WATER RESOURCES BULLETIN VOL. 9, NO. 5 AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION OCTOBER 1973

WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT: THE CASE FOR RIVER BASIN AUTHORITIES’

J. L. Thomas’

ABSTRACT. There is a lamentable absence of comprehensive planning in the current cursade to improve water quality. A serious shortcoming is the lack of evaluation of the effects of waste water treatment upon environmental quality. At some point in time the public may ask what they have obtained for their money. The nature of pollution in a river basin demands a coordinated attack against it. Engineering and economic criteria suggest that a properly empowered river basin authority would be the logical organization to plan and operate a water quality management system. Several forms of such authorities have operated effectively and efficiently for many years in the United States and other industrialized countries. Examples of successful river basin authorities and their advantages and methods of operation are discussed. (KEY TERMS: water management; water quality management; river basin authorities; pollution control; water planning)

Nothing is so fatal to good engineering as the habit of arriving at conclusions before every possibility has been thoroughly examined.

Arthur J. Morgan

INTRODUCTION

The responsibility for managing the water and related land resources of the Nation’s river basins is shared by a myriad of Federal, State, and local governmental units. Traditionally, water institutions have emerged through the convergence of various forces, often in response to a specific problem. This “crisis-oriented” approach, characteristic of our society, has resulted in a severe fragmentation and overlapping of authority. The present concern is with water quality. The public is demanding -- and rightfully so -- that the Nation’s strearm be cleaned up. The elimination of pollution is a legitimate national goal. But it should be done in a rational manner, which requires comprehensive planning and coordinated implementation on a river basin or regional basis.

‘Paper No. 73044 of the Water Resources Bulletin. Discussions are open until April 1,1974. ’Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering, Ohio University, Athens, Ohio.

884

WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT 885

CURRENT APPROACHES TO WATER POLLUTION CONTROL

A serious analysis of current efforts to improve the quality of our nation’s waterways reveals many inefficiencies, some of which can be traced to the fragmentation of authority. With few exceptions, the “shotgun” approach is being utilized to reach the goal of higher quality water. Such an attempt may eventually be successful, but it will undoubtedly cost many billions of dollars more than if a coordinated attack were planned and executed. One should ask, for example, will X dollars used for the construction of a treatment plant at A do more to improve the quality of the river than the use of X dollars for a treatment plant at B or to upgrade an existing plant at C? Or could the desired quality level be obtained by a combination of means, i.e. treatment plants, relocation of discharge points, flow regulation, instream aeration, etc., at a lower cost than the construction of separate treatment facilities for each source of waste water? Only in rare instances are such questions even asked.

In fact, there is a shocking dearth of coherent planning in the current crusade to improve water quality. The most serious shortcoming of present approaches to quality improvement of streams is the lack of a reliable evaluation of the effects of waste water treatment plants. Little assessment is made of the degree to which a treatment plant will actually upgrade environmental quality. Current waste water treatment is based on escalating standards for municipal sewage treatment effluent. There is limited evidence to suggest that water quality will substantially improve after construction of such facilities even if design standards are matched by the performance of the plant. Other sources, such as storm runoff from urban and agricultural areas and natural wastes, may continue to degrade the quality. Or the growing “population equivalent” of our waste production may, in a few years, offset the improvement gained by the plant. Despite the huge expenditures in recent years for the construction of waste water treatment plants, water quality has continued to deteriorate. The Council of Environmental Quality (1972) reports that 29% of the country’s streams and shorelines were polluted in 1971 compared to 27% in 1970. A newspaper article describes the situation in more forceful terms, “the federal government -- 15 years, $3 billion and seven laws after immersing itself in the fight to clean America’s waters -- has yet to reduce pollution in any major body of water” (Athens Messenger, 1971).

Efforts to control water quality have emphasized setting quality standards for streams, regulating the concentrations and volumes of discharges, and trying to enforce these regulations. Such efforts have been encouraged by federal grants for the construction of waste treatment facilities by municipalities and tax relief for industries installing pollution control equipment. The enforcement-subsidy approach to controlling water pollution has in most instances met with minimal success, primarily because of the inerent lack of incentive in waste water treatment. The benefits of treatment acrue not to those who pay for it, but to downstream users.

