CAPITAL INVESTMENT FOR
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
AT THE STATE AND LOCAL LEVEL
sx
£
C
55
O
%
-i> r"
PRO!*-
LU
(3
T
/
-------
I' \
; i >
CAPITAL INVESTMENT FOR WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL AT THE STATE
AND LOCAL LEVEL
94 4 0
by
Norman Frumkin
for the
Office of Planning and Evaluation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contract # 68-01-0164
us rpA
Heaciaucirtcirs -v ; :'---
EPAWe-v -v-v ,
Maii'-r.-'.. '
!301 Con-",;:'.' •"
WashingJc; • :.;G ,?(
202-566-0556
r>' libraries
'340
P rot*
!'
iviAK 2-<>
jjBKARY,
,!W
>u
•04
Rem G/y Materia!
Permar-.ent Coiiectio?
August 1972
-------
EPA REVIEW NOTICE
This report has been reviewed by the Office
of Planning and Evaluation, Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, and approved for publication. Ap-
proval does not necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
- i -
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The following EPA personnel were especially helpful in
conducting the study. Arnold J. Hoffman as Project Officer provided
prompt and effective assistance throughout the various phases of
the project. Robert L. Coughlin lent his exceptional knowledge
and insights of the field in shaping the survey design and reviewing
the draft report. Robert V. Brown gave thoughtful comments in the
preparation of the questionnaire. John J. Daunt facilitated the initia-
tion of the study.
- ii -
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. SUMMARY 1
Major Findings 1
Conclusions 4
II. OVERALL THRUST OF THE STUDY 6
Research Procedures 8
III. DETAILED FINDINGS 10
Priorities for the Municipal Water Pollution
Control Program 10
State by State Portrait of Priorities 17
Local Home Rule: Municipal Action and
Regionalization 40
Cost Recovery and Municipal Treatment of
Industrial Wastes 43
Allocation of State Aid to Municipalities 45
Incentives and Penalties to Foster Municipal
Action 52
Five-Year Projections of Investment Needs for
Municipal Sewage Treatment Systems 56
Stream Standards Pertaining to Drinking, Recreation,
Aquatic Life and Other Uses 61
Supply Factors in the Construction Industry 62
Future Population Covered by Sewage Waste Systems . 65
State Review of Municipal Projects Submitted for Grant
Assistance 66
Components of Statewide Investment Projections ... 68
Capacity Utilization and Reserve Capacity Require-
ments 69
- iii -
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
IV. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON METHODOLOGY .... 72
APPENDIX
EPA Letter of Introduction
Survey Questionnaire
- iv -
-------
TABLES
Page
1. SUMMARY OF PRIORITY RANKINGS 14
2. DOMINANT COMPONENT OF BROAD
PRIORITIES 16
3. ALLOCATION FACTORS FOR STATE AID TO
MUNICIPAL PROJECTS 47
4. SOURCE OF FIVE YEAR PROJECTIONS OF
INVESTMENT NEEDS 57
5. PRICE LEVELS OF THE FIVE YEAR 1972-76
INVESTMENT NEEDS PROJECTIONS 59
- v -
-------
I. SUMMARY
This study of the investment program in municipal sewage
waste handling facilities is aimed at providing a better understanding
of the priorities, problems and approaches to water pollution control
at the state level. It also suggests the need for certain legislative
and administrative refinements in the federal grant program.
The study is based on a survey of nine sample state government
programs conducted by personal visits to the state water pollution
control offices. The interviews were conducted primarily with the
engineer in charge of the construction grants program. The nine
state governments in the judgmentally selected sample are Massa-
chusetts, New York, Ohio, Maryland, Alabama, Texas, New
Mexico, California and Washington; they represent various degrees
of population size, urbanization, industrialization and hydrological
conditions, and account for approximately two-fifths of the national
population and municipal sewage treatment investment needs.
Major Findings
Municipal governments have a considerable role in this pro-
gram. They develop the plans for treatment projects for state and
federal funding support, provide the basic technical and economic
information used to evaluate the proposed projects, themselves de-
pend largely on consulting engineering firms for developing planning
. i -
-------
alternatives and the information base, and attempt to persuade their
own voters to approve the sale of bonds to finance the municipal share
of the project.
The primary role for the state government is to encourage,
pressure, and if necessary propose legislation and initiate litigation
to compel municipalities to actively deal with the water pollution prob-
lem in accordance with state and federal standards. There is the basic
need to insure that communities are taking adequate and speedy mea-
sures to attain designated water quality standards. In addition, strong
traditions of local home rule and autonomy pose serious problems for
developing cooperative type treatment systems serving two or more
communities. Among the sample state governments, there is a rela-
tively wide variation in the response to the local home rule institution.
The policy emphasis in the survey states is placed on the need
for adequate treatment of municipal wastes in the shortest possible
time; it is implemented by programs to initiate the maximum number
of new treatment projects each year. This approach sometimes con-
flicts with attempts to develop optimum type systems regarding treat-
ment technology and regionalization. New studies of alternative sys-
tems that have been required to qualify municipal projects for federal
aid have led to delays of six months to several years in developing new
plans and obtaining local, state and federal approval to proceed with
the projects on the revised basis.
- 2 -
-------
The annually updated five year estimates of investment needs
for municipal waste handling facilities at the state level are developed
on a project by project basis; they are based on preliminary studies
prepared by municipal governments, and on rule of thumb estimates by
the state government for potential projects not covered in the locally
prepared projections. The sum of the estimated dollar expenditures
for these individual projects to a statewide total is considered by the
sample states as a very broad order of magnitude of investment needs.
The five year projection of investment needs developed from this pro-
ject by project approach is not related to a statewide statistical depic-
tion of the population and industries that would be served by these
treatment systems.
There are no alternative cost estimates of five year needs pre-
pared by the sample states using an overall statistical approach based
on detailed state needs of existing and projected household and industrial
sources of pollution. The only statewide estimates of this type have
been developed by EPA from aggregate rather than from detailed state
data; these have varied significantly from the state prepared project by
project estimates. Thus, on a national basis, projections of investment
requirements for the 1972-76 period in 1971 prices amount to $14 billion
based on the EPA statistical model, as compared with $18 billion for
the project by project estimates. The relative differences between these
two estimates are still greater at the state level.
- 3 -
-------
Conclusions
National policy for guiding and administering the water pollution
control program is faced with a diversity of problems and remedies at
the state and local level. Aspects of the national program that need
refinement and apply generally to the sample states are as follows.
1. Development of general cost-benefit guidelines that can be ap-
plied expeditiously in the review of prospective municipal pro-
jects submitted for federal support. The sample states tend
to view the present procedures in applying for federal grants
as delaying and increasing the costs of the program, rather
than as making a substantive contribution in combating pollution.
The restudying of prospective municipal projects for possible
alternative treatment systems sometimes causes delays of
several years in their implementation. The guidelines would
be aimed at reducing the number of these multiple studies by
indicating the type of information that should accompany the
initial grant request. The guidelines should clarify the con-
cept of regionalization and include criteria for incorporating
municipal projects in regional systems.
2. Development of specific measures in the grant legislation and
administration to deal with the local autonomy problem. The
difficulty of obtaining local participation in regional type sys-
tems significantly delays and shapes the pollution control pro-
gram. Suggested means for dealing with the institution of local
- 4 -
-------
home rule branch into the fields of political science and public
administration, and probably would require additional studies
in those areas. The techniques applied in some of the sample
states should be considered in any such recommendations.
These include programs for educating the public, enforcement,
and for providing technical and financial assistance to munici-
palities.
3. Provision of adequate grant funds to the state governments for
planning studies. These include regionalization and cost-
benefit analyses for municipal projects; development of the
relationship between the currently prepared five year invest-
ment projections, derived by summing the estimated project
by project costs to a statewide total, to the anticipated state-
wide effects that the municipal projects would have on handling
domestic and industrial sewage wastes; and for the prepara-
tion of overall statewide statistical projections of five year
investment needs for municipal treatment works similar to
the EPA model using detailed state data. These planning
aspects typically are nonexistent or need considerable strength-
ening, and the surveyed states indicate that such preconstruction
planning is relatively underfinanced as compared with direct
outlays for capital structures and equipment.
- 5 -
-------
II. OVERALL THRUST OF THE STUDY
Each year in its Annual Report on Clean Water to Congress,
EPA presents updated projections for approximately five years into
the future on a state-by-state basis of capital expenditures for munici-
pal sewage treatment plants and sewering lines required for the
achievement of state and federal water quality standards. These
estimates of investment needs for public waste handling facilities to
combat water pollution are used as a basis for budgeting economic
resources to the program on a national basis, and for guiding the
distribution of water pollution control federal grant funds to the
separate states.
The most recent municipal investment needs projections as
published in the 1972 EPA Annual Report covering the five year
fiscal 1972-76 period amounted in 1971 prices to a national total of
$18 billion. Under this program level, the current matching formula
of 50 percent implies federal outlays of $9 billion; if the matching
proportion is increased to levels that currently are included in the
separate bills which have passed in both houses of Congress, the
federal payment would come to approximately $12 billion.
What basic factors are shaping this program? How are the
estimates of need developed? This study of the water pollution
- 6 -
-------
control program in nine states is intended to provide EPA with a
better understanding of state perception and implementation of the
goals and priorities of the program, the information base that is used
in developing the capital expenditure needs estimates, planning
considerations given to providing for reserve capacity, institutional
problems in attaining area wide and regional cooperation among
municipalities, and constraints resulting from construction related
bottlenecks. The nine sample states are Massachusetts, New York,
Ohio, Maryland, Alabama, Texas, New Mexico, California and
Washington.
In using the estimates of need as a basic framework, the
study covers a broad spectrum of factors affecting the state capital
investment programs. The purpose is to present the general direction
and impetus of the state programs, and to characterize the state-by-
state variations of problems and approaches in the control of water
pollution. It is neither an analysis of the operational details nor an
evaluation of the performance and achievements at the state level.
Similarly, references to the views of the states with regard to EPA
programs are included as one of the factors affecting state percep-
tions and actions; they are not an evaluation of the EPA program.
