-‘o o D. ‘ . . t. . 1 tll 1 oooooo - .. q. 0 iii .. .aufi!-ueg!j “to. ‘5 :‘§3 41...... . 3...... .. .v.....::€l..u(2.t b....hw:v:..:$.¢tw. n3.1:.o L 5 . c . .. 1!..- v... i O I. afll no”. ”‘00. O ‘3' cs 90.!“ .000. 00 MOI Janka-.Pd‘nwntfi O‘NW‘V‘OQOV‘.-. 4 . ‘1!!»‘.9)|'c..0\000. ' ‘0 I ‘ - . -0. I 1.3.... ‘0 I 0‘ “1'3Ifil .H. loNUIIV. I.‘J7}|O:\ kIn'rAHWO 0‘00 5'}. .00 .. l I 0.. 0' Oh. 0“ V0 0 O I “‘9‘ 0“ 0‘ b .9 ~1¢.fl.fl .nu . ‘1‘.Qan9..¥11§¢ .1 b6 50.... . V 5 V. ’ igloo '00 O O «Q ‘00 IV... ‘ a." l a“... f O O o t . I O .. a: .0 C-Wnav! 305...“.1‘. 51%“... tbsts1.,ll.:otuui{u‘ tr sItht .P . on V -‘ . r L. - ‘ I 9 CC. 00 '0. 0.0....- ‘Q' o “‘0 gr. ‘0. .0‘1 .- C$0agi‘ ‘Ofit 4"..“Tfl... . O ‘ u ’0' ‘. .I C O .0 O o r I cl .ol‘. 0.: 0' 7‘ II .Ho ul null 0 .0 Ir... I .19 0‘. L d . .1. I“... .Q. .o.riaarxllol.- .. 10... l .130 J ‘. I Cob. I. of l. . I u. t 9 0. 0".”‘oh .ulvooa‘- .. ‘1. r . I. I ‘ 1 ¢ 7. . l. s‘ o O o o r. . .ovito . _. $ P 0 o a; a J0 . 1'... . ”Br 0 JIOQO‘ . s a s in. -L t.to.. .rf"... ‘ O . ..- 1 o 0000000000000000 ' .‘o'v'lu'. VVVVV OOOOO at. o ’ . 1".‘0 ¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢¢ 0"ltt -I ...... ."' ~I "1- . . "Ill' 5" ' . .levL' ' .II 1 inc-xt9f“..- .‘i .‘Q |¢d-0 ‘0' .6. . ‘ ' w l Ll I . o o - ,{Jk‘lozhofli 11141.5... $5.11. . . | i . .II‘I: -D'O' fill'tg?’: I. i I‘. It .' 4| ttil‘lll 00" 0.! it"s-.. .I”. It IIII‘IJ. “{‘(11- II. I‘h 5". '0. Ihlg‘ad‘u‘ 0 | I-||I\ III-ti." ‘ .0. o I: .QO... '5 _. _ II al‘ . o I . Y r 0.. - I... I..." M 0: V {.0 0' . 1". ‘0‘...rb ’ r 'I... _h-t-I {a o 0“ (Can't.-. - .0 I ‘ - ‘o - II. vfil .I I x . . 1‘11“... chi... .. 1W3}. 3'1 '1‘ - - - ‘I! 6- | i . U .10 . lIo I - ‘0‘ It '_'I. ‘1‘ V mm 5! Ii! 0 - . . V. '0 V This is to certify that the thesis entitled CRITICAL EVALUATION OF A WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY PLANNING PROCESS: A MICHIGAN CASE STUDY presented by Theodore L. Powell has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Master of‘ Science degreein Resource Development Major profe - V T 07539 MSUi: «Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution ‘ MSU RETURNING MATERIALS: PTace in book drop to remove this checkout from LIBRARIES . “ your record. FINES W‘IH be charged if book is ’ returned after the date stamped below. M’s DEB 9:54 115% *- ikfiufiuéav ‘5: ‘ tr? 3.3-; .3 w"— A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF A WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY PLANNING PROCESS: A MICHIGAN CASE STUDY BY Theodore L. Powell A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Resource Development 1982 ABSTRACT CRITICAL EVALUATION OF A WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY PLANNING PROCESS: A MICHIGAN CASE STUDY BY Theodore L. Powell The increase of federal involvement in the funding of municipal wastewater treatment plants starting in 1972 has led to examples of small communities not being able to support the operation and maintenance of the sephis- ticated and often oversized facilities built for them. One such example is the $8 million tertiary treatment plant in rural Clinton County, Michigan. The plant is Operating at 20% of capacity and operating costs exceed the facility- plan projections by 200%. This paper investigates the preparation of that facility plan and attempts to document the degree to which the planning process complied with appropriate Environmental Protection Agency guidelines. The author concludes that the guidelines were not met in at least seven major areas, resulting in the con— struction of a facility with serious cost and environmental problems. ACKNOWLEDGMENT S I wish to express my appreciation to my major pro- fessor, Dr. Leighton L. Leighty, for the advice, encourage- ment, and technical assistance he provided throughout the lengthy period of time during which this thesis was being prepared. The combination of his erudition and temporal counseling strengthened the academic discipline and con- tinuity brought to this project--qualities that had been jeopardized by a twenty-five year interruption in my formal education. I also wish to thank Dr. Eckhart Dirsch and Dr. Melvin R. Koelling for serving on my committee and extending personal interest in helping me to refine a large quantity of diverse research material into an acceptable thesis. Their assistance demonstrated the compatibility between academic research standards and the practical political and economic problems of the community and one of its citizens. I am most grateful for the patience and encourage- ment of my wife, Joyce, who assumed so capably many of my business and family responsibilities while I attended graduate school. The assurance and loyal support I received from Joyce, as well as from our four children and ii eleven grandchildren, was so sincere and enthusiastic that I had no choice but to see this project to successful conclusion. These acknowledgments would not be complete with- out thanking my mother and late father for instilling in me, by exhortation and example, a life-long desire to learn. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . vii LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . viii KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS AND NOMENCLATURE . . . . iX Chapter I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . 1 Problem Statement . . . . . . . 1 Objective of the Study . . . . . . 8 Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . 8 Research Methods . . . . . . . 8 The Law The Case Study Basis of Comparison Literature Review . . . . . . . 15 Notes--Chapter I . . . . . . . 20 II THE SETTING . . . . . . . . . 26 Notes--Chapter II . . . . . . . 31 III PREPARATION OF THE FACILITY PLAN . . . 33 Introduction . . . . . . . . 33 Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plans . 33 State Responsibilities . . . . . . 35 The Facility Plan . . . . . . . 36 1. Effluent Limitations 2. Current Flows and Waste Loads Existing Collection Systems Infiltration and Inflow Existing Treatment System 3. Future Flows and Waste Loads Population Growth Industrial Growth 4. Development and Evaluation of Treatment Options Regionalization Alternative Waste Treatment Systems Sludge Disposal Phase Construction Notes--Chapter III . . . . . . . 76 iv Chapter IV VI VII VIII PUBLIC PARTICIPATION . . . . EPA Requirements and Hearing . . Wacousta's Response . . . . . Westwinds' Response . . . . . Willow Creek Farms' Response . . User Cost Discussions . . . . Citizens Sewer Committee . . . Summary . . . . . . . . Notes--Chapter IV . . . . . EVALUATION OF COSTS . . . . . Sunk Costs . . . . . . . Present Worth Theory . . . . Capital Costs . . . . . . Phased Construction . . . . . Operation and Maintenance Costs . . Local Costs . . . . . . . Notes--Chapter V . . . . . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT . . . . Statutory Requirements . . . . "Facility Plan" Response . . . EPA Assessment . . . . . . Notes--Chapter VI . . . . . THE REVIEW PROCESS . . . . . A-95 Clearinghouse Agency . . . l. Stormwater Pollution Caused by Projected Development 2. Population Projections 3. Industrial and Commercial Projections State DNR . . . . . . . Federal EPA . . . . . . . Construction . . . . . . Notes--Chapter VII . . . . . CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . Conclusions . . . . . . . 1. Assessment of Current Situation 2. Assessment of Future Situation 3. Evaluation of Alternatives 4. Phased Construction 5. Evaluation of Costs 88 88 91 93 95 96 97 99 101 106 106 107 109 112 119 126 130 135 135 136 139 142 145 145 152 154 157 160 165 165 Chapter 6. Environmental Evaluation (A) River Water Quality (B) NEPA (C) Future Impacts 7. Review Process Recommendations . . . Notes--Chapter VIII . . EPILOGUE . . . . Notes--Epilogue . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . Interviews and Speeches . Books, Articles, Periodicals, Federal and State Public Documents and General Accounting Office Reports Case Citations . . . vi Reports 175 178 181 183 184 184 187 189 191 192 Table 10 11 LIST OF TABLES Summary of the Table of Contents of Guidance for Preparing a Facility Plan . Water Resources Commission Effluent Limitations . . . . . . . . Loading and Removal Efficiencies . . . Population Projections for the Study Area Forecasted Wastewater Flows for Plan of Study Area for Year 2000 . . . . . Regional Treatment Options Discussed in the "Facility Plan" . . . . . . Collector and Interceptor Costs . . . Phased-Construction Evaluation--Present- Worth Summary . . . . . . . Operation and Maintenance Costs . . . Monthly Charges per Residential Equivalent Revised Wastewater Flow Forecast . . . vii 10 38 49 52 54 62 111 115 120 127 169 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Map of Three-Township Area . . . . . 32 2 Facility Plan Map of DeWitt Township Industrial Zone . . . . . . . 57 3 Map of Facility Plan Regional Option #1 . 63 4 Annual Increase in Variable O & M Costs . 117 5 Inflation Factors for O & M Cost Estimates . 122 6 SCCSSA Variable O & M Costs with Selected Rates of Inflation . . . . . . . 125 7 Tri-County (Looby) Worksheet . . . . 151 viii KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS AND NOMENCLATURE the Act BOD and BOD CEQ DNR DPW EIA EIS EPA "Facility Plan" gal GAO GNP gpd Guidance I/I mgd mg/l m1 NEPA NPDES 5 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend- ments of 1972 (Public Law 92-500), U.S. Code, vol. 33, secs. 1254-1376 (Supp.III, 1973) Biological Oxygen Demand President's Council on Environmental Quality Michigan Department of Natural Resources Clinton County Department of Public Works Environmental Impact Assessment Environmental Impact Statement U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc., Con- sulting Civil Engineers, "Facility Plan for Southern Clinton County Sanitary Sewer Author— ity" (Lansing, Mich.: Southern Clinton County Sanitary Sewer Authority, November 1976) gallon(s) General Accounting Office, U.S. Congress Gross National Product gallons per day U.S., EPA, Guidance for Preparing a Facility Plan (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, May 1975) Infiltration and Inflow million gallons per day milligrams per liter milliliter(s) National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, U.S. Code, vol. 42, sec. 4321 et seq. (1970) National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ix O&M OMB PRM SCCSSA WRC WQM Operation and Maintenance U.S. Office of Management and Budget Program Requirements Memorandum (issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) Southern Clinton County Sanitary Sewer Authority Michigan Water Resources Commission Water Quality Management CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Problem Statement Passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 started what has been termed "the largest public works project in the United States."1 In order to help local governments meet the water-quality goals established by the Act, Congress provided an initial appropriation of $18 billion to subsidize the construction of municipal wastewater treatment systems. By 1972, great strides had been made in the technoloqy of wastewater treatment, and the Act reflected the prevailing philosophy that any degree of water quality could be attained and, in fact, that water pollution could be eliminated in 13 years with the expenditure of enough money.2 Consulting engineering and contracting firms re- sponded with alacrity, encouraged by members of Congress anxious to promote public-works projects in their areas, and sewer construction boomed.3 The construction projects were highly visible local solutions to what was acknow- ledged as one of the nation's most serious environmental problems. The enthusiasm of the construction industry was augmented by that of municipal officials anticipating that federal grants could lead to growing communities and ex- panding tax roles. Local officials hired engineers, financial consultants, and bonding attorneys to expedite the funneling of Federal funds into their communities.4 While the planning, preliminary engineering, and eligible facilities (i.e., treatment plants) were 75 percent subsidized, the Act did not provide funding for the extension of some of the sewer mains fundamental to the construction of large, central treatment plants, and there was no federal funding for the operation and mainten- ance of those plants. For many communities, therefore, a big public sewer project was easy to start, but hard to support. Additional provisions of the Act, and rules later promulgated by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), were intended to prevent unqualified applicants from receiving funding for expensive, high technology treatment plants. Municipalities were required to submit a facility plan that demonstrated a need for wastewater-treatment facilities and proved that all alternate solutions to water-quality problems had been investigated. The Act included the caveat that the applicant must have the "financial capability to insure construction, operating ' 5 and maintenance of treatment works." As implementation of the Act proceeded, complaints filtered back to Washington that some of the wastewater— treatment facilities being financed by the federal govern- ment were overbuilt, were prohibitively expensive to Operate, and sometimes even caused secondary environmental impacts that were as serious as the original water pol- 6 By 1977, the EPA was calling for a "mid- lution problem. course correction" in funding centralized sewer systems. EPA Administrator Douglas Costle reported that there had been "an over-dependence upon large central sewer systems."7 While national leaders discussed potential problems in general terms, the funding of specific projects contin- ued. In March of 1978, municipal officials of three townships and one city in southern Clinton County, Michigan voted to proceed with the construction of a sophisticated, $8 nfiJernl tertiary treatment plant. The project was strongly endorsed by Michigan's Water Resources Commission which offered a 5 percent subsidy, and it was approved by the federal EPA, which offered to finance 75 percent. The feasibility of the project was explored in a 239-page facility plan prepared by a consulting engineering company with EPA funding.8 The viability of the project was af- firmed by a municipal financial consultant as well as in several reviews by the EPA and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR).9 As this thesis is being written four years later, the plant is essentially complete, and municipal officials are seeking to establish funding for its operation. Sewer-use fees in one township, originally estimated to be $28.50 per quarter, are now $51.00, and are projected (by the same municipal financial consultant) to rise to $61.00 in the next year. These fees are in addition to the con- nection fee of $1,650.00 per residential equivalent, which, if paid in installments at 6 percent interest, amounts to an average of $39.88 per quarter for 15 years. In addition to the use municipality on the system has tax millage against both users four municipalities, Watertown sewer system to connect to the 10 and connection fees, each levied a special property and non-users. One of the Township, still has no plant, and has had to allocate 25 percent of its local tax revenue to pay its contractual obligations for the project.11 the area's member of Congress, bill to provide special aid to ities (Bath Township).12 The treatment plant is complex in the 108 square mile of Capital City Airport). The In December, James Dunn, introduced a another of the municipal- now the largest building area (with the exception current value of the plant and sewer system, including the extensions of the collec- tor system that have not been completed, is 11 percent of the total appraised value of the community--near1y equal to the value of all commercial and industrial prop- erty combined.13 The plant apparently achieves the water-quality goals that were predicted. However, it has incurred operation and maintenance costs for the first year that are higher than the engineering report predicted would be incurred by the year 1990. In fact, the operation expense in 1981 was nearly equal to the combined property tax col- lections for all other municipal services in the area, 14 Part of the cost including fire and police protection. problem stems from the fact that the plant is operating at only 20 percent of capacity; after all planned collector extensions are completed, only 25 percent of the capacity will be used. Population growth in the area has been less than half of that projected in the facility plan.15 It is possible that sewer-use fees, which are as much as seven times higher than those in neighboring communities,16 may play a role in limiting population influx. In light of these problems, it is of interest to explore whether the facility was built within federal planning and funding guidelines. The results of such an inquiry may prove useful not only to the taxpayers in Clinton County, but also to citizens, municipal officials, legislators, administrators, and environmentalists through- out the country who are interested in pollution-control projects. One question raised by examination of the Clinton County project is whether the planning and approval of pollution control facilities always entirely reflects the stated intent of Congress that recipients of federal funding have the financial capability to operate the plant 17 Also of concern that the government helps them to build. are other ramifications besides the obvious financial stress that may be placed on certain communities. The funding and building of expensive projects also may: 1. affect the level of other municipal services, because of the pre-emption of sewer obligations; 2. increase local opposition to future pollution- control projects in many communities, not just the one directly affected; 3. raise a "backlash" reaction, leading to reduction or abandonment of basic water treatment standards because of a public perception that such standards are excessivelg; and 4. threaten the solvency and credibility of the federal, state, and local governments for solving other environmental and social problems. ' Water-quality problems do not confine themselves to financially advantaged communities. Some communities have pollution problems beyond their financial ability to solve with current funding and technical options. Solutions different from the options now available may be needed. A first step toward solving the problem may be better identification of financially distressed applicants before grants are approved. More appropriate options for these communities to control pollution without risking financial distress might then be developed. In terms of the general structure of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, it appears that some poten- tially high risk communities are not being identified for one of three reasons: 1. the guidelines established by Congress and the EPA are not being followed; 2. the wrong guidelines have been established; or 3. the "state of the art" of engineering and financial analysis is not sufficiently advanced to iden- tify potential problems. Each of these possible explanations suggests a separate study. However, it seems most logical to conduct any search for new guidelines, or to embark upon a critical study of engineering and financial analysis methods, only after investigating the first possibility: determining the extent to which the current guidelines are actually being implemented in the planning process. An exhaustive study of this type might compare the planning of successful projects with the planning of later financially troubled projects and assess the role of cur- rent guidelines in each type of project. A less-extensive study might investigate several unsuccessful projects to discover any thread of continuity of problems between them that could have been obviated by more diligent application of the guidelines. The magnitude of either investigation is beyond the scope of this paper. This investigation is confined to a single case in which the actual use of current guidelines for planning a wastewater treatment facility will be compared to the procedures outlined in the EPA rules and regulations. Objective of the Study It is the objective of this investigation to determine the extent to which the facility planning process, and the resultant decision to construct the Southern Clinton County Wastewater Treatment Plant, complied with appropriate provisions of the Federal Water pollution Control Amendments of 1972.19 Hypothesis It is hypothesized that many of the prOvisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 were ignored or circumvented during the planning for the construction of the Southern Clinton County Wastewater Treatment Plant. Research Methods The Law The first step in determining the extent to which the Southern Clinton County Sanitary Sewer Authority (SCCSSA) planning process complied with the law is to examine the law. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (the Act) covers 89 pages, with provisions dealing with topics ranging from national-policy goals to specific local concerns, such as those related to Alaskan villages and to marine sanitation devices. Among those provisions is "Title II--Grants for Construction of Treatment Works," initially providing $18 billion to subsidize the construc- tion of wastewater treatment plants.20 Sections 201, 203, and 204 of that title establish the general purpose, limitations, and conditions for fund- ing treatment facilities, and instruct the EPA to establish appropriate rules and regulations to implement the Act. These rules were published in the Federal Register on 21 February 11, 1974, and were summarized in a very concise EPA publication entitled Guidance for Preparing a Facility Plan (Guidance) in May, 1975.22 The EPA document outlines the recommended procedure for preparation of a facility plan by a municipality or its consultants. It touches upon most of the applicable limitations and conditions of the Act, with reference to the original Federal Register citations. The process it outlines appears to be less redundant and better organized for day-to-day use and application than is the wording of the original Act. Table 1 presents a summary of the Table of Contents from that publication. Since the Guidance document is the reference recommended to consultants by the EPA, and is 10 TABLE 1 SUMMARY OF THE TABLE OF CONTENTS OF GUIDANCE FOR PREPARING IX FACILITY PLAN 1. Introduction 2. Facility Planning Area 3. Plan of Study (P08) 4. Facility Plan Step 1: Effluent Limitations Step 2: Assess Current Situation Step 3: Assess Future Situation Step 4: Develop and Evaluate Alternatives 4.1 Baseline: Optimum Operation of Existing Facilities 4.2 Regional Solutions 4.3 Alternative Waste Treatment Systems 4.4 Environmental Impacts 4.5 Additional Guidance on Evaluation Step 5: Select Plan Step 6: Preliminary Design of Treatment Works Step 7: Arrangements for Implementation 5. Public Participation 6. Evaluation of Costs 7. Environmental Evaluation 8. Plan Selection 9. Format for Submission of Plan 10. Review, Certification, and Approval of Plans 11 used by the EPA for reviewing facility plans, it is used in the present study as the basis for reviewing the applica- tion of the Act to the individual case in question. The present study relies supplementally upon the original EPA rules and regulations as promulgated in the Federal Reg- ister; official EPA policy statements and correspondence; the provisions of the enabling legislation; and interviews with the people responsible for implementing the law. Articles and comments by qualified observers are also considered as they add insight into the intended thrust or priority of specific provisions of the law. Also con- sidered is whether any provisions being studied have been removed from the discretion of the planner by operation of administrative or judicial law. The significance of the guidelines was reinforced 23 The City by a Federal District Court decision in 1976. of New Haven, Conn., had applied to the EPA for a federal grant to construct a secondary treatment plant. 0f two sites being considered, the city preferred the more expen- sive, since the other location was reserved by the city for an industrial redevelopment area. The city contended that the use of the redevelopment area for a treatment plant would cost large sums in foregone tax revenue, would seriously interfere with Optimum land use planning, and would result in other "adverse social consequences." The basis for the city's position was the provision in the EPA guidelines that: 12 The most cost effective alternative shall be the waste treatment management system determined from the analysis to have the lowest present worth and/or equivalent annual value without overriding non- monetary costs. The guidelines provide that social and environmental costs "shall be accounted for descriptively in the analysis in order to determine their significance and impact."25 Evidence presented to the court showed that the use of the city's preferred site would cost $6 million more than would the use of the redevelopment area. The EPA had rejected the plan as not being cost effective. In reaching this decision, the EPA regional administrator acknowledged the responsibility to recognize nonmonetary costs, but said that the EPA generally followed a "rule of thumb" to the effect that nonmonetary costs were not allowed to override monetary costs if the monetary differ- ence between options was more than $500,000. In finding for the city, the court declared: The guidelines call for the exercise of judgment in each instance in determining whether monetary cost differences are outweighed by nonmonetary costs. When administrators conclude that a site must be rejected because its monetary costs are more than $500,000 greater than an alter- native and that a difference of this size cannot be overridden by any nonmonetary costs, they have failed to follow their own published guidelines. . . . Under the present regulations, it [the EPAJ must make that judgment upon a careful consideration of the true significance of the nonmonetary costs, unfettered by an arbitrary unpublished rule which, unbeknown 13 to the applicant or to the Congress, dictates that at certain levels of monetary cost difference, the non- monetary costs are never to be per- mitted to prevail. Thus, in the eyes of the court, the published guidelines enjoy the status of administrative law and are not to be construed as mere suggestions or recommendations. The Case Study The process of comparing the law with the individ- ual case involves documenting the planning that was actually done by the SCCSSA. The principal source to be used for this comparison is the 239-page "Facility Plan for Southern Clinton County Sanitary Sewer Authority"27 (the "Facility Plan"). This is the document required by the Act and on the basis of which the EPA made its decision on federal funding. Much of the investigation here will be original research. The researcher will introduce corres- pondence, observations, articles, and remarks by peOple who were involved in the SCCSSA study in an effort to provide an understanding of the "Facility Plan" and its consequences. Basis of Comparison Some sections of the "Facility Plan" (e.g., the definition of the study area) follow the format of the EPA guidelines so precisely that compliance is not in question. Other provisions appear to have been ignored completely; their absence from the "Facility Plan," without explana- tion, leaves open the question of whether the plan followed 14 the guidelines in those particular respects. The majority of the items subject to comparison fall between these extremes. The degree of conformity with the law may not be readily measurable by any absolute scale: observers of different perspectives or persuasions might draw differing conclusions. However, the inability to reduce a study of this nature to objectivity does not negate the value of the inquiry. The frequency of non- unanimous decisions by appellate courts attests to the lack of consensus on many legal and social issues. In examining these issues, this researcher will attempt to present the intent of the law as interpreted by the best authority available. EPA rules and regulations, Congressional committee testimony, court cases, and opinions of recoq- nized authorities in the field will be examined from the perspective of that familiar legal paradigm, the "reasonable person," with the recognition that in some cases the best evidence may be inconclusive. In judging the rightness or wrongness of decisions made five years ago, an objective observer must weigh the evidence as it appeared at the time, recognizing the time and budgetary constraints that were present. In all fair- ness, the planning activities must be analyzed without the benefit of hindsight. If such an examination shows that the planners made a reasonable effort to comply with the pro- visions of the law at the time, the hypothesis will not have been proven. Whatever the outcome, the investigation may 15 reveal potential problem areas to be taken into account in current planning activities, and may provide insight into current pollution control pr0posals. Literature Review The first recognition by the EPA of a possible problem in the facility planning process under the Act apparently is contained in an August, 1976 memorandum from John T. Rhett, deputy assistant administrator, to his regional administrators, indicating that many wastewater treatment facilities then being funded were "too expensive for the local population." Rhett requested that facility plans be checked more closely for consideration of alter- native treatment systems, including septic tanks, and that local costs be revealed in the plans.28 EPA Administrator Russell E. Train outlined the agency's concern in December, 1976, by observing that alternate systems for wastewater treatment generally appeared "to have been overlooked, in part, because . . . [they are] not in the facility planner's ordinary vocab— ulary of solutions."29 To help expand that vocabulary, Train's successor, Douglas Costle, convened a conference of engineers, plan- ners, and municipal officials at Reston, Virginia in April, 1977. The conference was entitled "Less Costly Wastewater Treatment Systems for Small Communities"; its universal theme--from the opening remarks by Senator Jennings 16 Randolph (D-West Virginia), Chair of the Senate Public Works Committee, to the "horror stories" presented by officials from bankrupt communities and the technical papers presented in various workshOps--was that Congress and the EPA intended to stress the use of low-cost, low energy consuming, alternate treatment facilities for small communities. Decentralized systems, including individual septic tanks, were to be encouraged, and were soon to become eligible for federal grants. In four dif- ferent presentations, EPA officials iterated the serious- ness of excessively costly treatment systems. However, there was no discussion of better methods for identifying this potential problem other than mandating the complete evaluation of existing alternative treatment systems.30 The President's Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) discussed the problem in its 1977 annual report. According to the CEO, one issue in the management of the Municipal Grants Program31 was a "continued concern [@s to] whether the money is being spent in the most cost effective manner--particularly when used for tertiary treatment facilities and capital intensive facilities in small 32 The CEO indicated that there was a ten- communities." dency to build oversized facilities as early as 1974, and it quoted a General Accounting Office study of 26 advanced treatment plants, most of which were built "without a thorough analysis of whether they were needed."33 17 The CEQ's reports for 1978 and 1979 further dis- cussed communities' ability to pay for high energy treat- ment systems.34 The reports cited revised EPA rules and the Clean Water Act of 197735 as efforts to solve the problem, but the perspective of the reports is broad, and theycihinot discuss specific application of EPA guidelines. A review of Selected Water Resources Abstracts, published by the U.S. Department of the Interior, reveals no studies involving the use of the EPA funding guidelines. There are several technical studies on the use of alter- nate treatment systems, including a three-volume treatise entitled Alternatives for Small Wastewater Treatment Sys- tems published by the EPA in October, 1977 (about the same time the EPA approved building the SCCSSA tertiary treat— ment plant). Also of interest are abstracts of several General Accounting Office reports relating to wastewater-treatment plants in small communities. In 1975, the General Account- ing Office questioned the rising costs of operation and maintenance of these plants, compared them to pollution- control results, and suggested that more attention be given to cost/benefit analysis.37 Another GAO report, "Better Data Collection and Planning Is Needed to Justify Advanced Waste Treatment Construction,"38 is cited by the CEQ in recommending more careful study before the building of tertiary treatment plants. In a 1980 report, "Costly 36 18 Wastewater Treatment Plants Fail to Perform as Expected,"39 a sampling of 242 plants showed that 87 percent were in violation of their discharge permits and 37 percent were in "serious violation"--exceeding discharge limits by more than 50 percent for four consecutive months. In March and June of 1981, the GAO issued a report on an unsuccessful treatment plant in Virginia and another in Wyoming.40 These reports do not investigate the facility- planning process, but they do imply a need for further study of that process. The planning phase was addressed more directly by John M. Lishman of the National Wildlife Federation in a paper entitled, "Second Interim Review of EPA 201 Wastewater Treatment Facility Grant Program Documents."41 Lishman discussed the EPA guidelines for Environmental Impact Statements (E183), and cited several instances when the EPA decided that oversizing of treatment plants by two or three times was not an impact serious enough to require an EIS. He criticized the EPA regulation regarding preparation of a formal EIS (as opposed to the rather cursory Environmental Impact Assessment required for all projects). The regulation requires an EIS only for projects "which, on balance, have adverse effects."42 Under a literal interpretation of this regulation, Lishman argued, the EPA would require an EIS only for projects that had already been deemed unfundable, so there would never be 19 any Environmental Impact Statements. A review of Dissertation Abstracts International, under the topics of "Environmental Sciences" and "Law and Political Science" from 1974 to date, reveals Master's and Doctoral theses with topics ranging from technical subjects such as the power consumption and air pollution of waste- water treatment plants43 and biota in a lagoon system44 to extremely broad perspectives, such as "A Paradigm for Environmental Management."45 fEnvironmental Management in Local Government: A Study of Local Government Response to Federal Mandate"46 is an interesting general discussion of the effect upon local government of federal laws such as Act 92-500. The report concludes that "the vast major- ity of local jurisdictions have neither the resources nor the expertise to establish successful environmental pro- grams." The dissertation is; based upon the results of a survey investigating the political consequences of pollution control more than the financial or environmental conse- quences. 20 Notes—-Chapter I 1U.S., Environmental Protection Agency, Guidance for Preparing a Facility Plan (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, May 1975), Foreword (by James L. Agee). 2Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Amendments of 1972, U.S. Code, vol. 33, secs. 1254—1376 (Supp. III, 1973) (Public Law 92-500), sec. 101(a)(l) provides that "it is the national goal that the discharge of pollution into navigable water be eliminated by 1985." 3"Facilities construction has created a new in- dustry within our economy, providing many jobs." John R. Quarles, Deputy Administrator,-U.S. Environmental Protec- tion Agency, speech to the Water Pollution Control Federa- tion Government Affairs Seminar (Washington, April 6, 1976). The EPA estimated that pollution-control expenditures added 0.2 percent to the Gross National Product (GNP) in 1976 and lowered the national unemployment rate by 0.5 percent. It estimated (in 1976) that by 1983, pollution control would have added 3.6 percent to the GNP and 4.7 percent to the Consumer Price Index. U.S., Environmental Protection Agency, "The Macroeconomic Impacts of Federal Pollution Control Programs: 1976 Assessment"(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, January 1977). 4Highlights, the monthly engineering news magazine of the Water Pollution Control Federation, reported in March, 1976 that the $18 billion was nearly allocated and that "22 states will run out of construction grant funds by March, 1977." Sen. Edmund Muskie sponsored a bill to appropriate an additional $7 billion to the program. Highlights 13(3) (March 1976). A year later, the Muskie bill had failed; instead, $1 billion had been appropriated in early 1977. "A number of states are expected to exhaust their allotments in the coming months. . . . Program regulations specify that any states who do not obligate all of their allotment will have the balance reapportioned among the other states. . . . A substantial number of states and a large amount of money could be involved in the scramble." Highlights 14(7) (July 1977):4. 5Sec. 204(b)(l)(c). 6For instance, the village of Whitetown, Indiana attempted to file bankruptcy papers in 1976 because of 21 sewer construction and operation costs. The cost of the treatment plant reportedly exceeded the assessed valuation of the town. James L. Gamble, president of the town board, Whitestown, Indiana, address to the "National Conference on Less Costly Wastewater Treatment Systems for Small Communities" sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Reston, Va., April 12, 13, 14, 1977). 7Douglas Costle, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, address to the "National Conference on Less Costly Wastewater Treatment Systems for Small Com- munities" (Reston, Va., April 12, 13, 14, 1977). 8Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc., Consulting Civil Engineers, "Facility Plan for Southern Clinton County Sanitary Sewer Authority" (Lansing, Mich.: Southern Clinton County Sanitary Sewer Authority, November 1976). 9Chapter VII of this paper describes the review procedure in detail. 10These are the rates in DeWitt Township, the larg- est of the municipalities involved. DeWitt Charter Town- ship, "Minutes of the Meeting (Sept. 1, 1977). 11Interview with Herman Openlander, Assessor, Watertown Township, March 4, 1982. 12An Act to Amend Public Law 97-117, intr. by Rep. James DunnITR-Michigan), Dec. 29, 1981. l3Total plant and collection system values, includ- ing estimated collection extensions during the coming year and inflation adjustments for older parts of the plant and collection systems, are estimated to be $38,113,918. Total state equalized value on Jan. 1, 1980 was $170,115,190, according to Leon Thelen, Clinton County Assessor. This figure would indicate a market value for the area of $340,450,380. The market value of all industrial and commercial property in the area was $46,945,074 of that amount. Calculations by the author. 14The 1981 budget for the operation and maintenance of the plant and sewer system was $620,725. Southern Clinton County Sanitary Sewer Authority (SCCSSA), "1981 Budget" (n.p., n.d.), presented to the SCCSSA Board. SCCSSA, "Minutes of the Meeting" (Sept. 11, 1980). Total property tax 22 collection for the four municipalities in 1979 was $637,019.33, including penalties and collection fees. This does not include school millage or revenue from state or federal grants or allocations. For DeWitt TOWDShiP, 1979 prOperty tax collections were $187,838.43. ("DeWitt Charter Township Budget for 1981," adooted Oct. 27, 1980 EDeWitt Township files, Lansing, Mich;].) Property tax collections in Bath for that year were $127,526.90. (See "Proposed Budget for 1981 for Bath Charter Township," Bath Charter Township, Bath, Michigan.) Watertown Township tax revenues were estimated at $118,800 by Sy Thingstad, Treasurer of the township. (Interview with Sy Thingstad, Watertown Township, Dec. 2, 1980). Tax revenues for 1979 for the City of DeWitt were estimated by City Administrator James Spalding to be $202,854. (Interview with James Spalding, City of DeWitt, Feb. 24, 1981.) ' 15The pOpulation was expected to increase by 6,231 between 1970 and 1980. (Fishbeck et al., "Facility Plan.") The 1980 census showed the actual increase to be 2,767. (Source: Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, "POpulation and Housin Trends in the Tri-County Region by Minor Civil Division" Lansing, Mich.: Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, Dec. 17, 1980].) 16Sewer-use fees in the City of Lansing, the largest municipality in the adjoining area, are based upon water con- sumption, but average approximately $7.00 per quarter per residential unit. (Lansing Board of Water and Light, "Sched- ule of Sewerage Rates," and "Urban Water Service Rate" Lansing, Mich.: Lansing Board of Water and Light, June 1, 98(3.) l7Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Sec. 204(b) (l): "The Administrator [pf the EPA] shall not approve any grant for any treatment works . . . unless he shall first have determined that the applicant . . . has legal, institu- tional, managerial and financial capability to insure ade- quate construction, operation and maintenance of treatment works." 18In 1976, the citizens of Firchberg, Mass. refused to vote any funds whatsoever for the Operation of a new treatment plant. (Kenneth L. Johnson, Deputy Regional Administrator, EPA, address to the "National Conference on Less Costly Wastewater Treatment Systems for Small Commu— nities" sponsored by the EPA [Reston, Va., April 12, 13, 14, 1977:) . 23 19Federal Water Pollution Control Act. 201bid., Sec. 207. 21U.S., EPA, Regulations, Federal Register 39, no. 29, Feb..Ll,l974 (reprinted in U.S.,EPA,Guidance,app. B). 22 U.S., EPA, Guidance. 23City of New Haven v. Train, 424 F. Supp. 648 (D. Conn. 1976). 24"Cost Effective Analysis Guidelines," Code of Fed- eral Regulations, Ch. 40, Part 35, App. A. The concepts of Pres— ent Worth’and Equivalent Annual Value are discussed in Chapter V of this paper. 25Ibid. 26City of New Haven v. Train, 424 F. Supp. 648 (D. Conn. 1976). 27 Fishbeck et al., "Facility Plan." 28John T. Thett, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water Program Operations, U.S. EPA, Proposed Program Require- ments Memorandum (PRM) re "Eligibility of Septic Tanks and Other Small Treatment Systems" (U.S., EPA, Aug. 18, 1976). 29Russell E. Train, Administrator, U.S. EPA, memorandum re "Encouraging Less Costly Wastewater Facilities for Small Communities" (U.S., EPA, Dec. 30, 1976). 30Notes of the author (who attended the conference); printed texts of speeches made available at the conference. Notes of the author are from tape recordings of speeches. 31Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Sec. 202. 32U.S., President's Council on Environmental Qual- ity, Environmental Quality 1977: The Eighth Annual Report of the Council on EnVIronmental Quality (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, December 1977), p. 28. 33 Ibid., p. 33. 34U.S., President's Council on Environmental Qual- ity, Environmental Quality 1978: The Ninth Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quality (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, December 1978). Also, 24 U.S., President's Council on Environmental Quality, Environmental Quality 1979: The Tenth Annual Report of the Council on Environmental Quality (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, December 1979). 35Clean Water Act of 1977, U.S. Code, vol. 33, Sec. 1251 et seq. (Supp. 1976)I(Public Law 95-217), Dec. 27, 1977. 36U.S., Department of Interior, Office of Water Research and Technology, Selected Water Resources Abstracts (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, monthly, Jan. 1974 through February 1980). 37U.S., Comptroller General,"Potential of Value Analysis for Reducing Waste Treatment Plant Costd'(Washing- ton, D.C.: General Accounting Office, U.S. Congress, May 8, 1975). 380.S., Comptroller General,"Potential of Value Analysis for Reducing Waste Treatment Plant Costs" (Wash- ington, D.C.: General Accounting Office, U.S. Congress, Dec. 21, 1976). 39U.S., Comptroller General, "Costly Wastewater Treatment Plants Fail to Perform as Expected" (Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office, U.S. Congress, Nov. 14, 40U.S., Comptroller General, "EPA Actions Against the Hopewell, Virginia, Wastewater Treatment Facility" (Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office, U.S. Congress, March 3, 1981), and U.S., Comptroller General, "Wyoming Wastewater Treatment Facility Proves Unsuccessful" (Wash- ington, D.C.: General Accounting Office, U.S. COngress, June 15, 1981). 41John M. Lishman, "Second Interim Review of EPA 201 Wastewater Treatment Facility Grant Program Documents" (Washington, D.C.: National Wildlife Federation). 42Code of Federal Regulations, Ch. 40, Part 6.200 (a) (1). 3Brian J. Buia, "Wastewater Treatment Plants: Power Consumed and Relative Contribution to Air Pollution" (Master's Thesis, Lowell Technological Institute, 1974). 25 44W. Randolph Frykberg, "Biota and Environment of the Muskegon, Michigan, Combined Industrial and Municipal Wastewater Storage Lagoons" (Ph.D. Dissertation, Western Michigan University, 1976). 45Robert Van Johnston, "A Paradigm for Environmental Management" (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Southern Cal- ifornia, 1976). 46Alan H. Magazine, "Environmental Management in Local Government: A Study of Local Government Response to Federal Mandate" (Ph.D. Dissertation, University Of Maryland, 1976). CHAPTER II THE SETTING The area involved in this case study is comprised of three townships and one small city in Clinton County, Michigan. The area is rural, except for several pockets of low-density subdivisions and local shOpping facilities, built as a result of mild growth pressure from the City of Lansing, which is immediately to the south. The 1970 census (the latest available when the project was planned) indicated a population of 19,716 for the entire area, sewered and unsewered.l The first municipal sewers in the area were con- structed in the City of DeWitt in 1962, along with a primary treatment plant with a capacity rated at 0.2 million gallons per day (mgd).2 In dry weather, the plant Operated at less than capacity, but the degree of treatment was minimal. The Township of DeWitt completed the first phase of its sewer system in 1971 with the construction of a 0.8 mgd secondary treatment plant about a mile from the city 3 plant. The township system was built in response to threatened legal action by the Michigan Water Resources Commission, which had found evidence of failing septic systems, including septic tanks connected to storm drains 4 without benefit of drain fields. Although the offending 26 27 area was contiguous to, and within two miles of, the City of Lansing, the possibility of receiving sewer service from the city was thought to involve a threat of political an- nexation, so the possibility was never seriously consid- ered.5 The subdivisions generating the sewage were located as far as six miles from the treatment plant site, located on the only river in the area.6 By 1973, 41 miles of sewer lines had been installed in the Township to serve about 1,200 customers.7 Financing for the project had been arranged by the Clinton County Department of Public Works (DPW) with the full faith and credit of the county. The DPW operated the plant until the formation of the Southern Clinton County Sanitary Sewer Authority (SCCSSA), and the DPW remains the plant's owner until the county bonds are retired. The total cost of the DeWitt project was $7,422,600, including nearly $3 million in state and federal grants. The local share was financed by revenue bonds requiring payment through 1997.8 Bath Township was also required by the Water Resources Commission to build a municipal sewer system in 1974, owing primarily to the degradation of water quality in Park Lake. The first precursor to a concept of a regional plant appeared at this time, as Bath Township contracted for 0.2 mgd of treatment capacity in the DeWitt plant rather than building its own treatment facility. 9 28 The total cost of this project, to serve fewer than 600 customers, was $4 million, including a $750,000 grant from the state. Complications in the federal appropria- tion and allocation procedures at the time prevented Bath from qualifying for a federal grant. The third township in the area, Watertown Township, had no municipal sewer system prior to the facility- planning process. Thus, municipal sewer systems were fairly new in the area, and two of the three systems caused financial strain, serving small numbers of customers compared to the cost of the systems.10 Into this situation stepped the Water Resources Commission, reporting that pollution-control efforts to date had led to degradation of the water quality of the Looking Glass River. The Commission required Operators of both treatment plants to upgrade the quality of treat- ment to tertiary.11 To cope with the new standards, Bath and DeWitt Townships established the SCCSSA in December, 1975. Invitations to join the SCCSSA were extended to the City of DeWitt, which accepted immediately, and Watertown Township, which joined the authority in 1977. The four municipalities established their respective capacity requirements and agreed to pay for the administrative expenses and any capital improvements in the following . 12 proportions : 29 City of DeWitt ll.3131% Bath Charter Township 12.7273% Township Of DeWitt 55.7576% Watertown Charter Township 20.2020% Members of the governing board of the authority were appointed by each municipality. Representation was in roughly the same proportion as the amount of capacity contracted by the municipality. The SCCSSA assumed operating control of the DeWitt Township plant on Jan. 1, 1976 (Watertown was not yet committed); within two weeks, the SCCSSA hired the con- sulting engineering firm of Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc. to prepare a facility plan and apply for federal and state grants to improve the sewage-treatment system. The consultants spent nearly a year preparing the "Facility Plan" at a cost of $63,000, 75 percent of which was funded by the EPA. The consultants recommended the abandonment of the city plant and the rebuilding and expansion of the township plant to six times its capacity at the time. They also recommended the construction of several miles of new sewers in order to connect outlying areas to the new plant, to use some of the proposed excess capacity and meet what the engineers construed as 13 a federal requirement for regional treatment. It is this "Facility Plan" that will be analyzed 30 in the present study. No effort will be made to determine the technical validity of any element of the plan. The investigation will be limited to the institutional setting and the procedures used to reach decisions, as compared to the EPA guidelines. 31 Notes--Chapter II lFishbeck et al., "Facility Plan," p. 57, Table 6. 2Interview with James Spalding, City Administrator, City of DeWitt, Feb. 11, 1981. 3Fishbeck et al., "Facility Plan," p. 20. 4"DeWitt Township Resigned to Sewer System Expense," The State Journal, Dec. 18, 1969, p. 2B. 51bid. 6See map of the three—township area, Figure l. 7Stauder, Barch and Associates, municipal bond financial and marketing consultants, letter to DeWitt Township, Oct. 15, 1971. 8Clinton County Department of Public Works (DPW), Annual Report (St. Johns, Mich.: DPW, 1971, 1982, 1973, 1974, and 1975). 9Ibid. 10See documentation in Chapter V Of this paper. 11State of Michigan, Department of Natural Resources, Water Resources Commission (WRC), "Final Order of Determina- tion," June 28, 1977. See Chapter III of this paper for qater quality treatment standards. 12SCCSSA, "Clinton County Sanitary Sewage Treat- ment and Disposal System COntract," Jan. 27, 1977. 13Fishbeck et al., "Facility Plan," p. 7. 32 =.oon mueaeoome ..Hn no xomnnuem "momoom .moum mflnmc3oalmmuna mo mos .H wusmflm Cod-lilu 02.3.00v u... .53.. O :3 £325.: .33an “UZhCEHhJ‘ haul—(up: szoauc no.3: .2323 00.3.3 c.8012: cuium 5.1281” rbtaoo 20:21.0 zcuzhgm 5.05 D. I .lb. “It“ 0.0 0!... O “AUON >PZDOU 02.021453; 2(102. " >PZDOU to :6 .......:oo....aznus 10.. it...» _ / _ . . ,....,.,....\.._..2:31.. .e. finned.” —. ...l.HllU: r... . [Gel-80 \ — 205.4” / I, .0). /..%:SW OI I I #1— 1‘": ‘I’. VAUAOOV. IGGJU Egyr} GFCDGU" { NJ / ‘F. U I ,hb.§'° £0 $.20 1 CI 0- O. IIJFJO 3.05033 CHAPTER III PREPARATION OF THE FACILITY PLAN Introduction The first section of the EPA's Guidance for Pre- paring a Facility Plan document explains the purpose of the document and establishes its authority: This guidance suggests procedures for pre- paring a facility plan for publicly-owned treatment works. The plan is required be- fore a municipality may obtain a Federal grant under the Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments of 1972 to prepare de- tailed design plans and specifications, and to construct the treatment works itself. The approach used here is to describe the requirements in the applicable laws and regulations and suggest a planning process by which they can be met.1 Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plans The first requirement for a successful facility plan, according to the booklet, is to coordinate the planning process with the Section 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plan. Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act establishes an ambitious plan- ning process to coordinate all waste-treatment management in a state, within regions established by each state gov- ernor.2 In addition to considering such diverse problems as solid waste, non-point water pollution (including 33 34 agriculture), and land-use implications, the regional planning agencies are to coordinate the planning and con- struction of municipal wastewater treatment plants. Nationally, while the construction industry moved with dispatch to accommodate the $18-billion mandate of Section 201, the EPA began what became a three-year series of hearings on proposed Section 208 regulations,in an attempt to reach consensus among environmental, governmental, and industrial constituencies.? Until the Section 208 machinery was in place, the EPA had little choice but to acknowledge in its guidelines that ”completion of facility plans should not be dependent on the areawide planning process."4 Locally, the 208 planning process was administered for a three—county area (Clinton, Eaton, and Ingham) by the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. The process began in July 1975 and the final report was presented in August 1977.5 Thus, "the cart came before the horse": the areawide plan was completed nine months after the SCCSSA facility plan. The engineers seem to have complied with the guidelines' requirements that they submit the plan to the 208 agency for timely review and that they include the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission's comments and their responses (printed in Appendix B of the plan). 35 State Responsibilities The guidelines give the state a central role in the facility-planning process. The state is responsible for establishing the boundaries of the planning area and for preparing a priority list for construction grants.6 In the SCCSSA case, the Michigan Department of Natural Resour- ces (DNR) performed both functions, without controversy-- until the entire matter of priority procedures became the subject of a federal lawsuit. Number one on the priority list was the Detroit wastewater treatment plant, which provided primary treat- ment for 25 percent of the state's pOpulation. When the federal funds for 1977 were released by the Nixon admin- istration, Detroit was scheduled to absorb most of Mich- igan's share, until the EPA discovered that Detroit was a year behind in its planning and could not use $400 million. Fearful that the money might pass on to other states, several Michigan cities and planning agencies, including the SCCSSA, joined an ongoing lawsuit between the EPA and the City of Detroit and eventually convinced the District Court to allow them to use Michigan's allocation until Detroit was ready.7 The SCCSSA plant was near the bottom of the pri- ority list, but it was funded because the planning had been done and the project was ready to go when others were not. The state's responsibility to review and approve 36 the completed facility plan before submission to the federal EPA will be discussed in Chapter 8. The Facility Plan The guidelines suggest four major steps for the preparation of a facility plan, and the SCCSSA document follows these steps closely. In general terms, the first three steps involve assessing the water-quality problems in the area, including the investigation of population and development trends that might affect that quality. The final step is to propose solutions to current and antic- ipated pollution problems. 