water, approximately $750. However, no formal document
stating the terms of this agreement was located.
The city made an agreement in 1952 to obtain rights to build a
ditch for transport of excess sewage water. When the present
landowner purchased that land, he acquired the same rights to
the water and agreed to pay for it. Upon subsequent sale of
the land, the city would have continual access to the ditches,
but would have to renegotiate the terms of the agreement with
the new landowner.
San Angelo, Texas San Angelo is the county seat of Tom Green County, located in
west-central Texas. The region is semiarid, receiving an
average of 53 cm (20.6 in) of rainfall per year. The average
temperature is 19 degrees C (66 degrees F).
The population of San Angelo was around 69,000 in 1980. Hie
economic base of the community is diverse. Ranching and
30

-------
irrigated crop production are the prime agricultural
activities. The town is the wholesale food distribution
center for the region. There are many small (60 to 100
employees) establishments in the area, as well as some
branches of national companies. Goodfellow Air Force Base is
also in the area.
System History	San Angelo has used some form of land treatment since 1933.
and Operation	Two sites have been used. The first was used for 30 years but
was abandoned in 1958 due to city expansion. The second site
has been in use since 1958. Until recently, the only
pretreatment before application to the land was primary
sedimentation. Construction of an activated sludge secondary
treatment plant began in 1976 to meet State requirements for
discharges to irrigation areas accessible to the public.
Farming Operation The city owns and operates a 300-ha (740-ac) farm on which
effluent is applied for treatment and production of forage
crops and livestock. As the farm is run by municipal
employees, questions of leases and other issues associated
with two-party agreements are not as important as in the other
irrigation systems studied. The annual average flow of
effluent is 219 to 241 1/s (5-5.5 mgd), approximately 85
percent domestic and 15 percent industrial. Effluent is
applied to agricultural land at an annual rate of 1.5 to 1.8 m
(5-6 ft), using a border strip irrigation method. Of the 300
ha (740 ac) in the site, 259 ha (640 ac) are irrigated, 24 ha
(60 ac) are used for onsite storage, and 16 ha (40 ac) are
used for onsite treatment. Crops grown in 1975 included 34 ha
(85 ac) of barley, 28 ha (70 ac) of fescue, 40 ha (100 ac) of
alfalfa, and 156 ha (385 ac) of coastal bermuda grass. The
bermuda grass is used primarily for pasture. Estimated gross
receipts from the sale of hay and grazing permits in 1975 and
1976 have been estimated at $71,000 and $58,000 respectively
(20). Other estimates for 1976 suggest total revenues from
crop sales and grazing leases of between $80,000 and $90,000,
with a net operating profit from the farming operation of
around $20,000 per year (52).
Lake George is a recreational community at the southern end of
Lake George. The 1980 population of the town was around
3,400. The lake is known for the clarity of its waters and
the beauty of its shoreline. Due to efforts of the Lake
George Association, water quality of the lake has been
maintained at a high enough level to be given an "AA"
classification by the State of New York. This classification
prohibits sewage discharges of any type into Lake George or
any waters discharging into the lake. This allows use of Lake
George as a drinking water supply requiring only chlorination
prior to use (3).
Lake George, New
York
31

-------
The sewage treatment system for Lake George Village and
adjacent areas has special conditions associated with seasonal
population variations and the need to maintain lake quality.
The summer population is typically three times the number of
permanent residents. Legislation prohibits the discharge of
any wastewater, treated or untreated, into the lake or streams
discharging into the lake. The system selected to meet these
conditions was a rapid infiltration system that has been in
continuous operation since 1939.
The Lake George Village Sewage Plant was built in 1936 and
began operation in 1939. The selection of a land treatment
system evolved through an interpretation of the law
prohibiting discharges to the lake as applying only to surface
discharges. Thus soil system disposal (Including septic
tanks) of effluent was considered legal (3^. This
interpretation opened the way for the village to discharge
secondary effluent onto the soil. The original plant was
designed for 22 1/s (0.5 mgd) and included a primary settling
and digestion tank, three dosing tanks, three trickling
filters, two secondary settling tanks, six natural sand
seepage beds, and a three-section sludge bed. Only one-third
of the capacity was used in the winter due to the decreased
flow (53). As flow increased, the six original sand beds were
increased to 21 with a combined area of 2.6 ha (6.4 ac). The
first expansion was the addition of one bed in 1947. Two were
added in 1950, three in 1956, eight in 1965, and the last bed
in 1970 (2).
The present system serves two sewer districts, the village of
Lake George and the surrounding town of Lake George. The
treatment given the combined flows consists of primary
sedimentation with Imhoff type sludge digestion, secondary
treatment by trickling filters, and secondary sedimentation.
Final effluent is then discharged without chlorination into
one of 21 sand infiltration beds. Flow varies between about
43.8 1/s (1 mgd) in the summer tourist season to 13 1/s (0.3
mgd) in the winter. The design flow is 76.7 1/s (1.75 mgd).
Sludge is dried on beds and hauled to a landfill (2^).
The system appears to provide high-level treatment at modest
costs. Analysis of the seepage from the sand beds indicates
that discharge of the secondary effluent on the sand beds is
achieving the equivalent of tertiary treatment, after almost
40 years of operation (2^). There is a debate over whether the
system will be allowed to continue or will be forced to join a
regional sewer authority and pump its sewage out of the area.
The village has room to expand onto more sand beds. If the
existing system is phased out in favor of the regional system,

