HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater Supply Protection Effect on Business Costs 1980PROTECTING THE ~ATE~ SUPPLY:
EFFECT ON BUSINESS COSTS
Frieda Reitman
The University of Connecticut
Frieda Reitman
Assistant Professor of Business Environment and Policy
~,IBA P~ogram at Stamford
School of Business Administration
University of Connecticut
Stamford, CT 06903
203-322-8398
Prepared for presentation at the Ne~ England Business and
Economic Conference, November 5, 1980.
The ,work upon ~hich this paper is based ~as supported in part by
funds provided by the Uffice of ~ater Research and Technology
Project No. B-O15-CONN, U. S. Oepartment of the Interior,
Washington, D.C., as authorized by the Water Research and
Uavelopment Act of 1978 (P.L. 95-A67). The opinions expressed
are solely those of the author.
I $ould liku to acknowledge the help of my graduate assistant,
L. Golub.
J':'.~Fd~,I)LICIIL, N Ar~].' ~VEi;VI~ ~l
[t is likely that over the next f~,t~ y,~ars the orotection of
our (futuCe) mater s,dV~)y m~]l bm an increasingly impor~or~t national
objective. In the past Fern years, =mphasis has beon placed on
i;rotP, nt~ng s~fac,~ mater. Non concern ~s b~oaden~nm to pro~ecting
t~r~dmrgro,~nd or aquife~ mater, the ms~n so~cc'm for the
dtlSinnss has m~ and is con[Dlu[ng f.o m~mt many ne,~, ,osts
:,,or;r?y hms been sper, t to comply mith
s,~r'Face t. ater. ~,lom~y is non beir,g spent
r,,gulations to cl:an
to nomp],v m~th th~
source Con~ecvation and Recovery Act (eCOA) il, upqrmd~q the
h~ndlin,] aud disposal of toxic castes.
[h~ qupstiom i~ oftem asked "arm thnse expm,'~ditl~r~,~ ,,,orth-
chile? It oftn,~ appears that busir~ess paym the costs hut do~.
~oh r~ap any benefits. Ho'~,mvmr, ~vidnr~ce ~s non apC,,r~rir~O that
thF.¢,~ are bt:,~,ef~ts. ~q firms explorn alter~ativms in re~;pensp
,'.r~vi~ or, mnnto] ~'egulations, mays arm be~n~] eeund t') rcsper'd
¢.¢m~ciemf. ly and ev.~n f.o ~enr~r~te saving~ error,
Hr' , ':tureo. Althoush sone regulatory d¢~o]]s may pFovm ,Jnnecmssary
or f,,,',]ish, ovr, rall, the objectives arm heinq approached amd the
cost:~ .ar~, he[n9 ofgset by benmfito. Add%f]n,~al protmctien of
aquirmro~ f. he ,,:o jot cur~r:,,ru r,f this paper, sh~)t,]d ~ot add
s~gni¢ican~.ly to costs already inc,,rred. Ag the commitm~,nt to
mater prot.,.~'tion ,:ontimues i~ i'; rr~aso,,abl~ to P~pmct ew~n more
innovation, technological chat~ge and cost
(bf course, situations may be d£ff~ef~t for a specific firm in a
specific location.) bn the other hand, not protecting aquifers
and allowing the water supply to become polluted, will undoubted-
ly cause the price of clean water to rise substantially.
it i5 £mportant to protect our ~atr~r supply now because
shorLagos of clean tua[p~.
~ater is ess,ariel eof life. It has ~lso become essential
for our may of life. For survival, each person reqoirps 1'3
,l,~arts per day. fn ]977, in Cor,nm,Ttic..~t, ]37 qa]loms p~r day
pt, r person ,~(,ro ,is,-d. (10) Bet~,?n l. g60 ;t',d ]977 U. S. pop~lation
rjre,~, by 20'.~ ar,d t~later cens,Jmptio,-, by
are still gro,~ing, al(houoh perhaps
Cart ~e meet the demand?
tn the I~nited
mater shortages.
.r~7,?. (14~heso needs far mater
less r~pidly than hofor¢.
New Er, qland is irt a favorable posit[or, in terms
of water reso,~rces, unfortunately supp] ies art. nut always ]ocatod
in the area? of demar]d, so that many communities foresee qhortaoes.