Tax deduction programs offer little economic incentive to polluters. Industries receive no financial return on most investment in pollution control equipment. In addition, there is no guarantee that an industry will bear the cost of effectively operating and maintaining pollution control devices.

The construction grant program, initiated in 1956, has formed the major thrust of the federal effort in the area of water pollution control. Federal money has aided considerably in the construction of new treatment plants. There have been, however, undesirable effects of the massive federal involvement:

886 Thomas

1. The heavy emphasis on construction grants implies that the solution to water

2. Industries were encouraged to channel their waste into a municipal treatment plant

3. Local action was deterred in the hopes that the proportion of federal money would

4. Enforcement action against polluters waned while efforts were intensified to shift

State efforts to secure adequate control of pollution have been ineffective for several reasons, including lack of money, trained personnel, and political strength. Thus, the federal government was eventually required to step in to secure standards and to enforce them, in addition to providing construction grants, Unfortunately, the grants have too often been doled out according to the “pork-barrel’’ tradition. Plants chosen are not subsidized because of their prospect of substantially improving the quality of the stream, but because local officials have cleared all the hurdles to meet federal requirements and have sufficient political appeal.

But given the prevailing domestic scene, with numerous clean water crusaders demanding immediate solutions to problems which have been building for decades, further delays for detailed planning would have been politically unacceptable. Thus the Federal government was forced to work within the established framework to get something done. The establishment, in this case, meant city governments which are notoriously local-minded. Several factors tend to discourage city councils from committing city money to anything but city controlled projects. Any immediate attempts at regionalized or basin-wide planning would generally have met stiff resistence.

Now, however, after the nation has committed itself to improving the quality of our environment, it is time to return to rationality to do the job right. It is incredulous to do SO little long term planning for such a formidable task as cleaning up our streams. At some point in time the public may stop and ask what they have obtained for the billions of dollars in taxes used for the construction of municipal waste water treatment plants and the higher prices paid for goods from plants which raised prices to pay for installing pollution control equipment. William D. Ruckelshaus, Administrator of the Environ- mental Protection Age ncy summarized the situation by saying, “The American people, I am convinced, want to have their environment made clean again, but they want it done responsibly and wisely” (Ruckelshaus, 1972).

Federal regulations encourage long term planning on three levels, basin wide, regional and metropolitan, but little money is available to prepare long range plans, Good planning requires time, money, and expertise. But, current interpretation of official policy encourages only a superficial plan in order to qualify for federal money. Planning for water quality inprovement, however, is a dynamic process that cannot cease when “the plan” is published. Indeed, dynamic planning is only one facet of a coordinated water quality management program which requires constant intercourse between many different elements involved in the system, including the waste generator, water user, the general public, and the regulating agencies. Too often a plan is considered the final answer when, in fact, it should be only a point of departure. But who will be responsible for keeping a plan dynamic - the federal agency which accepts the plan as a basis for awarding construction grants, the regulating agencies which established standards for the stream, or those who originally drew up the plan?

pollution is to build sewage treatment plants.

rather than treat it within their own facilities.

increase.

more of the burden to the federal government.

WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT 887

NEED FOR COORDINATION IN OPERATING TREATMENT FACILITIES

The very nature of pollution in a river system demands a central authority to coordinate the attack against it. A total ban on all waste discharges would be one way of improving the quality of the water, but even if physically possible, the upheavals resulting from such a policy would be staggering. The rational approach suggests bringing the water quality in a stream to an acceptable level with a minimum expenditure and then adopting a policy to encourage further enhancement of quality.