-------
there is likely to be a sharp increase in treatment costs for
each homeowner in the area.
Vineland, New	Vineland, located in southern New Jersey midway between
Jersey	Philadelphia and Atlantic City, has the largest land area of
any city in the state, over 181 sq km (70 sq mi). Its 1980
population was 52,700, compared to 48,000 in 1970.
The Vineland treatment plant was constructed in 1901 using a
septic tank concept. It was abandoned and later rebuilt in
1928 on its present location. The original concept to apply
the primary effluent to broad irrigation basins was revised
when the plant was reconstructed. Because of complaints about
odor from nearby residents, the sewage was pumped 4 km (2.5
mi) to a sandy area where a settling tank and sludge drying
beds were built. Vineland contracted with a farmer to dispose
of the effluent from the settling tank on this borough-owned
land for a period of 5 years. A salary was paid for the first
2 years as farming was assumed to be done at a loss because
the soil was extremely poor and full of tree roots, briars,
and huckleberry bushes. Compensation for the last 3 years of
the contract was expected to come from the crops grown (26).
A 1946 consulting engineer report provides some additional
insights into the earlier stages of the operation of the
plant. At that time, the Vineland authority served 8,000
people. Problems identified were undercapacity and the need
for a relief sewer. Treatment consisted of four covered
septic tanks with effluent discharge to 6.5 ha (16 ac) of land
where crops are grown. During harvest periods and part of the
winter, effluent was discharged to adjacent woodland. Sludge
was applied to a disposal field where it was plowed under
after drying. Sewage was applied to land with crops at the
rate of 280,590 1/ha/day (30,000 gal/ac/day). This rate was
often in excess of agricultural needs.
Sewage treatment for the community of Vineland is provided by
the Vineland Water and Sewer Utility and the Landis Sewerage
Authority. The city utility serves the inner core of the city
and the Landis Sewerage Authority serves the surrounding
area. This separation of treatment systems has existed since
1947 when the State of New Jersey forced the township
surrounding Vineland (Landis) to establish a treatment
system. The township and the borough of Vineland merged in
1952, but the treatment systems remained separate due to
differences in the system and in billing procedures.
Treatment by the Landis Sewerage Authority began in 1948. The
existing system has been in operation since 1967. Previously,
it was an Imhoff system with a capacity of 88 1/s to 131 1/s
33

-------
(2-3 mgd). In 1975, the Landis Sewerage Authority sewage
plant served approximately 19,000 people plus industry, which
consists largely of food processors and contributes almost 50
percent of the total flow. The treatment facility has an
average daily design flow capacity of 307 1/s (7.0 mgd). The
average daily flow in 1974 was 178 1/s (4.06 mgd), with the
peak flow of 241 1/s (5.5 mgd). The plant provides primary
treatment with the final effluent discharged onto rapid
infiltration beds. The sludge removed from the primary
settling tanks is pumped to a sludge holding tank and then
treated by chemical oxidation and stabilization before being
pumped to open drying beds. The dried sludge cake is disposed
of by landfilling on the existing plant property. The
existing infiltration basins presently being utilized for
disposal of the plant effluent encompass a total area of 26 ha
(65 ac). After the wastewater has percolated through the soil
bed, the entire area is disked to break up the solids
deposits. Each bed is plowed to a depth of 12 inches every 6
months (27).
The existing treatment facility owned and operated by the
Vineland Water and Sewer Utility presently serves an estimated
population of 6,500 persons. There are no major industrial
contributions to the Vineland plant. The average daily flow
for the first 8 months of 1974 was 35 1/s (0.8 mgd), with peak
flow of 66 1/s (1.5 mgd). The capacity of the plant is 66 1/s
(1.5 mgd) and provides primary treatment for the wastewater
before it is discharged onto rapid infiltration beds. The
area of the beds is about 9.7 ha (24 ac). Sludge is
discharged to drying beds twice a year, and then plowed under
(23).
COMPARISON OF THE The previous section described the experiences of six
IRRIGATION SYSTEMS communities with slow rate systems and two communities with
rapid infiltration systems. These communities were not
selected using a statistical sampling procedure; these
experiences may not then be representative of all communities
that have considerable experience with such systems. However,
the study of these communities has identified both unique and
similar experiences with land treatment systems which can
provide insights for communities considering land treatment
systems.
The regional setting for the six slow rate land application
systems is highlighted for the communities and the counties in
which the respective facilities are located (table 1). The
facilities are located in a wide range of community sizeB. No
facility is located in an extremely small community.
Population sizes in 1980 ranged from 15,900 in Dickinson to
Economic and Demo-
graphic Character-
istics
34