(A ref:erlL st,~dy or f, be HousoLoni( River ~asir~ SbOu.'q tba' 14 o,~t of
55 communit~s PREP 8 dpfJcit by year 200O.)(l~fh~ r¢,'nnt drought
has called further attent(on to the fact. that ~ho~%mgps are
poss[ble.
[dater does exist Je N~,u Englmr~d, hom¢~v~r, ar,d that ,uater is
to b,~ found undereroun¢,in aquifers. (A q¢,oloq~c formatioq
water supply on earth) gT)'.~ is in *q,;ifm~s. Comm~,~litJes mrn
water supplies require reservoilrs which take up large areas of
land. In highly developed area~, where needs are greatest, the
cost of such land is very expensive. In addition, federal
regulations requ£re surface water to be treated, increasing the
cost oF such water. The curren~ drought experience will un-
doubtedly bring still more relitnce on ground water sources.
However, groundmater is be;oming polluted. Every week at
least one hem contaminated mell
dramatic as "Love Canal" but roi
significant. In Southington, 4~
taminated by volatile hydrocarb~
mere developed, including a div~
supply, people mere afraid to dl
is discovered. Few are as
. the people involved, all are
I% of the mater supply mas con-
~ns. Until new sources of mater
~rson from a neighboring tomn's
'ink the mater, not sure whether
their mater had been contaminat~d or not.*
Since polluted aquifers ma~ take a century
to
become
clean
these supplies, once contaminated, are not available for
again,
our needs.
Joanne Foster at the Capital Region
February 8, 1980.
onference on Hazardous Waste Management
,.ETH~DS [if DRIJTECT[uN Jif
~o~ can we protect our water supplies? TherP
to p~otection - preserving quantity and presPrvinq
are two facets
quality.
Preserving adequate, quantity for the future involves locating
sourco~ and providing for transportation of water to needed locations.
~his ,,aan~ a ?egional rather than a community approach to water
planning, lhis a~ea ~ith its "Ne~ England home rule" philosophy
has b~n slow to adopL a regional ~pprnach. If th~ d~ou9ht con-
tie,~es, by nex~ yea~', ~ nhou]d he~:om~ obv~.ou~ ~h~ loca~
~e inadequate.*
P~eserving the quantity also means encouraging conservation.
~om~ communities and businesses have mad~ s,~bstan~i~ reductions
[~ ~ater us[~ lh~o,~gh various conservation t~chniqu~s. (9, l~)
P~otec~ng th~ rlUa]~[y of the ~a[~ ~q~[t~s diffe~nn~ con-
sideraUons. ~ev~r~ facets have ~]~eady h~en addressed by F~dera[
Leg~sZaLiun. Discharoes into su~fac~ water h~v~ berm regulated
sinc~ ]972. [h~ handling and disposal ~f toxic w~stns has berm
FnO,.~Z~ted since early this yea~ - ~ith details s~i]] being impl~-
men~od. (Sea pp.~ For mo:'e detail.) IF properly ~nfu~c~d, ~h[s
should keep tox~: materials f~om poZluting aquifers.
The ar~a ~hJch has not y~t been addressed is ~he p~o~ection
of aquifers from nontoxic
aquifers could accomplish
includ~ banning la[,d~.ills,
ta~ks on such land. L~md
matter. Rest~i[:tinq ]aed use over
thor protection. Poss~b]e regulations
banning lagoons and banning septic
u~e regulations have t~aditiona]]y been
Conversatiorl u~th James mcIner~,ey, President, Stamford ~t[~r Co.
october 23. ]q811.
tho respof~sJhility or thp lo~al co~m,.~nity. Sir,~'e aq~Jifers do not
follow comm~nity geography, this is another ama that ought to be
addressed by region, s or states. Holdover, some communiti~ have
passed o~di~a~cns to p~otn, ct aq,~]r~rs a~,d mo~e ~Ji! undoubtedly
do so. ~hat ~dditi,~al costs ~uould be i.~cor~ed by businnss
should these oe~ regulations develop?
BUSINESS CUSTS df EXISTING REGULATIUNS
Business has already incurred costs to reduce water pollution.
A study done by Ba~lle Columbus Labs for the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) in 1978 estimated that from 1972 lg??, in-
dustry invested over $14 billion (1977 dollars) in water pollution
control, and spent over ~10 billion annually for such control. (2)
The bulk of these expenditures were made in the chemical, electric
utilities, pulp and paper, metals and food processing industries.
