HomeMy WebLinkAboutAquifers - Benefits of Protecting EvaluationEVALUATING THE BENEFITS DF PROTECTING AQUIFERS
Framework and Problems
Frieda Reitman
The University of Connecticut
Frieda Reitman
Assistant Professor of Business Environment
I~IBA P~ogram at Stamford
School of Business Administration
University of Connecticut
Stamford, CT 06903
and Policy
203-322-8398
Prepared fop presentation at the Atlantic Economic Society
Conference, Octobe~ 10, lgBO.
The ao~k upon ~hich this paper is based was supported in part by
funds p~ovided by the Office of Water Research and Technology
Project No. 8-OI5-CONN, U. S. Department of the Interior, ~ashin9-
ton, D.C., as authorized by the ~ate~ Research and Development
Act of lg?8 (P.L. g5-457).. The opinions expressed are solely
those of the author.
I mould like to acknoaledge the help of my colleagues L. Fmankel
and In. Huffmire, and my 9raduate assistant, L. Golub.
Abstract
The purposes of this paper are (1) to set up a framework for
measuring the benefits of protecting aquifers, (2) to identify the
problems of measuremont, and (3) to assess the advisability of
undertaking the measurements.
It has been proposed that communities prohibit all or some
of the following activities on land over aquifers: landfills,
lagoons, septic systems, storage and transfer of oil and gas,
storage of road salt. will the benefits outweigh the costs?
(1) The damages that will occur if the aquifer is not pro-
tected must be assessed. First one must establish the relationship
between the action to be prohibited and its ¢ffect on the quality
of the water, and then the relationship between a change in quality
and a change in use. If these indicate the probable elimination of
the aquifer as a source of ~ater, alternative sources must be iden-
tified: another aquifer, treatment of contaminated water, conser-
vation. For each, estimates of cost ranges are needed. A discount
rate must be selected. The lowest estimate if the "cost" of inaction
or the "benefit" of protection. Nine other benefits can be iden-
tified.
(2)It is difficult to quantify relationships, but making some
assumptions simplifies the task. "Drinking water quality" is used
as a standard of "quality." Limiting consideration to public
supplies of ~ater leads to the need for alternative supplies when
quality falls below the standard. Estimates of the costs of alter-
nate sources must be made on a case-by-case basis. Data indicate
that conservation may be the lo,est cost alternative; alternative
supplies may cost less than treatment. ~iost of the other benefits
are not measurable or are very difficult to quantify.
(3) If the 'technical components of the required estimates can
be provided, and if the assumptions are acceptable, it appears
reasonable to measure the major benefit of protecting aquifers
the cost of replacing polluted ~ater supplies. The other benefits
cannot be measured with accuracy, but would increase estimates to
be used in comparison with costs.
INTRODUCTION
The purposes of this paper are (1) to set up a framework
for measuring the bensfits of protecting aquifersI (groundmater),
(2) to identify the problems of measurement, and (3) to assess the
advisability of undertaking the measurements. The study discusses
these items from the point of view of Connecticut.
The study was undertaken because of interest in preserving
the quality of our groundwater. Groundwater is the major source
of mater reserves; 9? percent of the fresh liquid water on earth
is in aquifers. If water requirements increase and/or if surface
maters become polluted, additional sources are in the ground.
~oms areas of the country are concerned with the quantity of
available groundwater.
that is not a problem,
in the near future.
However, there is
For the state of Connecticut as a whole,
although some communities expect shortages
increasing evidence of groundwater pollution,
and that can be a problem. In Connecticut, spillage of oil
introduced contamination into 50 aquifers between July lg?6 and
juns 1977.2 Du~ing 1979, the tomn of Southington had to shut
domn 3 of its 8 municipal d~inking water malls because of contamin-
ation mith two industrial solvents.3 Students at the l~iddle School
in Weston have had to drink bottled water on and off for seven
years because of salt pollution of its drinking water.~ If the
quality of aquifer mate~ is not protected , then adequate water
may not be available when needed.
2
SUGGESTED RULES FOR PROTECTING AQUIFERS
Groundwater may become polluted in several ways. Contaminants
on or in the ground are carried by water as it travels through
the ground into aquifers. These contaminants may be natural or
may be deposited in the areas above aquifers or areas ~hich drain
into aquifers.5 Groundwater may also become polluted from surface
water; ~ithdra~als of water from aquifers by pumping may induce
water from surrounding streams or nearby oceans. Once polluted,
aquifers usually take a long time to clear naturally.