-------
Table 1—Selected city and county characteristics, wastewater treatment areas
Item

Camarillo,
: Dickinson,
: Mesa,
Roswell,
: Tooele,
: San Angelo,

Unit
California
: North Dakota
: Arizona
New Mexico
: Utah
: Texas
City population (1970)
No.
19,200
12,400
62,900
33,900
12,500
63,800
City population (7980)
do.
37,500
15,900
117,800
39,700
14,300
68,626
County data:







County
Name
Ventura
Stark
Maricopa
Chaves
Tooele
Tom Green
Population (1980)
No.
528,000
24,000
1,293,000
51,100
26,000
77,300
Population per square







mi le
do.
202.1
15
106
7
3.1
40
Population change (1970-80):
Pet.
40
23
34
18
21
9
Urban population
do.
92.2
63.9
93.4
78.3
71.7
52.4
Percentage of labor force







unemployed
do.
5.9
4.6
6.0
6.7
10.0
14.0
Percentage labor force
do.






in manufacturing
do.
17.7
5.5
20.3
8.5
11.3
11..6
Percentage of population







in farming
do. :
1.8
17.7
1.0
5.8
3.0
2.0
Annual rainfall
In. :
17
23.5
7
7
16.5
20.6
Sources: 1^)70 and 1980 Census of Population.

-------
117,800 in Mesa. Population density ranged from 3.1 people
per square mile in Tooele to 106 in Mesa. Thus, in terms of
population characteristics, the communities are rather
dissimilar.
Few similarities are apparent in terms of economic activity in
the respective areas. For example, Maricopa County (Mesa) has
over 20 percent of its population engaged in manufacturing and
1 percent in farming, while Stark County (Dickinson) has 5.5
percent of its population in manufacturing activities and 17.7
percent in farming.
Since wastewater irrigation in the six communities is closely
tied to agricultural activity, comparative agricultural data
for the respective counties and States were collected to
determine if there were any common characteristics which may
have encouraged development of the land application
facilities. Two types of comparisons can be made using the
data in table 2. First, proportionate land used in the.
counties and States can be compared. Second, the relative
contribution of a county to the State's agricultural output
can be identified. Use of agricultural land in the respective
counties is similar to statewide land use. In general, a
higher proportion of farmland is irrigated in the counties in
which the land application systems are located. This may help
explain the use of the land application in these communities,
since local farmers are already aware of the value of water
for irrigation. Hie relative aridness of the areas as shown
by the data on annual rainfall (table 1) helps substantiate
this hypothesis. The county share of the market value of all
farm products produced in the respective States is
proportional to the respective land areas for four of the
communities. Exceptions are Mesa and Roswell which have a
much greater share of the value of output than their share of
farmland would indicate and which reflect the importance of
irrigation.
- The wastewater in each of the communities receives the
equivalent of at least secondary wastewater treatment before
being applied to the land. Details on plant size and type of
treatment are presented in table 3. The range of facility
sizes is relatively narrow (1-5 mgd). These facility sizes
correspond with previous economic research results which
concluded that land application is more economically
advantageous than other advanced wastewater treatment systems
for communities treating less than 438 l/s (10 mgd) (31_, 61).
Fee simple acquisition and contracts were the most frequent
methods used by the communities (plus four other examples) to
acquire land (table 4). No cases were found of easement use.
*
ment
Site Acquisition
and Management
36

-------
Table 2—Comparison of county and State agricultural characteristics
Characteristic
Camarillo,
California
(Ventura Co.)
Dickinson,
North Dakota
(Stark Co.)
Mesa,
Arizona
(Maricopa Co.)
: Roswell, :
: New Mexico :
: (Chaves Co.) :
Tooele,
Utah
(Tooele Co.)
San Angelo,
Texas
(Tom Green Co.)



