IN FO R M A T IO N TO U SERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original docum ent. While the m ost advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this docum ent have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the docum ent photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication th at the photographer suspected th at the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite m ethod in "sectioning" the material. It is custom ary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate th a t the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Z eeb Road Ann A rbor, M ichigan 48106 75-20,820 CHRISTENSEN, Lee Allen, 1938AN ECONOMIC AND INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS OF LAND TREATMENT AS A WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE FOR SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1975 Economics, agricultural Xerox University Microfilms, A nn A rb o r, M ic h ig a n 4 8 1 0 6 AN ECONOMIC AND INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS OF LAND TREATMENT AS A WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT ALTERNATIVE FOR SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN By Lee A l l e n C h r i s t e n s e n A DISSERTATION S ubm itted to M ichigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i ty in p a r t i a l f u lf illm e n t of the req u irem en ts f o r th e degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY D epartm ent o f A g r i c u l t u r a l E conom ics ABSTRACT C om m unities a r e e v a l u a t i n g l a n d t r e a t m e n t a s a w a s t e w a t e r management a l t e r n a t i v e req u irem en ts. A p u b lic e n tity ment sy s te m r e q u i r e s w illin g n ess how i t to m eet w a te r q u a l i t y im p lem enting a la n d t r e a t ­ access or rig h ts to land. The o f a la n d o w n e r t o p r o v i d e a c c e s s d e p e n d s on effects h is g o als. T h i s s t u d y was u n d e r t a k e n t o a n a l y z e a c q u i s i t i o n and management o p t i o n s fo r land t r e a t m e n t s y s te m s and t o e v a l u a t e t h e econom ic and i n s t i ­ tu tio n al im pacts o f la n d t r e a t m e n t . T h e a n a l y s i s was i n t h r e e tio n o f the (2) sectio n s; land tre a tm e n t c o n cep t and i t s an i n s t i t u t i o n a l a n a l y s i s acq u irin g property rig h ts id en tify in g a d escrip ­ a p p lica tio n s, o p tio n s for and m anaging farm o p e r a t i o n s e v a l u a t i n g th e im pacts o f t h e s e o p tio n s w astew ater a u th o r ity (1) g o als, and (3) and on f a r m e r and an e m p i r ic a l a n a l y s i s o f t h e i m p a c t s o f l a n d t r e a t m e n t on c r o p s a n d f a r m a n d r e g i o n a l p r o d u c t io n and re v e n u e , th e s e im pacts to a l t e r n a t i v e p rice, crop r o t a t i o n , and th e s e n s i t i v i t y assum ptions o f y i e l d and i r r i g a t i o n Land t r e a t m e n t i s response, co st. a w a s t e w a t e r management a l t e r n a t i v e t h a t sh o u ld be e v a lu a te d in term s o f s p e c i f i c co n d itio n s. of com m unity A la n d t r e a t m e n t sy ste m can be d e s ig n e d t o Lee A l l e n C h r i s t e n s e n m axim ize w a s t e w a t e r r e n o v a t i o n , tio n , t o m axim ize c ro p p r o d u c ­ o r t o com bine b o t h o b j e c t i v e s . are pursued, When b o t h o b j e c t i v e s re g io n a l crop p ro d u c tio n can in c re a s e and w a s t e w a t e r r e n o v a t i o n c a n o c c u r w i t h o u t m a jo r com m unity d isru p tio n s. A system d e s ig n e d p r i m a r i l y fo r ren o v atio n can i n c r e a s e r e g i o n a l f o r a g e p r o d u c t i o n s and re d u c e g r a i n p ro d u c tio n and d i s r u p t e x i s t i n g channels fo r production in ­ p u t d i s t r i b u t i o n and c ro p m a r k e tin g . The a c q u i s i t i o n o p t i o n s u s e d r e f l e c t v a r y i n g c a p a c i ­ tie s o f com m unities to im pose t h e c o s t s t r e a t m e n t on la n d o w n e rs , o f w astew ater and im p a ct d i f f e r e n t l y g o a l s o f f a r m e r s arid w a s t e w a t e r a u t h o r i t i e s . o p tio n s in clu d e than fe e , tio n is fee sim p le, re a l p ro p erty and c o n t r a c t u a l a g re e m e n ts . A cq u isitio n in te re sts economy. to other Fee s i m p l e a c q u i s i ­ t h e m ost c o s t l y o p t i o n t o an a u t h o r i t y d isru p tiv e on t h e and c an be i n d i v i d u a l fa rm e rs and th e a g r i c u l t u r a l E asem ents a r e an a c q u i s i t i o n than fee i n t e r e s t , w ith th e c o n d itio n s o p tio n fo r o th e r of access i n an a g re e m e n t b e tw e e n t h e f a r m e r and a u t h o r i t y . sp ecified Through c o n t r a c t u a l agreem en ts o r th ro u g h th e fo rm a tio n o f w a s te ­ w ater c o o p e ra tiv e s , acq u irin g p ro p erty access t o l a n d can be o b t a i n e d w i t h o u t rig h ts. B re a k e v e n and s e n s i t i v i t y a n a l y s i s w ere u se d t o e s ­ tim a te th e im pacts o f a l t e r n a t i v e crops, th e farm firm , d ata s e ts and th e r e g i o n . on i n d i v i d u a l Crop y i e l d in creases r e q u i r e d to o f f s e t i r r i g a t i o n c o s t s were e s t i m a t e d w ith a number o f p r i c e and c o s t a s s u m p t i o n s f o r c o r n , soybeans, Lee A l l e n C h r i s t e n s e n dry b e an s, w heat, and a l f a l f a . 320 a c r e a n d 580 a c r e a ltern a tiv e revenues The t o t a l revenues of a farm w ere e s t im a te d w ith i r r i g a t i o n , crop r o t a t i o n s , in creased fo r a l l y ield s, and p r i c e s . ro tatio n s T o tal but e s p e c ia lly w ith r o t a t i o n s w ith l a r g e a c r e a g e s o f c o rn and d ry b e a n s . to ta l irrig a tio n co sts fo r th e in d iv id u al The farm s were o f f s e t by i n c r e a s e d r e v e n u e s o n l y w i t h t h e m ost o p t i m i s t i c y i e l d i n c r e a s e and p r i c e a ssu m p tio n s . The i m p a c t o f a l a n d t r e a t m e n t p r o j e c t on r e g i o n a l p r o d u c t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s S o u t h e a s t e r n M i c h i g a n was r e l a t i v e l y slig h t, e s t im pact o c c u rre d in c o rn p r o d u c tio n . firm s, for and t h e g r e a t ­ As w i t h t h e f a r m n e t r e v e n u e s i n c r e a s e d o n l y w hen a h i g h p r o p o r t i o n of the annual i r r i g a t i o n c o s t s was p a i d b y t h e w a s t e w a t e r a u th o rity . L and t r e a t m e n t h a s im p lica tio n s w ater a u t h o r i t i e s , and t h e r e g i o n . tu n ity farm r e v e n u e s , to in c re a s e irrig a tio n co sts fo r farm ers, w aste­ I t p r o v id e s an o p p o r­ esp ecially i f most o f t h e a r e p a i d by t h e w a s t e w a t e r a u t h o r i t y . sim p le a c q u i s i t i o n has th e g r e a t e s t d i s r u p t i v e farm ers, the exact e x te n t the a u th o rity land c o s t. its It Fee s i m p le a c q u i s i t i o n the g r e a te s t c o n tro l, e n a b le s an a u t h o r i t y own g o a l s . Less th a n f e e r i g h t s bu t a t a high to u n i l a t e r a l l y economy. less d isru p tiv e to pursue re d u c e s c o n t r o l from a w a s t e w a t e r management v i e w p o i n t , b u t r e d u c e s a u t h o r i t y and i s i m p a c t on i n f l u e n c e d by t h e m a n a g e m e n t o p t i o n s e l e c t e d by t h e a u t h o r i t y . gives Fee costs to the the a g r i c u l t u r a l ACKNOWLEDGMENTS T h e a u t h o r w i s h e s t o e x t e n d s i n c e r e a p p r e c i a t i o n and t h a n k s to a l l who a s s i s t e d in th e p r e p a r a tio n o f t h is m an u scrip t. The s t u d y p r o g r a m and t h e s i s ly from t h e in sig h ts, o f the th e s is Dr. L arry J. su g g estio n s, p rep aratio n and c o n s t r u c t i v e c riticism s a d v i s o r and C hairm an o f t h e G uidance C o m m itte e , Connor, and from o t h e r s L a r r y W. L i b b y , D r . , J o h n R. B r a k e , G ratitu d e is on t h e c o m m itte e , e x p r e s s e d t o D r. M e l v i n C o t n e r , s u p p o r t f o r t h e w ork. e x p r e s s e d to M rs. F r a n c e s M c D e v itt, Mrs. M iss D e n i s e Chaya f o r S u san M i d d l e t o n , Mrs. H elen e B la n k , M rs. A l i c e H a r r i s , t h e i r p a t i e n t and u n t i r i n g i n e d i t i n g and ty p in g o f e a r l i e r d r a f t s , for s ta tis tic a l and Dr. N o r t h e a s t e r n R e s o u r c e G r o u p L e a d e r , NRE, f o r a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and t e c h n i c a l Thanks i s D irecto r ERS, D r . V e l m a r D eputy D i r e c t o r f o r E n v iro n m e n ta l S t u d i e s , John H o s te tle r , Dr. and Dr. M i l to n S t e i n m u e l l e r . o f t h e N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s Econom ics D i v i s i o n , D avis, benefited g r e a t ­ assistan ce, and a ssistan ce to M ichael L u th e r and to M rs. N i t a C am pbell f o r ty p in g and asse m b lin g th e f i n a l m a n u s c rip t. F in ally , and th e love, w ithout t h e b a c k g r o u n d p r o v i d e d by my p a r e n t s encouragem ent, c h i l d r e n L o ri and B ryan, undone. T heir s a c r i f i c e s th is a n d s u p p o r t o f my w i f e Dawn, a n d e n d e a v o r would h a v e re m a in e d a re deeply a p p re c ia te d . TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. Page INTRODUCTION ............................................................................. The P r o b l e m ............................................................ 1 O b j e c t i v e s and Scope o f t h e Study . . . . O b j e c t i v e s ........................................................................ S c o p e ...................................................................... 8 O rg an izatio n II. ........................................................................ THE LAND TREATMENT CONCEPT ......................... B a c k g r o u n d on W a s t e w a t e r T r e a t m e n t . . . . 1 6 6 9 11 11 The R e a s o n f o r P u b l i c I n v e s t m e n t . . . . T r e a t m e n t S y s t e m G r o w th a n d C o s t s . . . W aste w ate r T re a tm e n t Problem s f o r R u r a l C o m m u n i t i e s ....................................... 14 W a s t e w a t e r T r e a t m e n t M e t h o d s .......................... 11 13 Land T r e a t m e n t - An H i s t o r i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e D e s c r i p t i o n o f L a n d T r e a t e m e n t ............. 22 17 G o a l s o f Land T r e a t m e n t ....................... 22 Land T r e a t m e n t A l t e r n a t i v e s .......................... I r r i g a t i o n ...................................................... 25 O v e r l a n d F l o w ............................................ 26 I n f i l t r a t i o n - P e r c o l a t i o n ............................... O t h e r T r e a t m e n t A p p r o a c h e s ............. 28 A p p l i c a t i o n M ethods .............................................. S p r a y I r r i g a t i o n ....................................... R i d g e a n d F u r r o w ....................................... F l o o d i n g ........................................................... Im p o rtan t P h y s ic a l P aram eters 24 28 29 29 31 31 ..................... S o i l L o a d i n g F a c t o r s ............................ 33 A p p lic a tio n R ates .............................................. System s Abandonment ......................................... iii 15 32 38 . 38 Chapter Page C r o p Y i e l d R e s p o n s e .......................................... Land T r e a t m e n t A p p l i c a t i o n s . .......................... Muskegon C o u n ty , M i c h i g a n , W a s t e w a t e r Management S y s t e m .. . . P e n n s y l v a n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ..................... N a t i o n a l C om munity S u r v e y ............................... M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Campus W a t e r P l a n ................................................................... M i c h i g a n Com munity E x p e r i e n c e ..................... S o u th e a s te r n M ichigan W astew ater Management S tu d y .................................................... III.’ 39 40 41 46 49 50 52 52 CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK.................................................... 54 The R e l a t i o n s h i p o f I n s t i t u t i o n s t o Land T r e a t m e n t .............................................. A c q u i s i t i o n and Management O p t i o n s . . . 54 57 Fee S im ple A c q u i s i t i o n .................................... 57 ......................................... 60 P u r c h a s e a n d M a n a g e .................................... P u rc h a se and L ea se b ac k .......................... P u r c h a s e and R e s a l e on C o n d i t i o n . 60 61 63 R e a l P r o p e r t y I n t e r e s t O t h e r T h an F e e . No R e a l P r o p e r t y I n t e r e s t - C o n t r a c t u a l A g r e e m e n t ........................................................................ 64 C o n t r a c t s ................................................................... W a s t e w a t e r C o o p e r a t i v e s ............................... T r a n s f e r o f Developm ent R ig h ts . . . 68 70 71 The I m p a c t o f A c q u i s i t i o n a n d M a n a g e m e n t O p t i o n s on F a r m e r ’ s G o a l s .................................... 72 M a n ag e m ent O p t i o n s G o a l s F r a m e w o r k ......................................................... Some H y p o t h e s i z e d I m p a c t s o f O p t i o n s o n F a r m e r ' s G o a l s .................................................... Fee Sim ple A c q u i s i t i o n 67 72 74 ............................... 75 P u r c h a s e a n d M a n a g e .................................... P u rc h a s e and L ea se b ac k .......................... 75 77 R e a l P r o p e r t y I n t e r e s t s O t h e r Than F e e .................................................................................. 78 Chapter Page Easem ent P u rch ase IV ......................................... 78 C o n t r a c t u a l A g r e e m e n t s - No R e a l P roperty I n te r e s ts ......................................... 79 C o n t r a c t s w i t h F a r m e r s ...................... W astew ater C o o p e ra tiv e .......................... 79 80 BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY FOR THE EVALUA­ TION OF LAND TREATMENT IN SOUTHEASTERN M I C H I G A N .......................................................................... 82 R egional D e lin e a tio n .............................................. S o u t h e a s t e r n M ichigan W aste w ate r Management S tu d y ......................................................... S o i l s I n f o r m a t i o n ........................................... P l a n D e v e l o p m e n t ........................................ 1 . 82 83 83 . 85 M ethodology f o r Firm and R e g io n a l A n a l y s i s C r o p Y i e l d s .......................................................... 91 Product P ric e s ......................................................... P r o d u c t i o n I n p u t s a n d C o s t s .......................... 92 93 N u t r i e n t S u b s t i t u t i o n .................................... I r r i g a t i o n System s D e sig n and C o st . 93 95 C r o p R o t a t i o n s ................................................ V 90 99 SOME IMPACTS OF LAND TREATMENT AT THE FIRM AND REGIONAL L E V E L ................................................ 100 In tro d u ctio n ................................................................... 100 C r o p A n a l y s i s ........................................................... 101 Fa rm F i r m A n a l y s i s ........................................... 106 P r o d u c t i o n and Revenue Changes . . . . D i s t r i b u t i o n of C osts and B e n e f i ts . . R egional A n a ly sis 106 112 ......................................................... 119 H i g h l i g h t s o f C rop, Firm and R e g io n a l A n a l y s i s ..................................................................... 128 C r o p A n a l y s i s ...................................................... F i r m A n a l y s i s ...................................................... 128 129 C ro p R o t a t i o n s ........................................... C o s t S h a r i n g ................................................ 129 131 R egional A n a ly sis v .................................................... 133 Chapter VI Page SUMMARY AND I M P L I C A T I O N S ..................................... 135 S u m m a r y .........................................................................................135 O b j e c t i v e s ................................... . 135 P r o c e d u r e ........................................................................136 C o n c l u s i o n s ......................................................................... 137 D e s c r i p t i v e A n a l y s i s ......................................... I n s t i t u t i o n a l A n a l y s i s .................................... 137 138 139 F e e S i m p l e A c q u i s i t i o n .................................. R e a l P r o p e r t y I n t e r e s t O t h e r Than Fee .........................................................140 No R e a l P r o p e r t y - - C o n t r a c t u a l A g r e e m e n t .................................................................... 140 E m pirical A nalysis .................................................. 141 C r o p A n a l y s i s ................................................... 141 F i r m A n a l y s i s ....................................................142 ......................................... 143 R egional A n a ly s is Im p licatio n s ........................................................................ 144 F a r m e r s ................................................................................... 144 W astew ater A u th o rity ......................................... 146 R e g i o n .........................................................................................149 L i m i t a t i o n s ........................................................................ 151 S u g g estio n s f o r F uture R esearch ..................... 152 \. APPENDICES A PRODUCTION ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIPS APPLICABLE TO LAND TREATMENT...........................................154 B GROSS MARGIN ESTIMATES . C BREAKEVEN AND SENSITIVITY DATA FOR SELECTED CROPS ........................................................................ BIBLIOGRAPHY . . ....................................... 160 .................................................................................................. vi 167 179 LIST OF TABLES Tdble Page 1 E x am p les o f Land T r e a t m e n t O p e r a t i o n s 2 M u n i c i p a l i t i e s U s i n g L an d A p p l i c a t i o n a n d t h e P o p u l a t i o n S e r v e d ................................................................... 22 M etal C o n ten t o f a Sludge A p p r o p r ia te f o r L a n d A p p l i c a t i o n ................................................................... 37 An a s s e s s m e n t o f Some R e l a t i v e I m a p c t s o f L an d A c q u i s i t i o n a n d M a n a g e m e n t O p t i o n s on F a r m e r G o a l s .................................................................................. 76 D e s i g n C a p a c i t y a n d L a n d Use a n d O w n e r s h i p U n d e r A l t e r n a t i v e T r e a t m e n t P l a n s .......................... 88 Summary o f D a t a f o r P r o p o s e d S t . C l a i r a n d Lenawee C ounty I r r i g a t i o n A r e a s , P l a n B . . . 89 ..................................................... 91 3 4 5 6 Crop Y i e l d s . . . . 21 7 A ltern a tiv e 8 A lte r n a tiv e Product P ric e ................................ 92 9 T o t a l Revenue P e r Acre f o r S e l e c t e d Y i e ld and P r i c e S e t s .................................................................................. 94 Sets V. 10 11 12 13 14 I r r i g a t i o n C o s t E s t i m a t e s f o r 160 A c r e C e n t e r P i v o t System T ie d i n t o a 4 S q u are M ile M o d u l e ............................................................................................ 97 C o st C om parisons f o r A l t e r n a t i v e I r r i g a t i o n S y s t e m s .................................................................. 98 T o t a l Revenue P e r Acre and Changes i n T o t a l Revenue A s s o c i a t e d w i t h A l t e r n a t i v e Y ie ld a n d P r i c e C o m b i n a t i o n s , C o r n .................................... 102 I n c r e m e n t a l Corn Y i e l d I n c r e a s e s R e q u ir e d t o B r e a k e v e n on I r r i g a t i o n C o s t s w i t h A l t e r n a t i v e P r i c e s and C o s t s .................................... 103 Net Revenue P e r Acre f o r A l t e r n a t i v e S e ts o f I r r i g a t i o n C o s t s , Y i e ld Changes and P r i c e s , C o r n ............................................................................. 104 v ii Table 15 16 17 18 , 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Page A l t e r n a t i v e C r o p R o t a t i o n s , 320 a n d 580 A c r e F a r m s ....................................................................................... 10 7 T o t a l Revenue and Changes i n T o t a l Revenue w i t h I r r i g a t i o n , A l t e r n a t i v e Crop R o t a t i o n s , Y i e l d s , a n d P r i c e s , 320 A c r e F a r m ........................... 108 T o t a l R evenue and Change i n T o t a l Revenue w i t h I r r i g a t i o n , A l t e r n a t i v e Crop R o t a t i o n s , Y i e l d s , a n d P r i c e s , 580 A c r e F a r m ........................... 109 Changes i n T o t a l Revenue and Net Revenue f o r a 320 A c r e Farm i n a R e g i o n a l W a s t e w a t e r I r r i g a t i o n P r o j e c t w ith A l t e r n a t i v e A ssum ptions on R o t a t i o n , Y i e l d , P r i c e , a n d I r r i g a t i o n C o s t S h a r i n g .................................................................................. 11 5 Changes i n T o t a l Revenue and Net Revenue f o r a 580 A c r e Farm i n a R e g i o n a l W a s t e w a t e r I r r i g a t i o n P r o j e c t w i t h A l t e r n a t i v e Assump­ t i o n s on R o t a t i o n , Y i e l d , P r i c e a n d I r r i g a t i o n C ostS h a rin g ....................................................... 117 E s t i m a t e s o f R e g i o n a l P r o d u c t i o n f r o m a Land T re a tm e n t P ro p o s a l Under A l t e r n a t i v e R o t a t i o n and Y ie ld A ssu m p tio n s, S o u th e a s t M i c h i g a n ............................................................................................ 121 R e g io n a l P ro d u c tio n R equirem ents f o r S o u th ­ e a s t e r n M ic h ig a n W a s t e w a t e r Management S tu d y A r e a , 1 9 80 a n d 2000 122 T o t a l R evenue and Change i n T o t a l R evenue w i t h I r r i g a t i o n , A l t e r n a t i v e Crop R o t a t i o n s , Y i e l d s , a n d P r i c e s , R e g i o n a l Land T reatm ent P r o je c t . 123 Changes i n T o t a l Revenue and Net Revenue f o r a R eg io n al W astew ater I r r i g a t i o n P r o j e c t w ith A l t e r n a t i v e A s s u m p t i o n s on R o t a t i o n , Y i e l d , P r i c e a n d I r r i g a t i o n C o s t ...S h a r i n g ....................... .. , 125 I n c r e m e n t a l Y i e l d s t o B r e a k e v e n on I r r i g a t i o n C o sts Under A l t e r n a t i v e P r i c e s , R e p r e s e n t a t i v e F i e l d C r o p s ..................................................... ......................... 127 I n c r e m e n t a l B r e a k e v e n Y i e l d s Compared t o P r o je c te d Y ield In c re a se s w ith I r r i g a t i o n 128 .. B reakeven P r i c e s to Cover I r r i g a t i o n C osts f o r R e p r e s e n t a t i v e F i e l d Crops and Y i e ld s . . . . viii 130 Table 27 28 29 B -l B-2 B -3 B-4 B -5 B- 6 B-7 C -l C-2 C-3 Page I n d i c e s o f T o t a l R e v e n u e s f o r t h e 320 A c r e Farm M o d e l U n d e r A l t e r n a t i v e R o t a t i o n s , Y i e l d s a n d P r i c e s ........................................................................................ 131 I r r i g a t i o n C o sts O f f s e t by Revenue I n c r e a s e s , 320 A c r e F a r m ............................................................................. 133 A g g r e g a t e d P r o d u c t i o n fro m a Land T r e a t m e n t P r o j e c t as a S hare o f R e g io n a l P ro d u c tio n R equ irem en ts Under A l t e r n a t i v e Y ie ld and R o ta ­ t i o n A ssu m p tio n s, S o u t h e a s t e r n M ichigan . . . 134 C o r n - - E s tim a te d R e tu r n s , V a r i a b l e C o sts and Gross M argin P e r A c re , w i t h and W ith o u t ......................................................... E fflu en t Irrig a tio n . 161 S o y b e a n s --E s tim a te d R e tu rn s , V a r ia b le C osts and G ross M argin P e r A c re , w i t h and W ith o u t E fflu en t Irrig a tio n .............................................................. 162 Dry B e a n s - - E s t i m a t e d R e t u r n s , V a r i a b l e C o s t s and G ross M argin P er A c re , w i t h and W ith o u t E fflu en t I r r ig a tio n .............................................................. 163 W h e a t--E s tim a te d R e tu r n s , V a r ia b le C o sts and Gross M a rg in P e r A c r e , W ith a n d W ith o u t E fflu en t I r r ig a tio n .............................................................. 164 A l f a l f a - - E s t i m a t e d R e tu rn s , V a r ia b le C osts and Gross M argin P e r A c re , w i t h and W ith o u t .............................................................. E fflu en t Irrig a tio n 165 E stim a te d N u tr ie n t C dntent o f A l t e r n a t i v e Am ounts o f E f f l u e n t .............................................................. 166 R equirem ents f o r N u t r i e n t s A p p lied as F e r t i l ­ iz e r , in A d d itio n to E fflu e n t fo r A lte rn a tiv e S o i l s , A p p l i c a t i o n R a t e s , andCrops ....................... 166 T o t a l Revenue P e r A cre and Changes i n T o t a l Revenue A s s o c i a t e d w i t h A l t e r n a t i v e Y i e l d a n d P r i c e C o m b i n a t i o n s , S o y b e a n s ................................... 167 In c re m e n ta l Soybean Y ie ld In c r e a s e s R eq u ired to B re a k e v e n on I r r i g a t i o n C o s ts w i t h A l t e r n a t i v e P r i c e s a n d C o s t s ........................................................................ 168 Net R evenue P e r A cre f o r A l t e r n a t i v e S e t s o f I r r i g a t i o n C o s ts , Y ie ld C hanges, and P r i c e s , S o y b e a n s ............................................................................................. 169 ix p Table C-4 C -5 C-6 C-7 C-8 C-9 C-10 C -ll Page T o ta l Revenue P e r A cre and Changes i n T o t a l Revenue A s s o c i a t e d w ith A l t e r n a t i v e Y i e ld a n d P r i c e C o m b i n a t i o n s , Dry B e a n s ............................... I n c r e m e n t a l Dry B e a n Y i e l d I n c r e a s e s R e q u i r e d t o B re ak e v en on I r r i g a t i o n C o sts w i t h A l t e r ­ n a t i v e P r i c e s a n d C o s t s .................................................... Net Revenue P e r Acre f o r A l t e r n a t i v e S e t s o f I r r i g a t i o n C o s ts , Y ie ld C hanges, and P r i c e s , Dry B e a n s ............................................................................................. T o t a l Revenue P e r A cre and Changes i n T o t a l Revenue A s s o c i a t e d w ith A l t e r n a t i v e Y ie ld a n d P r i c e C o m b i n a t i o n s , W hea t .................................... I n c r e m e n t a l Wheat Y i e l d I n c r e a s e s R e q u ir e d t o B r e a k e v e n on I r r i g a t i o n C o s t s w i t h A l t e r n a t i v e P r i c e s and C o sts .......................................... Net Revenue P e r A cre f o r A l t e r n a t i v e S e t s o f I r r i g a t i o n C o s t s , Y i e l d C h an g es, and P r i c e s , W h e a t ............................................................................. T o t a l Revenue P e r A cre and Changes i n T o t a l Revenue A s s o c i a t e d w ith A l t e r n a t i v e Y ie ld and P r i c e C o m binations ......................................................... In c re m e n ta l A l f a l f a Y ie ld I n c r e a s e s R eq uired t o B r e a k e v e n on I r r i g a t i o n C o s ts w i t h A l t e r n a t i v e P r i c e s and C o sts .................................... 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 \. C -1 2 Net Revenue P e r Acre f o r A l t e r n a t i v e S e t s o f I r r i g a t i o n C o sts , Y ie ld Changes, and P r i c e s , A l f a l f a ............................................................................................ x 178 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 2 3 Page Flow D i a g r a m o f A l t e r n a t i v e W a s t e w a t e r T r e a t m e n t M e t h o d s ................................................................... 18 The W a s t e w a t e r R e n o v a t i o n a n d C o n s e r v a t i o n C y c l e .................................................................................................. 24 . Land A p p l i c a t i o n A p p r o a c h e s ........................................... 25 ..................................... 30 4 B a s i c M ethods o f A p p l i c a t i o n 5 W a s t e w a t e r T r e a t m e n t Z o n es a n d S o i l A s s o c i a t i o n s f o r S o u t h e a s t e r n M ichigan. . . 86 A -l N u t r i e n t S u b s t i t u t i o n Y = f ( X ^ , X 2/ X 3 > . •*>Xn ) 157 A -2 C om p lem en tarity betw een w a te r and n u t r i e n t s .............................................. Y = f ( X 1 , X 2/ X 3 , . . . ,Xn ) 158 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The P r o b l e m The h i e r a r c h y o f p r o b l e m s a d d r e s s e d b eg in s w ith w ater p o l lu t i o n w astew ater tre a tm e n t. resu ltin g in th is study from i n a d e q u a t e Legal req u irem en ts t o c l e a n up t h e w a te r encourage th e c o n s id e r a tio n o f lan d tre a tm e n t as a w a s t e w a t e r management a l t e r n a t i v e . u tiliz in g lan d tre a tm e n t re q u ir e s W astew ater tr e a tm e n t rig h ts t o l a n d h e l d by th e e x is tin g landow ners. A body r e s p o n s i b l e fo r w astew ater treatm en t re q u ire s in su rin g access the lan d . rig h ts to The p r e s e n t l a n d o w n e r may o r may n o t w i s h t o p r o v i d e t h e r e q u i r e d access. T his s tu d y a d d r e s s e s th e problem o f a c q u ir in g la n d r i g h t s and m anaging t r e a t m e n t s y s te m s . W ater p o l l u t i o n h as b e e n , sig n ific an t environm ental tie s sizes of a ll w ater p o llu tio n and c o n tin u e s to b e, a and e co n o m ic p ro b le m f o r communi­ in the U nited S t a te s . is e f f l u e n t from d o m e s tic and i n d u s t r i a l w a s te s w hich i s d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y stream s, riv ers, 7 1/2 b i l l i o n A m ajor so u rc e o f and groundw ater discharged su p p lies. g a llo n s o f w astew ater r e q u ir in g a n d d i s p o s a l was p r o d u c e d d a i l y in 1972. in to A pproxim ately treatm en t T he w a s t e l o a d 2 from m u n ic i p a l system s t h e n e x t 50 y e a r s lev e ls increased i n 84 p e r c e n t o f m a j o r U . S . i n 74 p e r c e n t o f t h e r i v e r s o v e r t h e same EPA p h o s p h o r o u s g u i d e l i n e s w e r e e x c e e d e d i n 54 p e rc en t o f th e riv e r reaches [USEPA, 1 9 7 3 ] . grow th and th e p r o l i f e r a t i o n o f l o c a l i z e d c o n trib u te s m ent. 1970]. th e f i v e y e a r p e r i o d 1 9 6 8 -1 9 7 3 , and n i t r o g e n in creased p erio d . e x p e c te d to n e a r ly q u a d ru p le o v e r [C ouncil on E n v iro n m en tal Q u a lity , Phosphorous l e v e l s riv e r s over is to M etro p o litan treatm en t c e n te rs in a d e q u a te and i n e f f i c i e n t w a stew ater t r e a t ­ E x te n sio n s o f sewer s e r v i c e s f a r beyond c o r p o r a t e b o u n d a r i e s t o s e r v e d e v e l o p i n g a r e a s c a u s e s o v e r l o a d s on b o th sew ers and t r e a t m e n t p l a n t s . d irec tly tic e D i s c h a r g e o f raw sewage i n t o w aterw ays o f t e n r e s u l t s f r o m t h e common p r a c ­ o f com bining storm and s a n i t a r y sew ers. "package" Sm all tre a tm e n t p la n ts used fo r r e s i d e n t ia l and b u s in e s s developm ents a re o f te n o p e ra te d and m ain tain ed in a c a r e l e s s m anner. In unsew ered a re a s been i n s t a l l e d , drain ed s o ils , in d iv id u al se p tic o fte n o f inadequate and o v e rflo w in to s i z e and in p o o r l y lo c a l drain ag e c o u rses. When t h e q u a l i t y o f t h e r e c e i v i n g w a t e r f a i l s stan d ard s, tanks have to m eet l e g a l th e r e s p o n s i b l e g o vernm ental agency u s u a l l y s te p s to in stall a local develop, th e cycle is treatm en t p la n t. takes As m o re a r e a s r e p e a t e d and a p r o l i f e r a t i o n o f sm all tr e a tm e n t p l a n t c o n s t r u c t i o n or enlargem ent r e s u l t s . Zero d i s c h a r g e o f p o l l u t a n t s t o n a v i g a b l e w a t e r s by 1985 h a s b e e n s e t a s a n a t i o n a l w a s t e w a t e r m a n a g e m e n t g o a l . 3 Federal and s t a t e passed. law s to re d u c e w a te r p o l l u t i o n have been The Am en d m ents t o C o n tro l A ct o f 1972, t h e F e d e r a l W ater P o l l u t i o n P u b l i c Law 9 2 - 5 0 0 , owned t r e a t m e n t p l a n t s to p ro c e ss req u ire a ll t h e i r w astew ater to l e v e l o f s e c o n d a r y t r e a t m e n t by J u l y 1 , issu ed s tip u la tio n s p u b licly 1977. the M ichigan has to m u n ic ip a l c o r p o r a t i o n s o f o v e r 1500 p o p u l a t i o n to r e s t r i c t t h e p o l l u t i o n d i s c h a r g e d i n t o Lake M ic h ig a n o r i t s orders req u ired f a c i l i t i e s c o n te n t o f w astes trib u ta rie s. These t o r e m o v e a minimum o f 80% o f t h e p h o s p h o r o u s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e u n t r e a t e d sewage and w a s t e s by D e c e m b e r 1972 [Corps o f E n g i n e e r s , 1971], C om m unities f a c e d w i t h m e e tin g th e l e g a l fo r w astew ater tre a tm e n t w ill clo sely req u irem en ts evaluate a lte r n a tiv e t r e a t m e n t m ethods to d e te r m in e th e m ost c o s t - e f f e c t i v e m ethod to p r o v i d e s e c o n d a r y and t e r t i a r y treatm en t. The b a s ic a l t e r n a t i v e s fo r advanced w astew ater tre a tm e n t are lan d tre a tm e n t, advanced b io lo g ic a l chem ical tr e a tm e n t. receiv in g treatm en t, and p h y s i c a l - The l a n d t r e a t m e n t a l t e r n a t i v e is i n c r e a s e d a t t e n t i o n d u e t o a n u m b er o f f a c t o r s , in clu d in g p u b lic c o n c e r n f o r a d e q u a te sewage t r e a t m e n t , i n c r e a s e d w a s te w a te r volum e, F e d e ra l recom m endations f o r t h e e l i m i n a t i o n o f o c e a n d u m p in g o f m u n i c i p a l s l u d g e s , re c e n t Federal p o llu ta n ts leg islatio n re stric tin g and the d isc h arg e of i n t o n a v i g a b l e w a t e r s and p ro m o tin g r e c y c l i n g o f such p o l l u t a n t s . S p e c i f i c p r o v i s i o n s on l a n d t r e a t m e n t b e com e a p a r t o f F e d e r a l l e g i s l a t i o n for the f i r s t tim e in 4 t h e W a t e r P o l l u t i o n A c t A m e n d m e n ts o f 1 9 7 2 . f i r s t F e d e r a l law s t h a t sp e cifica lly These a re the encourage land t r e a t ­ ment and r e c l a m a t i o n and a u t h o r i z e F e d e r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n g ran ts to S t a t e and l o c a l a g e n c ie s to a s s i s t b lis h m e n t o f such sy s te m s. Am endm ents f u r n i s h e s p o ten tial and (3) is p ro v id in g fo r: (2) (1) treatm en t the re c y c lin g of through a g r i c u l t u r a l and the re c la m a tio n o f w astew ater; the u ltim a te d is p o s a l o f slu d g es harm fu l to 1972 in th e c o n s tr u c tio n o f revenue sewage p o l l u t a n t s f o r e s tr y p rodu ction; 201(d) o f th e encouragem ent f o r w aste management w hich r e s u l t s producing f a c i l i t i e s S u b sectio n in th e e s t a ­ the environm ent. In a d d i t i o n , i n a manner n o t encouragem ent t o be g iv e n to w a s te t r e a t m e n t management t h a t com bines "open sp ace" and r e c r e a t i o n a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , resu lts in i n te g r a tin g fa c ilitie s re c y c lin g w ith f a c i l i t i e s for to t r e a t , and t h a t sewage t r e a t m e n t and dispose o f, or u tiliz e o t h e r i n d u s t r i a l and m u n i c i p a l w a s t e s . The b a s i c id ea ,in la n d tre a tm e n t i s the a p p lic a tio n of w a s te w a te r f o llo w in g p rim a ry and s e c o n d a ry t r e a t m e n t to lan d . The s o i l and a g r i c u l t u r a l t h e n a b s o r b and f i l t e r n itra te s, crops or f o r e s t p ro d u cts pho sp h ates, and o t h e r e l e m e n t s from w a s t e w a t e r . Rem aining " p u r i f i e d " w a te r d rain s recharge through th e s o i l r e tu rn via underdrain s "liv in g f i lt e r " to th e g ro u n d w a te r o r to to th e w a te r c o u r s e . D ata on th e concept has been c o l l e c t e d a t P en n sy lv an ia S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y s i n c e 1963 [P arizek , 1967, Sopper, 1973], 5 Muskegon C o u n ty , M ic h ig a n h a s r e c e i v e d n a t i o n a l a t t e n t i o n for its w astew ater i r r i g a t i o n p r o j e c t, ment sy stem w i l l ev en tu ally tr e a t w here a la n d t r e a t ­ the in d u s tr ia l and m uni­ c i p a l w a s t e w a te r from a p p r o x i m a t e ly 160,000 p e o p le [S heaffer, 1970, m u n icip alities B auer, 1973]. in M ichigan a r e A p p r o x i m a t e l y 50 o t h e r in v estig atin g land t r e a t ­ m en t a s an a l t e r n a t i v e o r s u p p l e m e n t a l means to b i o l o g i c a l or p h y sical-ch em ical tre a tm e n t o f w astew ater M ichigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i ty w a t e r management p l a n is Corps o f E n g in e e r s . D etro it, These s t u d i e s 1972, Bahr, 1974]. The l a n d b e i n g s t u d i e d by t h e U . S . Army I n 19 71 i t u n d e r t o o k f i v e p i l o t w a s t e ­ w a t e r management s t u d i e s B oston, 1973], i n v o l v e d i n a c am p u s w a s t e ­ [S tevens, treatm en t concept is also [P ierce, fo r the m e tro p o lita n a re a s o f C lev elan d , evolved in to C hicago, and San F r a n c i s c o . an u r b a n s t u d i e s p ro g ram c o v e r i n g many o f t h e m a j o r m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a s o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . Both th e p i l o t s t u d i e s and th e u rb an s t u d i e s program e v a l u a t e la n d t r e a tm e n t as an a l t e r n a t i v e [Corps o f E n g in e e r s , 1972b, Land t r e a t m e n t a f f e c t s com m unity t h r o u g h i t s fo r w astew ater tre a tm e n t 1972c]. f a r m e r s and t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l requirem ents o f a g r ic u ltu r a l pro d u ctio n . fo r land, needed to treat facto r The a m o u n t o f l a n d r e q u i r e d v a r i e s w ith th e tr e a tm e n t system o b j e c t i v e s volum e o f w a s t e w a t e r . a b asic For exam ple, and w ith th e e stim a te s o f th e land t h e t o t a l w a s t e w a t e r volume from S o u t h ­ e a s t e r n M ic h ig a n ra n g e from 760,000 a c r e s to 1 ,9 5 5 ,0 0 0 6 acres [Corps o f E n g in e e r s , 1974]- com m unities r e q u i r e l e s s l a n d . S m aller re g io n s o r C om m unities e v a l u a t i n g l a n d tr e a tm e n t a r e fa c e d w ith th e problem o f a c q u i r in g la n d rig h ts. Both c o m m u n ities and f a r m e r s a r e c o n f r o n t e d w i t h d eterm in ing th e im p acts on t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e o p tio n s fo r tr a n s f e r r in g land r ig h ts g o als o f the and m anaging la n d tr e a tm e n t system s. O b jectiv es and Scope o f t h e Study Obj e c t i v e s T his s tu d y e v a l u a t e s some e c o n o m i c a n d i n s t i t u t i o n a l a s p e c t s o f la n d t r e a t m e n t a s a w a s t e w a t e r management a l t e r ­ n a t i v e f o r S o u th e a s te r n M ichigan. a v a i l a b l e to a c q u ir e lan d r i g h t s sites, and th e It and to manage t r e a t m e n t im pacts o f t h e s e o p t io n s on th e g o a ls o f f a r m e r s and w a s t e w a t e r a u t h o r i t i e s . t r e a t m e n t on t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l reg io n al lev el is also S p ecifically , 1. The i m p a c t o f l a n d economy a t and i t s th e farm and evaluated. the stu d y o b je c ti v e s To d e s c r i b e ap p licatio n s, f o c u s e s on t h e o p t i o n s are: the lan d tre a tm e n t c o n c e p t, p o ten tial its fo r use in S o u th eastern M ichigan. 2. To i d e n t i f y a n d e v a l u a t e a l t e r n a t i v e s ing lan d use r i g h t s for a c q u ir­ and f o r m an ag in g t h e f a r m in g o p e r a t i o n s o f lan d tre a tm e n t system s. a. rig h ts S p ecify th e o p tio n s fo r a c q u i s i t i o n o f land and farm management and r e l a t e th ese to the 7 g o a ls o f fa rm e rs and w a s te w a te r a u t h o r i t i e s . b. Use b u d g e t i n g a n d s e n s i t i v i t y a n a l y s i s id en tify a lte rn a tiv e s to fo r the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f c o sts and b e n e f i t s o f a la n d t r e a tm e n t sy ste m betw een a w astew ater a u th o r i ty 3. and f a r m e r s . To i d e n t i f y a n d e s t i m a t e some o f t h e p a r a m e t e r s in v o lv e d in th e i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f a la n d tr e a tm e n t system and th e u n c e r t a i n t i e s 4. farm , To s p e c i f y surrounding them. im p lic a tio n s o f lan d treatm e n t a t the firm and r e g i o n a l l e v e l . a. I d e n t i f y and e v a l u a t e o p p o r t u n i t i e s in creasin g farm rev e n u es th ro u g h la n d for treatm en t o p e ra tio n s under a l t e r n a t i v e c o s t sh a rin g arrangem ents b. Id en tify larg e scale some o f t h e m a c r o im p licatio n s of land tre a tm e n t o p e ra tio n s in S o u th eastern M ichigan. The a c h i e v e m e n t o f t h e s e o b j e c t i v e s w i l l m ation u s e f u l provide to com m u n ities, w a ste w a te r a u t h o r i t i e s , farm ers e v a lu a tin g land tre a tm e n t p ro p o sa ls. management o p t i o n s w i l l com m unity. a id in s p e c ify in g the d iv is io n of c o s ts w ith a land tre a tm e n t p r o j e c t. in d iv i­ D ata on t h e a b arg ain in g area f o r f a r m e r s and w a s t e w a t e r management a u t h o r i t i e s n e g o tiate and to R esu lts w ill f o c u s on l a n d t r e a t m e n t from t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f t h e d u a l farm e r and th e a g r i c u l t u r a l in fo r and b e n e f i t s as they asso ciated Scope T his stu d y c o n s id e r s in stitu tio n a l a ltern a tiv e s for land a c q u i s i tio n as w ell as m anagerial p o s s i b i l i t i e s . P a rties rity affected in clu d e the farm er, and t h e com m unity. the w astew ater a u th o ­ T h i s s t u d y f o c u s e s on t h e e f f e c t s on f a r m e r s . A p artial e q u i l i b r i u m a p p r o a c h was u s e d t o e v a l u a t e t h e p r i m a r y econom ic e f f e c t s firm and re g io n . sta tic o f l a n d t r e a t m e n t on t h e fa r m , S e n s i t i v i t y a n a l y s i s was a p p l i e d fram ew ork to in a e s tim a te revenue changes under a l t e r ­ n a tiv e assu m p tio n s. S p ecific Land T r e a t m e n t P r o p o s a l s from t h e S o u t h e a s t e r n M i c h i g a n W a s t e w a t e r M a n ag e m en t S t u d y p r o v i d e t h e b a s i s e m p i r i c a l work [Corps o f E n g i n e e r s , 1974]. T his stu d y c o v e rs a n in e county a r e a o f S o u th e a s te r n M ichigan, area id e n tifie d and i n d u s t r i a l an as th e l a r g e s t s i n g l e so u rc e o f m u n ic ip a l w a s t e w a t e r f l o w i n g i n t o Lake E r i e D epartm ent o f I n t e r i o r , to for 19b8]. [U .S. T h i s same a r e a c o r r e s p o n d s th e b o u n d a r ie s o f th e S o u t h e a s t e r n M ichigan W ater R eso urces Study. P ro jectio n s of a g ric u ltu ral p ro d u ctio n f o r 1 9 80 f r o m t h e W a t e r R e s o u r c e s S t u d y a r e a s s u m e d t o d e p ic t the s i t u a t i o n w ithout land tre a tm e n t T his s tu d y u s e s d e s c r i p t i v e [Rhoade, 1969]. in fo rm a tio n to pro v id e an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e w a t e r p o l l u t i o n p ro b le m and approaches to w a ste w a te r t r e a tm e n t. Land t r e a t m e n t i s d e s c r i b e d u s i n g exam ples o f p a s t and p r e s e n t a p p l i c a t i o n s . 