1. Effluent Limitations In the first step of preparing a facility plan, the guidelines call for a recitation of effluent limita- tions and for presentation of a copy of the applicable NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) discharge permit. The SCCSSA "Facility Plan" expands upon these requirements, presenting, in the process, the first and one of the most controversial issues in the plan. Although a detailed discussion of water-quality standards is beyond the sc0pe of this paper, a cursory outline of the more common discharge limitations may be helpful. Table 2 presents the effluent limitations estab- lished by the Water Resources Commission for the old 37 SCCSSA plant (Interim Limitations) and gives the higher standards that any new facility it expected to achieve (Final Limitations). The values given in this table are typical treatment standards for these seven common water pollution parameters. Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODS), Suspended Solids, Ammonia Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Fecal Coliform Bacteria are undesirable character- istics in effluent, so the treatment goal is the lowest feasible number. Dissolved oxygen is beneficial, so a higher value is desirable. The measure of acidity, pH, is generally no problem in wastewater treatment, unless certain industrial wastes are being treated.8 The terms secondary and terriary (or advanced) treatment are used to describe either a degree of wastewater treatment or the functional capability of a wastewater-treatment plant. While their definitions are not absolute, the "Interim Limitations" in Table 2 are comparable to secondary treatment, and the "Final Limita- tions" values can be considered tertiary treatment. Particular treatment plants may be required to meet dif- ferent standards, depending upon the receiving stream and current treatment philosophy.9 Another factor important to water quality is the flow (volume and rate) of the receiving body of water. The discharge of relatively high quality effluent into a-small stream or lake might be more detrimental to water 38 TABLE 2 WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS Final Limitations Effluent Interim Parameters Limitations May l-Oct. 31 Nov. 1-Apr.30 . . b b Biochemical 30 mg/l 10 mg/l 15 mg/l Oxygen De- . mand (BODS) Suspended 30 mg/l 10 mg/l 10 mg/l Solids Ammonia - '2.0 mg/l - Nitrogen Phosphorus Provide 80% or greater removal of the total phOSphorus contained in the untreated waste- water Dissolved - 5.0 mg/lb 5.0 mg/l Oxygen Fecal 200/100 m1 200/100 m1 200/100 m1 Coliform Bacteria pH 6.0-9.0 6.0-9.0 6.0-9.0 Flow Daily Daily Daily Measurement aInterim Limitations were in effect from date of permit issuance until June 30, 1977, at which time final limitations went into effect. b These are maximum daily discharge limitations; all other values are 30-day average discharge limitations. SOURCE: Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc., "Bath, DeWitt, Watertown Townships and City of DeWitt Facility Plan for Southern Clinton County Sanitary Sewer Authority" (Lansing, Mich., November 1976), Table 1. 39 quality than a much lower quality discharge into a large river. The literature lacks concise numerical values, comparable to "Effluent Limitations," for dilution ratios, but there appears to be some truth to the cynical adage that "the solution to pollution is dilution." The WRC permits refer only to concentrations of pollutants in the effluent (e.g., milligrams per liter, parts per million), not to total volume of pollutants (e.g., pounds or tons per day) or ratio of effluent to 10 Thus, if efficiency of a plant were river flow. increased, but the capacity were increased even more than the efficiency, the net effect on the environment could be negative. Water-quality standards in the SCCSSA case focus on conditions in the Looking Glass River. This river, with its tributaries (mostly human-made county and private drains), is the only significant natural stream in the area. (See Figure 1.) Owing to the relatively flat terrain in the area, the river flows rather slowly, averaging 17.6 cubic feet per second (cfs) near DeWitt and dropping to as little as 8 cfs during drought periods.11 This is roughly equivalent to the flow of a 27-inch pipe,12 and compares with a dry-weather flow from the then-existing treatment plants of about 1.2 cfs.l3 Therefore, the Looking Glass River can assimilate very little pollution beyond the natural decomposition of plant and animal wastes and the treatment standards for a wastewater plant 40 discharging into this river had to be among the highest in the state. Beginning in 1974, the WRC informed both the City and the SCCSSA in each discharge permit that tertiary- treatment standards eventually would have to be met.14 In the permit issued Nov. 21, 1975 to the SCCSSA, the WRC ordered that: On or before March 31, 1976 the permitee shall Obtain resolutions from all users of the wastewater treatment facilities in- dicating their intent with respect to utilization of grant assistance for pro- vision of facilities capable of complying with the conditions of this permit and shall certify to the Chief Engineer of the Michigan Water Resources Commission that when grant assistance becomes available either directly or through a "lead agency" mutually agreed upon or designated by the WRC that it will be accepted and utilized in a timely manner to complete the planning, design and construction tasks required under grant regulation. Thus, the discharge-permit procedure apparently influenced the facility-planning process beyond simply establishing numerical goals for the treatment process to attain. The wording of the WRC permits may have fore- closed deliberation On the outcome of the plan for some participants, especially local government officials, in terms of alternative treatment Options: The WRC called for the plants to be upgraded as soon as possible. The SCCSSA "Facility Plan" included a statement that the tertiary standards would be required by June 30, 16 1977. The report did not note that the requirement . . . . . 17 was conditioned upon grant aSSistance becoming available. 41 After presenting that deadline, the consultants proceeded to reach a conclusion for which there appears to be no basis in the EPA guidelines or state permit requirements: Both the City of DeWitt's Wastewater Treatment Plant and the Southern Clinton County Plant are now operating under the interim effluent limitations (secondary treatment) of their NPDES Permits. These limitations are shown in Table 1 above.* However, prior to June 30, 1977, both facilities would have to be modified in order to meet the final effluent limitations shown in Table 1. This is another reason for the investigation of a Regional Waste- water Treatment Facility to treat all of the wastewater generated within the plan of study area and eliminate the need for im— proving both of the existing facilities. Thus, before addressing the subjects of regionalization and alternate treatment (Step 4 in the EPA guidelines), the plan focused on a centralized system, including the abandonment of the existing plants. 2. Current Flows and Waste Loads Existing Collection Systems. The EPA guidelines State: An inventory of existing wastewater treatment systems should be provided, including services, treatment plants, effluent disposal or reuse methods, sludge disposal methods, and flow and waste reduction measures currently being used, if any. The "Facility Plan" gives a detailed description of both the SCCSSA secondary treatment plant, serving approximately 6,800 people in DeWitt and Bath Townships, and the primary *Reproduced as the present study's Table 2, p. 38. 42 treatment plant in the City of DeWitt, serving 2,254 people. Watertown Township had no municipal sewer system. Two private facilities, Culligan Water Conditioning and Country Village Mobile Home Court (approximately 135 people), were recognized. The discussion therefore accounts for only 9,189 people in a population (estimated in 1973) of 20,977.20 The "Facility Plan" inventories only the municipal facilities and the two WRC-recognized private facilities. If this is considered sufficient under the EPA regulations, then a facility plan for an area without a municipal treatment plant would require no inventory at all. This researcher attempted to establish a more complete inventory. It was found that a fairly small area along Sheridan Road in DeWitt Township, adjoining Lansing, was being served by the City's sewer system and, according to Lansing officials, had been connected to the City sewer system for a number of years.21 Among the few customers, however, were two mobile home parks and a small shopping center, so the number of peOple served was in excess of 600. The existence of this situation was well known locally: DeWitt Township had been involved in a lawsuit in 1972 when it attempted to force the mobile home parks to abandon the Lansing service (then at $4.00 per quarter) and 22 accept Township service (then at $12.00 per month). The residents won the case, insuring that at least 3 percent of 43 the area's total population would not need to join the SCCSSA system.23 Another omission was King Arthur's Court, a 392 space mobile home park (approximately 1,000 people) oper- ating a private lagoon system. Although the DNR described the effluent from the system as "very high quality, with negligible effects on the receiving waters of Remey- Chandler Drain,"24 the facility did not have an NPDES discharge permit. At the time of the "Facility Plan" inventory, the discharge permit was being considered in WRC administrative hearings, awaiting, among other things, the outcome of the "Facility Plan" and any subsequent construction.25 The balance of the area, accounting for 50 percent of the pOpulation, was served by private septic tanks. In discussing the lack of municipal sewers in Watertown Township, the plan makes several general comments on the tendency of some septic systems to fail and notes that some were connected illegally to storm drains. It does not evaluate the extent of the problem, except to predict that "the continued dependence on septic tank systems will impose physical limitations on future develOpment."26 One item which was not explained in this section was the "Facility Plan's" repeated reference to "a 27 building moratorium in both Bath and DeWitt Townships." Several township officials were questioned on this matter 44 for the present study. As these officials explained,28 when the WRC ordered Bath Township to construct a sewer system in 1974, Bath arranged a contract with DeWitt Township for the use of one-fourth (200,000 gallons/day) of its treatment-plant capacity. In 1976, as the Bath system was being completed, the engineers warned that existing homes might use the entire contracted treatment capacity and recommended that no construction be allowed in the sewer-service area until all existing customers were connected. Consequently, construction was delayed on two fourplex housing units and a few houses over the course of a year.29 This was at the same time that the facility-plan engineers were documenting the need for the SCCSSA plant expansion. The completion of all connections resulted in less than a 0.2 mgd flow, and as of January 1982, the flow from Bath still had not reached that figure.30 The reference to a moratorium on construction in DeWitt Township was apparently premature: Concern for diminishing sewer capacity was not apparent in DeWitt Township until three months after the "Facility Plan" was published. According to minutes of the township board meetings, the question was discussed in March 1977, prompted by a developer's request to reserve sewer capacity for 16 31 Since the management of King Arthur's proposed duplexes. Court had alleged that there was not adequate capacity for the mobile home park's connection, the township board 45 instructed the building inspector to monitor sewer connec- tions carefully, reporting to the board whenever ten new customers were connected.32 This practice was discontinued in June 1977, and no building permits were ever denied.33 Infiltration and Inflow. As the "Facility Plan" describes, infiltration and inflow can dramatically affect the performance and necessary size of a wastewater- treatment plant. Infiltration takes place when groundwater seeps into sewer collection systems through defective pipes, 34 It occurs when sewer collection joints, and manhole walls. pipes are below the water table, either because of perman- ently wet ground conditions or because of seasonal high water. The groundwater pressure can sometimes be high enough to force water into nearly indiscernable cracks. For this reason, the present state of the art of sewer construction cannot eliminate all infiltration, and municipal construction specifications allow a certain amount of it. Typically, the permissible infiltration is 500 gallons per inch of diameter per mile of pipe per 35 day. In the case of DeWitt Township, with 41.1 miles of pipe, the collection system can be expected to receive 209,915 gallons of water per day from infiltration alone.36 As sewer collection systems age, infiltration increases, sometimes exceeding the amount of sewage. Repairs, once considered impossible except by replacement, are now made by televising and grounting techniques.37 Inflow is the water that pours into the system 46 through manhole covers, combined storm/sanitary sewers, and yard, roof, and footing drains.38 Compared to infiltration, this problem is often much easier to remedy, sometimes with solutions as simple as repairing a swinging cover (check gate or "f1apper") at the end of an overflow pipe to keep the river from flowing back into the treat- ment plant at flood stage. The EPA guidelines specify that the facility plan must include a determination as to whether or not there is excessive infiltration and/or inflow (I/I) and, if so, to analyze the problem in detail and determine needed cor- 39 Both the City Of DeWitt rective action and its cost. and the SCCSSA hired separate consultants (other than Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr & Huber) to conduct this study. The "Facility Plan" summarizes the results of 40 The City plant, designed for these other studies. 200,000 gallons per day (gpd), was treating only 100,000 gpd in dry weather. In wet weather, the flow increased by 600 percent. In addition to infiltration, estimated at 280,000 gpd from the system's 16.8 miles of sewer, there was inflow from two lift station overflow pipes which allowed the Looking Glass River to flow back into the collection system. With inflow restricted only by the size of the pipe, these sources could take in 500,000 gallons a day during flood stage.41 In the Township, the 610,000 gpd flow during dry 47 weather increased to 1,880,000 during wet weather. In addition to excessive infiltration into the six-year-old collection system42 estimated at 373,000 gpd, the engin- eers found seven manholes submerged during wet weather and 40 more leaking badly.43 The consultants presented cost estimates for treat- ing the excess flow and concluded that the most cost- effective option was to correct the most obvious malfunc- tions and to plan for treating the water from the rest. For instance, they estimated that at least 35 percent of the 1,600 single family home customers had illegally con- nected footing drains to the system. While these could contribute substantial inflow during wet weather, they felt that identification and enforcement of individual cases was not worth the expense. 0 0 I 44 Their concluSions can be summarized as follows : City of Township Source of Flow DeWitt (SCCSSA) Dry-weather flow (sewage) 100,000 610,000 Projected I/I after corrections 103,500 268,000 Total flow to be treated 203,500 878,000 If the plants were not treating rainwater, neither would be over capacity: The City plant would be Operating at 40 percent of capacity, and the Township plant would be at 76 percent. While the consultants indicate that treating 48 371,500 gpd of rainwater is "more cost-effective" than identifying and correcting the sources of the I/I, they do not explicitly indicate whether this assessment is based on a recognition that the I/I problem is one of the reasons for scrapping the old plants and starting an $8 45 million project. Existing Treatment System. The EPA's Guidance publication calls for information of a somewhat-technical nature under this category, including study of existing plant performance compared to optimum performance; ade- quacy of sampling and laboratory facilities; and quality of Operation, maintenance, and personnel. The SCCSSA plan provides this information for both plants, including schematic diagrams of each treatment process and a concise efficiency analysis (summarized in Table 3). By comparing these values with those in Table 1, it can be seen that the SCCSSA plant was very close to achieving the tertiary standards of the WRC, at least for 46 Whether or not a rel- the three parameters displayed. atively minor modification of the treatment plant could have achieved those standards was not discussed in the "Facility Plan." There is authority, however, to suggest that the theory of diminishing returns applies to waste- water treatment, and the improvement of a few percentage points in waste removal at this stage could cost as much as the first 50 or 60 percent of removal.47 49 TABLE 3 LOADING AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES Influent Effluent Removal Parameter Conc. mg/l Conc. mg/l , , (#/Day)a (#/Day)a Efficiency SOUTHERN CLINTON COUNTY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT Flow, mgd 0.64 0.64 - Biochemical Oxygen 100 (535) 13 (65) 88% Demand Suspended Solids 126 (675) 15 (80) 88% Total Phosphorus 4.6 (25) 1.1 (6) 76% CITY OF DeWITT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT Flow, mgd 0.09 0.09 - Biochemical Oxygen 285 (214) 110 (165) 23% Demand Suspended Solids 252 (189) 124 (93) 51% Phosphorus 10 (7.5) 9 (6.8) 10% aConcentration, milligrams per liter; in paren- theses, pounds per day. SOURCE: Fishbeck et al., "Facility Plan," p. 24 (Table 3) and p. 29 (Table 4). 50 While the SCCSSA plant was near achievement of WRC standards, the quality of treatment at the City plant was quite low. Other than the settling of some of the sus- pended solids, treatment was practically nonexistent. The efficacy of the installation was not enhanced by the fact that the plant had been constructed in the Looking Glass River flood plain: Am.Army Corps of Engineers study includes an illustration of a lOO-year flood superimposed on a picture of the city treatment plant, showing only 48 The the top two feet of the building above water. "Facility Plan" authors unequivocally conclude that the rehabilitation of this plant, at that location, would be economically and environmentally unsound. 