Percent


Percentage of land area
in farms:
County
State
36.3
35.7
1/ 100+
97.4
32.4
52.6
69.1
60.2
10.9
21.5
1/ 100+
85.0
Percentage of farmland
in cropland:
County
State
33.3
31.5
66.9
68.2
28.6
4.2
4.0
4.9
8.2
17.2
21.5
27.9
Percentage of farmland
which is irrigated:
County
State
21.2
20.3
0
.1
24.1
3.1
3.2
1.8
2.9
9.1
1.8
.5
Percentage of State market
value of all farm products
coming from the county
3.5
2.0
43.1
17.6
1.3
.7
Percentage of State market
value of crops coming from
the county
4.9
1.1
43.3
11.5
.7
.5
Percentage of State market
value of livestock in
coming from county
1.8
3.0
43.2
19.4
1.4
.8
Percentage of the State's
farmland in the county
1.2
2.0
5.0
5.8
4.3
.7
T7 Statistical enumeration techniques in the census data resulted in higher estimates of land in farms than for land in the
county. Joint ownership and land rental are two possible reasons for this phenomenon.
Source: 1974 Census of Agriculture.

-------
Table 3—Comparison of pretreatment systems
Characteristic
Unit
Camarillo, :
Dickinson, :
Mesa, :
Roswel1,
: Tooele, :
San Angelo,


California :
North Dakota :
Arizona :
New Mexico
: Utah :
Texas
Type of pretreatment

Activated
Lagoon
Trickling
Trickling
Trickling
Activated


sludge

filter
filter
filter
sludge
Design flow
1/s
208
105-127
219
219
96
232

mgd
4.75
2.4-2.8
5.0
5.0
2.2
5.3
Average daily flow
1/s
118
44-66
219
175
61
219

mgd
2.70
1.0-1.5
5.0
4.0
1.4
5.0
Peak daily flow
1/s
14 9
79
219
219
61
350
mgd
3.4
1.8
5.0
5.0
1.4
8.0

-------
Table ^--Options used by selected communities
for land acquisition and management
Location
Type of
waste
Site area
Hectares (ac)
Acquisition
option
Management
option
Muskegon County,
Michigan
Braunschweig,
Germany
Bakersfield,
California
Lubbock,
Texas
San Angelo,
Texas
Dickinson,
North Dakota
Tooele, Utah
Mesa, Arizona
Camarillo,
California
Roswell,
New Mexico
Wastewater
arid sludge
Wastewater
and sludge
Wastewater
Wastewater
and sludge
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
Wastewater
4,290
(10,600)
4,210
(10,400)
972
( 2,400)
1,619
( 4,000)
300
(740)
101
(250)
486
(1>200)
65
(160)
192
(475)
115
(285)
Fee simple
title
Contract
Fee simple
Fee simple
and contract
Fee simple
Contract
Contract
Fee simple
Contract
Contract
Managed by county
Wastewater coop-
erative
Leaseback to
farmer; cash rent
Leaseback of city
owned land to
single farmer who
uses water on
city owned land,
his own land, and
sells water to
other farmers and
an electric util-
ity
Managed by
municipal em-
ployees
Cash lease for
water sale to
farmer
Cash lease for
water sale to
farmer
Leaseback for
cash rent
Landowner pro-
vides land in
exchange for
water and leases
land to a third
party
Cash lease for
Water sale to
farmer
as