9 In stitu tio n a l a ltern a tiv e s fo r th e a c q u is itio n land fo r tre a tm e n t purposes a re d is c u s s e d t h e i r s t r e n g t h s and w eak n esses, in term s o f along w ith o p tio n s m anaging t h e f a r m in g o p e r a t i o n s . The p o s s i b l e th e a c q u i s i t i o n and m a n a g e r ia l a l t e r n a t i v e s s e t of fa rm e r's go als a re is used to the fa rm ,firm e stim a te changes under a lt e r n a t iv e im pacts o f on an assum ed and r e g i o n a l in to ta l assu m p tio n s r e l a t e d S e n sitiv ity an aly sis for e s t i m a t e d on a s u b j e c t i v e b a s i s . E m pirical a n a ly s is a t lev el of and n e t r e v e n u e s to la n d t r e a t m e n t . is a p p lie d to y i e l d , price, ro tatio n , and c o s t s h a r i n g a s s u m p t io n s b e c a u s e o f t h e u n c e r t a i n t i e s surrounding t h e i r v a lu e s. R e s u l t s from th e most p r o b a b l e com binations o f v a r i a b l e s a r e p r e s e n t e d as g u i d e s f o r b a r ­ g a i n i n g b etw een l a n d owners and w a s t e w a t e r a u t h o r i t y . O rg an izatio n The s t u d y is o rg a n iz e d to p ro v id e background in f o r m a tio n , id en tify th e problem , p re s e n t a conceptual fram e- ». work and d a t a f o r problem a n a l y s i s , o f land tre a tm e n t. w ater p o l lu t i o n C hapter II in q u iry C h ap ter I i d e n t i f i e s and t h e o b j e c t i v e s im pact th e problem o f and scope o f th e s tu d y . and b u t f o c u s e s on t h e l a n d t r e a t m e n t c o n c e p t a n d ap p lica tio n s. in to o p tio n s A co n cep tu al fram ework f o r fo r the a c q u is itio n of p ro p e rty r ig h ts and th e management o f fa r m in g o p e r a t i o n s C hapter I I I . the d is c u s s e s w astew ater tre a tm e n t p o l ic i e s a ltern a tiv e s, some o f i t s and e s t im a t e D ata i s p r e s e n t e d is in C h apter presented IV a n d u s e d in in 10 C hapter V to e s tim a te th e im pacts o f la n d tre a tm e n t a t farm and r e g i o n a l l e v e l . The s t u d y c l o s e s w i t h a sum mary and i m p l i c a t i o n s d iscu ssio n , C h a p te r VI. the CHAPTER II THE LAND TREATMENT CONCEPT B a c k g r o u n d on W a s t e w a t e r T r e a t m e n t The R e a s o n f o r P u b l i c In most u rb a n a r e a s th e c o lle c tio n human w a s t e s i s done on a c o l l e c t i v e dual b a sis. T his is Investm ent and t r e a t m e n t o f rath er th an an i n d i v i ­ b a s e d on c o n c e r n f o r p u b l i c h e a l t h and r e c o g n i t i o n o f econom ies o f s c a l e in w astew ater tre a tm e n t. The p r o v i s i o n o f w a s t e w a t e r t r e a t m e n t by m u n i c i p a l i t i e s r a t h e r than in d iv id u a ls a lso re c o g n iz e s the d i f f i c u l t i e s in m aking e ac h u s e r pay a c c o r d i n g to t h e v a l u e o f w a s te w a te r treatm en t se rv ic e s receiv ed . common p r o p e r t y , resources, c e r t a i n re s o u rc e flow s, M arket f a i l u r e s the p u b lic as th o se r e la te d and imposed fo r p u b lic p o lic ie s to w astew ater tre a tm e n t The f a i l u r e m o s t a p p l i c a b l e to goods n a t u r e o f e x te r n a l d iseco n o m ies, p u b lic ow nership a re r a t i o n a l e related [Havem an, such 1973]. to the a n a ly s is o f w astew ater t r e a t m e n t p o l i c i e s a r e t h e p u b l i c goods n a t u r e o f t h e w a s te assim ilatio n related c a p a c i t y o f w a te r c o u r s e s and m ark et f a i l u r e s to e x t e r n a l d ise c o n o m ie s in p ro d u c tio n or consum ption. The w a s t e a s s i m i l a t i o n c a p a c i t y o f s t r e a m s h a s 11 12 ch aracteristics o f a common p r o p e r t y r e s o u r c e . to t h i s a s s i m il a ti o n c a p a c ity a re h e ld o n e , w hich makes i t s to d is c h a r g e in to use c o s tle s s , the stre am . e x p l o i t a t e d and p o l l u t e d . in the absence o f r u l e s , strateg y . o f th e w aste d is p o s a l [D ales, H isto rica lly , are governm ents have a d o p te d rig h ts, The common s e r v i c e s have been w here th e u s e o f th e r e s o u r c e i s dep en d en t upon m ee tin g c e r t a i n co n d itio n s stream s As a r e s u l t o f t h e o v e r u s e o f a r u le s and enforcem ent p o lic y made t h e o b j e c t o f s t a t u s i n common b y e v e r y ­ As a r e s u l t , th e w aste a s s i m i l a t i o n c a p a c ity , p roperty rig h ts The r i g h t s e lig ib ility 1972]. w ater p o l l u t i o n c o n tro l been b ased upon F e d e ra l s u b s i d i e s w astew ater tre a tm e n t p la n ts for in t h e U .S. the c o n s tr u c tio n o f and th e e n fo rc e m e n t o f v i o l a t i o n s a g a in s t in d iv id u a l w aste d is c h a r g e r s . more t h a n t h r e e b i l l i o n d o l l a r s F ederal g ra n ts o f have been aw arded f o r th e c o n s tr u c tio n o f m unicipal w astew ater tre a tm e n t p la n ts p a s s a g e o f t h e 19 5 6 W a t e r ' • P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l A c t . b illio n s o f d o lla rs are since A d d itio n al s c h e d u l e d t o be s p e n t i n t h e n e x t several years. These g r a n t s have been f o r ment f a c i l i t i e s fo r m u n icip al w astew ater tre a tm e n t on E n v iro n m e n ta l Q u a l i t y , secondary t r e a t ­ [C ouncil 1973]. I n d u s tr i a l w astew aters a re c o n tin u a lly d isc h a rg e d w atercourses because c o n s tru c tio n for its treatm en t. has In cen tiv es for g ran ts a re n o t provided in d u strie s t h e i r d i s c h a r g e s a r e t a x law p r o v i s i o n s in to to c l e a n up for accelerated 13 d e p r e c i a t i o n on w a s te w a te r t r e a t m e n t i n v e s t m e n t s . A ccom panying t h i s p o licy . su b sid y p o lic y is a reg u lato ry -en fo rcem en t The F e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t h a s a s s i g n e d s t a t e s re s p o n s ib ility of estab lish in g w ater q u a li t y s t a n d a r d s and o f d e v e lo p in g a program to m eet th e s t a n d a r d s . have m et t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y by d e te r m i n i n g q u a n tity o f d isch arg es issu in g licen ses and, in itia tin g the Most s t a t e s t h e maximum c o n s is te n t w ith n a tio n a l stan d ard s, t o d i s c h a r g e r s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s maximum, j u d i c i a l p r o c e e d i n g s when d i s c h a r g e r s exceed p e r m i t t e d am ounts. T r e a t m e n t S y stem G row th a n d C o s t s S an itary s e w e r s e r v i c e h a s grown w i t h t h e U n i t e d S ta te s p o p u latio n . in C hicago in 1855. The f i r s t i n 1962 c o l l e c t e d w a ste s has s e w e r was c o n s t r u c t e d A p p r o x i m a t e l y 163 m i l l i o n A m e r i c a n s w e r e s e r v e d by s a n i t a r y f r o m 118 m i l l i o n sa n ita ry sew erage f a c i l i t i e s [USEPA, 1 9 7 3 ] . in creased . N. w a s te s from i n 1962. In 1973, up T reatm ent o f Some t y p e o f t r e a t m e n t was g i v e n 98 p e r c e n t o f t h e c o l l e c t e d w a s t e s 85 p e r c e n t in 1973, te rtia ry i n 1973 co m p ared to t r e a t m e n t was g i v e n t o l e s s th an two p e r c e n t o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n s e r v e d by sew er sy ste m s. A p p r o x i m a t e l y 64 p e r c e n t o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n was o n s y s t e m s w i t h s e c o n d a r y t r e a t m e n t p l a n t s a n d 28 p e r ­ c e n t w ere on s y s te m s p r o v i d i n g o n l y p r i m a r y t r e a t m e n t [USEPA, 1 9 7 3 ] . L arge c a p i t a l in v estm en ts a re re p re s e n te d p r o j e c t e d c o l l e c t i o n and tr e a tm e n t f a c i l i t i e s . in p a s t and Betw een 14 1855 an d 1 971, t h e U .S. (1972 d o l l a r s ) in i t s i n v e s t e d a n e s t i m a t e d $58 b i l l i o n p u b lic sewer f a c i l i t i e s [USEPA, 1 9 7 3 ] . M ore t h a n 30 p e r c e n t i n v e s t e d s i n c e 1 9 6 1 , 60 p e r c e n t s i n c e W o r l d War I I , The e s t i m a t e d cost a n d 80 p e r c e n t s i n c e 1 9 2 9 . ($ 6 0 .1 b i l l i o n ) trea tm e n t f a c i l i t i e s 19 72 A m e n d m e n t s , to d a te . is o f c o n s t r u c t i n g new m u n i c i p a l a n d elig ib le g reater fo r F ederal than th e to ta l The 1972 A m en dm ents r e q u i r e p r a c tic a b le " w ater p o llu tio n c o n tro l and " b e s t a v a i l a b l e " estim ated th a t $1 1 .9 b i l l i o n Funding u n d e r t h e system in v e s tm e n t in d u s tr y to use " b e s t t e c h n o l o g y by m i d - 1 9 7 7 t e c h n o l o g y by m id -1 9 8 3 . i n d u s t r y w i l l have to I t has been i n v e s t an a d d i t i o n a l by 1 9 7 7 t o m e e t p o l l u t i o n abatem ent sta n d a rd s se t for th at year, assum ing c u r r e n t w a te r use te c h n o lo g y rem ains unchanged. E stim ated c o n s t r u c t io n e x p e n d itu re s M i c h i g a n f o r new p u b l i c t r e a t m e n t f a c i l i t i e s b illio n , o r a 1 9 7 2 p e r c a p i t a c o s t o f $3 6 6 are for $3.3 [USEPA, 1 9 7 3 ] . W a s te w a te r T r e a tm e n t P roblem s f o r R u ra l C om m unities Many r u r a l c o m m u n i t i e s face sp e cia l d e a l w i t h more s t r i n g e n t w a te r q u a l i t y lo cal ta x base is o fte n problem s as th e y stan dard s. in a d e q u a te to f i n a n c e even a se co n d a ry tr e a tm e n t system l e t a lo n e a t e r t i a r y D ata i n d i c a t e serv ices th a t per c a p ita e x p en d itu res i n n o n - m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a s was l e s s p o lita n areas system . for sa n ita tio n than in m etro ­ in 1967, b o th a b s o l u t e l y and r e l a t i v e l y . A p p r o x i m a t e l y $7 p e r c a p i t a was s p e n t areas The com pared to n e a r l y in n o n -m e tro p o lita n $16 i n m e t r o p o l i t a n c o m m u n i t i e s . 15 As a p e r c e n t o f t o t a l p e r c a p i t a e x p e n d i t u r e s , 3% o f t h e t y p i c a l n o n - m e tr o p o lita n a r e a budget t o t a l went to tio n , com pared t o [U .S. C ongress, sa n ita ­ 3.41% o f t h e m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a b u d g e t 1971]. A g r a n t s p r o v i s i o n o f $300 m i l l i o n f o r w a t e r a n d w a s t e d i s p o s a l s y s t e m s f o r r u r a l c o m m u n i t i e s was a u t h o r i z e d in T i t l e 1 o f t h e R u r a l D e v e l o p m e n t A c t o f 1 9 7 2 , PL 9 2 - 4 1 9 . However, funds f o r f i s c a l b u d g eted f o r 1974. 1973 w e re im pounded and n o n e w e re C o nsequently, g ran ts fo r ru ra l sewer and s o l i d w a s te t r e a t m e n t program s have been d i s c o n t i n u e d except fo r those in itiated by t h e E n v i r o n m e n t a l P r o t e c t i o n Agency. W a s te w a te r T r e a tm e n t M ethods T reatm en t b e g in s w ith th e c o l l e c t i o n and t r a n s m i s s i o n o f w a s t e w a t e r from i n d i v i d u a l s o u r c e s to a tr e a tm e n t p l a n t . The d e g r e e o f t r e a t m e n t g i v e n i s p r i m a r i l y resource a v a ila b ility and l e g a l d e t e r m i n e d by req u irem en ts. The g e n e r a l v. lev e ls of treatm en t, com plex, a re prim ary, m oving from t h e l e a s t secondary, Prim ary tr e a tm e n t n atu ral to t h e most and t e r t i a r y treatm en t. i s a m e c h a n i c a l p r o c e s s r e l y i n g on s e d i m e n t a t i o n a n d some c h e m i c a l p r e c i p i t a t i o n remove s u s p e n d e d s o l i d m a t e r i a l s . Prim ary tre a tm e n t n o rm ally r e m o v e s a b o u t 90% o f t h e s e t t l e a b l e o f th e suspended s o lid s . rem oval r a t e o f p rim a ry to s o l i d s and ab o u t 50% The BOD ( b i o l o g i c a l o x y g e n d e m a n d ) treatm en t is ap proxim ately and t h e rem oval o f p h o sp h o ro u s , n i t r o g e n , 35%-50%, or o th e r suspended 16 p o llu ta n ts is n e g lig ib le [S tevens, Secondary tr e a tm e n t red u c es 1972]. t h e BOD o f w a s t e w a t e r . One o f t h r e e m e t h o d s n o r m a l l y e m p l o y e d a r e a c t i v a t e d tric k lin g filte rs, tio n process is or lag o o n s. b io lo g ic al, sludge In e a c h c a s e t h e p u r i f i c a ­ as th e a c t u a l ag en ts o f t r e a t ­ m ents a r e m ic r o o r g a n is m s which o x i d i z e t h e r e m a in in g suspended and c o l l o i d a l processes are so lid s e sse n tia lly in the w astew ater. a cc elaratio n s These of the n a tu ra l d e c o m p o sitio n p r o c e s s e s t h a t o c c u r in stre a m s and r i v e r s . U n d e r o p t i m u m c o n d i t i o n s , s e c o n d a r y t r e a t m e n t c a n r e m o v e up t o 90% o f t h e BOD a n d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 85% o f t h e s u s p e n d e d so lid s. Secondary tre a tm e n t is a ls o n itro g en . However, it effectiv e is n early u se less i n rem oving i n rem oving p h o s p h o r u s a n d o t h e r c h e m i c a l s n o t r e a d i l y c o n s u m e d by b io lo g ic a l processes [S tevens, Advanced, o r t e r t i a r y of treatm en t. 1972]. treatm en t, phorous r e m o v a l . te rtia ry tow ers and c a lc iu m p r o c e s s e s w ater q u a lity trea t­ such as fo r phos­ I t has been e s tim a te d t h a t p ro v id in g t e r ­ treatm en t f a c i l i t i e s ex istin g G en erally p r i n c i p a l l y upon c h em ic al p r o c e s s e s , n itro g en strip p in g tiary th e h ig h e st le v e l T his s t e p rem oves p o l l u t a n t s re m a in in g a f t e r p rim a ry and se c o n d a ry t r e a t m e n t . ment r e l i e s is to meet th e p ro p o se d n a t i o n a l s ta n d a rd s w i l l double th e c a p i t a l c o s t o f th e secondary f a c i l i t i e s Land t r e a t m e n t i s w ater tre a tm e n t. [S tevens, 1972]. a m eans o f p r o v i d i n g a d v a n c e d w a s t e I t em ploys m e c h a n i c a l , b io lo g ic al, and 17 chem ical p r o c e s s e s Land t r e a t m e n t approach to in th e p u r i f i c a t i o n o f w astew ater. is com patible w ith the m a te r ia ls b a la n ce en v iro n m en tal p o l l u t i o n c o n tr o l . b a la n c e view u n d e r l i n e s ' th e f a c t t h a t th e The m a t e r i a l s throughput o f new m a t e r i a l s n e c e s s a r y t o m a i n t a i n a g i v e n l e v e l o f p r o ­ d u c tio n and con su m p tion d e c r e a s e s and m a t e r i a l s u t i l i z a t i o n o f a high le v e l fo sterin g as th e te c h n ic a l conversion in creases. Through th e p r a c t i c e r e c o v e r y and r e c y c l e o f w a s te m a t e r i a l s and o f low r e s i d u a l p r o d u c t i o n p r o c e s s e s , v e r y l i t t l e r e s i d u a l m a t e r i a l s would be r e t u r n e d m e n ta l m edia [Kneese, 1972]. to any o f t h e e n v i r o n ­ The r e u s e and r e c y c l i n g o f m u n ic ip a l and i n d u s t r i a l w a s te w a te r th ro u g h lan d t r e a tm e n t i s a p rim e exam ple o f t h i s charging p la n t n u tr ie n ts w ater-co u rses or a i r , tu ral approach. R ather th an d i s ­ in e f f l u e n t and s lu d g e and i n t o th e y can be r e t u r n e d to the a g r i c u l ­ p r o d u c tio n system . The f l o w t h r o u g h p r i m a r y , s e c o n d a r y , and advanced w a s t e w a t e r t r e a t m e n t i s show n i n F i g u r e 1 . shown, o n e l e a d i n g phy sical-ch em ical Two s y s t e m s a r e to la n d t r e a t m e n t and th e o t h e r to treatm en t. Land T r e a t m e n t - An H i s t o r i c a l P ersp ectiv e Land a p p l i c a t i o n o f sew age e f f l u e n t s b e g an lo n g b e f o r e t h e com plex t e c h n o lo g y o f t o d a y 's developed. treatm en t The s i m p l e s t a n d m o s t l o g i c a l f o r man was t o p u t h i s in tren c h es o r p i t s . sewage in t h e Such d i s p o s a l s y s t e m was d i s p o s a l method gro u n d by b u r y i n g it o f s i m p l e w a s t e s was n it r a t io n Lend AppEc«tisei| Source: F i g u r e 1. 1 Chlortnwprt.' ClaMt; Tifsvity ThJctansr J VSCHCT ■il-« Filtration [Corps o f E n g i n e e r s , ^%31S§§^ e^~2*&e&£&£M - - 1972c] Flow D i a g r a m o f A l t e r n a t i v e W a s t e w a t e r T r e a t m e n t M e t h o d s 19 ad eq u ate in e a rly p a s t o r a l and nom adic s o c i e t i e s , w h e r e man co u ld f u n c t io n as an i n t e g r a l p a r t o f an e f f i c i e n t H o w e v e r , w hen p o p u l a t i o n s b e g a n t o c o n c e n t r a t e ecosystem . in c i t i e s an d towns and t o p r o d u c e more c o m p lex w a s t e s , w a s t e p ro b le m s began. The h i s t o r i c a l em phasis o f la n d w ater has been t h a t o f d is p o s a l to d ay o f tr e a tm e n t and r e u s e . treatm en t of w a ste ­ in c o n t r a s t to In th e p a s t , em phasis perform ance h a s been ju d g e d on t h e b a s i s o f a c o n v e n i e n t and e co n o m ical approach to w astew ater d is p o s a l anim al l i f e , p lan t l i f e , in th e o v e ra ll effects so il, a s o p p o s e d t o e f f e c t on and g ro u n d w a te r. o f land In terest t r e a t m e n t on t h e e n v iro n m e n t w i l l p l a c e more e m p h a s is on t h e t r e a t m e n t and r e u s e c o n c e p t s o f fu tu re land trea tm e n t approaches. L and t r e a t m e n t a n d was p r a c t i c e d rep o rted is re fe rre d in A thens t h a t an i r r i g a t i o n t h e w a s t e from B u n s l a u , o v e r 300 y e a r s . to i n t h e O ld T e s ta m e n t i n t h e B .C . p e r i o d . p r o j e c t was d e s i g n e d t o P ru ssia, The p r a c t i c e 1973a]. such as B e r l i n , F ra n c e ; M elbourne, A u s t r a l i a ; in th e 1870s from M a s s a c h u s e t t s in the w estern s t a t e s . i n 15 w e s t e r n s t a t e s Germany; a n d Moscow, R u s s i a . s u r v e y c o n d u c t e d i n 1895 i d e n t i f i e d scattered for o f sewage f a r m in g s p r e a d to Long t i m e u s e r s o f l a n d d i s p o s a l some l a r g e m u n i c i p a l i t i e s treat i n 1559 and o p e r a t e d E ngland i n th e 1700s and to t h e U n ite d S t a t e s [Pounds, I t has been sites in to C a li f o r n ia , in clu d e P aris, A U.S. 20 s t a t e s but p rim arily A 1 9 3 5 s u r v e y f o u n d 113 l o c a l i t i e s irrig a tin g crops w ith w astew ater 20 [H utchins, 13 s t a t e s i n 1972 1939]. A later p ra c tic in g crop [T h o m a s , 1973]. s u r v e y n o t e d 316 l o c a l i t i e s i r r i g a t i o n w ith m u nicipal e f f l u e n t s Exam ples o f o l d e r o p e r a t i o n s t h e w o r l d a r e s h o w n i n T a b l e 1 , many o f w h i c h , t h o s e a t M exico C i t y a n d M e l b o u r n e , The f i r s t U . S . p r o j e c t s were d e v e lo p ed o n ly f o r recharge p ro je c ts cen tu ry are s t i l l 1973b]. D uring th e lan d tre a tm e n t s i t e s in o p e r a tio n . irrig a tio n p rac tic es. were n o t s t a r t e d u n t i l around in clu d in g s t a r t e d in th e l a t e 19th c e n tu ry G roundw ater the e arly in th e sem iarid reg io n of C a lifo rn ia [Pounds, in tw e n tieth and U tah f i r s t h a l f o f th e 20th c e n tu ry , co n tin u ed p rim a rily in th e w est, as in c r e a s e d la n d c o s t s and tr e a tm e n t c a p a c i ty problem s le d to t h e a b a n d o n m e n t o f many e a s t e r n U . S . s i t e s . A 1 9 64 s u r v e y in th e U .S ., c i p a l system s id en tified i n c l u d i n g 1,278 2,1 9 2 la n d d i s p o s a l in d u stria l [Pounds, 1 9 7 3 a ]. s y s t e m s a n d 914 m u n i ­ The 1 9 7 2 EPA M u n i c i p a l W astew ater F a c i l i t i e s Inv en to ry id e n tif ie d t i o n system s 1973d>] . [Pounds, A p a rtial A m e r i c a n P u b l i c Works A s s o c i a t i o n sites, only a p o rtio n o f th e t o t a l p resen tly in o p e r a tio n [S u lliv an , The m a j o r i t y o f e a r l i e r system s 571 l a n d a p p l i c a ­ s u r v e y by t h e i n 1 9 7 2 c o n t a c t e d 196 land d isp o sa l system s 1973]. fa c ilitie s ap p lied u n tre a te d d o m e s ti c w a s t e w a t e r w i t h v a r y i n g d e g r e e s o f c o n t r o l and success. A key f a c t o r p e t e n t m anagem ent. in t h e s u c c e s s o f a s y s t e m was com ­ L a n d t r e a t m e n t was u s e d l e s s as know ledge o f w a s te w a te r t r e a t m e n t p r o c e s s e s freq u e n tly im proved. T a b le 1. E x a m p l e s o f Land T r e a t m e n t O p e r a t i o n s Date L o catio n D escrip tio n W etted A rea, A cres Flow, mgd A verage L oading in ./w k N on-U nited S t a t e s 1559 1861 1864 186 9 187 5 188 0 18 93 B u n z l a u , Germany C ro y d o n -B e d d in g to n , E ngland S o u t h No rw o o d, E n g l a n d B e r l i n , Germany Leam ington S p r i n g s , E ngland Birmingham, E ngland M elbourne, A u s t r a l i a M elbourne, A u s t r a l i a " M e x i c o C i t y , M e x ico P a r i s , France C a p e Town, S o u t h A f r i c a 1902 1 92 3 1928 Sew age f a r m Sew age f a r m Sewage f a r m Sewage f a r m Sewage f a r m Se wage f a r m Irrig a tio n O v e rla n d flow Irrig a tio n Irrig atio n Irrig a tio n 420 152 2 7 , 250a 4 00 1,200 10,376^ 3,472b 1 1 2 , 000b 12,600 4.5 0.7 150a .0.8 22 50b 7 0b 570b 120 2.8 1.2 1.4 0.5 4.7 1 .2 5.2 1.3 2.5 U nited S ta te s 1872 1880 1881 18 87 1895 1896 1912 19 28 A u g u s ta , M aine0 Pullm an, I l l i n o i s 0 C h e y e n n e , Wyoming Pasadena, C a lifo rn ia San A n t o n i o , T e x a s S a l t Lake C i t y , Utah B ak ersfield , C a lifo rn ia V i n e l a n d , New J e r s e y Source: [Pounds, r n ________ _ i _ ^ r \ <7 <7 _ i 1973a] f D a ta f o r 1926. °D ata f o r 1971. .Abandoned a ro u n d 1900. Data f o r 1972. Irrig atio n Irrig a tio n Irrig atio n Irrig a tio n Irrig a tio n Irrig a tio n Irrig a tio n Irrig a tio n 3 40 l,3 3 0 d 300 4 , 000a 180 2 ,400d 14 0.007 1.85 7. 0d 20a 4 j 1 1 .3 d 0.8 0.6 12.0 1.3 1.3 5.7 1.2 14.7 22 B i o lo g i c a l and chem ical t r e a t m e n t m ethods were c o n s t r u c t e d w hich c o u ld c o n f in e th e e n t i r e sm aller area treatm en t process t o a much than la n d tre a tm e n t. S in c e 1940, t h e r e , h a s been an a b s o l u t e t o t a l number o f l a n d t r e a t m e n t s y s te m s in crease (T able 2). in the However, such system s r e p r e s e n t a v e ry sm all p r o p o r t i o n o f th e a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 5 , 0 0 0 c o m m u n i t i e s w i t h some t y p e o f w a s t e treatm en t f a c i l i t i e s . T a b l e 2. M u n i c i p a l i t i e s U s in g Land A p p l i c a t i o n and t h e P o p u la tio n Served Year Number o f System s 1 94 0 1945 1957 1962 1968 1972 304 422 461 401 512 571 Source: P o p u la tio n Served (m illio n s) 0.9 1.3 2.0 2.7 4.2 6.6 [T h o m a s, 1 9 7 3 ] D e s c r i p t i o n o f Land T r e a tm e n t G o a l s o f L an d T r e a t m e n t Se wage f a r m i n g was t h e e a r l y c r i b e what i s c u r r e n t l y r e f e r r e d treatm en t. to as lan d d is p o s a l Sew age f a r m i n g o r i g i n a l l y sewage t o r u r a l a r e a s included reu sin g [Pounds, term in o lo g y used to d e s ­ 1973a]. involved tra n s p o rtin g fo r land d i s p o s a l . the w ater fo r irrig a tio n G en erally s ta te d , or land L ater p ra c tic e s and f e r t i l i z a t i o n land a p p lic a tio n , th e d i s c h a r g e o f w a s te w a te r and s lu d g e s o n to is the s o i l fo r 23 treatm en t or reu se. P ro p e rly d e sig n e d lan d tr e a tm e n t system s can p ro v id e trea tm e n t o r ren o v atio n e q u iv alen t t r e a tm e n t m ethods. to e x i s t i n g te rtia ry L a n d a p p l i c a t i o n c a n p r o v i d e a m o re e c o n o m ic a l m ethod o f t r e a t m e n t o f d o m e s tic and i n d u s t r i a l w astew ater. I r r i g a t i o n w ith w astew ater can r e s u l t in i n c r e a s e d c r o p p r o d u c t i o n and an i n c r e a s e i r r i g a t i o n w ater a v a ila b le for a g ric u ltu re , w a s t e w a t e r by l o w e r i n g n u t r i e n t c o n t e n t , c h e m i c a l o x y g e n demand d isso lv ed so lid s b acteria can re n o v a te the by r e d u c i n g b i o ­ (BOD), b y r e m o v i n g some o f t h e f r o m i n d u s t r i a l w a s t e w a t e r , a n d by r e m o v i n g from t h e w a s t e w a t e r . In a d d i t i o n , o r s u r f a c e s p re a d in g onto a s o i l in recharge in th e supply o f such i r r i g a t i o n system n o rm ally w i l l resu lt to groundw ater o f a p o r t io n o f th e e f f l u e n t , w i t h minimum t h r e a t t o t h e c o n t i n u e d q u a l i t y o f t h a t v alu ab le reso u rce. The e a r l y r e c o g n i t i o n a n d e l i m i n a t i o n of u n d esirab le r e s u lts c a n b e a s s u r e d by t h e in stallatio n of a p p ro p ria te m o n ito rin g d e v ic e s . The r e n o v a t i o n o f w a s t e w a t e r by l a n d a p p l i c a t i o n c a n be e x p r e s s e d a s the p e rc e n t re d u c tio n in th e average c o n c e n tra tio n o f each c o n s titu e n t 2 d ep icts th is ren o v atio n p ro cess. ap p lie d to th e land is filtere d c o n s u m e d by p l a n t s a n d r e t u r n e d ratio n uptake, in th e e f f l u e n t . and t r a n s p i r a t i o n , n u trie n ts and th e e x c e ss w a te r i s w ater r e s e r v o ir o r is d ra in a g e system . T reated e f f lu e n t through th e s o i l , in to F igure the a i r w ater is through evapo­ a r e a b s o r b e d by p l a n t filte re d to th e ground­ d isc h a rg e d to a nearby stream v ia a 24 Precipitation / S ew age T reatm ent Plant oao □ aa oaa Well Field R enovation zone W ater Table D isc h a rg e 1 to Creeks, Springs, a n d Wells (C) Source: F i g u r e 4. FLOODING R I D G E UNO FURROW [Pounds, B a s ic M ethods o f A p p l i c a t i o n The e l e m e n t s o f a s p r a y of pressure, a su p p ly m ain, s p rin k le r heads. th ere 1973a] system a r e latera ls, t h e pump o r s o u r c e risers, and n o z z l e s o r S in ce th e system o p e r a t e s u n d er p r e s s u r e , i s a w ide v a r i e t y o f g ro u n d c o n f i g u r a t i o n s for th is type o f d is p o s a l. su itab le The s p r a y s y s t e m c a n b e p o r t a b l e o r p e r m a n e n t , m o v in g o r s t a t i o n a r y . The c o s t o f a s p r a y s y s t e m i s r e l a t i v e l y high because 31 o f pump a n d p i p i n g c o s t s a n d pump o p e r a t i n g c o s t s . e f f lu e n t used in a spray d isp o sa l th a t are la rg e The system c a n n o t have s o l i d s enough to p lu g th e n o z z l e s . S p rin k lin g is th e m ost e f f i c i e n t m ethod o f i r r i g a t i o n w ith r e s p e c t to uniform d i s t r i b u t i o n . Ridge and Furrow The r i d g e a n d f u r r o w m e t h o d i s a c c o m p l i s h e d b y g r a v i t y flow o n ly . The e f f l u e n t f l o w s i n t h e f u r r o w s a n d s e e p s th e ground. Ground t h a t is o p e r a t i o n must be r e l a t i v e l y in to a ltern a tin g su itab le flat. for th is co n tro l r id g e s and fu rro w s, th e w id th and d e p th th e d i s p o s e d and th e The r a t e o f i n f i l t r a t i o n t h e amount o f e f f l u e n t u s e d . ir r ig a te d w ith e f f lu e n t, type o f The g r o u n d i s g r o o v e d v a r y i n g w i t h th e amount o f e f f l u e n t to ty p e o f s o i l . in to in to th e ground w i l l I f crops are t o be th e w id th o f th e r i d g e where th e crop is p la n te d w ill v ary w ith th e type o f c ro p . The furrow s m ust be a llo w ed to d ry o u t a f t e r a p p l i c a t i o n o f s e w a g e e f f l u e n t s o t h a t t h e s o i l p o r e s do n o t be co m e clo g g ed . Flooding The t h i r d type o f a p p lic a tio n is can be a c c o m p lis h e d i n d i f f e r e n t ways: check, or spread in g b a sin . is the F looding, flo o d in g . border s t r i p , co n to u r as th e term i m p l i e s , in u n d a tio n of the land w ith a c e r ta in e fflu e n t. T his ty p e dep th o f The d e p t h i s d e t e r m i n e d by t h e c h o i c e o f v e g e ­ t a t i o n and t h e type o f s o i l . The lane? h a s t o b e l e v e l o r 32 n e a r l y l e v e l so t h a t a u n if o r m d e p th c an be m a i n t a i n e d . la n d does n e ed " d r y i n g o u t " so t h a t s o i l occur. The c lo g g in g does n o t The t y p e o f c r o p g r o w n h a s t o b e a b l e t o w i t h s t a n d th e p e rio d ic flo o d in g . The b o r d e r s t r i p 0.3 p e r c e n t) strip s by b o r d e r s o r d i k e s m ethod c o n s i s t s o f l a n d 600 t o of sloped 1,000 feet e v e r y 20 t o 60 f e e t . (0 .2 to long d iv id e d The m a j o r d i f f e r e n c e s b e tw ee n t h i s m ethod and t h e s p r e a d i n g b a s i n s is th a t t h is m ethod u s e s s m a l l e r se g m en ts o f a f i e l d th e ground is sloped. C ontour check is th e co n to u r o f a h i l l e f f l u e n t so i t and the c re a tio n o f dikes or lev ees or slope. alo n g The d i k e s c o n t a i n t h e d o e s n o t r u n down t h e s l o p e . are g e n e ra lly p laced a t co n to u r i n te r v a l s The d i k e s o f 0.2 to 0 .3 fee t. S preading b a sin s are s h a llo w ponds w hich a r e p e r i o d i ­ c ally flooded w ith e f f l u e n t. u n til it is is perco lated i n t o\. t h e g r o u n d , evaporated in to th e a i r . used f o r r a p id The b a s i n s h o l d t h e e f f l u e n t is u s e d by c r o p s , Spreading b a sin s or are g e n e ra lly in filtratio n . Im portant P h y s ic a l P aram eters L a n d c a n be u s e d a s a m edium f o r t r e a t m e n t o f a v a r i e ty o f w astes to h arm less in clu d in g t h o s e w hich w i l l be t r a n s f o r m e d form s by s o i l p r o c e s s e s by a g r i c u l t u r e or fo re s t crops. a s s o c ia te d biosystem s or u tiliz e d U sing t h e s o i l as an e x t e n s i v e recy clin g and removed and i t s system 33 e n a b le s one to u t i l i z e b io lo g ic al th e im p o rtan t p h y s ic a l, b u f f e r i n g c a p a c i t y Of t h e s o i l v a rio u s ty p es o f w ater p o llu tio n c r i s e s w aste d is c h a rg e s reliev e resu ltin g the from th e to s u r f a c e stre a m s. P h y sical param eters system in c lu d e s o i l o f a p p licatio n , to c h e m ic a l and in e v a lu a tin g loading facto rs, the p o te n tia l a lan d tre a tm e n t t h e volume and r a t e f o r sy s te m abandonm ent, and th e y i e l d re sp o n se o f v a rio u s crops [Pounds, 1973b]. S o i l L oading F a c to r s There a re several cap acity of s o ils loading facto rs c o n s t r a i n t s w hich r e l a t e fo r w aste a s s i m il a ti o n . s h o u ld be c o n s i d e r e d At l e a s t lo ad in g , (4) s a l t lo ading, lar so il-w aste c riteria (2) o rganic and (5) lo ad in g , to x ic (1) F o r any p a r t i c u ­ any one o f th e f i v e l i s t e d may b e t h e l i m i t i n g d e s i g n c o m p o n e n t d e p e n d i n g upon th e w a ste c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , s o il a s s im ila tio n cap a city an d l a n d management p ro g ram s f o l lo w e d . O verloading segm ent o f th e a s s i m i l a t i o n p r o c e s s is i n any m a l f u n c t i o n in g system . land d is p o s a l H y d rau lic lo ad in g rem ain u n s a t u r a t e d pathw ays o r p o re s some the cause f o r f a i l u r e is of concern sin c e the s o i l m ust f o r s u f f i c i e n t p e r i o d s o f tim e to a llo w exchange o f gases w ith th e a e r i a l ro o ts five (3 )n u trie n t lo ad in g , elem en ts. t r e a tm e n t system , the i n th e d e s ig n and s u c c e s s f u l o p e r a t i o n o f a la n d t r e a t m e n t system : hy d rau lic to in the s o i l and m ic r o b ia l a c t i v i t y . atm osphere m atrix to th e th ro u g h open d epth o f p l a n t When t h e s o i l p o r e s r e m a i n 34 f i l l e d w ith w ater fo r ex tended p e r io d s , th e ra te of d iffu s io n o f o x y g e n t o a n d c a r b o n d i o x i d e away f r o m r o o t s a n d m i c r o b i a l s i t e s may b e r e d u c e d t o l e v e l s in h ib itin g norm al p l a n t grow th and m ic r o b ia l a c t i v i t y . W hen,this o c c u rs , cannot absorb the w ater, and n u t r i e n t s p lan t ro o ts re q u ire d to support norm al grow th o f a b o v e-g ro u n d p o r t i o n s o f p l a n t s and m i c r o ­ organism s cannot s u s t a i n maximum a c t i v i t y o rg a n ic co n tam in an ts ment in u n s a t u r a t e d to f u l l y u t i l i z e in th e a p p lie d w astew ater. so ils W ater move­ i n s u r e s more c o m p l e t e f i l t e r i n g and a b s o r b i n g o f w a s te w a te r p o l l u t a n t s s i n c e t h e w a t e r moves u n d e r t e n s i o n , w h i c h i n s u r e s m o re d i r e c t w a te r c o n ta m in a n ts and s u r f a c e areas c o n t a c t betw een w a s t e ­ o f s o i l o r g a n i c and m in eral p a r t i c l e s . A lthough o r g a n ic lo a d in g is not lik e ly to be th e c o n s tr a in in g param eter in app ly in g secondary t r e a t e d m unicipal w a ste w a te rs to s o i l , i t may b e t h e c o n s t r a i n i n g p a r a m e t e r f o r w a s te w a te r s from su ch s o u r c e s a s fo o d p r o c e s s i n g p l a n t s , o r g a n i c - c h e m i c a l p l a n t s and any s o u r c e o f o r g a n i c s l u d g e . P e rm issib le organic lo ad in g to s o i l s m u s t be b a s e d o n a n u n d e rs ta n d in g o f th e p ro c e ss e s governing th e f a t e in s o i l s . in s o i l s , To m a i n t a i n maximum r a t e s of carbon o f o rganic d eg rad atio n and to p r e v e n t n u is a n c e o d o r s , aerobic co n d itio n s m u s t be m a i n t a i n e d t h r o u g h u p p e r p o r t i o n s o f t h e s o i l p ro file. N u trie n t loading in w aste a p p lic a tio n s some c o n c e r n b e c a u s e o f p o s s i b l e n itro g en to s o i l s is of tra n s fo rm a tio n s o f the in th e w aste to th e n i t r a t e form i n t h e s o i l . The 35 n itra te f o r m e d may b e s u b j e c t t o l e a c h i n g and a c c u m u l a t i o n in w a ter s u p p lie s w ith su b seq u en t h a za rd s o r may f i n d i t s way i n t o fo r d rin k in g w ater s u r f a c e w a t e r s w i t h accom panying p r o ­ blem s o f e u t r o p h i c a t i o n T h e rem o v al o f n i t r o g e n from th e w astew ater a p p lie d to a w e ll- d r a in e d so il is accom plished by t h e g r o w i n g c r o p . D uring peak grow ing p e r i o d s , l i k e c o r n may r e q u i r e 4 to a crop 5 pounds o f n i tr o g e n p e r a c re p e r d a y w h i l e many w i n t e r c o v e r c r o p s w i l l a b s o r b a s much as 2 pounds o f n i t r o g e n p e r a c r e p e r day d u r i n g p eak grow ing p e r i o d s berm uda g r a s s in sp rin g . A w ell-m anaged cro p o f c o a s t a l o v e r s e e d e d w i t h w i n t e r r y e may u t i l i z e as much a s 6 0 0 - 7 0 0 p o u n d s o f n i t r o g e n p e r a c r e p e r y e a r [Pounds, 19 7 3 b ] . To p r e v e n t e x c e s s i v e n i t r a t e is ap p lied a t ra te s p o l l u t i o n where n i t r o g e n exceeding crop u t i l i z a t i o n , would h a v e to a c t a s a d e n i t r i f y i n g req u ire selectio n of so il, site, sy stem . T h is would and h y d r a u l i c load to ob tain a lte rn a tin g aerobicv.and a n a e r o b ic c y c l e s aerobic c o n d itio n s in the upper ro o t d itio n s in the S alt problem a t loadings or f i e l d a few s p e c i f i c The s o i l defin ed c ap a city drainage d itc h es. i n l a n d a p p l i c a t i o n s y s t e m s may b e a sites w here i n d u s t r i a l w a ste s w ith h ig h s a l t o r sodium c o n c e n t r a t i o n s so il. or to produce zone and a n a e r o b i c c o n ­ l o w e r r o o t z o n e by c o n t r o l l i n g through s u b s u rfa c e d r a in s the s o i l a re bein g a p p lie d to the o r g a n i c and i n o r g a n i c com ponents have a fo r the a b s o rp tio n o f c a tio n s nom in ally d e fin e d as th e c a t io n in w astew ater, exchange c a p a c ity (CEC) b u t 36 only v ery lim ite d c a p a c ity to ab so rb a n io n s . w i t h s i g n i f i c a n t am ounts o f c l a y When a s o i l in th e p r o f i l e is tre a te d w i t h a w a s t e w a t e r o f s u f f i c i e n t sodium c o n c e n t r a t i o n su c h t h a t t h e p e r c e n t sodium s a t i s f y i n g r e a c h e s 12 t o 15 p e r c e n t , s t r u c t u r e may o c c u r , to conduct w ater. some d i s p e r s i o n o f t h e s o i l reducing th e a b i l i t y of the s o il Some o f t h e s e a d v e r s e e f f e c t s may be o v e rco m e by a p p l i c a t i o n o f s o i l if t h e CEC o f t h e s o i l a m e n d m e n t s s u c h a s gypsum t h e sodium l e v e l s a r e n o t e x c e s s i v e . I n f o r m a t i o n on t h e c o n ce n tratio n s o f various sa lts m i n e r a l b g i c a l com ponents, and s o i l c h em ic al c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are a ll necessary land d is p o s a l in the w astew ater, to p r e d i c t th e in teractio n s of s a lts in system s. The p r e s e n c e o f t o x i c h e a v y m e t a l s sludge so il i s a problem w hich h as been c i t e d h a za rd to la n d tr e a tm e n t norm al c o n c e n t r a t i o n s , [Chaney, to x ic in e f f l u e n t and as a l o n g - te r m 1973]. In e x c e s s o f elem ents w ith p o t e n t i a l hazards to p l a n t s o r t h e f o o d c h a i n a r e B o r o n ( B ) , Cadmium ( C d ) , C o b alt (Co), Chromium ( C r ) , C o p p e r N ickel (N i), Lead co n tain s ( P b ) , an d Z inc (Cu) , M e r c u r y (Z n). (H g), Sewage s l u d g e Zn, Cu, N i a n d Cd i n e x c e s s o f s o i l lev els. Two b a s e s h a v e b e e n r e c o m m e n d e d f o r t h e a d d i t i o n o f to x ic m etals are (1) to a g r i c u l t u r e as slu d g e or e f f l u e n t . B en efit : ris k r a t i o , ad d itio n s (2) l i m i t a t i o n o f m etal to p e rm it c o n tin u e d g e n e ra l farm ing B en efits a tt r ib u t a b le w ater, and org an ic m a tte r, [Chaney, to s lu d g e and e f f l u e n t N, PO^, These Zn, a n d Cu. R isks 1973]. in clu d e in clu d e 37 t h e t o x i c m e t a l s which s h o u ld be m in im iz ed w h e re v e r p o s s i b l e . T able 3 sho w s t h e r e a s o n a b l y a t t a i n a b l e to x ic m etal c o n te n t. P b , Hg, ( i n 1 9 7 3 ) minimum H i g h e r t h a n minimum C d , C o, C r , N i , and B c o n t e n t s a r e a r e s u l t o f i n d u s t r i a l p o llu tio n . Zn a n d Cu i n d i g e s t e d s l u d g e p r o b a b l y w i l l n e v e r d r o p b e l o w 500 a n d 200 ppm, r e s p e c t i v e l y . T able 3 is a s s e r t e d The m e t a l c o n t e n t show n i n to r e p r e s e n t an a t t a i n a b l e , to x ic m etal c o n te n t f o r d ig e s te d slu d g e , b en efit: risk ra tio reaso n ab le, and h e n c e a good f o r land a p p li c a t io n . S ludges w ith h i g h e r t o x i c m e t a l c o n t e n t s s h o u l d n o t be a p p l i e d ag ricu ltu ral land. These c r i t e r i a ( e x c e p t t h e Cd:Zn r a t i o ) a p p ly p r i m a r i l y f o r la n d s grow ing c r o p s f o r m odified fo r s i t e s T a b le 3. sale, M etal C o n te n t o f a S lu d g e A p p r o p r i a t e A p p licatio n Zn Cu Ni Cd B Pb Hg [Chaney, and c a n be not used fo r s a le a b le cro p s. f o r Land C ontent E lem ent Source: to 2000 ppm 800 ppm 1 00 ppm 0.5% o f Zn 1 00 ppm 1000 ppm 15 ppm 1973] I f th e c o m p o sitio n o f a slu d g e m eets th e above recom m endation, the next c o n s id e ra tio n m etal a d d itio n s to l e v e l s w hich p e r m it c o n ti n u e d g e n e r a l f a r m i n g o n t h e a m e n ded s o i l m atter is even a f t e r is to l i m i t to x ic th e added o rg a n ic g o n e a n d a n e q u i l i b r i u m o f m e t a l s a n d PO^ h a s b e e n 38 reached. Because lo w e rin g th e s o i l e x ten siv e in crease in to x ic m etal pH b e l o w 6 . 5 l e a d s a v aila b ility to to p l a n t s , some a s s u m p t i o n h a s t o be made a b o u t t h e pH o f t h e a m e n d e d so ils. Thus, i t was p r e s u m e d t h a t t h e t o x i c - m e t a l - a m e n d e d (sludge or e f f lu e n t) s o i l used fo r food crops w ill be m a i n ­ t a i n e d a t pH 6 . 