These figures are engineering estimates; they are not based on
surveys. They refer only to outlays to meet Federal requirements
in existence in lg??, primarily the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act of 1972.
As a result of that Act and the Clean Drinking Water Act of
1977, disposal of contaminants into streams was prohibited without
a permit; the Clean Air Act Amendments (lg??)
charge of many pollutants into the air. This
disposal of approximately gs~ of toxic wastes
prohibited the dis-
brought about the
on the land - in land-
fills or lagoons, most landfills have been located for their surface
convenience; community landfills are set away from prime residential
areas; industrial landfills are usually on company property.
Very often these landfills have been sited in areas which are
over> or drain into~aquiferS. Generally, toxic wastes are not
supposed to 9° to community landfills; often supervision is lax.
Industrial landfill ~itin9 may have considered aquifer contamination,
but may have proceeded if the aquifer was not being used as a source
8
of ~ater. As a result, EPA estimates that gO% of toxic ~aste
(up through 1978) ~as disposed of improper)y. The existence of
these, landfills pose a real threat to underground ~ater.
The recognition of this and other dangers led to passage of
RCdA, ~hich has just begun to be implemented. No~, businesses
that generate hazardous ~aste must keep records.from "cradle to
grave" and must dispose of ~astes either personally or through
licensed ~aste disposal firms in an acceptable manner. This is
expensive.
Disposal in an ordinary landfill or lagoon costs between
~2 and ~25 a metric ton. This compares to ~50 to ~00 a metric
ton for disposal in a "secure" landfill, one ~hich has been lined
~ith clay or plastic. (15) Unfortunately, there are relatively fe~
such public landfills. For example, in Connecticut, there are
only t~o secura landfills and they ar~ filling up. Wastes are
trucked out of state, further increasing costs. Communities are
very reluctant to accept such a landfill ~ithin their borders
becaose they do not trust the "security" over the long run. Even
~hen a firm ~ishes to build such a facility on its o~n property,
the to~n may object.*
Uther methods of disposin9 of toxic ~aste include chemical
fixation (at a cost of ~5 ~500 a metric ton, depending on the
material) or high temperature incineration (at a cost of 3?5 to
~2000~. About 5~ of toxic ~astes have been disposed of by these
alternative, more expansive methods. ?acilities are still limited
For example, Pratt & ~hitney's proposed landfill for sludge on
their property in ~liddleto~n, CT is being held up because it is
near an aquifer ~hich has been identified as a possible future
public ~ater supply for I~liddleto~n.
For these methods of
hince prop.-r .~,ste disposal ,et. hods are still limfted.
costs ara likely to incraase. EPa ~stiaates that U. S. business
mill incra~3se it~ expenditl~t, for ,,ustc disposal from ~lSq m~llion
to ~80O million a year.
~ome danefits Accompanying 5us incas Costs
Yhis high cost of toxic waste disposal is Pncouraginq firms
~'o change processes [o mihimiZP st:ch t,~)ste, t.o find methods
to detoxify wastes, sod to r~cover and rm~a or sell
[~rodL, ct5. These savings arn not adequately rpnognized.
-Fur example, aepoblic 5tee] switched from using acids to
remove scale From its product~ to using mire brushms. Thm first
pr'or,ss prod,ced iron oxidm, a toxic ~astn; it is now elimiuated. (z2)
_Thc I;niroyal Chemical plant in Naogatock ~as able to reducm
its quantity
Savings the first year m~re !i183,000. *
· Goodyear lira and Hul'ber developed a
tu re, rye t, ra~;e 8moLJnts Of ~ and reuse
L[~,::.fe~ Fluid ehich ~s tL, orth ~.tO pe~ gattnn.