-------
Leases are the most frequently used management option. Leases
are used to manage farming on city-owned land, as in the case
of Mesa, and to govern the sale of water for application to
privately owned land, as in the cases of Tooele and
Dickinson.
No situation clearly emerges where one acquisition or
management option is more likely to be used than another. Fee
simple acquisition might be expected to be used more
frequently by smaller communities due to smaller land needs
and fewer problems associated with community opposition.
Conversely, one might expect contracts and leases would be
more likely to be used by larger communities. However, of the
communities shown in table 4, the large sites are owned by the
city, except for Braunschweig. While one of the smaller sites
is owned by the city (Mesa), most small sites are owned by
farmers who contract with the city for water. Large systems
need more controls which suggest some pressure for ownership
of a least part of the system. Smaller systems need less land
and may easily be able to negotiate leases.
The fact that no clear pattern emerges highlights the
uniqueness of each land application system and the difficulty
of generalizing from one location to another. While concepts
and guidelines provide some general assistance, the particular
mix of technical, economic, legal, regulatory, social, and
political factors operating at each site had the greatest
influence on which management and acquisition option was
selected. For example, the large Muskegon, Mich., land
treatment system developed out of the combination of special
water quality needs, a positive approach by county officials
toward establishing the system and handling public opposition,
large areas of sparsely settled, relatively nonproductive
land, and support from research grants.
Farming Operations The wastewater irrigation systems studied here evolved to
their present status over a period of years. Although the
starting points and evolutionary process differed, there are
some similarities in the farming operations. Two common
characteristics are shared by the agricultural operations of
the six communities: cost sharing and underutilization of
water available (table 5). In each case, the city is
responsible for getting the water to the application site and
each farmer pays something to the city (either through rights
to land or cash) for the wastewater. San Angelo is an
exception since the city manages the farm. Only a portion of
the available wastewater is applied to the land, ranging
between 20 percent in Roswell and 60 percent in San Angelo.
40

-------
Table 5—Selected data on the agricultural operations


Camarillo, :
Dickinson, :
Mesa, :
Roswell,
Tooele, :
San Angelo,
Characteristic
Units
California :
North Dakota :
Arizona :
New Mexico
Utah :
Texas
Year irrigation began

1958
1957
1957
1944
1957
1933
Irrigated area:








ha
192
101
60
28.3
223
259

ac
475
250
14 7
70
550
640
Initial purchase price:








Dol./ha
—
865
3,520
—
124
2,025

Dol./ac
—
350
1,425
—
50
820
Estimated value in 1976
Dol.
2,000
—
3,000
---
500
—
Annual application rate:







cm
102
51-61
914
122-183
76
152-183

in
40
20-24
360
48-72
30
60-72
Crops grown

dry beans
wheat
wheat
corn
alfalfa
hay


peppers
oats
corn
alfalfa
grain
pasture


broccoli
barley
sorghum





tomatoes





Cost-sharing

City pays
City pays
City pays
6 to 7 far-
City pro-
Annual
arrangements

pumping
pumping
pumping
mers take
vides water
net re-


costs.
costs.
costs.
water from
via outfall
ceipts of


Landowner
Farmer pro-
Fanner
outfall
ditch on
$20,000


provides land
vides land
leases
line, pay
user's land.
from farm


for treatment
for the
land from
between
Farmer pays
operation.


plant in ex-
treatment
city at
(2.50 and
$750/year



change for
plant in
$50 per
$3.50
for effluent



the use of the
exchange for
acre.
acre foot




wastewater.
rights to the

of water.





wasterwater.




— = Not available

-------
Economic analysis suggests a farmer will compare the marginal
costs and benefits in determining whether or not to use
wastewater for irrigation. In such cases, a farmer will
irrigate with effluent if expected benefits from wastewater
irrigation exceed expected costs. The primary benefit to a
farmer from wastewater irrigation is the additional yield due
to irrigation. For example, the entire production at the
Camarillo site was attributed to effluent irrigation as it was
the only available source of water. A variety of costs to the
farmer will influence the decision to participate. The
application costs need to be considered. Do they differ from
the costs of applying typical irrigation water due to such
problems as clogging of sprinkler heads or corrosion of the
irrigation pipe? A second important cost is the fee for the
irrigation water. A farmer must determine if water of
equivalent quality is available at a lower cost. If land
rental is tied to the use of the irrigation water, as is the
case in Mesa, these costs must be considered jointly when
evaluating alternative sites for renting cropland. The farmer
must also consider potential inconveniences associated with
the use of wastewater. It is continuously available in a
fixed quantity. If storage is not available, as is the
general case with the systems under consideration, irrigation
is determined as much by water availability as by crop needs.
Finally, some risks may be associated with the use of
wastewater for irrigation. Possible contaminants in the
wastewater may harm the individuals applying the wastewater,
the crops grown on the irrigation site, or the soil at the
site. The risk of soil contamination can be passed to the
city through clauses in the contracts or by public ownership
of the land, as in Mesa and San Angelo. Since the systems in
this report have been operating for long periods of time, one
might conclude that these risks are considered minimal.
Reflections on the Community officials and farmers in the six communities
Operation of the	generally agreed that there was a need for a longrun planning
Systems	horizon to be taken Into consideration when developing the
systems. In many instances, systems have expanded piecemeal
as the community has grown and as the volume of wastewater has
increased, necessitating larger areas for land treatment. A
factor repeatedly stressed for system succeds was the need for
good working relationships between the community and the
landowner. Such relationships were considered more important
than the existence of tight legal contracts.
One conclusion of the investigation is that the effluent was
used for irrigation in a suboptimal economic manner. It was
generally recognized that effluent was a valuable source of
water and nutrients which helped increase the crop yields.
42