- 7 -
-------
Research Procedures
The nine states in the sample were selected judgmentally
by EPA as being representative of regional and geographic variations
with regard to population size, urbanization, industrialization,
political institutions, and hydrology. The sample states also account
for a significant share of the national population and investment needs
for municipal sewage waste facilities. Their combined population in
1970 of 78 million was 38 percent of the national total, and their
aggregated estimates of need for waste handling facilities during the
1972-76 period in 1971 prices of $7 billion accounts for 39 percent of
national needs.
The contractor conducted the survey by personal visits to the
water pollution control offices in each of the sample states. A for-
mal questionnaire (Appendix) was used in conducting the in-depth
interviews; a letter of introduction from EPA to the state offices
(Appendix) facilitated the arrangements for these visits. The visits
typically took one full day. Background written information on the
state programs based on guidelines, reports, speeches, legislation,
public information material, etc., also was provided to the contractor.
During the writing of this report, follow-up telephone calls to all of
the sample states were made to clarify certain points. The survey
visits and follow-up telephone calls were conducted from February
to May of 1972.
- 8 -
-------
The state government personnel had a copy of the question-
naire during the interviews. The primary person in these interviews
was the staff engineer who directs the state capital facilities grant
program for sewage waste facilities to the municipalities. In several
states, certain parts of the survey were conducted along with other
personnel who have a detailed knowledge in particular parts of the
program; some report to the engineer in charge of the grants program
and others were in different departments of the water pollution con-
trol agency.
Additional technical considerations on the survey methodology
are discussed in Section IV.
- 9 -
-------
III. DETAILED FINDINGS
This section presents the state responses to the survey on a
question-by-question basis; the question numbers are cited in the side
headings. Due to the close relationship of certain questions, selected
ones are treated under the same topic. The statements throughout
this section reflect the views as expressed by the states.
1.&2. Priorities for the Municipal Water Pollution Control Program
The topic of priorities is aimed at characterizing the emphasis
that the states give to various aspects of the water pollution control
program. Question 1 is concerned with the ranking of priorities and
Question 2 with the reasons for the ranking; they are combined in this
discussion.
This topic is basically qualitative. Although the results are
presented quantitatively in classified tables, they are based on judg-
ments of persons with experience in carrying out broad policy direc-
tives. Lack of a common quantitative measure such as dollars pre-
cludes a strict interpretation of the interstate comparisons of the
numerical ratings; therefore, the program priorities are discussed
state by state.
The priorities reflect how the state policies have evolved in
their practical implementation; how key personnel perceive the
- 10 -
-------
problems; and the direction that the program has taken in dealing
with the problems. The list of priorities is not typically spelled
out in state legislation or administrative procedures.
Table 1 summarizes the state rankings of each of the major
priorities. In order to simplify the presentation, it lists but does
not rank the detailed components within each of the major categories.
The detailed components are then shown in Table 2. The state-by-
state narrative of the priorities follows the presentation of these
tables.
Statistically in Table 1, there is a possible total of 45 rank-
ings (9 states and 5 categories). There is an actual total of 40
rankings because 5 states did not indicate an "other write-in"
category. Also, five states classified two or more categories as
their first priority: Washington (4); California (3); Maryland,
Alabama and New Mexico (2 each). Due to these factors, and to
the absence of more than one category ranked as the second and
lower priorities, there are less than nine entries ranked in each of
the third, fourth and fifth priorities (column totals).
Primary emphasis is given to the first three categories of
achieving water pollution standards, maximizing treatment, and
encouraging institutional efficiency. Improving sewering coverage
- 11 -
-------
is given a generally lower rating. The "other write-in" category
when it is used is rated relatively high.
The selection of more than one category for first priority
ranking by several states is justified variously as reflecting federal
program requirements and the policy of giving attention to the special
aspects of each project. In the latter case, one project might focus
on achieving water pollution standards, another on maximizing treat-
ment, and a third on institutional efficiency (cooperative treatment
systems).
The joint selection of achieving water pollution standards and
maximizing treatment appears to be indicative of the view that these
categories are the basic input-output aspects of the program. In this
context, achieving pollution standards represents the outputs or re-
sults and maximizing treatment refers to the inputs or effort of the
program.
The general engineering rule for designing adequate capacity in
treatment systems to accommodate future growth in sewage loads is 20
years for treatment plants, and 50 years (or the ultimate population den-
sity of the area based on land use and zoning regulations) for interceptor
sewers. Treatment levels for new projects in the sample states are re-
ported as a minimum secondary level of 85 percent BOD removal, with
the exception of primary waivers for ocean disposals. Higher tertiary
- 12 -
-------
treatment levels are required selectively depending on the toxicity
of the pollutants, and the assimilative capacity and uses of the receiving
stream.
A characteristic view of cooperative regional systems is that
the initial investment costs are higher than the smaller decentralized
systems because of the additional interceptor sewers required in the
former; and that the economic analysis of these alternatives should
include the total investment and operating costs over the lifetime of
the project. Economies of scale both in the construction and opera-
tion of regional plants are typically contrasted with the increased
sewering requirements. In detailed analyses of investment costs,
this tends to revolve on the distance between communities in a pro-
posed regional system and the associated sewering costs; thus, de-
pending on the terrain and other geographical factors, the direct rela-
tionship between distance and sewering costs varies by project.
Additional sections on institutional efficiency include a dis-
cussion of the relationship between local autonomy and regionalization,
and state notions of the effect that proposed increases in industry
cost recovery payments would have on the development of joint munici-
pal-industrial treatment.
- 13 -
-------
Table 1. SUMMARY OF PRIORITY RANKINGS
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
Total
Achieve Water Pollution Standards
5
2
1
1
0
9
Abate existing pollution
Avert future pollution
Ohio
N. Y.
Ala.
Cal.
Wash.
Mass.
Md.
N. Mex.
Tex.
Maximize Treatment
5
1
3
0
0
9
Highest possible treatment
Some treatment of all munici-
pal wastes
Some treatment of all in-
dustrial wastes
Mass.
Ala.
Cal.
Wash.
N. Mex.
Ohio
N. Y.
Tex.
Md.
Encourage Institutional Efficiency
4
2
2
1
0
9
Joint treatment of municipal &
industrial wastes
Cal.
Wash.
N. Y.
Tex.
Mass.
Ala.
Ohio
Unified sanitary districts
N. Mex.
Md.
Regional & river basin systems
Improve Sewering Coverage
1
3
1
3
1
9
Install sanitary sewers
Wash.
Ala.
Ohio
Mass.
Tex.
Separate storm & sanitary
sewers
Cal.
N. Mex.
N. Y.
Md.
a/
Other (write-in) -
2
1
1
0
0
4
Tex.
Md.
Wash.
Cal.
TOTAL
17
9
8
5
1
40
Note: The detailed components under each major category in this table are shown only to describe
the major category. The detailed components are tabulated in Table 2.
a/ Tex. - Educate public to pass bond issues and regionalize; Md. - Eliminate health hazards;
Wash. - Shoreline management for aesthetics; Cal. - Increase interceptor sewer capacity.
- 14 -
-------
Table 2 summarizes the reasons given for the selection of
the broad priority categories. It shows which of the detailed
components in Table 1 was the dominant factor in each of the majpr
categories; the number appearing next to each state is the ranking
of the major category given in Table 1.
The tabulations suggest a concentration of dominant compo-
nents within each category, although all components received at
least one priority rating. There are no apparent patterns of re-
lationship among the sample states for (a) the priority given to the
major category and the primary component within that cate-
gory and (b) the primary component within each major category with
those in other major categories. These might be deduced from a
statistical analysis, but they probably would be highly tentative be-
cause of the smallness of the sample and the qualitative nature of
the responses.
- 15 -
-------
Table 2. DOMINANT COMPONENT OF BROAD PRIORITIES
Achieve Water Pollution Standards
Abate Exist in g
Pollution
Avert Future
Pollution
Mass. - 2
N. Y. - 1
Ohio - 1
Md- 2
Ala.- 1
Cal.- 1
Wash.- 1
Tex. - 4
N. Mex. - 3
Maximize Treatment - -
Highest Possible
Treatment
Some Treatment
of all Municipal
and Industrial
Wastes
Operate to
Highest , Reuse for ,
Capability - Irrigation -
Ala- 1
Tex- 3
N. Mex- 1
Wash. - 1
Mass— 1
N.Y. - 3
Md- 3
Ohio
Cal.
Encourage Institutional
Efficiency - —
Joint Treatment Unified Regional & Joint Mun. -Ind. &
of Municipal & Sanitary River Basin All three Unified Sanitary
Industrial Wastes Districts Systems Equally Equally
1
1
Ohio - 4
Mass— 3
N. Y. - 2
Md.- 1
Tex.- 2
Cal.- 1
Wash.- 1
1
N. Mex- 1
1
Ala. - 3
Improve Sewering Coverage —
Install Separate Install Neither
Sanitary Storm and & Separate Install
Sewers Sanitary Sewers Equally nor Separate
Md - 4
Ala.- 2
Tex.- 5
N. Mex- 2
Cal - 2
Mass — 4
Ohio - 3
1
Wash— 1
N.Y. - 4
NOTE: Number next to each state indicates the ranking of the major category given in Table 1.
a/ Written-in by states.
- 16
-------
State-by-State Portrait of Priorities
The narrative covers the sample states in the general re-
gional sequence as follows: Massachusetts, New York, Ohio,
Maryland, Alabama, Texas, New Mexico, California and Washing-
ton.
Massachusetts - Due to a backlog of sewered but untreated
waste, Massachusetts views the treatment of raw waste as a
primary function, and the upgrading of existing treatment as next
in importance. It does not promote sewering of the unsewered
population because of the treatment needs of the existing sewered
population, except in rapidly growing areas where the continued
installation of septic tanks might have harmful effects on ground-
waters; in the latter case, the state is working with engineering
consultants who are studying the problem.
There is considered to be an adequate supply of relatively
good quality water in the state as witnessed by the many inland
waters that are used for recreation and to a lesser extent for drink-
ing, as well as the coastline which is used for swimming and fishing.
It has been a long standing state policy to use the upland watershed
for water supply, and the downland shed for waste disposal.
Because of this view of no water supply problem, the state
- 17 -
-------
considers that the federal thrust for making every stream usable
for recreation and fishing as unrealistic from a cost-benefit point
of view; this is based on the notion that the costs would not justify
the benefits, although no such studies have been made.
Approximately two-thirds of the state population is served
by sewage abatement districts that handle waste on a metropolitan
area basis. This type of regional system has a long tradition in
the state.