3. Future Flows and Waste Loads Before this section, the "Facility Plan" addresses the need for improved quality of treatment. This portion of the report establishes the need for increased quantity. The EPA guidelines call for a planning period of 20 years beyond the date when the planned facility is scheduled to begin operation49; the planners' use of the year 2000 meets this criterion. The guidelines stress that this planning period does not mean that all necessary facilities must be built immediately; the EPA suggests that phased construction is Often most cost-effective. Design flows are to be "fully justified" by projected population growth and land-use patterns, 51 "carefully coordinated with applicable state, local and regional land-use management regulations, policies and 50 The forecasting of future flows, then, involves plans." projecting population growth, as well as commercial and residential development, and relating those projections to present and future wastewater-treatment capacity. As previously discussed, the design capacity of the two existing plants was slightly over one million gallons per day. In dry weather, the plants were operating at about 70 percent of capacity. During wet weather, the flow was predicted to be 8 percent above existing design capacity, after the implementation of the I/I corrections 51 The engineers forecast future recommended in the plan. needs at 5.1 mgd, based upon projections of population growth and industrial growth. Population Growth. The population projections in the "Facility Plan" are presented in Table 4. The 1970 figures were from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, and the figures for later dates were estimates. The "Facility Plan" notes that Tri-County Regional Planning Commission projections tuna been modified, but it does not indicate how. The table shows a projected population growth of 31.5 percent from 1970 to 1980, with the population nearly doubling by the year 2000. Four months before the "Facility Plan" was com- plete, the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission issued updated projections which reduced anticipated growth during 52 .1o mantel em .o =.ouHm Sofiaeoome ..Hn no xomnsnem "momoom =.:oflmmHEEOU mgficomHm on» >9 pmuflnonusm coon m>mn wcowuownoum coflmmfififiou maflcamam choflgmm quOOUIAHB Eoum mono Imam m>onm Gnu OH msofluMHHm> mmonpe pony mmumoapcfi :cmam muwHHomme one "meoz mee.mm NmH.~m omo.m~ eno.o~ oHe.oH omm.me mm~.o mqaeoe moo.m nom.m Hmm.~ Hom.m omm.H mm~.H «MMII ouezuo mo mueo mom.m mme.e Nam.m Hoe.m oea.m ooo.m mom.a menuosoa ogouumuoz ooo.~m moa.ma mHN.eH «mm.oH oom.o Heo.o «no.4 oeonozoe noezmo ~mm.o «Ho.o Hmm.m moo.e mmm.e ~mn.m eom.~ oennozoa zoom ooom oooH omen meme oeofl oooa omofl oom< ¢¢Zz¢n rhzgu 20:240 819:..an I..! I. I .li. >PZDOU 92.01‘JFQQI 2(102. ZOPCU t0 LL20 25 II.. 0... .520 o .. .. .. {Te 1. . s ...... a a flu. _ LLHWJMI: 810.com. \\ c, c «D lilo-400 am _ 405. .000 \ — \1 I - \ .A o . _ dflfif u I I w = . P 0 I .I. ... M. . u 0 not... m Q “W“ o 40/ .oo: 0.. w u «v. a m lily m '3' 5 s A .u.\..... 1.7 //.r( I to. n US. a 'P .. W [m I g/ . . - l I ,III {III N. _ h .. ., I... .... 1 . m I h d (m Ilm mm)": a. u I x m m ... m u ( ” “.I" I u o M i m . u IN V .r Wk ,, .n X 3T— .4 M... \O/ n u m m . x v I eIIILwI "I" m m\ I Tnou» .II IIII. '* I V I IV. I u .. . ...1.. .... I..... 5.. , /\J)\ . 6 Sucks-00!: /_Z.>>O.rmm._.<>> . . s... Ethic /_ .2. 2.6.. l . I.....w so {6 . . 0 . .1 .. .u 1 0 M u s U . a U I C I I I _ m u . n u q .2. .35. a u . n u m . u a w u _ . . . . .| IL u h d A — a O u —.u D a ‘I lu.lo¢lu OI), I \J n . O 64 the SCCSSA site just across Herbison Road, but the option of recognizing the river as the logical dividing line and considering a small facility for the north half of town apparently was not considered. The remaining four options would involve splitting flow between the SCCSSA plant and existing treatment facil- ities in Lansing, East Lansing, and/or Delta Township, possibly with a separate facility at Wacousta in western Watertown Township. To understand these Options, a reader not familiar with the area should consult the map (Figure 3) and visual- ize that the majority of the sewered pOpulation is in or immediately south of the City of DeWitt and in a mile-wide corridor on each side of U.S. 27, from Lansing to Webb Road. Most of that corridor had been connected to the DeWitt Township plant several years before, making a treatment plant of some sort at the SCCSSA location quite logical. The degree of treatment at that plant might not necessarily be tertiary; for instance, partially treated effluent could be pumped to a lagoon or some other facility for final treatment. However, failure to build at the SCCSSA site would have meant abandoning or reversing the flow of 41 miles of pipe.78 The 12 mile sewer main common to all of the plans from southeastern Bath Township to the SCCSSA plant was also a fait accompli. Owing primarily to pollution in Park Lake, Bath Township had been pressured by the WRC 65 several years before to build a sewer system and, in the absence of EPA regulations, the "regional" (centralized) theory prevailed at the time:79 The "Facility Plan" proposed sewering the Dutch Hills Mobile Home Park in the newly designated industrial and commercial area at M-78 and Upton Road. The engineers planned to have the sewer extension completed by the time the park was finished. Township officials later decided that prospective revenue did not warrant the extension, and Dutch Hills was connected to the Meridian Township system, less than a mile to the south, while the SCCSSA 80 At the time when the "Facility plant was being expanded. Plan" was approved, the option including connecting the southeastern commercial area and the mobile-home park to the East Lansing plant was said to cost $158,700 per year more than the $1.14 million extension of the SCCSSA inter- ceptor.81 The remaining regional Options involved the two large areas in Watertown Township that were being con- sidered for sewer service. The first was the Village of Wacousta, with a population of about 900. Option 7 in Table 6 postulated a small alternative treatment system (capacity 0.125 mgd), but the installation of five miles of interceptor with two lift stations (the flow being up— stream all the way) was determined to be more cost 82 effective. (The Wacousta portion of the plan was later modified, as will be discussed later.) 66 Serving the Watertown industrial area by installing several miles of force main to the SCCSSA site was also determined to be less expensive than other options, such as connecting to the Lansing system. In discussing the possibility of directing that flow to the south (Option 9), the plan refers to the township having to purchase capacity in both the Delta Township plant and the City of Lansing plant. Although no estimate is given for the cost of this investment, the plan's authors conclude that the total cost would be higher than the cost of treatment in DeWitt Township.83 In view of the fact that the City of Lansing at the time was providing sewer service to the Capital City Airport, less than a mile from the proposed Watertown 84 service area, the reason for the high cost of service from Lansing was investigated for the present study. Although 85 the City of the engineers had no available records, Lansing had a reasonably complete history of prOposals to serve Watertown. According to city records, Fishbeck et al. performed 86 The study a sewer study for Watertown Township in 1970, proposed the sewering of six sections (3,840 acres) in the southeastern corner of the township, including installing approximately seventeen miles of collectors, four lift stations, and a force main to the SCCSSA plant (then the DeWitt Township plant), three miles to the north. This under- taking was to serve a then-current population of 688 persons 67 and 13 commercial or industrial customers, with projected growth to nearly 1,000 people and 336 industrial workers by 1990. The study suggested that the whole township share the cost,87 because the project would benefit the entire community. At about the same time, the City of Lansing was preparing an "Official Pollution Control Plan" for the WRC, including long-range forecasts of sewer requirements in the immediate area. The City's consulting engineer re- viewed the Fishbeck study in 1871 and commented that up to 1,200 people in Watertown could be served by Lansing by extending 2,000 feet of 8-inch sewer at a cost of $50,000.88 The engineer also recommended, however, that if the City wanted to accommodate very substantial growth in Watertown (i.e., on the order of 25,000 peOple), a new 27-inch inter- ceptor should be constructed to the City plant, less than two miles away, at an estimated cost of $500,000.89 ‘In December 1972, the Watertown Supervisor informed the City of Lansing that his township was pursuing a state grant for the DeWitt township plan, and the WRC had told him that the township should investigate connecting to the City of Lansing.90 There is no record in the city's file of a written response, but the file indicates that the city was tentatively reserving sewer capacity for 3,840 acres in Watertown Township, withaapopulation projection that had grown by then to 70,000.91 The City Engineer surmises that 68 this information was passed along verbally to Watertown, along with the news that the extension of city sewers required the political annexation of the service area.92 Shortly thereafter, the city changed its annexa- tion policy, and Watertown requested a clarification of the new policy.93 By Jan. 2, 1974, the annexation issue was settled, and the city sent a specimen contract to Watertown, outlining a sewer—extension policy without political annexation. The city also explained that new service areas would be assessed a one-time "Equity Invest- ment Fee" which would represent the area's pro-rata share of the city's investment in the existing treatment plant. In 1974, the charge would have been $1,117.66 per acre, in addition to the cost of any new interceptors, lift stations, or other equipment.94 Township officials referred the city's letter to Fishbeck et al., which responded on Jan. 22 with a rec- ommendation to the township. The firm pointed out that the city proposed to serve the same area being considered by the Clinton County plan, and reported that the WRC "leaned toward" service from the City of Lansing, con- tingent upon final cost analysis. Use fees, they said, would be less than prOposed township use fees, but there would be additional costs: Generally all sewer costs will be paid for by the Township besides a charge of about $1,100 per acre (Utility Equity Investment Fee). If this fee is projected 69 for the six sections, the total cost would be about $4,200,000. Admittedly, the Township would have to share in the costs of expanding the County's DeWitt plant, but it doesn't seem that the costs would be that high even at ul- timate development. Also, the $1,180 fee is subject to change each year. 5 The engineer went on to suggest that the township decline the offer and proceed with plans to connect to the DeWitt plant. A week later, the township did exactly that. In a letter dated Jan. 28, the Supervisor informed the city that the township would not be needing Lansing's sewer service.96 Watertown officials do not recall any efforts to compare the prOposed $4.2 million city fee with the cost of a township plant of comparable capacity. The city's charges reflected a contemplated service-area population of 70,000; the estimated cost of the SCCSSA plant, devel- Oped a few months later in the facility plan, was $8 million to serve a total population (If exactly half that number.97 During 1974, the engineers met with the City of Lansing one more time.98 Neither the township records nor the recollection of township officials reveal any serious study of the Lansing proposal. Township officials expressed a lingering suspicion of Lansing's political motives.99 Although they knew that the city had drOpped its annexa- tion prerequisite, they felt that reliance upon city utilities would eventually lead to political compromise, if 70 not annexation.100 Alternative Waste Treatment Systems. The guide— lines require that alternative methods be considered for both collection and treatment. Regarding collection, the EPA's Guidance states: Alternative waste treatment for each service area should be considered in addition to the regional questions. For treatment systems, the guidelines require a brief investigation of (a) some alternative treatment and discharge system, (b) treatment and reuse, and (c) land application. Conceding that the current state of the art in alternative treatment systems precludes their universal application, the EPA states: Options for treatment and discharge should, as appropriate, take into ac- count and allow to the extent practicable for the application of technology at a later date to provide for the reclaiming or recycling of water or otherwise elim- inate the discharge of pollutants.1 2 Alternative treatment systems involving waste recycling were receiving a lot of interest from the news media and the EPA at the time when the "Facility Plan" was 103 being develOped. The giant land treatment system in 104 Muskegon, Michigan had recently been completed, and plans were being made to make septic tanks and other small, non-conventional systems eligible for federal grants.105 Not all internal EPA procedures had kept pace with public pronouncements, however: One suggested facility plan 71 format in the Guidance publication lacked any reference to 106 alternative treatment, as did the "Facilities Plan Review Sheet" used by Region 5 EPA personnel to assess facility plans.107 The SCCSSA plan containedrubmention of alternative collection systems. Continuing the policy established in the inventory section, the plan ignored existing septic- tank and lagoon systems, as well as the potential flexibil- ity, reduced infiltration, and reduced pumping costs that might be associated with individual or sub-regional collection systems. The plan did include study of a land-disposal system that would treat all of the sewage collected by the centralized collection system. The system reviewed by the planners consisted of two eight—acre aerated lagoons, four storage lagoons of 185 acres each, and 706 acres for spray-irrigation fields. With a buffer zone of 800 feet around the entire operation, total land area would be 108 The plan included the prOposition that 2,050 acres. after the raw sewage was collected and pumped to a cen- tral point (such as the SCCSSA plant), it would be pumped another 10 miles to the lagoon system, the location of which was not specified.109 Under these conditions, the alternative system proved more expensive than the conventional system.110 The aggregation of this much land in the area would have 72 involved the displacement of 10 to 21 families, the plan concluded, making this option politically and environ- mentally unattractive. Sludge Disposal. While the Guidance document devotes only six lines to sludge disposal, the "Facility Plan" contains 28 pages of detailed analysis of 19 dif- ferent solids-handling alternatives. As the "Facility Plan" explains, the higher the degree of wastewater treatment provided, the larger the amount of solid residual that must be handled. This is due not only to the pollutants originally discharged into the water but also to the chemicals used at the plant to precipitate those pollutants back out of the water. The 5.1 mgd prOposed plant was expected to produce 18,000 pounds (dry weight) of sludge per day. However, sludge coming from the treatment process can be as much as 97 percent water, so the sludge-handling process initially involves many times the dry—weight tonnage before the percentage of water is reduced to manageable proportions.111 Thus, the prOposed SCCSSA plant would have to handle approximately 70,000 gallons of dark, odoriferous slurry each day--a process that, as the "Facility Plan" explains, "can be the single most complex and costly operation in a municipal wastewater treatment system."112 The various options involve one or more of the following . 113 ba51c processes : 73 l. Sludge thickening: Settling by gravity is the most common form. 2. Sludge stabilization by digestion: This allows the biological process, started in the secondary- treatment phase, to continue until the natural decomposition is fairly complete. 3. Sludge conditioning: adding chemicals such as lime to coagulate and separate some of the solids. 4. Mechanical dewatering: extracting water by vacuum or pressure processes. 5. Reduction: incineration after other methods have reduced the water content to the point where the solids will support combustion after the incinerator has been heated to a very high temperature. Most treatment techniques involve more than one of these principles. Even the simplest systems, such as drying the sludge in the sun on sand beds (as at the old SCCSSA plant) or applying it to field as a soil condition- er, require some pre-treatment. Unlike the fairly narrow range of cost estimates developed for the ten regional treatment plant options, the estimated annual cost of solids-handling alternatives in the "Facility Plan" range from $253,500 to $609,400.114 Incineration, with the prerequisite dewatering process, was the most expensive. Application to farmland was estimated at $442,000 per year, and deemed economically infeasible, 74 mainly because of the cost of building a storage facility for six winter months' production of 267 tons of liquid material per day. The process judged most cost-effective, and rec- ommended by the authors of the "Facility Plan," was modification of the existing SCCSSA plant withaacombination of sludge thickeners, chemical conditioning, vacuum fil- tration, and final disposal in a landfill. After the pre-disposal process described, the sludge would still be 75 percent to 80 percent water and would amount to 63 tons per day.115 The "Facility Plan" authors discussed the environ- mental impact of the sludge-disposal methods, comparing the potential air pollution problems of incineration with the more extensive land use required for land disposal. There was some criticism of this section during the public review phase for not identifying the location of the pro- posed 45 acre landfill and for not considering the impact of that facility. However, in terms of the EPA Guidance requirements, no topic received more attention in the docu- ment than the matter of sludge disposal. Phase Construction. The guidelines suggest that phased construction be considered when there are "uncer- tainties of projected long-term wastewater flows."116 Reviewing previous sections of the plan we find that: l. the proposed treatment plant was being designed 75 for five times the combined capacity of the two old plantsll7; 2. 80 percent of that capacity was for projected growthlla; and 3. 35 percent of that growth was to be industrial development that had not been identified and was projected to take place in zoned areas that are not in the sewer district.119 In spite of the uncertainty inherent in these con- ditions, no consideration was given in the "Facility Plan" to phased construction of the treatment plant. After reviewing the plan, the EPA requested an analysis of phased construction; the engineers developed a six-page study which showed that option to be more expensive.120 (The results of that study hinged a great deal on the planners' choice of interest and discount rates over 20 years; these will be discussed later under "Costs.") 76 Notes--Chapter III U.S., EPA, Guidance, p. l. The preparation of the facility plan is referred to in EPA regulations and publications as Step I. The preparation of detailed design plans is Step II, and the actual construction of a facility is Step III. 2Federal Water Pollution Control Act (PL 92-500), Sec. 208,—7Areawide Waste Treatment Management." 