-------
Few of the farmers, however, were actually measuring the
differences in a quantitative sense. Similarly, the city
engineers or others responsible for the operation of the
system recognized that there was an economic value in the use
of the effluent. But they had not established procedures to
charge the landowners or farm operators for the entire value
received. They were more concerned with fulfilling their
primary responsibility of properly treating the wastewater.
In several communities, the city representatives seemed to
have an implied goal of increasing the charges for the
wastewater. They were thus hesitant about entering into
long-term agreements for the use of the water because of
anticipation that the value of water for nonagricultural uses
would one day surpass the value in agricultural uses, as well
as increase in value for agricultural uses.
Another factor identified as working against the establishment
of long-term contracts was uncertainty over the future
directions of EPA regulations on land treatment systems.
Several communities were hesitant to enter into a long-term
arrangement tying up land and capital in a land treatment
system which might provide a treatment level below standards
that might become required by EPA.
No distinct pattern was identified from the communities
studied with respect to the choice for land acquisition and
management methods. Considerable variation exists in both the
management and acquisition options used, and there was no
obvious reason why one method was selected over another.
Major influences on the systems' evolution included
site-specific technical factors; economic Issues; the
political, legal, regulatory and social environment; and
initiative and risk-taking attitudes of local officials.
43

-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY	(1) Anderson, Loren R., and others. Long-Term Effects of Land
Application of Domestic Wastewater: Tooele, Utah, Slow
Rate Site, Vol II, Engineering Soil Properties.
EPA-600/2-79-171b. Utah Water Research Laboratory, Utah
State University. 1979.
(2) Aulenback, Donald, and others. "Water Renovation Using
Deep Natural Sand Beds," Journal of American Water Works
Association. 1975.
(3)		_• Long Term Recharge of Trickling
Filter into Sand. EPA-600/2-79-068. Department of
Chemical and Environmental Engineering, Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute, 1979.
(4)	Barlowe, Raleigh. Land Resource Economics. 2nd ed,
Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 1972.
(5)	Benham-Blair and Affiliates, Inc. and Engineering
Enterprises, Inc. Long-Term Effects of Land Application
of Domestic Wastewater: Dickinson, North Dakota, Slow
Rate Irrigation Site. EPA-600/2-79-144. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Ada, Oklahoma. 1979.
(6)	. Long-Term Effects of Land Application
of Domestic Wastewater: Milton, Wisconsin, Rapid
Infiltration Site. EPA-600/2-79-145. Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma. 1979.
(7) Breimyer, Harold "Man, Physical Resources, and Economic
Organization," American Journal of Agricultural
Economics. 55. 1973.
(8) Camarillo Department of Planning and Community
Development. Camarillo Community Economic Profile.
Camarillo Chamber of Commerce, Camarillo, California.
1976.
(9) Christensen, Lee A. "A Framework for Evaluating
Institutional and Socio-Economic Issues of Land Treatment
of Waste Water," Journal of Environmental Quality, Vol. 4,
No. 2. 1975.			
(10)	. "Land Treatment of Municipal
Wastewater: A Cooperative Approach to Management,"
Journal of the Northwestern Agricultural Economics
Council, Vol. IV, No. 2. 1975.
44