The remaining one-third of the state that is not covered by
the abatement districts is in less densely populated areas. The
question of regionalizing these areas is indicated as involving
problems of higher capital costs and the strong local home rule
tradition. There is a general feeling that as part of the process of
obtaining federal grants, too many planning studies are being re-
quired for possible regional systems, when the additional costs to
regionalize would not be worth the incremental improvement in water
quality. This is aggravated by the tendency of many of these com-
munities to want to remain independent, including some that are
not on a friendly basis. The regionalization studies sometimes
result in delays of the treatment project for several years, thus
allowing the water quality to further deteriorate and raising
- 18 -
-------
construction costs because of inflation. Cited examples of these
delays include the Williamstown-North Adams and Hatsfield-
Northhampton projects.
New York - The dominant priority is the achievement of
water pollution standards. Emphasis is placed on abating existing
pollution resulting from backlog needs, although the state maintains
a long-term list of municipal projects with tentative annual starting
dates to 1990.
The second priority of institutional efficiency focuses on
extending the current area wide planning into a regional framework.
Under the Comprehensive Sewerage Study Program, the state has
financed since 1966 the development of county level master plans for
sewerage systems; they include several proposed alternative ap-
proaches and one recommended system. The plans are prepared
by consulting engineering firms under contract with the state; the
program is funded and administered by the state, although the
planning report is also reviewed and accepted at the local level.
They are now scheduled to be updated at least once every five years.
The plans are the core of the area planning in the state. The
interim regional plan is an amalgamation of the county plans; the
final regional plan will be developed from more complete and
- 19 -
-------
detailed information.
The third priority of maximizing treatment concentrates on
providing secondary treatment for sewered waste which currently
is receiving primary or no treatment. The state views the changing
definitions of treatment as required for federal grants as a bottle-
neck in starting construction on these projects. The concern is that
plans developed under standards existing at the time of their prepara-
tion are reviewed in the light of subsequently adopted higher standards,
resulting in delays for plan revisions of six months to several years
depending on the size of the project.
Examples of rising standards that have resulted in delays on
specific projects are cited as occurring in the definition of secondary
treatment from the previously used 75 percent BOD removal to 80-
85 percent BOD removal in a Hudson River Enforcement Conference,
and in the federal adoption in 1971 of a minimum requirement of 85
percent BOD removal; delays are also cited by new requirements for
phosphorous removals on the Great Lakes.
The state view is that due to the long lead time involved in
planning, municipal votes on bond issues, federal approval ot
grant funds, and starting construction, it is more important to
get the projects underway than to go through the entire process
again to obtain the incremental improvements. Thus, it would
- 20 -
-------
prefer a grandfather clause for federal grants which would maintain
the standards existing at the time the project plans were developed.
The state also indicated that additional federal funds should be sup-
plied to conduct studies that are required under the new standards,
which is not the case at present.
The fourth item of improving sewering coverage is not given
particular attention under the NEEDS program because it is not
eligible for EPA grants. However, encouragement is given to com-
munities that currently are not violating water quality standards,
but which voluntarily want to replace septic tanks with sewers to
accommodate future growth and/or because of concern with poor
soil absorption and groundwater pollution.
In this connection, the purpose of the above-noted
county master plans for sewage handling is to provide guidance to
the counties for sewage development. The backbone of the sewer-
ing focus in these plans is the state law which requires sewering
for developments of five or more houses, unless conditions are
found suitable for subsurface disposal. The determination of this
suitability is based on tests conducted by consulting engineers,
Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, and local
knowledge of septic tank failures as indicated in the files of the
county engineer. This is indicated as being a judgment of the
- 21 -
-------
nature of the soil and the availability of nearby treatment facilities.
The plans assume given land use and zoning preferences, but
recommendations are made for no further growth in areas with poor
soil conditions until sewering is installed. In cases such as Long
Island, this would be done because of the dependence on groundwaters
for the water supply. It would also be done in areas with a high clay
content in the soil and consequent inability to absorb septic tank seep-
age, in contrast to soils in other areas that have a high sand and
gravel content.
In significant financial developments, a state environmental
bond issue will be submitted for voter approval in November 1972.
The bond total of $1. 2 billion is planned to deal with state needs for
the coming five years; it is divided into $650 million for water pollu-
tion, $150 million for air pollution, and $400 million for preserving
forest, recreational and other land resources. A state transportation
bond issue was voted down in November 1971, but the hope is that
the environmental issue will not be faced with the same controversy.
One problem might be that the promotion of the 1965 water pollution
bond issue for $1. 2 billion possibly oversold the prospective achieve-
ments of the program; that issue is all committed except for a small
reserve for anticipated higher project costs. The state also is
- 22 -
-------
attempting to receive $1. 3 billion in federal reimbursable funds
which it asserts represents the prefinancing by state and local
governments of the federal share of treatment projects.
Ohio - The first priority is the achievement of water
pollution standards for abating existing pollution. The state em-
phasizes correction of obvious violations of standards — including
special attention to their effect on health -- that people can see,
taste or smell; these obvious violations are estimated to account
for roughly 90 percent of all water pollution problems. Considera-
tions of health are viewed as directly protecting persons from
disease, in contrast to ecological concerns of protecting aquatic
life, which are not necessarily related to health.
A new program for anticipating future sources of pollution
in municipal treatment plants is just getting under way. It is based
on using data processing records to get an indication of when these
plants should be upgraded or expanded.
The second priority of maximizing treatment focuses on ob-
taining secondary treatment levels of 85 percent BOD removal
everywhere, and tertiary levels where necessary. A major treat-
ment problem is that existing plants are not operating to their
highest capability. This is viewed to be largely due to a manpower
- 23 -
-------
shortage of competent plant operators and salary levels that are
too low to attract persons into the field.
The third priority of improving sewering coverage focuses
on the problem of combined sanitary and storm sewers. The em-
phasis here is in dealing with storm overflows, such as by storage sys-
tems, rather than by the separation of the two types of sewers. The
installation of sanitary sewers is considered as a voluntary local
activity, and thus is relatively unimportant in the state program.
Trunk sewering needs are recognized to exist for small communities
with disposal problems that cannot afford a large system, but the in-
stallation of trunk sewers in these cases requires an expansion of
projects eligible for EPA grants.
The fourth priority of institutional efficiency focuses primarily
on the encouragement to joint municipal and industrial treatment, and
secondarily on unified sanitary districts. There currently is no state
law to establish regions, and this type of planning is not emphasized;
the conservatory district for the Miami River planning region is an
exception to this pattern.
The state views the home rule tradition as a major impedi-
ment to cooperative treatment. For example, counties as individual
entities voluntarily establish sewer districts, and unincorporated
communities do not have to join the district; certain of these
- 24 -
-------
unincorporated districts have formed sewer districts of their own.
It is this voluntary aspect of cooperative systems that is the major
problem.
There is a possible mechanism in recent state legislation
on the Ohio Water Development Authority that would permit the
state to mandatorily establish sewage districts, but the power to do
so is vague; consequently, specific legislation is required to strengthen
the development of cooperative systems. Currently, Cincinnati has
an effective metropolitan area treatment system, and Cleveland is
expected to have one as a result of court directives.
The lack of authority carries over into the several metro-
politan area plans that deal with water pollution control as developed
under various federal programs (e.g., those by Housing and Urban
Development, Corps Engineers, and EPA); thus, these programs
are in state planning agencies that do not have implementation authority.
The multiplicity of these plans also tends to fragment the planning
process; HUD is attempting to correct this by designating which plan
is the major one.
Cost-benefit studies are viewed as being necessary for imple-
mentation of regional treatment systems. The problem reflects
the longer time frame and resultant excess capacity associated
- 25 -
-------
with the larger-scale projects, as compared with smaller decentral-
ized interim plants which would be built to accommodate treatment
needs for ten years into the future. The focus in this thinking is that
regionalization should be accomplished in steps rather than at one
time.
Maryland - The first priority is given to two categories,
elimination of health hazards (other write-in) and institutional effi-
ciency. The emphasis on health reflects a concentration on the
prevention of diseases to persons by avoiding any existing possibility
of personal contact with sewage. This takes precedence over the
improvement of the downstream quality of the receiving stream with
regard to aquatic life, recreational and other uses. Examples cited
as being indicative of the health orientation is the proposed project
for a relief sewer at Cabin John to bypass currently overloaded
treatment facilities, and the use of safety valves if pumping stations
are not working properly to insure that the waste goes into the
streams instead of backing up into homes and streets.
The high priority assigned to institutional efficiency empha-
sizes the regional planning effort. Cooperative planning presently
is done at the county level. The submission of county sewage plans
required by state legislation was first due in January 1970; they are
reviewed annually, and if changes are proposed, the state is notified
and a hearing procedure is set up. The sewer and water plans are
based on assumed land use and zoning patterns as designated by the
- 26 -
-------
localities; they do not recommend land uses. The state indicated
that there was some local resistance to the plans because of the
assumption that the state was dictating land uses, but in fact that
there was no such state involvement.
Plans in those counties with unincorporated municipalities
are viewed as having a stronger regionalization framework than
those for incorporated communities because of the greater local
autonomy in the incorporated areas. The development of river
basin plans is taking the county plans as its starting point.
The second priority of achieving water pollution standards
concentrates on the abatement of existing pollution. The less im-
portant programs for the prevention of future pollution are reflected
in the provision of interceptor sewers for partially developed areas
and planned subdivision development.
The third priority of maximizing treatment focuses on pro-
viding a minimum level of secondary treatment. Within this frame-
work, preference is given to eliminating all discharges of untreated
wastes, in contrast to the achievement of tertiary treatment in
certain places. This reflects the above emphasis on abating exist-
ing pollution.
The fourth priority of improving sewering coverage is
primarily a policy for the installation of sanitary sewers. The
county plans noted above encourage building in areas that require
sewering; the plans are supposed to show which areas
- 27 -
-------
can be served by septic tanks on interim and permanent bases; the
permanent service is typically in rural areas. Generally, the view is
that many areas have had severe problems with septic tanks and the
accompanying possibility of polluting underground aquifers. The
separation of combined sanitary and storm sewers is encouraged, but
little is done because of the lack of state and federal money.
The view was also expressed that federal grants should be made
available for repairs to existing treatment systems. Thus,
under the current program, some problems that could be handled by less
costly repairs might be being dealt with by more expensive new plants
because of the availability of federal money for these projects and not
for repairs. This reflects the tendency for municipalities to rely on
grants for their treatment facilities.