5 o r a b o v e . A p p lic a tio n R ates The r a t e s o f e f f l u e n t a p p l i c a t i o n a t e x i s t i n g v aries co n sid era b ly , the a p p lic a tio n rate refle ctin g to s i t e th e req uirem en t to sp ecific c ited year. ch aracteristics, is tailo r c h aracteristics. These in c lu d e th e tre a m e n t a p p ro a c h u se d , so il sites clim atic and sy ste m o b j e c t i v e s . facto rs, A rate commonly 2 i n c h e s p e r w e ek f o r 35 w e e k s o r 70 i n c h e s p e r T his, and r e f l e c t s how ever, i s b a s e d upon t h e Penn S t a t e exp erien ce a sy s te m w i t h c r o p p r o d u c t i o n and r e n o v a t i o n as j o i n t o b je c tiv e s . An u p p e r l i m i t o f 4 i n c h e s p e r week and 8 f e e t p e r y e a r has been s u g g e s te d as an u p p er l i m i t fo r an i r r i g a t i o n c la ssific a tio n to ap ply [Pounds, 1973b]. System s Abandonment Many s y s t e m s r e p o r t e d in o p e ra tio n in e a r l i e r were n o t fo u n d i n s u b s e q u e n t s u r v e y s , in d icatin g abandonment o f l a n d t r e a tm e n t s y s te m s . efflu en t in C a li f o r n ia i r r i g a t i o n was g e n e r a l l y expanded i t s some In fo rm a tio n i s very s k e t c h y o n why t h i s a b a n d o n m e n t t o o k p l a c e . o f 24 a b a n d o n e d s i t e s surveys A survey and T exas fo u n d t h a t a b a n d o n e d when t h e c i t y sewage t r e a t m e n t f a c i l i t i e s and e i t h e r changed 39 p l a n t l o c a t i o n s o r had in a d e q u a te la n d a v a i l a b l e the i r r i g a t i o n system [Pounds, to expand 1973b]. Crop Y i e l d R e sp o n se Crop y i e l d s h a v e i n c r e a s e d w i t h w a s t e w a t e r a p p l i c a t i o n , b u t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e tw ee n w a s t e w a t e r a p p l i c a t i o n and y ie ld response is not ctlearly s p e c if ie d . are a ttrib u te d n u trie n ts Y ield in c r e a s e s to b oth in c re a s e d w a ter a v a i l a b i l i t y in th e e f f l u e n t . C onversely, y i e l d s c a n be a d v e r s e l y e f f e c t e d d u e t o t o o much w a t e r , t o x i c i t y due to and o r to p l a n t e x te n s iv e a cc u m u latio n s o f heavy m e ta ls . Some o f t h e m o s t e x t e n s i v e y i e l d r e s p o n s e d a t a a v a i l a b l e i s t h a t from t h e Penn S t a t e P r o j e c t . g e n e r a l l y show y i e l d i r r ig a ti o n o f corn, th is Crop d a t a f o r 1963-1970 in c re a s e s a s s o c ia te d w ith w astew ater corn s i l a g e , w h e a t, and a l f a l f a . e ig h t- y e a r p e rio d th e crop a re a s i r r i g a t e d w i t h two in c h e s o f e f f l u e n t w eekly r e c e i v e d a t o t a l w astew ater e q u iv a le n t D uring o f 392 i n c h e s o f to a p p ly in g 10,000 pounds o f 1 3 -6 -1 5 V. com m ercial f e r t i l i z e r . The c o n t r o l a r e a was f e r t i l i z e d w ith c o m m e r c i a l f e r t i l i z e r r a n g i n g f r o m 200 p o u n d s o f 0 - 2 0 - 2 0 p e r acre fo r o ats irrig a tio n in creases to 1000 pounds o f 1 0 - 1 0 - 1 0 o n c o r n . a t tw o i n c h e s p e r w e e k r e s u l t e d clo v er, in annual y ie ld r a n g i n g f r o m -8 t o 3 46 p e r c e n t f o r 5 t o 130 p e r c e n t f o r c o r n s i l a g e , corn g r a i n , 85 t o 191 p e r c e n t f o r r e d a n d 79 t o 139 p e r c e n t f o r a l f a l f a . betw een th e e f f l u e n t - i r r i g a t e d E fflu en t Y ield d if f e r e n c e s and c o n t r o l p l o t s w ere g r e a t l y i n f l u e n c e d by g r o w i n g s e a s o n p r e c i p i t a t i o n . D uring th e 40 y e a r s 1 9 6 3 - 1 9 6 6 , whe n g r o w i n g s e a s o n p r e c i p i t a t i o n was f i v e to e i g h t in c h e s below n o rm a l, y i e l d s on t h e i r r i g a t e d a r e a s w ere s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r t h a n on t h e c o n t r o l areas, but u s u a l l y d i f f e r e n c e s betw een t h e o n e -in c h - and t w o - i n c h - p e r w eek a p p l i c a t i o n s were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t . I n 19 67 a n d 1 9 6 9 , when g r o w i n g s e a s o n p r e c i p i t a t i o n was s l i g h t l y y i e l d d i f f e r e n c e s were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t . I n 1 9 7 0 , w hen g r o w i n g s e a s o n p r e c i p i t a t i o n was a g a i n b e l o w n o r m a l y ield d ifferen ces betw een th e c o n t r o l [Sopper, (1 .5 5 i n c h e s ) , and i r r i g a t e d w e r e a g a i n s i g n i f i c a n t b u t t h e two l e v e l s not above norm al, areas o f i r r i g a t i o n were 1973]. Land T r e a t m e n t A p p l i c a t i o n s Com m unities o f v a r y i n g s i z e h a v e o r a r e in v estig atin g th e land tre a tm e n t c o n c e p t f o r th e r e n o v a tio n o f m u n icip al w astew ater. W hile t h e c o n c e p t i f a t t e n t i o n can be a t t r i b u t e d far from new, to a t l e a s t th re e lo n g term r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t a t P e n n s y lv a n ia recent facto rs: the S ta te U n iv ersity v [P arizek, 1967], t h e n a t i o n a l a t t e n t i o n and i n t e r e s t g e n e r a t e d b y t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e c o n c e p t on a l a r g e scale a t Muskegon C o u n ty , M i c h ig a n p r o j e c t 1970, B auer, [S haeffer, 1 9 7 3 ] a n d t h e r e q u i r e m e n t o f PL 9 2 - 5 0 0 t h a t c i t i e s the land tre a tm e n t a l t e r n a t i v e D etro it, in v olvem ent C hicago, The Army C o r p s o f in w astew ater p i l o t C lev elan d , s u b s e q u e n tly ev o lved in to co nsider a s o n e p o s s i b l e m ea n s o f m eeting w a ter q u a l i t y r e q u ir e m e n ts . E ngineers the stu d ies and San F r a n c i s c o f o r B oston, i n 1971 t h e i r u rb a n s t u d i e s p ro g ram , one 41 a s p e c t o f w hich i s u r b a n w a s te w a te r management E n g in eers, 1972b]. i n M ichigan a r e [Corps o f A p p r o x i m a t e l y 50 o t h e r m u n i c i p a l i t i e s in v e s tig a tin g land treatm en t [P ierce, 1973], The c am pu s w a s t e w a t e r p l a n a t M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y is a n o t h e r exam ple o f t h e u s e o f t h e l a n d t r e a t m e n t c o n c e p t [B ahr, 1974]. D ata on e x i s t i n g sy s te m s co n sid erab le v a ria tio n is r e la tiv e ly i n t y p e and q u a l i t y . s c a r c e and o f E xperim ental d a t a from t h e p r o j e c t a t P e n n s y l v a n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y covers the p e rio d from 1963 t o t h e p r e s e n t and p r o v i d e s u s e f u l d a t a on c r o p a n d f o r e s t r e s p o n s e a s w e l l a s w a t e r ren o v atio n . A recent fie ld survey o f o p e ra tio n a l w a s c o n d u c t e d f o r EPA i n 1 97 2 [S u lliv an , system s 1973]. Muskegon C o u n ty , M i c h i g a n , W a s te w a te r Management S y stem The l a r g e s t l a n d t r e a t m e n t in th e U nited S ta te s ment System . system r e c e n t l y c o n s t r u c t e d i s t h e Muskegon C o u n ty W a s t e w a t e r M a n ag e ­ G r a n t s from t h e E n v ir o n m e n t a l P r o t e c t i o n Agency and th e M ichigan D epartm ent o f N a tu ra l R e so u rce s h e lp e d fin an ce a larg e sc a le designed to t r e a t $42 m i l l i o n , lan d tr e a tm e n t system . 4 3 . 4 MGD b y 1 9 9 2 , is The s y s t e m i s e stim a te d to c o s t e x c lu d in g la n d c o s t s , and w i l l c o v e r 10,800 a c r e s o f l a n d w i t h la g o o n s and i r r i g a t i o n sites [C haiken, 1973]. The M u s k e g o n C o u n t y p l a n is a com plete advanced w a s te ­ w a t e r t r e a t m e n t sy ste m w hich r e p l a c e s treatm en t f a c i l i t i e s rath er th e c o u n ty 's e x istin g t h a n s u p p le m e n tin g them. The 42 co un ty p la n is designed to h a n d le a l l w a te r from t h e c o u n ty e x c e p t f o r tw o i n d u s t r i a l firm s. t h a t t r e a t e d on s i t e The p r o j e c t i s d e s ig n e d to ab ate the d isc h a rg e o f in ad eq u ately w ater in to riv ers th e sew ered w a s te ­ trea te d t h e Muskegon and W hite R i v e r s . c o n trib u te 6.9% o f t h e d a i l y by to ta lly sew ered w a s te ­ T h e s e two i n o r g a n i c n i t r o g e n and 10.8% o f t h e d a i l y p h o s p h o r o u s f r o m t h e w e s t e r n s h o r e o f t h e lo w er M ichigan P e n in s u la i n t o Lake M ic h ig a n The t r e a t m e n t s y s te m h a s s i x and t r a n s p o r t n e tw o rk , basin s, a filte r irrig a tio n (lan d ), b io lo g ic al com ponents: c o l l e c t e d from h o u s e h o l d s and i n d u s t r i e s treatm en t s i t e sewage e n t e r s is d iv e rte d pended p a r t i c l e s in to se ttle in to o u t. L eaving th e a e r a t e d la g o o n s , a storage la g o o n , w here s u s ­ The e f f l u e n t E fflu e n t leav in g th is open c h an n e l to k i l l T h e re t h e raw where m ic ro o rg a n ism s a n o u t l e t l a g o o n w h e r e some a d d i t i o n a l place. is then d iv e rte d se ttlin g lagoon i s c h l o r i n a t e d takes i n an rem ain in g p a th o g e n ic m icroorganism s. The p i p e n e t w o r k t r a n s p o r t s rig s i n Muskegon and and f o r c e m ain to th e trea tm e n t lagoons, decom pose sewage o r g a n i c m a t t e r . th e e f f lu e n t Raw s e w a g e i s e l e v e n m i l e s e a s t o f Muskegon. aerated sto rag e f o r crop p ro d u c tio n , and a d r a in a g e n e tw o rk . in tercep to rs, 1973]. a c o llec tio n treatm en t c e l l s , la n d and f a c i l i t i e s t r a n s p o r t e d by s e w e r s , [C haiken, a t the trea tm e n t s i t e s . the e f f lu e n t It is to s p ra y i r r i g a t i o n ap p lied to th e E v a p o r a t i o n and p l a n t u s e consume p a r t o f t h e T h a t w h i c h moves t h r o u g h t h e s o i l system and r e t u r n e d to is efflu en t. co llected su rface w aters. so il. At t h i s in a d ra in a g e stage 43 tr e a tm e n t com parable to t e r t i a r y The f i r s t step tre a tm e n t has been re c e iv e d . in th e system i s the c o lle c tio n o f w aste­ w a t e r from t h e v a r i o u s d o m e s tic and i n d u s t r i a l th e l a r g e r subsystem , work o f s e w e r s , fo rc e m ains, T his w a s te w a te r i s treatm en t s i t e and pum ping s t a t i o n s c o l l e c t s o f the plan re p re se n ts t r a n s p o r t e d e le v e n m ile s to the T his p o r t i o n ap p ro x im ately o n e - th ir d of th e t o t a l co st. The s e c o n d s t a g e is th e one w hich m ost c l e a r l y approxim ates th e tre a tm e n t prov id ed p lan ts. in th e e x i s t i n g sew er through a 6 6 -inch c o n c re te p ip e . s y s te m 's c a p i t a l For a t h i r t e e n m ile long in te r c e p t o r n e t ­ w a s t e w a t e r from e l e v e n a c c e s s p o i n t s system . sources. in c o n v en tio n a l secondary The w a s t e w a t e r i s pumped t h r o u g h t h r e e a r t i f i c i a l la k e s or lagoons c a lle d treatm en t c e l ls . Each t r e a t m e n t c e l l has e ig h t a c r e s of s u r f a c e a re a and a dep th o f f i f t e e n feet. The a e r o b i c m i c r o b i o t i c fac ilitated by s i x m ix in g u n i t s a e r a t o r s w h i c h pump the treatm en t and tw e lv e m ec h a n ic a l is surface w a t e r up from th e b o tto m and s p r a y i t out over the su rfa c e o f th e c e l l . m e c h a n ic a l and b i o l o g i c in th ese c e l l s T his c o m b in a tio n o f treatm en t m aintains a l l so lid s in s u s p e n s i o n a n d r e d u c e s BOD b y 70-90% . A fter a th ree-d ay p eriod cells, t h e w a t e r i s pumped t o s t o r a g e b a s i n s . suspended s o lid s a re allow ed to c o n tin u e s a t a slow er r a t e w ater is clim ate in the b io lo g ic a l se ttle , treatm en t H ere, b io lo g ic the treatm en t th an in th e tre a tm e n t c e l l s , sto red fo r irrig a tio n . Because o f th e c o ld , and h u m id i n Muskegon C o u n ty , a l a r g e amount o f s t o r a g e c a p a c i t y 44 was p r o v i d e d i n t h e p l a n . There a r e two s t o r a g e b a s i n s each w i t h an 8 5 0 - a c r e s u r f a c e a r e a and a d e p th o f n i n e f e e t . T ogether, g allo n s, t h e two b a s i n s p r o v i d e sto rag e fo r 5,100 m i l l i o n o r t h e a v e r a g e f l o w o f 120 d a y s . Seepage is c o n ­ t r o l l e d by an i m p e r v io u s c l a y l a y e r s i x t y f e e t b en eath the so il surface. m ent. T his r e s t r i c t s th e w a te r to h o r i z o n t a l move­ A sy s te m o f w e l l s and a d r a i n a g e d i t c h c o l l e c t s th e w a te r w hich m ig h t e sc a p e from t h e c o l l e c t e d w a t e r i s pum ped b a c k i n t o The s t o r a g e receiv in g areas accid en tal th rea te n s sto rag e b a sin s. T his the sto ra g e b a sin s . b asin s are a lso u s e fu l as secondary to c u s h io n th e sy ste m a g a i n s t th e sh o ck o f to x ic in d u stria l the b io lo g ic can be d i v e r t e d sp ills. a c tiv ity If to x ic m ateria l in the to th e s to r a g e b a s in s . s to re d w ater w ill d i lu t e As t h e w a t e r i s the i r r i g a t i o n a ll it The l a r g e v o l u m e o f such to x ic m a t e r i a l s . t r a n s f e r r e d from th e s t o r a g e b a s i n field s, am ounts s u f f i c i e n t and a s s i m i l a t e treatm en t c e l l s , it is d is in f e c te d w ith c h lo rin e to re d u c e th e t o t a l t h a n 1 , 0 0 0 p e r 100 m l , M i c h i g a n ' s c o lifo rm s to to in less s t a n d a r d f o r body c o n t a c t r e c r e a tio n a l w ater. Irrig a tio n is the p la n s ' of six thousand a c re s o f c u l t i v a t e d fo u rth stag e. i r r i g a t i o n pumping s t a t i o n s The w a t e r i s tran sp o rted in open c h a n n e ls . land to T his c o n t a c t w i t h t h e a i r a c c o m p l i s h e s t h e d e c h l o r i n a t i o n n e c e s s a r y so th at the b io tic i r r i g a t i o n w a te r w i l l n o t be t o x i c a ctiv ity in the to the m ic ro ­ so il. From t h e i r r i g a t i o n p u m p i n g s t a t i o n s , two the w ater i s 45 transported through tw enty-seven m iles o f underground asbestos-cem ent pipes rotating point. rigs to i r r i g a t i o n spray r ig s . c o v e r i n g a p p r o x i m a t e l y 160 a c r e s These a r e from a c e n t r a l T h e y h a v e a r a d i u s o f 750 t o 1 , 3 0 0 f e e t a n d a r e propelled. They c o m p l e t e a r o t a t i o n v a r y from one t o se v en d a y s . i n a p e r i o d t h a t can The p l a n c a l l s f o r a maximum t o t a l w a te r a p p l i c a t i o n o f b o th w a ste w a te r and r a i n f a l l four i n c h e s p e r week. This is self- of in te n d e d to apply 2.5 m i l l i o n g a l l o n s p e r a c r e w i t h i n a seven month i r r i g a t i o n period. The i n i t i a l r a t e o f a p p l i c a t i o n w i l l be 2 . 1 inches p e r week and b u i l d up t o a p r o p o s e d a v e r a g e o f t h r e e inches p e r week. The t o t a l tio n expenses c o st of the p r o je c t is i n c l u d i n g l a n d and r e l o c a ­ e s t i m a t e d a t $42 m i l l i o n . The U . S . E nviron­ m e n t a l P r o t e c t i o n Agency and t h e S t a t e o f M i c h ig a n a r e p r o ­ viding grant assistan ce 55 p e r c e n t ; state t o Mu s k e g o n C o u n t y share-25 p ercen t). (Federal EPA a s s i s t a n c e sharefor r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s h a s b e e n ^ a p p r o v e d f o r $ 1 , 0 8 3 , 7 5 0 a n d may b e increased to $ 2 ,3 2 5 ,4 5 0 The l o c a l issue. [Chaiken, share w ill The C o u n t y w i l l 1973]. b e p a i d f r o m a $16 m i l l i o n b o n d recover p a rt of the c a p ita l costs through agreements w ith th e p a r t i c i p a t i n g cities, and i n d u s t r i e s . c o s t s and a l l of A p o rtio n o f the c a p ita l townships, t h e o p e r a t i n g c o s t s w i l l be r e c o v e r e d by a u s e r c h a r g e b a s e d on flo w . The t o t a l annual o p e ra tin g c o st $980,000 in th e f i r s t y e a r of o p e r a t i o n , by 1992. is estim ated at and a t $ 1 , 3 4 5 , 0 0 0 The s y s t e m i s e x p e c t e d t o h a v e r e l a t i v e l y l o w 46 operating co st, treated, a p p r o x i m a t e l y $90 p e r m i l l i o n g a l l o n s o r approxim ately h a lf the o p e ra tin g c o s t o f con­ v e n tio n a l advanced tre a tm e n t. The c o u n t y e s t i m a t e s annual charge fo r a fam ily of four. operating a $38 A p o rtio n o f the c o s t s w i l l be d e f r a y e d from r e v e n u e s from t h e sale of a g ric u ltu ra l products. The c o u n t y p r o v i d e d r e l o c a t i o n b e n e f i t s owners, 30 t e n a n t s , p ro fit organizations 2 farm owners, t o 154 h o m e ­ 4 businesses, and 2 n o n ­ to o b ta in lan d f o r th e p r o j e c t . c o s t was $ 1 . 6 m i l l i o n , The m o s t o f w h i c h was r e i m b u r s e d by EPA. The T e l e d y n e T r i p l e R C o r p o r a t i o n , has been r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the farms. a private the system o p e r a t i o n , firm , including E f f e c t i v e J a n u a r y 1975 t h e M u s k e g o n C o u n t y D e p a r t m e n t o f P u b l i c Works w i l l take over the system operation. Pennsylvania S ta te U n iv e rs ity \. In 1962, P e n n s y l v a n ia S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y had to c o r r e c t p o llu tio n of a local plant. s t r e a m c a u s e d by i t s sewage t r e a t m e n t A c y a n i d e w a s t e s d i s c h a r g e from l a b o r a t o r i e s caused a f i s h k i l l , questions had and t h e S t a t e H e a l t h D e partm en t r a i s e d a b o u t p h o s p h o r o u s and n i t r o g e n r e m o v a l s an d g e n e r a l improvements in e ff lu e n t q u a lity . committee o f i t s various The U n i v e r s i t y s e t up a science departments t o a d v i s e on t h e b e s t means o f m e e t i n g S t a t e r e q u i r e m e n t s and s o l v i n g p o l l u t i o n problem. proposed a This group of s c i e n t i s t s the 47 r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t t o d e t e r m i n e t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s a n d e c o n o my of u tilizin g treatm ent p lan t e ff lu e n t fo r University-owned lands in the are a. a n d s t u d i e s h a s come t h e s o - c a l l e d i r r i g a t i o n on From t h e s e p r o p o s a l s "Pennsylvania S ta te W a s te w a te r R e n o v a t i o n and C o n s e r v a t i o n R e s e a r c h P r o j e c t " [Parizek, 1967]. The d e c i s i o n t o i n i t i a t e t h e recommended d e m o n s t r a t i o n p r o j e c t was b a s e d o n a v a i l a b i l i t y o f U n i v e r s i t y l a n d s a farming a re a , adequate s o i l s sand y-lo am and c la y e y - l o a m , of c r o p s o f hay and c o r n f o r anim al the U n iv ersity , t r e e growth, the a v a i l a b i l i t y to c o n t r o l and e v a l u a t e d a t a , o p p o rtu n ity to u t i l i z e feeding a t irrig a tio n consisting of depth o f groundwater ranging f r o m 1 0 0 f e e t t o some 350 f e e t , U niversity personnel for in and means f o r evaluating forest w i t h and w i t h o u t i r r i g a t i o n . A su p p le m e n ta r y s t u d y on t h e i r r i g a t i o n o f s t r i p mine c o a l c u l m w i t h e f f l u e n t a n d s l u d g e was a l s o u n d e r t a k e n . ability to c o n v e r t b a r r e n s t r i p mine a r e a s The to p r o d u c tiv e l a n d f o r c r o p s and t r e e s has b e e n d e m o n s t r a t e d . Based upon t h e c u m u l a t i v e e f f e c t s o f t h e r e s e a r c h experience, the U n i v e r s i ty d e cid ed to expand the la n d t r e a t ­ ment system to h a n d le e f f l u e n t C o l l e g e as w e l l f ro m t h e town o f S t a t e a s from t h e U n i v e r s i t y . This p r o j e c t w ill i n v o l v e a p p r o x i m a t e l y 800 a c r e s o f l a n d , t h e 80 a c r e s in c o n tra s t to in the dem onstration p r o j e c t. The s y s t e m i s d e s i g n e d f o r s a n i t a r y t h a t rec eiv e d secondary p re tre a tm e n t. sewage e f f l u e n t He a v y m e t a l s a r e low 48 b e c a u s e t h e community sewage f l o w i s b a s i c a l l y r e s i d e n t i a l w i t h no i n d u s t r i a l a n d o n l y a l i m i t e d c o m m e r c i a l a r e a . U n i v e r s i t y L a b o r a t o r i e s do c o n t r i b u t e c h e m i c a l s t o the flow. The a r e a s u s e d f o r s p r a y i r r i g a t i o n a r e s u r r o u n d e d by zones o f v a ry in g s i z e s . No a t t e m p t h a s b e e n made t o buffer a d h e r e t o a n y mini mum b u f f e r a r e a , pollution p o s s ib ilitie s land area, a store a p p aren tly because a e ro so l a re minimal o r a b s e n t . a n d some r e s i d e n c e s a r e l e s s q u a r t e r m ile from th e sp ray a r e a s . m e n t known a s " T o f t r e e " is I n t h e Gameth an one- A new r e s i d e n t i a l develop­ s i t u a t e d along the U n iv e rsity p r o p e r t y l i n e and i n g e n e r a l p r o x i m i t y t o t h e s p r a y i r r i g a ­ tio n areas. Much o f t h e s p r a y i r r i g a t i o n d e m o n s t r a t i o n h a s b e e n b a s e d o n a n a p p l i c a t i o n r a t e o f two i n c h e s p e r w e e k , w i t h actual application a resting p e r i o d o f s i x and o n e - h a l f d a y s. wa s c o n s i d e r e d This r a t e to i n c l u d e an a d e q u a t e m easure o f p r o t e c t i o n against accidental varying f o r a c o n t i n u o u s p e r i o d o f 12 h o u r s a n d runoff." from one to f i v e W a t e r was a p p l i e d a t r a t e s i n c h e s p e r week. c r i t e r i a were s e t up i n 1972, U ntil a r a te o f four state inches per w e e k was p l a n n e d f o r a p o r t i o n o f t h e e x p a n d e d a p p l i c a t i o n area. The new f u l l - s c a l e p e r week, apparently, p r o j e c t w i l l b e b a s e d o n two i n c h e s b u t some c h a n g e s may b e p r o v i d e d . The p e r h o u r r a t e h a s b e e n v a r i e d fourth inch--the dosage p e rio d . from o n e - s i x t h former r a t e being u t i l i z e d i n c h to one- f o r an e i g h t - h o u r The 1 2 - h o u r a p p l i c a t i o n p e r i o d h a s b e e n favored because of sim p lic ity of o p e ra tio n . The same r a t e s 49 have been a p p l i e d to open c ro p f i e l d s and f o r e s t No h o l d i n g site facilities are provided a t the areas. irrigation o r t h e sewage t r e a t m e n t p l a n t b e c a u s e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r 12 m o n t h s p e r y e a r i s a n t i c i p a t e d . Area, I n t h e Gameland f o r crop lan d s and f o r e s t l a n d s , out throughout the w in te r. irrigation is irrigation is c a rried In th e A gronom y-Forestry a re a from m i d - A p r i l t o mid-November [Sullivan, 1973]. N a t i o n a l Communi t y S u r v e y In 1972, t h e E n v i r o n m e n t a l P r o t e c t i o n Agency c o n t r a c t e d w i t h t h e A m e r i c a n P u b l i c Works A s s o c i a t i o n t o c o n d u c t a field survey o f s i t e s a c r o s s t h e U n ite d S t a t e s where m u n i c i ­ p a l o r i n d u s t r i a l w a s t e w a t e r s were b e in g a p p l i e d t o th e l a n d . The a p p r o x i m a t e l y 100 f a c i l i t i e s large, su r v e y e d were r e l a t i v e l y long-established operations. Land t r e a t m e n t a p p l i c a ­ t i o n s f o r .m u n ic ip a l w a s te w a te r were p r i m a r i l y p o rtio n s of the country, w hile land treatm ent f a c i l i t i e s i n d u s t r i a l w a s t e w a t e r were g e n e r a l l y c o n t i n e n t and n o r t h e a s t e r n s e c t i o n s The s u r v e y r e s u l t s th e systems involved. water, located for in the m id­ [Sullivan, provide a d e ta ile d Its establishm ent of c r i t e r i a in the w estern 1973]. description of recommendations c a l l fo r the for land a p p lic a tio n of w aste­ and t h e r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t l a n d t r e a t m e n t must n o t be c o n s i d e r e d as a p a n ac ea o r a u n i v e r s a l method o f t r e a t m e n t . I t concluded t h a t th e re a re s u c c e ss fu l tions re fle ctin g considerable v a rie ty land treatm en t o p e ra ­ in the annual 50 application rate s, amount o f sewage p r e t r e a t m e n t , for land treatm en t. facilities I t also concluded th a t land are g en erally not " stre ssin g " do t h e y n e c e s s a r i l y c r e a t e c en t environment. treatm ent the system, nor a n u i s a n c e o r downgrade t h e a d j a ­ In f a c t , of the a f f e c te d environm ent. t h e r e was a g e n e r a l improvement Im portant fo r purposes of th is s t u d y was t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t s a l e of e f f lu e n t for b e n e fic ia l use has been g e n e r a l l y u n s u c c e s s f u l. Also, lo ca l public o p p o s itio n to r e c e i v e "somebody e l s e ' s major lim itin g in th e development o f l a r g e factor and r e a s o n w a s t e s " c o u ld be a land a p p l i ­ c a tio n system s. M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Campus W a t e r P l a n The I n s t i t u t e o f W a t e r R e s e a r c h a t M i c h i g a n S t a t e U niversity is involved in a complex e x p e r im e n ta l p r o j e c t known a s t h e "Campus W a t e r P l a n . ” Its knowledge from s e v e r a l in to a comprehensive study of the o v e ra ll disciplines purpose is to combine s t r a t e g y o f w a t e r q u a l i t y management. s y s t e m i s d e s i g n e d t o c o n d u c t e x p e r i m e n t s on t h e of wastewater of n a tu ra l ecosystems, The treatm ent and in p a r t i c u l a r , r e m o v e n i t r o g e n a n d p h o s p h o r o u s f r o m t h e w a t e r and u s e in h arv estab le food and f i b e r p r o d u c t s . The f a c i l i t y w ill initially divert 2,000,000 g a llo n s p e r day from t h e l o c a l m u n i c i p a l w a s t e w a t e r to the e x p e r i m e n t 's c o n v e n tio n a l in itial it treatm ent. The t r e a t e d approxim ately four m iles activated treatm ent p lan t sludge p la n t e fflu e n t w ill for b e pumped to the F ie ld L aboratory site. The 51 F ie ld L aboratory c o n s i s t s o f an a q u a tic trial system. The a q u a t i c c o m p l e x i s system o f fo u r a r t i f i c i a l o f 40 a c r e s j o i n e d composed o f a l a k e lakes with a t o t a l in s e r ie s of the d iv e rte d wastew ater, marshes f o r system and a t e r r e s ­ surface area to perm it the continuous and a m ars h s y s te m o f 3 o n e - a c r e internal n u trie n t recycling. The t e r r e s t r i a l a r e a i s o n 350 a c r e s n e x t t o t h e l a k e s y s t e m . hardwood f o r e s t a r e a s , and f i e l d s a pine p la n ta tio n , where v e g e t a t i o n and f i e l d s fie ld plant associations. spray i r r i g a t i o n flow I t contains cultivated regressed W ithin the area fields, to O ld­ i s a 145 a c r e s i t e w h e r e e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n on a v a r i e t y o f food and f i b e r c r o p s i s u n d e r way [ B a h r , 1974]. W a s t e w a t e r f r o m t h e c i t y o f E a s t L a n s i n g i s pumped i n t o t h e f i r s t pond o f t h e f o u r - l a k e s y s t e m i n t h e a q u a t i c complex It t h e n f l o w s t h r o u g h e a c h o f t h e f o u r l a k e s and becomes i n c r e a s i n g l y p u r i f i e d as a r e s u l t o f b io lo g ic p ro c e s s e s a s s o c ia te d w ith the ecology o f each la k e . The r e s e a r c h in the Takes w ill i n v o l v e management o f t h e a q u a t i c p l a n t and a n i m a l m a t e r i a l tio n of the n u tr ie n ts contained t o max imiz e t h e consump in th e w astew ater. W ater d i s c h a r g e d from t h e f o u r t h l a k e w i l l the t e r r e s t r i a l t r e a t m e n t complex. The e f f l u e n t be u se d i n is t o be a p p l i e d on a w i d e r a n g e o f v e g e t a t i o n u n d e r a v a r i e t y o f co n tro lled conditions. The m a n a g m e n t p r o g r a m o f t h e l a k e system is d e sig n ed to d e t e r m i n e a t what r a t e n i t r o g e n and p h o s p h o r o u s a r e a b s o r b e d by t h e a q u a t i c p l a n t l i f e . Several asp ects of 52 a q u a t i c p l a n t management i n c l u d i n g c u l t i v a t i o n , and c o n t r o l program. bility harvesting, of unwanted growth a re a s s o c i a t e d w ith t h i s Special emphasis w i l l b e made t o s t u d y t h e a c c e p t a ­ of harvested aquatic p lan t m aterial The m a n a g m e n t p r o g r a m f o r as animal food. the t e r r e s t r i a l f o c u s on t h e r e m o v a l o f p h o s p h o r o u s , and p e s t i c i d e s by c u l t i v a t e d p l a n t s in the vario u s stages of natural nitrogen, complex w i l l heavy m etals as w ell as th o se found succession. M i c h i g a n Communi t y E x p e r i e n c e There a re c u r r e n t l y 50 M i c h i g a n c o m m u n i t i e s w i t h designed land trea tm e n t system s, b u t o n l y t wo h a v e b e e n i n o p eratio n longer At t h e end o f 1972, m unicipal operation, w ill th a n one y e a r . spray ir r ig a ti o n p ro je c ts and i t is were c o m p l e t e d and i n expected t h a t n e a rly a l l e v e n t u a l l y be i n o p e r a t i o n 15 [Pierce, 50 s y s t e m s 1973]. P r o b l e m s e n c o u n t e r e d a t some o f t h e o p e r a t i o n a l systems in clu d ed inadequate c a p a c ity of the sto ra g e lagoons and t h e i n a b i l i t y of soils associated runoff. In a d d i t i o n , in t h e complex n a t u r a l soil particles to a c c e p t d e s i g n l o a d s and t h e an in a d e q u a te u n d e r s t a n d i n g interactions b e t w e e n w a s t e w a t e r and involved in land treatm en t o f te n leads to poor system d e s ig n . S o u t h e a s t e r n M i c h i g a n W a s t e w a t e r Ma n a g e m e n t S t u d y One o f t h e p i l o t w a s t e w a t e r m a n a g e m e n t s t u d i e s initiated by t h e Co rp s o f E n g i n e e r s D etroit m etropolitan area i n 1971 was f o r t h e [Corps o f E n g i n e e r s , 1971]. This 53 study evolved in to th e S o u t h e a s te r n Michigan W astewater Management S u r v e y Scope S t u d y . identify Its o b j e c t i v e was t o t h e p r e s e n t and f u t u r e w a t e r p o l l u t i o n problem s o f S o u t h e a s t e r n M ic h ig a n and to d e s i g n and e v a l u a t e feasibility the and c o n se q u e n c e s o f a l t e r n a t i v e w a s t e w a t e r management program s in solving th ese problems. l o n g - r a n g e w a s t e w a t e r management p l a n s I t developed t h a t would complement t h e w a t e r q u a l i t y p l a n s o f t h e S t a t e o f M ichigan and th us assist in meeting th e planning requirem ents of the Federal W a t e r P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l A c t Ame ndme nt s o f 1972 92-500). To r e a c h t h i s aim t h e n e e d s and o b j e c t i v e s to w ater p o l l u t i o n problems defined, related i n S o u t h e a s t e r n M i c h i g a n 'were a l t e r n a t i v e p l a n s were f o r m u l a t e d , tems were d e s i g n e d , ( P u b l i c Law treatm ent s y s ­ and t h e i m p a c t s o f t h e s e a l t e r n a t i v e p l a n s w e r e a s s e s s e d a n d e v a l u a t e d b a s e d on t e c h n i c a l , cal, institutional, considerations The b a s i c aesthetic, ecological, [Corps o f E n g i n e e r s , economi­ and s o c i a l 1971]. i n f o r m a t i o n and p r o p o s a l s d e v e lo p e d in the S o u t h e a s t e r n M i c h i g a n W a s t e w a t e r Management S t u d y s e r v e a s a starting Proposals are point f o r much o f t h e a n a l y s i s for land treatm ent s i t e s s e l e c t e d and a r e level. in t h i s study. i n Lenawee and S t . C lair e v a l u a t e d from a f i r m and r e g i o n a l CHAPTER I I I CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK The R e l a t i o n s h i p o f Institutions t o Land T r e a t m e n t La n d t r e a t m e n t o f w a s t e w a t e r r e q u i r e s mic i n p u t s o f l a n d , labor, othfer t r e a t m e n t m eth o d s for land. It differs econo­ from i n i t s more e x t e n s i v e r e q u i r e m e n t s The a c q u i s i t i o n o f r i g h t s land base is obtained and c a p i t a l . the usual to th e r e q u ir e d im p o rta n t to w a stew ater a u t h o r i t i e s i n a number o f ways. The a l t e r n a t i v e s a r e n o r m a l l y d e f i n e d by t h e i n s t i t u t i o n s a n d may be available a f f e c t i n g owner­ s h i p and u s e o f l a n d . The a n a l y s i s o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l q u a l i t y problems such as wastew ater treatm en t o fte n occurs work which em phasizes the ecosystem. environment is the n a tu ra l and p h y s i c a l This approach im p lies intelligible in an e c o sy s te m f r a m e ­ elements of t h a t man's t o t a l through the r a t i o n a l processes o f t h e p h y s i c a l d e f i n i t i o n o f an optimum e n v i r o n m e n t p u r e l y on t h e b a s i s o f n a t u r a l laws f a i l s to give ad eq uate r e c o g n i ­ t i o n to th e f a c t t h a t what i s o p tim a l perspectives reflected and v a l u e s through the [D itw iler, institutions t r i b u t i o n and u s e o f p o l i t i c a l depends upon p e o p l e ' s 1973], These v a lu e s t h a t determ ine are the d i s ­ and eco no m ic power and t h e r e b y 54 55 i n f l u e n c e and c o n t r o l Institutions control, have been d e fin e d as liberation, [Commons, i n d i v i d u a l b e h a v i o r and group a c t i o n . 1959], "collective and e x p a n s i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l rights of others, 1972]. arrangements privileges, and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s " Institutions in s o c ie ty exposure to th e represent established a n d e s t a b l i s h e d ways o f d o i n g t h i n g s They i n v o l v e t h e w o r k i n g r u l e s o f s o c i e t y ; they p ro v id e systems o f c o n tr o l sidered acceptable tions r e f le c t tution that i n d i v i d u a l and group b e h a v i o r . or groups, and a c a p a c i t y impose i t s w ill total on a n o t h e r . rights that When a p a r t i c u l a r is, involved insitution institution the is tran sfe rred t o t a k e away d i s c r e t i o n a r y r i g h t s , p o l i t i c a l power o f t h e [Samuels, is t h a t governs a very important the c o n tra c ts f o r t h e a c q u i s i t i o n and u s e o f th e t o t a l of rights" ascribed to la n d ow nership. to p ro p e rty r e p r e s e n ts indivi­ 1972]. conditions rights" to The e x e r c i s e o f t h e c a p a c i t y The c o n c e p t o f p r o p e r t y r i g h t s legal-econom ic individuals to s e l e c t a c o u r s e o f a c t i o n , i s d e t e r m i n e d by t h e r e l a t i v e duals o r groups Each i n s t i impose c o s t s , i t allows cost of a p a rtic u la r^ a c tio n or policy impose c o s t , to con­ Institu­ f o r one segment o f s o c i e t y from one g r o u p t o a n o t h e r . to power. a d is tr ib u tio n of a u th o rity i n d i c a t e d by t h e a m o u n t o f d i s c r e t i o n t a k e s away a l l i n many i n s t a n c e s i n d i c a t e what i s a d istrib u tio n of p o litic a l im plies action" and a s . " s e t s o f o r d e r e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s among p e o p l e w h i c h d e f i n e t h e i r r i g h t s , [Schmid, actio n in the t o ta l and "bundle The " b u n d l e o f of several d is tin c t 56 interests sim ple, places the r ig h t into c o n tra ctu al is and on i t p o l i c e power The a b i l i t y as w astew ater to This than abso lu te [Barlowe, action. domain, If if z o n i n g by t h e e x e r c i s e o f t h e removed from t h e l a n d ­ fee simple i n t e r e s t required rights fee sim ple t r a n s a c ti o n with­ the landowner is bear the co st of public through th e use o f eminent transferred to t h e landowner. i n any form o t h e r reflects than a v o lu n ta ry some i m p o s i t i o n o f p u b l i c several each w ith v a ry in g functions mental c o n s id e ra tio n s total suggest as for the p o rtio n Management and e n v i r o n ­ th a t a wastewater a u th o rity "bundle of r i g h ts " in te g ra l operations in a tre a tm e n t im plications "bundle of r i g h t s " a cq u ired . the is obtained actions. Land i s u s e d f o r acquire to are acquired A cq u isitio n of land rig h ts of the is re fle c te d cost of public policy actions. some p u b l i c c o s t s a r e operation, eminent t h e f u l l -market v a l u e o f t h e l a n d and not w i l l on p r i v a t e as governm ent I f wastewater t r e a t ­ o u t t h e u s e o f em inent domain a u t h o r i t y , is "bundle of individuals d i s c r e t i o n a r y power i s owners and th e y b e a r t h e f u l l thereby sell, 1972]. are obtained. ment a r e a s a r e c r e a t e d t h r o u g h presumably paid buy, through the use of ta x a tio n , t r e a t m e n t on p r i v a t e On t h e o t h e r h a n d , use, impose t h e c o s t o f a p u b l i c p o l i c y such i n t h e way l a n d r i g h t s p o l i c e power, to p o s s e s s , arrangem ents. exclusive ra th e r lim itations domain, The l a r g e s t b u n d l e i s o w n e r s h i p i n f e e which i n c lu d e s or enter rights" or r i g h ts . to land used f o r such treatm ent lagoons, pre-treatm ent 57 facilities, and pumping and d i s t r i b u t i o n facilities. Access to la n d f o r th e a c t u a l a p p l i c a t i o n o f w a ste w a te r can be acquired without acquiring the complete "bundle o f r i g h t s . " A c q u i s i t i o n an d Management O p t i o n s An i m p o r t a n t d i s t i n c t i o n obtain access available to land fo r i s made b e t w e e n o p t i o n s treatm ent purposes a nd t h e o p t i o n s f o r t h e management o f t h e f a r m i n g o p e r a t i o n a t the treatm ent s i t e s . acquire control The a c q u i s i t i o n o p t i o n s a r e u s e d t o o v e r a r e s o u r c e w h i l e t h e management o p t i o n s a r e me a n s t o o b t a i n services or behavioral a c q u isitio n options include fee simple p ro p erty r i g h t s , less than fee simple p ro p e rty r i g h t s , agreem ents, no r e a l property interest. fo r wastewater treatm ent purposes are for other pub lic purposes s p a c e and a g r i c u l t u r a l areas. to such as actions. The and c o n t r a c t u a l A cquisition options sim ilar to th o s e used t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n o f open l a n d on t h e f r i n g e o f m e t r o p o l i t a n A number o f management o p t i o n s can be e x e r c i s e d V. in conjunction with these a c q u is itio n o p tio n s, particularly f o r t h e f e e s i m p l e and c o n t r a c t u a l a c q u i s i t i o n o p t i o n s . Each o f th e a c q u i s i t i o n o p t i o n s has c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which influence th e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f c o s t s and b e n e f i t s treatm ent to th e landowners, of land the wastewater a u th o r ity , and t o o t h e r me mb e r s o f s o c i e t y . Fee Simple A c q u i s i t i o n A public agency o b ta in s a b s o lu te land ownership through fee sim ple a c q u i s i t i o n . R ights o f fee simple a b s o lu te 58 ownership in clu d e th e t o t a l land n o t re s e rv e d to the bundle of r i g h t s state to a p i e c e o f and n o t i n t e r f e r i n g the r i g h ts o f o th e r landowners. The p o w e r o f e m i n e n t d o m a i n may b e u s e d t o o b t a i n f e e s i m p l e t i t l e does n o t want to sell T his power i n s u r e s or local and i f l e g a l authority needed fo r a p u b lic purpose. allpw s a u th o rize d p u b lic its is available. t r a c t of land The u s e o f e m i n e n t d o m a i n authority to take p r iv a te p ro p erty p r e s e n t use or the wishes o f the p r e s e n t p r i v a t e owner, Proceedings i f a n o wn e r t h a t t h e F e d e r a l Government o r t h e S t a t e government can a c q u i r e a p a r t i c u l a r w ithout re g a rd to with upon payment o f j u s t compensation. i n e m i n e n t do m a i n a r e u s u a l l y w e l l d e f i n e d by statute. The l a r g e s t m o n e t a r y c o s t o f f e e s i m p l e a c q u i s i t i o n to a w astew ater a u th o r i ty such as th e finance interest is the purchase p ric e of the land, and p r i n c i p a l on b o n d s r a i s e d land p u rch a se and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e c o s t s . to I t may be n e c e s s a r y t o c r e a t e a m ec han ism t o r e i m b u r s e c o m m u n i t i e s for pro p erty tax revenues foregone a ta x - e x e m p t body. i f land i s p u r c h a s e d by Some o f t h e s e c o s t s may b e r e c o u p e d from a farm in g o p e r a t i o n o r p r o f i t s from a p p r e c i a t i o n in l a n d v a l u e upon s u b s e q u e n t r e s a l e . The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of fee sp ecify the d i s t r ib u t i o n o f authority, its the landowners, its sim ple a c q u i s i t i o n o p tio n e f f e c t s among a w a s t e w a t e r and s o c i e t y a t l a r g e . ad v an tag e s to an a u t h o r i t y is that i t perm its u s e o f t h e l a n d i n any manner c o m p a ti b l e w i t h i t s Some o f the objectives 59 w i t h o u t o b t a i n i n g a g re e m e n t from a second p a r t y . particularly im portant since and e n v ir o n m e n t a l to u n i la t e r a l it subjects thhn b i l a t e r a l is the engineering co n sid eratio n s of the treatm ent rather This system d e c i s i o n making. Fee simple a c q u i s i t i o n in s u r e s a long-term p lanning h o rizo n for the treatm ent s i t e . include D isa d v an ta g es to the a u t h o r i t y the high c o s ts o f fee public opposition simple i n t e r e s t s t h a t may b e e n c o u n t e r e d w i t h l a r g e s c a l e government involvem ent in the r e a l fee simple a c q u i s i t i o n , for a consideration. sell, e s t a t e m arket. rights Under c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s i t may their lands, but if they are they must r e l o c a t e o r leav e farming e n t i r e l y , o r work f o r t h e a u t h o r i t y a s an employee. Social a r e r e a l i z e d from f e e it sim p le a q u i s i t i o n as simple a c q u i s i ti o n facilitates benefits insures continued o p e ra tio n o f the waste treatm en t s i t e . also With landowners exchange t h e i r be to t h e i r a d v a n ta g e to s e l l fo rc e d to and t h e Fee the se le c tio n of lands serve broader le v e l public planning o b je c tiv e s . can be s p e c i f i c a l l y secondary uses selected for so il location, Sites and such as t h e p r e s e r v a t i o n o f open s p a c e , p ro tec tio n of recharge areas, urban expansion. and t h e c h a n n e l i z a t i o n o f The a c q u i s i t i o n o f l a r g e f a r m l a n d may i m p o s e a s o c i a l c o s t disrupted type, to if tracts of communities a re and s o c i a l a n d econ omic bo nds a r e b r o k e n . 60 Ma n a g e m e n t O p t i o n s When f e e sim ple t i t l e is acquired, the wastewater a u t h o r i t y c an manage t h e f a r m i n g o p e r a t i o n s ways. These i n c l u d e p u r c h a s e and manage, leaseback, and p u r c h a s e and r e s a l e in several p u r c h a s e and on c o n d i t i o n . P u r c h a s e a n d Manage T h i s i s a m a n a g e m e n t o p t i o n when f e e acquired. sim ple t i t l e is A w a s t e w a t e r a u t h o r i t y may c h o o s e t o m a n a g e th e farm ing o p e r a t io n s as a subsystem of the o v e r a l l water treatm ent o p e ra tio n . w aste­ These a d d i t i o n a l m a n a g e r i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s may t a x t h e m a n a g e r i a l r e s o u r c e s o f t h e w a ste w a te r a u t h o r i t y and t h i s c o u l d l e a d t o some t y p e o f s u b c o n t r a c t i n g arra n g em e n t f o r custom farm o p e r a t i o n s . However, c u s t o m f a r m i n g may b e i m p r a c t i c a l m etropolitan system due t o for a large the s iz e of the farming o p e ra tio n . The w a s t e w a t e r a u t h o r i t y w o u l d h a v e t o n e g o t i a t e n u m e r o u s c o n t r a c t s w ith custom o p e r a t o r s , enough o p e r a t o r s is in the a re a. p r o v i d e d t h e r e were An a l t e r n a t i v e arrangement to n e g o t i a t e a management c o n t r a c t w i t h a f i r m to handle the farming o p e ra tio n s . Suc h a n a r r a n g e m e n t was u s e d a t t h e Muskegon, M i c h i g a n , land tre a tm e n t s i t e , where a c o n t r a c t e x i s t e d between Teledyne C o r p o r a t i o n and Mu s k e g o n C o u n t y f o r tr e a tm e n t system, t h e o p e r a t i o n and m o n i t o r i n g o f t h e including th e farming o p e r a tio n . 