_ A mcnufactur~r itl SrJuthtueSt Cormecticut,
reg,,latim,s rRoa~diog effluent, installed ~3 n
of flammable maste and to [)urn the u~aste as fuel.
detoxification system
the oil-based heat
in o~dor to meet
ckel r~covery
system. ~ast~. nic.kel is r,~moved from the ,,1,.ntroplating rinse
,t, at. ers and then processed ioto a usable form. Thc rust of the
~yste,~as ?~50,0013. It is no~ saving '~.2U,O00 a year; tilt, recycl~,d
nick~:l is used instead of newly purcha3~d material and ~he nickel
*fhese savinqs did not prevent the elant from closino; the
procosq chaooe ~s ~;till valid.
lO
hydroxide sludge has been elimir~a~ed, saving disposal costs.*
-- Champion international Paper Company,in its new plant in
Texas, has reduced effluent to 3000 gallons per ton of paper
as compared to lO,O00 gallons of effluent per ton of paper in
older plants.** ~ith so many changes at one time, it is hard
to pinpoint the "true" cost of regulat£on compliance.
lhese are just a few examples of business reaponse. In
the pursu£t of profit, developments are occuring which will
protect the environment while preserving profitability. The
problems in predicting and measuring these effects are we1!
known.(4 ) Homever, it seems clear that we have just begt~n
to see thesa kinds of benefits and that thny should increase,
perhaps oven accelerate, as adjustments are made to regulations..
A~d, of course, one should not forget those benefits to indi-
viduals and businesses which occur as me protect our mater
supply.
Thus, in response to existing regulations, costs have
increased and will probably continue to £ncrease. However,
benefits have also appeared and should continue to appear.
~he impact on bus~ness is not and will not be as severe as
feared.
*Private communication.
,*Nemarks by Edmard Lyons, 5ACIA meeting, October 22, 1980.
ll
.3L~'.~IW!- ~.S [JbS]'.-- LF ACO! I'[L:NAL RFGII'.ATiLiNS
~ith hazardous waste disposal controlled by RCRA, one
part of aquifer protection has he~n addressed. However, a
more complete program mould require additional regulation.
These reO~lat, ioos are likely to affect, bt,siness costs in a
number of ~ays:
- cost of maste disposal
- additional taxms o~ mss~.msments
- price of
- si~[ng of
Aquifers can
mell as from toxic
attenuated ~s they
Cost of Waste Disposal
become contaminatpd From "ordinary" ~ast~ as
waste. ;~lany non-toxic contaminants become
move thro~gh the ground. Homevmr, as areas
b~.comm mo~p developed the q~;antity
[oo great to be "t~eated" properly
gte,md, or the mastes may move too
bls. comes poi] uted, As r:nmmuo
ov,~r equil for rpcharon arear;.
of ~,astes dnposited m~y be
by its pas'~agn throogh the
rapidly.
iden~.ify
limit the
Connecticut,
Then aquif=r mater
th~se problems,
dioposal cf mastes
~he 208 program
has suggested that c,~mmunitins adopt an aquifer protection
ordinance. The ordinance ,,ay ban landfills, ~agoons and
septic tanks over'the area.
Ii,dustry discharges of these wastes are less f. han
of the total of such mastes, b,Jt for the industries such as
chem£cals, paper, ~ood processing amd textiles, they may be
large in amour,t° (8) ~ ban on ]andf~l}s and lagoons
12
require 9rpat,,r e×pnudi_tur~s rn br'¢r:k~.r~q w?stes out oF
~ince appropriate s~tes are getting harder to find, costs should
rise. (1) Homever, governmnnt m,Jqt find a solution to this
p~oblem - oerhaps sJtjeg landfills on Oovnrnmr~nt property
appropriatm - so that thnse increases sho,~ld not be as large
as no~ appears probable.
In addition, thm~e arm several alternativas mhJch may
mitigate the cost increases. It may be possible to sell o? give
amay ceTtain mastes (e.g. papm~) ,~hich ~,~i1 save the cost or
disposal. ],,~i,'9 gapbage ms fu~l may be ano~he~ may ~hat the
cc,sts of d~sposal ~an be limited. Unfortunately, themm ame still
~,i,Jblved ~nchnica] pcoblem~ and the plant bwilt ir,
Connen~.ic,~t has ~ yet p~oved that thi~ ~s a cost
alte~nat~v,~.( 5 )
.~ bar, on seotic tanks may rmcessiLaLe ~xpenditu~m o~
A p;~tial ban on septic disposal may pm~mit such disposal after
trPa~mont, anothm~ cost. For compan~ec ,~s~n0
hou~ev~r, a s~ering cr trnatment system in rla,:~ provides
sec,~rity for the ,,step supply.