Alabama - Achievement of water pollution standards and treatment
maximization are both considered as first priority items. The emphasis
on achieving pollution standards is primarily on abating existing pollution.
In addition, although a community may not be violating pollution standards,
remedial treatment can be required if the existing disposal is ruled to be
a health hazard.
The treatment goal is to upgrade primary treatment facilities to
secondary levels if they violate standards or when additions are contemplated
to expand capacity. All new plants, including those for handling currently un-
treated sewered wastes, are designed for a minimum of secondary treatment.
- 28 -
-------
The second priority of improving sewering coverage is solely
concerned with replacing septic tanks with sanitary sewers. There are
no combined sanitary and storm sewers in the state; this probably
reflects the later development in Alabama of treatment systems than
in some other states, and the recognition by that time that combined
sewers could cause a problem.
The third priority of institutional efficiency focuses equally on
joint municipal-industrial treatment and unified sanitary districts. There
are general land use plans for planning districts representing combina-
tions of counties; and municipal applications for sewage treatment grants
must be in conformance with these plans. However, due to the home
rule tradition, it is viewed as almost impossible to get communities to
cooperate except with very strong state pressure and enforcement. This
type of effort does not appear to be emphasized in the state program.
Regional systems are viewed as being even more difficult
to develop in light of the home rule tradition; additional enforcement
legislation is considered as a possible requirement for these systems.
Regional systems also are considered to require more money because
of higher investment costs for the larger systems. In addition, the
state indicated that federal funds should be provided for the develop-
ment of basin plans.
The general difficulty of obtaining area cooperation for
sewage districts as compared with that for water districts is
- 29 -
-------
attributed to the greater willingness on the part of the population to
pay for water usage. This negative attitude toward paying for
sewage handling is viewed as a major bottleneck in attaining coopera-
tive treatment systems.
Financially, Alabama does not have a state grant program
for sewage treatment works. It provides instead state loans, which
the municipality must repay. The reason given for the absence of
a state grant program is the shortage of state revenues.
Recent state legislation authorized the state to sell bonds
for the loan assistance program. The purpose of this legislation
is to qualify municipal sewage projects for the maximum 55
percent share of federal grant funds by insuring that project funds
would be available for construction; otherwise, the federal grant
covers 30 percent of the project cost. This financial mechanism
is indicated as being similar to that used in other selected states,
such as Mississippi, Louisiana, Tennessee and Florida; among the
sample states, it is also used in Texas.
Texas - The first priority is assigned to educating the
public in the "other write-in" category. This focuses on develop-
ing a positive local attitude for passing bond issues and participating
in regional systems. The educational program is comprised of
extensive traveling by state personnel, provision of speakers and
- 30 -
-------
visual aids, news releases to the press, preparation of written
materials, and appearances at public hearings. It is aimed at
school children as well as adults.
The second priority of encouraging institutional efficiency
concentrates on developing regional and river basin systems. The
general emphasis is on persuading the local communities that
regional systems over their lifetime are less costly than decentral-
ized treatment works; that is, that the higher initial investment
costs are more than offset by lower operating costs.
The location of regional and subregional treatment plants is
sometimes included in the general land use plans developed under
HUD programs. When the plans are vague on these facilities, the
state specifies their location; public hearings are held if communities
object to these designations, but the state makes the final decision.
The third priority of maximizing treatment is concerned
with obtaining the highest possible treatment. In the case of munici-
palities, this is defined as a minimum of 90 percent BOD removal.
Industrial treatment requirements are just getting under way in
the state; the program provides for'a stepwise schedule to permit
industry to achieve the treatment standards over a period of time.
- 31 -
-------
The fourth priority of achieving water pollution standards
gives somewhat greater emphasis to averting future pollution than to
abating existing pollution. This reflects the long standing state
policy for several decades of installing secondary treatment facilities,
thus permitting greater concentration now on anticipating future pollu-
tion problems by achieving still higher levels of treatment.
The fifth priority of improving sewering coverage focuses on
the installation of sanitary sewers. There are very few combined
sanitary and storm sewers in the state because of its relatively
late development on the frontier and the resultant advantage that was
taken of advanced engineering techniques, and because of drier areas
which do not require considerable storm sewer capacities.
Texas does not have a state grant program for municipal sewage
treatment works. It provides instead loans to municipalities by the
state Water Quality Enhancement Board; the Board was established in
1971, and uses municipal bonds as collateral for the loans. The pur-
pose of the loan mechanism is to satisfy federal requirements for
state financial participation in order to receive the maximum federal
grant of 55 percent. This method of compensating for a shortage
of state revenues is similar to that noted above for Alabama.
New Mexico - The first priority rating is given equally to
maximizing treatment and encouraging institutional efficiency. The
- 32 -
-------
emphasis in maximizing treatment is on achieving minimum tertiary
treatment well above 90 percent BOD removal for municipal plants,
and minimum secondary treatment or control for industry wastes.
All municipal plants currently have secondary treatment. These
treatment standards reflect the extreme dryness of the state (e. g.
the average annual rainfall in Albuquerque is 8 inches as compared
with 43 inches in Boston), and the resultant high premium that is
placed on all available water. Much of the treated water is indi-
cated as being reused for irrigation; also, regulations are being
written to restrict the location of septic tanks within minimum
distances from trout streams and groundwaters.
The attention to institutional efficiency gives equal importance
to joint municipal-industrial treatment, unified sanitary districts, and
regional systems; the particular emphasis is stated to depend on the
needs of each project. The major pollution problem is considered
to be in Albuquerque (300, 000 population) and its surrounding areas
(500,000 population), which combined account for roughly 80 percent
of the state population. The Albuquerque metropolitan area en-
compassing Bernalillo County is indicated as currently being planned
for cooperative sewage treatment at the county level. In the surround-
ing areas, the focus is on replacing septic tanks with cooperative treat-
ment systems.
The probability of treatment of industrial waste by municipal
plants is stated as depending on the distance of the industry from the
- 33 -
-------
municipal facility. The emphasis appears to be on joint treatment when
the industry is located in the municipality, as contrasted with more
private treatment for plants located beyond the municipal facility limits;
this reflects the additional costs for sewering as the distance increases
from the municipality. Planning wise, the sewer and water elements in
the HUD financed land use plans are considered to be very poor.
The second priority of improving sewering coverage focuses
on the installation of sanitary sewers. Because of the dependence
on groundwaters for drinking in this dry state and the view that
septic tanks are harmful to groundwaters, sewering is favored over
septic tanks in existing and new developments. Sewering is also
viewed as a leverage to attain high treatment levels and cooperative
treatment systems.
The third priority of achieving water pollution standards
concentrates on averting future pollution. This reflects the view
that current standards are relatively close to achievement, but that
a high level effort is required to insure that potable water continues
to be available in this arid state.
California - First priority ranking is given to the three
categories of achieving water pollution standards, maximizing treat-
ment, and encouraging institutional efficiency. The emphasis in
achieving water pollution standards is on abating existing pollution.
State funding of projects is limited to anticipated capacity needs for
20 years into the future for both treatment plants and sewering;
- 34 -
-------
this is consistent with the typical engineering rule for treatment
plants; but it is less than the engineering convention of building
sewer lines to accommodate future growth for 50 years or the ulti-
mate population of the area based on land use and zoning codes.
The reason cited for the 20 year limitation is the lack of state
funds; if the project is slated for say, 50 years, the state calculates
the 20 year capacity and funds only that amount.
The state will accommodate communities that wish to pursue
a no growth policy if the community agrees to no further connections
to the sewering system once the treatment plant is operating at 90
percent of capacity; no contracts have yet been signed on this basis,
but some are anticipated. It is considered that developers may test
this policy in court.
Treatment maximization generally focuses on encouraging
the highest practicable technology. Within this context, construction
funds are indicated as being available to build in options for using
alternative technologies, including the consideration of possible
future regulatory decisions. Considerable attention is also given
to the possible reuse of sewage wastewaters for crop irrigation
and recharging groundwater aquifers. In this connection,
projects would be supported to the best available
- 35 -
-------
technology if a viable reuse is demonstrated. These projects are
indicated as being available for support even if rough estimates
indicate a benefit-cost ratio of no greater than one-to-one in order
to get future experience in water reuse treatment.
The institutional efficiency priority is dominated by regional-
ization systems. In applying for grant funds, it is stated that com-
munities must consider the costs and benefits of joining in cooperative
systems with other communities. These include waste management
programs, which may involve removing solids from relatively clean
water at one end of the line and then reusing that water for irrigation
and groundwater aquifers, with the remaining sludge going further
down the line for ultimate treatment; the technical term for this
management technique is scalping. The state indicated that if the
municipal plans do not address the possibility of regionalization,
they are sent back for such study. In addition, if the only
bottleneck to regionalization is the institutional one of local auton-
omy, the communities must proceed with the regional scheme if
they want state aid; otherwise, they would have to finance the proj-
ect with nonstate funds. So far, no community is reported to have
been turned down on this basis.
The second priority of improving sewering coverage
- 36 -
-------
concentrates on the installation of sanitary sewers. It is considered
that the relatively few communities that should replace septic tanks
with sewering are in a poor financial condition to do so.
The third priority in the "other write-in" category is for inter-
ceptors that only increase capacity, but which are not directly tied
to new or additional treatment plant capacity. This is in contrast to
interceptors that are part of a new or expanded treatment system;
in that case, the interceptors are ranked as a first priority under
maximizing treatment.
Washington - All four specified categories covering water
pollution standards, treatment, institutional efficiency and sewering
coverage are ranked as first priority items. The reason cited for
this equal rating is that they are all consistent with EPA policy.
In achieving water pollution standards, the greatest weight
is given to abating existing pollution. All treatment projects are
designed to achieve and maintain the designated standards. The
prevention of future pollution in part is shaped by the extent that
local authorities install utilities in relatively undeveloped areas,
thus encouraging future population growth away from areas that
currently have heavy pollution problems.