3The enabling legislation provided that the federal subsidy for 208 planning would be reduced from 100 percent to 75 percent after two years. Some planning areas had not been designated by the EPA in time to receive the full subsidy and the planning agencies responsible for such areas filed suit to force payment of the full amount. The Federal District Court (D.C.) held for the planning agencies, ruling that "time limits . . . should not be invoked . . . where local planning agencies could not apply for loo-percent funding before the end of fiscal year 1975 solely because of failure of the EPA to meet statutorily mandated deadlines." National Association of Regional Councils v. Costle, 564 F. 2d 583 (1977). In 1976, Richard A. Hellman, minority counsel (Re- publican) for the Senate Committee on Public Works, reported to a Washington conference, "After some early confusion, EPA is now committed to a full scale E208 regional planning effort." Highlights 13(5) (May 1976 . The General Accounting Office (GAO) was not as positive, after two more years: "Comprehensive planning has been conspicuous by its absence throughout the history of Federal involvement in wastewater management." (U.S., Comptroller General, "Sixteen Air and Water Pollution Issues Facing the Nation" (Washington, D.C.: General Accounting Office, U.S. Congress, Oct. 11, 1978).) 4U.S., EPA, Guidance, p. 2. 5Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, "Tri- County Regional 208 Water Quality Management Plan" (Lansing, Mich., August 1977). 6The state project priority system was established by Section 205.9(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and implemented by detailed rules promulgated in the Federal Register 39(29) (Feb. 11, 1974), Sec. 35.915. The state is to consider "the severity of pollution problems, 77 the population affected, the need for preservation of high quality waters, and national priorities as well as total funds available, project and treatment works sequence and additional factors identified by the state in its priority system." 7U.S. v. City of Detroit, et al., U.S. Dist. Ct., Eastern Div. of Mich., Civil Action #7-71100. (Order issued Sept. 14, 1977; case continuing under administra- tive injunction; no final opinion as of April 1, 1982.) The initial court opinion of Sept. 14, 1977 enjoined the EPA from "reallocating or otherwise disposing of dis- impounded F.Y. Fiscal Yeafi] 1976 Federal Grant Funds in the amount of $ 99,055,250 to any other state." That order left Open the possibility of the money being used by other municipalities with the suggestion that "the state may apply to the Court for access to the above reserved Federal Water Pollution Control Act Funds for distribution in accordance with existing applicable Federal and State laws and regulations." This was later done (interview with Fred Cowles, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, April 2, 1982). 8Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, "Water Quality Standards," Water Quality Memo No. 4 (Detroit: n.d.). 9Since the issuance of the Water Resources Com- mission (WRC) order for South Clinton County (1977), Michigan water quality standards have been reduced to 4 mg/l for dissolved oxygen and the acceptable fecal- coliform count has been increased to 1000 organisms per 100 ml. The latter change apparently recognizes that rivers often exceed the 200/100 ml standard due to the presence of waterfowl and animals. The higher standards for wastewater may be continued, however. See Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Environmental Ser- vices Division, "Looking Glass River Study Below DeWitt" (Lansing, Mich., March 1979). 10Michigan WRC, "Authorization to Discharge Under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System" (Lansing, Mich., Nov. 21, 1975). llDNR, "Looking Glass River Study Below DeWitt," p. 6. See also Fishbeck et al., "Facility Plan," p. 14. 12Comparison is based on "Kutter's Formulae." (Ernest W. Steel, Water Supply and Sewerage (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1960), p. 368.)’ Applicability of 78 formulae confirmed by Greg Huntington, Snell Environmental Group (interview with Greg Huntington, Lansing, Mich., March 20, 1982). 13The plant ultimately built has a capacity of 5.1 mgd, which translates to 7.9 cubic feet per second (cfs), nearly equal to the total drought flow of the river. 14Michigan WRC to City of DeWitt, March 19, 1974. 15Michigan WRC, "Authorization to Discharge." 16Fishbeck et al., "Facility Plan," p. 5. 17Michigan WRC, "Authorization to Discharge," p. 8, states that if "grant assistance will not be available in a timely manner, this permit may be revised to establish reasonable specific dates by which various planning, design and construction tasks shall be completed." 18Fishbeck et al., "Facility Plan," pp. 6-7. While the quotation refers to "another reason" for the investigation of a regional facility, there is no apparent reference earlier in the report to any first reason(s). 19U.S., EPA, Guidance, p. 6. 20Fishbeck et al., "Facility Plan," Table 6. 1Interview with George Swanson, City Engineer, City of Lansing, March 12, 1981. Customers' records are not filed or cross-referenced by political subdivision, so an exact count and dates of beginning service were not available. 22Dr. Milton Goodman and Leonard Goodman (d.b.a. Kristana Mobile Village) v. Township of DeWitt and City of Lansing, Clinton Cty. Cir. Ct., Docket No. 1136, 1972. 23Another area in DeWitt Township on the south side of Capital City Airport is also connected to the City of Lansing, but this is excluded from the "Facility Plan." Fishbeck et al., "Facility Plan," Fig. 1. 24John Bohunski, Water Quality Division, Michigan DNR, Memorandum to Michigan Department of Public Health, Jan. 16, 1978. 79 25The WRC formally denied the discharge permit in May 1979, withthe observation that the SCCSSA tertiary plant was under construction and that township officials had "strongly urged them" to deny the permit. See WRC, "Notice of Intent to Deny Permit," Re King Arthur's Court, Inc., May 14, 1979. 26Fishbeck et al., "Facility Plan," p. 41. 27Ibid., pp. 107, 111, 115, 193, and 206. 8Interview with Thomas Woodruff, former Super- visor, Bath Township, April 10, 1982; interview with Catherine Reed, Treasurer, DeWitt Charter Township, March 22, 1982. 9Interview with Woodruff. 30SCCSSA, "Plant Influent Sheet" (monthly Operating report) for October 1980 through January 1982, files of SCCSSA, DeWitt, Mich. 31DeWitt Charter Township, "Minutes of the Meeting," March 14, 1977; interview with Raynold St. Pierre, DeWitt Charter Township Zoning and Building Administrator, March 22, 1982. 32DeWitt Charter Township, "Minutes of the Meeting," April 11, 1977. 33DeWitt Charter Township, "Minutes of the Meeting," June 20, 1977. 34U.S., EPA, "Final Construction Grant Regulations," Federal Register 39(29) (Feb. 11, 1974), sec. 35.905.9. 35Interview with Roger Slykhouse, P.E., Slykhouse & Associated Consulting Engineers, Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 21, 1980. 36Fishbeck et al., "Facility Plan," p. 69. 37A television camera, six inches in diameter, is pulled through the pipe to find leaks. The camera is followed by a deflated "balloon" with rubber hoses at- tached. When sophisticated measuring equipment determines that the balloon is at the leak, the hoses eject epoxy 80 cement toward the crack or hole while the balloon inflates to force the cement into any voids. This is an expensive process. (See Sewer Specialists, Inc., "The Problem Solvers" (brochure) (Owosso, Mich., n.d.).) 38 35.905.11. U.S., EPA, Federal Register 39(29), Sec. 39U.S., EPA, Guidance, p. 7. 40They are Capital Consultants, Inc., "Infiltration/- Inflow Analysis for the City of DeWitt, Clinton County, Michigan" (Lansing, Mich., August 1976), and Kyes Engineer- ing Associates, "Infiltration/Inflow Analysis for DeWitt Township" (Lansing, Mich., 1976). 41Fishbeck et al., "Facility Plan," p. 64. 42Construction of the first phase of the DeWitt Township sewer system started in the spring of 1970. (See Mick and Rowland, Consulting Engineers, "DeWitt Township Report of Sewers, Phase II" (Angola, Ind., May 1971). 43Fishbeck et al., "Facility Plan," p. 68. 441bid., pp. 67 and 73. 45As of this writing, four years after the veri- fication of the I/I problem, the $8 million tertiary treatment plant has been completed, but the I/I correc- tions, estimated by Fishbeck et al. at $148,064, have not been done. On May 11, 1981, the new plant's operators recorded a flow of 2.96 million gallons, nearly four times the average daily flow in July. (See SCCSSA, "Plant Influent Sheet," May and July, 1981, files of SCCSSA, DeWitt, Mich.) Since the City was still not connected to the plant at that time, and very few new customers had been added to the system since the 1.88 mgd flow reported in the I/I study, the extra one million gallons indicate either a continued deterioration of the now lZ-year-old collection system or that the I/I problem was more serious than the I/I study recognized. 46Note also that the water coming into the SCCSSA plant has less than half the concentration of pollutants present in the influent to the city plant. The reason is that the city system takes on water when the river rises, while the township system had a certain amount of 81 infiltration all of the time. Interview with Roger Slyk— house, P.E., Slykhouse & Associates Consulting Engineers, Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 21, 1981. 47Ibid. As an example, a Union Carbide Corp. study indicated that a 50-percent increase in investment would be required to raise the pollution-removal efficiency of its operations from 93 percent to 98 percent. A parallel and even more pronounced trend was anticipated in the area of Operating expense. (Warren M. Anderson, Vice President, Union Carbide Corp., Highlights 12(5) (May 1975). 48U.S., Army Corps of Engineers, "Floodplain Information, Looking Glass River, Clinton County, Michigan" (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1969). 49U.S., EPA, Guidance, p. 7. SOIbid., p. 8. 51The old plants and the new one were designed for short-term impacts of 150 percent above Optimum capacity. (SeeFfishbeck et al., "Facility Plan," p. 23.) 52Tri—County Regional Planning Commission, "Tri- County Regional 208 Water Quality Management Plan, Interim Outputs" (Lansing, Mich., August 1976). 53Thomas P. Looby, Engineer/Planner, Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, to Fishbeck et al., Nov. 5, 1976; and Mike Mikula, Engineer, U.S. EPA, "Facility Plan Review Sheet" re SCCSSA (Chicago, March 2, 1977). 54Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, "Popula— tion and Housing Trends" (Lansing, Mich., December 1980). 55Fishbeck et al., "Facility Plan," p. 59 (Table 8). 56At the time the plan was being discussed, a study of the building permits issued in DeWitt Township from 1975 to Sept. 1, 1977 by the author showed that 44 percent of the permitted buildings were in the unsewered area. All three townships contain expensive homes built in scenic wooded areas, far removed from the prOposed sewer district. Com- pare Fishbeck et al., "Facility Plan," p. 50: "The pro— vision of water, sewer, and solid waste facilities will stimulate the form and magnitude of development within the Townships." 82 57Fishbeck et al., "Facility Plan," p. 58. 58Interview with Roger Slykhouse, P.E., Slykhouse and Associates Consulting Engineers, Grand Rapids, Mich., Jan. 21, 1981. 59Fishbeck et al., "Facility Plan," pp. 31, 32. The acreage figures are presented in Table 5 in the "Facility Plan" and are described as the "specific areas zoned for industrial and commercial development. These prOposed land-use areas will be used to calculate future wastewater loads and flows." 60Interview with Reynold St. Pierre, DeWitt Charter Township Building and Zoning Administrator, Feb. 1, 1981. 61Fishbeck et al., "Facility Plan," p. 30. 62Interview with Richard Kiebler, President, Michigan Beef Co., Sept. 8, 1980. 63Interview with Raynold St. Pierre, DeWitt Charter Township Building and Zoning Administrator, Feb. 1, 1980. 64Ibid.; interview with Catherine Reed, Treasurer, DeWitt Charter Township, March 22, 1982; interview with Thomas Woodruff, Service Coordinator, DeWitt Charter Town- ship, April 12, 1982. 65Interview with Raynold St. Pierre, DeWitt Charter Township Building and Zoning Administrator, Feb. 1, 1980. 66Interview with James Spalding, City Adminis- trator, City of DeWitt, Feb. 1, 1981. 67Ibid. 68Interview with Herman Openlander, Watertown Charter Township Assessor, March 31, 1982. Watertown officials confer industrial zoning upon land by the sec- tion. Most of the southeast three sections not occupied by the cemetery, airport right-of-way, or highway is industrial or commercial. Clinton County officials used somewhat the same approach in Bath, but DeWitt did its zoning on a parcel-by-parcel basis. 83 691bid. 70Fishbeck et al., "Facility Plan, p. 224 (Table 25). 71Interview with Tom Walsh, Clinton County Building and Zoning Administrator, St. Johns, Mich., April 12, 1982. 72DeWitt Township: 254 commercial, 330 industrial; City of DeWitt: 86 total; Watertown: 1,300 total; Bath: 73DeWitt Township: 100 commercial; City of DeWitt: six commercial; Watertown: 90 total; Bath: 30 total. 74Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, Re ional Data Book (Lansing, Mich.: Tri-County Regional Planning CommiSsion, 1969) reported a total of 1,117.78 acres zoned commercial and industrial in the four municipalities. The 227-acre estimate was reported in "Tri-County Regional 208 Water Quality Management P1an--Interim Outputs" (Lansing, Mich., August 1976). 75U.S., EPA, Guidance, p. 9. 76U.S., EPA, Guidance, p. 9. 77Fishbeck et al., "Facility Plan," pp. 6, 23, 28, 33. Among the references on page 28: "Federal and State grant funds would be easier to obtain for a regional plant than [for] two separate facilities." 78When the first DeWitt Township system was planned in 1969, there was a suggestion that the southern two miles of the Township be annexed to, or contract with, the City of Lansing for sewer service. There was service available at the City limits, so the longest piping dis- tance would have been two miles with gravity flow, instead of six miles north through a series of pumping stations. The proposal was politically unpopular and was not ex- plored. ("DeWitt Township Resigned to Sewer System Expense, The State Journal, Dec. 18, 1969.) 79June Bartlett, Bath Township clerk at the time, argued for considering a local lagoon system. (Interview with June Bartlett, Aug. 14, 1976.) EPA funding was not available at the time; the Township has been trying ever 84 since to get a retroactive grant from the federal govern- ment. Its efforts seem to have succeeded: U.S. Code, PL 97-117 (Offered by Rep. James Dunn, R-Michigan), Dec. 29, 1981. 80Interview with Thomas Woodruff, former Super- visor, Bath Township, April 12, 1982. 81Fishbeck et al., "Facility Plan," p. 105 (Table 14). 821bid. 83Ibid. 84Ibid. 85Interview with Thomas E. Doan, P.E., Fishbeck et al., Grand Rapids, Mich., February 1980. 86Fishbeck, ThompsonSiCarr, Civil Engineering Consultants, Inc., "Engineering Report on Sanitary Sewer Collection System and Sewage Treatment Facilities, Water- town Charter Township, for Clinton County Department of Public Works" (August 1970). 87Detailed cost figures could not be found in the Lansing files, but the study mentions local costs, after state and federal grants, of $1.5 million. 88McNamee, Porter and Seeley, Consulting Engineers, Ann Arbor, Mich., to City of Lansing, Nov. 10,1971, City of Lansing, Public Service Dept., files. 891bid. 90Herman Openlander, Supervisor, Watertown Charter Township, to City of Lansing, Dec. 13, 1972, City of Lans- ing, Public Service Dept., files. 91City of Lansing, "Utility Equity Investment Report" (Lansing, Mich., n.d.). 92Interview with George Swanson, City Engineer, City of Lansing, April 8, 1982. 85 93Herman Openlander, Supervisor, Watertown Charter Township, to City of Lansing, June 10, 1973, City of Lansing, Public Service Dept., files. 94City of Lansing, "Utility Equity Investment Report" (Lansing, Mich., 1976). 95Fishbeck, Thompson & Carr, Civil Engineering Consultants, Inc., to Watertown Charter Township, Jan. 22, 1974, City of Lansing, Public Service Dept., files. 96Herman Openlander, Supervisor, Watertown Charter Township, to City of Lansing, Jan. 28, 1974, City of Lansing, Public Service Dept., files. 97Fishbeck et al., "Facility Plan," p. 59 (Table 8). 98The meeting was reported to the township in a letter from Fishbeck, Thompson & Carr, Civil Engineering Consultants, Inc., Nov. 25, 1974; City of Lansing, Public Service Dept., files. 99The City of Lansing had been forced by the state to drop its annexation policy, and the WRC had pressured the city to consider outlying areas as part of the WRC concept of regionalization. Contrary to the suspicions of some township officials, the city's interest was so benign that the city engineer was not aware that Watertown had become part Of the SCCSSA until informed by this researcher three years after the fact. Interview with George Swanson, City of Lansing Engineer, March 12, 1981. 100Interview with Vaughn Montgomery, Supervisor, Watertown Charter Township, April 1, 1982. Montgomery commented that the uncertain role of the State Municipal Boundaries Commission, involved for several years in litigation over jurisdiction of the Capital City Airport, added to the difficulty of guaranteeing municipality sovereignty. 101U.S., EPA, Guidance, p. 10. EPA regulations define alternative as anything that is not conventional. A conventionalvsystem is "a collection and treatment system consisting of minimum size (6 or 8 inches) or larger gravity collector sewers, normally with manholes, force mains, pumping and life stations and interceptors leading 86 to a central treatment plant employing conventional con- cepts of treatment. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 40, Sec. 35, Ch. 5, Appendix E.) 102U.S., EPA, Guidance, p. 11. This appears to be the only reference in the document to the zero-pollution goal expressed by Congress in the first section of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Section 101(1): "It is the national goal that the disEharge of pollutants into the navigable waters be eliminated by 1985." 103See RussellEL Train, Administrator, EPA, apeech to the "EPA Technology Transfer Design Seminar,“ Atlanta, Georgia, April 23, 1975; Train, remarks to the "Fifth Annual Composting and Waste Recycling Conference," April 25, 1975; Train, remarks at the dedication of the Muskegon County Waste Management System, July 24, 1976. 104U.S., EPA, Wastewater: Is Muskegon County's Solution Your Solution? (Chicago: U.S. EPA, September 1976). The system treated 27 mgd on 10,850 acres. 105John T. Rhett, Deputy Assistant Administrator, U.S. EPA, "Eligibility of Septic Tanks and Other Small Treatment Systems," draft copy of prOposed Program Require— ment Memorandum, released Aug. 16, 1976. 1060.S., EPA, Guidance, Chapter 9. 107U.S., EPA, "Facilities Plan Review Sheet," Form L-O (Rev. Nov. 30, 1976). 