To protect aquifers, it has been proposed that certain uses
of land over aquifers should be regulated, prohibiting activities
which may lead to pollution. The Federal Government has assumed
responsibility for regulating the disposal of toxic materials.
This paper assumes that toxic waste disposal' will be regulated
so as to protect aquifers and addresses other contamination
problems.
In general, land use regulation (zoning) is undertaken by the
local community. Since aquifers do not conform to community
geographic borders, this may not Oe the appropriate jurisdiction;
state or regional jurisdictions may be more appropriate. Proposals
to protect groundwater include the following prohibitions on the
usa of land over aquifers:
Suggested Regulations
1. A ban on landfills
2. A ban on septic and industrial lagoons
3. A ban on septic systems
4. A ban on storage and transfer of oil and gas
5. A ban on storage of road salt
1. A ban on landfills. This means closing existing ones and
barring ne~ ones. Even if toxic wastes are excluded ( and policing
is adequate to insure this) seepage from landfills presents a
potential danger to underground water. Even specially designed
"secure" landfills may eventually leak; they should be located
elsewhere. However, landfills cannot be closed unless alternative
disposal sites ara available. Since most communities do not ~ish
to accept the garbage of another community, appropriate siting
of landfills is a problem. State intervention may be necessary.
2. A ban on septic and industrial lagoons. These are pits,
pools and ponds providing on-site storage of liquid wastes.
The~e are 39 septage lagoons in Connecticut, regulated by the
Oepartment of Environmental Protection (OEP) ~ater Compliance Unit.
These are potential sources of contamination if located on aquifer
recharge areas.
3. A ban on septic systems. This implies sewering for
all areas over aquifers. This may not be cost effective for areas
with lo~ density population. It may be reasonable, however, for
clusters of houses to include some amount of joint sewage treatment.
Low density zoning over aquifers may be an alternative to an
absolute b~n on septic systems. In addition, industry should be
required to treat its effluent.
4. A ban on storage and transfer of oil and gas. Spills
and leaks from storage and from pipelines are serious sources of
contamination and may be undetected for years. In Norwalk such
a leak ~as undetected in a 9overnmant buildin9 until high fuel
costs led to an investigation of the excessive "uss" of fuel!
~ater in Colchester end Stafford Hollo~ has been contaminated by
leaks. For residences, it may be desirable to soften the ban and
permit storage of small amounts in corrosion resistant tanks.8
5. A ban
covered~ on an
The Department
do
on storage of road salt.
impermeable surface share
of Transportation already
not necessarily.?
Road salt should be stored
runoff can be collected°
does this; municipalities
Associated ~ith these prohibitions are certain costs for the
community, residents and industry. This additional regulation is
desirable only if the benefits out,~eigh the costs. It is
necessary therefore to assess the benefits of such regulation.
FRAMEWORK FO~ ~IEASURING BENEFITS
Recent concern ~ith environmental protection has lad to a
number of studies concerned ~ith measuring the benefits of such
protection.8 As far as can be ascertained,
tecting aquifers has not been measured°
One set of "benefits" is the damages
occur
the benefits of pro-
(or "costs") that mill
if the aquifer is not protected by the proposed regulations.
5
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ~ATER QUALITY AND '~A'fER USE
Before these benefits can be assesed, it is necessary to
have (1) a clear evaluation of the "environmental quality" to be
protected, (2) a clearly expressed relationship between the activity
to be regulated and its effect on environmental quality, and
(3) another clearly expressed relat£onship between the change
in environmental quality and its effect on the "use" of that
environment.lOApplying these requirements to groundwater, we
develop the follo~£ng:
Oefinition of Water Quality
The quality of water cannot be described simply on some
scale From i to lO. It is "an n-dimensional vector of the rele-
vant parameters.''lO Some important characteristics of aquifer
the level of o~gen
the level of suspended solids
the level of coliform bacteria
the temperatire
the rate of flow
the pH level.
For each pollutant, a measure of contamination can be calculated.
There are no measures of "trade-offs." Ideally, it would be
desirable to be able to combine characteristics and get a quality
"number." ~hat we have instead is a set of water quality standards.
These have been in existence for surface ~ater for a number
of years; in 1980 parallel standards for groundwater were developed,ll
Quality classes.AA, A, B, C, and D have been distinguished. For
each quality standard, a numerical or a descriptive limit is set
for each ~ater characteristic. "AA" is drinking water quality;
"A" may be of that quality.