61 P u r c h a s e and L ea se b ac k Under t h i s management o p t i o n a cq u ires fee simple t i t l e the o p e ra tin g a u th o r ity t o l a n d and l e a s e s p a rty fo r farming o p e r a tio n s . T h i s o p t i o n may r e q u i r e t h a t p r o v i d e some m a n a g e r i a l costs (which i n t h i s services. s u c h as a management th e government u n i t Furtherm ore, maintenance c a s e a r e u s u a l l y b o r n e by t h e g o v e r n ­ m e n t u n i t ) may be h i g h . p a s s e d on t o to an o th er The l e a s e e may be, t h e p rev io u s landowner or a t h i r d p a r t y , firm. it However, the le a s e e . t h e s e c o s t s may b e P urchase and l e a s e b a c k has th e advantage o f q u ite d e f i n i t e l y establishing uses p u r c h a s e and l e a s e b a c k can for the land. be done w i t h i n Moreover, the w e ll-e s ta b lis h e d legal subsequent framework o f t h e l a n d l o r d - t e n a n t law. Enforcement o f use l i m i t a t i o n s difficult, i f th e terms o f th e l e a s e especially is not sp ell out th e r i g h t s and d u t i e s o f each p a r t y and the rem edies available sell fo r breach of c o n tra c t. back has been used in the United S ta te s E ur op e a s a means o f b b t a i n i n g these P u r c h a s e and l e a s e or instances, and W estern la n d f o r open sp a ce . In t h e o p e n s p a c e was d e s i g n a t e d f o r r e c r e a ­ tio n or w ild life preserves, o r d e r l y urban development o r was e a r m a r k e d f o r f u t u r e [Schneider, 1973]. Uses o f t h e p u r c h a s e and l e a s e b a c k o p t i o n on a l a r g e scale in the United S ta te s a r e unknown. a r ra n g e m e n t m ight be a t t r a c t i v e r e tire m e n t age, responsibilities who w a n t s However, such an to a farmer approaching t o r e l i n q u i s h some o w n e r s h i p b u t i s n o t re a d y to c o m p le te ly withdraw 62 from fa rm in g . The a m o u n t o f l a n d a c q u i r e d by p u r c h a s e a n d l e a s e b a c k depends on t h e farm o p e r a t o r ’s p a r t i c i p a t i o n and th e p u b l i c ’s acceptance o f the program. w ill probably influence t h e amount o f l a n d a c q u i r e d . p a rtic ip a tio n of a public the novelty of th is tance. Public acceptance agency i n land s p e c u l a t i o n and a p p r o a c h m i g h t c a u s e some p u b l i c r e s i s ­ To i m p l e m e n t p u r c h a s e a n d l e a s e o r s e l l back, l e g i s l a t i o n may b e n e c e s s a r y i n o r d e r t o a u t h o r i z e c re a tio n of a public agency. The e f f e c t i v e n e s s a p u b l i c a g e n c y w o u l d be e n h a n c e d i f authority to issue The the o f such i t was g i v e n t h e t a x - f r e e bonds f o r f i n a n c i n g the i n i t i a l purchase of the land. The t e r m a n d f o r m o f a n y n e g o t i a t e d l e a s e influence t h e u s e f u l n e s s o f t h e p u r c h a s e and l e a s e b a c k o p t i o n . t e r m may v a r y f r o m l e s s than a year, one to f o r l o n g e r p e r i o d s o f u p t o 99 y e a r s . ten years or Long t e r m l e a s e s n o rm ally run f o r p e r i o d s o f f i f t e e n y e a r s o r more. l o n g p l a n n i n g h o r i z o n s are" i m p o r t a n t f o r sites. Ma i n f o r m s o f l e a s e s rent. Cash r e n t l e a s e s c a l l e v e r y month o r e v e r y y e a r . the landowner but le a v e s uncertainties the tenant su b je c t [Barlowe, to t h e r i s k and Share r e n ts and t h e p r o d u c t i o n and r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s the lan d lo rd c a s h payment T ypically a cash r e n t p ro te c ts between th e l a n d l o r d and t e n a n t . th e te n a n t to land treatm ent for a sp e c ific of th e farming a c t i v i t i e s . t o s h i f t some r i s k s Such i n c l u d e c a s h - r e n t and s h a r e s p e c ify a d i v i s i o n of the crop y i e l d s costs The A major e f f e c t is o f management from 197 2 ] . 63 P u r c h a s e a n d R e s a l e on C o n d i t i o n This o p tio n e n t a i l s its t h e p u b l i c p u r c h a s e o f l a n d and subsequent r e s a le fo r p r iv a te use, designed to achieve l e g i t im a t e p u b lic under c o n d itio n s ends. I t has been used most f r e q u e n t l y in urban renew al p r o j e c t s , me a n s o f i n s u r i n g that so t h a t d e v e l o p m e n t and u s e w i l l the development p la n . subsequent use of land with p u b lic is The i n t e n t is also land use o b j e c t i v e s . f o r damages o r injunctive r e lie f . r e t u r n s l a n d to t h e t a x r o l l s maintenance c o sts ment. and p u b l i c land are e lim in a te d once the r e s a l e takes place. to o b t a i n to la n d w i t h o u t making a lon g -term c a p i t a l I t reduces a d m in is tr a tiv e problems as p u b lic out of the r e a l ditions of sale This approach This o p tio n e n a b le s a w a ste w a te r a u t h o r i t y the r ig h ts to ensure c o m p a tib le and in c o n fo rm ity The p u b l i c b o d y c a n e n f o r c e t h e c o n d i t i o n s by a s u i t a t h a t l a n d a c q u i r e d by a p u b l i c b o d y s h a l l be p r o p e r l y t r a n s f e r r e d conform to and i s e s ta te business im p o rta n t to th e o p e r a t i o n fairly it gets invest­ the quickly. Con­ such as amounts o f w a s t e ­ w a t e r t o be a c c e p t e d and n e c e s s a r y e n v i r o n m e n t a l p r o t e c t i o n , can be p r e s c r i b e d in the r e s a le conditions. the time o f p urchase to th e tim e o f r e s a l e O p e r a t i o n from c a n be a c c o m ­ p lis h e d under le a s e o ptions or o th e r agreem ents. A v a r i a t i o n o f p u r c h a s e and r e s a l e u n d e r c o n d i t i o n is t h e p u r c h a s e a n d r e s a l e whe n t h e l a n d needed f o r w astew ater a p p l i c a t i o n . i s no l o n g e r Any g a i n s realized le a se arrangem ents or subsequent s a le o f th e land could from 64 help finance the wastewater a u th o rity , community f o r any t a x l o s s resulting o r compensate the from t h e r e d u c t i o n in taxable property. Real P ro p e rty An a l t e r n a t i v e I n t e r e s t O t h e r Than F e e to fee simple a c q u i s i t i o n tio n of only th a t p o rtio n o f the t o t a l n e c e s s a r y to meet s p e c i f i c prime example o f r e a l easement "bundle o f r i g h ts " objectives. interest--other is a cq u isi­ Easements a re a than fee. An is a t r a n s f e r of only a p a r t o f the t o t a l "bundle of r i g h t s " v e s te d individual in fee sim ple ownership, to a governm ent body. p ro p e rty c h a r a c t e r as E a s e m e n t s h a v e a common they r e p r e s e n t governmental to s e c u re p r o p e r ty r i g h t s from an action for non-owners. T h e r e a r e t wo g e n e r a l c l a s s e s o f e a s e m e n t s , p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e [Whyte, 1968]. A positive easement i s a r i g h t h e l d by t h e p u r c h a s e r o r r e c i p i e n t o f t h a t e a s e m e n t t o u s e t h e p r o p e r t y a c c o r d i n g t o some s e t a g r e e m ent. rights, in, Examples o f p o s i t i v e and a u t i l i t y easements company's r i g h t o r above o n e 's p r o p e r t y . bution lin e s exercising right. commonl y b e e n d e s i g n a t e d farmer tr a n s f e r r in g install lin e s on, A negative easement is t h a t p r e v e n t t h e l a n d o w n e r from a specific wetland purposes. to R ights for wastew ater d i s t r i ­ a r e a n o t h e r e rxa mpl e . a tran sfer of rights include fish in g for N e g a t i v e e a s e m e n t s have most scenic, conservation, and An e x a m p l e o f a n e g a t i v e e a s e m e n t his rig h ts is a to d r a i n l a n d s u se d as g e e se 65 landing a re as. He t r a n s f e r s h i s r i g h t s to d r a in h is land i n e x c h a n g e f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f some t y p e . Many S t a t e s h a v e u s e d e a s e m e n t s e i t h e r a t or local level, resources, to p re s e rv e m aintain the n a tu ra l public with access fishing, scenic hunting, beauty, state, the State conserve n a tu ra l or provide the to p r i v a t e la n d f o r such a c t i v i t i e s and h i k i n g . as The e a r l y e x p e r i e n c e w i t h e a s e m e n t s was p r i m a r i l y a t t e m p t s b y i n d i v i d u a l s or groups to o b ta in scenic easements. The N a t i o n a l P a r k S e r v i c e initiated the w idespread a p p l i c a t i o n o f easements in the 1930s to p r e s e r v e t h e l a n d s c a p e a lo n g t h e Blue Ridge and Natchez T r a i l Parkways. A f t e r W o r l d War I I , a g a i n u s e d to a c q u i r e l a n d from p a r k s . L e g is la tiv e Act, in C a lifo rn ia The f i r s t t h e Open S p a c e E a s e m e n t a c t , i n 1959. however, a r e o n l y now b e i n g r e a l i z e d made h i s t o r y their [Schneider, The e a s e m e n t c o n c e p t ' , i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t u r e as a method t o m a i n t a i n a g r i c u l t u r a l o f urban development [U.S. L and C o n s e r v a t i o n A c t i s Congress, e s t a b l i s h e d by P u b l i c A c t 1 1 6 , Michigan, land 1974]. a prim e example Easements a r e p e r m i t t e d in M ichigan; is State S i m i l a r open sp a ce a c t s were r a p i d l y a d o p t e d by m o s t l a r g e u r b a n S t a t e s ; tialities e ase m en ts were 1973]. in a g r i c u l ­ in the path The C a l i f o r n i a [C ollin, authority passed poten­ for i n 1974 1971] . its use [S tate of 1974]. Easements can be d o n a t e d , t h r o u g h c o n d e m n a t i o n by p u b l i c purchased, agencies. ty f o r the a c q u i s i t i o n of easements or acquired However, authori­ i s n o t as w id e sp rea d as 66 the au th o rity instances, to purchase legislation acquisition of lesser but excludes the fee sim ple t i t l e . has been p a sse d which e n a b le s interests the in land than fee sim ple, t h e use o f th e power o f e m in en t domain. As i n t h e c a s e o f f e e s i m p l e a c q u i s i t i o n , ment c o n c e p t has c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s tribution of its authority, In s e v e r a l which in f lu e n c e s i m p a c t s among f a r m e r s , and s o c i e t y of easements fa v o ra b le the e a s e ­ in g e n e ra l. to farm ers the d i s ­ the wastewater A characteristic is that i t allow s them to m a i n t a i n o w n e rsh ip and t h e y r e l i n q u i s h certain rights in exchange fo r n e g o ti a t e d com pensation. A disadvantage is t h a t t h e y may h a v e d i f f i c u l t i e s individual in enforcing their rights. The m a j o r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of easements a re framed w i t h in th e c o n te x t of advantages and d is a d v a n ta g e s wastewater a u th o rity . Some a d v a n t a g e s o f e a s e m e n t s to the t o an a u th o rity are: 1. less C o s t s and f i n a n c i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s than with fee simple a c q u i s i t i o n , are g en erally both for a c q u is itio n and m ain ten an ce. 2. objective. The r i g h t s r e q u i r e d can be t a i l o r e d For example, l a n d may b e t o irrigate, easements, to a s p e c i f i c to c e r t a i n p a rc e ls of w hile easements to o t h e r p a r c e l s may o b t a i n t h e r i g h t f o r w a s t e w a t e r t r a n s m i s s i o n p i p e s to pass. 3. Less community o p p o s i t i o n would be e n c o u n t e r e d as lan d remains i n p r i v a t e o w n e r s h i p and on t h e t a x r o l l s . 67 Also, there is a time dim en sion to an easement which can le s s e n landowners concerns over irrevocable tra n sfe r of land r i g h t s . Disadvantages 1. It to an a u t h o r i t y is d i f f ic u lt n eg o tiatio n purposes. include: to e s t a b l i s h easement v a lu e s An i n d i c a t o r u s e d is for the p ric e d i f f e r e n c e o f a p a r t i c u l a r p l o t o f l a n d b e f o r e and a f t e r easement r e s t r i c t i o n s 2. A d m in is tr a tiv e problems a r i s e authority 3. in en fo rcin g rights. When e a s e m e n t s a r e e s t a b l i s h e d t o p r o t e c t s p e c i a l conditions, if are attached. t h e permanence o f t h e easem ent can be a f f e c t e d th ese c o n d itio n s change. 4. In r a p i d l y d e v e lo p in g a r e a s , th e easement c o s t can approxim ate the c o s t o f fee sim ple ow nership. trative authorities Adminis­ i n s u c h a r e a s may b e r e l u c t a n t t o a c q u i r e e a s e m e n t s t h a t may c o s t a s much a s 6 0 - 8 0 p e r c e n t o f fee sim ple ownership. 5. T h e r e may b e a p r o b l e m o f e n f o r c e m e n t a g a i n s t subsequent fee purchases or i f th e easement is not properly recorded. No R e a l P r o p e r t y Interest - C o n t r a c t u a l Agreement The t h i r d c a t e g o r y o f a c q u i s i t i o n o p t i o n s a r e t h o s e which i n s u r e a c c e s s property rig h ts . parties to lan d w ith o u t any t r a n s f e r s In t h i s case, involved determ ines the of real n e g o t i a t i o n between the terms of th e a greem ent, 68 which a re n o rm ally s p e c i f i e d agreement. authority, Contracts i n some t y p e o f c o n t r a c t u a l betw een a fa r m e r and a w a s t e w a t e r wastewater c o o p erativ es, ment r i g h t s a r e exam ples o f t h i s and t r a n s f e r o f d e v e lo p a c q u isitio n option. Contracts C o n t r a c t s b e t w e e n two o r m o r e p a r t i e s fy an agreement o f a c t i o n s generally speci to be t a k e n o r r e f r a i n e d i n exchange from a s p e c i f i e d c o n s i d e r a t i o n . i s a c o n t r a c t between a farm er and c o u n ty , water a u th o rity specifying from An e x a m p l e city, or w aste­ t h e term s o f an agreem ent to o p e ra te a land tre a tm e n t system. The t e r m s o f a c o n t r a c t v a r y f r o m l o c a t i o n tion reflectin g s p e c i f i c management s i t u a t i o n s . c o n t r a c t terms can in c lu d e agreem ents o f i r r i g a t i o n d e l i v e r y and d r a i n a g e system s, d u ratio n of the c o n tra c t, and t e r m in a tio n c la u s e s s p e c ify th e annual receive [Lewis, 1974]. amount o f e f f l u e n t from t h e a u t h o r i t y . The on t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n t i o n o f c ro p s from t h e fa rm in g o p e r a t i o n , arrangem ent, to l o c a ­ the d i s t r i b u ­ cost sharing review procedures, A c o n t r a c t can a l s o th a t the farmer w ill The f a r m e r c o u l d t h e n a l l o c a t e t h e w a s t e w a t e r t o c r o p s c o m p a t i b l e w i t h h i s management objectives. A w a s t e w a t e r a u t h o r i t y may c o n t r a c t t o s e l l e f f l u e n t to farm ers, land d isp o sal although a survey o f o p eratin g systems found such t h a t g e n e r a l l y been u n s u c c e s s f u l . a public a g e n c y was a b l e the sa le s have Few e x a m p l e s w e r e f o u n d w h e r e to o b t a i n more t h a n t o k e n payment 69 for the tr e a te d effluent. Examples o f s a l e o f w a s t e w a t e r w e r e m o s t common f o r g o l d c o u r s e s . Lake Havasu C i t y , Arizona, to g o l f c o u rses f o r example, s o l d e f f l u e n t for $20/per a c r e - f o o t, c o m p a r e d w i t h $40 t o $ 7 5 / p e r - a c r e - f o o t fo r dom estic w ater [Sullivan, 1973]. The l a n d t r e a t m e n t s y s t e m a t L u b b o c k , example o f a c o n t r a c t u a l and f a r m e r s . system agreement between a m u n ic i p a l it y A pproxim ately 2,900 a c re s operating Texas i s an s i n c e 1937. are involved in a Approximately 4-6 acre f e e t o f e f f l u e n t a re a p p lied annu ally fo r use i n f o r a g e and liv e s to c k farming. A prime c o n t r a c t o r the m u n ic ip a lity Some l a n d i s contractor, (farmer) and o t h e r is t h e m i d d l e man b e t w e e n farmers using the e f f lu e n t. owne d b y t h e c i t y , some owne d by t h e p r i m e a n d some l e a s e d f r o m a d j o i n i n g t w e n t y y e a r c a s h l e a s e was n e g o t i a t e d The p r i m e c o n t r a c t o r is required farms. A f o r c i t y owned l a n d . to take a l l the e fflu e n t from t h e h o l d i n g t a n k s a t "all t i m e s . L a nd p r e p a r a t i o n , construction of ditches, of pipe lin e s , related costs the c i t y . installation a r e p a i d by t h e irrigators, rather and than A c o o p e r a t i v e and u n d e r s t a n d i n g a t t i t u d e b e tw e e n t h e m u n i c i p a l gov ern m en t and t h e o p e r a t o r of t h e p r o j e c t were i d e n t i f i e d o f th e system. dispose of its as e s s e n t i a l J u s t as a c i t y wants w astes, long-term c o n tra c t to to the success insure a place to t h e f a r m e r m u s t be p r o t e c t e d w i t h a i n o r d e r t o make t h e n e c e s s a ry to handle th e e f f l u e n t [Gray, investm ents 1968]. 70 W astewater C ooperatives Group a c t i o n t h r o u g h a c o o p e r a t i v e e f f o r t f a m i l i a r c o n c e p t in American a g r i c u l t u r e . farm ers form c o o p e r a t i v e s and s e l l th e ir crops, Although to p u rc h a se p r o d u c tio n s u p p l i e s these cooperative ventures are not g e n e ra lly extended to la n d use. that is a I t has been su g g ested i n c r e a s i n g p a r t n e r s h i p s and g r e a t e r c o o p e r a t i v e action w ill be n e c e s s a r y f o r f a r m e r s environment of c o n tr a c tu a l to f u n c tio n systems o f c o n tr o l i n an [Breimyer, 1973]. A use of c o o p e ra tiv e s n a tiv e to the fo r land two p a r t y c o n t r a c t u a l e x i s t i n g b e tw e e n an i n d i v i d u a l authority. G e r ma n y . in the area since the ble size. is divided Policy decisions irrigation into 75 p e r c e n t . system. four d i s t r i c t s o f compara­ The c o s t o f t h e f a r m e r s p a y 25 p e r c e n t a n d t h e c i t y The w a t e r c o s t to the farmers There is an a v erage annual r a i n f a l l fo r the a r e a 's The t o t a l a r e made b y a c o m m i t t e e o f f i v e and fo u r c i t y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . system is d iv id e d ; 550 f a r m e r s , a n d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 8 mgd. o f r a w a land treatm ent Braunschweig area foot. i n 1954 t o e x p a n d t h e a c t i v i ­ The a s s o c i a t i o n c o m b i n e d t h e c i t y , 10,400 a c re s o f la n d , farmers arrangements o fte n f a r m e r and w a s t e w a t e r o f a sewage farm o p e r a t i n g sewage i n t o an a l t e r ­ The Se wa ge U t i l i z a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n o f B r a u n s c h w e i g was o r g a n i z e d 1890s. is Such a c o o p e r a t i v e a p p r o a c h i s u s e d i n Braunschweig, ties treatm ent p r in c ip le crops o f p o ta to e s , is about $30/acre- d e f i c i t o f 2M sugar beets 71 and s m a ll g r a i n s , additional water so f a r m e r s a r e [T ietjen, interested in obtaining 1973]. A cooperative venture i n w a s t e w a t e r management would p r o b a b l y be m o r e c o g n i z a n t t h a n a n o u t s i d e a g e n c y o f t h e w ell-being of the ru ra l the e x is tin g community, economic and s o c i a l c o o p e ra tiv e might a lso implementing o t h e r organization. serve as a b a sis community g o a l s . i n ;the W e s t e r n U n i t e d S t a t e s v en tu re with a su c c e ssfu l A disadvantage f o r p l a n n i n g and Irrigation d istric ts tradition. in c o o p e ra tiv e land use d e c isio n s l o s s o f freedom o f in d iv i d u a l Farmers ten d to p la c e a high degree o f e m p h a s i s o n ’’f r e e d o m . " However, t i v e movement i n d i c a t e s mutual g ain s input purchases Such a a r e a form o f c o o p e r a t i v e c o u l d be t h e p e r c e i v e d o r r e a l d e c i s i o n making. as i t would b u i l d upon the h is to r y o f the co o p era­ f r o m c o o p e r a t i o n on a nd commodity s a l e s e x c e e d s any p e r c e i v e d l o s s o f freedom. s. T r a n s f e r o f Development R ig h ts T ra n s fe r o f development r i g h t s u s e management t o o l acceptability. receiving Transfer zones a r e a l s o be a l l o w e d Using TDR's, e s t a b l i s h e d where development is and t h e d e v elop m en t p o t e n t i a l density w ill a land i n c r e a s e d a t t e n t i o n and c o n tro l o f development. c o n s e r v a t io n zones a r e the land. is T h e y c a n b e u s e d by a g o v e r n m e n t a l body for g reater police restricted, (TDR's) is " s e v e r e d " from c r e a t e d where a c e r t a i n i f development r i g h t s are purchased. 72 The i d e a o f TDR' s i s ment r i g h t s tion t h a t through the purchase of develop­ by l a n d o w n e r s i n t h e t r a n s f e r zones, conserva­ zone lan do w ners w i l l be com pensated f o r t h e g o v e r n ­ mental r e s t r i c t i o n p l a c e d upon t h e i r l a n d w i t h o u t th e expenditure of public funds [Schnidman, 1974], The a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e TDR c o n c e p t t o l a n d t r e a t m e n t projects nity needs f u r t h e r e x p lo ra tio n . f o r communities policy objectives an o p p o r t u ­ t o c o o r d i n a t e a number o f p u b l i c such as w astew ater tre a tm e n t, o p m e n t o f down t o wn a r e a s , lands It offers in the ru ra l-u rb a n the r e d e v e l ­ and t h e m a in te n a n c e o f a g r i c u l t u r a l fringe areas. The I m p a c t o f A c q u i s i t i o n a n d Ma n a g e me n t O p t i o n s on f a r m e r ' s G o a l s Goals Framework A community o r w a s t e w a t e r a u t h o r i t y a c q u i r e s rights these from e x i s t i n g rights varying landowners. The o p t i o n s for acquiring and f o r managing a l a n d t r e a t m e n t system have i m p a c t s on t h e g o a l s o f t h e a f f e c t e d a c c e p t a n c e and c o o p e r a t i o n w i l l of success land farmers. be a key f a c t o r i n t h e d e g r e e a c h i e v e d by a l a n d t r e a t m e n t s y s t e m . and a p o s i t i v e Farmer response are re la te d Acceptance to the c o m p a t i b i l i t y o f a c q u i s i t i o n and management o p t i o n s w i t h a f a r m e r ' s g o a l s . The o p t i o n s for a c q u i s i t i o n and management a r e assumed t o e f f e c t farm o p e r a t o r s ' tion, w ealth accum ulation, d e c i s i o n making, g o a l s o f income g e n e r a ­ firm growth, relative freedom o f and a s e n s e o f community p a r t i c i p a t i o n . The g o a l o f i n c o m e g e n e r a t i o n a s s u m e s a n o p e r a t o r h a s 73 s u ffic ie n t resources additional cap ital term (1-3 y e a rs ) (land, labor, and c a p i t a l ) to expand t h e f i r m . and lo n g - te r m g o a l s m u s t be c o n s i d e r e d . to p ro v id e Thus, b o th th e s h o r t ­ (4 y e a r s o r m o r e ) p l a n n i n g Long-term g o a ls a r e b a s e d on e x p e c ­ t a t i o n s o f s u f f i c i e n t c o n tin u ity o f farming o p e ra tio n s sure adequate re tu r n s from l o n g - t e r m i n c o m e c a n be r e a l i z e d if there investm ent. to in­ Furthermore, i s a m a rk e t f o r goods p r o ­ duced. P ro d u c tio n w ith o u t adequate m arkets has caused s u r ­ pluses, d e p r e s s e d farm incom es, costs for price supports. and i n c r e a s e d governm ent Some t h e o r e t i c a l f o r income m a x i m i z a t i o n a r e p r e s e n t e d considerations i n A p p e n d i x A. W ealth a c c u m u l a t i o n and f i r m g r o w th r e f l e c t sion of current the income from c o n s u m p t i o n t o impact o f c a p i t a l o f some t y p e appreciation. is g en erally expected, r e t i r e m e n t o r making i t the d iv e r ­ i n v e s t m e n t and F u tu re consumption such as p r o v i d i n g f o r p o s s i b l e f o r a son to farm. Many * farm ers re in v e s t la rg e rather than r a i s e s h a r e s o f income i n l a n d and e q u i p m e n t , th e ir level of consum ptive spending. mers need l o n g - r a n g e p l a n n i n g h o r i z o n s to co n tin u e Far­ such i n ­ vestment p a tt e r n s . Freedom o f d e c i s i o n making i s h i g h l y v a l u e d agricultural community. interpretations. However, Mos t i n d i v i d u a l s some " f r e e d o m " i n o r d e r t o a t t a i n Peop le work, "freedom" has s e v e r a l are w illin g t o g i v e up a higher o b jec tiv e t h e r e b y g i v i n g up some f r e e d o m , e a r n money t o s a t i s f y in the in order t h e i r needs and d e s i r e s . to Freedom 74 has been d e fin e d as th e a b i l i t y common r e s t r i c t i o n to a c t o r not to o f freedom is act. th e loading of the consequences o f doing an a c t o r n o t doing an a c t manner t h a t i t w ill A in such a c ause a p erso n to choose a c o u rs e o f a c t i o n he would n o t o t h e r w i s e c h o o s e . However, farmers make a t r a d e o f f b e t w e e n f r e e d o m o n o n e h a n d a n d s e c u r i t y o n a n o t h e r h a n d by t h e i r a c c e p t a n c e o f g o v e r n m e n t p r o g r a m s . Some f r e e d o m i s security surrendered [Hathaway, potential 1953]. in r e tu r n f o r some i n c o m e This s u g g e s ts t h a t income i n c r e a s e s em phasis on from l a n d t r e a t m e n t system s can work t o o f f s e t any f a r m e r c o n c e r n o v e r l o s s o f f r e e d o m . The g o a l o f c o m m u n i t y p a r t i c i p a t i o n a s s u m e s the farmer needs and s e e k s a s e n s e o f i d e n t i t y w i t h t h e community. Co mmu n i t y p a t t e r n s the ow ner's of settlem ent, cultural ties community c o h e s i o n , t o t h e l a n d s h o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d in s e le c tin g wastewater treatm ent s i t e s . supplying Centers fa r m in g and l i v i n g needs and m a r k e ts for for the sale o f farm p ro d u c ts a r e e s s e n t i a l to th e landowner, t h e means o f m e e t i n g c u l t u r a l , educational, recreational, and as a re religious, and h e a l t h c a r e n e e d s . Some H y p o t h e s i z e d I m p a c t s o f O p tio n s on F a r m e r 's Goals The o p t i o n s available for obtaining access to and management o f l a n d f o r w a s t e w a t e r a p p l i c a t i o n eac h have relative strengths particular relative and w eaknesses. option r e f le c ts tradeoffs economic and p o l i t i c a l The s e l e c t i o n o f a in d ic a tiv e of the power o f t h e f a r m e r and 75 the wastewater a u th o rity . S u c h t r a d e o f f s a r e an e x p r e s s i o n o f payment f o r t h e r i g h t s to p r o p e r t y . amount o f payment and t h e p o r t i o n o f r i g h t s vary w ith the o p tio n s e le c te d . The relinquished The f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e a c q u i s i t i o n and management o p t i o n s , and t h e h y p o t h e ­ s i z e d e f f e c t o f e a c h on t h e f a r m e r ' s is i n T a b l e 4. This ra n k in g goals summarized i s b a s e d on t h e a u t h o r ' s sub­ j e c t i v e j u d g m e n t a n d s u m m a r i z e s some o f t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s involved. Fee Simple A c q u i s i t i o n The i m p a c t o f f e e s i m p l e a c q u i s i t i o n o n f a r m e r ' s v a r i e s w i t h t h e management o p t i o n s e l e c t e d , manage, p u r c h a s e and l e a s e b a c k , goals p u r c h a s e and o r p u rc h a se and r e s a l e . P u r c h a s e a n d Manage This o p t i o n t r a n s f e r s the ris k -b e a rin g management from t h e f o r m e r owner t o ty o r to retained, its representative. farm er's the w astew ater a u t h o r i ­ Former l a n d ow n ers, a re employees r a t h e r t r a n s f e r o f fee sim ple r i g h t s function of if than self-em ployed. has adverse goals of wealth accum ulation, The e f f e c t on t h e firm growth, and f r e e d o m o f d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g wh e n t h e t r a n s f e r p r i c e d o e s n ' t cover a l l his costs. The e f f e c t on i n c o m e w i l l vary with t h e r e a l t i o n s h i p b e tw e e n wages r e c e i v e d and farm income foregone. The s e n s e o f c o m m u n i t y c a n b e d i m i n i s h e d o r destroyed because o f the displacem ent of farm ers, the degree th a t the a t t i t u d e of hired and to farm managers T able 4. An Assessm ent o f Some R e la tiv e Impacts o f Land A c q u is itio n and Management O ptions on Farmer Goals Farmer Goals A c q u isitio n and Management o p tio n Income g e n e ra tio n W ealth accum ulation Firm growth Freedom o f d e c is io n ­ making Sense o f community p a r t i c i p a ti o n FEE SIMPLE ACQUISITION Purchase and manage Purchase and lea se b ac k to p re s e n t landowner Purchase and leaseb ack to t h i r d p a rty < ■ 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 2 2 1 2 3 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 0 2 2 2 2 2 1/3 1 1 1 0 LESS THAN FEE SIMPLE ACQUISITION Easements CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS-NO REAL PROPERTY INTEREST W astewater c o o p erativ e C o n trac ts f o r w astew ater d e liv e ry to landowner 0 1 2 3 = = l i t t l e o r no im pact, e it h e r p o s itiv e o r n e g a tiv e s l i g h t im pact, e i t h e r p o s itiv e o r n e g a tiv e m oderate im pact, e it h e r p o s itiv e o r n e g a tiv e c o n sid e ra b le im pact, e it h e r p o s itiv e o r n e g a tiv e 77 downgrades th e need f o r a se n se o f community. Also, if ■ scale economies l e a d to p u rc h a se o f farm s u p p l i e s and s a l e of products outside th e l o c a l community, f i r m s may b e f o r c e d o u t o f b u s i n e s s . e x is tin g supply The e f f e c t o n c o m m u n i ­ t y p a r t i c i p a t i o n d e p e n d s on how many f a r m e r s w o u l d be displaced. farm ers However, it is p o ssib le with th is option for to remain on the lan d through a s u b c o n t r a c ti n g agreem ent. P u r c h a s e and L ea se b ac k I f la n d i s p u rc h a se d and in t u r n l e a s e d back to o r i g i n a l owner, t h e a d v e r s e e f f e c t w i l l be somewhat l e s s t h a n u n d e r p u r c h a s e and manage. is The i n c o m e g e n e r a t i o n g o a l a f f e c t e d s i n c e t h e l e a s e e would r e c e i v e r e t u r n s for his labor, equipment; land, and perhaps previously, labor, the f o r some c a p i t a l his assets only such as income c o n s i s t e d o f r e t u r n s to and c a p i t a l . T h e r e w o u l d b e a d v e r s e e f f e c t s on w e a l t h a c c u m u l a t i o n b e ca u se any a p p r e c i a t i o n the wastewater a u th o r ity , in l a n d v a l u e s would a c c r u e t o r a th e r than the le a s e e . The p r o s p e c t s o f f i r m g r o w t h would be d i m i s h e d b u t n o t c o m p l e t e l y elim inated. as the Freedom o f d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g wo uld be r e s t r i c t e d l e a s e e w o u l d b e b o u n d by t h e c o n d i t i o n s However, these r e s tr ic tio n s of the lea se . m i g h t b e no m o r e c o n s t r a i n i n g t h a n some i m p o s e d o n l a n d o w n e r s a s c o n d i t i o n s f o r obtaining bank lo a n s . The s e n s e o f b e l o n g i n g t o a c o m m u n i t y may b e s l i g h t l y 78 affected in t h a t t h e r e may b e a r e a l s ta tu s a sso c ia te d with the s h i f t tenant sta tu s. or perceived lo ss of from an owner to This would depend a i n p a r t on t h e p o r t i o n o f t h e commun ity so a f f e c t e d . I f the land i s p u rc h a s e d and l e a s e d su c h as a management f i r m , transferred to a th ir d the risk -b ea rin g party, function is from t h e f o r m e r owner to t h e t h i r d p a r t y . d is p la c e d farmer lo se s p revious o p p o tu n itie s and w e a l t h g e n e r a t i o n , for The income as w ell as firm growth. Real P r o p e r t y I n t e r e s t s O t h e r Than F e e Easement P u rc h ase The u s e o f t h i s f a r m e r ’s g o a ls o p t i o n has a d i f f e r e n t e f f e c t on t h e th a n does f e e sim ple a c q u i s i t i o n . The f u l l im p a ct depends on t h e c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e e a s e m e n t. conditions require g e n eratio n goal that certain the income f r o m c r o p s a l e s may b e m o d e r a t e l y a f f e c t e d , d e p e n d in g on t h e c r o p s case, c r o p s be grown, If these selected. To b e e q u i t a b l e the v a lu e o f th e easement should a t l e a s t annual value of estim ated lo ss in th is equal the in revenues. Easem ents a r e p e r c e i v e d to have a s l i g h t a f f e c t on wealth accum ulation, making. j u s t as and freedom o f d e c i s i o n ­ C o n d i t i o n s o f t h e e a s e m e n t may c a u s e some m i n o r problems a t increase firm growth, th e time o f su b seq u en t t i t l e i n w e a l t h would a c c r u e if in f u l l t h e r e w e r e no e a s e m e n t . transfer, to b u t any the landowner F i r m g r o w t h would be 79 h i n d e r e d by t h e e a s e m e n t t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t it imposed r i g i d c o n d i t i o n s on i n c o m e - g e n e r a t i n g and e x p a n s i o n o p p o r ­ tunities. T h e r e would be s l i g h t l o s s in freedom in t h a t some d i s c r e t i o n a r y o p t i o n s would be e l i m i n a t e d . the value received i n e x c h a n g e f o r t h e e ase m en t would a d e q u a te ly compensate fo r such l o s s e s . re q u ire that the cooperating o f w a ter each y e a r , whe n o f f e r e d . Presumably C o n d itio n s might f a r m e r a c c e p t a c e r t a i n amount w ith p e n a ltie s for not accepting it A nother p o s s i b l e c o n d i t i o n might r e q u i r e c e r t a i n c r o p s b e g r o w n t o a b s o r b a mini mum a m o u n t o f nutrients from t h e w a t e r a p p l i e d , mi ni mum a c c e p t a b l e i.e., to provide a treatm ent. C o n t r a c t u a l A g r e e m e n t s - No Real P r o p e r ty I n t e r e s t s C o n tra c ts w ith Farmers This o p t i o n p r e s e n t s c o n s i d e r a b l e flexibility b o t h t h e f a r m e r and t h e w a s t e w a t e r a u t h o r i t y . t h a t some t y p e o f a g r e e m e n t farmer w ill it free, either is entered for I t assumes i n t o whereby th e buy t h e t r e a t e d w a s t e w a t e r o r r e c e i v e b u t w i t h no i n t e r e s t in r e a l estate being a c q u ire d . P u r c h a s e o f w a s t e w a t e r would be f e a s i b l e f r o m an economic v i e w p o i n t up to a p o i n t where t h e v a l u e o f i n c r e a s e d y i e l d s would e q u a l w astew ater a p p lied . the c o st of the l a s t u n it The v a l u e o f a d d i t i o n a l w a te r would vary co n sid era b ly w ith the annual m oisture con d itio n s with s o il types i n a humid a r e a estim ated ta r g e t y ield s of such as Michigan. with w astew ater a p p lic a tio n and However, 80 s u p p o r t e x p e c t a t i o n s o f s u s t a i n e d economic b e n e f i t s wastewater irrigation [E llis, t h e r e would be a s l i g h t Assuming t h a t water t o m o d e r a t e e f f e c t on income g o a l s . plant n u tr ie n ts ) , irrig a tio n drainage, siderable a t no c o s t , financial benefit. would n o r m a l l y be r e i n v e s t e d growth. Under such c o n d i t i o n s , c o o p e r a t i n g landow ners would r e c e i v e w a s t e ­ (containing and t i l e 1973]. equipment, they could r e a l i z e Portions of a con­ increased and c o n t r i b u t e investm ent in c a p ita l making would be a f f e c t e d toward firm assets. slightly Freedom o f d e c i s i o n ­ by t h e r e q u i r e m e n t t o t a k e p r e s c r i b e d amounts o f w a s t e w a t e r on s c h e d u l e . the only c o n d itio n is be f r e e pattern to However, t h a t the farmer accept water of known q u a n t i t y a n d q u a l i t y still income W e a lth a c c u m u l a t i o n would be e n h an c ed t h r o u g h increased if to at specified tim es, s e le c t the a g r i c u lt u r a l com patible w ith the irrigation he would c r o p s and r o t a t i o n schedule. Wastewater C ooperative \. The g o a l s m o s t a f f e c t e d b y t h i s o p t i o n would be freedom o f d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g and a s e n s e o f community p a r t i c i ­ pation. The c o l l e c t i v e d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g p r o c e s s , as a p p lie d to l a n d management d e c i s i o n s , w ith th e freedom t y p i c a l l y owners. On t h e o t h e r h a n d , making p r o c e s s This would c o n f l i c t e x e r c i s e d by i n d i v i d u a l this same c o l l e c t i v e could in crease c iv ic would be w o rk in g c l o s e l y especially interest as land­ decision­ individuals t o g e t h e r o n a common p r o b l e m . a s s o c i a t i o n m ig h t s t i m u l a t e community p a r t i c i p a t i o n in 81 accom plishing o th e r goals The c o o p e r a t i v e c o u l d h a v e a b e n e f i c i a l income g e n e r a t i o n , wealth accum ulation, vided the c o n s tr a in ts e f f e c t on and f i r m g ro w th p r o ­ im posed by t h e c o o p e r a t i v e b a l a n c e these goals w ith the goal of wastewater renovation. CHAPTER IV BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY FOR THE EVALUATION OF LAND TREATMENT IN SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN Regional D e lin e a tio n The g e n e r a l region. urban, all study area is th e S o u t h e a s te r n Michigan I t c o n sists of a m ixture of h ig h ly urbanized, and o u t ly i n g a g r i c u l t u r a l of St. Lenawee, C lair, areas. The a r e a includes Macomb, M o n r o e , Wayne , W a s h t e n a w , L ivingston, and S a n i l a c C o u n t i e s . This c o i n c i d e s w i t h R i v e r B a s i n Group 4 . 1 a s d e f i n e d sub­ Oakland, area in the Great Lak es B a s i n Framework S t u d y a n d w i t h t h e b o u n d a r y o f t h e S o u th e a s t Michigan R ivers B asin Study Commission, [G reat Lakes B a sin 1972]. Analysis in t h i s s t u d y f o c u s e s on l a n d treatm ent V. recommendations developed in th e S o u th e a s te r n M ichigan W aste­ w a t e r Management S t u d y . sa me a s t h o s e s p e c i f i e d The b o u n d s o f t h i s above e x c e p t t h a t a l l County and t h e o u t e r p o r t i o n s o f O a k l a n d , ton, study are the of Sanilac Lenawee, L i v i n g s ­ a n d Mo n r o e C o u n t i e s a r e o m i t t e d b e c a u s e t h e s e a r e a s are outside to r e t a i n th e h y d ro lo g ic b a s in boundary o r a re expected th eir rural character th ro u g h 1990. b o r d e r i n g Ohio were o m i t t e d from t h e 82 Areas study area because o f 83 both t h e i r economic and demographic o r i e n t a t i o n to Toledo, Ohio. S o u t h e a s t e r n M i c h i g a n W a s t e w a t e r Ma n a g e m e n t S t u d y This s tu d y , c o m p l e t e d b y t h e D e t r o i t D i s t r i c t U. Army C o r p s o f E n g i n e e r s in 1974, w a s t e w a t e r management p l a n s I t s o b j e c t i v e wa s t o S. developed lo ng-range f o r S o u th e a s te r n M ichigan. identify th e p r e s e n t and f u t u r e w ater p o l l u t i o n problems o f th e S o u th e a s te r n Michigan stu d y a rea and t o d e s i g n and e v a l u a t e t h e of altern ativ es for solving of developing the p lan s, treatm ent designed, and consequences the problems. In the p r o c e s s th e needs and o b j e c t i v e s to w ater p o l l u t i o n problems defined, feasibility i n S o u t h e a s t e r n M ichigan were sy ste m s and r e l a t e d components were a l t e r n a t i v e p la n s were fo r m u la te d , p a c t s were a s s e s s e d and e v a l u a t e d Four p la n s were s e l e c t e d as f i n a l choice, including alternatives three r e p re s e n ta tiv e plans These p l a n s this im­ land treatm ent c o n trib u te for and one I n t e r i m include b io lo g ic a l, c a l- c h e m ic a l and land tr e a tm e n t components. incorporating and t h e i r [Corps o f E n g i n e e r s , 1974]. Water Q u a l i t y P l a n . related physi­ The p l a n s inform ation used in study. Soils Inform ation I n f o r m a t i o n on t h e a p p l i c a b i l i t y of land trea tm e n t in S o u t h e a s t e r n M i c h i g a n was d e v e l o p e d a n d e v a l u a t e d by t h e Crops and S o i l s Department, by Dow E n g i n e e r i n g , Midland, Michigan S t a te U n i v e r s i t y , Michigan. The p o t e n t i a l and of 84 extensive areas fo r land treatm ent of the w astew ater p la n of 2.7 b i l l i o n m illio n acre-in ch es per year) Engineering, 1973]. l a n d was a v a i l a b l e 1990 p r o j e c t e d g a l l o n s p e r day wa s i n v e s t i g a t e d I t was e s t i m a t e d t h a t [Dow agricultural for land treatm ent of about m illion acre-inches per year (36.3 66.5 in a tw e n ty -fiv e county a rea of S o u t h e a s t M i c h i g a n b o r d e r e d by G l a d w i n a n d A r e n a c o n t h e n o r t h and M idlan d, G ratiot, C linton, a n d , H i l l s d a l e C o u n t i e s on t h e w e s t part of Eaton, [E llis, Jackson, 1973]. While most s o i l s w i t h i n S o u t h e a s t e r n M ichigan a r e capable of wastewater ren o v atio n , r a t e and h y d r a u l i c characteristics r a te of wastewater a p p lic a tio n the a g ric u ltu r a l the phosphorous so rp tio n of the s o ils and r e n o v a t i o n . c r o p g r o w n on t h e s o i l s cropland su ited acreage w ithin a so il Only a p o r ­ Urban, forest, association t r e a t m e n t system area. S o i l s a n d l a n d u s e i n f o r m a t i o n was c o l l e c t e d county b a s i s . blocks Dow E n g i n e e r i n g . A pplication ra te (acre-inches and c ro p c o n s i d e r a t i o n s a sso c iatio n w ithin tion on a S o il a s s o c i a t i o n s were th en used as b u i l d i n g fo r the development of w astew ater tre a tm e n t b a s e d on s o i l is l a n d u s e n o t c o m p a t i b l e w i t h a com­ p l e m e n t a r y cro p p r o d u c t i o n and w a s t e w a t e r a re found in each s o i l the a sso c ia tio n area to w a s te w a te r t r e a t m e n t. and o t h e r a g r i c u l t u r a l the Furthermore, influences q u a n t i t y and tim e o f w a s t e w a t e r a p p l i c a t i o n s . t io n of the t o t a l lim it for 1973]. per year) each s o i l e a c h c o u n t y wa s t h e b a s i s [Dow E n g i n e e r i n g , z o n e s by of These zones c r o s s zone s e l e c ­ county 85 boundaries a t random and r e s u l t in Figure 5 . cost to r e c e i v e w a s t e w a t e r and to f a c i l i ­ identification e a s t e r n M ichigan. for specific Much o f Z o n e s 2 , areas w ithin South­ 3, 4 , 6, 10, 13, 16 c a n r e c e i v e a n a v e r a g e r a t e o f m o r e t h a n e i g h t wastew ater per year. Zones 1, 7, 9, 11, 12, than e ig h t C ertain large areas w ithin Z o n e s 7 a n d 12 a n d t h e 15, and 18, are u n su itab le b ecause o f heavy s o i l s , 15, and inches of 1 4 , a n d 16 g e n e r a l l y can r e c e iv e l e s s 8, shown The s e v e n t e e n z o n e s w e r e g r o u p e d a c c o r d i n g t o the s o i l s ’ c a p a b ilitie s tate in th e c o n fig u r a tio n inches per year. Z o n e s 5, f o r any w a s t e w a t e r a p p l i c a t i o n slopes greater than 6 p e rc e n t, or presence of larg e urban areas. The W a s t e w a t e r Ma n a g e m e n t Study a re a 7, includes Z o n e s 2, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, and 16. P la n Development Soils i n f o r m a t i o n was u s e d t o d e s i g n a l a n d t r e a t m e n t system to handle a l l e a s t e r n M ichigan. entirely the to ta l 1990 w a s t e w a t e r Two p l a n s w e r e f o r m u l a t e d , from S o u t h ­ one r e l y i n g on p u b l i c o w n e r s h ip of n e c e s s a r y l a n d , and a n o t h e r b a s e d o n a mi x o f p u b l i c a n d p r i v a t e o w n e r s h i p . Large land areas are required fo r storage, the treatm en t p la n t, waste trea tm e n t f a c i l i t i e s , under e ith e r plan. ownership are and s l u d g e d i s p o s a l Requirements under complete p u b lic 759,900 a c re s mixed ow nership storm water compared to 1 ,9 5 5 ,2 0 0 a c r e s [Corps o f E n g in e e r s , 1974]. More l a n d under is r e q u i r e d u nd er mixed ow nership b e ca u se o f re d u c e d a p p l i c a ­ tion rates on l a n d in p r i v a t e ownership. The a r e a in these 86 111 CLINT XII V EATON J A C SCALE MI L E S H I L L S D/ A L XI Source: Figure 5 . [Dow E n g i n e e r i n g , 1973] W a s t e w a t e r T r e a t m e n t Zones and S o i l A s s o c i a t i o n s f o r S o u th e a s te r n Michigan 87 pro p o sals re p re s e n t about tural 30 t o 79 p e r c e n t o f t h e A g r i c u l ­ land in the region o u tlin e d in Figure 5. B ecause o f e x c e s s i v e s o c i a l and economic d i s r u p t i o n s , p ro h ib itiv e costs and high energy r e q u i r e m e n ts , w astew ater m a n a g e m e n t b a s e d e n t i r e l y o n l a n d t r e a t m e n t was j u d g e d n o t feasible 1974]. f o r S o u th e a s te r n Michigan As a r e s u l t , treatm ent, a plan [Corps o f E n g i n e e r s , in c o rp o ra tin g advanced waste independent physical-chem ical t r e a t m e n t was p r o p o s e d . treatm ent s i t e s This p ro p o s a l i n Lenawee and S t . treatm ent, includes land C la ir C ounties. Two r e p r e s e n t a t i v e p l a n s w e r e d e v e l o p e d , ing p u b lic private land ownership land ownership and l a n d one e m p h a s i z ­ ( P la n A ) , and t h e o t h e r b a s e d upon (Plan B ). R e p resen tativ e Plan A proposes irrigation i n c e n t r a l Lenai vee a n d s o u t h e r n S t . C l a i r Counties f o r t r e a t m e n t o f b o th s t o r m w a te r and m u n i c i p a l - in d u s tr ia l wastew ater. treated In e a c h s y s te m w a s t e w a t e r would be in a e ra te d lagoons, o n p u b l i c l y owne d l a n d s . disposal sites, ownership. as i n P l a n A, Data f o r th e T a b l e 5. 