Rivers have a natural capacity to assimilate a certain waste load without imparing the quality of the water itself. I t is only reasonable to utilize this self purifying process. This regenerative ability, however, varies from reach to reach on the same stream, with the pollutants already in the water, and with time. For example, a given section of a stream may be able to absorb an appreciable waste load during high flows in the spring of the year, but the same waste load in a low flow period would be excessive. Thus, some plants could tailor their degree of treatment, and corresponding cost, to the assimilative capacity of the stream. In addition, instream aeration at strategic locations may be more effective and cost less than individual treatment of waste by each polluter. Or the construction of reservoirs for flow augmentation may be more economical than collection and separate treatment of waste.

Waste treatment should not be advanced, however, at the expense of waste prevention. According to the Council of Economic Quality (1972), “Even if all discharges of municipal and industrial pollution were stopped, many streams would still be polluted as a result of discharges from runoff sources.” Thus, proper land use can prevent some forms of pollution, such as agricultural runoff and acid mine drainage, from reaching waterways and becoming a problem. Land use planning cannot be segregated from water resources planning

The economies theoretically possible by developing a basin wide system to combat water pollution cannot be realized, however, if no adequate organization is present to implement the plan. Moreover, water pollution control is only one facet of a water resources system. There are many components in a water resource system subject to manipulation and control, including physical facilities such as ground and surface reservoirs, diversion works, treatment plants, and power plants, and nonstructural measures such as flood plain zoning, urser charges, and effluent charges. Water supply, energy production, irrigation, navigation, and other uses of a water resource must be considered along with water quality enhancement in the context of water management. In fact, an efficient water management system involves a very wide spectrum of activities, including long range and short range planning, collecting and analyzing data, monitoring the stream quality, enforcing standards, collecting effluent charges, operating storage reservoirs and treatment facilities, etc. Engineering and economic analysis suggest that a river basin authority would be the logical organization to plan and operate a water quality management system.

ORGANIZATION AND OPERATION OF RIVER BASIN AUTHORITIES

An effective attack against water pollution would be greatly facilitated by the establishment of an independent river basin authority for each major drainage basin of the country. But in addition to planning, the agency should have broad powers to implement its plans, as well as the flexibility to adjust to changing conditions. Such an

888 Thomas

authority should be responsible for all water resource activities within its jurisdiction, including the control of water borne waste. It would control waste by various means, including operating its own or municipal or industrial treatment plants, flow augmenta- tion, instream aeration, land disposal, regulating the spatial and time discharge of wastes, and others. I t could attempt to devise the optimum combination of available programs to combat pollution.

Financed initially be a federal grant the agency would have the power to issue bonds and to collect effluent charges from industries, municipalities, and individuals discharging wastes into the waters of the basin. The effluent charges levied should be set high enough to cover the cost of treating the waste. Roberts (1970) suggests that by charging the polluters in this manner, the costs of pollution would be a normal production cost for firms and provide an economic incentive for an industry to reduce its waste production. It would convince a polluter that the use of a stream to transport waste is not a service provided free by nature.

Operationally, the authority should have a competent full time staff to carry out its obligations. One of the basic planning steps would be a computer simulation model of the river system. This model could probably be most economically developed by a consulting firm or university with experience in modeling the hydrology and certain water quality parameters of a complex river system. Once developed, however, the model should be accessible to the authority’s own staff for management purposes. In fact, such a model would probably be continuously improved and enlarged as additional data and more refined simulation techniques become available, Computer models are now utilized to predict, with a fair degree of accuracy, the hydrology of a basin and the time and spatial variation of certain quality parameters, such as dissolved oxygen, pH, dissolved solids, and others (Thomann, 1972; Dallaire, 1971). Mathematical modeling of the complex reactions occurring in streams lacks the precision of many other engineering calculations, but with sufficient data to calibrate a model for a particular stream useful simulations are obtainable. Such models are mandatory tools for the analysis of complex water quality management systems and for the accompanying economic calculations required to achieve the optimum plan.

Armed with an adequate computer model the authority would be prepared to perform its main tasks, wich include:

1. adoption of standards for water quality within the basin, 2. development of plans and regulations to obtain the desired water quality, 3. implementation of the plan, 4. operation of a network of stations to monitor the water quality to insure

compliance with standards and to provide information for day-today management decisions,

5. continual upgrading and revision of standards and rules as necessary to meet changing conditions.

INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT

Perhaps the biggest obstacles to the establishment of river basin agencies relate to their political structure. Political scientists argue that such authorities are undesirable, ineffective and undemocratic (Whipple, 1972; Freeman and Havemen, 1971). In fact, various forms of river basin authorities have been operating effectively in the U.S. and other countries for many years.

WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT 889

The Miami Conservancy District in Oh10 has been active for over 40 years in successful river basin management. Organized originally to control flooding the District has pioneered in many areas of water management, most recently in developing basin-wide plans for pollution control (Miami Conservancy District, 1970). Similar districts in this country and Canada have also succeeded in gaining public confidence by sound water management programs.

Since few major watersheds are entirely intrastate, however, some mechanism for cooperation and coordination is necessary for efficient basin-wide water management. Voluntary compliance with suggested standards is inherently unsatisfactory, On the other hand, the federally empowered Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), a product of the great depression, has accomplished much, but the creation of such a powerful federal entity in other basins would certainly, and probably rightfully, be opposed bitterly because of its relative a u t ~ n o m y . ~ The more normal procedure has been to compromise between ineffective voluntary agreements and the all powerful federal corporation through means of interstate compacts.

The interstate compact provides a viable framework for river basin management if properly conceived and empowered. The Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (ORSANCO), created by interstate compact in 1948, has limited powers and financial resources. I t is severely restricted because the eight states contribute less than $200,000 per year to the Commission’s budget (ORSANCO, 1970). In addition, any member state can veto an enforcement action. Nevertheless, its small and dedicated staff, relying heavily on the weapons of “education and cajolery” (Cleary, 1967) has catalyzed a considerable improvement in water quality along the main stem of the Ohio River.

The Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) was created by compact in 1961 to manage the water resources of the Delaware River Basin. DRBC is governed by a board consisting of members from each of the four states and the federal government, with each of the five members having an equal voice. Only a majority vote is necessary for action. The Commission is a significant improvement over ORSANCO; it has broad powers to regulate the water resources under its jurisdiction and to protect and improve water quality. Thus far, it has used its enforcement powers sparingly and has concentrated instead upon a systematic analysis of the basin in order to determine the most efficient scheme to improve water quality. The Commission is now beginning to implement its plans (Delaware River Basin Commission, 1971).

Several European countries have established independent authorities to administer the water resources of major river basins. In Germany, for example, the heavily industrialized Ruhr district administers its water resources through eight large water associations referred to as the “Genossenschaften.” For over 60 years the Genossenschaften have planned and implemented comprehensive plans for water supply, waste treatment, flood control, and related activities. France passed a law in 1964 establishing regional water management agencies for each of the six major basins in the country. At about the same time (1963), England created river basin authorities on each of her 29 drainage areas. Recently she announced plans to further consolidate into nine regional agencies by 1974 in order to more effectively manage water and waste water problems (Department of the Environment, 197 1).

Experience in the United States and other countries indicates that workable

TVA is relatively independent of other agencies and local authorities. Its three-man Board is responsible only to the President and to Congress.

890 Thomas

institutional arrangements can be developed to effectively and efficiently manage the water resources of an entire river basin. The exact nature of a river basin authority may vary from region to region, depending upon local problems. Ranney (1972), for example, proposed several alternative institutional arrangements for the Wisconsin River based on administrative and political criteria developed from a major interdisciplinary research effort. Solomon (1971), Roberts (1970), and Kneese and Bower (1968) are among others who have examined the role of river basin authorities in water management and suggested criteria for their formation and operation.

ADVANTAGES OR RIVER BASIN AUTHORITIES

Obviously, the primary argument for a river basin authority is that it will be more efficient than the institutions now active in water management. By utilizing the economies of scale available through comprehensive planning and coordinated operation over a large region, the river basin authority should give the taxpayer more for his money.