6
Effect of Activities to be Regulated on ~ater Quality
Ideally, for aquifers, one mould like to be able to relate
each activity (such as thos~ listed abcve under proposed prohibitions)
mith the specific degradation of aquifer mater mhich it causes.
Since the relationships depend on
the nature of the composition and topography of the
ground (which affects the rate and direction of flo~)
the nature and extent of the discharge
- the amount of rainfall
- the nature and extent of mithdra~als from the aquifer,
no simple cause-and-effect numbers exist, it mould be useful if
scientists could quantify a multi-variable relationship so that
probability statements on cause-and-effect could be evaluated.
It ~ould be useful if a table like the folloming could be
devised, so that the entry of data in the blank spaces ~ou)d
lead to specific ansmers as suggested:
amt. of contaminantl
(primary, secondary)
(type of rock)
mhich is ~ithdramn
bo degraded belo~
probability that
placed in a landfill, mhich is located in a
recharge area over an aquifer mhich is of
mith estimated flom of from
(feet per yea~)
mill cause the aquifer to
(gals. per month)
in years. The
(,water quality class) (number)
this mill happen in the given number of years
(range, probability~
Effect of Change in Quality on Change in ~ater Use
Next, it is necessary to relate water degradation to change
use: ~hat changes in use mill occur if water becomes polluted?
Factors Affecting Use of
1. The type of delivery ~yotem (public,
private wells)
2. The type of contamination
3. The type of user (residential, industrial,
agricultural, commerc£al 12
The typo of delivery system, public or private is important
in assessing th~ effects. [n Connecticut, 84% of the people are
served by a public ~ater company (either publicly or privately
owned). 163 of the people are supplied by private ~alls. ~
public water company almost al~ays has more than one source of
water, [Fa source becomes contaminated, a switch is possible.
[fo private well becomes contaminated, the user generally has
other available water source. He ~ust resort to bottled water
hook up to a publ£c supply.
fhe type and extentof contamination (organic matter,
chemical, oils, salts) and the type of user and use
residential - domestic
- lamn metering
industrial - for product
- for cooling
- for mashing
agricultural
commercial
are also important in assossing the effects of chango in quality.
For domestic use and for use as part of a food product, only
drinking water quality is acceptable. Degradation below that
quality means an alternative is necessary. For other uses the
presence of some contaminants in specified amounts may not
change the use of the wate~ at all. In between these extremes
no
are many other possibilities. For each water delivery system,
for each use of meter~ a relationship between each contaminant
and its probable affect on use needs to be quantified.
THE ~AIN 8ENEFIT: AVOIDING THE COSTS OF
ALTE~NA¥IVES rO USE OF PULLUTED ~ATER
When the change in use of the water is identified it is
necessar~ to consider the responses to the change and the costs
of those responses. If the aquifer is likely to be eliminated
as a source of water, there are two possibilities. The less
likely is that the activity or use mill be discontinued; the
more likely is that an alternative source of acceptable mater
will be found. Alternative sources may be a) mater from another
aquifer or from a stream, b) the treatment of contaminated mater
and c) conservation which may permit certain uses of ~ater to
continue undisturbed while others are curtailed. Each alter-
native has its o~n range of costs, The lowest estimate of costs
is the "damage" or "costs" of inaction or the "benefit" of
protecting the aquifer. Since these costs ~ill be borne in the
future, an appropriate disco~nt rate must be selected to obtain
the present value to compare to the present costs of protection.
OTHER BENEFITS
Assessing the benefits of protecting aquifer water by
costa of alternative mater supplies ignores the following
the
potential benefits~
Prevention of undesirable and/or costly events likely to
occur if an aquifer is not protected
1. use of water with unidentified contaminants
2. use of water with levels of contaminants harmful
only to some portion of the population (people mith
allergies, children, elderly)
3. trauma involved with discovering "impure mater" and
worrying about its implications.
4. costs involved in immediate reaction to such dis-
covery (bringing in bottled water)
5. costs for damages done before discovery
Desirable events likely to be fostered by protection
1. sense of well-being of population freedom of
fear of contaminated mater
2. protection of all sources of water (including
private) on ~n aquifer
3. benefits which may occur as use and discharge patterns
change in response to amareness, regulation and price
increases13
4. ability to sell 'pure' water to other communities
which need it.