Thus, these costs for additional aq,~ifmr ppot~ction should
not he substantial For businmss, although each firm m~;st
ev~}uate its specie} c~rc,~mstmncm.
]3
The commitment to fully protect the mater supply by pro-
tectir,O aquifers is likely tn incrnase government expenditures
and therefore ,jenprm] taxes. There may also be special "assess-
meets" on industry, particularly on those ,~.,hose activities
may threateo ~'ater supplies.
From general funds must camm the m,3n~y to map the 8quifer~
to assess the qt'a] ~ty and quantity of ,*~etpr and to monitor de-
velopm,.nts. S~me of these activities pmrt~c,l]a~]y tho
,'~onjt,~r~n9 - may h, ~,a~d f,.r hy mater cmm[:aqieq nr hy ~irms,
mhnI'm appropriate; others must be fnnd~.d by tax money.
The amouqt necessary for each aq,:ifer varies mith thru
s~ze. ~odelinq ~'osts to assess qua~d, ity (mhm~ no prior data
is .~vailah]e) ,~as [~.75,000 per sq,~mc~- m~l~ in 1977. Including
qua] ity assessments,
.~185,000 p,,r aquifer.
tn r/o;u~ecticot aloe?
the average cost io lg7R mas ,?stimatmd at
This does not include monitr,ring. Since
ther~ ace ov,.r 50 ~qutfers that mioht be
~orth ,,,onitoring, ~10 million could be spent there alono. (6)
Thus far, the legislature in Connecticut, ,~hi]~. acceptiny thp
pcint;ip]~ of th~ ,h~sirabi]ity of monitt,~iu,], has not apple-
priated m,~r:h monmy for the purpose.*
~n addttion ?o qennral tax~,s, a "sup,.~rfund" (raised mainly
by ~axes on industry) to clnan up ~bandnnnd toxic ,,amtn sites
and chemical spills, seerns likely to hr. s~t up hy Conqeess.
A Fund to comp,,ns~l~ vjt;t~ms may also b~ ]egislat~d. Th~
* ]',~0,000 tums al]oared for the sec'or~d y~ar of m oroqram ~n
thp 5c,,!Sh~umst Region; ~.110,0~0 h~rt hperl rnq,..~mtod.
]4
contamination pro~lnm From avoidjn9 ?espn,~sJbJlity, to provide
Fonds in f. hos~ c~es ~hece rnspo,mibi]ity cannot be established,
and to have f,JndS available foP. nct~on pending jnvesti~]ation.
Thn amounts discussed in this session o~
51.? OillJo,~ to 54.] billion. (16)
There is considerable controversy as
the appropriat- m~thnd of p~ovidin9 f~ndg
rhm~ is probably nr~ completely eq,Jitah]~
problpms ~nhecitnd f?om th, past.
what abouL ~he f~t,JTe? If the ~egula[ioos now jn
a~m mffmctive, ~he clman-up problem
Coooress ranq_ed ~rom
to whethe~ this is
for ~hes~ p,~poses.
~ay Lo fund ~h~se
~orce
in the Pqtu~p shooId be
smell. The "superf~nd" sho,~ld accomplish its task and be dis-
contin,~ed. Homeve.~, thoro w~ll a],~ays be some such problems.
]:.iscalculations, improper (illegal) disposal and accldents can
lead to contamination of water. Hem shou]d these be treated
and victims compensated? (Victims could be water companies,
businesses, or individoals.)
Perhaps the risk of po].lution of w')f. er ,,;,y be an in-
s~cahle ~isk. Th~se ideas need to b~ dnvp]opmd furtheF:
1. ~ho mould be eligible to buy the insurance? Business,
mate~ companies, individuals?
Is it possible to set op risk categories?
Is this an ins,,rabln r~sk or ~,o,,]d tho gow~rnment have
to accept some risk,as with flood insorabce?
Would the porghaso o¢ Jns,Jr,3nce cause some purchasers
to be less careful, contributtn0 to pollution?
5. ,.¢'nu]d some groups btjsinrss, ,~ater companies
prefer to self-insure?
Pril:P tl'f 3JatPr
At first, considering the price of mater, it seems logical
to expect that more extensive protection of our future mater
supply 4,111 lead tn an increase, in the price. ~n further aea]ysis,
ho~ever, given the mays in which m~to~ is delivered and prices
are set, it is not clear that prices mill rise for that reason.