'Sludge would be a p p l i e d on a d j a c e n t P l a n B, treatm ent s i t e s remain in treatm ent ra th e r than lagoon D i s i n f e c t e d e f f l u e n t w o u l d t h e n be i r r i g a t e d p r i v a t e l y o wn e d l a n d . would, irrigated The m a j o r i t y o f t h e r e g i o n ' s w a s t e w a t e r would r e c e i v e c o n v e n tio n a l treatm ent. and t h e n a l s o p u b l i c l y owned. W ith r e p r e s e n t a t i v e private disinfected, Sludge from t h e t r e a t m e n t be a p p l i e d two r e p r e s e n t a t i v e lagoons to a d j a c e n t d i s p o s a l plans on is presented sites. in Land r e q u i r e m e n t s a r e c o m p a t i b l e w i t h a v a i l a b l e 88 T a b l e 5. D e s i g n C a p a c i t y a n d L a n d Us e a n d O w n e r s h i p U n d e r A l t e r n a ti v e Treatment Plans Land Area 8 Ownership C apacity M unicipal 8 I n d u s tr ia l W astewater Area P lan A P lan B 12 12 P la n A P lan B P lan A P lan B P u b lic P u b lic P r iv a te ' i ____ __ ) ------ ____ f u r n S t. C la ir Co. Lenawee Co. Storm w ater 12 12 125 10.5 \I \\~ I 125 10. 5 Storm water C o lle c tio n fcJo j - 23,779 4,940 28,719 5,179 1,040 6,219 57,200 15,320 72,520 23,500 52,219 23,500 29,719 72,520 102 ,; 239 .. Source: _____ [Corps o f E n g in eers, 1974, p. 104 8 112] s u p p l y as St. .. 220,000 a c r e s i n Lenawee C ounty and 9 4 ,0 0 0 a c r e s C l a i r County have been i d e n t i f i e d a s s u i t a b l e irrigation estim ates [E llis, 1973]. fo r Plan B are Design s p e c i f i c a t i o n effluent and c o s t i n T a b l e 6. R e p re se n ta tiv e Plan A uses o wned l a n d . for in 52,000 a c r e s of publicly R e p r e s e n ta tiv e Plan B u se s 102,000 a c r e s , which 72,520 a c r e s rem ains in p r iv a te ownership. This of is e q u i v a l e n t t o a p p r o x i m a t e l y 28 f o u r - s q u a r e - m i l e m o d u l e u n i t s , a design u n it used f o r land twenty 320-acre farms, treatm en t system s, t wo h u n d r e d o r one h u n d r e d t w e n t y - f i v e farms. Plan A uses 4.8 p e rc e n t o f the lan d County; Plan B 1.5 p e rc e n t. 580-acre i n Lenawee Comparable s t a t i s t i c s C l a i r County a r e 35.7 p e r c e n t and 1 3 .6 p e r c e n t . for St. 89 T a b l e 6. Sum m ary o f D a t a f o r P r o p o s e d S t . C l a i r a n d Lenawee Co u nty I r r i g a t i o n A r e a s , P l a n B S t. C la ir A rea C h a r a c te r is tic Design Flow Maximum Annual Average Annual - M illio n G allons A cre Inches M illio n G allons A cre Inches 32,120 1,185,000 16,800 618,700 6,720 247.300 5,440 200.300 20.7 57,200 19.2 12,880 $172,580,000 10.192.000 6,177,000 16.369.000 $41,115,000 2.428.000 1.547.000 3.975.000 Annual A p p lic a tio n R ate f o r S e le c te d S o il-A c re -In . /A cre-Y r. Land R equired - A cres C a p ita l C ost A m ortized C a p ita l C ost Annual 0 and M C ost T o tal Annual Cost Source: [Corps o f E n g in e ers, 1974] Estim ated land requirem ents P l a n B, are association in St. in has a c r e a g e enough to meet t h i s the county, Sim ilar requirem ents for f o r Lenawee Co unty a r e There is loam and c l a y units is 20.6 of s o il treatm ent purposes The d o m i n a n t s o i l m a n a g e m e n t u n i t s o f s o i l a s s o c ia tio n L are level, for s u f f i c i e n t acreage of s o i l a s s o c i a t i o n M i n Lenawee C ounty f o r nearly th e dominant e f f l u e n t t r e a t m e n t and 23,500 a c r e s storm water c o l l e c t i o n . 1973]. L, under Soil asso ciatio n 16,360 a c r e s [E llis, C l a i r County, 62,379 a c r e s . requirem ent. rate Lenawee Area 1.5, 2.5, and 4 / 2 . It is comprised of somewhat p o o r l y d r a i n e d and p o o r l y d r a i n e d loam s o i l s . Th e r e c o m m e n d e d w a t e r a p p l i c a t i o n inches per y ear. The d o m i n a n t s o i l m a n a g e m e n t a s s o c i a t i o n M a r e 3 / 2 , 4 / 2 , 1.5 and 2. 5 w h i c h a r e 90 comprised of n e a rly l e v e l , somewhat p o o r l y d r a i n e d and p o o r l y d r a i n e d sa n d y loam o r loamy s a n d o v e r loam t o c l a y loam , loam , and loam s o i l s . clay The s a n d y l o a m o r l o a m s a n d o v e r c l a y l o a m c o m p r i s e 50 t o 80 p e r c e n t o f t h e a s s o c i a t i o n . recommended a v e r a g e a p p l i c a t i o n r a t e is The 25 i n c h e s p e r y e a r . Methodology f o r Firm and R e g io n a l A n a l y s i s The e f f e c t s o f l a n d t r e a t m e n t on a g r i c u l t u r a l production a r e e s t i m a t e d w i t h i n a fram ework o f l i m i t e d d a t a on c r o p p r o d u c t i o n and c o s t s . E xisting land treatm en t o p e ra tio n s p r o v i d e o n l y f r a g m e n ta r y y i e l d and c o s t d a t a . and s e n s i t i v i t y a n a l y s i s a r e used to e v a lu a te a l t e r n a t i v e a s s u m p t i o n s made f o r y i e l d s , sharing arrangem ents. and r e g i o n a l Crop b u d g e t s level prices, Data i s crop r o t a t i o n s , aggregated to th e farm firm and e v a l u a t e d u s in g s e n s i t i v i t y Two f a r m f i r m m o d e l s a r e u s e d , a c re cash g r a i n farm. and c o s t analysis. a 3 2 0 - a c r e an d a 580- These models a r e b a sed on d a t a t h e T e l f a r m Ma n a g e m e n t P r o g r a m [ K y l e , 1972]. from They a r e a ssu m ed V. t o r e p r e s e n t w e l l managed farm s treatm ent into their existing t h a t could incorporate farming o p e ra tio n . Individual c r o p b u d g e t s a r e d e v e l o p e d t o show t h e i r c o n t r i b u t i o n s g r o s s m a r g i n o f t h e f i r m s w i t h and w i t h o u t e f f l u e n t tion, and a r e p r e s e n t e d i n A p p e n d i x B. They a r e land to the irrig a­ illu strativ e o f how l a n d t r e a t m e n t c a n b e e v a l u a t e d u s i n g s i n g l e v a l u e d expectations of y ield , price, S en sitiv ity analysis uncertainties is and c o s t s . used to e v a l u a t e many o f t h e surrounding land trea tm e n t. Several assumptions 91 are evaluated using a lte r n a tiv e purposes. Four d a t a s e t s variable sets b ased upon r e s e a r c h a t M ichigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y a n d w o r k by c o n s u l t a n t s to the D e tro it D i s t r i c t Corps o f E n g in e e r s a r e u s e d i n t h i s sets reflect alternative production c o sts, for analysis crop y i e l d s , study. The product p ric e s , and c ro p r o t a t i o n s . Crop Y i e l d s Y ields used r e f l e c t a c u rre n t y ie ld f o r 1985 w i t h and w i t h o u t e f f l u e n t T a b l e 7. l e v e l and p r o j e c t s irrigation (Table 7). A l t e r n a t i v e Crop Y i e l d s Crop Yi e] Ld S e t * Unit Y1 Y3 Y2 c i i i x u o Corn Soybeans Drybeans Wheat A l f a l f a Hay bu. bu. cw t. bu. ton *The y i e l d sets 79 22 9 38 100 23 9 46 ..... . . . . . .... 110 32 16 50 3.0 Y4 j p C 7 i. a u Y5 i 150 35 20 60 5.0 Y6 c 188 44 25 75 6.2 75 17 10 30 2.5 a r e b a s e d on t h e f o l l o w i n g : Yj - 1971 Y i e l d s , M i c h i g a n Y^ - 1 9 8 5 P r o j e c t e d y i e l d s r e g r e s s i o n on 1 9 5 9 -7 2 Y, - 1985 P r o j e c t e d y i e l d s ^ 1973] Y. - 1 9 8 5 P r o j e c t e d y i e l d s 4 1973] C a s h G r a i n Fa r ms [ K y l e , 1 9 7 2 ] w i t h o u t i r r i g a t i o n (b ased on county data) without i r r ig a ti o n [E llis , with irrigation [ E l l i s , 1973] 92 A dditional y ield possibility scientists e stim ates with of a larger irrigation reflect a i n c r e a s e t h a n e s t i m a t e d by s o i l as w e ll as a p o s s i b i l i t y o f an a d v e r s e y i e l d effect. The e x p e r i e n c e a t P e n n s y l v a n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y supports expectations of p o sitiv e y ield effluent irrigation. alfalfa yields Applying this Corn y i e l d s increased i n c r e a s e d 118 p e r c e n t response y i e l d o f 170 b u s h e l s responses to 55 p e r c e n t a n d [Sopper, 1973]. to the p r e s e n t d a ta su g g e sts a corn and an a l f a l f a y i e l d of 6.5 tons. Product P rices Far m p r o d u c t p r i c e s years. Long t e r m p r i c e s have i n c r e a s e d s h a r p l y d e v e l o p e d by t h e W ater R e s o u r c e s C ouncil a r e g e n e r a l l y below c u r r e n t spot prices assumed to r e f l e c t a c o n s e r v a t i v e p r i c e s e t . sets are used r e f l e c t i n g higher p rice s con sideration of higher p rice s 1974 M i c h i g a n f a r m p r i c e s ; T a b l e 8. A lternative is (Table 8). Source: The s u p p o r t e d by t h e S e p t e m b e r , co rn - $3.22 per b u s h e l, Product P ric e Sets Set Unit V Corn Soybeans Drybeans Wh ea t A l f a l f a Hay and a r e Two o t h e r p r i c e Price Cr o p in re c e n t bu. bu. cwt. bu. ton 1.64 4.12 16.84 2. 36 33.00 [Water R e so u rc e s C o u n c i l , P2 2. 50 5.00 20. 00 3. 00 40.00 1974] P3 3. 50 8.00 30.00 5.00 50.00 93 soybeans w eight, ton - $7.06 p e r b u s h e l, dry beans wheat - $3.83 p er b u s h e l, [Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , The t o t a l revenue.sets - $18.50 p e r h u n d re d ­ and a l f a l f a - $37. per 1974]. i n T a b l e 9 com bine d a t a from t h e a l t e r n a t i v e y i e l d and p r i c e s e t s and a r e u s e d i n t h e e m p i r i c a l a n a l y s i s o f C h a p t e r 5. Production Inputs The a d d i t i o n o f e f f l u e n t irrigation activity farm fir m w i l l change p ro d u c tio n that ex istin g farm m achinery w i l l irrigation equipment. for additional seed, c o s t s may d e c r e a s e , changes costs. It to a i s assumed be a d e q u a t e e x c e p t f o r A dditional costs w ill be i n c u r r e d and h a r v e s t i n g and h a u l i n g . d e p e n d in g upon t h e n u t r i e n t t h e e f f l u e n t and i t s The i n d i v i d u a l and C o s t s substitution F ertilizer content of f o r commercial fertilizer. drop budgets in Appendix B i l l u s t r a t e in production costs in flu e n ce gross m argins. how N utrient S u b stitu tio n E f f l u e n t c o n t a i n s n i t r o g e n and p h o s p h o r o u s near p erfect cial fertilizers. requirem ents applied. at technical This substitutes substitution f o r commercial For example, for n u trien ts it is l i k e l y th a t are i n c o mm e r ­ to reduce f e r t i l i z e r s . when e f f l u e n t is is e s t i m a t e d t h a t by 1992 e f f l u e n t t h e Mu s k e g o n p r o j e c t w i l l s u p p l y a p p r o x i m a t e l y 150 p o u n d s o f n i t r o g e n a n d 50 p o u n d s o f p h o s p h o r o u s p e r a c r e 1972]. It is estim ated most e f f l u e n t s w i l l that the [Stevens, le v e l o f phosphorous e x c e e d r e m o v a l by c r o p s e x c e p t a t in low 94 T a b l e 9. T o ta l Revenue P e r Acre f o r S e l e c t e d Y i e l d and Price Sets. Y i e l d and P r i c e S e t Crop Vi Vi Y4 P 1 Vi Vi ■dollars Corn Soybeans Drybeans Wheat A lfalfa Corn Soybeans Drybeans Wheat A lfalfa Corn Soybeans Drybeans Wh e a t A lfalfa Source: 164.00 94.76 151.56 108.56 99.00 180.40 131.84 269.44 118.00 99. 00 246.00 144.20 336.80 141.60 165.00 308. 32 181.28 421.00 177.00 204.60 123.00 70.04 168.40 70.80 82.50 Y2P 2 Y3P 2 Y4 P 2 Y5P2 Y P 6 2 250.00 1 1 5 . 00 , 180.00 138.00 120.00 275.00 160.00 320.00 150.00 120.00 375.00 175.00 400.00 180.00 200.00 470.00 220.00 500.00 225.00 248.00 187.50 85.00 200.00 90.00 100.00 Y2 P 3 Y3P 3 Y4 P 3 Y5P 3 Y6 P 3 350.00 184.00 270.00 230.00 150.00 385.00 256.00 480.00 250.00 150.00 525.00 280.00 600.00 300.00 250.00 658 . 0 0 352.00 750.00 375.00 310.00 262.50 136.00 300.00 150.00 125.00 [Water R e sou rce s C o u n c i l , Yj - 1971 Y i e l d s , 1974]. M i c h i g a n C a s h G r a i n Fa r ms [Kyle, 1972] Y2 - 1985 P r o j e c t e d y i e l d s w i t h o u t i r r i g a t i o n r e g r e s s i o n on 1 9 5 9 - 7 2 c o u n t y d a t a ) ( b a s e d on Yj - 1 9 8 5 P r o j e c t e d y i e l d s w i t h o u t [E llis, Y^ - 1985 P r o j e c t e d y i e l d s Ys - 1 . 2 5 Y4 Y, - . 5 Y, irrigation with i r r i g a t i o n [E llis, 1973] 1973] 95 application rates [E llis, 1973], A d d i t i o n a l d a t a on t h e n u t r i e n t c o n t e n t o f e f f l u e n t and e s t i m a t e s o f i t s zers are included substitution f o r commercial fertili­ i n A p p e n d i x B. I r r i g a t i o n Systems Design and Cost The l a n d t r e a t m e n t s y s t e m c o n s i d e r e d incorporates It consists tion lines farms. sprinkler irrigation of a large into in te rd e p e n d e n t network o f d i s t r i b u ­ and s p r i n k l e r s y s t e m s t h a t c o v e r s a number o f where each has to individual the a p p ro p ria te farms valves in p r e s s u r e p i p e s , irrig a­ farms. Two i r r i g a t i o n m e t h o d s a r e p o s s i b l e , a fixed-set system and a c e n t e r p i v o t s p r i n k l e r s y s te m . major advantages o f a f i x e d - s e t to cro p s, soil type, a n d 2) rate. I t s major d isa d v a n ta g e p iv o t system and sh a p e and s i z e o f low l a b o r r e q u i r e m e n t s , which can be 5-7 t i m e s is The c e n t e r p i v o t lower c a p i t a l than fixed se t cost, its a n d 3) l ow a p p l i c a t i o n relatively the c a p ita l [Dow E n g i n e e r i n g , The s y s t e m i n c l u d e 1) a d a p t a b i ­ terrain, field, is W aste­ and a c o m p le te t i o n system independent o f n e ig h b o rin g cost, system e f f l u e n t , f r o m a common d e l i v e r y s y s t e m . w ater is d e liv e re d sprinkler study the p r o d u c tio n system. Each f a r m h a s an i n d e p e n d e n t d i s t r i b u t i o n th a t takes lity in th is high c a p i ta l cost for a center 1973]. s p r i n k l e r system g e n e r a l l y has a b u t h i g h e r l a b o r and m a i n t e n a n c e c o s t system s. the high a p p lic a tio n One o f i t s rate at major d isa d v a n ta g e s t h e f a r end o f the p iv o t 96 system. B e c a u s e e a c h s u c c e e d i n g s p r i n k l e r h e a d m u s t move f a r t h e r and f a s t e r than th e one b e fo re it, more w a t e r must be a p p l i e d p e r f o o t o f system l e n g t h to w ard t h e A design d i f f ic u lt y systems to is encountered irregularly in f i t t i n g sh a p ed and r e l a t i v e l y Both t h e d i s a d v a n t a g e s o f h i g h r a t e s and t h e t a i l o r i n g to sm aller s o m e w h a t by d e s i g n i n g systems [Dow E n g i n e e r i n g , sprinkler end. center pivot small fields. a t t h e end o f t h e p i p e c a n be a m e l o r i a t e d 6 0 0 -fo o t systems r a t h e r than Irrig a tio n costs pivot fields far 1300-foot 1973]. in th is s t u d y a r e b a s e d on c e n t e r i r r i g a t i o n system s. Cost d a ta developed f o r t h e S o u t h e a s t M i c h ig a n W a s t e w a t e r Management S t u d y a r e extrapolated differs effluent to th e farm firm l e v e l . from t h e u s u a l farm i r r i g a t i o n i s pumped f r o m t h e l a g o o n s t o The i r r i g a t i o n system system as t r e a t e d irrigation areas r a t h e r t h a n pum ped f r o m i n d i v i d u a l w e l l s o r s t r e a m s . Each f a r m e r would have an i n d e p e n d e n t v a l v e and c e n t e r p i v o t system f o r irrigation. These sy stem s a r e e x p e n s i v e b e c a u s e o f t h e pumping s t a t i o n s and long t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e s . E sti­ m ates o f a n n u a l o w n e rsh ip and o p e r a t i n g c o s t s o f a c e n t e r p i v o t component o f a f o u r - s q u a r e - m i l e module a r e p r e s e n t e d in T able 10. C o sts o f a combined and i n d i v i d u a l compared i n T able 11. 1) depreciation, taxes Annual o w n e rsh ip c o s t s a n d 2) and i n s u r a n c e . O perating costs distribution include i n t e r e s t on t h e i n v e s t m e n t , m a i n t e n a n c e and s u p p l i e s , and l a b o r . the c e n tra l system a re and include energy, The a n n u a l c o s t s c e n te r p iv o t system a r e of estim ated T a b l e 10. I r r i g a t i o n C o s t E s t i m a t e s f o r 160 A c r e C e n t e r P i v o t S y s t e m T ie d I n t o a 4 S q u a r e M i l e Module^- I n v e s tm e n t and D e p r e c i a t i o n Investment Pu mpi ng S t a t i o n I r r i g a t i o n Rights P re s s u re Pipes § Valves 10.562.50 20,000.00 70.347.50 100,910 D epreciation I n t e r e s t (8% o n 1 / 2 I ) I n s u r a n c e ( 1 . 5 1 o f I) Total A nnual Ow nership C o s t / A c r e Years o f Life 15 15 15 A nnual C o s t s 704 . 1 7 1,333.33 4,689.8 3 6.727.33 6.727.33 4,036.40 1.513.65 12,277.38 - 7 6. 73 A nnual O p e r a t i n g C o sts E n e r g y ( 5 6 0 0 h r s @ 0.0125KWH) Maintenance 8 S u p p lies Labor Total Annual O p e r a t i o n § M a in te n a n c e Cost/Acre Summary A nnual Ownership Annual O p e r a t i n g Total 3,800 620 4,025 8,44 5 3,800 620 1,3652 5,785 52.78 - 36.15 76.73 52 . 78 129.51 76.73 36.15 112.88 ■^Based u p o n c o s t d a t a [Dow E n g i n e e r i n g , 1 9 7 3 ] . 2 546 @ $ 2 . 5 0 / h r . T o t a l l a b o r c o s t s s p l i t on b a s i s o f c a p i t a l cost ra tio . Table 11. Cost Comparisons f o r A lte r n a tiv e I r r i g a t i o n Systems^ C ost Item Ownership C osts I r r i g a t i o n Pumping S ta tio n I r r i g a t i o n Rig (1450') P re ssu re Pipe Valves § M isc. F i t t in g s W ater Supply Charge2 T o tal Investm ent Taxes § Insurance (T o tal Investm ent x .015) T o ta l C a p ita l Cost T otal C a p ita l C o st/a c re O p eratio n § M aintenance C osts Pimping S ta tio n I r r i g a t i o n Rig P re ssu re Pipes Valves § Misc. Energy M aintenance § S upplies Labor T o ta l 0 § M T o ta l 0 § M /acre 160 A cre C enter P iv o t System In d iv id u a l Water S u p p lies C e n tra l D is tr ib u tio n System Usefu] In v e st­ Cost Annual Useful In v e s t­ Cost Annual ment Factor Cost L ife ment F a c to r Cost L ife 15 15 15 15 10,500 20,000 69,000 1,600 101,100 3 . io o ?-3 .1067 .i0 6 7 .1067 1120 2134 7362 170 10786 1516 12302 77 100 400 70 50 3800 4025 8445 53 -C osts based on d a ta in Dow E ngineering, [1973] and Hoglund, [1972]. -Based on $ 5 /ac re .Takes in to account annual d e p re c ia tio n and i n t e r e s t 50 hours @ $2.50 20,000 6,000 1,000 27,000 .1067 .1067 .1067 2134 640 107 800 3681 1516 5197 32 2000 1800. 125 392$ 25 99 a t $77 p e r a c r e f o r o w n e r s h i p a n d $36 a n d $ 5 3 p e r a c r e f o r o p e r a t i o n and m a in t e n a n c e d e p e n d in g upon a s s u m p tio n s related to lab o r c o s t s . Irrig a tio n cost estim ates from p r o j e c t individual lower, irrig a tio n costs farm s y s te m s . from o t h e r s t u d i e s as they are g e n e ra lly C apital but operation costs differ are costs sim ilar. for in p a r t i c u l a r are One e s t i m a t e s the required investm ent fo r a 140-acre c e n te r p iv o t system a t $25,300, w i t h an a n n u a l o w n e rsh ip c o s t s p e r a c r e o f $ 2 1 .9 0 . O perating co sts i n c l u d e 1) o p e r a t e t h e pump, labor, 2) electricity 3) m a i n t e n a n c e a n d r e p a i r s , to l a n d t a k e n o u t o f p r o d u c t i o n by t h e 5) added p l a n t p o p u l a t i o n , operating costs application 4) loss irrigation to due system, a n d 6) a d d e d f e r t i l i z e r . ran g e from $22.36 p e r a c r e to $33.58 f o r or fuel Annual fo r a 7 inch a 13 i n c h a p p l i c a t i o n [Hoglund, 1972]. Crop R o t a t i o n s Individual c ro p s a r e combined i n t o a farm p l a n r e f l e c ­ tiv e of rotatio n practices tion. Idle cropland or land u s e d more i n t e n s e l y w i t h evaluated with e ff lu e n t 10%, expected under e f f l u e n t and a l f a l f a Chapter i n g o v e r n m e n t a r e a s s u m e d t o be irrigation. irrigation A lternative rotations a r e 1) c o r n - 35%, w h e a t - 20%, a n d 2) c o r n - 40%, b e a n s w h e a t - 20% [ E l l i s , 1973]. 5 in the e s tim a tio n irriga­ These r o t a t i o n s - 40%, a n d a re used of f i r m and r e g i o n a l in production. - CHAPTER V SOME IMPACTS OF LAND TREATMENT AT THE FIRM AND REGIONAL LEVEL Introduction This s t u d y e v a l u a t e s l a n d t r e a t m e n t as a w a s t e w a t e r management a l t e r n a t i v e , wastew ater b u t do e s n o t compare i t w i t h o t h e r tre a tm e n t methods. It also estim ates and n e t m a g n itu d e o f m o n e ta ry b e n e f i t s sh o w s how a l t e r n a t i v e the d i s t r ib u t i o n cost sharing the total from i r r i g a t i o n arrangem ents of these net b e n e f its . and influence The i n f l u e n c e o f t h e a c q u i s i t i o n and management o p t i o n s on t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of benefits are identified emphasis in t h i s tions chapter is irrigation. to the c o n tra c tu a l dual crops is effluent aggregated changes. most a p p l i c a b l e is a p p lie d to crop y i e l d s , costs. to t h e f i r m and r e g i o n a l a re emphasized. Several Cost change e s tim a t e s p r i m a r i l y level. a sso c ia te d with estim ates of compared w i t h e s t i m a t e s o f t o t a l 100 rota­ I n f o r m a t i o n on i n d i v i ­ i n t h e c o s t s and r e t u r n s irrigation c o st changes are is agreement a c q u i s i t i o n o p tio n . and i r r i g a t i o n The c h a n g e s the and n e t b e n e f i t s The a n a l y s i s S e n sitiv ity analysis prices, However, t o show how a l t e r n a t i v e a s s u m p ­ in flu en ce estim ates of the t o t a l from e f f l u e n t tions, i n some i n s t a n c e s . reflect revenue fertilizer 101 c o s t s a v in g s because o f n u t r i e n t s u b s t i t u t i o n and th e annual co sts of ir r ig a tio n system s, s h i p c o s t s and o p e r a t i n g c o s t s . estim ated using a lte r n a tiv e Finally, changes b r o k e n down i n t o Total revenue total owner­ se ts are p r i c e and y i e l d c o m b i n a t i o n . in n et revenue are e stim ate d . Cr op A n a l y s i s Corn f o r g r a i n , soybeans, dry beans, wheat, and a l f a l ­ f a a r e c r o p s n o r m a l l y grown i n t h e S o u t h e a s t e r n M i c h i g a n a r e a and a r e c o m p a t i b l e w i t h w a s t e w a t e r 1973]. Breakeven a n a l y s i s and re v e n u e s e t s to o f f s e t to costs. the y ield This h e lp s to to u s e w a s t e w a t e r on h i s c r o p s . per acre a yield irrigation to than i f corn s e l l s costs corn. increase. wheat, corn y ie ld s due to y i e l d and a l f a l f a . and p r i c e s and t h e c h a n g e s are soybeans, i n T a b l e 13. in t o t a l in Table 12. fo r corn w ith a l t e r n a t i v e tio n c o st assumptions are for d a t a on Total revenues with a l t e r n a ­ changes with i r r i g a t i o n breakeven y ie ld s the fiv e 13 a n d 14 c o n t a i n A p p e n d i x C h a s t h e same i n f o r m a t i o n dry beans, tive T ab les 12, are 20 b u s h e l s Three types o f in f o r m a tio n a re p ro v id e d f o r crops being ev alu ated . the before agreeing increase of g reater is required for p ro fits identify For exam ple, f o r $ 2 . 5 0 p e r b u s h e l and t h e a n n u a l cost increase necessary mini mum c o n d i t i o n s a f a r m e r m i g h t r e q u i r e $50 p e r a c r e , [E llis, is used w ith a l t e r n a t i v e identify irrigation irrigation price Finally, revenues The and i r r i g a ­ T a b l e 14 s h o ws t h e c h a n g e s i n n e t r e v e n u e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a l t e r n a t i v e T a b le 12. T o t a l Revenue P e r A cre and Changes i n T o t a l Revenue A s s o c i a t e d w i t h A l t e r n a t i v e Y ie ld and P r i c e C o m b in a tio n s , Com Y ie ld 1.50 1.64 75 100 110 125 150 175 188 200 112.50 150.00 165.00 187.50 225 .0 0 26 2.5 0 28 2.0 0 300.00 123.00 164.00 180.40 20 5.0 0 24 6 .00 287 .0 0 308.32 328.00 Y ie ld I n c r e a s e 1.50 T o t a l Revenue a t P r i c e / B u s h e l 2 .5 0 2 .0 0 3.0 0 3 .5 0 225 .00 3 00.0 0 330 .00 375.00 4 5 0.0 0 525 .00 5 6 4 .0 0 6 0 0.0 0 2 62 .5 0 350.00 3 85 .00 4 37 .5 0 5 25 .0 0 61 2.5 0 658.0070 0.0 0 b u sh els b u sh els 10 25 40 50 75 78 100 15.00 3 7.50 6 0 .0 0 7 5.00 112.50 117.00 150.00 150.00 200.00 220 .0 0 250 .00 300 .00 350.00 376.00 4 0 0 .0 0 I n c r e a s e i n T o t a l Revenue 1.64 2 .0 0 ------------ d o l l a r s 2 0 .0 0 16.40 4 1 .0 0 5 0 .0 0 6 5 .6 0 8 0 .0 0 8 2 .0 0 100.00 123.00 150.00 127.92 156.00 164.00 200.00 ^B est e s t i m a t e w i t h o u t i r r i g a t i o n . 2B est e s t i m a t e w i t h i r r i g a t i o n . 187.50 250.00 27 5 .0 0 1 312.50 3 75 .0 0 2 4 3 7 .5 0 4 70 .0 0 5 0 0 .0 0 a t P rice /B u sh el 2 .5 0 3.0 0 2 5 .0 0 6 2 .5 0 100.00 2 125.00 187.50 195.00 2 5 0 .00 30 .0 0 75 .0 0 120.00 150.00 22 5.0 0 234.00 300.00 3 .50 3 5.00 8 7 .5 0 140.00 175.00 2 6 2.5 0 27 3.0 0 35 0.0 0 T a b le 13. I n c r e m e n ta l Corn Y ie ld I n c r e a s e s R e q u ire d t o B reakeven on I r r i g a t i o n C o s ts w i t h A l t e r n a t i v e P r i c e s and C o s ts Irrig a tio n C osts 1 d o lla rs 10.00 2 5 .0 0 3 5.00 4 0 .0 0 4 5 .0 0 5 0 .0 0 5 5 .0 0 6 0.00 6 5 .0 0 7 0.00 75.00 8 0.00 8 5 .0 0 9 0 .0 0 9 5 .0 0 100.00 110.00 125.00 1 1.50 6 .7 16.7 2 3 .3 2 6 .7 3 0 .0 3 3 .3 3 6.7 4 0 .0 4 3 .3 4 6 .7 5 0 .0 5 3 .3 5 6.7 6 0 .0 6 3 .3 6 6 .7 7 3 .3 8 3 .3 B reakeven Y ie ld a t P r i c e / B u s h e l d o lla rs 1.64 2 .0 0 2 .5 0 6 .1 15.2 2 1 .3 2 4 .4 2 7 .4 3 0 .5 3 3 .5 , 3 6 .6 3 9 .6 4 2 .7 4 5 .7 4 8 .8 5 1 .8 5 4 .9 5 7 .9 6 1 .0 67 .1 7 6.2 5 .0 12 .5 17 .5 2 0 .0 2 2 .5 2 5 .0 2 7 .5 3 0 .0 3 2 .5 3 5 .0 3 7 .5 4 0 .0 4 2 .5 4 5 .0 4 7 .5 5 0 .0 5 5 .0 6 2 .5 / dC lC 4 .0 10 .0 14 .0 .1 6 .0 1 8 .0 2 0 .0 2 2 .0 2 4 .0 2 6 .0 2 8 .0 3 0 .0 3 2 .0 34 .0 3 6 .0 3 8 .0 4 0 .0 4 4 .0 5 0 .0 3 .0 0 3 .5 0 3 .3 8 .3 11 .7 13 .3 1 5 .0 1 6.7 1 8 .3 2 0 .0 2 1 .7 2 3 .3 2 5 .0 2 6 .7 2 8 .3 3 0 .0 3 1 .7 3 3 .3 3 6 .7 4 1 .7 2 .9 7 .1 10 .0 11 .4 1 2.9 1 4 .3 1 5 .7 17.1 1 8.6 2 0 .0 2 1 .4 2 2 .9 2 4 .3 2 5 .7 2 7 .1 2 8 .6 3 1 .4 3 5 .7 I r r i g a t i o n c o s t s v a ry w ith t h e sy ste m u s e d , and may r e p r e s e n t a n n u a l c a p i t a l c o s t s , a n n u a l o p e r a t i n g and m a in te n a n c e c o s t s , o r a n n u a l t o t a l c o s t s . F o r e x am p le, c a p i t a l c o s t s ra n g e from $32 - $77 and o p e r a t i n g c o s t s from $25 - $53 i n t h e s y ste m s s p e c i f i e d i n T a b le 11. 104 T a b le 14i N et Revenue P e r A cre f o r A l t e r n a t i v e S e t s o f I r r i g a t i o n C o s t s , Y ie ld C h a n g e s , and P r i c e s , Corn N et R evenues Irrig a tio n C ost d o lla rs 25 ■ Y ie ld Change b u sh els 10 25 40 50 75 78 100 1 .5 0 D o lla rs/B u sh e l 1 .6 4 2 .5 0 3 .0 0 -1 0 .0 0 1 2.50 3 5 .0 0 5 0 .0 0 8 7.50 9 2 .0 0 125.00 -8 .6 0 16.00 4 0 .6 0 5 7 .0 0 9 8 .0 0 102.92 13 9 .00 d o lla rs 0 .0 0 3 7 .5 0 75 .0 0 100.00 162.50 170.00 22 5 .0 0 3 .5 0 5 .0 0 5 0 .0 0 9 5 .0 0 125.00 2 0 0 .00 2 0 9 .00 2 7 5 .00 1 0 .0 0 6 2 .5 0 115.00 150.00 2 3 7.50 2 4 8 .0 0 3 2 5 .0 0 50 10 25 40 50 75 78 100 -3 5 .0 0 -1 2 .5 0 10.00 2 5 .0 0 6 2 .5 0 6 7 .0 0 100.00 -3 3 .6 0 -9 .0 0 15.60 3 2 .0 0 7 3 .0 0 77 .92 114.00 -2 5 .0 0 12.50 5 0 .0 0 7 5.00 137.50 145.00 2 0 0.0 0 -2 0 .0 0 2 5 .0 0 7 0.00 100.00 175.00 184.00 25 0 .0 0 - 1 5 .0 0 3 7 .5 0 9 0 .0 0 125.00 2 1 2 .50 2 2 3 .0 0 3 0 0 .00 75 10 25 40 50 75 78 100 -6 0 .0 0 -5 8 .6 0 -3 7 .5 0 -3 4 .0 0 -1 5 .0 0 -9 .4 0 0 .0 0 7 .0 0 3 7.50 4 8 .0 0 4 2 .0 0 5 2 .9 2 75 .00 8 9 .0 0 - 5 0 .0 0 - 1 2 .5 0 2 5 .0 0 5 0 .0 0 112.50 120 .00 175.00 -4 5 .0 0 0 .0 0 4 5 .0 0 75.00 150.00 159.00 2 2 5 .0 0 -4 0 .0 0 12.50 6 5 .0 0 10 0.0 0 1 8 7 .50 19 8.0 0 2 7 5 .00 100 10 25 40 50 75 78 100 -8 5 .0 0 - 6 2 .5 0 - 4 0 .0 0 - 2 5 .0 0 12.50 17.00 5 0 .0 0 -7 0 .0 0 -7 5 .0 0 -3 7 .5 0 -2 5 .0 0 2 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 2 5 .0 0 5 0 .0 0 8 7 .5 0 ■ 125.00 9 5 .0 0 134.00 150.00 2 0 0.00 -6 5 .0 0 -1 2 .5 0 4 0 .0 0 7 5 .0 0 162.50 173.00 2 5 0 .0 0 -8 3 .6 0 -5 9 .0 0 -3 4 .4 0 -1 8 .0 0 2 3 .0 0 2 7 .9 2 6 4 .0 0 105 yield, price, and i r r i g a t i o n 12-14 a r e used for corn. p e r a c r e and s e l l i n g a t t h e y i e l d by 40 b u s h e l s , If with p ric e s costs are re la te d 20 b u s h e l s p e r a c r e (Table 13). is changes and p r i c e s irrigation per acre, the p ric e total A dditional in creases using b reak ­ the corn p r ic e a r e $50, increases a yield is $2.50 p er increase of cost irrigation savings, costs, net of a r e combined w i t h y i e l d t o e s t i m a t e n e t r e v e n u e c h a n g e s from If net irrig atio n c o s t s a r e $50 i n c r e a s e 40 b u s h e l s p e r a c r e a n d t h e p r i c e i s $2.50 per a c r e , if (Table 12). total r e q u i r e d t o b r e a k e v e n on i r r i g a t i o n (Table 14). yields if A lternative estim ated f e r t i l i z e r 110 b u s h e l s irrigation constant, to y i e l d For example, b u shel and i r r i g a t i o n c o s t s costs effluent i n c r e a s e $100 p e r a c r e even a n a l y s i s . Corn y i e l d i n g $2.50 per bushel g e n e ra te s r e v e n u e p e r a c r e o f $275. irrigation Data in Tables i n s e v e r a l wa y s t o show t h e e f f e c t s o f a l ­ t e r n a ti v e assum ptions revenues cost sets. n e t r e v e n u e i n c r e a s e s by $ 5 0 . 0 0 . is $3.00 per b u sh e l, n e t revenues However, i n c r e a s e by $70. Changes in n et revenues altern ativ e yields, using the ta b le s expense is to for t h e o t h e r c r o p s b a s e d on p r i c e and i r r i g a t i o n i n A p p e n d i x C. $50 p e r a c r e , with ir r ig a tio n Thus, and y i e l d s and t h e p r i c e if costs are estim ated the net increase set from l e v e l assumed, i s a n e t r e v e n u e c h a n g e p e r a c r e o f +$50 f o r c o r n , soybeans, alfalfa. +$30 f o r d r y b e a n s , -$20 f o r w h e at, irrigation -$35 there for a n d +$30 f o r 106 Farm F irm A n a l y s i s P r o d u c t i o n and Revenue Changes S e v e r a l s i t u a t i o n s a r e h y p o t h e s i z e d and e v a l u a t e d f o r t wo r e p r e s e n t a t i v e acres. firm 's farms, The m a j o r e f f e c t s total o n e 320 a c r e s a n d t h e o t h e r o f w a s t e w a t e r i r r i g a t i o n on t h e re v e n u e a r e assumed to be r e f l e c t e d in te r a c tio n of the a lte r n a tiv e p rices presented T able 15. in t o ta l a c r e f a r m a n d i n T a b l e 17 f o r there is acres in crops, the i n T a b l e 16 f o r 580 a c r e f a r m . an e s t i m a t e d t o t a l $14,080 w ith i r r i g a t i o n rotation revenue total the , yield set rev en u es and changes in t o t a l , and p r i c e the gross benefits tion, and r e p r e s e n t r e v e n u e s a v a i l a b l e incentives set . A wide ran g e o f a l t e r n a t i v e y i e l d and pricte a s s u m p t i o n s . revenue r e f l e c t 267 total revenues r e s u l t total 320 For f o r t h e 320 a c r e f a r m a s s u m i n g approxim ately $29,000. e x p e n se s and to p r o v i d e in increase of I f t h e o p t i m i s t i c y i e l d r e s p o n s e s e t Yg o c c u r s , revenue in cre ases specified revenues are estim ated under a number o f a s s u m p t i o n s and p r e s e n t e d example, in the l e v e l s o f c ro p y i e l d s and in C h a p te r 4 and t h e r o t a t i o n s Changes 580 from The c h a n g e s to e f f l u e n t to o f f s e t in irrig a­ irrigation fo r farmer p a r t i c i p a t i o n . B a r g a i n in g betw een t h e fa rm e r and t h e w a s t e w a t e r a u t h o r i t y over the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f these revenues The e f f e c t o f i r r i g a t i o n expressed as: on t o t a l is anticipated. revenue of a farm is T ab le 15. A l t e r n a t i v e Cr op R o t a t i o n s , 320 a n d 580 A c r e Fa r ms C r o p Rotation-*Crop R o t a t i o n R, R. R. R« R, R, R. Rf Rf 105 0 105 30 60 300 120 120 0 60 0 300 120 0 120 60 0 215 110 105 110 0 -Acres Co r n Soybeans Dry b e a n s Wheat A lfalfa Total T illa b le T o ta l Acres 184 50 14 19 0 267 320 93 93 0 27 54 267 93 0 93 27 54 267 106 106 0 55 0 267 106 0 106 55 0 7E7 105 105 0 30 60 30 0 360 45 53 48 34 540 580 190 190 0 50 110 540 190 0 190 50 110 540 190 95 95 50 110 540 215 215 0 110 0 54^0 215 0 215 110 0 54 0 o o 32 0 A c r e Farm 580 A c r e Farm Corn Soybeans Dry b e a n s Wheat A lfalfa Total T illa b e l Total Acres 54U R^ r e f l e c t s t h a t 1971 t e l f a r m c r o p p i n g p a t t e r n [ K y l e , 1 9 7 2 ] . The r e m a i n i n g c o m b i n a t i o n s r e f l e c t 1) 35% c o r n , 35% b e a n s , 10% w h e a t , 20% a l f a l f a o r 2) 40% c o r n , 40% b e a n s , a n d 20% w h e a t . 108 Table Crop 16. Total Revenue and Changes R otation Rl Corn Soybeans Dry Beans Wheat Total R2 Corn Soybeans Wheat A lfalfa Total R3 Corn Dry Brans Wheat A lfalfa Total R4 Corn Soybeans Wheat Total In T o ta l Revenue w ith Acres YJP1 Y4PI 184 50 14 19 2*7 33,194. *,592. 3,772. 2,242. 45,800. 45,2*4. 7,210. 4,715. 2,*90. 59.8R0. 56,731. 9,0*4. 5,894. 3,3*3. 75,052. 14,080. 29,252. 93 93 27 54 2*7 t*,777. 12,2*1. 3, tfl*. 5,34*. 37,570. 22,878. 13,411. 3,821, 8,910, 49,022. 28,674. 16,859. 4,779. 11,048. *1,3*0. 11,451. 23,790. 93 93 27 54 2*7 16,777. 25,058. 3.1R*. 5,34*. 50,1*7. 22,878. 31,122. 3,823. 8,910. *6,934. 28,674. 39,153. 4,779. 11,048. 83.656. !*,56*. 33,287. 106 10* 55 2*7 19,122. 13,975. *,490. 19.5R7. 26,07*. 15,285. 7,788. 49,149. 32,682, 19,216. 9,715. *1,633. 9,5*3. 22,045. in* 10* 5S 2*7 10,122. I B ,5*1. *,490. 5 4 , J 73. 26,07*. 35,701. 7,788. *9,5*5. 32,682. 44,*26. 9 . 735. 87,043. 15,393. 32,870. 105 105 30 60 300 18,942. 13,841. 3,540. 5,940. 42,2*5. 25,830. 15, 141. 4,248. 9,900. 35,119. 32,374. 19,034. 5,310. 12,27*. 68,994, 12,854. 26,729. 105 105 30 60 300 IB,942. 28,291. 3,540. 5,940. 56.713. 25.6JO 35,3*4 4,248 9,900 75,342 32,374. 44,205.'5,310. 12,27*. 94,1*5. 18,629. 37,451 . 120 120 60 300 21,648. 15,821. 7,080. 44,540. 29,520. 17.304. 3,496. 55,320. 36,998. 21,754. 10,620. 69,372. 10,771. 24,823. 120 120 60 300 21,648. 32,333. 7.080. *1,0*1. 29,520. 40,41*. 8,49*. 78,432. 36,998. 50,520. 10,670. 98,138. Change Change Change Change R5 C om Dry Beans Wheat Total R6 C om Soybeans Wheat A lfalfa Total R7 C'rr. D r y P c .'tis Wheat A lfalfa Total R8 Corn Soybeans Wheat Total R9 Corn Dry Beans Wheat Total Change I'nange Change Change Change W ield and Y5P1 * . . . . . sets are sp ecified in Tables 7 and A lternative Revenue w ith Y3P2 50,60 8,00 4,48 2,85 *5,93 0 0 0 0 0 8, ro tatio n s . , . . . R otations, A lternative Y4P2 Yield Y ields, *9,000. 8,750. 5,600. 3,420. 86,770. 86,480. 11,000. 7,000. 4,275. 108,755. 42,825. 34,875. 16,275. 4,860. 10,800. * 6 , RIO. 43,710. 20,460. 6,075. 13,392. 83,637. 15,825. 32,652. 25,575. 29,760. 4,050. 6,480. *5,8*5. 34,875. 37,200. 4,8*0. 10,800. 8 7 , 7 15. 43,710. 46,500. 6,075. 13,192. 109,*77. 21,870. 43,812. 29,150. 16,9*0. 8,250. 54,3*0. 39,750. 18,550. 9,900. *8,200. 49,820, 2 1, 3 2 0 . 12,375. 85,515. 13,840. 31,156. 29,130. 33,920. 8,250. 71,320. 39,750. 42,400. 9,900. 92,060. 49,820. 53,000. 12,375. 1 15,195. 20,710. 43,875. 39,3 18,3 5,4 12,0 75,1 49,350. 23,100. 6,750. 14,880, 94,080. 7 7 0 0 5 5. 5. 0. 0. 0. 17,775. 36,705. 28,875. 33,600, 4,500. 7,200. 74,175. 39,375. 42,000. 5,400. 12,000. 98,775. 49,350. 52,500. 6,750. 14,880, 123,480. 24,600. 49,305. 33,000. 19,200. 9,000. *1,200. 45,000. 21,000. 10,800, 7fi,ROO. 56,400. 26,400. 13,500. 96,100. 15,600. 35,100. 33,000. 38,400. 9,000. R0,«t00. 45,000. 48,000. 10,800. 103,800. 56,400. 60,000. 13,500, 129,900. 23,400. 49,500. Table 13. and and P rice Y5P2 20.R40. 28,875. 16,800. 4,500. 7,200. 57,375. In Crop 25,575. 14,880. 4,050. 6,480. 50,985. 37,078. 17,371. price Irrig atio n , Prices, 320 Acre Farn* Sets Y3P3 Y5P3 Y4P3 70,840. 12,800, 6,720. 4,750. 95,110. 96,*00. 14,000. 8,400. 5,700. 124,700. 121,072 17,600 10,500 7,125 156,297 29,590. 61,187 35,805. 23,808. 6,750. 8,100. 74,463. 48,825. 26,040. 8,100. 13,500. 96.4*6. 61,194 32,73* 10,125 16,740 120,795 22,002. 46,312 35,805. 44,640. 6,750, 8,100. 95,295. 48,825. 55,800. 8,100. 13,500. 126,225. 61,194 *9,750 10,125 16,740 157,809 30,930. 62,514 40,810. 27,136. 13,750. 81,69*. 55,650. 29,680. 16,500. 101,830. 69,748 37,312 20,625 127,685 20,134. 45,989 40,810. 50,880. 13,750. 105,440. 55,650. *3,600. 16,500. 115,750. *9,748 79,500 20,625 169,873 30,310. *4,433 40,425. 26,880. 7.500. 9,000. 83,805, 55,125. 29,400. 9,000. 15,000. 108,525. *9,090 36,9*0 11,250 IB,600 135,900 24,720. 52,095 40,425. 50,400. 7,500. 9,000. 107,125. 55,125. 63,000. 9,000. 15,000. 142,125. 69,090 78,750 11,250 18,600 177,690 34,800. 70,165 46,200. 30,720. 15,000. 91,920. 63,000. 33,600. 18,000. 114,600. 78,9*0 42,240 22,500 14 3 , 7 0 0 22,680. 51,780 46,200. 57,600. 15,000. 118,800. 63,000 72,000 18,000 153,000 . . . . 78,960 90,000 22,500 191,460 34,200. 72,660 109 T a b le C rop 17. T o ta l R o ta tio n Revenue and C hange Acres In T o ta l R evenue w ith I r r i g a t i o n , Y4P1 Y3P1 A lt e r n a t iv e Revenue w ith Y3P2 Y5P1 Crop R o t a t io n s , A lt e r n a t iv e YAP2 Y ie ld Y ie ld s , and and P ric e Y5P2 P r ic e s , 580 A cre Farm * S ets Y3P3 Y4P3 Y5P3 d o l la r s C orn Soybeans Dry Beans Wheat A lf a lf a T o ta l 360 45 53 48 34 540 6 4,9 4 4. 190 190 50 n o 540 34,276. 2 5,050. 5,900. 10,890, 76,116. 190 190 50 110 540 24,2 76. 51,194. 6 ,90ft. 10,890. 107,260. 190 95 95 50 110 540 14,276. 12,525. 25,5 9 7. 5,900. 10,890. 4 4,7 4 0. 13,699. 8 9,1 8 8. 117,665. 8R .560. 6,68 9 . 17,850. 6.79 7 . 5,610. 125,306. 5,*133. 14,280. 5,664. 3,366. 9 4,1 8 7. Change Corn Soyb Whea A lf a T o eans t lf a tal 3 1,1 1 9. 46,7 27,3 7,0 18,1 9 9 ,3 C hange Corn Dry Beans Wheat A lf a lf a T o ta l Soybeans •hear T otal 38,786. 28, 346. 12,980. 8 0,112, 215 215 110 540 18,78 5 7,93 12,98 109,69 6 0 0 6 , . . . and 58,581 17,222 39,995 8,850 2 7.506 147,153 19,357. 4 4,6 2 2. 9 1 7 7 0 2 6 8 6 6,2 9 0,5 19,4 176,2 2 5 5 5 9 ,8 ,8 ,3 ,5 ,6 9 6 6 7 9 s e t s are s p e c if ie d in 4 4,2 0 5. 19,670. 169.905. . . . . . and 8, r o t a t i o n s 3 2,1 5 0. 6 6,2 8 0. 71,2 16,6 3 8,0 9 ,0 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . . 5 2 0 0 0 5 0 0 . . . . 2 2,0 0 0. 1 56,875. 5 3 1 11 9 4 6 0 ,1 ,4 ,5 ,0 2 0 0 2 5. 0. 0. 5, 2 2 0 5 5 5 0 0 186,425. 4 2 ,0 0 0. . . . . . 8 0 ,6 2 5 19,250 4 2,0 0 0 19,800 161,675 . . . . . 3 4,8 5 0. in T able IS. . . . . . 138,600. 11,520. 2 5 ,4 4 0. 12,000. 5,100. 192,660. 7 3,150. 4 8 ,6 12,5 16,5 150,7 4 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . ,0 ,5 ,7 ,3 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . . 75,675. 15,000. 2 7,500. 195,450. 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . . 6 2,9 0 0. 8 2,7 7 5, 55,040. 2 7,500. 5 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 . . . . 128,350. 9 9 ,7 5 0 2 6,6 0 0 5 7,000 15,000 2 7,5 0 0 225,850 . . . . . . 39,7 18,0 10,5 321,0 t 2 6 1 3 24 73,15 2 4,3 2 4 5,6 0 12,50 16,50 172,07 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 36 ,8 80 . 15,840. 6 3,6 4 0. 12,500. 16,500. 193,350. 5,0 6,8 8,7 4,1 4 ,7 2 8 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 . , . . . 9 3,9 6 0. 125 142 18 3 4 320 ,0 ,5 ,7 ,1 ,3 2 0 5 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . . 127,020. . . . . . . 2 82,560. 5 3,7 8 0. 1 10,490. 165,315. 112,875. 6 0,2 0 0. 33,000. 206,075. 8 2 103 2 7 2 13 40,7 6 0. ,7 ,2 ,5 ,4 7 0 0 7 5 0 0 5 . . . , 112,875. 12'»,000. 33,000. 2 7 4 ,R75. 8 2 ,7 2 8,1 50,4 2 7,5 188,8 7 6 0 0 3 5 0 0 0 5 . . . , . 112,87 30,80 6 3,0 0 3 3,00 239,67 88.H 75. 101,0 2 4,2 52,5 2 4,7 2 02 ,5 . . . . . . 9 9,7 5 0. 5 3,200. 9 9,7 114,0 15,0 2 7,5 256,2 77,680. 101 107 2 4 233 189,000 t2 ,6 0 0 3 1,800 14,400 8 ,50 0 256,300 4 4,6 6 0. 7 3,150. 9 1,2 0 0. RO.OAft. 8 9,3 0 0 2 0,900 4 7,5 0 0 1 1,250 2 7,280 196,230 63,075. 6 6 8 0 144,425. 5 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 8,0 2 5. , , , , 8 0 ,6 2 5. 8 6 ,0 0 0. 1 9 ,R 00, 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 5 8 3 101,050. 4 7,3 0 0. 2 4,750. 173,100. 0 7 9 8 5 ‘» , 1 2 5 . 6 8,8 0 0, 16,500, 5 9,1 17,6 33,6 16,5 126,8 89,3 9 5,0 11,2 2 7,2 222 ,8 . . . . 8 3 1 13 5 5,345. 7 8 «, 100. 4 1 ,8 0 0. 11,250. 2 7 ,2 8 0. 1 69 ,6 30. 0 0 0 0 0 1 8,3 2 5. . . . . 6 6,2 8 9. 19,941. 0. 2. 4. 6. 2. Table.' 9 5 0 4 9 0,3 9 2. . . . . . 7 1,2 76,0 9 ,0 2 2,0 178,2 0 0 0 0 0 66,57,8. 24,132. P ric e 8 1 7 7 4 5 ,0 7 5 . 5 2,2 6 0,8 7,5 13,2 133,7 52,250. 15,200. 30,400. 7,500. 13,1-00. 118,550. 6 6,2 8 ^. . . . . 169,200. 9.Q00. 2 6,500. 1 0 , BOO. 8 ,4 3 2 . 224,832. 13,200. 103,350. 57,966. 38,975. 19,470. 174,734. . . . . . . 71,2 5 33,25 9 ,0 0 2 2 ,0 0 136,50 5 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 5 4 4 ,5 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 3 1 11 Change W i e l d 6 7,6 6 7. 0 3 6 9 135,00 7,87 2 1 ,2 0 8 ,6 4 6 ,8 0 170,51 5 2,250. 3 0,400. 7,500. 5 8,581. 79,990. 3 3,702. 5 2,8 7 2,4 15,5 140,8 38,786. 14,502. 28,291. 12,980. 0 6,5 6 0. . . . . . 8 ,83 0 , 22,506. 169,927. 9 0 7 6 9 9 ,0 0 0. 7,200. 16,960. 7,200. 4 ,0 8 0 . 116,440. 4 8,7 6 4. 31,182. 215 110 105 110 540 1 3 0 6 0 . . . . . 52,8 31,0 15,5 9 9 ,4 C hange Corn Soybeans D ry BennR Wheat Total 5 8,58 36,44 8,85 2 2,5 0 124,38 2 8,4 7 7. 215 215 110 540 . . . . . . 6 2,7 3 1. . . . . . 31,996. 7,080. 18.150. C hange Corn D ry Beans Wheat T otal 0 8 0 0 8 23,2 5 2. Chnnpo “n rn 4 9 8 5 6 4 6 ,7 4 0 6 1,992 7,080 18,150 135,962 Q iange Corn Soybeans Dry Beans Wheat A lf a lf a Tot al 110,995 8 ,15 8 2 2,313 8,496 6 ,95 6 156,918 6 1,4 0 0. 5 0 0 0 5 . . . . . 50,840. 125,0 33,4 7 1,2 18,7 34,1 141 7 5 4 1 258 2 4 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . . ,470. ,6 8 0. ,2 5 0. ,4 00 . 9 3 ,0 8 5. 141 161 4t 343 ,4 ,2 ,2 ,9 7 5 5 7 0 0 0 0 . . . . 130,496. 14 3 7 4 30 1,470 8,720 9,750 1,250 0,190 . . . . . 111,355. 110 TR TR R Y P I where = f (R, Y, P, I ) = T otal revenue = Crop r o t a t i o n = Yield = Product p ric e = I n t e n s i t y o f lan d use The i n t e r a c t i o n o f t h e s e v a r i a b l e s f o r a 320- a n d 5 8 0 - a c r e f a r m a r e shown i n T a b l e 1 6 a n d 1 7 . data r e f le c ts changes (1) Each h o r i z o n t a l set of i n r e v e n u e s where Y and P v a ry and R and I a r e h e l d c o n s t a n t . The e f f e c t s o f R and I c a n be e s t i m a t e d through com parisons between the h o r i z o n t a l d a ta sets. An e s t i m a t e o f r e v e n u e ch an g e and i t s component p a r t s i s made b y c o m p a r i n g R^ Y^ P ^ > t h e b a s e l i n e out Ry Y^ P^ , a s i t u a t i o n with R* Y, a n d I. irrigation, with d e p ic tin g changes the to ta l in r e v e n u e f o r R^ Y^ P^ i s increase pattern increase o f $7,054 to $45,800. $59,880. However, an a d d i t i o n a l i s p o s s i b l e by c h a n g i n g t h e c r o p p i n g corn, as I a n d Y c a n b e e s t i m a t e d when i r r i g a t i o n i s added to th e 320- a c r e farm. By b r i n g i n g diverted 300 acres into production, The i r r i g a t i o n acreage tr a n s la te s yield to t o t a l Thus t h e co m p o ne n t e f f e c t s without total i n Rj. The e f f e c t o f cropped. If a yield irrigation, t o one w i t h more d r y b e a n s and l e s s reflected irrigation For th e 3 2 0 -acre farm, i n c r e a s e was e x p e r i e n c e d on R^ d u e t o revenue w ill situ atio n w ith­ i d l e and i n s t e a d o f 267 a c r e s a r e e f f e c t on t h i s revenue o f $ 7 5 ,3 4 2 increased ( Ry Y^ P ^ ) . o f moving from t h e s i t u a t i o n i r r i g a t i o n with t o t a l revenues of $45 ,8 0 0 to a Ill s i t u a t i o n w ith revenues o f $75,342 a re : Total W ithout i r r i g a t i o n (R^ $45,800 (R3 Y3 50,367 +$4,567 I effect (R7 Y3 P j ) 56,713 + 6,346 Y4 P ^ 75,342 +18,629 With i r r i g a t i o n (R7 Y^ P^ ) 75,342 +29,542 Total r e v e n u e i n c r e a s e s by $ 2 9 , 5 4 2 , attributed t o R, 21 p e r c e n t A sim ilaranalysis s h o ws a t o t a l Of t h e farm as to I, o f w h i c h 15 p e r c e n t a n d 64 p e r c e n t of thedata for the 19 p e r c e n t is attributable or $41,775. t o R a n d 81 p e r ­ T h e r e i s no I e f f e c t a s s u m e d f o r t h e i t was c r o p p e d m o r e i n t e n s e l y b e f o r e i r r i g a t i o n (R^ With Y3 P^ ) R e f f e c t ( R3 Y3 P ^ 102,260 +$8,073 Y e f f e c t ( R3 Y4 P x ) 135,962 +33,702 i r r i g a t i o n ( R3 Y4 P ^ ) 135,962 41,775 irrigation benefits. total revenue change a t t r i ­ influence the determ ination o f net Revenue c h a n g e s due t o more i n t e n s e l a n d u s e w i l l b e a c c o m p a n i e d by p r o d u c t i o n c o s t i n c r e a s e s irrigation changes sets costs. However, t o (I) exclusive of sim p lify th e comparison o f in revenues a s s o c ia te d with a l t e r n a t i v e assumption and c o s t s h a r i n g a r r a n g e m e n t s , change, Change $94,187 The c o m p o n e n t p a r t s p f t h e to 580-acre irrigation. T o t a l Revenue W ithout t o Y. 580-acre farm r e v e n u e i n c r e a s e o f 44 p e r c e n t , increase, c e n t t o Y. buted Change R effect Y e f f e c t (R? is P^ ) Revenue Y and P a r e assumed to b u t R and I a r e h e l d c o n s t a n t . 