The concentration in treatment maximization is on attaining
the highest possible treatment. This is defined as the minimum
requirement of secondary treatment, and higher levels where
- 37 -
-------
needed. The selection of treatment levels above the minimum re-
quirement generally reflects a combination of the highest
known available technology tempered by its relative costs. The
state considers that the primary waiver provision on ocean dis-
charges is a useful technique for establishing priorities, as in the
Puget Sound case. Its preference is for using available monies for
interceptor sewers and maintaining fresh water quality rather than
for developing secondary treatment for ocean discharges.
The main focus of institutional efficiency is on the develop-
ment of regional systems. Regional plans were developed by the
state in 1971, and new municipal treatment projects are required
to be in conformance with them. Regionalization of treatment projects
is required if one of the following conditions is significant:
(a) economies of scale (b) improvement in the downstream water
quality (c) multiplicity of discharges in overlapping jurisdictions into
two or more streams (d) diversion of the discharge downstream if the
upstream does not have adequate assimilative capacity.
The requirement of examining alternative regionalization pos-
sibilities in extensive studies of several communities in various
combinations for projects that are submitted for federal grants is indi-
cated as causing unnecessary work, delays of at least one year, and
ultimately higher construction costs due to the ensuing inflation. The
Alderwood-Lynwood-Olympus project is cited as an example of where,
with minimum information, the potential for regionalization could have
- 38 -
-------
been determined to be useful in 15 years in the future rather than
now, but multiple studies still were required.
The state also indicated that hundreds of small and medium
sized business firms have been forced to join municipal treatment
systems in order to reduce the multiplicity of discharges, insure
that the waste program gets full-time attention, and to have
more control over the quality of downstream waters and those
that are transferred to other basins. The view concerning com-
panies that have closed down or are threatening to do so because
of pollution abatement requirements is that many were using out-
moded equipment that was installed several years ago, and that
they had become inefficient and marginal operations before the more
recent pollution control requirements. If the time schedule assigned
to industries to upgrade their treatment program is shown to be
unreasonable, the state will liberalize the schedule.
The improvement of sewering coverage currently focuses
on the installation of sanitary sewers, and plans are being developed
for a new capital program to separate combined sanitary-storm
sewers. Orders are issued to install sewering in communities that
are considered to have significant septic tank problems; these
typically occur in areas that have population concentrations and
in which septic tanks have adverse effects on groundwaters.
- 39 -
-------
Funding for a program to separate combined sanitary-storm
sewers is expected from a state bond issue which will be voted on in
November 1972 and from new federal programs. The state does not
have an existing capital program for this purpose, but it has ordered
communities to develop plans for the separation of combined sewers
in anticipation of this new funding.
The second priority in the "other write-in" category is con-
cerned with shoreline aesthetics. Any private or public develop-
ment within 200 feet from a waterway must have a public hearing.
In the case of treatment systems which are considered to be un-
aesthetic, the state requires sunken development and landscaping.
Public hearings take into consideration the possible detrimental
effect of the proposed treatment systems with regard to silt from
construction, fish, game, or any other interest.
Local Home Rule: Municipal Action and Regionalization
Each of the nine states characterized itself as having strong
local home rule. In terms of the water pollution control program,
this means that sewage treatment is basically a local government
function. And a considerable amount of prodding, persuasion and
enforcement is required by the state in getting many municipalities
to deal with the pollution problem. Moreover, local bond issues
- 40 -
-------
have to be sold to finance construction of the treatment works, and
these issues typically are voted on by referendum of the local
population.
The home rule tradition also tends to foster in sewage treat-
ment the attitude of autonomy rather than cooperation among muni-
cipalities and sewage districts. The tendency is for each jurisdiction
to want to limit its responsibility for water pollution problems to its
geographic boundaries, and in the process to have complete control
of the program.
There is a large voluntary aspect at the local level regarding
the degree of area and regional cooperation. This is tempered some-
what to the extent that the state makes this a condition of receiving
state aid; hypothetic ally, at least, if a municipality is violating water
pollution standards, and it does not conform to state requirements
for aid, it could be enjoined to finance the project entirely with its
own funds. However, the state recognizes that this could result in
considerable delays because of stalling tactics and court battles,
and ultimately, a plea of financial inability on the part of the
municipality.
In the case of cooperative areawide and regional systems,
which in this study is referred to as institutional efficiency,
- 41 -
-------
differences are apparent aniong the sample states in encouraging
cooperation. States which seem to have the weightiest push for
cooperation are California, Texas, New York, Maryland, Washington
and New Mexico. There are, however, varying approaches among
these states in fostering cooperation, as described above in the
state-by-state portraits. To briefly recapitulate, California,
which appears to have the strongest regionalization policy of the
sample states, puts the burden of proof on the municipality; Texas
utilizes Council of Government plans, designates regional and sub-
regional plants, and has a highly developed educational program;
New York and Maryland have county level sewage plans, and state
organizations which provide investment, technical and operational
services to cooperating municipalities (these state organizations are
discussed in #4 below under incentives); Washington requires that
municipal projects are in conformance with regional plans; and
New Mexico links the replacement of septic tanks with sewering as
increasing its leverage for encouraging cooperative treatment.
Massachusetts, Ohio and Alabama appear to have a lesser
emphasis on cooperation, although in the case of Massachusetts,
this is primarily in the nonmetropolitan less sparsely populated
sections of the state. These latter states seem to have a stronger
home rule tradition than the others in the sample, although the
- 42 -
-------
respondents in all nine states referred to the prominence of this
institution in their own states.
The states which give more emphasis to cooperative treat-
ment systems seem to take a longer view of controlling the down-
stream quality of the water and in developing efficiencies in the
operation of the water pollution control program. However, all of
the sample states stress that the merits of regionalization should be
considered on a case-by-case basis. Thus, higher initial investment
costs appear to be associated with the larger scale regional projects
than those for the smaller decentralized plants primarily because of
the additional interceptor sewer requirements; there are also time
delays of sometimes several years in the implementation of regional
systems. The consensus is that the incremental improvements in
water quality that would be obtained from these systems should be
considered in light of their additional investment costs and time lags.
This problem is discussed further in #3 below on the alloca-
tion of state funds to municipalities.
Cost Recovery and Municipal Treatment of Industrial Wastes
The use by industry of municipal treatment systems is a type
of institutional efficiency that bridges the private and public sectors.
In some cases industry pretreats the waste so as not to overload the
- 43 -
-------
municipal system, while pollutants in other industrial wastes do
not require pretreatment. In general, the benefits of joint municipal-
industry treatment systems are viewed as providing greater control
over the downstream quality of the water by consolidating treatment
operations and monitoring in fewer installations, and in affording op-
portunities for economies of scale.
Proposed federal legislation on the share that industry would
pay to use municipal treatment plants includes an assessment for the
amount of the use that is attributable to federal funds; this cost
provision is not in the existing grant program.
The effect that this increased cost would have on the industry
incentive to join a municipal system appears to be negative to those
survey respondents who ventured any notions. But there is consider-
able uncertainty because of the lack of information on how industry
would view its alternatives. The few states that gave any hunches
based them on comments that they hear from industry.
The industry alternatives include such considerations as tax write-
offs for pollution abatement equipment, long-run plans to remain in the
particular location and long-run commitments to pay for the treatment
facility required by the municipality, willingness to devote company time
and resources to pollution abatement, proximity to a stream, and concern
- 44 -
-------
for the firm's public image. Of those who ventured opinions, the
tendency is to consider that large firms have more alternatives
available to them than medium and smaller sized firms; and con-
sequently that the larger firms would be more uncertain to join a
municipal treatment system because of the proposed increase in
the industry payment.
3. Allocation of State Aid to Municipalities
This topic concentrates on the factors that are considered
in deciding whether to provide state funds for specific municipal
projects. The emphasis in the exploration of state and allocations
is on how the long-run policy goals in the previous questions on
priorities are implemented in short-run spending decisions. It
may be recalled that all states in the sample survey provide grants
to municipalities with the exception of Alabama and Texas; the latter
provide initial state assistance funds which the municipalities must
pay back in the entirety.
Table 3 presents the ranking of the considerations involved
in providing state aid. Most states checked from one to three
factors as being significant in these decisions. Consequently, there
are 28 out of a possible total of 45 rankings (9 states and 5 categories).
The first two categories of ready to proceed on actual projects
- 45 -
-------
and need to upgrade and expand existing plants account for 16 of the
28 entries; these factors also dominate the first and second rankings.
The remaining 12 responses are distributed roughly equally among
the other three categories; in order of importance with regard to
both number of responses and ranking, they are "other write-in",
encourage sewering and some treatment of all wastes, and build
now to minimize rising construction costs.
- 46 -
-------
Table 3.
ALLOCATION FACTORS FOR STATE AID TO MUNICIPAL PROJECTS
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
Municipalities are Ready to
Proceed on Actual Projects
5
0
3
1
0
Mass.
N. Y.
Ohio
Cal.
N. Mex.
Md.
Ala.
Wash.
Tex.
Need to Upgrade Treatment
nnd/or Increase Capacity
in Existing Plants
3
4
0
0
0
Ala.
Tex.
Wash.
Ohio
Cal.
N. Mex.
Md.
Encourage Sewering & Some
Treatment of All Wastes
0
1
1
2
0
Tex.
N. Mex.
Cal.
Md.
Build Now to Minimize
Rising Construction Costs
1
0
0
1
1
rr, b/
l ex. -
N. Mex.
Md.
a/
Other (write-in) -
1
2
2
0
0
Md.
Ala.
Wash.
Tex.
Cal.
TOTAL
10
7
6
4
1
Total
28
a./ Md. - Eliminate health hazards; Ala. - Per capita costs; Wash. - Financial Capability of
municipalities; Tex. - Combat health and nuisance problems; Cal. - Encourage regional
systems and water reuse projects.
b/ Ranked as a qualified first only if the project is urgently needed.
- 47 -
-------
The basis for these yardsticks stems largely from the
application of general criteria devised by the EPA predecessor
agency in the Department of the Interior. Federal guidelines,
including such factors as ready to proceed, pollution abatement
need, and financial capability of the municipality in several of the
states are assigned varying weights in formulas by the states.
With the passage of time, these criterion and formulas have been
modified in content and application. Thus, some states rely only
on ready to proceed, while others revise factors in the formula
and weighting schemes. For example, New York and Maryland
have not used the formula approach in the past, but currently are
developing numerical weights for future use.