In Fact, it seems morn likely thmt not protectiug thn aquifer will
cat,se pricns to rjnn significantly.
it se~m~ logi~:al to expect increases For t,~o reasons.
(A) [here have been increases in response to the requirements
of prnvious lams. (B) the recognitiof~ that water may become a
scarce resource suggests an effort to raise prices so as to
give [he eco~omic signal to cons~,rve.
~ith respnct to (A), protecting %~q,JiFnr mat-r mi]l not
require the same ki~]ds of expenditures. ~ncrnased use of
8quifmr uJater may require increased piping ~}d pumpinq, but
this is pro?ably cheeper than trmmti~,g surface ~,af~r. Despite
the mxpendit~rns that have benn made, mat.~r pric~ in Nme England
over the last 25 years have just 8bo,it kept pacm ,with th~ Consumer
Price /,~dex.( 9 ) [bis ~s after ~5 yemrs of d~.cli~,~ im the real
cost of mate~. ~
~ith resp~,~t 'to (B)~ the ~3mys in which ..~mter is delivered
and prices set do not suO0est that protectiug aquifers will
cause prices to ris~. P,~hlic ,~atmr suppliers are either muni-
*Data from Stamford Connecticut ~ater Company.
cipml or private). In ~m~ Engla,,d thP former predominate.
8~ of systems serving 10,000 or more are municipal.( 9 )
Private investor-omned companies are regulated by a state agency.
municipal companies are responsible to the local governments
and seldom supervised by a state agency mith respect to rates.*
Current proposals do not require either type of company to
ond~rtake expenditores to protect aq~ifers. Neither is likely
to do so unless rnquired. Setting rates for a municipal company
is a political iss,~e; it is hard to get increases "in advance"
oF a perceived need. Particular communities facing mater short-
ages may (;ons~der price increases
all probability, other methods to
tried first.
Settiqg rates for a private company
to reduce consumption. In
induce conservation mill be
is a rngolatory issue;
increases to promote conservation are not generally allomed.
£irms mbich have their o,~n ~ells or other mater supply and
many firms that use s,JbsLantial amounts of mat¢~r are in this
category face a different "cost" of obtaioJ,g mater. P~o-
tract Jog aquifers shoo]d not change thesn cos[s.
Thus, additional ~egu~ation to mor~ f,JJ]y protect aquifers
~s not ~[ke~y ~o ~a[se ma~e~ p~ices. On th~ uthe~ hand, ~,~ithoo~
~egulation , iF ~item supplies become pelleted, then ~a~er costs
and prices are likely to rise.
* Maine regulates municipal systems; New Hampshire regulates municipal systems
that sell water outside the district. (9)
17
If the ~upply of a w~'~ter c~)~,.;;~.y becu:~?s p~llo~ed, it
must replace the pelleted water and this wii~ ca,,se an increase
it treats the mater or obtains ne~ supplies.
Southington, Connecticut, led to a 50~ rise
in rates, whether
A recent case in
in ra~es.*
Firms using
also, if the~e is
their own wells are likely to Face higher costs
no protection. Iff the wate~ in its aquifie~
sho~ld become contaminate~ it must replace or treat the water.
Dope.ding on the partin~J]ar contaminant arid the pa~tic.lar use
oF the water, this m~ght he small or large. If the level of ~ater
in the aquifer drops, the cost of pumping that water will increase.
The 1evel might drop if a municipal wate~ c:ompany needed that
water to replace its contaminated supplies. Legally, mun~cipa!
water s~q~pliers possess the powe~ of condemnation in order to
· leave the public. ( 7 ) This could cortail private ~se of wells,
although compensation would presumably be paid.
Since the demand for water by ind.stry and by most commercial
establishments is ~ric. inelastic:, as it is for most w~ter users,
the total cost to the firm ~or mater will rls~,, if prices rise.( 9 )
Ho~evor, these elasticities re~lect past history. The c.rrent
t~e.d toward conserver!gu is incteasin:] the numb,?r ~r [~ost-effective
m~!hnd[: or reducJ.~g water consumption. In the future, elasticities
may be higher, but one can only spec.late o- the extent of a change.
In sum, protecbing our future water supplies by protoc:tin~
aquifers is not ]ikely to raise the p~ice of water significantly.