112 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f C o sts and B e n e f i t s A two p a r t y s i t u a t i o n is assumed i n v o l v i n g a g o v e r n ­ m e n t a l body r e s p o n s i b l e f o r l a n d t r e a t m e n t o f w a s t e w a t e r , a wastewater a u th o rity , for land treatm ent. o f options The w a s t e w a t e r a u t h o r i t y h a s a n u m b e r f o r a c q u i s i t i o n o f l a n d and management o f t r e a t ­ ment s i t e s . I t can purchase fee sim ple the farming o p e r a t i o n s . interest, a n d a f a r m e r who owns l a n d s u i t a b l e I t can a cq u ire le s s under which la n d t i t l e s r e n t owners. interest than fee a r e r e t a i n e d by t h e c u r ­ A th ird a c q u isitio n option a g r e e m e n t i n v o l v i n g no p r o p e r t y a n d ma n a g e is a contractual interests. The v a r i o u s a c q u i s i t i o n a n d m a n a g e m e n t o p t i o n s h a v e varying i n f l u e n c e on t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f c o s t s f r o m i r r i g a t i o n a n d i n some i n s t a n c e s f o r b a r g a i n i n g between the au th o rity acquires t wo p a r t i e s . fee simple t h e f o r m e r owner r e l i n q u i s h e s managerial decisions establish interest and b e n e f i t s the ranges When t h e w a s t e w a t e r in t h e farm l a n d , a ll property rig h ts in exchange f o r and the purchase p r ic e . I n t h i s c a s e a d d i t i o n a l r e v e n u e s f r o m i r r i g a t i o n do n o t enter d ire c tly total into the bargaining process. re v e n u e from t h e l i m i t on b e n e f i t s an agreem ent. farming o p e ra tio n s a cooperating Changes in t o t a l through a l t e r n a t iv e assum ptions, benefits However, s e r v e as the upper f a r m e r would r e a l i z e revenues, define the from specified the t o t a l pool of f o r d i s t r i b u t i o n b e t w e e n t h e t wo p a r t i e s . The a l l o c a t i o n o f r e v e n u e s f r o m l a n d t r e a t m e n t essentially a u n i l a t e r a l d e c i s i o n when t h e a u t h o r i t y is has 113 acquired fee simple t i t l e . The a u t h o r i t y may m a n a g e t h e f a r m i n g o p e r a t i o n i t s e l f o r i t may l e a s e t h e l a n d b a c k t o th e p r e s e n t landowner o r to a t h i r d p a r t y . managed, i t wo uld be more r e f l e c t i v e relationships Howeve r i t is o f employer-employee t h a n t h a t o f a b a r g a i n b e t w e e n two r e s o u r c e owning e n t i t i e s . B arg ain in g ov er the terms o f the agreement can occur with a l e s s - t h a n - f e e arrangem ent, purchase. such a s an easem ent The w a s t e w a t e r a u t h o r i t y c a n a c q u i r e a c c e s s t o l a n d f o r w a s t e w a t e r management p u r p o s e s use of a p o s itiv e easement. t h e v a lu e o f an easem ent i s One m e t h o d o f d e t e r m i n i n g to use the d i f f e r e n c e m a r k e t v a l u e o f t h e l a n d b e f o r e and a f t e r restrictions are attach ed . through the the easement I f income s t r e a m s r e f l e c t i v e of a l t e r n a t i v e assum ption s e ts a re c a p i t a l i z e d values, estim ates differences into land o f e a s e m e n t v a l u e s c a n b e b a s e d on t h e i n l a n d v a l u e s w i t h and w i t h o u t i r r i g a t i o n . I f the t o t a l returns the tr a d i ti o n a l priate. in the to w astew ater i r r i g a t i o n are negative, easement v a lu a tio n procedure is appro­ The f a r m e r w o u l d b e c o m p e n s a t e d f o r t h e r e d u c e d income s t r e a m a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e i r r i g a t i o n p r o c e s s . H o w e v e r , whe n t h e r e a r e p o s i t i v e irrigation, increase. the is This s u g g e s ts that the use o f easement p u rchase when e f f l u e n t i n a r e d u c e d income s t r e a m . a positive a sso c ia te d with in c o m e -c a p ita liz e d value o f the land w ill wou ld be a v i a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e results benefits benefit, irrigation H o w e v e r , when t h e r e the t r a d i t i o n a l process fo r easement 114 v a lu a tio n encounters d i f f i c u l t y . This does n o t , however, e l i m i n a t e t h e e a s e m e n t a s a means f o r a c q u i r i n g r i g h t s to land. The a l t e r n a t i v e previously fits levels of total revenue p resen te d i n T a b l e 16 a n d 17 r e p r e s e n t t h e p o o l o f b e n e ­ from i r r i g a t i o n u n d e r a v a r i e t y o f p r i c e s , and crop r o t a t i o n s . yields, B a rg a in in g o c cu rs between t h e farm er and the a u t h o r i t y over th e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f revenue in­ creases Net from i r r i g a t i o n benefits for and t h e a s s o c i a t e d c o s t s . t h e f a r m e r s a r e e s t i m a t e d u n d e r a number o f c o s t sharing assum ptions. The a l t e r n a t i v e s ing to the p o r tio n o f th e annual th e farmer: total costs, irrigation capital costs, o r some f r a c t i o n o f t o t a l costs I f the a u t h o r i t y pays a l l irrigation total alternative the y ie ld and t h e g r e a t e r using the increase increase in in net Net b e n e f i t s w i t h ( T a b l e s 18 a n d 1 9 ) . the higher the share of i r r i g a t i o n wastewater a u th o rity , to the farm ers. change, costs, sharing arrangem ents f o r the 320 an d 5 8 0 - a c r e fa r m a r e e s t i m a t e d The g r e a t e r p a i d by operating costs, identical. re v e n u e and c o s t costs accord­ (20 p e r c e n t a n d 50 p e r c e n t ) . re v e n u e w i t h i r r i g a t i o n and th e revenue to th e farm er are differ the product p r ic e , c o s t s p a i d by t h e t h e l a r g e r w i l l be t h e n e t b e n e f i t s Some i n f e r e n c e s a r e d r a w n f r o m t h e d a t a , t h e 3 2 0 - a c r e farm a s an example. I f the change in rev e n u es a r e as r e f l e c t e d in c a n pay a n n u a l o p e r a t i n g c o s t s o r 25 p e r c e n t o f the to ta l irrigation c o s t s and s t i l l realize ($14,080), an i n c r e a s e the firm in net 115 T a b l e 18. Changes I n T o t a l Revenue a n d Ne t Revenue f o r a 320 Ac r e Farm I n a R e g i o n a l Wa s t e w a t e r I r r i g a t i o n P r o j e c t w i t h A l t e r n a t i v e As s u mp t i o n s on R o t a t i o n , Y i e l d , P r i c e , a nd l e g a t i o n C o s t S h a r i n g ___________________________________________________________ R o t a t i o n , Y i e l d a nd P r i c e D a t a S e t Comb i n a t i o n ^ N1Y4P1 R1Y5P1 R1Y4P2 R1Y5P2 R1Y4P3 R1Y5P3 ... Annual Change i n T o t a l Revenue Net Revenues a f t e r D e d u c t i o n o f : T o t a l I r r i g a t i o n Cos t ( 3 3 , 0 0 0 ) C a p i t a l Cos t ( 2 2 , 5 0 0 ) 507: o f T o t a l C o s t ( 1 6 , 5 0 0 ) O p e r a t i n g Cos t ( 1 0 , 5 0 0 ) 25% o f T o t a l Cost ( 8 , 2 5 0 ) 1 4 , 080. 29,252. 20,840. 42, 825. 29, 590. 61,187. -[ 18, 920. -8,420. -2,420. 3, 580. 5, 830. -3,748. 6, 752. 12. 752. 18.752. 21, 002. -12,160. -1,660. 4 * 340. 10, 34 0. 12 , 590. 9,825. 20.325. 26.325. 32.325. 34 , 575 . -3,410. 7, 090. 13.090. 1 9. 090 . 21,340. 28,187. 38,637. 44.687. 50.687. 52, 937. R o t a t i o n , Y i e l d and P r i c e Da t a S e t Combi n a t i on *■ R2Y4P1 R2Y5P1 R2Y4P2 R2YSP2 R?.y 4 p 3 Annual Change i n T o t a l Revenue Net Revenues a f t e r D e d u c t i o n o f : T o t a l I r r i g a t i o n Cos t ( 3 3 , 0 0 0 ) C a p i t a l Cos t ( 2 2 , 5 0 0 ) 50% o f T o t a l Coa t ( 1 6 , 5 0 0 ) n p e r a t i n s Cost (10,500) 25% o f T o t a l C o s t ( 8 , 2 5 0 ) R2Y5P3 1 1 , 451. 23,790. 1 5 , 825. 32,652. 2 2,002. 4 6, 332. -21,549. -11,049. -5,049. 95). 3, 2 0 1 . -9,210. 1. 290. 7.290. 13, 290. 15, 54 0. - I 7, 175. -6,675. -675. 5,325. 7, 5 7 5 . -3 48. 10 . 152 . 16 . 152 . 22 . 1 5 2 . 24,402. - 10, 998. - 4 tl8. 5, 502. 11. 502. 13, 7 32. 1 3, 332. 2 3,832. 2 9 , HJ? 35,832. 38,082. R o t a t i o n , Yi e l d and P r i c e Da t a S e t Combi na t i on^ K3Y4P3 R3Y5P2 R3Y4P1 R3Y5P1 R3Y4P2 Annual Change i n T o t a l Revenue Net Revenues a f t e r De d u c t i o n o f : T o t a l i r r i g a t i o n Cost ( 3 3 , 0 0 0 ) C a p i t a l Cost (22,500) 50% o f T o t a l Cos t ( 1 6 , 5 0 0 ) O p e r a t i n g Co s t ( 1 0 , 5 0 0 ) 25% o f T o t a l Cos t ( 8 , 2 5 0 ) 1 6 , 566. 3 3 , 287. 21,870. 4 3,812. 30,930. 62,514. -16,434. -5,934. 66. 6, 066. 8,316. 287. 10 . 787. 16 . 787. 22.787. 25 , 0 3 7 . -11,130. - 6 30. 5, 370. 11, 370. 1 3, 620. 1 0 , 812. 21.312. 27 . 3 1 2 . 33.312. 35,562. -2,070. 8, 4 3 0 . 1 4 . 430. 20.430. 22,680. 29,514. 40.014. 46. 014. 52.014. 54,264. R o t a t i o n , Y i e l d and P r i c e D a t a S e t Combi nat ionA R4Y5F2 R4Y4P3 R4Y4P1 R4Y5P1 R4Y4P2 \ n n u a l Change i n T o t a l Revenue Net Revenues a f t e r De d u c t i o n o f : T o t a l I r r i g a t i o n Cos t ( 3 3 , 0 0 0 ) C a p i t a l Cost ( 2 2 , 5 0 0 ) 50% of T o t a l C o s t ( 1 6 , 5 0 0 ) Op era ti ng Cost (10,500) 25% o f T o t a l C o s t ( 8 , 2 5 0 ) Net Revenues a f t e r D e d u c t i o n o f : T o t a l I r r i g a t i o n Cost ( 3 3 , 0 0 0 ) C a p i t a l Cos t ( 2 2 , 5 0 0 ) 50% o f T o t a l C o s t ( 1 6 , 5 0 0 ) O p e r a t i n g Cos t ( 1 0 , 5 0 0 ) 25% o f T o t a l C o s t ( 8 , 2 5 0 ) 22,045. 1 3 , 840. 31 , 1 5 5 . 20,134. 45. 9H9. -23,438. -12,938. - 6 , 9 38. -918. 1, 3 1 2 . -10,955. -455. 5, 545. 11, 5 45. 13, 795. -19,160. -8,660. -2,660. 3, 340. 5,590. -1,845. 8/ 6 5 5. 1 4 , 655. 2 0 , 6 55. 22,905. -12,866. -2,366. 3, 6 34. 9 , 6 J4, 11, 884. 12 , " 8 9 . 2 3, 4 8 9 . 29. 489. 35.489. 37 , 7 3 9 . 15,392. -17,608. -7,108. -1 , 1 08. 4,892. 7, 1 4 2 . 32,870. -130., 10. 37 0. 16 . 370 . 22.370. 24,620. Net Reve nue s a f t e r D e d u c t i o n o f : T o t a l I r r i g a t i o n Cost (33, 000) C a p i t a l Cos t ( 2 2 , 5 0 0 ) 50% of T o t a l C o s t ( 1 6 , 5 0 0 ) Ope ra ti ng Cost (10,500) 25% of T o t a l C o s t ( 8 , 2 5 0 ) R5Y5P3 20, 730. 43,875. 30 , 3 1 0 . 6 4, 433. -12,270. -1,770. 4, 230. 10, 230. 12, 4 80. 10, 875 . 21 . 3 7 5 . 27.375. 33.375. 35,625. -2,690. 7, 8 1 0 . 13,810. 1 9 , RIO. 22,060. 31 , 433 . 41 , 933. 47. 933. 53.933. 56, 183. R o t a t i o n . Y i e l d and P r i c e Da t a S e t Combi nat i on^ R6Y4P3 K6Y5P2 R6Y4P2 R6Y4P1 R6Y5P1 Annual Change i n T o t a l Revenue R4Y5P3 9, 562. R o t a t i o n , Y i e l d and P r i c e Da t a S e t C o mb i n a t i o n 1 R5Y4P3 R5Y5P2 R5T4P2 R5Y4P1 R5Y5P1 Annual Change i n T o t a l Revenue K3Y5P3 R6Y5P3 12 , 854 . 26,729. 17,775. 36,705. 24,720. 52,095. -20,146. -9,646. -3,646. 2,354. 4,604. -6,271. 4, 229. 10.229. 1 6 . 229. 18,479. -15,225. -4,725. 1. 275. 7.275. 9,525. 3, 705. 14. 2 05. 20 . 2 0 5 . 26. 205. 28, 455. -8,280. 2,220. 8, 220. 14, 2 20. 16, 4 70. 1 9 , 095. 29.595. 35.595. 41.595. 43,345. 116 Table 18. Changes In Total Revenue and Net Revenue for a 320 Acre Farm in a Regional Wastewater Irrigation Project with Alternative Assumptions on Rotation, Yield, Price, and Irrigation ___________ Cost Sharing (Continued) R o t a t i o n , Y i e l d a n d P r i c e D a ta S e t C o m b i n a t i o n ! R7Y5P1 R7Y4P2 R7Y5P2 R7Y4P3 R7Y5P3 --------------- d o l l a r s -------------1 8,629. 37,451. 24,600. 49,305. 34,800. 70,365. R7Y4P1 Annual Change i n T o t a l Revenue Net R evenu es a f t e r D e d u c t i o n o f : T o ta l I r r i g a t i o n C ost (33,000) C a p i t a l C ost (2 2 ,5 0 0) 502 o f T o t a l C o s t ( 1 6 , 5 0 0 ) O p e ra tin g C ost (10 ,5 0 0 ) 252 d f T o t a l C o s t ( 8 , 2 5 0 ) -1 4 ,3 7 1 . -3 ,8 7 1 . 2.129. 8 .1 2 9 . 10,379. R8Y4P1 4,451. 14.951. 20.951. 26.951. 29,201. -8 ,4 0 0 . 2,100. 8,100. 1 4 ,1 0 0 . 1 6 ,3 5 0 . 1,800. 12.300. 1 8 .3 0 0 . 24.300. 26,550. 37,365. 4 7 .865. 53.865. 59.865. 62,115. R o t a t i o n , Y i e l d and P r i c e D ata S e t Combination^* R8Y5P1 R8Y4P2 R8Y5P2 R8Y4P3 R8Y5P3 J Annual Change i n T o t a l Revenue 1 6 ,3 0 5 , 26.805. 32 ,8 0 5 . 38.805. 41,055. *11 > 10,771. 24,823. 15,600. 35, 100. 22,680. 5 1 ,7 8 0 . Net R evenues a f t e r D e d u c t i o n o f : T o ta l I r r i g a t i o n C ost (3 3 ,0 0 0) C a p i t a l C o s t ( 2 2 ,5 0 0 ) 502 o f T o t a l C o s t ( 1 6 ,5 0 0 ) O p e r a tin g C ost (1 0 ,5 0 0) 252 o f T o t a l C o s t ( 8 , 2 5 0 ) -2 2 ,2 2 9 . - I I , 729. -5 ,7 2 9 . 271. 2,521. -8 ,1 7 7 . 2, 323. 8,323. 1 4 ,3 2 3 . 16,573. -1 7 ,4 0 0 . -6 ,9 0 0 . -9 0 0 . 5,100. 7 ,3 5 0 . 2,100. 1 2 ,6 0 0 . 18,600. 24,600. 26 ,8 5 0. -1 0 ,3 2 0 . 180. 6 ,180. 12,180. 14,430. 13,780. 29.280. 35.280. 4 1 .280. 43,530. R9Y4P1 R o t a t i o n , Y i e l d a nd P r i c e D a ta S e t C o m b i n a t i o n ! R9Y5P3 R9Y4P3 R9Y4P2 R9Y5P2 R9Y5P1 i l l Annual Change i n T o t a l Revenue Net R evenues a f t e r D e d u c t i o n o f : T o ta l I r r i g a t i o n Cost (33,000) C a p i t a l C ost (2 2 ,5 0 0) 502 o f T o t a l C o s t ( 1 6 , 5 0 0 ) O p e ra tin g C ost (1 0 ,5 0 0) 252 o f T o t a l C o s t ( 8 , 2 5 0 ) > 17,371. 37,078. 23,400. 49,500. 34,200. -1 5 ,6 2 9 . -5 ,1 2 9 . 871. 6,871. 9,121. 4,078. 14.578. 20.578. 26.578. 28,828. -9 ,6 0 0 . 900. 6,900. 12 ,90 0. 1 5 ,1 5 0 . 16,500. 27.000. 33.000. 39.000. 41,250. 1,200. 11.700. 17.700. 2 3,700. 25,950. 72,660. 39,660. 50.160. 56.160. 62 .1 6 0 . 6 4 ,410. Data sets combine rotation information from Table 15, yield information from Table 7, and price information from Table 3. 117 | Table 19. Changes in Total Revenue and Net Revenue for a 580 Acre Farm in a Regional Wastewater Irrigation Project with Alternative Assumptions on Rotation, Yield, Price, and Irrigation Cost Sharing * R o t a t i o n , Y i e l d and P r i c e Data Se t C om bin ati on ! R1Y4P1 R1Y5P1 R1Y5P2 R1Y4P2 R1Y5P3 R1Y4P3 A n n u a l Ch a n g e i n T o t a l R e v e n u e Net Revenues a f t e r D e du ct io n o f : T o tal I r r i g a t i o n Cost (59,400) C a p i t a l Cost (40,5 00) 50% o f T o t a l C o s t ( 2 9 , 7 0 0 ) O perating Cost (18,900) 25% o f T o t a l C o s t ( 1 4 , 8 5 0 ) 31,119. 62,731. 45,075. 90,392. 63,640. 128,350. -2R.281. -9,381. 1.919. 12,219. 18,289. 3,331. 22,231. 33,031. 43,831. 47,881. -14,325. 4,575. 15,375. 26,175. 30,225. 30,992. 49,802. 4,240. 23,140. 33,940. 44.740. 48,790. 68,950. 87,850. 98,650. 1 0 9 , 4 50. 113,500. 60,692. 71 . 4 9 2 . 75,542. R o t a t i o n , Y i e l d a nd P r i c e D a t a S e t C o m b i n a t i o n ! R2Y4P1 H2Y5P1 R2Y4P2 R2Y5P2 R2Y4P2 Annual Change i n T o t a l Revenue Net Reve nue s a f t e r D e d u c t i o n . o f : T otal I r r i g a t i o n Cost (59,400) C a p ita l Cost (40,500) 50% o f T o t a l C o s t ( 2 9 , 7 0 0 ) O perating Cost (18,900) 25% o f T o t a l C o s t ( 1 4 , 8 5 0 ) 23,252. 4R.284. 32,150. 66,280. 44,660. 93,960. -38,198. -17,298. -8,498. 4.352. 8,402. -11,138. 7,784. 18,584. 29.384. 33,414. - 2 7 , 23.0. -8,350. 6,880. 25,780. 36 , 5 8 0 . 4 7.380. 51,430. -14,740. 4,160. 14,960. 25.760. 29,810. 34,560. 53,460. 64,260. 75,060. 79,110. 2 , 4 50. 13,250. 17,300. R o t a t i o n , Y ie ld and P r i c e R3Y4P2 R3Y4P1 R3Y5P1 Annual Change i n T o t a l Revenue Ne t R e v e n u e s a f t e r D e d u c t i o n o f : Total I r r i g a t i o n Cost (59,400) C a p i t a l Cost (40,500) 50% o f T o t a l C o s t ( 2 9 , 7 0 0 ) o p e ra tin g Cost (18,900) 25% o f T o t a l C o s t ( 1 4 , 8 5 0 ) Ne t R e v e n u e s a f t e r D e d u c t i o n o f : T o t a l I r r i g a t i o n Cost (59 ,4 00 ) C a p i t a l Cost (40,500) 50% o f T o t a l C o s t ( 2 9 , 7 0 0 ) O p e r a tin g Cost (18,900) 25% o f T o t a l C o s t ( 1 4 , 8 5 0 ) 1s Data Set Combination! R3Y5P3 R3Y5P2 R3Y4P3 33,702. 8 7,687. 44,500. 89,080. 62,900. 127,020. -25,898. -8 ,79 8. 4,002. 14,802. 18,852. c 8,267. 27,167. 37,967. 4 8 , 767. 52,817. -1 4,9 00. 4,000. 14,800. 25,600. 29,650. 29,680. 48,580. 59,380. 70,180. 74 , 2 3 0 . 3,500. 22,400. 67,620. 86,520. 33,200. 44,000. 48,050. 9 7 . 3 20. 108.120. 112,170. R o t a t i o n , Y i e l d a nd P r i c e R4Y4P2 R4Y4P1 R4Y5P1 Annual Change i n T o t a l Revenue R2Y5P3 2R.477. 57,966. 38,325. -3 0,9 23. -12,023. - 1, 223. 9,577. 13,827. -1,434. 17,466. 28,266. 39,066. 43,116. -21,075. -2,175. 8,625. 19,425. 23,475. D a t a S e t Co mb i n a t i o n ! R4Y4P3 R4Y3P2 R4Y5P3 r s ----------5 3 , 7 90. 77,6 80. 110,490. 18,280. 37,180. 4 7,980. 58,780. 62,830. -5,620. 13,280. 24.080. 34,880. 38,930. 51,090. 69,990. 80,790. 91.590. 95,640. Table 19. Changes in Total Revenue and Net Revenue for a 580 Acre Farm In a Regional Wastewater Irrigation Project with Alternative Assumptions on Rotation, Yield, Price and Irrigation Cost Sharing (Continued) R5Y4P1 Annual Change i n T o t a l Revenue Net R ev en ue s a f t e r D e d u c t i o n o f : T o ta l I r r i g a t i o n Cost (59,400) C a p ita l Cost (40,500) 50% o f T o t a l C o s t ( 2 9 , 7 0 0 ) ODerating Cost (18,900) $5% o f T o t a l C o s t ( 1 4 , 8 5 0 ) R o ta tio n , Yield and P r ic e Data Set Combination^ R5Y4P2 R5Y5P2 R5Y4P3 R5Y5P1 R5Y5P3 19,357. 44,622. 28,025. 63,075. 40,760. 93,085. -40,043. -21,143. -10,343. 457. 4,507. -14,778. 4 , 122. 14,922. 25,722. 29,772. -31,375. -12,475. -1,675. 9,125. 13,175. 3,675. 22,575. 33,375. 44,175. 48,225. -18,640. 260. 11,060. 2 1,860. 25,910. 33,685. 52,585. 6 3,385. 74,185. 78,235. R o t a t i o n , Y i e l d and P r i c e D ata Set Combination R6Y4P3 R6Y5P1 R6Y4P2 R6Y5P2 R6Y5P3 -------------d o l l a r s ------------61,400. 66,578. 42,000. 88,875. 31,182. 130,495. R6Y4P1 An nu a l Change i n T o t a l Revenue Ne t R e v e n u e s a f t e r D e d u c t i o n o f : Total I r r i g a t i o n Cost (59,400) C a p i t a l Cost (40,500) 50% o f T o t a l C o s t ( 2 9 , 7 0 0 1 Operating Cost (18,900) 25% o f T o t a l C o s t ( 1 4 , 8 5 0 ) -28,218. -9,318. 1,482. 12,282. 18,332. 7,178. 26,078. 36,878. 47,678. 51,728. -17,400. 1,500. 12,300. 23,100. 27,150. 29,475. 48,375. 59,175, 69,975. 74,025. 2,000. 20,900. 31 , 7 0 0 . 42,500. 46,550. 71.095. 89.095. 100,795. 111,595. 115,645. R o t a t i o n , Y i e l d and P r i c e Data Se t Combina tio n 1 R7Y4P3 R7Y5P3 R7Y5P1 R7Y4P2 R7Y5P2 ------------ d o l l a r s -------------5 0 , 8 4 0 . 1 11,355. 3 4 , 8 5 0 . 7 5 , 6 7 5 . 55,345. 25,132. R7Y4P1 Annual Change i n T o t a l Revenue Ne t R e v e n u e s a f t e r D e d u c t i o n o f : T o tal I r r i g a t i o n Cost (59,400) C a p ita l Cost (40,500) 50% o f T o t a l C o s t ( 2 9 , 7 0 0 ) O perating Cost (18,900) 25% o f T o t a l C o s t ( 1 4 , 8 5 0 ) 1 -34,288. -15,388. -4,568. 6,232. 10,282. -4,055. 14,845. 25,645. 36,445. 40,495. -24,550. -5,650. 5,150. 15,950. 20,000. 16,275. 35,175. 45,975. 56,775. 60,825. -8,560. 10,340. 51,955. 70,855. 21,140. 31.940. 35,990. 81,65). 92.455. 96,505. Data sets combine rotation information from Table 15, yield information from Table 7, and price information from Table 8. 119 revenue. Any a g r e e m e n t r e q u i r i n g than $14,080 o f the net revenues. yield set the firm t o p a y mo r e i r r i g a t i o n c o s t s would d e c r e a s e A lternatively, are re a liz e d , if its increases r e f le c te d in t h e same c r o p p i n g p a t t e r n a n d p r ic e combination provide a n e t revenue in crease under a l l the sp e c ifie d cost sharing except f o r paying the f u ll fo r the c o s t of the system. 580-acre farm. revenue fo r the optim istic yield wheat r o t a t i o n revenue fo r The g r e a t e s t This r e f l e c t s increases $72,660, in to ta l o r $242 p e r th e c o m b in a tio n o f t h e most (Rg P^). The l a r g e s t t h e 580 a c r e f a r m i s (R^ Yj. P ^ ) . increase $130,495, in to ta l o r $241 p e r Under t h e o p t i m i s t i c assump­ i s a n e t b e n e f i t o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y $132 p e r a c re of c ro p la n d f o r both farms a f t e r paying annual exist and p r i c e a s s u m p t io n s and a c o r n - d r y b e a n s - acre of cropland there Sim ilar co n d itio n s 320 a c r e f a r m i s acre of cropland. tions, arrangements irrigation the t o t a l costs. Regional A n aly sis The r e g i o n a l is estim ated using impact o f a l a r g e land treatm ent p ro je c t the concept of a w astew ater co o p erativ e. A c o llec tiv e organization is formed to c o n s o l i d a t e and coordinate n e g o tiatio n s w ith the w astew ater a u th o rity . Rather than the authority individual entering into farm er and th e w a s te w a te r individual contractual b arg ain in g over sharing o f i r r i g a t i o n c o s ts In th e Braunschweig, Ge r ma ny c o o p e r a t i v e , is agreem ents, assumed. f o r example, 120 tw enty-five percent of the co sts a r e p a i d by t h e f a r m e r s and s e v e n t y - f i v e p e r c e n t by t h e c i t y The c o l l e c t i v e approach is [T ietjen, applied 1973]. to the proposed la n d t r e a tm e n t component o f th e S o u t h e a s t M ichigan W aste­ w a t e r Management S t u d y . involved, o f a b o u t 102,000 a c r e s is 72,500 o f which rem ain in p r i v a t e ow nership. impacts o f a l t e r n a t i v e m ated by a g g r e g a t i n g system. A total c o s t sh arin g arrangem ents th e c o s t s and r e t u r n s o f The e x p e c t e d b e n e f i t s several c r ite r ia . The are e s t i ­ the t o t a l are a llo c a te d according to The c o o p e r a t i v e a n d t h e a u t h o r i t y c a n each pay o n e - h a l f o f t h e t o t a l c o s t s . A lternatively, the c o o p e r a tiv e can pay th e annual o p e r a t i n g c o s t s b u t n o t the capital costs. The c o o p e r a t i v e may b e w i l l i n g to e n te r in to a long term f in a n c in g agreem ent f o r c a p i t a l Another p o s s i b l e agreem ent could p ro v id e a sp ecified percentage level increase costs. the c o o p erativ e in n e t rev e n u es above th e t h e y would have been w i t h o u t i r r i g a t i o n . C o n s t r u c t i o n and o p e r a t i o n and m ain ten an ce c o s t s a system to irrigate the p ro je c te d acreage of approxim ately 7 2 , 0 0 0 a c r e s w e r e e s t i m a t e d b a s e d on c o s t s covering 4 square m iles. required, for Approximately f o r modules 28 m o d u l e s a r e e a c h c o n s i s t i n g o f 16 c e n t e r p i v o t s y s t e m c o v e r i n g 160 a c r e s . The c o s t s o f t h e e n t i r e e s t i m a t e d by a g g r e g a t i n g t h e d a t a presented previously are $9.3 m i l l i o n , and $3.8 m i l l i o n in T ab le 10. for system are single center pivot The a n n u a l o f which $5.5 m i l l i o n is total capital costs cost a re o p e r a t i o n and m ain ten an ce c o s t s . T a b le 20. E s t i m a t e s o f R e g io n a l P r o d u c t i o n from a Land T re a tm e n t P r o p o s a l u n d e r A l t e r n a t i v e R o t a t i o n and Y ie ld A s s u m p tio n s , S o u t h e a s t M ich ig an Index of P ro d u ctio n Y ie ld S e t1 P ro d u ctio n Crop A cres U n it Y ie ld S e t1 1 ,0 0 0 u n i t s 2 5 .4 0 0 . 2 5 .4 0 0 . 7 ,2 0 0 . 1 4 .5 0 0 . 7 2 .5 0 0 . bu bu bu to n 2 ,7 9 4 .0 8 1 2 .8 360.0 4 3 .5 3 , 8 1 0 .0 8 89.0 4 3 2 .0 7 2 .5 4 , 7 7 5 .2 1 ,1 1 7 .6 540.t) 8 9 .9 1 ,9 0 5 .0 4 3 1 .8 2 16 .0 3 6 .3 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 136.36 109.37 120.00 166.67 170.91 137.49 149.99 20 6 .65 6 8 .1 8 5 3 .1 2 6 0 .0 0 8 3 .4 5 Corn Soybeans Wheat T o tal 2 9 .0 0 0 . 2 9 .0 0 0 . 1 4 .5 0 0 . 7 2 .5 0 0 . bu bu bu 3 ,1 9 0 .0 9 2 8 .0 72 5.0 4 ,3 5 0 .0 1 ,0 1 5 .0 8 7 0 .0 5 , 4 5 2 .0 1 ,2 7 6 .0 1 ,0 8 7 .5 2 ,1 7 5 .0 4 9 3 .0 4 3 5 .0 100.00 100.00 100.00 136.36 109.37 120.00 170.91 137.49 149.99 6 8 .1 8 5 3 .1 2 6 0 .0 0 Corn Soybeans Drybeans Wheat T o tal 2 9 .0 0 0 . 1 4 .5 00 . 1 4 .5 0 0 . 1 4 .5 0 0 . 7 2 .5 0 0 . bu bu cwt bu 3 ,1 9 0 .0 4 6 4 .0 2 3 2 .0 7 25.0 4 , 3 5 0 .0 5 0 7 .5 2 90 .0 8 7 0 .0 5 , 4 5 2 .0 6 3 8 .0 36 2.5 1 ,0 8 7 .5 2 ,1 7 5 .0 2 4 6 .5 145.0 4 3 5 .0 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 136.36 109.37. 125.00 120.00 170.91 137.49 156.25 149.99 6 8 .1 8 5 3 .1 2 6 2 .5 0 6 0 .0 0 1 Y ie ld s e t s a r e s p e c i f i e d i n t a b l e 7. 121 Corn Soybeans Wheat A lfa lfa T o tal 122 Crop p r o d u c t i o n c h a n g e s f o r t h e total system a r e e s tim a te d u sin g a l t e r n a t i v e three rotations. The y i e l d s e t s p r o d u c t i o n from th e e n t i r e presented in Table 20. sets and r o t a t i o n s as those used in th e firm a n a l y s i s . total yield irrigation and are the A lternative levels of irrigation p ro je c t are The a b s o l u t e a n d r e l a t i v e production changes v a ry w ith th e crop and assu m ption s e t s used. production varies The g r e a t e s t r e l a t i v e increase is 106 p e r c e n t . Regional p ro d u ctio n requirem ents ties Corn f r o m a d e c r e a s e o f 32 p e r c e n t t o a n i n ­ c r e a s e o f 71 p e r c e n t . in a l f a l f a , same f o r m a j o r commodi­ from S o u t h e a s t e r n M ichigan have been e s t i m a t e d in c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e G r e a t Lakes B a sin Framework Study and t h e S o u t h e a s t e r n M ic h ig a n Water R e s o u r c e s S tu d y . a re norm ative e stim ate s o f re g io n a l re q u ire m e n ts f o r food and f i b e r , shares of national and s e r v e as benchm arks fo r comparison w ith p ro d u c tio n w ith i r r i g a t i o n T a b l e 21. These (Table 21). Regional P ro d u c tio n Requirements f o r S o u th e a s te rn M i c h i g a n W a s t e w a t e r Management S t u d y A r e a , 1980 and 2 0 0 0. Crop Unit Production 1980 2000 --------1 0 0 0 i m i t s ---------- Corn Soybeans Dr y B e a n s Whea t A l f a l f a Hay Source: bu. bu. cw t. bu. ton [ G r e a t Lakes Commission, 24,537 11,833 910 10,286 495 1972] 26,608 12,648 1,202 11,702 427 T a b l e 2 2. T o t a l Revenue and Change i n T o t a l Revenue w i t h I r r i g a t i o n , A l t e r n a t i v e Crop R o t a t i o n s , Y i e l d s , and P r i c e s , R e g i o n a l Land T r e a tm e n t P ro ject Crop R o t a t i o n R1 Com Soybeans Wheat A lfa lfa T o ta l Y3P1 Y4P1 Y5P1 25.400. 2 5.400. 7 ,2 0 0 . 14.500. 7 2 .5 0 0 . 4 ,5 8 2 .2 3 ,3 4 8 .7 8 4 9.6 1 , 4 3 5 .5 10 ,2 1 6 .0 6 .2 4 8 .4 3 ,6 6 2 .7 1.019.5 2 .3 9 2 .5 1 3 , 3 2 3 .1 7 .8 3 1 .3 4 ,6 0 4 .5 1.274.4 2 ,9 6 6 .7 1 6 , 6 7 6 .9 3,1 0 7 .1 6 ,4 6 0 .9 7 ,1 3 4 .0 4 ,1 8 1 .8 2.053C2 13,369.0 8,9 4 1 .3 5 ,2 5 7 .1 2,5 6 6 .5 1 6 , 7 6 4 .9 2 ,6 0 3 .0 5 ,9 9 8 .9 7 ,1 3 4 .0 2 ,0 9 0 .9 4,8 8 3 .6 2 ,0 5 3 .2 16,161.7 8 ,9 4 1 .3 2 ,6 2 8 .6 6 .1 0 4 .5 2 .5 6 6 .5 2 0 ,2 4 0 .8 3 ,4 0 0 .5 7,4 7 9 .7 Change R2 Corn Soybeans Wheat T o ta l 29.000. 29.000. 1 4 .5 0 0 . 72.500. 5 ,2 3 1 .6 3 ,8 2 3 .4 1 ,7 1 1 .0 1 0 , 7 6 6 .0 Change R3 Corn Soybeans Dry Beans Wheat T o ta l Change 1 29,000. 1 4 .5 0 0 . 14 .5 0 0 . 14 .5 0 0 . 72.500. 5 .2 3 1 .6 1.911.7 3 ,9 0 6 .9 1,711.0 1 2 , 7 6 1 .2 Y i e l d and p r i c e s e t s a r e s p e c i f i e d i n T a b l e s 7 and 8. Revenue w i t h A l t e r n a t i v e Y i e l d and P r i c e S e t s Y3P2 Y4P2 Y5P2 1*11 ■ 6 .9 8 5 .0 4 .0 6 4 .0 1.080.0 1,7 4 0 .0 1 3 , 8 6 9 .0 7 .9 7 5 .0 4 .6 4 0 .0 2 .1 7 5 .0 1 4 , 7 9 0 .0 7 .9 7 5 .0 2 .3 2 0 .0 4 .6 4 0 .0 2.1 7 5 .0 17,110.0 9 .5 2 5 .0 4 .4 4 5 .0 1 .2 9 6 .0 2 .9 0 0 .0 1 8,166.0 1 1.438.0 5 .5 8 3 .0 1.6 2 0 .0 3 ,5 9 6 .0 22 .7 4 2 .0 4 ,2 9 7 .0 8 ,8 7 3 .0 1 0.8 7 5 .0 5 ,0 7 5 .0 2..6 10.0 1 8.5 6 0 .0 1 3,63 0 .0 6 ,3 3 0 .0 3 ,2 6 2 .5 2 3 ,2 7 2 .5 3 ,7 7 0 .0 8,4 8 2 .5 1 0,87 5 .0 2 ,5 3 7 .5 5 ,8 0 0 .0 2 ,6 1 0 .0 2 1 ,8 2 2 .5 13 ,6 3 0 .0 3 .1 9 0 .0 7.2 5 0 .0 3 ,2 6 2 .5 2 7 ,3 3 2 .5 4 ,7 1 2 .5 1 0 , 2 2 2 .5 Y3P3 Y4P3 Y5P3 9 .7 7 9 .0 6 ,5 0 2 .4 1.300.0 2 .1 7 5 .0 2 0 ,2 5 6 .4 1 3.33 5 .0 7 .1 1 2 .0 2 .1 6 0 .0 3 ,6 2 5 .0 2 6 .2 3 2 .0 1 6 ,7 1 3 . 8,940. 2.700.1 4.4 95.1 32,849.1 5 ,9 7 5 .6 12,592. 1 5 . 2 2 5 .0 8 ,1 2 0 .0 4 ,3 5 0 .0 2 7 .6 9 5 .0 1 9 ,0 8 2 . 1 0 ,2 0 8 . 5,4 3 7 . 3 4 ,7 2 7 . 5 ,4 8 1 .0 1 2 ,5 1 3 . 1 5 . 2 2 5 .0 4 .0 6 0 .0 8.7 0 0 .0 4.3 5 0 .0 32 .3 3 5 .0 1 9 ,0 8 2 . 5 ,1 0 4 .i 10,875. 5 ,4 3 7 . 40 ,4 9 8. 6,8 7 3 .0 1 5 ,0 3 6 . 11.165.0 7 .4 2 4 .0 3 .6 2 5 .0 2 2 .2 1 4 .0 11.1 6 5 .0 3.7 1 2 .0 6 .9 6 0 .0 3 .6 2 5 .0 2 5 .4 6 2 .0 123 A cres 124 The c o n t r i b u t i o n s o f i r r i g a t i o n duction requirem ents o ptim istic yield, percent corn, is re la tiv e ly Yg, is to the reg io n a l p r o ­ sm all. I f t h e most r e a l i z e d on a r o t a t i o n w i t h 40 the a d d itio n a l p ro d u ctio n of 2.3 m illio n bushels rep re se n ts 9 p e r c e n t o f t h e 1980 r e q u i r e m e n t s . The c o n t r i b u t i o n t o r e g i o n a l c o r n p r o d u c t i o n f r o m t h e p r o ­ je c t area w ill to i n c r e a s e f r o m 13 p e r c e n t w i t h o u t i r r i g a t i o n 22 p e r c e n t w i t h i r r i g a t i o n . E stim ates of to ta l yields, prices, r e v e n u e s from a l t e r n a t i v e and r o t a t i o n s are presented sets of i n T a b l e 22. T o t a l r e v e n u e e s t i m a t e s v a r y b e tw e e n $ 1 0 .2 and $ 2 5 .4 m i l l i o n w ithout i r r i g a t i o n , with i r r i g a t i o n , and betw een $1 3.3 and $40.5 m i l l i o n d e p en d in g upon t h e d a t a s e t s u s e d . The s p e c i f i c a t i o n o f c o s t s h a r i n g a r r a n g e m e n t s a r e im portant to The d a t a the form ation o f a w astew ater c o o p erativ e. i n T a b l e 23 s hows t h e n e t b e n e f i t s adjustm ents for y i e l d and p r i c e ir r ig a tio n cost sharing. set is assumed f o r a l l the cooperative r e a liz e s w a ter a u t h o r i t y pays If greater y ield realizes positive system. If a conservative rotations, (Y^ n e t b e n e f i t s o n l y when t h e w a s t e ­ 75 percent of the t o ta l increases result annual c o s ts . (Y,- P ^ ) , t h e c o o p e r a t i v e b e n e fits with a l l m e n t s e x c e p t when i t p a y s remaining a f t e r the t o t a l cost sharing arran g e­ cost of the i r r ig a ti o n Table 23. Changes in Total Revenue and Net Revenue for a Regional Wastewater Irrigation Project with Alternative Assumptions on Rotation, Yield, Price, and Irrigation Cost Sharing R1Y4P1 A nnual Change i n T o t a l Revenue Net Revenues a f t e r D e d u c tio n o f : T o t a l I r r i g a t i o n C o st (9 ,3 0 4 ) C a p i t a l C o st (5 ,5 1 1 ) 50% o f T o t a l C ost (4 ,6 5 2 ) O p e r a tin g C o st (3 ,7 8 3 ) 25% o f T o t a l C o st (2 ,3 2 6 ) 3 ,1 0 7 .1 -6 ,1 9 6 .9 -2 ,4 0 3 .9 -1 ,5 4 4 .9 - 6 7 5 .9 7 81 .1 R2Y4P1 Annual Change i n T o t a l Revenue Net Revenues a f t e r D e d u c tio n of T o t a l I r r i g a t i o n C o st (9 ,3 0 4 ) C a p i t a l C ost (5 ,5 1 1 ) 50% o f T o t a l C ost (4 ,6 5 2 ) O p e ra tin g C o s t ( 3 ,7 8 3 ) 25% o f T o t a l C o st (2 ,3 2 6 ) 2 ,6 0 3 .0 -6 ,7 0 1 .0 -2 ,9 0 8 .0 -2 ,0 4 9 .0 -1 ,1 8 0 .0 2 7 7 .0 A l t e r n a t i v e R o t a t i o n , Y i e l d , and P r i c e S e t s ^ R1Y5P1 R1Y4P2 R1Y5P2 R1Y4P3 ------- 1 ,0 0 0 d o l l a r s -----6 ,4 6 0 .9 4 ,2 9 7 . 0 8 ,8 7 3 .0 5 ,9 7 5 .6 1 2 ,5 9 2 .6 -2 ,8 4 3 .1 9 4 9 .9 1 .8 0 8 .9 2 .6 7 7 .9 4 .1 3 4 .9 3 .2 8 8 .6 7 .0 8 1 .6 7 .9 4 0 .6 8 .8 0 9 .6 1 0 ,2 6 6 .6 -5 ,0 0 7 .0 -1 ,2 1 4 .0 -3 5 5 .0 5 1 4 .0 1 ,9 7 1 .0 - 4 3 1 .0 3 .3 6 2 .0 4 .2 2 1 . 0 5 . 0 9 0 .0 6 .5 4 7 . 0 -3 ,3 2 8 .4 4 6 4 .6 1 .3 2 3 .6 2 .1 9 2 .6 3 .6 4 9 .6 R1Y5P3 A l t e r n a t i v e R o t a t i o n , Y i e l d , and P r i c e S e ts ^ R2Y5P2 R2Y4P3 R2Y5P1 R2Y4P2 __ __ 1 nnn d o l l a r s 5 , 9 9 8 .6 3 , 7 7 0 .0 8 , 4 8 2 .5 5 ,4 8 1 .0 1 2 ,5 1 3 .5 -3 ,3 0 5 .4 4 8 7 .6 1 .3 4 6 .6 2 . 2 1 5 .6 3 .6 7 2 .6 3 .2 0 9 .5 7 .0 0 2 .5 7 .8 6 1 .5 8 . 7 3 0 .5 1 0 ,1 8 7 .5 -5 ,5 3 4 .0 -1 ,7 4 1 .0 -8 8 2 .0 -1 3 .0 1 ,4 4 4 .0 -8 2 1 .5 2 .9 7 1 .5 3 .8 3 0 .5 4 . 6 9 9 .5 6 . 1 5 6 .5 -3 ,8 2 3 .0 -3 0 .0 8 2 9 .0 1 .6 9 8 .0 3 .1 5 5 .0 R2Y5P3 Table 23. Changes in Total Revenue and Net Revenue for a Regional Wastewater Irrigation Project with Alternative Assumptions on Rotation, Yield, Price, and Irrigation Cost Sharing (Continued) ___________ A l t e r n a t i v e R o t a t i o n , Y i e l d , and P r i c e S e t s ^ ____________ R3Y4P1 R3Y5P1 R3Y4P2 R3Y5P2 R3Y4P3 R3Y5P3 Annual Change i n T o t a l Revenue N et Revenues a f t e r D e d u c tio n o f : T o t a l I r r i g a t i o n C o st (9 ,3 0 4 ) C a p i t a l C o st (5 ,5 1 1 ) 50% o f T o t a l C o st (4 ,6 5 2 ) O p e ra tin g C o s t -(3 .7 83 ) 25% o f T o t a l C ost (2 ,3 2 6 ) 1 3 ,4 0 0 .5 7 ,4 7 9 .7 -5 ,9 0 3 .5 -2 ,1 1 0 .5 -1 ,2 5 1 .5 - 3 8 2 .5 1 ,0 7 4 .5 -1 ,8 2 4 .3 1 ,9 6 8 .7 2 ,8 2 7 . 7 3 ,6 9 6 .7 5 ,1 5 3 . 7 4 , 7 i 2 ? 5 » q 0 4*C / A L w*/ i \ w 100 ^ 1 T t/ P, ( 1 . 6 4 ) P^ ( 2 . 5 0 ) P3 (3 .5 0 ) 15.2 10.0 7.1 30.5 20.0 14.3 45.7 30.0 21.4 61.0 40.0 28.6 Soybeans P, ( 4 . 1 2 ) P, ( 5 . 0 0 ) P3 (8 . 00) 6.1 5.0 3.1 12.1 10.0 6.3 18 . 2 15.0 9.4 24.3 20.0 12.5 Dry B e a n s P, ( 1 6 . 8 4 ) P, ( 2 0 . 00) P3 (30.00) 1. 5 1.3 0.8 3.0 2. 5 1.7 4.5 3.8 2.5 6.0 5.0 3. 3 Wheat P., ( 2 . 3 6 ) P^ ( 3 . 0 0 ) P3 (5.00) 10.6 8.3 5.0 21.2 16.7 10.0 31.8 25.0 15.0 42.4 33.3 20.0 A lfalfa P, ( 3 3 . 0 0 ) P, (4 0.0 0) P3 (50.00) 0.8 0.6 0.5 1.7 1.3 1.0 2.5 1.9 1.5 3.3 2.5 2.0 ■''Units a r e b u s h e l s f o r c o r n , tons for a l f a l f a . soybeans, and w h e a t , cwt. for drybeans, and 127 Corn 128 H i g h l i g h t s o f Crop, Firm and R e g i o n a l A n a l y s i s Crop A n a l y s i s The mini mum c h a n g e i n y i e l d r e s p o n s e t o o f f s e t irrig a tio n costs is used to estim ate the p r o f i t a b i l i t y in d iv id u a l crops w ith e f f l u e n t irrigation. of T h e s e mini mum y i e l d changes a re compared to y i e l d re s p o n se s p r o j e c t e d with i r r i g a t i o n . yields A complete array o f increm ental breakeven is presented costs. i n T a b l e 24 f o r More s p e c i f i c focus crem ental breakeven y ie ld s of prices T a b l e 25. Crop in Table b a s e d on s p e c i f i c irrigation 25 w h e r e i n ­ point estim ates a r e compared w ith th e y i e l d study. I n c r e m e n t a l B r e a k e v e n Y i e l d s Compared t o P ro je cted Y ield Increases w ith I r r ig a t i o n Unit Increm ental Breakeven Yield* bu. Corn 20.0 . Soybeans bu. 10.0 Dr y B e a n s c w t . 2.5 Wh ea t bu. 16.7 A 1falfa ton 1.3 J Based upon p r i c e s e t o f $50.00 p e r a c r e . 2 is provided and i r r i g a t i o n c o s t s s e ts used in t h i s alternative Yield e stim a te s Net r e v e n u e s are yield Increase with V4 + 78 + 12 +9 + 25 + 3. 2 +40 +3 +4 +10 +2.0 P? , T a b l e 8 , and i r r i g a t i o n w i t h woybeans o r w h e at. costs i n T a b l e 7. with corn, are o ffs e t d ry beans and a l f a l f a The b r e a k e v e n l e v e l 2 Y5 i n c r e a s e and i r r i g a t i o n c o s t s u n d e r more s i t u a t i o n s Irrigation is than exceeded 129 fo r corn, dry beans and a l f a l f a u n d e r b o t h y i e l d However, b r e a k e v e n y i e l d s f o r soybeans and wheat a r e ceeded only under th e most o p t i m i s t i c the highest irrigation y ield level fo r corn w ill yield increases assum ptions. costs, yield set, $1 00 p e r a c r e , ex­ Y^. With the breakeven be m et o r e x c e e d e d . However, below t h e b r e a k e v e n l e v e l w i l l be r e a l i z e d f o r soybeans and w h e at. Breakeven p r i c e s irrig a tio n costs T a b l e 26. on t h o s e r e q u i r e d from i n c r e a s e d p r o d u c t i o n a r e p r e s e n t e d When i r r i g a t i o n breakeven p r ic e s for a ll costs crops, are w ith in the range of p ric e s However, if even p r i c e s jected. fa, irrigation costs a r e $50 p e r a c r e , ex cep t soybeans specified are $100 p e r a c r e , this for corn, high i r r i g a t i o n in the i n one c a s e , earlier f o r so yb eans and w heat a r e g r e a t e r The b r e a k e v e n p r i c e s even a t to pay a l t e r n a t i v e in Table 8 . the b re a k ­ than p r o ­ d r y b e a n s , and a l f a l ­ cost level, are r e a l i s t i c p ric e ranges. Firm A n a l y s i s H ighlights on c r o p r o t a t i o n s and c o s t arrangem ents a re p re s e n te d only fo r the Sim ilar h ig h lig h ts sharing 320 a c r e farm. c a n be drawn fr om t h e d a t a on t h e 580 a c re farm. Crop R o t a t i o n s The d a t a f o r the 320 a c r e f a r m i n T a b l e 16 i s to determ ine the e f f e c t o f a l t e r n a t i v e total r e v e n u e from c r o p s a l e s and to rotations test analyzed on t h e the p ric e and 130 Table 26. B re ak e v en P r i c e s t o Cover I r r i g a t i o n C o s t s f o r R e p r e s e n t a t i v e F i e l d Crops and Y i e l d s I r r i g a t i o n Cost $/Acre Y ield Increase Per, Acre Crop ' 50 25 100 75 — B r e a k e v e n P r i c e P e r Un: Ltl ---------Y4 ( 4 0 ) (78) 0 . 62 0.32 1. 25 0. 64 1.88 0.96 2. 50 1 . 28 Soybeans Y4 ( 3) Y5 ( 1 2 ) 8.33 2.08 16.66 4.16 25.00 6 . 25 33. 33 8 .33 Dr y B e a n s Y4 ( 4) Y (9) 5 6.25 2.77 12 . 50 5. 55 18 . 7 5 8.33 2 5 . 00 11.11 2 .50 1.00 5.00 2 . 00 7 . 50 3.00 10.00 4.00 12 . 50 7.81 25.00 15.62 37. 50 23.43 5 0. 00 31.25 Corn Ys Wheat y4 Y5 ( 10) (25) Y4 ( 2 . 0 ) (3.2) Y5 A lfalfa ^ U n its a r e b u s h e l s f o r c o r n , so yb eans and w h e at, f o r d ry beans, and t o n s f o r a l f a l f a . yield se n sitiv ity revenues for a l l computed u s i n g price sets rotation, as a b a s e . P^ a n d P^ . R^, and p r i c e Indices Positive R,-, increases other cases. tio n a p p lied to d i f f e r e n t 35 p e r c e n t d r y b e a n s , combinations are i n T a b l e 27 a r e indices for price P2 • y i e l d and p r i c e T otal revenues R^ a n d Ry a r e acreage bases, 10 p e r c e n t w h e a t , R o t a t i o n s R^ a n d Rg a r e a l s o for in revenues a re r e a l i z e d R y , a n d Rg w i t h a l l w i t h a m i n o r e x c e p t i o n i n R^ decreased in a ll fa. yield, Indices of to ta l s e t P2 and a r e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f t h e for rotations sets, of these ro ta tio n s . cw t. t h e sa me r o t a ­ 35 p e r c e n t c o r n , a n d 20 p e r c e n t t h e same r o t a t i o n s on alfal­ 131 T a b l e 27. I n d i c e s o f T o t a l R e v e n u e s f o r t h e 320 A c r e Fa r m Model U n d e r A l t e r n a t i v e R o t a t i o n s , Y i e l d s , and P r i c e s ^ Y i e ld and P r i c e Sets Rotation Y5P2 Y4 P 2 Y3P 2 ------------I n d i c e s o f T o t a l 100.00 75.84 99.90 80. 93 108.18 87.02 112.50 92.82 121.94 R1 R2 R3 R4 RS R6 R7 Ro R9 100.00 77.00 101.11 78.60 106.08 86.70 113.84 88 . 50 119.63 R otations are i d e n t i f i e d T a b l e 7, a n d p r i c e s i n T a b l e 8 . T able 16. d iffe re n t bases; R e v e n u e s --------------100.00 76.88 100.83 78.62 105.90 8 6 . 50 113.52 8 8 . 53 119.42 in T able 15, y i e l d s i n R e v e n u e d a t a comes f r o m 40 p e r c e n t c o r n , 4 ^ j3 e r c e n t dry beans, a n d 20 p e r c e n t w h e a t . Total beans, revenue decreased except for the base, com binations. irrigation. Rg, is This is ro ta tio n s w ith soy­ R-^, f o r a l l price and y i e l d tru e with or w ithout e fflu e n t The m o s t p r o f i t a b l e also ro ta tio n w ithout th e most p r o f i t a b l e w ith i r r i g a t i o n . r o t a t i o n o f 69 p e r c e n t c o r n , dry beans, for a ll 19 p e r c e n t s o y b e a n s , and 7 p e r c e n t wheat i s relatively irrigation, The b a s e 5 percent profitable with i r r i g a t i o n . Cost Sharing The c o n d i t i o n s s p e c i f y i n g p r o f i t a b l e with land treatm en t a re farming o p e ra tio n s i m p o r t a n t t o b o th t h e f a r m e r and t h e 132 wastewater a u th o rity , and i n f l u e n c e t h e c h o i c e o f t h e a c ­ q u i s i t i o n and management o p t i o n s . rity en ter into If th e farm er and a u t h o ­ a c o n tra c tu a l arrangem ent, g u i d e l i n e s on th e terms o f the agreement a re h e l p f u l . If the a u th o rity uses the fee it sim ple a cq u isitio n option, c h o o s e a management o p t i o n f o r t h e still must farming o p e ra tio n . The i n d i c a t o r u s e d t o s p e c i f y p r o f i t a b l e c o n d i t i o n s total re v e n u e and n e t r e v e n u e s rem aining under a l t e r n a t i v e arrangem ents fo r paying i r r i g a t i o n The d a t a analyzed to irrigation exceed r e t u r n s . (total costs, annual co st) yield set 320 a c r e to rotations, analysis farm a r e is d a ta combinations and p r i c e l e v e l yields, in Table to 28, i d e n t i f y where c o s t s c o s t s a r e a r r a y e d from the lowest (25 p e r c e n t o f In betw een t h e s e e x tre m e s a r e The l a r g e s t to from i r r i g a t i o n a r e 50 p e r c e n t o f t o t a l costs. alternative costs The i r r i g a t i o n t o t a l annual c o s t ) . operating the sharing arrangem ents, The summary o f t h i s arrayed ag ain st capital to id e n tify the s e n s i t i v i t y o f net revenues where th e t o t a l revenue i n c r e a s e s highest costs. i n T a b l e 18 r e l a t e d a ltern a tiv e cost and p r i c e s . is annual c o s t, annual and a n n u a l c o s t e x c e e d e d by r e v e n u e s is identified. P 2> t o t a l a r e n o t o f f s e t by i n c r e a s e d r e v e n u e s . from Thus w i t h irrigation costs However, p o s i t i v e n e t r e v e n u e s a r e r e a l i z e d w i t h r o t a t i o n s Ry a n d Rg a f t e r capital costs are paid. a n d Rg w i l l o f f s e t rotations w ill R e v e n u e s f r o m r^. N a t i o n s R g , Rg, 50 p e r c e n t o f t o t a l cover l e s s e r p o rtio n s costs. of the The r e m a i n i n g irrigation 133 T a b l e 28. I r r i g a t i o n C o s t s O f f s e t by R e v e n u e I n c r e a s e s , 320 A c r e Fa r m Y i e l d a n d P r i c e Set: s l Rotation Y4 P 1 V i Y4 P 2 4. 4 4 3 5 4 4 3 4 3 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 2 2 1 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 ____ 4 3 2 3 2 2 1 2 1 1 4 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 3 4 3 3 2 4 2 Y i e l d s and p r i c e s a r e and r o t a t i o n s i n T able 15. b a s e d on T a b l e 18. 2 Numbers i n d i c a t e n e t follow ing annual i r r i g a t i o n 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. r'rt s t s O f f s ■ i Y P 15 3 Y4 P 3 Y5P 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 d e t a i l e d i n T a b le s 7 and 8, I r r ig a t io n cost inform ation is revenues rem aining a f t e r costs are paid. Total c o sts C apital costs 50 p e r c e n t o f t o t a l Operating c o sts 25 p e r c e n t o f t o t a l the costs costs v. costs w ill and s t i l l provide net revenues. remain a f t e r o f f s e t t i n g the Larger n e t revenues irrigation costs y ield s or p ric e s are re a liz e d . For example, level rem ain w ith a l l P2 , p o s i t i v e n e t b e n e f i t s e x c e p t R2 a n d R^ a f t e r p a y i n g t h e t o t a l i f higher with p ric e rotations irrigation costs. Regional A n alysis Inform ation h ig h lig h ts from t h e r e g i o n a l a n a l y s i s relate projected regional production ments. Conclusions r e l a t i v e to p r o j e c t e d to crop r o t a t io n s require­ and c o s t 134 sharing are g enerally sim ila r to th ose f o r t h e 320 a c r e farm. The a g g r e g a t e c o n t r i b u t i o n o f p r o d u c t i o n treatm ent p ro jec t T a b l e 29. assumptions to re g io n a l 29. Dry b e a n s f r o m t h e p r o j e c t share of regional requirem ents, is the l e a s t , contribute 25-40 p e r c e n t . 