The implementation of the criterion and formulas in allocat-
ing funds reflects to a considerable extent the following character-
istics of state programs:
a. A major state program objective is to get the
maximum number of municipal treatment
projects underway around the state.
b. In the annual federal grant cycle, only projects
that are fairly well advanced in the planning
process realistically can be considered for
funding in the coming year.
- 48 -
-------
c. In considering individual projects for financial
aid, objective numerical rules can be estab-
lished for ready to go (e. g. first come, first
serve) and financial need criteria (e. g. local
per capita income), but technical considerations
regarding the general category of pollution
abatement needs are subject to more qualitative
engineering judgments.
d. The state review policy of municipal applications
for grants is not to reject projects as such for
state aid. Rather, it is to require plan revisions
and further study, if necessary, in order to
qualify for state aid.
Due to the overlapping of this topic with the formula type
approach, the above general patterns are considered to more
closely depict the state allocation procedures than the specific
responses to Table 3. Thus, the state variations in Table 3 ap-
pear more as refinements of these patterns as evidenced by the
application of quantitative and qualitative aspects of the formulas,
rather than as fundamental differences in the attributes of the
- 49 -
-------
allocation process.
For example, Massachusetts, New York and Ohio indicate
ready to proceed as the first and only criterion affecting their
allocations; and Texas classifies only ready to proceed projects in
an active list, but does not include this factor in its formula. By
contrast, the Maryland, Alabama and Washington responses tended
to deemphasize the ready to proceed factor. However, the 9 sample
states uniformly concentrate in the short run on the program ob-
jective of having the maximum number of municipalities initiate
and upgrade their sewage treatment.
The essential finding of this analysis is that in the short run,
all states emphasize the objective of initiating the maximum number
of municipal treatment projects that are consistent with the state
perception of its longer run goals as expressed in the first section
on priorities. The focus in one way or another on ready to proceed
reflects the underlying drive to pursue the treatment program
with minimum delays. This is in contrast to a program that would
aim at the optimally efficient treatment system, but which would
result in further delays in the direct alleviation of pollution by
withholding funds from projects which are not in conformance with
an optimal system.
The responses to this survey suggest that the two approaches
- 50 -
-------
of immediacy and optimality characterize in a broad sense a major
difference between the state (immediacy) and EPA (optimality) in
the process of obtaining approval for federal aid for municipal
projects. Thus, there appear to be differences of opinion regard-
ing the incremental benefits that are derived from more optimal
systems with regard to regionalization and treatment standards as
compared with the accompanying delays and higher costs. This type
of difference also appears in state-municipal relations, in this case
with the state pressing for the more optimal approach.
There probably will always be significant economic, tech-
nological and intergovernmental judgments involved in dealing with
the allocation of state aid. On the one hand, the state pushes the
municipalities to undertake specific projects that are necessary
to protect the quality of the water streams, and where feasible, to
apply treatment standards above the minimum requirements and
incorporate single projects with larger scale cooperative treatment
systems. On the other hand, there is also the concern with making
certain that the water does get treated, and given the institutional bottle-
necks, to consider the alternatives of further delays associated with
additional studies of possible combinations of more efficient treatment
systems.
The survey responses in this area suggested the need for
general guidelines from EPA that would permit more judgments
- 51 -
-------
to be made of these considerations without the delays involved in
restudying possible treatment schemes. These guidelines would
also incorporate a consideration of the costs and benefits involved
in the development of projects with higher treatment levels and larger
scale regional systems, although it is recognized that the definition and
measurement of benefits in particular raise difficult problems.
4. Incentives and Penalties to Foster Municipal Action
Incentives - The general incentive throughout the sample states
is the federal-state grant program; as noted earlier, Alabama and Texas
provide state loans rather than grants. In order to qualify for this
assistance, municipal projects must conform to certain treatment
standards, local financing provisions, regional planning considera-
tions, etc. These requirements are approved by the state water
pollution agency and the regional EPA offices.
New York, Ohio and Maryland have special state
agencies that assist municipalities with technical services and
financing problems. The New York Environmental Facilities
Corporation and the Maryland Environmental Service provide under
contract to municipalities technical services for planning, building,
operating and maintaining treatment facilities that generally are
not within municipal capabilities; lower interest rates also are
- 52 -
-------
obtainable for these locally owned projects that are built and/or
operated under state auspices. Perhaps the most significant aspect
of these agencies is their potential for helping to overcome voluntarily
the local autonomy home rule problem by suggesting (as a third party)
the development of larger scale projects that would accommodate
two or more communities.
The Ohio Water Development Authority provides initial loan
funds to municipalities for the entire cost of the treatment project.
This is comprised of a 30 percent state grant and a 70 percent
state loan, part of which is paid back to the state by the federal
grant. The major purpose is to avoid delays in the start of construc-
tion because of a hiatus in federal legislation and appropriations;
the result is to insure that no project is held up because of this
problem, and that all municipalities participate equally in federal
funds that ultimately are made available.
The OWDA also has legal advantages in that its financing is
not shown as part of the municipal debt, and consequently these
projects are not subject to statutory local debt limits. Similarly,
since the state financing is done with revenue rather than general
obligation bonds, it is outside the state debt limits. Municipalities
also benefit from lower interest rates than they would ordinarily
obtain under their own auspices.
- 53 -
-------
Penalties - The general pattern for state enforcement of
municipal action on pollution projects includes the gamut of persua-
sion and appearances at local hearings, compliance orders, fines,
court actions, and bans on new sewering connections. The states
typically use court actions only as a last resort because of the time
delays involved in litigation; in addition, there is uncertainty
regarding the outcome of court cases. In the absence of state legis-
lation, however, favorable court decisions to the state are also
viewed as filling a gap and as setting a precedent for future projects.
New York and Texas indicate that many cases are actually settled
out of court due to the pressure of legal action on the community;
Massachusetts, Ohio and New Mexico, on the other hand, report
lengthier and less successful court actions.
Bans on new sewering connections to an overloaded treat-
ment system in practice result in a halt to new building; this is
particularly effective in communities that are anxious for future
growth. They generally appear to cover federally insured and con-
ventionally financed housing, but connection bans in Alabama and
Texas are confined to FHA and VA housing.
Among the more unique enforcement programs, California
stated that its enforcement actions can take place at a very early
stage, citing threatened or potential pollution as the basis for fines,
- 54 -
-------
cease and desist orders, and connection bans. California also pointed
to the difficulty arising when desired state standards are higher than
federal enforcement; thus, the state is attempting to initiate a policy
of some type of secondary treatment (physical-chemical or biological-
chemical in the 65-85 percent BOD removal range) for ocean dis-
charges, but recent federal waivers allowing primary treatment for
ocean disposals in the New York Bight and Puget Sound reduce sup-
port for such a policy. (Subsequent to the survey, California adopted
the higher standards - The New York Times, July 10, 1972, p. 27.).
In the field of industry enforcement, Washington stated that
it has required hundreds of small and medium sized business firms
to join municipal treatment systems; this was discussed earlier in
the section dealing with the state-by-state portrait of priorities. New
York indicated that federal enforcement of immediate treatment re-
quirements for industry lessens the possibility that the industry will
join a municipal system, and pointed to the need for more coordination
of federal and state enforcement actions.
- 55 -
-------
5 and 7. Five-Year Projections of Investment Needs
for Municipal Sewage Treatment Systems
The five-year state projections of investment needs for
municipal treatment systems in the sample states are developed
on a project by project basis. They are intended to cover only those
projects which are eligible for EPA grants (e. g. treatment plants, pump-
ing stations, interceptor and outfall sewers). Construction on the projects
is assumed to start but not necessarily be completed during the five-
year period. The cost estimates represent the total expenditures
necessary to complete the projects.
Table 4 summarizes the source of the five-year estimates
in the sample states. Estimates for five states are derived in part
from the municipality, and in part reflect dollar totals prepared by
the state. Those originating from the municipality appear to be
based on some type of preliminary engineering study; they are sup-
plemented selectively with state prepared rule of thumb estimates
for projects that the state believes are necessary but which have not
been designated by the municipality. California includes only those
projects that have been developed at the municipal level. The New York
and the bulk of the Maryland estimates are based on the county plans, and
the Texas estimates are from the Council of Government plans noted
earlier in the state portraits of priorities; Maryland indicated that more
than 90 percent of the estimates result from the county plans supple-
mented by direct contacts with municipalities, and that the remainder
- 56 -
-------
represent state prepared estimates. Maryland and Texas noted that
noneligible EPA grant projects are sometimes in their estimates.
The expenditure estimates on the five year project lists for the
sample states are not added up to statewide totals, except for New
York and California; these summations presumably are done by the
EPA regional offices. The states generally consider that the direct
survey of the municipalities by EPA is useful for updating the project
lists, although New York and Alabama suggested that some of the
municipal responses are ballpark estimates.
Table 4.
Combination of
Municipality
and State
Massachusetts
Ohio
Alabama
New Mexico
Washington
TOTAL 5
SOURCE OF FIVE YEAR PROJECTIONS
OF INVESTMENT NEEDS
Municipality
California
County And
Regional Plans
New York
Maryland j*/
Texas
1
a/ County plans and direct municipal contacts over 90%; state esti-
~~ mates less than 10%.
The price levels of the investment needs estimates vary among
the sample states. Generally, those for Massachusetts, Alabama
and California are indicated as being in current prices representing
the assumed years of construction, and those in the other six states
are in constant prices representing various base years. The base
years in the constant price estimates range from mixtures of the
years in which the various project plans were developed, to a partial
- 57 -
-------
updating to the most recent year for some of the projects, to a
complete updating to the most recent year for all of the projects.
Techniques also vary for projecting future price levels and for
updating the base year constant prices to the most recent year.
Table 5 summarizes the price aspects of the five year investment
needs projections as indicated by the sample states.
- 58 -
-------
Table 5. PRICE LEVELS OF THE FIVE YEAR 1972-76
INVESTMENT NEEDS PROJECTIONS
Current Prices
Constant Prices
Mixture of base
years representing
the years project
plans were developed
Update some
projects from
base year to
recent year
Update all
projects from
base year to
recent year
Massachusetts
Alabama
I
California
CO
Ohio
Maryland
Texas
New Mexico
New York
Washington
TOTAL 3 3 12
a/ ENR - Engineering News Record
Estimating Techniques
Not certain
Annual inflation of 5%
3 /
Extrapolate ENR index -
Not applicable
t*
Annual inflation of 12%
a/
Extrapolate ENR index-
Annual inflation of 5. 5%
-------
The level of treatment for all projects in the 1972-76 in-
vestment needs projections in the sample states generally provides
for a minimum requirement of 85 percent BOD removal, except
for ocean disposals which are permitted primary treatment waivers.
