|
Water Quality Ofce wrote in a 1971 report: “An immutable tendency seems
to be that as federal nancial assistance and investment increase, physical
plant expands; and as physical plant expands, the volume of capital needs in—
volving federal nancial assistance also expands. The more we invest, the
more we seem to need to invest.” [42]
This feeling was substantiated by the discovery of an apparent trend to—
ward overbuilding in municipal plants, particularly the expansion of capacity
at already existing facilities. The EPA ofcials observed there is room for
disquiet:
There is room for disquiet When one takes into account the fact that fully a
quarter of metropolitan area waste treatment plant capacity is less than half
utilized, and that for nonmetropolitan communities, over 30 percent of total
waste treatment plant capacity is utilized at less than half of design rating.
When one excludes the one—sixth of all waste treatment plants that are over—
loaded, the mean utilization rate for publicly operated plants in the United
States is found to be just under 63 percent—almost two—fifths of the total ca—
pacity of plants of every vintage, then, is simply unused. Worse, in terms of ag—
gregated probabilities, much of it will never be used. The formal useful life of
a waste treatment plant is 25 years. At the rate of population growth that ap—
plied during the 19505 [which has steadily declined since] only the fastest
growing classes of communities could make full use of the capacity of a plant
designed to serve twice its initial loading. [43]
These misgivings seemed particularly acute to the EPA analysts in view of
the need for nancial resources for other pollution control measures. Our own
purpose
is not to judge the validity of the municipal plant program, but to
identify the elements that must be weighed in any analysis that seeks bal—
anced allocation of pollution control resources. Such an analysis simply has
not been made in the case of the treatment plant program, primarily because
sanitary waste treatment at centralized facilities in the past has always been
considered the mechanism to remove pollution, and the emphasis has
changed very little. This is understandable in view of the history of water pollution control, but, although nurtured by many intelligent, dedicated profes—
sionals, the pollution control concepts of the 19605 clearly have failed to provide a degree of control acceptable today.
A related area of investment also has not had a thorough hearing in terms
of cost—benet analysis. That is the emphasis on the separation of old com—
bined sanitary—storm sewers in which street nmoff and domestic wastes are
mixed together to produce rates of flow during heavy rains that are too large
to be treated at municipal plants and thus must be diverted directly into_wa—
terways untreated. In 1967, it was estimated that correcting this combined
sewer overow problem by separating sanitary and storm sewers would cost
more than $47 billion [44]. This amount, of course, would be in addition to
the $18.1 billion which may be needed for municipal treatment plants at the
end of the sewers. Compromise solutions such as high—rate treatment processes for combined ows and overflow regulators have since been suggested to
reduce this cost, but considerable opinion still favors the physical separation
Need for Higher Quality Water Standards
'l 13
…] nm
Water Quality Ofce wrote in a 1971 report: “An immutable tendency seems
to be that as federal nancial assistance and investment increase, physical
plant expands; and as physical plant expands, the volume of capital needs in—
volving federal nancial assistance also expands. The more we invest, the
more we seem to need to invest.” [42]
This feeling was substantiated by the discovery of an apparent trend to—
ward overbuilding in municipal plants, particularly the expansion of capacity
at already existing facilities. The EPA ofcials observed there is room for
disquiet:
There is room for disquiet When one takes into account the fact that fully a
quarter of metropolitan area waste treatment plant capacity is less than half
utilized, and that for nonmetropolitan communities, over 30 percent of total
waste treatment plant capacity is utilized at less than half of design rating.
When one excludes the one—sixth of all waste treatment plants that are over—
loaded, the mean utilization rate for publicly operated plants in the United
States is found to be just under 63 percent—almost two—fifths of the total ca—
pacity of plants of every vintage, then, is simply unused. Worse, in terms of ag—
gregated probabilities, much of it will never be used. The formal useful life of
a waste treatment plant is 25 years. At the rate of population growth that ap—
plied during the 19505 [which has steadily declined since] only the fastest
growing classes of communities could make full use of the capacity of a plant
designed to serve twice its initial loading. [43]
These misgivings seemed particularly acute to the EPA analysts in view of
the need for nancial resources for other pollution control measures. Our own
purpose
is not to judge the validity of the municipal plant program, but to
identify the elements that must be weighed in any analysis that seeks bal—
anced allocation of pollution control resources. Such an analysis simply has
not been made in the case of the treatment plant program, primarily because
sanitary waste treatment at centralized facilities in the past has always been
considered the mechanism to remove pollution, and the emphasis has
changed very little. This is understandable in view of the history of water pollution control, but, although nurtured by many intelligent, dedicated profes—
sionals, the pollution control concepts of the 19605 clearly have failed to provide a degree of control acceptable today.
A related area of investment also has not had a thorough hearing in terms
of cost—benet analysis. That is the emphasis on the separation of old com—
bined sanitary—storm sewers in which street nmoff and domestic wastes are
mixed together to produce rates of flow during heavy rains that are too large
to be treated at municipal plants and thus must be diverted directly into_wa—
terways untreated. In 1967, it was estimated that correcting this combined
sewer overow problem by separating sanitary and storm sewers would cost
more than $47 billion [44]. This amount, of course, would be in addition to
the $18.1 billion which may be needed for municipal treatment plants at the
end of the sewers. Compromise solutions such as high—rate treatment processes for combined ows and overflow regulators have since been suggested to
reduce this cost, but considerable opinion still favors the physical separation
Need for Higher Quality Water Standards
'l 13
…] nm