4-9 p e rc e n t. A g g r e g a t e d P r o d u c t i o n f r o m a Land T r e a t m e n t P r o j e c t as a S h are o f R e g io n a l P r o d u c t i o n R e q u i r e ­ ments Under A l t e r n a t i v e Y i e l d and R o t a t i o n Assump­ t i o n s , S o u th e a s te rn Michigan Regional Requirements (1 0 0 0 u n i t s ) Cr op summarized in are p r e s e n te d as a p e rc e n ta g e of in d iv id u a l T he,c o n tr i b u ti o n o f soybeans Table is Production estim ates under th ree r o ta tio n crop re q u ire m e n ts . the larg e st requirem ents from t h e l a n d Y ield Per ? Acre R otation 3 R2 R1 R3 - - - % o f R e q u i r e m e n t s ---- Corn 2 4 , 5 3 7 bu. 110 150 188 11.4 15.5 19.5 13.0 17.7 2 2 .2 13.0 17.7 22 . 2 Soybeans 11.833 bu. 32 35 44 6.9 7.5 9.4 3.9 4.3 5.4 Dr y B e a n s 910 c w t . 16 20 25 7.8 8 .6 1 0 .8 — Wheat 10,286 b u . 50 60 65 3.5 4.2 5 .-2 A l f a l f a Hay 495 t o n s 3.0 5.0 6 .2 8.9 14.6 18 . 2 ■^From T a b l e 21 R, Ri R~ - 35% c o r n , - 40% c o r n , - 40% c o r n , 7.0 8.5 1 0 .6 — 25.5 31. 9 39.8 7.0 8.5 1 0 .6 -- ^Fr om T a b l e 7 35% s o y b e a n s , 10% w h e a t , 20% a l f a l f a 40% s o y b e a n s , 20% w h e a t 20% s o y b e a n s , 20% w h e a t CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS Summary Obj e c t i v e s The p u r p o s e o f t h i s and i n s t i t u t i o n a l a s p e c t s o f l a n d t r e a t m e n t as a w a s t e w a t e r management a l t e r n a t i v e measure t h e i r s t u d y was t o e v a l u a t e t h e e c o n o m i c fo r S o u th e a s te rn Michigan, i mp a c t ' s o n t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l wastewater a u t h o r i t i e s . S pecifically and to e c onomy a n d on the o b je c tiv e s of the stu d y were: 1. cations, 2. To d e s c r i b e t h e and i t s land tre a tm e n t concept, potential To i d e n t i f y appli­ f o r use in S o u th e a s te r n Michigan. and e v a l u a t e a cq u irin g land use r ig h ts its alternatives for and f o r m ana ging t h e f a r m i n g o p e ra tio n s o f land tre a tm e n t systems. a. rights goals Specify the options fo r a c q u is itio n of land and farm management and r e l a t e these to th e o f f a r m e rs and w a s t e w a t e r a u t h o r i t i e s . b. identify Use b u d g e t i n g a n d s e n s i t i v i t y a n a l y s i s alternatives and b e n e f i t s for the d i s t r i b u t i o n to of costs of a land tr e a tm e n t system between a w a s t e w a t e r a u t h o r i t y and f a r m e r s . 135 136 3. To i d e n t i f y a n d e s t i m a t e some o f t h e p a r a m e t e r s involved in the i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f a land tr e a tm e n t system and t h e u n c e r t a i n t i e s 4. farm, To s p e c i f y s u r r o u n d i n g them. im plications of. l a n d t r e a t m e n t a t the f i r m and r e g i o n a l l e v e l . a. I d e n t i f y and e v a l u a t e o p p o r t u n i t i e s creasing farm re v e n u e s cost sharing arrangem ents. I d e n t i f y some o f t h e m a c r o large scale in­ through land treatm ent o p eratio n s under a l t e r n a t i v e b. for im plications land trea tm e n t o p e ra tio n s of in South­ e a s t e r n Michigan. Procedure D escriptive and i t s a p p l i c a t i o n s was p r e s e n t e d . analysis rights i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e id e n tif ie d options for land treatm ent concept An i n s t i t u t i o n a l the a c q u is itio n o f property and t h e management o f f a r m i n g o p e r a t i o n s a t treatm ent s ite s and e v a l u a t e d the the impacts o f th ese options on t h e g o a l s o f f a r m e r s and w a s t e w a t e r a u t h o r i t i e s . E m p i r i c a l a n a l y s i s was u s e d t o la n d t r e a t m e n t on s p e c i f i c investigate crops, r e g i o n a l p r o d u c t i o n and r e v e n u e s . the impacts of farm r e v e n u e s , Sensitivity was u s e d t o show t h e i m p a c t o f how a l t e r n a t i v e of y ie ld response, costs can e f f e c t price, crop r o t a t i o n s , the e stim a te s of to ta l o f c r o p p r o d u c t i o n from e f f l u e n t and analysis assumptions and i r r i g a t i o n and n e t irrigation. revenues 137 Conclusions The f i n d i n g s o f t h e s t u d y a r e p r e s e n t e d a s r e s u l t s of descrip tiv e analysis, institutional analysis, and em pirical an aly sis. D e sc rip tiv e Analysis Land t r e a t m e n t o f m u n i c i p a l a n d i n d u s t r i a l w a s t e ­ water, t h o u g h n o t a new c o n c e p t , attention in recent years has rec eiv e d in cre ased as an a l t e r n a t i v e wastewater management t e c h n i q u e i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . u s e d u n d e r a number o f c l i m a t i c v a r i e t y o f community s i z e s , It is not a univ ersal problems, but i t solution and f o r a t o a l l w a s t e w a t e r management communities, t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f sewage e f f l u e n t s to the land f o r purposes o f p u r i f i c a t i o n n u t r i e n t removal. and A l a n d t r e a t m e n t system can be d e s i g n e d and managed t o m axi m iz e w a s t e w a t e r r e n o v a t i o n , c r o p p r o d u c t i o n from t h e treatm ent area, to maximize o r t o combine o f b o th w a s t e w a t e r r e n o v a t i o n and c ro p p r o d u c t i o n . A l t e r n a ti v e approaches infiltratio n, flow. particularly should i n v e s tig a te . Land t r e a t m e n t i s objectives has been w ith varying degrees of success. i s an a l t e r n a t i v e r u r a l communities, and/or sludges conditions It to lan d tre a tm e n t slow i n f i l t r a t i o n include rapid (irrigation) and o v e r l a n d The a p p l i c a t i o n m e t h o d s g e n e r a l l y u s e d f o r s l o w infiltration and f u r r o w . are s p r in k le r irrigation, flooding, or ridge 138 Some i m p o r t a n t p h y s i c a l p a r a m e t e r s treatm ent are s o il application, loading fa c to rs, the p o t e n t ia l t h a t in flu e n c e land t h e volume and r a t e o f f o r systems abandonment, and crop y i e l d re s p o n se . I n s t i tu t i o n a l Analysis The p u b l i c p o l i c y g o a l o f w a s t e w a t e r t r e a t m e n t c an be me t u s i n g l a n d t r e a t m e n t s y s t e m s . other access Property rig h ts or t o l a n d m ust be o b t a i n e d from t h e p r e s e n t la n d o w n e r by a w a s t e w a t e r a u t h o r i t y . obtain property rig h ts The m e t h o d s u s e d t o or access r e f l e c t varying c a p a c itie s o f th e communities or w a ste w a te r a u t h o r i t i e s to impose t h e m o n e t a r y and n o n - m o n e t a r y c o s t s o f w a s t e w a t e r t r e a t ­ m e n t on t h e landowners. The o p t i o n s or access available to a c q u ir e the p ro p e r ty rights i m p a c t d i f f e r e n t l y on t h e g o a l s o f t h e f a r m e r s and t h e g o a l s o f t h e w a s t e w a t e r a u t h o r i t i e s . Goals p o s t u ­ lated w ealth for the accumulation, f a r m e r s were^ i n c o m e g e n e r a t i o n , firm growth, s e n s e o f community. freedom of d e c i s i o n making, The g o a l s the for the wastewater a u th o rity were to p r o v i d e t h e r e q u i r e d l e v e l of wastewater treatm ent i n an economic manner. The o p t i o n s for acquisition of rights fee simple a c q u i s i t i o n , fee, real property a n d no r e a l p r o p e r t y to land include interests interests--contractual o th e r than agreem ents. 139 Fee S i m p l e A c q u i s i t i o n Through f e e a c q u i s i t i o n , obtains the t o t a l a w astew ater a u th o rity "bundle o f r i g h ts " with the exception of those r ig h ts ascribed r e s e r v e d by t h e S t a t e . An a u t h o r i t y c a n o b t a i n f e e s i m p l e t i t l e th ro u g h a normal m a r k e t e x c h a n g e b e t w e e n b u y e r and s e l l e r . ity exists, to p ro p e rty , If legal author­ a n a u t h o r i t y may e x e r c i s e t h e r i g h t o f e m i n e n t domain and o b t a i n t h e r i g h t s from a r e l u c t a n t seller in exchange f o r j u s t com pensation. Fee s i m p l e a c q u i s i t i o n available t o an a u t h o r i t y , f a r m e rs and to an e n t i r e are involved. and i s d i s r u p t i v e region i f large in te g ral operations and s t o r a g e environmental the most c o s t l y o p t io n to individual amounts o f la n d I t was f o u n d t o b e m o s t a p p r o p r i a t e acquiring land for stations is lagoons, for s u c h a s pumping and where e n g i n e e r i n g and c o n sid e ra tio n s w arrant complete c o n tro l of the land. Three o p tio n s f o r t h e management o f t h e f a r m i n g o p e ra tio n w ith fee simple a c q u i s i t i o n manage, p u r c h a s e and l e a s e b a c k , condition. a n d p u r c h a s e a n d r e s a l e on With p u r c h a s e and manage, operational decisions a r e p u r c h a s e and the managerial remain w ith th e w a ste w a te r a u t h o r i t y . With p u r c h a s e and l e a s e b a c k , some m a n a g e r i a l a n d a l l operational are lessee. and responsibilities transferred to the The p u r c h a s e a n d r e s a l e on c o n d i t i o n o p t i o n enables the a u th o r ity to initially acquire the required 140 land, but then r e s e l l w ith c o n d itio n s attach ed com patible with land treatm en t requirem ents. Real P r o p e r t y I n t e r e s t O t h e r Than Fee Easements a r e an example o f o w n e r s h ip o f o n l y a p a r t of the t o t a l "bundle of r i g h ts " v e ste d property in te re s t other than fee. in land, or rea l Easements have been u s e d f o r a number o f p u b l i c p u r p o s e s and a r e w e l l as a method t o m a i n t a i n a g r i c u l t u r a l urban development. through donation, T he y may b e a c q u i r e d purchases, irrigation lim ited rig h ts to lan d , a method to com pensate f a r m e rs particularly land tre a tm e n t. constraints if i n a number o f w ay s, a w astew ater a u th o rity such as passage fo r p ip es or o th e r equipment. treatm ent, in the path of or condemnation. Through t h e use o f e a s e m e n ts , can a c q u i r e land established Easements for p a rtic ip a tio n crop revenues The e a s e m e n t c o n d i t i o n s on a f a r m e r ' s m a n a g e r i a l farm management r e s p o n s i b i l i t y are also in a land d e c r e a s e d due t o c a n i m p o s e some decisions, but primary remains w ith th e landow ners. No R e a l P r o p e r t y - - C o n t r a c t u a l A g r e e m e n t A w astew ater a u t h o r i t y can o b t a in w ithout t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f any p r o p e r t y contracts or wastewater co o p erativ es. two o r m o r e parties taken or re fra in e d specify access to land rights through C o n tr a c ts between an a g r e e m e n t o f a c t i o n s t o be from in exchange f o r a c o n s i d e r a t i o n . C o n t r a c t s b e t w e e n f a r m e r s and w a s t e w a t e r a u t h o r i t i e s have 141 been used to s p e c i f y agreem ents to a p p l y e f f l u e n t on p r i v a t e farms. to C ontracts to s e ll effluent farm ers have g e n e r a lly been u n s u c c e s s fu l. A cooperative a ttitu d e and a lo n g term c o n t r a c t ments must be c l e a r , are between the c o n t r a c t p a r t i e s essential. Ter ms o f t h e a g r e e ­ and r e v i e w and t e r m i n a t i o n c l a u s e s sh ould be i n c l u d e d . A wastew ater co o p erative is a c o l l e c t i v e management v e n tu re t h a t has been used in land tr e a tm e n t a p p l i c a t i o n s . It is an a l t e r n a t i v e between an i n d i v i d u a l t o t wo p a r t y c o n t r a c t u a l farm er and a w a stew ater a u t h o r i t y . Though t h e c o o p e r a t i v e c o n c e p t i s agriculture agreements for obtaining inputs g e n e r a lly has not been a p p lie d fam iliar in American and m a rk e tin g c r o p s , to it land use a c t i v i t i e s . Empirical Analysis A lternative product p ric e s , d a ta s e t s were s p e c i f i e d crop r o t a t i o n s , Breakeven and s e n s i t i v i t y the and i r r i g a t i o n a n a l y s i s were used to impacts of th e s e d a ta s e t s farm f ir m , fo r crop y i e l d s , costs. estim ate on i n d i v i d u a l c r o p s , on t h e and on t h e r e g i o n . Cr o p A n a l y s i s The p r o f i t a b i l i t y of in d iv id u a l crops w ith e ff lu e n t i r r i g a t i o n was e s t i m a t e d . to o f f s e t irrigation a number o f p r i c e Crop y i e l d increases required system expenses were e s t im a t e d and c o s t a s s u m p t i o n s . The c r o p s using evaluated 142 were c o rn f o r g r a i n , soybeans, dry beans, wheat and a l f a l f a . Y i e l d s p r o j e c t e d w i t h i r r i g a t i o n w ere v a l u e d and compared with a l t e r n a t i v e specified, irrigation n e t revenues costs. increase and i r r i g a t i o n o f f s e t mo r e f r e q u e n t l y w i t h c o r n , than w ith soybeans or wheat. increase dry beans, c o s t s were and a l f a l f a Corn p r o v i d e d t h e l a r g e s t in net revenue per acre any o t h e r c r o p . For t h e a s s u m p tio n s e t s i n mor e s i t u a t i o n s Soybeans w i l l c o n t r i b u t e than to n e t farm r e v e n u e s u s i n g o nly t h e most o p t i m i s t i c y i e l d assum ptions. In most c a s e s , w ill not offset the irrigation increase in soybean y ie ld s costs. Firm A n a l y s i s D a t a w e r e a n a l y z e d f o r t wo r e p r e s e n t a t i v e a c r e s a n d 580 a c r e s . same f o r b o t h . the 320-acre farms, G e n e r a lly th e c o n c l u s i o n s were th e Therefore r e s u lts are p re s e n te d only f o r farm. The t o t a l revenues of the i r r i g a t i o n were r e f l e c t i v e farm f i r m w i t h e f f l u e n t o f changes of land use, in the cropping pattern, intensity revenues f r o m i r r i g a t i o n w e r e i n f l u e n c e d by f e r t i l i z e r savings due t o n u t r i e n t s agreements 320 yields, and p r i c e s . in the e fflu e n t system. Total revenues were e s t i m a t e d for repre.sentative cost a n d by t h e s h a r i n g f o r t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n and o p e r a t i o n c o s t s the i r r i g a t i o n Net of from crop s a l e s farms to e s t i m a t e th e impact of i r r i g a t i o n w ith a l t e r n a t i v e d a ta s e t s . revenues were th en e s tim a te d under a l t e r n a t i v e Ne t f a r m agreements 143 between the farmer and the wastewater authority for irrigation cost sharing. Nine r o t a t i o n s were e v a l u a t e d f o r t h e sentative farm u s in g t h r e e p r i c e T otal revenues in c re a se d irrigation. set, the However, largest in a l l 320 a c r e r e p r e ­ a n d two y i e l d s e t s . s itu a tio n s with e f f lu e n t f o r any assumed y i e l d and p r i c e increases in to ta l r e v e n u e s were f o r th e r o t a t i o n s w i t h h i g h p r o p o r t i o n s o f c o r n and d r y b e a n s . Total revenues tions increased considerably containing soybeans, response of soybeans to The t o t a l the irrigation irrigation. s y s t e m on t h e assumptions of y i e l d and o p e r a t i n g c o s t s u s i n g o n l y t h e most o p t i m i s t i c increases and p r i c e s . c o s t s were p a id . All r o t a t io n s after the annual using these data rem aining a f t e r o f f s e t t i n g fiv e p e rcen t of the annual t o t a l However, w i t h ?2 t h e m o s t p r o f i t a b l e r o t a t io n s provided net revenue in c re ases had n e t re v e n u e s for 320 a c r e f a r m w e r e o f f s e t c o n s e r v a t i v e y i e l d and p r i c e s e t s capital for those r o t a ­ i n d ic a t i v e of the small y ie ld annual c a p i t a l by i n c r e a s e d r e v e n u e s less at least twenty- costs. Regional A nalysis T o t a l p r o d u c t i o n and re v e n u e changes were e s t i m a t e d f o r th e la n d t r e a t m e n t component o f th e S o u t h e a s t e r n M i c h i g a n W a s t e w a t e r Ma n a g e m e n t S t u d y . 72,500 a c r e s sets The p r o d u c t i o n f r o m o f l a n d was e s t i m a t e d u s i n g t h e sa me d a t a as f o r th e firm a n a ly s is . The i m p a c t on r e g i o n a l 144 p r o d u c t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t s was r e l a t i v e l y greatest impact o c c u r r in g in corn p ro d u c tio n . The e f f e c t o f a l t e r n a t i v e is s i m il a r to cost th a t experienced at c o n s e r v a t i v e y i e l d and p r i c e net revenues only i f set or p ric e s net revenues c o s t sh a rin g arrangem ents irrigation agreements a r e assumed, 75 p e r c e n t o f t h e t o t a l are achieved, cost of the sharing the firm le v e l. a r e p a i d by t h e w a s t e w a t e r a u t h o r i t y . all sm all, w ith the If a there are annual costs When h i g h e r y i e l d s are r e a liz e d under except f o r paying the t o t a l system. Im plications The e c o n o m i c a n d i n s t i t u t i o n a l t r e a t m e n t system have i m p l i c a t i o n s authorities, impacts of a land for farm ers, wastewater and t h e r e g i o n . Farmers 1. Land t r e a t m e n t o f f e r s an o p p o r t u n i t y t o farm r e v e n u e s u n d e r a number o f c i r c u m s t a n c e s . increase is irrigation g r e a t e s t whe n a l l system c o s ts increase The or a major p o r tio n o f the a r e p a i d by t h e w a s t e w a t e r a u t h o r i t y . The e c o n o m i c a n a l y s i s o f l a n d t r e a t m e n t m u s t c o n s i d e r t h e i n t e r a c t i o n o f many f a c t o r s . product p ric e s , These in c lu d e y i e l d re s p o n s e , production c o sts, and c o s t sharing ag ree­ ments f o r t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n and o p e r a t i o n and m a i n t e n a n c e of irrig a tio n 2, systems. The i m p a c t o f l a n d t r e a t m e n t on f a r m e r ' s i s t h e g r e a t e s t whe n f e e s i m p l e t i t l e is goals a c q u i r e d by t h e 145 wastew ater a u th o rity . Easement a c q u i s i t i o n and c o n t r a c t u a l arrangem ents have l e s s impact as th e farm er c o n tin u e s his operations i n f l u e n c e d o n l y by t h e t e r m s o f t h e e a s e m e n t or c o n tra c t. 3. When f e e s i m p l e t i t l e the farmer is sold, the i m p a c t on i n f l u e n c e d by t h e m a n a g e m e n t o p t i o n s e l e c t e d by t h e a u t h o r i t y . ment e n a b l e s t h e I f a p u r c h a s e and l e a s e b a c k a r r a n g e ­ farmer to tenancy arrangem ent, than i f the parties and e x i s t i n g treatm ent is the r e m a i n on t h e l a n d u n d e r a i m p a c t wou ld be f a r less severe farm ing o p e r a t io n s were tu r n e d over to th e t h i r d site is farm e rs were r e l o c a t e d . obtained in fee, the When a f o r m e r owner c o u l d be r e t a i n e d a s a t e n a n t o r w a s t e w a t e r a u t h o r i t y e m p l o y e e . The l e a s e arrangem ent would a f f o r d g re a te st stake in the o p eratio n . would b e lo n g to him, failure is A share of the crops e n a b l i n g him t o s h a r e t h e as w e l l as t h e rew ards o f s u c c e s s . th at of owner-sharecropper. mates a s i t u a t i o n where t h e authority, of the crop, of fa ilu re is than a f l a t or "hired-hand" arrangem ent, relative n o r would he s h a r e the to the of A variation an em p lo y ee o f t h e that the share cropper own f a r m m a c h i n e r y a n d r e c e i v e rather risks T h i s more n e a r l y a p p r o x i ­ farmer is t h e main d i f f e r e n c e may p r o v i d e h i s risk a f o r m e r owner t h e salary. a share Under t h e employee f a r m e r w o u l d b e a r no land-treatm ent operation, i n any o f t h e c r o p r e v e n u e s o r b e n e f i t s . However, he would be g u a r a n t e e d a s t e a d y supplied the farm m achinery, income, an a d d i t i o n a l r e n t a l and i f he fee. 146 4. C o n tr a c tu a l arrangem ents between th e f a r m e r and t h e w a s t e w a t e r a u t h o r i t y s h o u l d b e r e v i e w e d on a r e g u l a r basis. While an i n i t i a l agreem ent would i n d i c a t e over the d i s t r i b u t i o n of b e n e f its and c o s t s , agreement changes in the u n d e r l y i n g f a c t o r s would r e q u i r e a r e g u l a r review o f c o n ­ tractual term s. W astewater A u th o rity 1. Fee s i m p l e a c q u i s i t i o n a f f o r d s the wastewater a u t h o r i t y th e g r e a t e s t c o n tr o l over a land tre a tm e n t system. But, this control c ome s a t a l a r g e the wastewater a u th o rity . for tre a tin g land a c q u i s i t i o n c o st to T h i s may b e a r e a s o n a b l e c o s t sm all w astew ater volumes, as in a small m unicipality. But t r e a t m e n t o f a l a r g e volume o f w a s t e w a t e r requires land a re a s. large I t has been e s tim a te d t h a t 7 5 9 , 9 0 0 a c r e s o f l a n d wo ul d h a v e t o be a c q u i r e d i n f e e simple to t r e a t p r o j e c t e d w a s t e w a t e r volume from S o u t h ­ e a s t e r n Michigan i f l a n d t r e a t m e n t was u s e d f o r t h e t o t a l w a s t e w a t e r volume u n d e r t o t a l p u b lic ownership. a n a v e r a g e f a r m s i z e o f 320 a c r e s , f arm s w o u ld be p u r c h a s e d , a mini mum o f 2 , 3 7 5 i m p l y i n g an a d j u s t m e n t p r o b l e m f o r a l a r g e number o f farm f a m i l i e s . incorporating A re p re se n ta tiv e plan land treatm en t w ith o th er wastewater t r e a t ­ m e n t m e t h o d s was e s t i m a t e d t o r e q u i r e publically Assuming owned l a n d . owned l a n d was r e q u i r e d 52,219 a c re s Only 30 ,0 0 0 a c r e s for th is of of p u b lic a lly p l a n whe n l a n d f o r t h e a c t u a l w astew ater t r e a tm e n t remained in p r i v a t e ownership. 147 2. authority Fee s i m p l e a c q u i s i t i o n e n a b l e s to u n i l a t e r a l l y pursue a w astew ater its primary o b je c tiv e of w a s t e w a t e r t r e a t m e n t and r e n o v a t i o n . When o t h e r t h a n f e e s i m p l e means a r e u s e d , a u t h o r i t y and th e the d i s t i n c t goals of the w astew ater f a r m e r s may c o n f l i c t . Thus more l a n d is re q u ire d f o r a tre a tm e n t system designed to both t r e a t w a s t e w a t e r and t o m a i n t a i n n o rm al a g r i c u l t u r a l patterns. Approximately be h e e d e d f o r a total 2,000,000 a cres are production estim ated to land tre a tm e n t system fo r S outh­ e a s t e r n M i c h ig a n m e e t i n g b o t h p r o d u c t i o n and r e n o v a t i o n objectives. About 102,000 a c r e s a re needed fo r the p r o ­ posed p la n combining lan d tr e a tm e n t w ith p h y s ic a l chemical treatm ent. 3. Using fe e s im p le , all rights to be a c q u i r e d by t h e w a s t e w a t e r a u t h o r i t y . may n e e d t o acq u ire only croplands o w n e r s who p r e f e r purchase, when t i t l e The a u t h o r i t y i n some a r e a s , to r e t a i n hom esites, imm ediately a d ja c e n t lan d s. th e la n d would buildings, allow ing and A key r e s u l t o f f e e s im p le passed to a governmental e n t i t y , would be t h e rem oval o f t h e l a n d s from t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y tax r o l l s . simple t i t l e At t h e same t i m e , fee the w astew ater a u th o rity the g r e a te s t using the lands would g i v e flexibility in f o r a v a r i e t y o f p u b l i c p u r p o s e s o v e r an extended p e rio d of tim e. 4. Real p r o p e r t y i n t e r e s t o t h e r t h a n f e e may be o b tained through the use o f easements. T itle to the 148 t r e a t m e n t s i t e would be r e t a i n e d by t h e c u r r e n t owner. The w a s t e w a t e r a u t h o r i t y w o u l d a c q u i r e o n l y t h o s e p r o p e r t y rights n e c e s s a r y t o c a r r y o u t t h e p a r t i c u l a r management practices and c o n t r o l s r e q u i r e d by t h e la n d t r e a tm e n t system. Easem ents would n o t t a k e l a n d from t h e l o c a l p r o p e r t y t a x base. Easements p r o v id e a r e a l p r o p e r t y remains w ith the title land i f to o th e r p a r t i e s . the landowner t r a n s f e r s those fee t i t l e . particularly and m a i n t a i n i n g may e q u a l o r e x c e e d t h e c o s t o f a c q u i r i n g However, less-than-fee the fee fro m a w a s t e w a t e r management the long-run cost of acquiring interests that While a c q u i r i n g a l e s s - t h a n - f e e i n t e r e s t means r e d u c e d c o n t r o l view point, interest the s o c ia l acquisition and p o l i t i c a l impacts of c o u ld be o f o v e r r i d i n g concern, f o r t h e m a i n t e n a n c e o f a v i a b l e and p r o d u c t i v e r u r a l community. 5. acquiring The p o t e n t i a l p r o b l e m s a n t i c i p a t e d larg e blocks of land for w astew ater treatm ent suggest t h a t p u b lic ownership of a c tu a l mo r e v i a b l e in p r i v a t e ow nership, is E v e n whe n l a n d r e m a i n s the acreage re q u ire d fo r larg e w a ste w a te r volumes s u g g e s t s only p a r t treatm ent s ite s f o r s m a lle r communities th a n f o r a la r g e m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a su c h as D e t r o i t . applicable in p u b lic a lly that l a n d t r e a t m e n t i s most f o r sm a lle r communities or f o r tre a tm e n ts of of the t o t a l w a s t e w a t e r volume from a l a r g e m etropolitan area. 6. A land treatm ent s y s te m can be d e s i g n e d f o r t h e p r i m a r y o b j e c t i v e o f w a s t e w a t e r t r e a t m e n t and r e n o v a t i o n o r 149 f o r th e o b j e c t i v e o f maximizing crop p r o d u c tio n . offs between th e o b j e c t i v e s o f th e system , ments, and t h e number o f y e a r s used sh o u ld be e v a l u a t e d . but This reduces i s more d i s r u p t i v e involved. the treatm ent less site w i l l be l a n d f o r a g i v e n volume land co sts to a g r i c u l t u r e A lternatively, land r e q u i r e ­ A sy s te m d e s i g n e d to maximize wastewater renovation req u ire s of wastew ater. Trade­ to the a u th o r ity , on t h e acreage th e m axim ization o f the crop p r o d u c t i o n o b j e c t i v e r e q u i r e s mo r e l a n d f o r t r e a t m e n t , i s more c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e of a region. effectively The number o f y e a r s is agricultural structure a system fu n c tio n s i n f l u e n c e d by t h e b a l a n c e betw een n u t r i e n t application rates and s o i l existing but and t h e i r absorption. removal through p l a n t uptake He a v y a p p l i c a t i o n s w i t h o u t c o r r e s p o n d ­ ing p l a n t uptake w i l l sh o rte n the perio d of e f f e c t iv e land treatm ent. Region 1. A p r o p e r l y d e s i g n e d and o p e r a t e d l a n d t r e a t m e n t system can b o th i n c r e a s e t h e r e g i o n a l su p p ly o f cro p s ren o v ate w astew ater w ith o u t major d is r u p tio n s cultural community. and t h e u s u a l to and the a g r i ­ Ownership can rem ain w ith th e farm ers c r o p s p r o d u c e d more i n t e n s i v e l y w i t h t h e a d d itio n of ir r ig a tio n . 2. A tr e a tm e n t system d e sig n ed f o r w astew ater r e n o v a t i o n r a t h e r t h a n c r o p p r o d u c t i o n may c h a n g e t h e reg io n a l supply of v arious prices such as g ra sse s c r o p s as more e x t e n s i v e and hays replace enter- t h e mor e i n t e n s i v e 150 enterprises 3. such as g r a i n s and o i l An e x t r e m e l y l a r g e as t h a t r e q u i r e d t o t r e a t e a s t e r n Michigan, crops. land tre a tm e n t system, all t h e w a s t e w a t e r from S o u t h ­ can d i s r u p t existing distribution channels fo r p ro d u ctio n in p u ts of machinery, products, channels seed and f e r t i l i z e r s , c o u ld be r e d u c e d i f petroleum as w e l l as t h e m a r k e ti n g f o r c ro p s and l i v e s t o c k . suppliers The n u m b e r o f l o c a l large scale operations em phasized volume p u r c h a s e s a t t h e l o w e s t p r i c e . tution of n u trie n ts from a l l crop y i e l d s water w ill sales. d e p e n d on t h e treatm ent Substi­ in w astew ater f o r commercial f e r t i l i z e r s may r e d u c e f e r t i l i z e r treatm ent w ill such sites attributed The m a r k e t e f f e c t o f l a n d aggregate production e ffe c t in the market a re a . t o w a t e r and n u t r i e n t s not au to m atica lly translate Increased from w a s t e ­ in to monetary b e n e f i t s . A m arket must e x i s t for the product produced, market w i l l t h e e f f e c t o f s u p p l y a n d d e ma n d b o t h reflect i n and o u t s i d e the reg io n . Production and t h i s increases o f any p a r t i c u l a r c r o p may p u t d o wn w a r d p r e s s u r e on p r i c e s w i t h i n a r e g i o n and t o a l e s s e r prices are g enerally cation th at price effluent inelastic changes irrig a tio n w ill to changes 4. ru p tiv e to extent n a tio n ally . A gricultural i n demand, w i t h t h e im pli­ fo r the products produced w ith be g r e a t e r o p p o s i t e in d i r e c t i o n in t o t a l production. A la n d t r e a t m e n t o p e r a t i o n w i l l be l e s s a firm or region i f its design is dis­ com patible 151 with the e x is tin g usually type of farm ing. Farm o r g a n i z a t i o n e v o l v e s g r a d u a l l y on t h e b a s i s o f custom and t r i a l and e r r o r o p e r a t i n g w i t h i n a fra m e w o rk o f m a r k e t f o r c e s . E x i s t i n g c r o p p i n g and l i v e s t o c k p a t t e r n s comparative advantage. m arily A treatem ent fo r r e n o v a tio n can s h i f t adjustm ents reflect a relative system designed p r i ­ this advantage re q u irin g i n t h e economic s t r u c t u r e of the region. Lim itations Recognition of the follow ing study is req u ired 1. partial for proper The e m p i r i c a l equilibrium a n a l y s i s was c o m p l e t e d i n a s t a t i c , framework. t r e a t m e n t was i g n o r e d . impacts. The t i m e c o n s i d e r a t i o n firm or region to land The e c o n o m i c i m p a c t s estim ated E v aluation of secondary lim ite d to the r e c o g n itio n o f t h e i r 2. of th is interpretation of results. involved in the adjustm ent of the were prim ary lim itations i m p a c t s was existence. The e m p i r i c a l a n a l y s i s was l i m i t e d b y a l a c k o f d a t a and by u n c e r t a i n t i e s su rro u n d in g crop y i e l d response p r ic e s , Because of the u n c e r t a i n t i e s and c o s t s . surrounding the use of s in g le and s e n s i t i v i t y a n a l y s i s was u s e d e x t e n s i v e l y interrelationships 3. system s, valued e x p e c ta tio n s , a n d t o a n s w e r Mw h a t i f " to ranging identify types of q u estio n s. The e m p h a s i s o f t h e s t u d y wa s o n l a n d t r e a t m e n t and d i d n o t e v a l u a t e o t h e r w a s t e w a t e r t r e a t m e n t alternatives or id en tify a least c o s t method to t r e a t wastewater. Impacts were e v a l u a t e d p r i m a r i l y from t h e 152 perspective of farm ers, the a u th o rity 4. the the a g ric u ltu r a l responsible community, and fo r w astew ater treatm ent. The f r a m e w o r k o f f a r m e r ' s goals used to ev alu ate i m p a c t o f a c q u i s i t i o n a n d m a n a g e m e n t o p t i o n s was b a s e d on j u d g m e n t and i n f e r e n c e r a t h e r 5. revenues cable The d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t o t a l in the em pirical a n aly sis to a c o n tr a c tu a l authority m arily section i d e n t i f i e d changes the n e t revenues develop d a ta than to the and management o p t i o n s p r e s e n t e d . Data g e n e r a t e d i n th e land tre a tm e n t, i s more a p p l i ­ agreement between a w astew ater and a f a r m e r o r group o f f a r m e r s other acq u isitio n 6. than d ata. em pirical in to ta l analysis pri­ and n e t re v e n u e s w i t h a n d how c o s t s h a r i n g a g r e e m e n t s r e c e i v e d by f a r m e r s . influenced The s t u d y d i d n o t for a marginal a n aly sis of fa c to r -p r o d u c t, f a c t o r - f a c t o r , and p r o d u c t - p r o d u c t r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Suggestions A dditional the research fp r Future Research is n e e d e d t o more f u l l y economic and i n s t i t u t i o n a l impacts of land tre a tm e n t on M ich igan f a r m e r s and c o m m u n itie s . resulting study are: 1. from t h i s Researchable questions What a c q u i s i t i o n a n d m a n a g e m e n t o p t i o n s h a v e b e e n u s e d by M i c h i g a n c o m m u n i t i e s ? successes identify Knowledge o f t h e and problem s and t h e r e a s o n s s e l e c t e d would be u s e f u l treatm en t system s. o p t i o n s were to communities p la n n in g land APPENDICES APPENDIX A PRODUCTION ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIPS APPLICABLE TO LAND TREATMENT 153 2. How d o e s l a n d t r e a t m e n t c o m p a r e w i t h a l t e r n a t i v e t r e a t m e n t m eth o d s on a c o s t b a s i s ? work i s n eed ed t o A constant cost compare a l t e r n a t i v e s and t o frame­ identify the s e n s i t i v i t y o f the l e a s t - c o s t s o l u t i o n to changes such v a r i a b l e s w a s te w a te r volume, 3. as community s i z e , What s u b s t i t u t i o n s commercial fertilizer and r e g i o n a l b a s i s ? of nutrients nutrients to What i s effluent fixed for co n sid eratio n include e f f l u e n t q u a n t i t y and n u t r i e n t c o n t e n t , 4. in e fflu e n t a r e p o s s i b l e on a f i r m Factors bearing and n u t r i e n t a v a i l a b i l i t y in relativ e prices, th ro u g h o u t th e growing se aso n . the p ro d u ctio n response o f v a rio u s crops irrigation for varying a p p lic a tio n ra te s levels of n u trie n ts in the wastewater? on y i e l d r e s p o n s e w i t h e f f l u e n t irrigation c o n t e n t i n f o r m a t i o n and r e f l e c t s and Mos t d a t a lacks n u trie n t a l i m i t e d number o f w a t e r application rates. 5. What a r e t h e p r i m a r y a n d s e c o n d a r y e c o n o m i c i m p a c t s o f a l a r g e s c a l e l a n d t r e a t m e n t s y s t e m on a r e g i o n a l economy? 6. How c o u l d f a r m e r ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n t r e a t m e n t s y s te m be e v a l u a t e d , I t would be u s e f u l in a land u n d e r a number o f s i t u a t i o n s ? t o s p e c i f y a method f o r m e a su rin g t h e i r acceptance or re je c tio n of land treatm ent. APPENDIX A PRODUCTION ECONOMIC RELATIONSHIPS APPLICABLE TO LAND TREATMENT A total tive systems a n a l y s i s o f a la n d tre a tm e n t a l t e r n a ­ sh o u ld c o n s i d e r th e m u l t i p l e o b j e c t i v e s o f maximizing profit from t h e c r o p p i n g a c t i v i t i e s , of w astew ater treatm ent, objectives. m inim izing th e c o s t and m e e tin g e n v i r o n m e n t a l q u a l i t y The p r o f i t m a x i m i z i n g o b j e c t i v e is t h e most i m p o r t a n t from t h e v i e w p o i n t o f th e farm f i r m . Economic th e o ry assumes t h a t th e farm o p e r a t o r w i l l o r g a n i z e h i s resources to maximize h i s p r o f i t s . enterprises are selected t h e economic c o n d i t i o n s i n t y p e and c o m b i n a t i o n to meet for e ffic ie n t organization. w a t e r e f f l u e n t a d d s two a d d i t i o n a l w a t e r and n u t r i e n t s . by a s s o c i a t e d Crop and l i v e s t o c k facto rs of production, The u s e o f t h e s e f a c t o r s changes in te c h n ic a l Waste­ is coefficients determ ined and p r i c e 're la tio n sh ip s. There a re t h r e e b a s i c p r o d u c t i o n economics r e l a t i o n ­ ships u seful tion. i n an economic a n a l y s i s o f w a s t e w a t e r i r r i g a ­ T he y a r e f a c t o r - p r o d u c t r e l a t i o n s h i p s , relationships, and p r o d u c t - p r o d u c t relationships. The f a c t o r - p r o d u c t r e l a t i o n s h i p wastew ater a p p lic a tio n r ig h ts factor-factor is used to identify for a p a r t i c u l a r crop. 154 The 155 rule fo r p r o f i t m axim ization is resource is (effluent) t o add more o f t h e v a r i a b l e as long as the v a lu e o f added p ro d u c t g r e a t e r t h a n t h e c o s t o f t h e added amount o f r e s o u r c e used in producing it. T h u s , w i t h p e r f e c t k n o w l e d g e a n d no l i m i t a t i o n on t h e u s e o f c a p i t a l , when t h e f a c t o r p r o f i t w i l l be maximized i s added to th e p o i n t where th e m arg in al v a lu e p ro d u c t and th e c o s t o f th e l a s t u n i t of re s o u rc e a re ju s t equal, i.e., MVP = MFC . y le v e l o f reso u rce use Thus t h e m o s t p r o f i t a b l e x (effluent) depends upon t h e r e l a t i o n ­ s h i p o f t h e p r o d u c t and t h e r e s o u r c e p r i c e s the physical relationship in p ro d u ctio n . d u c t i o n r e l a t i o n s h i p and r e s o u r c e p r i c e , be u s e d i f the p r ic e o f the product f a l l s be used i f the product p rice increases. as w e l l as on For a g i v e n p r o ­ less resource w ill a n d mor e w i l l Sim ilarly g i v e n p r o d u c t i o n r e l a t i o n s h i p and p r o d u c t p r i c e s , and r e s o u r c e u s e w i l l falls. for a production i n c r e a s e whe n t h e r e s o u r c e p r i c e The p r o f i t m a x i m i z a t i o n c o n d i t i o n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h u s i n g t h e l a r g e s t volume o f e f f l u e n t c o m p a t i b l e w i t h p r o d u c ­ tion relationships would be t h a t w hich h a s t h e l o w e s t effluent price, a n d t h e l a r g e s t v o l u m e w o u l d b e u s e d whe n the e fflu e n t free. is The s e c o n d b a s i c relationship. resources factors relationship This s p e c i f i e s the fa c to r-fa c to r t h e optimum c o m b i n a t i o n o f t o p r o d u c e a g i v e n p r o d u c t whe n t h e p r i c e o f a n d p r o d u c t a r e known. plant n u trien ts, nutrients is Since e f f l u e n t co n tain s a substitution relationship from e f f l u e n t exists (X-^) a n d f r o m c o m m e r c i a l between 156 fertilizer, (X2 ) . the use o f e i t h e r Since they are near p e rf e c t s u b s t i t u t e s , is very responsive change in th e r e l a t i v e p r i c e s o f able to s u b s ti t u t e pensive fa c to r substitutes, relatively a n d X2 ma ke s f o r th e more e x p e n s i v e . only the l e a s t that are equal the m arginal level i.e., inputs is equal that p ro fits a n d X2 , c o m m e r c i a l f a c t o r c o s t o f X^, and Thus t h e p r o f i t m a x i m i z i n g i s w h e r e MVPx^/Px^ = MVPX2/ P X 2 = 1 , to th e c o s t o f a c q u ir in g t h a t re s o u rc e f o r each re s o u rc e being used. there o f each another u n it of I f Px d e c l i n e s , i s a n i n c e n t i v e t o u s e m o r e X^ s i n c e M V P x / Px > l . The s u b s t i t u t i o n r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n w a s t e w a t e r nutrients and comm ercial Figure A -l, ex­ o f o u tp u t where th e m a rg in a l when t h e m a r g i n a l v a l u e p r o d u c t i v i t y resource less In th e c a se o f n e a r p e r f e c t to the m arginal f a c t o r c o s t o f X2 . combination of profit­ e x p e n s i v e f a c t o r would be u s e d v a l u e p r o d u c t s o f X^, e f f l u e n t n u t r i e n t s nutrients, it I f th e y were p e r f e c t the equi-m arginal co n d itio n s ta te s w i l l be m axim ized a t A small l a r g e amounts o f th e and none o f t h e more e x p e n s i v e . substitutes, to p r i c e . fertilizers is illu strated w h e r e X^ a n d X2 a r e n e a r s u b s t i t u t e s . in 157 Commercial Nutrients N 0 D B L Wastewater N u t r i e n t s F i g u r e A - 1. N u t r i e n t S u b s t i t u t i o n Y=f (X-^ , X2/ X 3 , . L i n e s AB a n d CD a r e nutrients and w a s t e w a t e r n u t r i e n t s price levels. by AB, iso-cost With i n i t i a l lines . .,Xn). f o r commercial at d ifferen t relative price relationships represented t h e optimum f a c t o r c o m b i n a t i o n f o r o u t p u t l e v e l OM o f X2 a n d ON o f X^. o f X^, mo r e o f X^ i s In a d d i t i o n used, e f f lu e n t c o n trib u te s water I f w a t e r and n u t r i e n t s a r e p e r f e c t com­ t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f c o m b i n a t i o n d o m in a te s and r e l a ­ t iv e p ric e s are unimportant of output. water is in the p ric e OL, a n d l e s s o f X2 OK. to n u t r i e n t s , to crop p ro d u ctio n . plem ents, With a r e l a t i v e d e c r e a s e is in determ ining the optim al The c o m p l e m e n t a r y r e l a t i o n s h i p s o f n u t r i e n t s illustrated in F ig u re A-2. Initial a t l e v e l Y-^, w i t h OA o f X2 a n d OB o f X-^ u s e d . water w ill not nutrients. level production is A dditional in crease production without a d d itio n a l I f OB r e p r e s e n t s n u t r i e n t and s u p p l i e d by t h e Water Y, »— « T % Nutrients F i g u r e A-2. C om p le m en tarity between w a t e r and n u t r i e n t s . ,X ) . Y = f(X ,,X ,/X ,,. ’ w astew ater, n' t o t a l p r o d u c t i o n can be i n c r e a s e d t o Y2 w i t h t h e sa me a m o u n t o f w a s t e w a t e r t h r o u g h t h e a d d i t i o n o f BC nutrients s u p p l i e d by c o m m e r c i a l fertilizers. The t h i r d p r o d u c t i o n r e l a t i o n s h i p , duct rela tio n sh ip , tio n of products wheat? identifies to p ro d u ce , The p r o b l e m i s products resources the p ro d u ct-p ro - t h e most p r o f i t a b l e e.g ., how much c o r n , hay, or to d e te rm in e th e b e s t co m b in atio n o f for a given o u tla y o f resources or the best use o f fo r a given com bination of pro d u cts. n e c e s s a r y t o d i s t i n g u i s h b e t w e e n t wo t y p e s combination, tal combina­ horizontal combination r e f e r s marketed d i r e c t l y and v e r t i c a l is of en terp rise com binations. Horizon­ to s i t u a t i o n s where t h e p r o d u c t s are r a t h e r than used in the pro ductions of another product w ithin the primary products It firm . Under v e r t i c a l combination, e n te r the p ro d u ctio n fu n c tio n as reso u rce s 159 in th e p ro d u ctio n o f a second p ro d u ct. Thus if effluent i s used to produce c o rn s i l a g e o r hay which i n t u r n to liv esto ck , a vertical The o b j e c t i v e prises is to fed e n te rp ris e combination e x is ts . in a h o riz o n ta l identify is combination of e n t e r ­ th e c o n d it i o n s which w i l l y i e l d l a r g e s t amount o f r e v e n u e . the Thus w a s t e w a t e r w o u l d be a l l o ­ c a t e d t o c r o p s w i t h t h e l a r g e s t combined e f f e c t o f y i e l d r e s p o n s e and p r i c e e f f e c t . To s o l v e t h i s p r o b l e m i t is n e c e s s a r y t o know t h e a p p r o p r i a t e p r i c e s a n d t h e p r o d u c t i o n relationships. Expanding upon t h e f a c t o r - p r o d u c t r e l a t i o n ­ ship defined e a r l ie r , tion the c o n d itio n s in the use o f e ff lu e n t products fo r p r o f i t m aximiza­ in the p ro d u ctio n o f se v e ra l i s t o p r o d u c e t h a t c o m b i n a t i o n w h e r e MVPxCY-^/ Px = MVPx(Y2 ) / P x = 1 , o r w h e r e t h e r e s o u r c e sa me m a r g i n a l v a l u e p r o d u c t as (effluent) yields the in the p r o d u c tio n o f one p ro d u ct in the other. The a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e t h r e e p r o d u c t i o n r e l a t i o n s h i p aids in the a n a ly s is of th e p o t e n t i a l income t h r o u g h e f f l u e n t irrigation. to in c re a se The v a r i a b l e farm inputs o f p r i m a r y i n t e r e s t a r e t h e w a t e r and t h e n u t r i e n t s effluent. for these in the The w i l l i n g n e s s on t h e p a r t o f a f a r m e r t o p a y i n p u t s w i l l d e p e n d on t h e p r i c e s to t h e i r c o n tr ib u ti o n s to farm income. charged r e l a t i v e APPENDIX B GROSS MARGIN ESTIMATES APPENDIX B GROSS MARGIN ESTIMATES Gross m argin p la n n in g is used to bution of wastewater i r r i g a t i o n margin i s farm income. the value of o utput fo r an e n te r p r is e d ir e c t production co sts. o f an e n t e r p r i s e It represents to fix e d c o s t s , The d i f f e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e t o t a l all to identify enterprises labor, and th e f i x e d c o s t s soybeans, dry beans, a n d r e p r e s e n t how s p e c i f i c data Differences less its the c o n trib u tio n and management. is net farm income. in Tables B-l through wheat and a l f a l f a estim ates hay c a n be u s e d t o e v a l u a t e c ro p e n t e r p r i s e s w i t h and w i t h o u t tion. The g r o s s of th e gross margins fo r E n te rp ris e budgets a re p re se n te d B- 5 f o r c o r n , the c o n t r i ­ effluent irriga­ in the g ro ss margins o f the v a rio u s n a t i v e s w i t h and w i t h o u t irrigation attributable i r r i g a t i o n under the assumed c o n d i ­ tions. to effluent These g a i n s , when a g g r e g a t e d represent alter­ to th e i n c o me g a i n s firm le v e l, d efine the bargaining area co st sharing d iscu ssio n s help between a fa rm e r and a w a s t e w a t e r a u t h o r i t y . A major d i f f e r e n c e irrigation is commercial fertilizers. i n t h e b u d g e t s w i t h and w i t h o u t the s u b s titu tio n of n u tr ie n ts nutrient su b stitu tio n is An i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r in e f f l u e n t s influencing the wastew ater a p p lic a tio n 160 for rate and Table B-l. Com--Estimated Returns, Variable Costs and Gross Margin Per Acre, With and Without Effluent Irrigation Item I. II. III. Unit Income'*' ? Yi el d per a c r e Va r i a bl e Cash Costs^ Seed . F e r t i l i z e r (N+P2O5+K7O) Her bi ci de, At r az i ne [80w) Power and Machinery Cost P re h arv e st H arvest H auling j. I r r i g a t i o n 0§M c o sts bu. bu. ' l b. l b. Summary T o ta l V ariab le Costs Gross Margin U nit V ariab le Cost a c re a cre bu. a c re Pr i c e or Cost/Unit Yi eld Without I r r i g a t i o n Value or Quant it y Cost Yi el d With I r r i g a t i o n Value or Quant it y Cost 1.64 110 180.40 150 246.00 25.00 . 