PRUBLEMS OF ~EASUREMENT
~ssuming that the framework presented above is a reasonable
one for examining the benefits of aquifer protection, it is
necessary to see if it is possible to obtain sufficient data
to actualIy msasure the benefits.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WATER QUALITY AND ~ATER USE
in order to be able to quantify the benefits of protecting
aquifers, it is necessary to make a number of simplifying assump-
tion~.
1. Oefinition of water quality. It seems reasonable to
use the water quality standards already established. Only
aquifers of A or AA quality are likely to be candidates for
protection. Identifying the aquifers and assessing their
quality are projects ~hich are being conducted by the Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection and the United States
Geological Survey. This information is not yet available
but should be obtainable. This information is not obtained
~ithout cost, but is needed for other programs, so it is not
clear that the cost of information should be considered a cost
15
of protecting the aquifers by the rules suggested above.
2. Effect of activities to be regulated on ~ater quality.
Et appears as though it sho~ld be possible to devise a taole
such as suggested above to evaluate the effects on aquifers of
siting landfills, lagoons, etc. on land over them. LeGrand
proposed a "System for Evaluation of Contamination Potential
of Some ~aste Disposal Sites." He identified five important
factors: ~atar table level, distance from the contaminant to
the ~ater, the gradient and rate of flo~ of ~ater, the eorption
capacity of the soil and the permeability of the soil. For
each factor he proposed a scale of points relating to various
characteristics. The total of the points ~ould then indicate
the probability of a particular deposit causing the contamination
of groundwater at a particular location:
16 or more points indicatesalmost no probability
8 - 16 points indicate moderate probability
less than 6 points indicates high probability of
contamination. 18
This system is designed to predict contamination by "sewage,
detergents, viruses and radioactive ~astes" ~hich"decrease in
potency in time or by oxidation, chemical or physical sorption
17
and dilution through dispersion." The author stresses it
should not ba used "in evaluation of disposal sites for mixed
~astes, such as those found in refuse dumps and sanitary land-
fills, if the critical consideration is the movement of chemica!
18
~astes that attenLJate slowly." if ~e assume that toxic
waste disposal will be handled under other auspices, it should
19
be possible to adapt LeGrand's system.
The information given by this system
contamination. It does not evaluate the extent of
tamination, if ~e assume that our major interest
tion belo~ drinking ~ater quality rather than
level of contamination, the probability of such
should be ascertainable.
3. Effect of change in quality
There are many interrelating factors
is a probability of
the co~-
is in degrade-
in a specific
degradation
on change in ~ater use.
to consider, making it
difficult, to quantify the relationships. Very few uses require
the highest quality water. Most uses can utilize degraded water
but the type of degradation matters. For example, ~ater mith
corrosive contaminants could damage delicats machinery. ~aking
several ~ssumptions makes the interrelationships manageable.
(a) The first assumption is that only sources of public water
systems are to be protected. Private ~ells are importan~ too.
Often they are the only source available to the user. Contamina-
tion can have serious consequences. However, there is no easy
~ay to evaluate the probable change in use
each individual Hater source, ~hich may be
or agricultural. In addition, if aquifers
are protected, private wells over the same
protected - an additional unmeasured benefit.
(b) The second assumption is that the contaminant
and its costs for
residential, industrial
supplying public syetems
aquifers ~ould also be
level of
12
concern is the drinking ~ater standard. This follows from
assumption (a) since, under current practice, only one grade
of water is deliversd by public systems.
(c) The third assumption, ~hich follow from (a) and (0) is
that if ~ater is degraded below drinking water quality other
acceptable sources will be provided.
THE ~AIN BENEFIT: AVOIDINC THE COSTS DF
ALYERNAT~VES TO USE OF OOLLUTEO ~ATER
Under these assumtions, the major measurable ben,fit of
protecting aquifers now is avoiding the costs of providing
alternativas later.
Cost of Alternate Supplies
The cost of bringing water from alternate sources
depends on the availability, the dist~nre and ~he type of ground
to be traversed. The order ofmagnitcde of these axpendit~Jrescan
be inferred from the following estimates.
(a) ~n 1979, three wells in ~o~:thington, Connecticut
shut because of contamination with volatile organics. To
20
place the ~ater, the company leased a ~ell and built a new ~ell.
The cost of the leased well ~as $1,000 a month rent and $6,000
to set up the ~sll~hich involved laying 300 feet of pipe and
moving treatment equipment from other ~ells.