The minimum treatment levels for inland water disposals are
raised selectively to 90 percent BOD removal and higher depending
on the uses and assimilative capacity of the receiving stream. Texas
and New Mexico have minimum requirements in excess of 90 percent
BOD removal.
Minimum chlorine residuals of one part per million are re-
quired by the sample states. Washington requires bacteria standards
for those plants without chlorine facilities; Washington also has a
maximum residual after dilution of 0. 2 per million to protect
salmon and trout. Ohio uses a maximum guideline of 0. 5 per million
after 20 minutes of detention time, and is raising questions regard-
ing the possible detrimental effects of chlorine compounds. California
requires dechlorinating facilities selectively depending on the
characteristics of the receiving stream; it indicated that a fish kill
occurred in Sacramento because of overchlorination, and that chlorine
limitations will have to be established. Maryland currently is ex-
amining the potential harmful effects of chlorine residuals on aquatic
life and the accompanying need for dechlorinating facilities. The
- 60 -
-------
other sample states do not view chlorine residuals as a possible
problem; they generally consider that the receiving streams can
accommodate the chlorine dosages, and that municipalities will not
overchlorinate because of the expense of the chlorinating process.
Nutrient removal capabilities in the sample states are
required selectively based on the characteristics of each project
and its receiving stream. The states indicated that nutrient re-
moval facilities require minimal capital investment costs, with
the large expense being in their operation.
6. Stream Standards Pertaining To Drinking, Recreation,
Aquatic Life and Other Uses
All of the sample states have adopted water quality standards
for stream uses in their states. These standards are a combination
of current uses and desired future uses. The inclusion of future
uses in the standards typically represents an upgrading of the current
stream quality levels. However, Alabama indicated that if the
initially designated standards appear in retrospect to be too high,
they would be subsequently downgraded; an example of this is in
waters that originally were assigned recreational uses because of
relatively low population densities, but which subsequently appear
to be developing more rapidly than previously projected, and hence
would be discharging heavier waste loads than are consistent with
- 61 -
-------
a recreational area.
Historical measures of stream qualities in the sample states
typically are not presented to permit a review of quality changes
over time. The availability of historical data on water quality also
varies among the states. For example, Washington has information
dating back to the late 1950's, New York's records are considered
to be strong beginning in 1965, and California is currently setting
up a data processing system to collect this information. This
appears to be an area that with further development could be a use-
ful tool in cost-benefit analyses.
The emphasis among the sample states in achieving and
maintaining water quality standards is in the treatment of household
and industrial wastes newly entering the receiving stream. Existing
programs to clean up the accumulation of past wastes appear to be
minimal or nonexistent. However, Washington currently is planning
a reclamation program as part of the previously noted bond issue
which will be voted on in the latter part of 1972. This would consist
of building sewers around lakes to allow the lakes to cleanse them-
selves by nature; it is considered to be particularly needed to deal
with the nutrient problem in densely populated areas.
8. Supply Factors in the Construction Industry
This item deals with constraints in the construction industry
that might affect the water pollution control program. The sample
- G2 -
-------
states indicated that they do not give much attention to this aspect
of pollution control.
Based on general experience rather than actual tabulations,
four states estimate that the construction time for the average project
exceeds the planned schedule, three states indicated that the construe -
t ion time is within the planned period, and two states had no opinion.
Massachusetts, Ohio and New Mexico gauge the excess time to
average between three to six months, and New York pointed to delays
of one year. They are attributed variously to lags in equipment
deliveries (e. g. , there were references to longer waits for pumps
due to manufacturing production for the Vietnam war), strikes, in-
competent contractors, and unanticipated problems with regional
systems.
Alabama, Texas and Washington consider that, on the average,
the actual construction time meets the planned schedules. This re-
flects the general pattern of some projects taking one or two months
more and others lasting one or two months less than planned.
Maryland stated that it would require research into actual records
to approximate the time factor; and California indicated that the
state grant program was started less than two years ago and conse-
quently there is insufficient experience currently available to
estimate construction time comparisons.
- 63 -
-------
The effect on construction time of the transfer of key personnel
in the construction industry from job to job is indicated by the sample
states as either not known or as not significant.
Information on the number of active construction and design
firms is not readily available in the sample states. Some states
estimated them while the contractor was in the office, but the informa-
tion is too sketchy for state comparisons.
The number of construction bids received on municipal treat-
ment systems for several of the sample states appears to range from
five to fifteen; Maryland, Texas and New Mexico indicate that they are
at the lower end, and Washington does not have an approximation.
Generally, the number varies depending on the current amount
of heavy construction work available and on the size of the
project. For example, when highway construction work is slack, the
number of bids for sewage waste facilities tends to be higher and the
prices lower than during stronger periods of highway construction
activity. Fewer firms also tend to bid on very large projects be-
cause of the greater resources required. If bid prices come in much
higher than anticipated, some aspects of the project may be scaled
down and in other cases new bid offers may be advertised.
- 64 -
-------
9. Future Population Covered by Sewage Waste Systems
The sample states have not developed formal statewide
population projections of the number of persons that would be covered
separately by treated and untreated sewer systems and septic tanks.
Some of the states made very rough ten and fifteen year projections
while the contractor was in the office of the distribution of the popu-
lation with regard to sewage waste handling facilities. These were
largely based on assumptions regarding the future treatment systems
of urban and rural populations. Projections have not been developed
systematically that link the water pollution control program with the
anticipated population that would be covered by various forms of
waste disposal, as for example, the statewide results of the five year
projections of investment needs.
- 65 -
-------
10.&11. State Review of Municipal Projects Submitted for Grant
Assistance
The project plans for municipal sewage treatment systems
in the sample states are in large part developed by engineering con-
sulting firms hired by the municipality. The states tend to work
closely with the engineering firms in the preparation of the plans.
The state review of the plans concentrates on the technical
adequacy of the engineering design. This engineering review is
aimed at determining whether the project design is consistent with
the project objectives of treatment levels and future capacity. The
state looks into the reasonableness of the economic determinants
of the project such as the population and industrial development pro-
jections, and the need to upgrade and replace existing facilities
at the project site. This type of review utilizes information avail-
able on statistical trends and any special knowledge of the local
area; the latter focuses on judgmental projections of population migra-
tion, new industries and industrial plant closings in the local areas
served by the proposed project.
However, the state government water pollution control offices
have a very strong engineering orientation. The general attitude
toward the economic magnitudes used by the consulting firms is to
accept them unless they appear to be obviously unrealistic. Thus,
the statistical data sources and techniques used by the engineering
consulting firms in developing the projections are not a primary
concern of the state review.
- 66 -
-------
The financial review of the plans is concerned with the pro-
visions by the municipality for raising sufficient funds to meet the
principal and interest payments on its share of the capital investment
costs, and to support the current operational and maintenance costs
of the facility.
The review process tends to result in project revisions
rather than cancellations. This appears to reflect a general policy
which has the overall effect of delaying but not rejecting projects.
Texas, California and Washington indicate very rough estimates of
cancellations ranging from three to five percent of all proposed
projects, and the other six sample states report cancellations of
zero to one percent.
Some revisions appear on practically all projects. These
are in the main carried out directly between the states and the con-
sulting engineers. Six of the sample states indicate that the re-
visions result in higher expenditures, largely due to an increase in
the scope of project; Massachusetts, Ohio and Alabama report that
some revisions increase and others reduce the scope of the project,
which in the aggregate tend to be offsetting with regard to expendi-
tures.
The major reasons for the revisions are indicated as being
an inconsistency of the plans with state water quality standards and
priorities. Fewer problems are cited with respect to the population
and industrial usage projections.
- 67 -
-------
12. Components of Statewide Investment Projections
Municipal treatment projects typically are constructed for
one or more of the following purposes:
a. Upgrade existing facilities-Sometimes linked with replacement
b. Replace existing facilities-Sometimes considered as repairs
c. New facilities for growth of the sewered component of the
population
d. New facilities for expanded industrial usage
Engineering plans for plant and equipment in each project are
developed in terms of BOD removal and other physical standards.
Treatment plants and sewering facilities are designed as a whole for
the entire project; there is no distinction of the amount of capacity
designed to accommodate upgrading, population growth, etc. (although
it is conceivable that such partitioning could be made). The physical
plans are then converted to dollar estimates of investment expendi-
tures.
Thus, statewide estimates of a breakdown of the projected five
year investment expenditures into the component purposes of the
facilities are not prepared by the sample states. However, the states
might be able to derive very broad approximations of these items by
reviewing the project lists which characterize the nature of each
project. This would be most feasible for projects which are under-
taken for one overriding purpose.
This type of disaggregation would be useful for a cross-check
on an overall statewide basis of the (1) pollution abatement needs
- 68 -
-------
which would be met by the projects included in the five year invest-
ment projections with (2) statewide needs as estimated from statis-
tical indicators of capacity and treatment levels of existing plants,
and projected growth in the sewered population and industrial users
of municipal treatment plants.
The latter type of statewide investment needs projection based
on statistical information currently is not developed by the sample
states. EPA has prepared statewide projections of this type from
relatively aggregate data. As presented in The Economics of Clean
Water for 1972 (Vol. I, pp. 118-127, 130-138), the national estimate
of needs for 1972-76 in 1971 prices as indicated by the EPA statistical
model of state by state needs is approximately $14 billion, as com-
pared with $18 billion based on the survey information of specific pro-
jects for municipal sewage treatment systems. The two estimates
of needs show still greater variations at the state level. None of the
sample states has further developed these statistical estimates by
using more refined and detailed information for a more intensive
analysis of state investment needs which would reflect substate data,
new industrial connections, and upgrading requirements based on
actual treatment levels at existing plants.
13.&14. Capacity Utilization and Reserve Capacity Requirements
The capacity levels that are built into municipal sewage
treatment systems in the sample states directly reflect the assumed
future time horizon of the projects. As noted earlier, the general
- 69 -
-------
engineering guidelines provide sufficient capacity to accommodate antici-
pated future growth of 20 years for treatment plants and of 50 years or
the potential full population development of the area for sewering.