24- . 19- . 067 2.30 .25 120-30-30 2 6.25 36.51 4.60 .28 125-0-0 2 7.00 30.00 4.60 5.92 11.00 .10 1 1 110 $ $ bu. ^ P rices from [Water Resources C ouncil, 1974]. 2Y ields from [ E ll i s , 1973]. ^Adapted fro m [T rin b le, 1971]. ^Based upon d a ta in Table B -8. ^ I r r i g a ti o n c o s ts based upon th e d e sig n r e f le c td d in Table 11. 5.92 11.00 11.00 -75.28 105.12 .68 1 1 150 5.92 11.00 15.00 36.00 109.52 136.48 .73 Table B-2. Soybeans Estimated Returns, Variable Costs and Gross Margin Per Acre, With and Without Effluent Irrigation Item I. II. III. Income'*' ? Yield per a c r e Variable Cash Costs^ Seed . A F e r t i l i z e r (N+P^Or+K^O) H erbic ide, (Amioen) *" Power § Machinery Cost Pre h arve st Harvest Hauling I r r i g a t i o n )§M c o s t s Summary T o ta l V a r ia b le c o s t s Gross Margin Unit Variable Cost 1 ■^Prices from [Water Resources Unit bu. Price or Gost/Unit 4.12 Yield Without I r r i g a t i o n Value Quantity or Cost 32 Yield With I r r i g a t i o n Value Quantity or Cost 131.84 35 144.20 _ bu. lb, lb. acre a cre bu. a cre 8.50 . 2 4 - .1 9 - .0 6 7 4.83 6.24 9.25 .10 .83 10-25-25 1 1 1 32 $ $ bu. Council, 1974]. Yields from [ E l l i s , 1973]. 3 Adapted from [Trimble, 1971]. 4 Based upon d a ta i n Table B-8. ^Irrigation costs based upon the design reflected in Table 11. 7.05 8.83 4.83 6.24 9.25 3.20 39 .'40 92.44 1.23 .83 . 0 1 1 1 35 . 7.05 0 4.83 6.24 9.25 3.50 36.00 66.87 77.33 1.91 Table B-3. I. II. III. Dry Beans--Estimated Returns, Variable Costs and Gross Margin Per Acre, With and Without Effluent Irrigation Yield Without I r r i g a t i o n Value Quantity or Cost Y ield With I r r i g a t i o n Value Quantity or Cost Item Unit Price or Cost/Unit Income'*' _ Yield p e r acre cwt. 16.84 16 269.44 20 bu. lb . lb. 45.00 . 2 4 - .1 9 - .0 6 7 2.41 .67 40-25-25 2 30.15 16.03 4.82 0 2 11.66 9.00 .18 1 1 16 11.66 9.00 2.88 1 1 20 V a ria b le Cash Costs^ Seed F e r t i l i z e r (N+P70 r +K7G) He rbicide (Eptomj Power § Machinery Cost P re h arv e st Harvest Hauling „ I r r i g a t i o n )§M c o sts acre Summary T o ta l Variable Costs Gross Margin Unit Variable Cost $ $ cwt. acre acre C w c. ■^Prices from [Water Resources Council, 1974]. Yields from [ E l l i s , 1973]. 3 Adapted from [Trimble, 1971]. 4 Based upon d a ta i n Table B-8. 5Irrigation costs based upon the design reflected in Table 11. 74.54 228.58 4.66 336.80 .67 ] 30.15 0 4.82 11.66 9.00 3.60 36.00 95.23 241.57 4.76 Table B-4. Wheat--Estimated Returns, Variable Costs and Gross Margin Per Acre, With and Without Effluent Irrigation Item I. II. III. Income^" Yield per acre Variable Cash Costs^ Seed . F e r t i l i z e r (N+P20r+K70) Herbicide Power § Machinery Cost P reharvest Harvest Hauling _ I r r i g a t i o n )§M c o s t s Summary To ta l V aria b le Costs Gross Margin Unit Varia ble Cost Unit bu. bu. lb . a cre acre bu. acre Price or Cost/Unit 2.36 4.50 .2 4 - .1 9 - .0 6 7 4.33 9.00 .10 Yield Without I r r i g a t i o n Value Quantity or Cost Yield With I r r i g a t i o n Value Quantity or Cost -50 118.00 60 1.75 60-50-50 7.87 27.25 1.75 20-0-0 7.87 4.80 1 1 50 4.33 9.00 5.00 1 1 60 4.33 9.00 6.00 36.00 $ $ bu. ■^Prices from [Water Resources Council, 1974]. ^Yields from [ E l l i s , 1973]. ^Adapted from [Trimble, 1971]. ^Based upon d a t a i n Table B-8. 5I r r i g a i t o n c o s t s based upon the design r e f l e c t e d i n Table 11. 53.45 64.55 1.07 141.60 68.00 73.60 1.13 Table B-5. Alfalfa--Estimated Returns, Variable Costs and Gross Margin Per Acre, With and Without Effluent Irrigation Item I. II. III. Income^ Y ie ld p e r acre V aria b le Cash Costs^ Seed . F e r t i l i z e r (N_P70,-+K7) ) Herbicide Power § Machinery Cost P re h arv e st Harvest Hauling c I r r i g a t i o n )§M c o s t s Summary T o ta l V aria b le Costs Gross Margin Unit Varia ble Cost 41" ................................ ............ P r i c e s from O'/ater Resources Unit Price or Cost/Unit ton 33.00 lb. lb. 1.85 . 2 4 - .1 9 - .0 6 7 acre acre ton acre .36 6.15 8.25 Y]Leld Without I]r r i g a t i o n Value Q uantity or Cost 3 2 0-50-50 1 1 3 $ $ to n Council, 1974]. 2Yields from [ E l l i s , 1973]. ^Adapted from [Trimble, 1971]. 4 Based upon d a ta i n Table B-8. irrigation costs based upon the design reflected in Table 11. 99.00 3.70 12.85 .36 6.15 24.75 47.81 51.19 15.94 Y ield With I r r i g a t i o n Value Quantity or Cost 5 2 0-0-25 1 1 5 165.00 3.70 1.68 .36 6.15 41.25 36.00 89.14 75.86 17.82 166 n u t r i e n t r e m o v a l by c r o p s , and p la n t r e s id u e s . o f the n u tr ie n t c o n te n t o f a lt e r n a t iv e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e B-6. req u irem en ts rates so ils, and c ro p s a r e i d e n t i f i e d T a b le B-6. ap p licatio n ra te s E xam ples o f a d d i t i o n a l for a ltern a tiv e i n T a b l e B7. A cre-Inches of E fflu e n t 20 25 30 35 40 66 77 88 40 48 56 64 48 58 68 77 15 N 2.22 33 44 55 P 1.59 24 32 K 1 . 93 29 39 [E llis, 1973] R equirem ents f o r N u t r i e n t s A p p lied as F e r t i l i z e r , in A d d itio n to E fflu e n t f o r A l t e r ­ n a t i v e S o i l s , A p p l i c a t i o n R a t e s , and Crops Com Soil Following Com Management Row Crop Following o r Small Group A lfalfa Grain 2 .5 (25") 3 (40") Source: n u trien t annual a p p lic a tio n 1 T ab le B-7. are E stim ated N u trie n t C ontent of A l te r n a tiv e A m o u n ts o f E f f l u e n t N u trien t Source: E stim ates 125-0-0 50-0-0 85-0-55 [E llis, Wheat Following Com o r Soybeans Lbs o f N - P2!n 5 _ v 2n ___ 0-0-0 20-0-0 0-0-55 0-0-0 0-0-0 A lfalfaBrome a n ­ n ua l a f t e r E stab lish m en t 0-0-145 0-0-96 1973] E s tim a te s o f com m ercial fertiliz e r tern a tiv e y ield sets out are p resented irrig a tio n , Soybeans Dry Beans id en tified req u irem en ts for th is stu d y , i n T a b le B-8. for the a l ­ w ith and w ith ­ APPENDIX C BREAKEVEN AND SENSITIVITY DATA FOR SELECTED CROPS Table C-l. Total Revenue Per Acre and Changes in Total Revenue Associated with Alternative Yield and Price Combinations, Soybeans Yield bushels 17 20 25 30 32 35 AO 45 50 3 .0 0 3.50 4 .0 0 5 1 .0 0 60.0 0 75.00 90.0 0 9 6 .0 0 105.00 59.50 70.00 87 .5 0 105.00 68.00 112.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 128.00 140.00 160.00 180.00 135.00 150.00 122.50 140.00 157.50 175.00 200.00 3. 00 3.5 0 4. 0 0 9 .0 0 15.00 30.00 36.00 45.00 60.0 0 10.50 17.50 35.00 4 2 .0 0 5 2 .5 0 70.00 12.00 20.00 120.00 T o t a l Revenue a t P r i c e / B u s h e l 4 .1 2 4.50 5.00 70.04 82.40 103.00 123.60 131.84 144.20 164.80 185.40 206.00 76.50 90.00 112.50 135.00 144.00 157.50 180.00 202.50 225.00 8 5.0 0 100.00 125.00 150.00 160.00 1 175.00 2 200.00 225. 00 25 0.0 0 6.00 7. 00 8.00 102.00 120.00 119.00 140.00 175.00 136.00 160.00 150.00 180.00 192.00 210.00 200.00 240. 00 270. 00 300. 00 224 .0 0 245.00 280.00 315.0 0 350.00 240.00 256 .00 280 .00 320 .00 360. 00 40 0.0 0 6.00 7.00 8.00 18.00 30.00 6 0 .0 0 72.00 9 0. 00 21.00 24 .0 0 4 0 .0 0 80 .0 0 96. 00 210.00 167 Yield Increase bushels 3 5 10 12 15 20 4 0. 00 4 8 .0 0 60.0 0 80.00 ^Best e s t i m a t e w i t h o u t i r r i g a t i o n . 2Bes t e s t i m a t e w i t h i r r i g a t i o n . T o t a l Revenue a t P r i c e / B u s h e l 4.12 4.50 5.00 • uojLxairb —* 12.36 20 .60 4 1.2 0 4 9 .4 4 61. 80 82.40 13.50 22. 50 4 5. 00 5 4 .0 0 6 7.5 0 90.00 15.00 2 25. 00 50 .0 0 60.0 0 75.00 100.00 120.00 35. 00 70.00 8 4.0 0 105.00 140.00 120.00 160.00 Table C-2. Irrigation Costs 1 Incremental Soybean Yield Increases Required to Breakeven on Irrigation Costs with Alternative Prices and Costs 3.00 3.5 0 Breakeven Y i e l d a t P r i c e / B u s h e l dollars 4. 0 0 4 .1 2 4 .5 0 5 .0 0 dollars 10.00 25 .0 0 35.00 4 0 .0 0 45 .0 0 50 .0 0 55 .0 0 6 0 .0 0 65. 00 70 .00 75.00 8 0. 00 8 5. 00 9 0. 00 95 .00 100.00 110.00 125.00 1. 6.00 7.00 8.00 1.7 4.2 5.8 6.7 7.5 8.3 9.2 1 .4 3.6 5.0 5.7 6.4 7 .1 7.9 ' 10.0 10.8 8 .6 1.3 3 .1 4.4 5.0 5.6 6.3 6 .9 7.5 10.0 20.0 22.0 11.7 12.5 13.3 14.2 15.0 15 .8 16.7 18 .3 25.0 20.8 bushels/acre 3 .3 8.3 11.7 13.3 15.0 16.7 18.3 20.0 21.7 23.3 2 5 .0 26 .7 2 8 .3 3 0 .0 31.7 33 .3 36.7 4 1 .7 2 .9 7.1 2.5 6.3 10.0 8.8 10.0 11.4 12.9 14.3 15.7 17.1 18.6 20.0 21.4 22 .9 2 4 .3 25 .7 27 .1 28 .6 31 .4 35.7 11.3 12.5 13.8 15.0 16.3 17.5 18 .8 20.0 21.3 22 .5 2 3 .8 25 .0 27 .5 3 1 .3 2.4 2.2 2.0 6.1 5 .6 7.8 S .9 5.0 7.0 10.0 11.1 12.2 9.0 8.5 9.7 10.9 • 12.1 13.3 14.6 15 .8 17.0 18.2 19 .4 20.6 21.8 2 3 .1 24.3 2 6 .7 30 .3 13.3 14 .4 1 5.6 16.7 17.8 18.9 20.0 21.1 22.2 24.4 27.8 8.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14 .0 15.0 16.0 17.0 18.0 19 .0 9.3 10 .7 11 .4 8.1 8 .8 9.4 12.1 10.0 10.6 12.9 13.6 14 .3 15.7 17.9 11.3 11.9 12.5 13.8 15.6 I r r i g a t i o n c o s t s v a r y w i t h t h e s y s te m u s e d , and may r e p r e s e n t a n n u a l c a p i t a l c o s t s , a n n u a l o p e r a t i n g and m a i n t e n a n c e c o s t s , o r a n n u a l t o t a l c o s t s . F o r example, c a p i t a l c o s t s ra n g e from $32 - $77 and o p e r a t i n g c o s t s from $25 - $53 i n t h e s y s te m s s p e c i f i e d i n Ta b le 11. 169 Table C-3« Net Revenue Per Acre for Alternative Sets of Irrigation Costs, Yield Changes, and Prices, Soybeans Net Revenues Irrigation Costs dollars 25 Y ield Change bushels 5 10 12 15 20 50 5 8.00 dollars -7.50 10.00 17.00 27.50 4 5 .0 0 -4.40 16.20 24.44 36.80 5 7 .4 0 0.00 2 5 .0 0 3 5.0 0 5 0 .0 0 7 5. 00 5o 00 3 5.0 0 47.00 6 5 .0 0 95.00 15.00 5 5 .0 0 71. 00 95.00 135.00 -25.00 -20.00 0.00 10.00 10.00 22.00 25.0 0 5 0 .0 0 40 .0 0 70.00 -10.00 3 0. 00 46.00 7 0. 00 -35.00 5.00 15 20 20.00 -29.40 -8.80 -0.56 11.80 32.40 5 -57.50 -40.00 -33.00 -22.50 -5.00 -54.40 -33.80 -25.56 -13.20 7.40 -50.00 -25.00 -15.00 2 5. 00 -45.00 -15.00 -3.00 15.00 45.00 -82.50 -65.00 -58.00 -47.50 ' -30.00 -79.40 -58.80 -50.56 -38.20 -17.60 -75.00 -50.00 -40.00 -25.00 -70.00 -40.00 -28.00 -10.00 -60.00 -20.00 -4.00 0.00 20.00 6 0 .0 0 10 12 15 20 100 D ollars/B ushel 4.12 5.00 6.00 -32.50 -15.00 -8.00 2 .5 0 10 12 75 3.50 5 10 12 15 20 0.00 110.00 21.00 45.00 8 5. 00 20.00 Table C-4. Total Revenue Per Acre and Changes in Total Revenue Associated with Alternative Yield and Price Combinations, Dry Beans Yield 10.00 w t. 9 9 0.0 0 10 100.00 15 16 150.00 160.00 T o t a l Revenue a t P r i c e / H u n d r e d w e i g h t 16.84 20.00 24 .4 2 25 .0 0 15.00 20 200.00 25 250.00 135.00 150.00 225.00 240. 00 300 .00 375.00 Y ield In c re ase 10.00 15.00 151.56 168.40 252.60 269.44 336.80 421 .0 0 d o l l a r s ----180.00 200.00 300.00 320.00 1 400.0 0 5 00 .0 0 2 219.7 8 244.20 366.30 39 0. 72 48 8 .4 0 610 .5 0 T o t a l Revenue a t P r i c e / H u n d r e d w e i g h t 16.84 20 .0 0 24.4 2 CWl « 30. 00 '225.00 250.00 37 5. 00 40 0. 00 50 0 .0 0 625 .00 270.00 300 .0 0 450 .0 0 48 0. 00 6 00 .0 0 ' 750.00 25 .00 3 0.0 0 QOj.xa.rs ——— 4 5 9 40 .00 5 0.0 0 90.00 10 100.00 15 150.00 6 0. 00 75.00 135.00 150.00 225.00 ^■Best e s t i m a t e w i t h o u t i r r i g a t i o n . ^ B e st e s t i m a t e w i t h i r r i g a t i o n . 67 .36 8 4.2 0 151.56 168.40 252.60 9 7. 68 100.00 120.00 100.00 122.10 180.00 219.7 8 244 .20 366.3 0 125.00 225.0 0 250.0 0 375.0 0 150.00 270. 00 300 .00 45 0 .0 0 8 0. 00 2 200.00 300. 00 Ta b le C-5. Irrigation C o s t s 1. I n c r e m e n t a l Dry B e a n . Y i e l d I n c r e a s e s R e q u i r e d t o Breakeven on I r r i g a t i o n C o s ts w i t h A l t e r n a t i v e P r i c e s and C o s t s 10.00 15.00 Breakeven Y i e l d a t P r i c e / H u n d r e d w e i g h t dollars 16.84 20.00 24.4 2 2 5.0 0 dollars lw 10.00 1.0 2 5. 00 35.00 4 0. 00 45.00 50.0 0 5 5 .0 0 6 0 .0 0 65.00 70.00 75.00 8 0. 00 85.00 90.00 95.00 2 .5 3 .5 4.0 4.5 5 .0 5.5 100.00 110.00 10.0 11.0 125.00 12.5 6.0 6.5 7 .0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9 .5 0.7 1.7 2.3 2 .7 3.0 3 .3 3 .7 ' 4.0 4.3 4.7 5.0 5.3 5 .7 6.0 6.3 6 .7 7.3 8.3 0.6 1.5 2.1 2.4 2 .7 3.0 3 .3 3 .6 3 .9 4.2 4.5 4.8 5.0 5.3 5.6 5 .9 6 .5 7.4 30.00 i/ a c ic 0.5 1.3 1.8 2.0 2.3 2 .5 2.8 3 .0 3.3 3 .5 3 .8 4.0 4.3 4.5 4.8 5.0 5.5 6.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 1.0 1.0 1.4 1 .4 0 .8 1.2 1.6 1.8 2.0 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.9 3 .1 3.3 3.5 3.7 3.9 4.1 4.5 5 .1 1.3 1.5 -1.7 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2 .8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3 .8 4.0 4.4 5.0 . 2.3 2.5 2.7 2.8 3.0 3 .2 3.3 3 .7 4.2 1 I r r i g a t i o n c o s t s v a r y w i t h t h e s y s t e m u s e d , and may r e p r e s e n t a n n u a l c a p i t a l c o s t s , a n n u a l o p e r a t i n g and m a i n t e n a n c e c o s t s , o r a n n u a l t o t a l c o s t s . Fo r ex ample, c a p i t a l c o s t s r a n g e from $32 - $77 and o p e r a t i n g c o s t s from $25 - $53 i n t h e s y s t e m s s p e c i f i e d i n T a b l e 11. 172 Table C-6* Net Revenue Per Acre for Alternative Sets of Irrigation Costs, Yield Changes, and Prices, Dry Beans Net Revenues Irrigation Costs dollars 25 50 75 Y ield Change cwt 4 5 9 30.00 17.36 3 4. 20 101.56 118.4 0 20 2. 60 30. 00 5 0 .0 0 130.00 150.00 250. 00 -7.64 9.20 76.56 93.40 177.60 5 .0 0 25. 00 105.00 125.00 22 5. 00 -40.00 -32.64 -25.00 -15.80 3 5 .0 0 51 .5 6 5 0 .0 0 ■" 6 8 . 4 0 125.00 152.60 -20.00 0.00 20.00 0.00 2 5. 00 125.00 150.00 275.0 0 5 0 .0 0 170.00 110.00 125.00 200.00 4 5 9 2 5 .0 0 85.0 0 10 100.00 15 17 5. 00 4 5 9 -15.00 4 5 9 . 10 15 D ollars/cw t 20 .0 0 25.00 4 2 .3 6 5 9 .2 0 126.56 143.40 227.6 0 35.0 0 5 0 .0 0 15 15 16.84 dollars 5 5.0 0 75.00 155.00 175.00 27 5.0 0 10 10 100 15.00 10.00 0.00 6 0 .0 0 75.00 150.00 8 0. 00 100.00 200.00 225.00 350.00 95.00 125.00 245.0 0 27 5 .0 0 4 2 5 .0 0 5 0 .0 0 75.00 175.00 100.00 220.00 75.00 100.00 200 . 0 0 . 200.00 70.0 0 325.00 25 0 .0 0 4 0 0 .0 0 25. 00 5 0 .0 0 150.00 175.00 300. 00 45.00 7 5. 00 195.00 22 5 .0 0 375.0 0 200.00 350 .0 0 Table C-7. Total Revenue Per Acre and Changes in Total Revenue Associated with Alternative Yield and Price Combinations, Wheat Yield 2.00 2 .3 6 2 .5 0 T o t a l Revenue a t P r i c e / B u s h e l 3. 0 0 3 .5 0 4. 0 0 ___ ___ I 3 I* U S n G . L S 30 40 46 50 60 70 75 6 0. 00 80.00 9 2 .0 0 7 5.0 0 90.0 0 100.00 120.00 115.00 125.00 150.00 175.00 187.50 138.00 150.00 180.00 140.00 150.00 70.80 9 4. 40 108.56 118.00 141.60 165.20 177.00 r 2.00 2 .3 6 2.5 0 10 20.00 15 3 0 .0 0 4 0. 00 50.00 6 0. 00 23.60 35.40 47.20 5 9 .0 0 70.80 25.0 0 3 7 .5 0 5 0 .0 0 62.5 0 75.00 Yield In c re ase bushels 20 25 30 100.00 120.00 ^Best e s t i m a t e w i t h o u t i r r i g a t i o n . 2B es t e s t i m a t e w i t h i r r i g a t i o n . 4 .5 0 5.00 __________ ___ ___ _ l ' 210.00 2 225.00 105.00 140.00 161.00 175.00 210.00 245.00 262.5 0 120.00 160.00 184.00 200.00 240.0 0 280.00 300.00 T o t a l Revenue a t P r i c e / B u s h e l 3.0 0 3.5 0 4 .0 0 3 0. 00 2 4 5 .0 0 60 .0 0 75.00 9 0 .0 0 35 .0 0 5 2 .5 0 70.00 8 7 .5 0 105.00 4 0. 00 60.0 0 8 0 .0 0 100.00 120.00 135.00 180.00. 20 7. 00 225.0 0 27 0 .0 0 315.00 337 .5 0 230.00 250.0 0 300.0 0 350.00 375.0 0 4.50 5.00 4 5 .0 0 67.50 9 0 .0 0 112.50 135.00 150.00 200.00 50 .0 0 75.00 100.00 125.00 150.00 Table C-8. Irrigation Costs } Incremental Wheat Yield Increases Required to Breakeven on Irrigation Costs with Alternative Prices and Costs Breakeven Y i e l d a t P r i c e / B u s h e l dollars 2.5 0 3 .0 0 3.50 4 .0 0 2.00 2.36 5 .0 12.5 17.5 4.2 4.0 10.6 10.0 14.8 16.9 19.1 14.0 16.0 18.0 21.2 20.0 22.0 3.3 8.3 11.7 13.3 15.0 16.7 18.3 24 .0 26 .0 2 8 .0 30 . 0 3 2.0 3 4.0 36 . 0 3 8 .0 4 0 .0 4 4 .0 ‘ 5 0 .0 2 1 .7 2 3 .3 25 .0 26.7 2 8 .3 30 .0 31 .7 3 3 .3 36.7 4 1 .7 4. 5 0 5 .0 0 2 .2 2 .0 5.6 7.8 8.9 5.0 7.0 dollars 10.00 110.00 125.00 1 20.0 2 2 .5 2 5 .0 27.5 30.0 32 .5 35.0 37 .5 4 0 .0 42 .5 4 5 .0 47 .5 5 0 .0 55.0 62 .5 23.3 25 .4 27 .5 29 .7 31 .8 33.9 36.0 38 .1 4 0 .3 42.4 46 .6 53.0 20.0 2 .9 7 .1 2.5 6.3 10.0 8 .8 10.0 11 .4 12.9 14 .3 15.7 17.1 18.6 20.0 21.4 22 .9 2 4 .3 2 5 .7 27.1 28.6 3 1 .4 35 .7 11.3 12.5 13.8 1 5 .0 16.3 17.5 18.8 20.0 2 1 .3 2 2 .5 23.8 25.0 27 .5 31 .3 10.0 11.1 12.2 13 .3 14 .4 15 .6 16.7 17 .8 18.9 20.0 21.1 22.2 2 4 .4 27.8 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13 .0 14 .0 15.0 1 6 .0 17 .0 18 .0 1 9 .0 20.0 22.0 2 5 .0 I r r i g a t i o n c o s t s v a r y w i t h t h e s y s te m u s e d , and may r e p r e s e n t a n n u a l c a p i t a l c o s t s , a n n u a l o p e r a t i n g and m a i n t e n a n c e c o s t s , o r a n n u a l t o t a l c o s t s . F o r ex am pl e, c a p i t a l c o s t s ra n g e from $32 - $77 and o p e r a t i n g c o s t s from $25 - $53 i n t h e s y s te m s s p e c i f i e d i n T a b le 11. 174 25 .00 35.00 4 0 .0 0 4 5 .0 0 50 .0 0 55. 00 60. 00 6 5 .0 0 70.00 75.00 80. 00 8 5.0 0 9 0.0 0 9 5 .0 0 1G0.00 175 Table C-9. Net Revenue Per Acre for Alternative Sets of Irrigation Costs, Yield Changes, and Prices, Wheat Irrigation Costs dollars 25 Yield Change 10 5.00 dollars -1.40 10.40 5.00 10.00 20.00 20.00 3 5. 00 5 0 .0 0 65.00 27 .5 0 4 5 .0 0 6 2 .5 0 8 0 .0 0 42.50 6 5 .0 0 87.5 0 100.00 110.00 125.00 25.0 0 5 0. 00 75.00 25.0 0 5 0 .0 0 75.00 22.20 25 30 3 4 .0 0 45.80 10 -26.40 -14.60 -2.80 9.00 2 0 .8 0 -20.00 -5.00 -15.00 2 .5 0 10.00 20.00 2 5.0 0 40.00 37.5 0 55.00 -5.00 17.50 4 0 .0 0 62.50 8 5.0 0 -51.40 -39.60 -27.80 -16.00 -4.20 -45.00 -30.00 -15.00 -30.00 -7.50 15.00 3 7.5 0 60.00 -25.00 15.00 -40.00 -22.50 -5.00 12.50 3 0 .0 0 -76.40 -70.00 -64.60 -55.00 -40.00 -52.80 -41.00 ' -25.00 -29.20 -10.00 -65.00 -47.50 -30.00 -12.50 5.00 -55.00 -32.50 -10.00 12.50 3 5 .0 0 -50.00 -25.00 15 25 30 10 15 20 25 30 100 D ollars/B ushel 3.00 3.50 4.50 20 20 75 2.36 bushels 15 50 Net Revenues 10 15 20 25 30 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00 2 5 .0 0 5 0. 00 75.00 0.00 25.0 0 50.0 0 Table C-10. Total Revenue Per Acre and Changes in Total Revenue Associated with Alternative Yield and Price Combinations Yield tons 2 .5 3. 0 3 .5 4 .0 4.5 5.0 5 .5 6.0 6.2 6.5 7 .0 Yield In c re a s e 2 5 ,0 0 30.00 62.5 0 75.00 87.50 75.00 9 0 .0 0 105.00 100.00 120.00 112.50 125.00 137.50 150.00 155.00 162.50 175.00 135.00 150.00 165.00 180.00 186.00 195.00 210.00 25.00 30.00 T o t a l Revenue a t P r i c e / T o n 3 3. 00 35.00 4 0 .0 0 4 5 .0 0 5 0.0 0 125.00 150.00 175.00 240.00 24 8. 00 260 .0 0 280.00 112.50 135.00 157.50 180.00 202.5 0 225.00 247.50 270.00 279.0 0 292.5 0 315 .00 T o t a l Revenue a t P r i c e / T o n 33.00 35.00 4 0.0 0 4 5 .0 0 8 2. 50 99.00 115.50 132.00 148.50 165.00 181.50 198.00 204.60 214.50 231.00 tons -0.5 -12.50 -15.00 1.0 25. 00 30. 00 1.5 37.50 45.00 2 .0 50 .0 0 6 0 .0 0 2 .5 6 2 .5 0 7 5.0 0 3 .0 75.00 9 0 .0 0 3 .2 8 0 .0 0 9 6 .0 0 1 ‘‘'Best e s t i m a t e w i t h o u t i r r i g a t i o n . 2B est e s t i m a t e w i t h i r r i g a t i o n . 8 7 .5 0 105.00 122.50 140.00 157.50 175.00 192.50 210.00 21 7.0 0 227.50 24 5.0 0 100.00 120.00 1 140.00 160.00 180.00 200.00 220.00 2 200.00 - 22 5. 00 250.00 27 5. 00 300.00 310.00 325.00 350.00 5 0.0 0 d o l l a r s --------------------------------------------------------------16.50 3 3.0 0 4 9 .5 0 6 6 .0 0 8 2 .5 0 9 9 .0 0 105.60 -17.50 35. 00 5 2 .5 0 7 0. 00 87.50 105.00 112.00 -20.00 40.00 60.00 8 0 .0 0 2 100.00. 120.00 128.00 -22.50 45.00 6 7. 50 90.00 112.50 135.00 144.0 0 -25.00 50.00 75.00 100.00 125.00 150.00 160.00 Table C - l l . Irrigation Costs I n c r e m e n t a l A l f a l f a Y i e l d I n c r e a s e s R e q u i r e d t o B re ake ve n on I r r i g a t i o n C o s ts w i t h A l t e r n a t i v e P r i c e s and C o s t s 25.0 0 Breakeven Y i e l d a t P r i c e / T o n d ollars 30.00 33.00 35.00 4 0 .0 0 4 5 .0 0 5 0 . 0( 0 .2 0.6 0 .8 0.5 0.7 0.9 0 .8 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.9 dollars 10.00 0.4 0.3 0.3 25 .00 35.00 4 0. 00 45.00 5 0 .0 0 55.00 60 .00 65.00 70.00 75.00 80.00 85.0 0 90.00 9 5 .0 0 1.0 0.8 1.2 0.8 1.1 1.2 100.00 110.00 125.00 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 .0 3 .2 3 .4 3 .6 3.8 4.04.4 5.0 1 .3 1.5 1.7 1.8 2.0 0.3 0.7 0.3 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.4 1.5 1. 7 1.3 1 .4 1.8 2.0 2.1 1.7 1.9 ' 2 .2 2 .3 2 .5 2 .7 2.3 2.4 2.8 3.0 3 .2 3 .3 3 .7 4.2 1.6 2.0 2.1 0.6 1.0 1.1 1 .3 1 .4 1.5 1.6 1.8 0 .2 1.0 • -1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1 .3 1 .4 1.5 1.6 1.9 1.7 2.0 2.1 1.8 1.6 2.6 2.3 2.4 1.9 2 .7 2.9 3 .0 3.3 3 .8 2.6 2.7 2.9 3 .1 3.6 2.3 2.4 2.5 2 .0 2.1 2.2 1 .7 1 .8 1.9 2.8 2.4 2 .0 2.2 3 .1 2 .8 2 .5 . 1 I r r i g a t i o n c o s t s v a r y w i t h t h e s y s t e m u s e d , and may r e p r e s e n t a n n u a l c a p i t a l c o s t s , a n n u a l o p e r a t i n g and m a i n t e n a n c e c o s t s , o r a n n u a l t o t a l c o s t s . F o r e x am p l e, c a p i t a l c o s t s r a n g e from $32 - $77 and o p e r a t i n g c o s t s from $25 - $53 i n t h e s y s te m s s p e c ­ i f i e d i n T a b le 11. 178 Table C-12, Net Revenue Per Acre for Alternative Sets of Irrigation Costs, Yield Changes, and Prices, Alfalfa N et Revenues Irrigation Costs dollars 25 Y ield Change bushels 0.00 8.00 1.5 1 2.5 0 2 5 .0 0 37.50 5 0 .0 0 5 5 .0 0 2 4. 50 41.00 5 7 .5 0 74,00 8 0 .6 0 -25.00 -12.50 -17.00 -0.50 16.00 3 2 .5 0 4 9 .0 0 55.60 -10.00 3 0 .0 0 50.00 7 0. 00 78 .0 0 -5.00 17.50 40.00 62.50 8 5 .0 0 94.00 -35.00 -15.00 5.00 25.00 4 5 .0 0 53.00 -30.00 -7.50 15.0 0 37 .5 0 6 0 .0 0 6 9 .0 0 -25.00 5.00 -42.00 -25.50 -9.00 7.50 2 4 .0 0 3 0. 60 -75.00 -62.50 -50.00 -37.50 -25.00 -20.00 -67.00 -50.50 -34.00 -17.50 -1.00 5.6 0 -60.00 -40.00 -20.00 -55.00 -32.50 -10.00 12.50 3 5 .0 0 44.00 -50.00 -25.00 2.5 3 .0 3.2 1.0 1.5 75 2.0 0.00 2.5 3 .0 3.2 12.50 25.00 3 0 .0 0 1.0 -50.00 -37.50 -25.00 -12.50 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.2 100 dollars 15.00 3 5.0 0 55.00 75.0 0 95.00 103.00 1.0 1.5 2.0 2 .5 3 .0 3 .2 0.00 10.00 0.00 20.00 2 8 .0 0 20.00 50.00 1.0 2.0 50 25.00 D ollars/B ushel 33.00 . 40.00 45.00 42.50 65.00 8 7 .5 0 110.00 119.00 2 5 .0 0 5 0 .0 0 75.00 100.00 125.00 135.00 0.00 2 5 .0 0 5 0 .0 0 75. 00 100.00 110.00 0.00 2 5.0 0 50.0 0 75 .00 85.0 0 0.00 2 5. 00 5 0.0 0 60 .0 0 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY A yres, R. U. , a n d K n e e s e , A. V. 1969. " P r o d u c t i o n , Consump­ t i o n , and E x t e r n a l i t i e s , " A m e ric a n Economic R e v i e w , V o l . L IX, No. 3, J u n e , p p . 28 2 - 2 9 T . B a h r , T. G . , B a l l , R. C . , a n d T a n n e r , H. A. 1974. "T he M ic h ig a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y W a te r Q u a l i t y Management P r o g r a m , " p a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t c o n f e r e n c e o n "T he Use o f W a s t e w a t e r i n t h e P r o d u c t i o n o f Food a n d F i b e r s , " Oklahoma C i t y , March 5 - 7 . B arlow e, R aleig h. 1972. Land R e s o u r c e E c o n o m ic s . 2nd E d i ­ t i o n , P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c . , E n g l e w o o d C l i f f s , N. J . B a u e r , W. J . , a n d M a t s c h e , D. E. 1973. "L arge W astew ater I r r i g a t i o n System s: Muskegon C o u n ty M ic h ig a n and C hicago M e t r o p o l i t a n R e g io n ." In R e c y c l i n g T r e a t e d M u n ic ip a l W a s te w a te r and S lu d g e th r o u g h F o r e s t and C r o p l a n d . E d i t e d by W i l l i a m E~ S o p p e r a n d L o u i s T. K a r d o s . The P e n n s y l v a n i a S t a t e U n i ­ v e rs ity Press. B oyer, H elena, and R e id , B a r b a r a . 1973. R e c y c l i n g on t h e L a n d : An A l t e r n a t i v e f o r W a t e r P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l . P r o j e c t on C lean W ater, N a tu ra l R e so u rc e s D efense C o u n cil, J u ly . B reim yer, C haiken, Chaney, H arold. 1973. "Man, P h y s i c a l R e s o u r c e s , E c o n o m ic O r g a n i z a t i o n . " A m erican J o u r n a l c u l t u r a l E c o n o m i c s 55 ( F e b r u a r y } -: 1 - 9 . Eugene I . ; P o l o n c s i k , S t e v e n ; and W ils o n , 1973. "Muskegon S p r a y s Sewage E f f l u e n t s in U l t i m a t e D i s p o s a l o f W a s te w a te r s and Res i d u a i s , W a t e r R e s o u r c e s Res e a r c h I n s t E a l e i g h , N. C . and of A g ri­ C a r l D. on L a n d , " T heir i tu t e , R u f u s L. 1973. "Crop and Food C h a in E f f e c t s o f Toxic E lem en ts in S lu d g e s and E f f l u e n t s . " In R e c y c l i n g M u n i c i p a l S l u d g e s and E f f l u e n t s on L a n d . N a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n o f S t a t e U n i v e r s i t i e s a n d L and G r a n t C o l l e g e s , W a s h i n g t o n , D. C. 179 180 C h r i s t e n s o n , D. R . ; L u c a s , R. E . ; a n d D o l l , E. C. 1972. F e r t i l i z e r R ecom m endations f o r M ic h ig a n , V e g e t a ­ b l e s a n d F i e l d CropsT C o o p erativ e E x tension S e r v i c e ^ E - 550, M ic h ig a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , Novem ber. C o llin , Don V. 1971. " T h e C a l i f o r n i a Land C o n s e r v a t i o n A ct: The E a s e m e n t a n d C o n t r a c t A p p r o a c h t o Open L and P l a n n i n g . ” I n P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e S e m i n a r on T a x a t i o n o f A g r i c u l t u r a l ~ a n d O t h e r Open L a n d . D e p artm en t o f A g r i c u l t u r a l E co n o m ics, M ichigan S ta te U n iv e rsity , A p ril 1-2. Commons, J o h n R. 1959. I n s t i t u t i o n a l E conom ics: I t s P lace i n P o l i t i c a l Economy. The U n i v e r s i t y o f W i s c o n s m P r e s s , M adison. C o n n o r , L. J . ; H o g l u n d , C. R . ; G r e a t h o u s e , T. R . ; N e l s o n , L. V . ; W h i t e s i d e , E. P . ; a n d R u d o l p h , V. J . 1970. The U t i l i z a t i o n o f E f f l u e n t f r o m D o m e s t i c and I n d u s t r i a l W astes f o r A g r i c u l t u r a l i r r i g a t i o n Muskegon C o u n ty , M i c h i g a n . D epartm ent o f A g r ic u lt u r a l Econom ics, M ich ig an S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , E a s t L an sin g , A p r il. C o u n c i l on E n v i r o n m e n t a l Q u a l i t y . 1970. Env i r o n m e n t a l Q u a l i t y , The F i r s t A n n u a l R e p o r t ol: t h e C o u n c i l o n E nvironm ental Q u a l l t y . •_____ . Cow lishaw , D ales, D alto n , 19 73 . Envir o n m e n ta l Q u a l i t y , th e F o u r th Annual R e p o r t o f t h e C o u n c il on E n v ir o n m e n t a l Q u a l i t y . Wayne A. 1974. " U p d a te on Muskegon C o u n ty , M ic h ig a n Land T r e a tm e n t S y s t e m . ” P a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t ASCE N a t i o n a l ' E n v i r o n m e n t a l E n g i n e e r i n g C o n v e n tio n , Kansas C i t y , M i s s o u r i , O c to b e r 2 1 -2 5 . J o h n H. tiv es W. L. sity . 1972. " R ig h ts and E c o n o m ic s .” In P e r s p e c ­ of P ro p e rty . E d i t e d by Gene W u n d e r l i c h a n d G ibson, J r . The P e n n s y l v a n i a S t a t e U n i v e r ­ F r a n k E . , a n d M u r p h y , R i c h a r d R. 1973. Land D i s p o ­ s a l IV: R e c l a m a t i o n a n d R e c y c l e . V o l . 4 5 , No. 7, Ju ly . D itw iler, C. D i r c k . 1973. " E n v i r o n m e n t a l P e r c e p t i o n s and P o licy M isco n cep tio n s." A m erican J o u r n a l o f A g r i c u l t u r a l E c o n o m i c s 55 ( A u g u s t ) : 4 7 7 - 4 8 3 . Dow E n g i n e e r i n g . 1973. W a ste w a te r I r r i g a t i n g U sing P r i v a t e l y Owned F a r m l a n d m S o u t h e a s t e r n Mi c h i g a n P h a s e IV R ep o rt. U . S . Army C o r p s o f E n g i n e e r s , D e t r o i t , July. 181 E llis, Boyd G . ; E r i c k s o n , A. E a r l ; e t a l . 1973. Land T r e a t ­ ment o f W aste w a te r i n S o u t h e a s t e r n M ic h igan. D e p a r t m e n t o f Crop and S o i l S c i e n c e s , M ic h ig a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i ty , E a s t L an sin g , M ichigan, June. G ray, J . Frank. 1968. " P r a c t i c a l I r r i g a t i o n W i t h Sewage E fflu e n t." I n M u n i c i p a l Se w a ge E f f l u e n t f o r I r r i g a t i o n Sy m p osiu m P r o c e e d i n g s ' . E d i t e d by XT. W~ W i l s o n , a n d F. E. B e c k e t t . L ouisiana P o l y ­ t e c h n ic I n s i t u t e , R uston, L o u is ia n a , J u l y . G r e a t Lakes B a s in C om m ission. 1972. E c o n o m ic a n d D e m o g r a ­ p h i c S t u d i e s A p p e n d ix . G r e a t Lakes B a s in Fram e­ w o r k S t u d y , Ann A r b o r , M i c h i g a n . H arris, M arsh all. 1973. E n tr e p r e n e u r s h ip in A g r i c u l t u r e . M o n o g r a p h No. 1 2 , A g r i c u l t u r e Law C e n t e r , C o l l e g e o f Law, The U n i v e r s i t y o f I o w a , Iow a C i t y . H arvey, C la rk . 1965. Use o f Sew age E f f l u e n t f o r P r o d u c t i o n o f A g r i c u l t u r a l C r o p s . Texas W ater D evelopm ent B o a r d , R e p o r t 9~y D e c e m b e r . Hathaway, H av em an, D a l e E. 1953. " A g r i c u l t u r a l P o l i c y and F a r m e r ’ s F reedom ." J o u r n a l o f Farm E c o n o m i c s 35 ( N o v e m b e r ) : 496-510. R o b e r t H. 1973. " E f f i c i e n c y and E q u i t y i n N a t u r a l R e so u rc e and E n v iro n m e n ta l P o l i c y . " A m erican J o u r n a l o f A g r i c u l t u r a l E c o n o m i c s 55 ( D e c e m b e r ) : 868-878. H e r f i n d a h l , O r r i s C . , a n d K n e e s e , A l l e n V. 1973. E c o n o m ic Theo r y o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s . R esources fo r the F u t u r e , I n c . , May. H o g l u n d , C. R . ; S a d e g h i , D a v i d ; a n d "E conom ics o f A l t e r n a t i v e f o r Southw est M ic h ig a n ." Econom ics, M ichigan S t a t e (M im eographed.) Howe, K i d d e r , E. H. 1972. Corn I r r i g a t i o n System s D epartm ent o f A g r i c u l t u r a l U n i v e r s i t y , E ast L an sing . R i c h a r d S. 1973. A l t e r n a t i v e S t r a t e g i e s f o r M anaging W astew ater. J o u r n a l o f S o i l and W ater C o n s e r v a t i o n , Novem ber-Decem Ser, H u tch in s, W e l l s A. 1939. Sew age I r r i g a t i o n a s P r a c t i c e d i n th e W estern S t a t e s . U.S. D e p a r tm e n t o t A g r i c u l t u r e , T e c h n i c a l B u l l e t i n No. 67 5 , M a r c h . In stitu te f o r R e s e a r c h on Land and W a te r R e s o u r c e s . 1974. R e s e a r c h Needs R e l a t e d to R e c y c l i n g Urban W a s te w a te r o n LancT The P e n n s y l v a n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , "U niversity P a rk , P e n n s y lv a n ia , J u l y . 182 K n e e s e , A l l e n V. , a n d B o w e r , B l a i r T. 1972. E nvironm ental Qua1 i t y A n a l y s i s . R e s o u r c e s f o r t h e F u t u r e , I n c . __________ ; A y r e s , R o b e r t U . ; a n d D ' A r g e , R a l p h C. 1970. Econom ics and t h e E n v ir o n m e n t , A M a t e r i a l s B a la n c e Approach^ .Jo hns H o p k i n s P r e s s . K yle, L e o n a r d R. 1972. B u s i n e s s A n a l y s i s Summary f o r C a s h G ra i n F arm s, 1 9 7 1 . A g r i c u l t u r a l Econom ics R e p o r t T 2 0 , D e p artm en t o f A g r i c u l t u r a l E conom ics, M ichigan S ta te U n iv e rs ity , East L an sin g , J u ly . Law, J a m e s P . , J r . 1968. A g ricu ltu ral U tiliz a tio n of Sew age E f f l u e n t a n d S l u d g e " F e d e r a l W ater P o l l u ­ t i o n C o n t r o l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , U.S. D e p a r tm e n t o f t h e I n te r io r , January. L ew is, D. G . ; L i b b y , L. W . ; C o n n o r , L. J . ; a n d D e r s c h , E. 1974. Land D i s p o s a l o f W a s t e w a t e r W ith S p r a y I r r i g a t i o n by S m a l l M i c h i g a n M u n i c i p a l i t i e s A g r i c u l t u r a l , i n s t i t u t i o n a l , and F in a n c ia l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . A g r i c u l t u r a l Econom ics R e p o r t No. 278^ D e p a r t m e n t o f A g r i c u l t u r a l E c o n o m i c s , M ichigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , E a s t L a n s in g . L ibby, L aw rence W ., and B u g l i a r i , J o s e p h . 1968. The R o l e o f E a s e m e n t s i n New Y o r k ' s Open S p a c e P l a n n i n g . A^ W . R e s . 2 7 2 , D e p a r t m e n t o f A g r i c u l t u r a l E c o n o ­ m ics, C o rn e ll U n i v e r s i ty , O c to b e r. __________ . 1973. E c o n o m i c s , P o l i t i c s a n d O pen S p a c e , I m p l i c a t i o n s o f th e M ichigan E x p e r i e n c e , N ovem ber. L indblom , C h a r l e s E. 1959. ’’The S c i e n c e o f " M u d d l i n g T hrough." P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n R eview , V o l. pp. 79-88. P arizek, 19, R. R. ; K a r d o s , L. T . ; S o p p e r , W. E . ; e t a l . 1967. Wa s t e w a t e r R e n o v a t i o n a n d C o n s e r v a t i o n . Penn S t a t e S tu c T ies NoT 2?T, U n i v e r s i t y P a r k , P e n n s y l v a n i a . P ierce, D o n a l d M. 1973. " M i c h i g a n ' s E x p e r i e n c e w i t h t h e Ten S t a t e s G u i d e l i n e s f o r L and D i s p o s a l o f W a s t e w a t e r . " In R e c y c li n g T r e a t e d M u n ic ip a l W a s te w a te r and S lu d g e t h r o u g h F o r e s t and. C r o p l a n d . E d i t e d by W i l l i a m E. S o p p e r a n d L o u i s T. K a r d o s . The P e n n s y l v a n i a S t a t e U n iv e rsity P re s s , U n iv e rs ity P ark, P en n sy lv an ia. Pounds, C h a r l e s E . , a n d C r i t e s , R o n a l d W. 1973a. Wa s t e w a t e r T r e a t m e n t a n d R e u s e by L an d A p p l i c a t i o n , V o lu m e 1 . E n v iro n m en tal Agency, W ashington, D .C ., A u g u s t. 183 __________ . R hodale, 1973b. W a s t e w a t e r T r e a t m e n t a n d R e u s e by L a n d A p p l i c a t i o n , Volum e ~TT. E nvironm ental P r o t e c t i o n A g e n c y , W a s h i n g t o n , D. C. A u gu st. R onald R . , and M c D i v i tt , Jam es. 1969. The A g r i c u l ­ t u r a l Economy o f t h e S o u t h e a s t M i c h i g a n ~ ~ K i v e r s B asin . USdA T e c h n i c a l R e p o r t No. E astL an sin g , M ichigan, Ju n e . Sam uels, W arren J . 1972. " W e lfa re E conom ics, Pow er, and P ro p e rty ." In P e r s p e c t i v e s o f P r o p e r ty . E d i t e d by Gene W u n d e r l i c h a n d W. Ei G i b s o n , J r T T he P e n n s y l ­ v an ia S ta te U n iv e rs ity . S c h m i d , A. A l l a n . 1972. " A n a l y t i c a l I n s t i t u t i o n a l Econom ics C h a l l e n g i n g P r o b le m s i n t h e E conom ic R e s o u r c e s f o r a New E n v i r o n m e n t . " A m erican J o u r n a l o f A g r i c u l ­ t u r a l E c o n o m i c s , V o l . 5 4 , No. 5 , D e c e m b e r , p p . 8"93w : S ch n eid er, I v a n P . , a n d E r i c k s o n , A. E a r l . 1972. S oil L i m i t a t i o n s f o r D i s p o s a l o f M u n ic ip a l W aste W a t e r s . M ichigan S t a t e U n i v e r s i ty - A g r i c u l t u r a l E xperim ent S t a t i o n , R esearch R eport 195, E a s t L an sin g , December. S ch n eid er, L e e D . ; K a s p e r , V i c t o r , J r . ; D e r r , Donn A . ; D h i l l o n , P r i t a m S . ; a n d P a r k , W i l l i a m L. 1973. I s s u e s i n Ag r i c u l t u r a l L a n d Use M a n a g e m e n t i n New Jersey. S p e c ia l R ep o rt #17, D ep artm en t o f A g r i c u l t u r a l Econom ics and M a r k e t i n g , R u t g e r s U n i v e r s i t y , February. Shaeffer, J o h n R. 1970. "R ev iv in g th e G reat L a k e s ." S a t u r d a y R e v i e w o f L i t e r a t u r e , N o v e m b e r 7. S o p p er, W illia m E . , and K ard o s, L o u is , e d s . 1973. "V egeta­ t i o n Responses to I r r i g a t i o n w ith T re a te d M unicipal W astew ater." In R e c y c li n g T r e a t e d M u n ic ip a l W a ste ­ w a t e r a n d S l u d g e T h r o u g h F o r e s t a n d C r o p l a n d " ! The P en n sy lv an ia S ta te U n iv e rs ity P re s s , U n iv e rs ity Park, P en n sy lv an ia. S t a t e o f M ichigan. 1974. " F a r m l a n d a n d O pe n S p a c e P r e s e r v a ­ tio n A c t." P u b l i c A c t 1 1 6 , May 2 3 . S tein er, P eter 0. 1969. "The P u b l i c S e c t o r and t h e P u b l i c In te re st." I n The A n a l y s i s a n d E v a l u a t i o n o f P u b lic E x p en d itu res: The PPB Sy s t e m . V o l . I", p p . 1 3 - 4 5 “ J o i n t Econom ic C o m m itte e , Corigree o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , USGPO. 184 S t e v e n s , M i c h a e l R. 1972. G reen Land - C le a n S t r e a m s . A R e p o r t o f t h e C e n t e r f o r t h e S tu d y o f F e d e r a l i s m on t h e B e n e f i c i a l U se o f W a s t e w a t e r T h r o u g h Land T r e a tm e n t . C e n te r f o r th e Study o f F e d e ra lis m , T e m p le U n i v e r s i t y , P h i l a d e l p h i a , P e n n s y l v a n i a . S ullivan, Thomas, R i c h a r d H . ; C o h n , M o r r i s M . ; a n d B a x t e r , S a m u e l S. 1973. S u r v e y o f F a c i l i t i e s U s in g Land A p p l i c a t i o n o f W a s t e w a t e r . U .S. E n v iro n m e n ta l P r o t e c t i o n A gency', W a s h i n g t o n , J u l y . R i c h a r d E. 1973. "Land D is p o s a l I I : An O v e r v i e w o f T reatm ent M eth o d s." J o u r n a l o f W ater P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l F e d e r a t i o n , V o l . 4 5 , No. 7*, J u l y . T ietjen , D r. C. 1973. " S e w a g e D i s p o s a l by S p r i n k l e r I r r i g a ­ t i o n on 1 0 , 0 0 0 A c r e s o f F a r m l a n d . " In S o i l S c ie n c e Co n t r i b u t e s t o a Q u a l i t y E n v i r o n m e n t . May 1 6 - 1 7 . Crops and S o i l s S c i e n c e D e p a rtm e n t, M ic h ig a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , E a s t L a n sin g , M ichigan. T rim bel, R i c h a r d L . ; C o n n o r , L a r r y J . ; a n d B r a k e , J o h n R. .1971. M i c h ig a n Farm Management Handbook - 1 9 7 1 , A g r i c u l t u r a l E c o n o m i c s R e p o r t No. 1 9 1 , M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , E a s t L a n s i n g , May. U .S. C o n g r e s s . House. 1973. Laws o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s R e l a t i n g to W ater P o l l u t i o n C o n tr o l and E n v ir o n ­ m e n t a l Q u a l i t y -] 9 3 rd C o n g . , 1 s t s e s s . , March. U.S. Congress. S en ate. 1971. C om m ittee on Government O perations. The E c o n o m i c a n d S o c i a l C o n d i t i o n o f R u ra l A m erica in t h e 1 9 7 0 s, P a r t 1 . __________ . 1 9 7 2 . F e d e r a l W a t e r P o l l u t i o n A c t Am endm ents o f 1972. Pu5~! LT 9 2 - 500^ 9 2 n d C o n g . , O c t o b e r 1 8 , S. 2 7 7 0 . __________ . 1973. E n v iro n m en ta l P r o t e c t i o n Act o f 1 9 7 3 . 93rd C ong., 1 s t s e s s . , A p r i l . __________ . 1974. C om m ittee on I n t e r i o r and I n s u l a r A f f a i r s . S t a t e L an d U se P r o g r a m s - S u m m a r i e s o f L a n d Use Re g u l a t i o n s m E i g h t S t a t e s . 9 3 r d C o n g . U.S. D e p a r t m e n t o f t h e A rm y , C o r p s o f E n g i n e e r s . 1971. A l t e r n a t i v e s f o r M anaging W a ste w a te r f o r S o u t h ­ e a s te rn M ichigan. Summary R e p o r t , D e t r o i t , M ichigan, J u l y . __________ . 1972a. A sse ssm e n t o f th e E f f e c t i v e n e s s and E f f e c t s o f Land D i s p o s a l M e t h o d o l o g i e s o f W a s t e w a t e r M anage­ ment . J a n u a r y . 185 _________1 9 7 2 b . The U r b a n S t u d i e s Progr'a m o f t h e Army Corps o f E n g i n e e r s . February. __________ . . 1972c. W a s t e w a t e r Management P ro g ram S tu d y P r o c e d u r e . May. 1 9 7 2 d . W a s t e w a t e r M a n a g e m e n t by D i s p o s a l o n t h e Land. C old R e g io n s R e s e a r c h and E n g i n e e r i n g L a b o r a t o r y , H a n o v e r , New H a m p s h i r e , May. __________ . 1972e. S tu dy. The C o d o r u s C r e e k W a s t e w a t e r M a n a g e m e n t Summary R e p o r t a n d C o n c l u s i o n . A ugust. __________ . 1973a. I m p lic a tio n s o f M u l t io b j e c t i v e P lan F o r­ m u l a t i o n and E v a l u a t i o h ~ o f R e g io n a l W a ste w a te r Management S y s t e m s . F e b r u a r y ! __________ . 1 9 7 3 b . The C o d o r u s C r e e k W a s t e w a t e r M a n a g e m e n t Study, A n a ly s is o f C o n c lu s io n s . A p r i l . 1974. Summary R e p o r t , S o u t h e a s t e r n M i c h i g a n W a s te w a te r Management S u rv e y Scope S tu d y . D etro it. May. U.S. D epartm ent o f th e I n t e r i o r . 1968. A P la n f o r W ater P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l , Lake E r i e R e p o r t . F ederal W ater P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , G r e a t Lakes R egion. A u gu st. U.S. E n v iro n m en ta l P r o t e c t i o n Agency. 1973. o f C lea n W ater - 1 9 7 3 . Decem ber. _________. 1974 . June. Cl e a n W a t e r , The E c o n o m i c s R e p o rt to C ongress - 1974. v U .S. W a te r R e s o u r c e s C o u n c i l . S ta n d a rd s . O ctober. 1974. A g ricu l t u r a l W h y te , W. H. 1968. The L a s t L a n d s c a p e . p a n y , G a r d e n C i t y , N.Y . P rice C o u b l e d a y a n d Com­ W illiam s, Roy E . ; E i e r , D o u g l a s D . ; a n d W a l l a c e , A l f r e d T. 1969. Fe a s i b i l i t y o f R e - u s e o f T r e a t e d W a s te w a te r f o r I r r i g a t i o n , F e r t i l i z a t i o n a n d G r o ' u n d w a t e r Re ­ c h a r ge ~ i n I d a h o . I d a h o B u r e a u o f M i n e s a n d Geo.1 o g y , Moscow^! I d a h o , O c t o b e r . W illiam s, T. C. 1973. ’’U t i l i z a t i o n o f S p r a y I r r i g a t i o n f o r W a ste w a te r D i s p o s a l in Sm all R e s i d e n t i a l D e v e l ­ op m en ts." I n Rec y c l i n g T r e a t e d M u n i c i p a l Was t e ­ w a t e r and S l u d g e t h r o u g h F o r e s t and Crop 1a r i d . E d i t e d b y W i l l i a m E. S o p p e r a n d L o u i s T. K a r d o s . The P e n n s y l v a n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s * U n i v e r s i t y Park, P en n sy lv an ia. 186 Y o u n g , R e g i n a l d , H. F . ; E k e r n , P a u l C . ; a n d L a u , L. S t e p h e n . 1 972. " W a s t e w a t e r R e c l a m a t i o n by I r r i g a t i o n . " J o u r n a l o f W ater P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l F e d e r a t i o n , V o l . 44, No. 9, September. v.