-------
(11)		, D. G. Lewis, L. W. Libby, and L. J.
Connor. Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater - A
Water Quality Option for Michigan Communities. Center
for Rural Manpower and Public Affairs, Michigan State
University, Report No. 41. 1976.
(12)	Collin, Don V. "The California Land Conservation Act:
The Easement and Contract Approach to Open Land
Planning." In Proceedings of the Seminar on Taxation
Of Agricultural and Other Open Land. Department of
Agricultural Economics, Michigan State University.
1971.
(13)	Commons, J. R. Institutional Economics: Its Place in
Political Economy. The MacMillan Company. 1934.
(14)	DeTullio, David, and Donald J. Epp. The Fiscal Effects
on Local Municipalities and School Districts of Land
Application of Municipal Wastewater: A Case Study.
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural
Sociology, Report 138. The Pennsylvania State
University. 1979.
(15)	Ehlers, V. M. "Experiences With Sewage Farming in
Southwest United States - Texas," American Journal of
Public Health. 1935.
(16)	Federal Register. Part III, EPA Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, Construction Grants, Vol. 43,
No. 80, pp. 17690-17720. April 25, 1978.
(17)	Goodwin, Earl H. "Sewage Irrigation in Texas," Public
Works~ 1935.
(18)	Gray, J. Frank. "Practical Irrigation With Sewage
Effluent." In Municipal Sewage Effluent for Irrigation
Symposium Proceedings. Edited by C. W. Wilson and F.
E. Beckett. Louisiana Polytechnic Institute. 1968.
(19)	Haith, D. A., and D. C. Chapman. "Land Application As
a Best Practicable Waste Treatment Alternative," Land
As A Waste Management Alternative. Raymond C. Loehr,
Editor, Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann Arbor,
Michigan. 1977.
(20)	Hossner, L. R., and others. Sewage Disposal on
Agricultural Soils: Chemical and Microbiological
Implications. Volume I, Chemical Implications.
EPA-600/2-78-131a, Soil Crop Sciences Department, Texas
A&M University. 1978.
45

-------
(21)	Hutchlns, Wells A. Sewage Irrigation as Practiced In
the Western United States. Technical .Bulletin No. 675,
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1939.
(22)	Koerner, Ernest L., and D. Alan Haws. Long-Term
Effects of Land Application of Domestic Wastewater;
Roswell, New Mexico, Slow Rate Irrigation Site.
EPA-600/2-79-047. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Ada, Oklahoma. 1979.
(23)		• Long-Term Effects of Land
Application of Domestic Wastewater: Vineland, New
Jersey, Rapid Infiltration Site. EPA-600/2-79-072.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ada, Oklahoma.
1979.
(24)	Lewis, D. G., and others. Land Disposal of Wastewater
with Spray Irrigation by Small Michigan Municipalities
- Agricultural, Institutional, and Financial
Characteristics. Michigan Agricultural Economics
Report No. 278. Michigan State University. 1974.
(25)	Mertz, Robert C. "Direct Utilization of Waste Waters,"
Water and Sewage Works. 1956.
(26)	Mitchell, George A. "Sewage Farm Displaces Filter Beds
at Vineland, New Jersey." Engineering News Record.
January 9, 1930.
(27)	Pandullo, Chrisbachen, and Associates. Supplement
Report to Plan Section Report, Maurice River Basin
Facilities Plan, prepared for Landis Sewerage
Authority, Vineland, New Jersey. 1975.
(28)	Pound, Charles E., Ronald W. Crites, and Douglas A.
Griffes. Cost of Wastewater Treatment by Land
Application. EPA-660/2-73-006. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1973.
(29)	, and Ronald W. Crites. Wastewater
Treatment and Reuse by Land Application, Vol. I -
Summary" EPA-660/2-73-006a. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1973.
(30)		,	and Ronald W. Crites. Wastewater
Treatment and Reuse	by Land Application, Vol. II.
EPA-660/2-73-006b.	U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1973.
46

-------
(31)
	, R. W. Crites, and R. G. Smith.
Cost Effective Comparison of Land Application and
Advanced Wastewater Treatment. EPA-430/9-75-016. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1975.
(32)	Rafter, George W. "Sewage Irrigation," Water Supply
and Irrigation Papers No. 3, U.S. Geological Survey.
1897.
(33)		. "Sewage Irrigation - Part II,"
Water Supply and Irrigation Papers, No. 22, U.S.
Geological Survey. 1899.
(34)	Reynolds, James H., and others. Long-Term Effects of
Land Application of Domestic Wastewater: Tooele, Utah,
Slow-Rate Site, Volume I: Field Investigation.
EPA-600/2-79-17la. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Ada, Oklahoma. 1979.
(35)	Roberts, F. C., Jr. "Experiences With Sewage Farming
in Southwest United States - Arizona," American Journal
of Public Health. 1935.
(36)	Schaerff, Erick. "Braunschweig: A Cooperative
Success," Water Spectrum. U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Fall, 1977.
(37)	Schmid, A. Allan. "Analytical Institutional
Economics: Challenging Problems in Economic Resources
For a New Environment," American Journal of
Agricultural Economics, Vol. 54, No. 5. 1972.
(38)	Schmidt, Curtis J., and others. "Municipal Wastewater
Reuse in the United States," Journal of the Water
Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 47, No. 9. 1975.
(39)	Sewage and Industrial Wastes. February 1953.
(40)	Sopper, William E., and Louis Kardos, eds. "Vegetation
Responses to Irrigation with Treated Municipal
Wastewater." In Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater
and Sludge Through Forest and Cropland. The
Pennsylvania State University Press. 1973.
(41)	Stone, Ralph, and James Rowlands. Long-Term Effects of
Land Application of Domestic Wastewater; Camarillo,
California, Irrigation Site. EPA 600/2-80-080. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Ada, Oklahoma. May
1980.
47