Polluting o.r mater supply is likely to raise it.
* Dan Christy, Superintendent of Southington Water Department, telephone conver-
sation, September 22, 1980.
18
Changes
is likely to
Siting of ~ncilities
in zoning regulations so as to protect aquifers
make siting new facilities a little more expensive.
1. If certain activities are prohibited over aquifers, then
it may be necessary to find other locations.
2. If activities are permitted only when certain standards
(for mater discharge, disposal of solid mastes, prevention of
accidental spills) are met, meetieg these standa~rds mill be
a cost to the fir,,. ~his 01ay include redesigning of plants
and processes. As discussed above, such changes may lead to
cost reductions in some areas~and thus offset the initial
investment.
3. It coold turn out that community regulations might make
it very difficolt to site certain kinds of activities. However,
other regions not located over mater supplies mhich they wish
to protect, may melcome such industry. Communities may not
r~golate activities over aquifers e~ther because the aquifers
are already pollHted, or because that community does not expect
to need that aquifer. From the perspective o? protecting the
mater supply, decisions as to the future "need" for an aquifer
should be made on the regional or state love], not on the
community level. In reality, most of these decisions are still
local ones.
Thos, busines~ is likely to face additional costs if
preFosats to protect aquifer mater more fully are enacted.
lg
Hoeever, compared to costs required by existing legislation,
these should be moderate - some additiona! costs for disposal,
some additional taxes, practically no increase in the real cost
of eater, or in the costs of siting. Not protecting the aquifer,
and allowing it to become polluted, is likely to cause sub-
stantia! increases in eater costs.
.5 UlrJJ~A RY
BusLness has already incurred costs under existing requ-
lotions to protect our eater supply. These have been substantial.
However, they are also generating benefits. Additiona! regulations
to fully protect aquifers are not t~kely to add substantially
to costs. ~oeever, not regulating and alloeing the aqu£fers
to become polluted eill greatly increase the cost or Fresh eater
and the cost or water to business.
REFERENCES
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
Barron, James and Frances Cerra. "Garbage Disposal Costs to Soar as Era of
Landfill Ends." New York Times, July 7, 1980, pp. Al, B6.
Battelle Columbus Labs, OH. The Cost of Clean Air and Water, Report to Con~ress.
Prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Planning and
Evaluation. Washington D. C., August 1979.
Bulkeley, William M. '~ore Companies Treat Wastes ~_emically to Remove Poisons.¥
Wall Street Journal, September 26, 1980, p. 33.
Center for Policy Alternatives at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Benefits of Environmental, Health and Safety Regulation. Prepared for the
Committee on Governmental Affairs, U. S. Senate. Washington, D. C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, March 25, 1980.
Cerra, Frances. "Garbage-to-Fuel Recycling in U. S. Moves Slowly, Mired in
Problems." New York Times, August 19, 1980, pp. Al, B9.
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. Ground Water Assessment
and Cost Estimates. Submitted to the Connecticut General Assembly December 7,
1978.
Huffmire, Madelyn M. Ground Water Law in Connecticut. (Unpublished)
Mills, Edwin S. Economics of Environmental Ouatity. New York: W. W. Norton
& Co., 1978.
New England River Basins Commission. Before the Well Runs Dry: Literature
Survey and Analysis of Water Conservation. Sponsored by the U. S. Department
of Interior, Geological Survey, Resources and Land Investigations Program.
July, 1980.
Office of Policy and Management. Connecticut Conservation and Development
Policies Plan, Proposed Revision 1979. Hartford, CT: March 1978.
"The People of Tucson are National Leaders in Conserving Water." New York
Times, June 8, 1980.
Rosenberg, John S. "The Prospect is a Scarcity of Water." New York Times,
May 20, 1979, Connecticut Section pp. 1, 11.
Salpukas, Agis. "Technblogy: Disposing of Toxic Waste." New York Times,
June 19, 1980, p. D2.
Sasnett, Sam. Growth and Water: Can We Maintainthe Pressure? League of
Women Voters Education Fund.. Washington, D.C., 1977.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Draft Economic Impact Analysis 1979.
In Everybody's Problem: hazardous waste. S.W.-826. Washington, D. C., 1980.
'While Poisons Fester..." New York Times Editorial, September 29, 1980, p. A34.