I t will also have the following advantages: 1. Flexibility. The Authority would not have to adopt blanket rules and regulations,

but could adjust operating procedures to match stream hydrology, water quality, and abatement technology. I t could also respond effectively to emergencies such as accidental discharges of waste.

2. Stability. An effective authority should be able to attract and hold top quality personnel to regulate the water resources and to operate treatment facilities. Policies developed would be consistently applied over the long term. With a system of effluent charges, no economic advantages could be gained by delaying pollution abatement. In short, a river basin authority would signify the reality of a long term commitment to end pollution and improve the management of the water resources.

Many will argue that river basin authorities are incompatible with the apparent trend toward decentralization of government. I t has been amply demonstrated, however, that state and local governments are ineffective institutions to combat water pollution. Interstate waters should clearly be under the control of a higher authority. If the nation is serious about cleaning up the environment, some agency must be given the necessary responsibility and power to get the job done efficiently.

CONCLUSIONS

While the basic river basin approach to water management has proven to be effective, and other industrialized countries are increasing their activity in this area, the United States government, although admitting the advantages of coordinated attack on water pollution, has chosen to deemphasize the use of river basin authorities (Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, 1970). The present policy of attempting to solve water pollution problems by appropriating more money for individual projects may eventually be successful, but there are many other demands upon the nation’s resources. If excessive capital is expended on waste treatment facilities without appreciable improvement in the quality of our streams, the public will lose confidence, and the entire program will be overwhelmed by politics and cynicism. Reasonableness dictates a basin-wide approach for an efficient attack upon water pollution. Furthermore, a properly empowered river basin authority would be the logical institution to plan and implement a coordinated water quality management program.

WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT 89 1

LITERATURE CITED

Athens Messenger. 1971. Water Battle Dubbed Washout. Athens (Ohio) Messenger, 1 2 April 1971. Clearly, Edward J. 1967. The ORSANCO Story: Water Quality Management in the Ohio Valley Under

Council on Environmental Quality. 1972. Environmental Quality. Annual Report to the President. Dallaire, Eugene E. 1971. The U. S. Water-quality Program: Desperate Need for Planning. Civil

Delaware River Basin Commission. 1971. Annual Report. Trenton, New Jersey. Department of the Environment. 1971. Reorganization of Water and Sewage Services% Government

Proposals and Arrangements for Consultation. Circular 92/71.2 December. London, England. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration. 1970. The Economics of Clean Water. Vol. 1, Annual

Report to Congress. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Freeman, A. Myrick 111 and Robert H. Haveman. 1971. Water Pollution Control, River Basin

Authorities and Economic Incentives, Resources of the Future. Washington, D. C. Reprint Number 9 2.

Kneese, Allen V. and Blair T. Bower. 1968. Managing Water Quality: Economics, Technology, Institutions. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Maryland.

Miami Conservancy District. 197. Water Quality Management. Annual Report of Water Conservation Subdistrict. Dayton, Ohio.

ORSANCO. 1970. Annual Report. Ohio River Valley Sanitation Commission, Cincinnati, Ohio. Ranney, David C. 1972. Water Quality Management - An Analysis of Institutional Patterns. University

of Wisconsin Press. Madison, Wisconsin. Roberts, Marc J. 1970. River Basin Authorities: A National Solution to Water Pollution. Harvard Law

Review. LXXXIII (May, 1970) 1527-1556. Ruckelshous, William D. 1972. Where do Natural Resources Stand in Public Priorities? National

Wildlife Federation. Conservation News Vol. 36, No. 25. Solomon, Richard A. 1971. Additional Alternative Amngements for River Basins and other Regions:

The Federal-State Regional Government Corporation. P.B. 202 997. The National Water Commission, Arlington, Virginia.

Thomann, Robert V. 1972. Systems Analysis and Water Quality Management. Environmental Science Services. New York, New York.

Whipple, William, JI. 1972. Water Pollution Control Institutions. American Society of Civil Engineers Journal, Vol. 98, No. P.P. 1.

an Interstate Compact. Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Maryland.

Engineering, September, 1971.