-------
(42) 	• Long-Term Effects of Land
Application of Domestic Wastewater, Mesa, Arizona:
Irrigation Site" EPA 600/2-80-061. U.S. Environmenta1
Protection Agency, Ada, Oklahoma. April 1980.
(A3) Sullivan, Richard H., Morris M. Cohn, and Samuel S.
Baxter. Survey of Facilities Using Land Application of
Wastewater. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
1973.
(44)	Tietjen, C. "Sewage Disposal by Sprinkler Irrigation
on 10,000 Acres of Farmland," in Soil Science
Contributes to a Quality Environment. Crops and Soils
Science Department, Michigan State University. 1973.
(45)	Uiga, Ants. "An Overview of Land Treatment from Case
Studies of Existing Systems," Journal of the Water
Pollution Control Federation. 1978.
(46)	U.S. Department of Army. Computer Assisted Procedure
for the Design and Evaluation of Wastewater Treatment
Systems (CAPDET) Users Guide, Corps of Engineers,
Office of the Chief of Engineers. 1976.
(47)	U.S. Congress. Clean Water Act of 1977. Public Law
95-217. 1977.
(48)	U.S. Congress, Senate. Federal Water Pollution Act
Amendments of 1972. Public Law 92-500, 92nd Congress,
S. 2770. 1972.
(49)		. Committee on Interior and Insular
Affairs. State Land Use Programs - Summaries of Land
Use Regulations in Eight States. 93rd Congress.
1974.
(50)	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Proceedings of
the Joint Conference on Recycling Municipal Sludge and
Effluents on Land. Champaign, Illinois. 1973.
(51)		• Administrator's Memo. "EPA Policy
on Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater." October 3,
1977.
(52)		 , U.S. Corps of Engineers, and
U.S.Department of Agriculture. Process Design Manual
for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater.
EPA-625/1-77-008. 1977.
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 198I-J60-932:E*!

-------
(53)	Vrooman, M. "Complete Sewage Disposal for a Small
Community." Water Works and Sewerage. 1940.
(54)	Weaver, R. W., and others. Sewage Disposal on
Agricultural Soils: Chemical and Microbiological
Implications Volume II, Microbiological Implications.
EPA-600/2-78-131b. Texas A&M University. 1978.
(55)	Wells, W. N. "Irrigation as a Sewage Re-Use," Public
Works. 1961.
(56)	Wells, D. M., and others. "Effluent Use in Lubbock,"
In: Land As A Waste Management Alternative. Raymond
C. Loehr, Editor, Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann
Arbor, Michigan. 1977.
(57)	Whyte, W. H. The Last Landscape. Doubleday and
Company, Garden City, New York. 1968.
(58)	Williams, J. R., L. J. Connor, and L. W. Libby. "Case
Histories and Comparative Cost Analysis of Land
Treatment of Wastewater by Small Municipalities in
Michigan." Presented at Workshop on Waste Treatment in
Rural Regions, sponsored by the Pennsylvania State
University and the Farm Foundation, Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania. 1977.
(59)		, L. J. Connor, and L. W. Libby.
Case Studies and Comparative Costs Analyses of Land and
Conventional Treatment of Wastewater by Small
Municipalities in Michigan. Agricultural Economics
Report No. 329, Michigan State University. 1977.
(60)	Young, C. Edwin. The Cost of Land Application of
Wastewater: A Simulation Analysis. Technical Bulletin
No. 1555. Economic Research Service, U.S. Department
of Agriculture. 1976.
(61)		. Land Application of Wastewater: A
Cost Analysis. Technical Bulletin No. 1594, Economics,
Statistics, and Cooperatives Service, U.S. Department
of Agriculture. 1978.

49

-------