The capital cost of the ne~ ~ell was ~500,000 which in-
cluded the testing and purchase of the land and premium payment
for rapid construction through the ~inter.
To date there has been a 50% increase in ~ater rates.
In the future,
price demanded for
per month now being
if water supplies become more scarce, the
"leases" may be much higher than the ~1,000
paid by the Southington Water Department.
(b) A study (in mid lg78 dollars) on the cost of developing
21
an additional wel! in an already existing well field estimated
the costs for a one million gallon per day well at
Capital Costs ~337,000
Annual Operating Costs
and maintenanc~ ~9,710
If
Cost of Treatment
22
If supplies are contaminated, th~n treatment is possible.
treatment plants exist and have excess capacity, a MGD may be
plants do not exist, (and
theymay
~iGD plant may be in
If
operating cost
Another method
new supplies are
is used in the system) capital cost for
24
the neighborhood of ~1 million.
Cost of Conservation
of increasing mater supplies is "conservationS'
indicated, conservation can extend existing
of ~113,73~ (mid
lg78
not
a
household has
1980.
lawn
been reduced from 200
for example, average daily use per
gals. in 1977 to 140 gals. in
voluntary effort, mainly in reducing
25
supplies.
This was done with a
· atering in the summer.
~n Tucson~
Arizona,
[here are a number of different ways of effecting conservation.
Un the demand side, higher prices, regulations restricting use,
water saving fixtures, reuse/recycle systems, and educetion may be
effective. On the supply side, meter installation, leak detection
if no surface ~ater
treatable for an annual
23
dollars.) If treatment
and repair, and pressure reduction save ~ater. The Nam Fngland
River Sasins Commission has just published a detailed report
mhich ~nalyzes all these factors.Z6 The study concludes that mater
conservation can reduce mater use, and that many conservation
measures are cost effective, although the measures mhich save the
most mater (reuse/recycle systems) are not the most ccst mffective.
anO
ma/
"savings" mculd no longer be possibla if an aquifer source mere to
Oecome ,~nusaole. This might, however, delay the need for an addi-
tional aquifer source for some years.
These possiOla conservation techniques and their ccsts mould
ha,~e to se considered ~ith the other alternatives alternate
supplies and treatment. G£ven the cost effectiveness of some of
these measures, this could Oe the least costly o~ the altarnat£ves.
Care must be taken in ~rojecting cost savings figures, hcm-
ever. Since fixed costs are such a large portion of per
~,a~er costs, significant conservation (lomer water demand) ~ill
raise pec unit costs, and savings may not materialize. Of
if conservation obviates the need ?or additional capital expendi-
tures, then real savings ~ill result.
The Lo,~est Cost Alternative
27
6inca many 6easures are cost effective, and many communities
beooming concerned aOout fut~re st~polie~, conservation regulations
be adopted b! many commwn£ties. If thLs mere so, thes~
~t appears as though conservation may
altarnativm. Homaver, the available ,~ater
ficient. Acquiring an alternate source of
less
b~ the lomest cost
saving may not b,~ suf-
aqu~far mater appears
expensive than treating mater. Even this alternative may
15
increase delivered water costs by perhaps 50%. This is based
on current conditions. If most communities choose noS. to protect
their aquifers, and if many aquifers become polluted, the cost
of acq~irin§ additional supplies could be much higher. Alternately,
if treating water becomes more midespread, technological changes
might reduce these costs.
UT~ER 6ENEFITS
The other ~enefits ti~d a~ove (pp. 8-9) cannot easily be
quantified. ~he ~nadequao¥ of techniques for a~ti~ating p~ices
for ~on-priced o,Jtcomes are mell described in the ~IT study.28
The existence of these additional benefits means than an estimate
of benefits based only on the cost of an alternative ,~ater supply
· ill signiFica~tly underestimate benefits.
EV~LbATI~.~N AND CONCLdS!ON
Under a set of simplifying assumptions, it is possible to
say that the major measurable benefit of enacting regulations to
protect aq,~ifers from contamination is the cost of providing ,,sable
~ater should an aquifer become p~ll~t~d. The least expensive
appropriate method appears to be acq~irinq other aquifer ~at~r.
It appears reasonable to attempt to estimate this cost under
current conditions. This estimate ~o~ld represent the lo,est
possiOle measure of benefits becauss (1)
other benefits and (2~ it cannot allow for
supplies, ~hich as far as can be seen now,
it does not measure
changes in water
will result in highe~
COSTS.