The time path of assumed rates of growth during intermediate
three to five year periods of the long term projections is typically de-
picted as a relatively straight line which represents fairly uniform growth
rates during the intervening periods. Thus, full utilization amounting to
90-95 percent of capacity generally is planned for the latter part of the
long term period. The major exception is in areas with an expected long
term population outlook characterized by slow growth, stability, or de-
cline; in this case, full utilization is planned much earlier in the long
term outlook.
There is a recent tendency among several of the sample states to
plan for shorter time horizons for treatment plants as compared with the
conventional 20 year engineering guideline. Thus, Texas plans for 5-10
years, Ohio for a minimum of 10 years, Washington and Maryland for
10-15 years, and California for 15 years. Alabama shifted from time
period projections to a guideline minimum reserve capacity of 25 percent.
The primary reason given for these deviations from the 20 year
standard is the difficulty and uncertainty associated with projections of
population migration in local areas. Other considerations include a
federal directive cited by Washington to allow for the possibility of con-
verting to regional systems in 10 years rather than to build a decentral-
ized plant with greater capacity that would not be fully utilized for 20
- 70 -
-------
years; and Maryland pointed to the possibility of prospective improve-
ments in treatment technology that would outmode currently built
plants in 10-15 years.
- 71 -
-------
IV. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON METHODOLOGY
This study is based almost entirely on the response to the
questionnaire in personal interviews and follow up telephone calls.
The reliability of the information in the report rests on the accuracy
of the responses.
Two principles were followed for obtaining reliable and mean-
inful answers. First, at the beginning of the interviews, the contrac-
tor stated that the study is aimed at assisting EPA in refining the
administrative and legislative aspects of the national program by
taking into account variations in problems and approaches at the
state level. This seemed to reduce the natural defensiveness and
the tendency to view the study as an evaluation of the state programs
that would be expected on the part of the respondents.
Second, the attempt was made to probe for substantive
answers with explanations and examples, rather than to simply record
perfunctory type answers. Extensive written notes were taken during
the interviews; the report was based almost entirely on these notes,
supplemented by the notes taken on the follow up telephone calls and
to a lesser extent on the written materials furnished by the states.
Thus, the focus was on understanding what was being said and on
leaving as little as possible to memory.
- 72 -
-------
The major respondent in each state had the same general
responsibility of being the engineer in charge of the construction
grant program. This tends to maintain a consistent vantage point
for the views expressed.
All of the states were cooperative throughout the study in set-
ting appointments for interviews, patiently answering questions for
an average of one full day, calling in other staff members when nec-
essary, providing written materials, and clarifying points on the
follow up telephone calls. Also, the EPA letter of introduction
provided an expeditious and positive entree to the state offices.
In general, it should be kept in mind that the purpose of the
study is to capture the general shape and direction of the sample state
programs. A mastery of the operational details of these programs
would require far more study.
- 73 -
-------
APPENDIX
EPA Letter of Introduction
Survey Questionnaire
-------
FACSIMILE
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Washington, D. C. 20460
March 23, 1972
Mr. Hugh C. Yantis, Jr.
Executive Director
Texas Water Quality Board
1108 Lavaca Street
Austin, Texas 78701
Dear Mr. Yantis:
The Environmental Protection Agency has an ongoing program
to improve the effectiveness of the joint federal-state efforts to com-
bat water pollution. One part of this program is the annual assessment
of planned construction for municipal waste handling facilities.
As part of this assessment, the Office of Planning and Evaluation
has contracted with an economic consultant to conduct a study of
selected characteristics of the five-year state water pollution control
program.
The consultant, Norman Frumkin located in Washington, D. C. ,
will be calling you by telephone in a few days to arrange an appointment
to visit your offices to discuss the plans of local communities in your
state to construct waste handling facilities, and how these plans are
implemented.
Your assistance to Mr. Frumkin will facilitate the completion of
the study.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Robert L. Sansom
Robert L. Sansom
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for Planning and Evaluation
-------
Norman F rumkin
1 w Cj c o n n e c r i c u i av i.Ni.j [.;
W A cj M I N GTON. ( ) . <". . (' <. j O < »'•,
/ /
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
Five-Year Capital Expenditures for Plant and Equipment
Investment in Municipal Sewage Handling Facilities
General Directions
1. Please use as many additional pages as necessary.
2. If there are any questions in completing the form,
please call Norman Frumkin person-to-person collect
at 202-659-4134.
3. Please return the completed form to:
Norman Frumkin
1346 Connecticut Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20036
4. Your state is identified by number at the top of this
page. There is no need to indicate your state else-
where on this form.
Thank you for your assistance.
This study is being conducted under contract for
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Planning and Evaluation.
-------
What are the priorities for water pollution control capital construction
programs in your state?
Check One Rank For Each
Lettered Priority Group
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th
a. Achieve Water Pollution Standards
1. Abate existing pollution
2. Avert future pollution
b. Maximize Treatment
1. Highest possible treatment
2. Some treatment of all
municipal wastes
3. Some treatment of all
industrial wastes
c. Encourage Institutional Efficiency
1. Joint treatment of municipal
and industrial wastes
2. Unified sanitary districts
3. Regional and river basin
systems
d. Improve Sewering Coverage
1. Install sanitary sewers
2. Separate storm and
sanitary sewers
e. Other (write in)
See
Note
Below*
Check most important numbered items
within each lettered group.
-------
3
2. In general, what are the reasons for the priorities in (1) above?
3. Which factors are emphasized in allocating state funds to municipalities
for constructing water pollution control facilities?
Check One Rank for Each
Lettered Item
1st 2nd 3rd 4 th 5th
a. Municipalities are ready to
proceed on actual projects
b. Need to upgrade treatment
and/or increase capacity
in existing plants
c. Encourage sewering and some
treatment of all wastes
d. Build now to minimize rising
construction costs
e. Other (write in)
Comments:
-------
4
4. What incentives and penalties does the state use to foster municipal
action on water pollution control?
5. Your most recent statewide five-year projection submitted to the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of capital expenditures for
plant and equipment investment in municipal sewage treatment and
sewering facilities during the 1972-76 period was $ million.
Were certain operational standards assumed in this projection for
controlling the amount of pollutant emissions from treatment plans
and sewers into streams of water?
a. Yes No
b. If yes, complete the following.
Percent removal standard of 5-day biochemical oxygen demand:
75% 80% 85% 90% %
other (write in)
Other effluent standards (e.g. solids removal, nutrient
removal, chlorine residual, stream flows, other):
-------
5
6. Were stream effect standards measuring the effect that pollution has
on the usability of certain bodies of water incorporated in the projection
in (5) above?
a. Yes No
b. If yes, complete the following.
1. Stream effect standards pertaining to drinking, swimming,
fish and bird life, other characteristics:
2. Specific bodies of water assigned stream effect standards:
7. What price levels are assumed in the capital expenditure projection in
(5) above?
a. If the projection is based on no change in construction costs
over the five-year period (constant prices), check the base
year of the price level.
Base year of price level: 1970 1971 1972
b. If the projection includes an inflation component in construction
costs (current rather than constant prices), indicate the assumed
annual rate of inflation.
Annual rate of inflation: %
Comments on factors accounting for the projected inflation,
including contribution by prospective wage rate increases in
the construction industry:
-------
6
8. Supply factors in the construction industry engaged in building water
pollution control facilities.
a. From previous construction projects, indicate the average
difference between the estimated and actual construction
time to completion of the project.
Actual time more than estimated: months
Actual time less than estimated: months
Comments on reasons for these differences:
b. From previous construction projects, indicate the average
time delay caused by the transfer of key personnel in the
construction industry from job to job.
Construction time delay: months
In-State Out-of-State
Number of construction firms
Number of design firms
9. Indicate the current and projected proportions of the state population
using sewers (treated separate from untreated wastes) as distinguished
from septic tanks.
Percentage of State Population
1970 1975 1980
Sewered % % %
Treated wastes
Untreated wastes
Septic tanks
TOTAL 100% 100% 100%
-------
7
10. In the review by the state government of the five-year projection in (5)
above of municipal construction projects prepared at the local level,
indicate which of the following items are reviewed.
Items Reviewed
Statistical
Procedures
Yes No
Upgrade Existing Facilities
a. Additions for secondary treatment
b. Additions for post-secondary
treatment
c. Process changes within the same
treatment technology*
Replace Existing Facilities
a. Outmoded and inefficient
b. Need extensive repairs
New Facilities for Domestic Population
a. Increased sewering of existing
population
b. Future population growth
New Facilities for Industrial Users
a. Increased usage of firms currently
connected to the system
b. Growth of new industrial connections
Reserve Capacity
Other (write in)
Data Sources
Yes No
*These may be capital investments to improve operational efficiency.
-------
8
11. Indicate the nature of the revisions of the locally prepared municipal
projections based on the state review in (10) above.
a. Percent of total number of projects cancelled: %
b. Percent of total number of projects revised, excluding
cancellations: %
c. Change in statewide expenditure total resulting from state review
Increase in expenditures: % Decrease in expenditures: %
d. Causes of the revisions: ,T
Yes No
Inconsistency with state priorities in (1) above
Inconsistency with state allocations in (3) above
Inconsistency with state standards in (5) and (6) above
Problems with data sources and procedures in (10) above
Availability of state funds
If yes, fund increase , or fund decrease
Comments:
12. Does the state government have statewide estimates of the municipal
capital expenditure projection based on the items in (10) above?
Availability of item estimates: None Some All
If "Some", indicate which items are available:
13. Indicate the proportion of the treatment plant facilities projected in (5)
above which are expected to be utilized in 1975, 1980 and 1985.
Utilization rate: % 1975 % 1980 % 1985
-------
9
14. Are there minimum reserve capacity requirements for municipal
sewage treatment or collection facilities?
Yes No
If yes, complete the following.
a. Characteristics of reserve requirements (specific ratios,
general guidelines, other):
b. Assumptions in setting reserve requirements (margin for peak
loads, anticipated growth over given time period, other):
15. General comments regarding problems other than those covered that
would help in analysing estimates of need.
Note: Continue on back of page, if necessary.
16. Please indicate the name, title, agency and telephone of the person
to be contacted in the event that additional information may be required.
Name
Title
Agency
Telephone
r. (,( ) V 1 IINMI'M I' I >' I N I I N' • I • I') ? I — '> 1 d, . ] y)/| ] |
------- |