years
from 1970 to 1975 was set at $10 billion. By the end of 1970, however,
the states already were requesting a total of $12.6 billion by 1975 to meet up—
graded water quality standards [36].
By the end of 1971, a total of some $8.2 billion in federal, state, and local
grants for municipal treatment facilities had been approved in the 11 years
since the original backlog need of $2 billion was identified by the Conference
of State Sanitary Engineers survey [37]. Despite the fact that more than four
times this original estimate had already been authorized for treatment facil—
ities, state representatives estimated in 1972 that $18.1 billion would be
needed from mid—1971 to mid—l976 to meet new community construction
plans designed to fulll anticipated 1976 water quality standards [38].
By comparison, $3.0—7.1 billion in private capital was estimated to be
needed for industrial pollution control installations as of 1971. Information
about industrial investment for previous years is sketchy, but one EPA esti—
mate indicates that major manufacturers (excluding utilities and mining)
spent roughly $2.2 billion on water pollution controls during 1967—1970 [39],
compared with $4.2 billion in public funds earmarked for municipal treat—
ment plants [40].
Need for Higher Quality Water Standards
At any rate, the expanded concept of centralized municipal plants to treat a
range of community needs, including those which industry cannot or will not
meet, is one factor Which explains why by 1976 we will have invested per—
haps $26.3 billion for treatment plants instead of the 1960 estimate of $2 bil—
lion. Even a four percent increase per year due to ination would boost the
1960 estimate to only $3.6 billion by 1975, still sevenfold than the projected
1976 gure. Allowing for a broadened sense of community service by the
plants, this discrepancy still seems to indicate a serious miscalculation in
1960—a miscalculation that many communities attribute to the need for
higher water quality standards. Contributing to this, however, would be the
outdated concepts of water pollution potential that existed in 1960, as well as
inadequate pollution regulations.
Further evidence of a serious miscalculation was the tacit admission in
1970, in face of increased public concern, that even secondary treatment will
not be adequate everywhere since some regions will need advanced treat—
ment. Advanced treatment facilities generally can be added to existing sec—
ondary treatment plants, but only at considerable cost. For example, the
plant at Lake Tahoe has been equipped with one of the most comprehensive
treatment systems in existence to protect the purity of that famous natural
lake [41]. The 1969 capital replacement costs (calculated to provide a com—
mon basis for comparison) for the primary, secondary, sludge disposal, and
chlorine disinfection phases of the system were $2.6 million. By comparison,
capital replacement costs for the advanced processes in the treatment facility
were $2.9 million. (These included lime treatment, ammonia stripping, ltra—
tion, carbon adsorption, and methods to recondition used lime and carbon.)
Need for Higher Quality Water Standards
1 1 "|
from 1970 to 1975 was set at $10 billion. By the end of 1970, however,
the states already were requesting a total of $12.6 billion by 1975 to meet up—
graded water quality standards [36].
By the end of 1971, a total of some $8.2 billion in federal, state, and local
grants for municipal treatment facilities had been approved in the 11 years
since the original backlog need of $2 billion was identified by the Conference
of State Sanitary Engineers survey [37]. Despite the fact that more than four
times this original estimate had already been authorized for treatment facil—
ities, state representatives estimated in 1972 that $18.1 billion would be
needed from mid—1971 to mid—l976 to meet new community construction
plans designed to fulll anticipated 1976 water quality standards [38].
By comparison, $3.0—7.1 billion in private capital was estimated to be
needed for industrial pollution control installations as of 1971. Information
about industrial investment for previous years is sketchy, but one EPA esti—
mate indicates that major manufacturers (excluding utilities and mining)
spent roughly $2.2 billion on water pollution controls during 1967—1970 [39],
compared with $4.2 billion in public funds earmarked for municipal treat—
ment plants [40].
Need for Higher Quality Water Standards
At any rate, the expanded concept of centralized municipal plants to treat a
range of community needs, including those which industry cannot or will not
meet, is one factor Which explains why by 1976 we will have invested per—
haps $26.3 billion for treatment plants instead of the 1960 estimate of $2 bil—
lion. Even a four percent increase per year due to ination would boost the
1960 estimate to only $3.6 billion by 1975, still sevenfold than the projected
1976 gure. Allowing for a broadened sense of community service by the
plants, this discrepancy still seems to indicate a serious miscalculation in
1960—a miscalculation that many communities attribute to the need for
higher water quality standards. Contributing to this, however, would be the
outdated concepts of water pollution potential that existed in 1960, as well as
inadequate pollution regulations.
Further evidence of a serious miscalculation was the tacit admission in
1970, in face of increased public concern, that even secondary treatment will
not be adequate everywhere since some regions will need advanced treat—
ment. Advanced treatment facilities generally can be added to existing sec—
ondary treatment plants, but only at considerable cost. For example, the
plant at Lake Tahoe has been equipped with one of the most comprehensive
treatment systems in existence to protect the purity of that famous natural
lake [41]. The 1969 capital replacement costs (calculated to provide a com—
mon basis for comparison) for the primary, secondary, sludge disposal, and
chlorine disinfection phases of the system were $2.6 million. By comparison,
capital replacement costs for the advanced processes in the treatment facility
were $2.9 million. (These included lime treatment, ammonia stripping, ltra—
tion, carbon adsorption, and methods to recondition used lime and carbon.)
Need for Higher Quality Water Standards
1 1 "|