Estimatin~ the present value of the future benefits
presents additional problems. When wilt the additional ~ater
ba needed -- in 2 years or 10 years or 20 years? Projection
in this changing environment is difficult. ~hat is the appro-
priate interest rate? At lO~, the present value of an ~lO0,O00
expenditure in 15 years is ~2~,000. Since the present value of
future benefits ar? to be compared with current costs o, implementing
regulations, the "known" benefits may net appear large.
In its analysis, the ~1I~
estimating benefits for every
justified by the results.2g
study suggests that the costs of
environmental project may not be
It presents the viem that ether
,~on-gdantifieble considerations
in dec~ding to regulate
this vie~ for aquifers,
regulation is necessary.
At this time, it appears that, if
may really be more important
or not to regulate. 8afore accepting
an examination of the probable costs of
the suggested assumptions
ca~ be accepted, an estimate of benefits can be made. If those
mbo make the decisions on regulation wnderstand the uncertainties
of forecasting, the benefit fig,~re may be a valuable input.
FUOTNOTES
i. Aquifers are geologic units capable of y£elding usable
amounts of water.
2. Connecticut Areawide Waste Treatment management Planning
Proqram. A Guide to GroundWater and Aquifer Protection. Draft,
June lgTg. f,tiddletown, CT. 06457.
3. Spohn, Gustav. "Water Pollution A Growing Concern."
New York Times, Connecticut Section, 1/6/80.
4. Gallagher, ~egan. "Experts Fear Shortage of Clean Drink-
ing mater." Fairpress, Normalk, CT. 2/20/80.
5. These are called primary and secondary recharge a~eas,
respectively.
6. This is regulated under the Flammable Liquids Cod~, ad-
ministered by the Fire ~iarshall's office. Connecticut Areamide
maste Treatment management Planning Program.
7. bnder current regulations, when sodium in a public mater
supply is greater than 15 mg./lite~ salt may not be used for roads,
drivemays or parking areas that drain into that mater supp]y,
except mith permission of the Department of Health. Conn. Aream~de
~ate Treatment I~lanagement Planning Program. This does not protect
future supplies.
Particularly signif£cant are
Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate,
~enefits of Environmental~ Health and Safety Requlation, ~arch 25,
lg80. (ormpared by the Center for Policy Alternatives at the
~lassachusetts Institute of Technology) and
Freeman~ A. ~lyrick, The Benefits of Environmental ~mprove-
ment (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, lgTg.)
g. ~ncluding discussions with EPA officials in Washington, D.C.
10. [his adapts the analysis in Freeman, p~. 17-1g.
11. For d~scription of each standard, see State of Connecticbt,
Department of Environmental Protection ~ater Compliance Unit.
Connecticut Water Quality Standard and Criteria, Draft Revisions.
12. Recreational benefits, so important in surface water use,
are not significant for aquifer mater, except insofar as a parti-
cular aquifer contaminant level mould affect surface mater.
13. This must not be counted tmice if deducted from costs of
controlling pollution over aquifers.
i4. In progress is tha Southwestern Aquifer Assessment
Program, a 3 year study which has not baen adequately fundsd.
Information from ~estern Connecticut ~ater Council, not yet
published.
15. there is need Per
quantity of available water
contamination.
this information in surveying the
resources and for assessment of toxic
16. Harry E.
Potential of Some
~orks Association,
LeGrand "System for Evaluation of Contamination
~Jasta Disposal Sites." Journal American Water
vol. 56, (1964) p. 972.
17. P.
t8. P. 960.
lg. Further mork is Oeing done O~ L. Frankel, Professor of
Geology, Whir. of Conn..
20. The companies which caused the pollution are being sued~
It is not yet clear if they will be fined and who will get the
money. Data frcm Dan Christy, Superintendent, Soothington !Vater
Department, telephone conversations g/iS/80, 9/22/80.
21. New Haven ~ater Company. Cost Comparison of 1 MCD
Packaqe Treatment Plant vs. 1,1GD ~ell, January 1979.
22. Assuming no toxic mastes.
23. New Haven Water Company. Cost Comparison.
24. Loc. cit.
25. the ,'~ew York rimes, 5/8/80.
vol. I.
26. New England River ~asins Co~mission. 8afore the
Dry: Literature Swrvey and Analysis of ~ater Conservation,
27. P. 96.
28. Pp. 16-19.
29. P. 43.