108Fishbeck et al., "Facility Plan," p. 177. loglbid., p. 179 (Table 18). llOIbid., p. 209 (Table 24). lllIbid., p. 120. 112Ibid. The problem was described as "The Achilles Heel of the Treatment Cycle" by Prof. Richard S. Engelbrecht in Highlights 12(5) (May 1975):3. 113Fishbeck et al., "Facility Plan," p. 121. 87 114Ibid., p. 133 (Table 15). 115Ibid., p. 135. The magnitude of the sludge- disposal problem can be further illustrated by the fact that, if it were incinerated in a special furnace at 1500°F, there would be 5.5 tons of ash per day. (Ibid., p. 140.) 116U.S., EPA, Guidance, p. 15. 117 . n ' ° II Fishbeck et al., Fac111ty Plan, p. 59 (Table 8). 118Ibid. 119 Ibid., pp. 60ff. 120Fishbeck et al., "Phased Construction Evalu- ations" (n.d.). CHAPTER IV PUBLIC PARTICIPATION EPA Requirements and Hearing Chapter 5 of the EPA's Guidance publication pre— sents the agency's policy regarding public participation in the facility-planning process. This chapter will summarize those policies and will compare them with the planning activity actually undertaken in the SCCSSA case. The public response and the planners' reaction to that response will be documented, particularly in regard to the disclosure of user costs. The Guidance document advises: The public should participate from the beginning in facility planning so that interests and potential conflicts may be identified early and considered as planning proceeds. The planner should define issues and analyze information so that the public will clearly understand the costs and benefits of alternatives considered during the planning process. The philosophy that public participation is to be encouraged early in the planning process is expressed more specifically in the formal regulations: "One or more public hearings or meetings should be held within the area to obtain public advice at the beginning of the planning process."2 While the regulations urge early participation, 88 89 the only mandatory public involvement is in the form of a public hearing that "shall be held prior to the adoption of the facilities plan by the implementing governmental units."3 The rules specify a 30-day notice of the re- quired hearing and stipulate that the final facility plan document the hearing with a report and a brief description of the public views expressed. During the eight months that the "Facility Plan" was being prepared for the SCCSSA, no attempts to involve the public were reflected in the minutes of the meetings of either the SCCSSA or the DeWitt Township Board.4 The first documented step involving the general public was the publication in the two area newspapers of the notice of the mandatory public hearing scheduled for Nov. 29, 1976.5 Notices of the hearing were also mailed to a wide spectrum of state and local government agencies, including the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, the Clinton County Road Commission, the Michigan Department of Natural Re- sources, and the Michigan Public Health Department. The only recorded invitation to a non-governmental party was to the Michigan United Conservation Clubs, Lansing.6 The hearing was held in the DeWitt High School on the evening of Nov. 29 and was attended by 75 people besides the engineers and municipal officials involved in the project.7 According to the minutes of the meeting, the engineers gave a detailed description of the project, including the I/I analysis, the regional Options, 90 wastewater-treatment techniques, and the recommended Option. After federal and state grants, the cost to the municipalities for the construction was estimated at $5.8 million. This cost was to be met by bond issues, to be repaid with revenues from connection charges and/or monthly debt service charges. Although the exact amount and combination of charges would be decided by each municipality, the engineers estimated connection fees of $800 (DeWitt Township) to $3,500 (Watertown Township), with monthly charges of $9.80 to $12.10.8 According to the minutes, citizens' questions and comments concerned the following six subjects: 1. If one unit did not participate, whether this would jeopardize the grants 2. The added debt—service charge on top of the current monthly charges 3. Whether Watertown Township was contributing to pollution in the Looking Glass River, and to what extent 4. Who determines who participates in the project 5. Why a land disposal system like that in Muskegon, Michigan is not being used 6. Why the expansion and sewers are necessary The minutes do not record responses to these questions. There was no discussion of Operating and main- tenance costs and there were no projections of total monthly expense to the user.9 The minutes record that "the only written comment 91 was submitted by Theodore L. Powell and is attached" to the minutes, Appendix E of the facility plan.10 The hearing closed with the engineers' recommenda- tion that each municipality adopt the enabling resolutions within two weeks in order "to meet the timetable."11 Wacousta's Response The proposed plan was likely to affect the people of Watertown Township more than those of other municipal- ities. Since they had no central sewer system, and Watertown was the least densely pOpulated area,12 proposed costs for Watertown were the highest among the areas to be served, with connection fees estimated at $3,000 to $3,500. These fees were based, for Wacousta residents,upon the cost of constructing a local sewage collection system and 28,000 feet of forced-main interceptor to reach the SCCSSA plant five miles up the Looking Glass River (see Figure 1). A local lagoon system, considered under options 7 and 9 of the regional treatment options, had been rejected as more expensive than the forced main/pumping option.13 After the public hearing, there were warnings from residents that township officials "had better let them vote" on Watertown's participation before any firm commitment was made,14 15 as well as threats of lawsuits. Township offic- ials held emergency board meetings and scheduled another public hearing for the township at the Wacousta School. Meanwhile, the Fishbeck firm addressed the 92 feasibility of a five mile forced main: The Facility Plan indicates that it is more cost effective for Watertown Town- ship to build the prOposed force main and lift stations to convey the waste- water to DeWitt Township than to either construct separate treatment facilities for each area or purchase capacity in the City of Lansing's facility.l6 While publicly rejecting the possibility of a lagoon for Wacousta, the consultants must have discussed it shortly thereafter with the Michigan DNR to prompt the DNR's letter to the engineers of Jan. 14, 1977: Due to the public input in the facilities planning process we have discussed alter- natives to the degree of treatment that would be required for a separate sewage treatment facility serving the Wacousta Area of Watertown Township. It has been previously assumed that if the Wacousta Area were served by a sewage treatment facility that that facility would be re- quired to produce an effluent of equiv- alent quality to a sewage treatment facil- ity treating the wastewater from the entire region and discharging elsewhere to the Looking Glass River. This was a reasonable assumption to make. Due to the public involvement it was decided to fur- ther investigate the validity of that con- clusion. After a detailed investigation of the assimilative capacity of the Looking Glass River, the Department of Natural Resources has determined that a lagoon type treatment facility with semi-annual dis- charge serving the Wacousta area would adequately protect the water quality of the Looking Glass River.17 By the time the Wacousta hearing was held on Jan. 20, 1977, the engineers reported that a lagoon system would reduce overall costs about $100,000, as it would eliminate five miles of forced main. The reason for not considering 93 a local lagoon system earlier, according to a newspaper account that quotes an engineer for the Fishbeck firm, was that the planners "didn't think the State Department of Natural Resources would approve it."18 This decision not only promised to save some money for Wacousta residents but also removed the urgency for their commitment to the SCCSSA. Construction of the lagoon system could be entirely separate; the SCCSSA could reduce its proposed plant capacity by 0.1 mgd (2 percent) and proceed without Wacousta. Westwinds' Response Wacousta was only one of the three areas in Watertown Township that was scheduled for sewers in the "Facility Plan." The Watertown board's Westwinds con- stituents also Opposed the plan. Westwinds is a sub- division of about 70 new homes19 on the west side of Airport Road, just north of the Looking Glass River, about half a mile from the SCCSSA treatment plant. Among the Westwinds residents were at least two employees of the DNR who criticized the plan in depth. In a four-page letter to the Watertown Township Supervisor, Thomas L. Kamppinen voiced the following concernszo: l. The proposed sewer conflicts with the Town- ship's long range planning goal by encouraging high- density development in agricultural areas. 94 2. High-density development results in: a. inflated prOperty taxes for farmland b. increased agricultural drainage problems c. higher frequency and severity of flooding d. increased runoff, allowing less groundwater recharge e. lower-quality runoff: the runoff from a 40-acre subdivision during a one-year, 24-hour storm equals the total suspended solids loading of the proposed treatment facility, according to Kamppinen 3. Specific septic tank problems have not been documented. 4. Excessive and unnecessary amounts of energy would be consumed for treatment. 5. Costs may approach 30 or 40 percent of the assessed value Of some homes. Kamppinen suggested that officials consider inspecting and maintaining existing septic systems in the rural areas and connecting the industrial area to Lansing's sewer system, where treatment costs, he claimed, were about half of the costs for the proposed SCCSSA facility.21 In an interview four years later, Kamppinen said there was never an effort by anyone to answer or discuss his accusations. Nor was there ever another attempt to connect Westwinds to the SCCSSA plant, according to a Watertown official.22 95 Willow Creek Farms' Response On the opposite side of Airport Road, less than half a mile north of Westwinds, is the subdivision described as "Willow Bend" in the "Facility Plan." The name is actually "Willow Creek Farms," and the subdivision includes about 50 suburban homes23 similar to those in Westwinds. This was the only area in DeWitt Township scheduled to be added to the SCCSSA system. Because Of its proximity to the plant, the area could be connected to the system for $241,700 in collector 24 and interceptor costs. In the opinion of the engineer, the project was grant eligible, so the net cost to the residents would be less than $1,000 per house.25 Although this estimate later was increased, the Willow Creek project seemed to be one of the more financially favorable portions of the "Facility Plan."26 Residents of the subdivision asked the DeWitt Town— ship board to excuse them from the prOgram. On April 20, 1977, a lengthy hearing was held at the DeWitt Township hall, where 30 Willow Creek residents asked questions of the township attorney, the Fishbeck engineers, the chair of the SCCSSA, and the township Board of Trustees. At the conclusion of the hearing, the residents voted 27 to 10 (including seven letters from absent residents) not to 27 join the sewer system. Five days later, the Township board officially passed a resolution terminating the 96 Willow Creek portion of the project.28 User Cost Discussions As is shown in the foregoing discussion, much of the public's interest in the plan focused on costs. Although costs will be discussed in detail in the next chapter, the question of the public's right to informa- tion on costs might appropriately be discussed here. The minutes of the initial public hearing do not reflect any discussion of operation and maintenance costs, and the newspaper accounts refer to "insufficient" cost information.29 The newspaper report of the Jan. 20 Watertown meeting says that township officials indicated that they "held the meeting because residents complained that not enough information was made available at the 30 Residents complained that earlier hearing in December." they had been getting "guesstimates," not firm figures; the reporter surmised that they did not fare any better at the January hearing. Even the township supervisor, Herman Oppenlander, said that he was confused, that "so many figures had been bounced around he couldn't copy them all down."31 In response to the EPA's request for comments,32 a letter was submitted alleging, among other things, that the planners still had not made public the fact that the monthly charges prOposed in the "Facility Plan" were "in addition to present sewer charges for most of the peOple 97 33 in the area." A month later, an EPA Official said that the allegation was being investigated, and that if the total residential unit cost indeed had not been revealed in the plan, then it was likely another public hearing would have to be held before the grant process could con- tinue.34 A letter from Sara J. Segal of the EPA's Region V office clarified the use-rate situation: My staff have contacted the Engineer for the Southern Clinton County Sanitary Sewer Authority on the project, and he indicated that the $9.80 cost for DeWitt Township includes the cost of operation and main- tenance for the new plant. Not included in this figure is $8.00 for the debt re- tirement of previously existing sanitary collector sewers. This charge would exist whether or not any consolidation (or expan- sion) occurred, so was not included in the finance plan for the present project. This would bring the total charge for DeWitt Township customers to between $16.30-$l7.80 per month (operation and maintenance costs will vary from $5.00—$6.50 per month over the years). An additional $260,000 (reim- bursement for treatment plant land and existing plant use) can be used to reduce debt service charges or to retire existing bonds earlier.35 There was no public statement to the citizens of DeWitt Township clarifying that the charges indicated in the "Facility Plan" did not include debt retirement for pre— viously existing sanitary collector sewers. Citizens Sewer Committee Another facet of public involvement, while not an official part of the facility-plan record, was DeWitt 98 Township's Citizens Sewer Committee. While the decision on the SCCSA plant expansion was being deliberated, the DeWitt Township Board, which was responsible for 75 percent Of the cost of the Old plant, officially recognized that current use and connection fees were not covering its existing obligations.36 When the sewer-collection system was expanded in 1972, the actual cost was below engineering estimates,and.the township was subsidizing current expenses and debt retirement from that steadily depleting fund.37 The April rate increase did not stem the adverse financial tide; in September 1977 the board met with SCCSSA officials, the "Facility Plan" engineer, and the board's municipal financial/bonding consultant. The financial/bonding consultant recommended an increase in service rates of $8.00 a month for debt retirement; the SCCSSA chair reported that monthly operating-and-maintenance (O&M) charges would increase by $4.50, and the debt retire- ment by another $3.17, when the new plant was built.38 The financial consultant explained the possibility of adopting a general tax to cover the deficit, and warned that if the board didn't "face up to the problems," it could jeopardize the selling of bonds for the proposed expansion. The board decided to take the matters to the public at an Open meeting the following month. On Oct. 10, 1977, in a crowded DeWitt Township hall, the various possibilities were presented. The largest developer in the area wanted a general tax levied 99 so that use fees would not be prohibitively high; farmers wanted the use fees increased to cover all of the deficit, since they received no benefit from the sewer; and many peOple wanted the three mobile home parks, not yet con- nected to the system, to help solve the problem by con- 39 To address the problem, the board necting immediately. appointed a committee of volunteers, none of whom were members of the board. In less than six weeks, the Citizens Sewer Com— mittee submitted a nine-page report to the board, including a study of corresponding sewer use rates in neighboring communities. The report recommended (a) a small increase in user fees, (b) a 1.5-mi1 property tax on users and non- users, and (c) a $50,000 transfer from the general fund, affordable because there would soon be "an upswing in the economy."40 While the citizens' committee was deliberating, the township board was still discussing the SCCSSA expan- sion. The suggestion was made that the Citizens Sewer Committee consider fiscal implications of the expansion at this time. Although the chair of the committee expressed interest, the suggestion was dismissed by the board.41 Summary While not encouraging any more public participation than was required, the SCCSSA conformed to the EPA guide- lines by printing the meeting notice, a list of the people 100 signing the attendance sheet, and the minutes Of the public hearing. It also included the written comments received at the hearing and the engineers' three-page response to those comments.42 101 Notes--Chapter IV lU.S., EPA, Guidance, p. 17. 2U.S., EPA, Federal Register 39(29) (Feb. 11, 1972), Sec. 35.917-5(b). 3Ibid. 4The "Facility Plan" reports: "Several meetings have been held since the initiation of the facility plan with each of the Townships involved and the City of DeWitt to request their input into the facility plan. Such items as population projections, land use planning and projected- sewer service areas have all been reviewed with each town- ship and the City of DeWitt." (See Fishbeck et al., "Facility Plan," p. 210.) The investigation undertaken for the present study disclosed no record of, and no municipal official who recalls, meetings to which the general public was invited prior to the November 1976 hearing. 5"Notice of Public Hearing," The State Journal (Lansing, Mich.), Oct. 29, 1976, and The Clinton County News (St. Johns, Mich.), Nov. 3 and Nov. 10, 1976. 6SCCSSA (Donna B. Syverson, Secretary-Treasurer), "Minutes of the Public Hearing," DeWitt, Mich., Nov. 29, 1976. 7Ibid., "Attendance Record of Public Hearing" (in Appendix). 8These charges and the pertinent Michigan legisla— tion on municipal bonding are discussed in more detail in Chapter VI of this study. 9"Clinton Sewer Expansion Interest Lags," The State Journal (Lansing, Mich.), Dec. 1, 1976, p. B-3: "Spectators indicated some opposition is building, with most questioning tap-in costs and use fees which still are not definite." Also, Theodore L. Powell, personal notes from attending the hearing, Nov. 29, 1976. 10Theodore L. Powell, Memorandum: "Bath, DeWitt, DeWitt City and Watertown Facility Plan," Nov. 29, 1976. 102 llSCCSSA, Minutes, Dec. 16, 1976. 12Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, "208 Water Quality Management P1an--Interim Outputs" (Lansing, Mich., August 1976). The 1976 population estimates were 288 people per square mile for DeWitt Township, 144 for Bath, and 126 for Watertown. 13Fishbeck et al., "Facility Plan," p. 105 (Table 14). The fact that a mechanical treatment plant was never considered for Wacousta was explained on page 102 of the "Facility Plan." The engineers concluded that lagoon systems are more cost effective for treatment capacities up to 1.2 mgd. "A great deal of care was taken . . . to make sure that arbitrary decisions on treatment systems are not made," the plan states. 14The State Journal (Lansing, Mich.), Dec. 1, 1976. 15The State Journal (Lansing, Mich.), Jan. 25, 1977. 16Fishbeck et al., "Comments Made Concerning the Facility Plan at the Public Hearing, Nov. 29, 1976" (Lansing, Mich., Dec. 23, 1976). This memorandum was in response to the oral and written questions raised by citizens at the public hearing. 17Fred B. Cowles, Engineer, Water Quality Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR), to Fish- beck, Thompson, Carr & Huber, Inc., Jan. 14, 1977. 18The State Journal (Lansing, Mich.), Jan. 25, 1977, p. B—12. The $100,000 figure was presented in the newspaper account. By Feb. 16, the savings estimate had increased by another $400,000: In a letter on that date, Fishbeck et al. reported that "the overall capital expend- iture has been reduced by approximately $500,000 due to the new DNR ruling accepting a semi-annual discharge in the Wacousta area." (Fishbeck et al. to Theodore L. Powell, Feb. 16, 1982.) 19This is according to this author's count; no user or residential equivalency figures are presented in the "Facility Plan." 20Thomas L. Kamppinen to Herman Oppenlander, Watertown Township Supervisor, Jan. 20, 1977. 103 lebid. 22Interview with Vaughn Montgomery, Supervisor, Watertown Charter Township, April 10, 1982. 23The author's count. 24Fishbeck et al., "Facility Plan," p. 224 (Table 25). See also Table 7 of the present study. 25Ibid., p. 224 (Table 25) and p. 238 (Table 27). 26For instance, the $1,903,800 extension to south- eastern Watertown would serve 200 residential equivalents at an average of $9,500 each, less federal and state grants estimated at about 45 percent. The Bath extension to Dutch Hills Mobile Home Park would cost an average of $5,800 per service, with no prospect of a grant. (See Fishbeck et al., "Facility Plan," p. 224 (Table 25) and p. 238 (Table 27); see also Table 7 of the present study.) 27DeWitt Township, Minutes of Meetings of the Board of Trustees, meeting of April 20, 1977. 28DeWitt Township, Minutes of Meetings of the Board of Trustees, meeting of April 25, 1977. 29SCCSSA, Minutes of the Public Hearing, Nov. 29, 1976; The State Journal (Lansing, Mich.), Dec. 1, 1976, p. 3-B. 30The State Journal (Lansing, Mich.), Jan. 25, 1977, p. 2-B. ' 311bid. 32Kent Fuller, Chief, Planning Branch, Region V, U.S. EPA, Memorandum, "To All Interested Government Agencies and Public Groups and Citizens," regarding SCCSSA, Project No. C262692, March 29, 1977. 33Theodore L. Powell to Kent Fuller, Chief, Planning Branch, Region V, U.S. EPA, April 6, 1977. 104 34Telephone interview with Mike Mikula, Region V, U.S. EPA, May 10, 1977. 35Sara J. Segal, Chief, Michigan Planning Section, Region V, U.S. EPA, to Theodore C. Powell, May 4, 1977. The fact that the Township would have a credit of $260,000 for the land and six—year-old plant facilities may not have been reassuring. The Township's bonded indebtedness at the time was in excess of $5 million, including collection- system costs, with principal and interest obligations of more than $450,000 a year until 1997. (Stauder, Barch & Associates, "Analysis of Debt Service and Operating Rates Necessary to Cover Existing and PrOposed Requirements," presented to the DeWitt Township Board, Sept. 1, 1977; also, Township of DeWitt, "Comparative Balance Sheet, March 22, 1977 and March 23, 1976.") 36DeWitt Township Board Of Trustees, Minutes of Meetings, Meeting of Jan. 10, 1977. Three members of the Board were appointed to study the sewer rates. At a meeting on Feb. 28, the board voted to increase operating- and-maintenance (O&M) charges from $2.50 to $5.00 per month, with the acknowledgment that debt-service funds were being used for current operation; the board said that the debt-service problem would "be addressed later." (DeWitt Township Board, Minutes of Meetings, Meeting of Feb. 28, 1977.) 37A newspaper article later reported that the system had been losing money for five years and that the last of the excess construction funds were used in November 1977. The State Journal (Lansing, Mich.), Dec. 2, 1977, and Ibid. 38DeWitt Township Board of Trustees, "Minutes of Special Meeting," Sept. 1, 1977. The monthly rate, which had been increased to $14.50 in April, was apparently headed for $30.17. 39The developer was Gordon Long, president of Long Development Co., which had just built nearly 200 residential units in its Country Meadows project at Shavey and Herbison Roads. Long served on the Citizens Committee. The three mobile home parks were Kristana Village and Havana Trailer Park, whose management considered their parks permanently connected to Lansing's sewer system, and King Arthur's Court, Inc., whose management contended that its lagoon system was superior to the public system and who were at the time alleging in Clinton County Circuit Court that the 105 ZOO-feet provision of Act 288 of 1972 applied to mobile- home parks as well as other properties. (The provision provided that connection to a public sewer was not man- datory if the building from which the sewage emanated was more than 200 feet from the public sewer line.) 40"Citizens Sewer Committee Report and Summary," Nov. 21, 1977. The tax on non-users was described as necessary to promote orderly growth in the community; "as orderly growth takes place, non-users will become users and benefit by having the current facilities." Non- users were a minority of the committee; most of them resigned, and submitted a minority report. (See also DeWitt Township Board of Trustees, Minutes of Meetings," meeting of Jan. 28, 1978; "DeWitt Given Plan to Save Sewer System," The State Journal (Lansing, Mich.), Dec. 2, 1977, p. B-7.) 1Interviews with Glynn Bowen, chair, Citizens Sewer Committee, 1977 and 1978. The author was present when Bowen attended a meeting of engineers, EPA personnel, and township officials on Nov. 14, 1977, at the DeWitt Township offices. Bowen was told by township officials that his committee's inquiry was to be confined to the existing system. 42Fishbeck et al., "Facility Plan," Appendix E. CHAPTER V EVALUATION OF COSTS Sunk Costs Section 6 of the EPA's Guidance publication intro- duces the subject of costs with a discussion of "sunk costs." Sunk costs are past expenditures that have no bearing on current alternatives. The guidelines require that any investments or commitments made prior to facility planning be regarded as "sunk costs" and not included as monetary costs in the plan. Such investments includel: l. Investments in existing wastewater treatment facilities and associated land, even though incorporated in the plan 2. Outstanding bond indebtedness 3. Cost of preparing a facility plan The EPA's treatment of "sunk costs" may be the justification for the engineers' failure to mention exist- ing bonded indebtedness in the "Facility Plan," and for the treatment of existing indebtedness in the letter from Sara Segal of the EPA, described in the previous chapter.2 One potential effect of this rule is that ignoring previous expenditures may cause the community with the heaviest financial burden to appear to have the lightest. For instance, Watertown had no existing sewer, so the 106 107 proposed project constituted that community's entire sewer investment, with monthly debt retirement rates projected at $5.10 and connection fees of $3,500; DeWitt Township had previously invested several million dollars in its system, so the current project was to be less extensive, resulting in prOposed monthly debt retirement payments of 3 To the reviewer $3.30 and connection fees of $800. unaware of the "sunk costs" for DeWitt Township, it would appear that DeWitt might easily afford the sewer project when, in fact, its new debt service would be twice as high as Watertown's (DeWitt's being $11.30 total) with connec- tion fees of $2,300 ($800 plus the already-existing fee of $1,500). The EPA's treatment of "sunk costs" would allow for another study, five years hence, to classify all pre- vious indebtedness as "sunk costs" again and propose a new treatment system that, on its face, would seem even more "cost effective." Present Worth Theory The second major consideration in the guidelines is a pair of concepts called Present Worth and Equivalent Annual Costs. In order to compare the cost of various treatment options, the guidelines stipulate that annual operating costs, current capital investments, phased (future) capital investments, and future salvage values must be reduced to either Present Worth or Equivalent Annual Costs. Through the use of standard discount tables, 108 20 years of operation and maintenance (O&M) costs can be expressed in terms of Present Worth--the amount of money which, if invested now at a given rate, would provide exactly the required O&M funds annual for 20 years (similar to a single-payment annuity).4 Conversely, the value of a capital investment can be expressed as the amount of annual income that would be earned by the investment of that sum at a given rate. A $1 million capital investment can be said to have an Equivalent Annual Cost of $50,000 per year for 20 years at no interest, $94,390 at 7 percent interest, or $186,800 at 18 percent.5 Thus, the cost of a system that requires a rela— tively high initial investment, but Offers lower annual O&M costs, can be compared objectively to one that has lower initial costs but higher O&M expenses. The analysis can become fairly complicated when trying to establish such conditions as the present worth of an investment that will not be made until 10 years in the future, but most of these problems can be solved by consulting the appropriate compound-interest table. As the example in the previous paragraph indicates, the choice Of interest rate is crucial in any long-term analysis. EPA regulations, at the time of the SCCSSA "Facility Plan," required that the planners use a discount rate of 7 percent for calculating Present Worth and Equivalent Annual Cost. This figure had been established by the federal Water Resources Council as a 109 reasonable reflection of municipal bond rates at the time.6 Capital Costs Considering capital investment first, the "Facility Plan" summarized the cost as follows7: Collectors $ 4,488,900 Interceptors 2,791,600 Treatment Plant Lift Stations 709,400 I/I Correction 179,000 Treatment Plant 8,600,000 TOTAL $16,728,900 Collectors are small (8- or lO-inch) sewer lines, most of them gravity flow, installed in the neighborhood to be served.8 If a neighborhood, such as the Westwinds subdivision, is excused from participation, the total cost of collectors for that neighborhood is eliminated. Interceptors are larger lines, often forced mains with lift stations, that carry sewage from a neighborhood to the treatment plant (or to a major interceptor that goes to the plant).9 Two or more neighborhoods may be served by an interceptor, so the elimination of a proposed ser- vice area may or may not eliminate the need for an inter- ceptor. The proposed treatment plant lift stations were to be located on the final mile of the major interceptor, pumping the sewage from the entire area into the plant.10 110 The location and importance of these lift stations were such that two of them would have been necessary if any service was to be provided to the City of DeWitt or to Watertown Township, regardless of volume. The third and most expensive lift station (a $500,000 rehabilitation) was necessary only for projected growth and the excessive I/I that caused overflow in the spring.11 As the cost summary indicates, nearly half of the prOposed $16 million project involved the construction of collectors and interceptors. The eight collector- interceptor systems are listed in Table 7. New construction was grant eligible at the time as long as the project was to be in a community that was "in existence" on Oct. 18, 1972 (the date when the Federal Water Pollution Control Act was enacted). "In existence" was defined by the regulations to mean that the bulk (gen- erally two-thirds) of the flow design capacity was for flow that existed on that date.12 In the course of the present study, no indication was found that seven Of the eight areas would have any problem complying with this require- ment. The Coleman Road/M-78 extension in Bath Township would not qualify, however: The Dutch Hills Mobile Home Park had been built since the cutoff date. The "Facility Plan" recognized this, but did not provide a rationale for building an unsubsidized extension with an Annual Equiv- alent Cost of $108,031 to an area that could promise an 111 TABLE 7 COLLECTOR AND INTERCEPTOR COSTS Bath Township 1. Coleman Road/- Collector: M-78 Interceptor: TOTAL: 2. Clark Road Collector: 3. Chandler Collector: Estates Interceptor: TOTAL: BATH TOWNSHIP TOTAL DeWitt Township 1. Willow Bend Collector: (Willow Creek Interceptor: Farm) TOTAL: DeWITT TOWNSHIP TOTAL City of DeWitt 1. West Shore, Collector: Lake Geneva Interceptor: TOTAL: CITY OF DeWITT TOTAL Watertown Township 1. Wacousta Collector: Interceptor: TOTAL: 2. Grand River Collector: Avenue Interceptor: TOTAL: 3. Westwinds Collector: Subdivision Interceptor: TOTAL: WATERTOWN TOWNSHIP TOTAL $ 1,035,600 108,800 1,144,400 116,300 401,400 61,900 463,300 158,900 82,800 241,700 437,800 498,000 935,900 1,373,800 811,300 2,185,100 700,000 803,800 400,000 1,903,800 225,000 25,000 250,000 $ 1,724,000 241,700 935,900 4,338,900 p. SOURCE: Fishbeck et al., "Facility Plan," 224 (Table 25). 112 annual revenue of only $23,751 from its 195 customers.13 The balance of the proposed capital expenditure was for the $8.6 million remodeling of the SCCSSA treat- ment plant and expansion to a capacity of 5 mgd. The rationale for proposing a plant of this size was discussed in Chapter IV. The next section examines the proposed cost. Phased Construction When the EPA reviewed the "Facility Plan" in March 1977, its first criticism concerned the cost of the pro- posed capacity. The EPA noted that "the design flow is over two times the present flow," and suggested that a smaller plant be considered.14 Recognizing that a 5-mgd plant might eventually be needed, the EPA requested a phased-construction study, suggesting that a plant size of 2.7 mgd be considered for the first ten years of the plan- ning period. Since the prOposed size was a crucial part of the "Facility Plan,"15 and the plan was not accepted by the EPA until a phased study was completed, the present report will examine that phased study in some detail. The consulting engineers' eight-paged "Phased 16 compared Present Worth Construction Evaluations" study and Equivalent Annual Costs of the proposed 5 mgd plant with an initial 2.7 mgd plant enlarged 10 years later to 5 mgd. The figures were based upon the premise that build- ing costs would inflate by an annual compounded rate of 10 113 percent over the ensuing 10 years, so that the plant addition would cost two and one—half times as much in 1986 as it would if built in 1976. The study concluded, using the 7 percent discount rate required by EPA at the time for Present Value analyses, that building the reserve capacity immediately was more cost effective by $31,091 per year.17 If it is assumed that the second phase will be necessary, that building costs will inflate, and that construction money can be borrowed at less than the rate of inflation, it is a mathematical certainty that imme- diate construction will cost less. In fact, since the 7 percent discount rate set by the EPA is less than the 10 percent inflation rate selected by the engineers, the more prematurely reserve capacity is built, the more cost effective the project will be.18 The EPA rules entitled "COst Effectiveness Analysis Procedures" provide the following: Inflation of wages and prices shall not be considered in the analysis. The implied assumption is that all prices involved will tend to change over time by approximately the same percentage. Exceptions to the foregoing can be made if there is justification for expecting significant changes in the relative prices of certain items during the planning period. If such cases are identified, the expected change in these prices should be made to reflect their relatiye deviation from the general price level."9 114 The inflation rate at the time the "Facility Plan" 20 The fact that it repre- was written was not 10 percent. sented an exception to EPA policy was not noted in the plan, nor was there mention of the basis for using the 10- percent figure. Further, the phased-construction analysis did not consider the possibility that the reserve capacity might not be needed within the 20-year study period. Table 8 presents a summary of the engineers' "Phased Construction Evaluation" for the two options they discussed, as well as for two other Options that were not discussed. The first two columns are taken from the en— gineers' report, which indicates that while the smaller plant would cost $1,662,000 less initially, expanding it later to 5 mgd would cost $1,880,000 (without inflation), or $218,000 more. According to one engineer,21 in the second phase of construction, walls would have to be removed or modified and other changes would have to be made that could have been more efficiently included in a single phase. ,The cost of the smaller plant is 76 percent of the larger plant's cost with only 54 percent of the capacity, because of lost economy of scale and because some systems would initially be oversized to allow for efficient expansion later.22 The $1,880,000 cost of the second phase was pro- jected forward for ten years at a 10 percent annual .A.p.cv axpsum GOMHOOMDmCOU pmmmnma ..Hm um xownnmfim "mumDOm .mppum goonsmwm may sua3 mmumm >ocu mmmo comm CH .mmsam> ucmmmum Ou mumoo unsusm ucsoowflp Op ppm: moanmu pmoumuCH pcsomEoo Tau EOHM muouomm mum mononugmumm ca wumnadzm 115 omm.bpm . emm.m~m . mmo.am + . unannbm nnas monmnmmmaa unoo anana mmm.mom moe.amm mmo.moa.a mam.peo.a munoo finance unman>asem kam.omm.mm eHH.o~o.mw oom.mme.aam oom.mon.HHm syncs uwz ucmmmnm Mme.mem u mmp.mem : oom.mmm . oom.mmm mpan> mmn>anm nnmq oov.mmm.m ooo.mom.m ooa.ee~.ma oom.mmv.aa canoe ucmmmnm oom.eam.am ooa.emb.am oop.mam.m n oom.mmn.m m oom.~mm Ammom. x bmae.emv .nn» ea ppm mnanpp .n»\oom.emm oom.mnm oom.mam Ammom. x emo.ev .nn» OH ppm pom .n>\ooo.pbmm oom.eme oom.emn Apmae.emv .nn» ea now unms\oop.pmw oom.eem.a oom.mme.m lamom.eec .nn» om now .n>\oom.mmm ”msflmmouocH 2 w o magmaum> .m oom.mom.mm oom.mom.mm oom.mom.m m oom.mom.m m oom.mee Ammom. x v~o.ev ooo.mamm e .nn» oH oom.amm.a lemo.ev ooo.mamm e .nn» ea oom.mom.m lemm.oav ooo.mamm 9 .mn» em sec bcnunpoo .m ooo.mee.e m ooo.mmm.b m ooo.mee.m ems m.m mnnbn pnoomm ooo.pr.mm ooo.ppm.mw ooo.bbm.m a pas e.~ mange unnam ooo.mmm.o m coauosuuncoo panam .H mace mmmnm AHCO mmmnm cofiuosuumcou adamHuHCH unnam unnam wmnce-m ems m mamuH dezzbm mfimoglfizmmmmmIIZOHB¢3A¢>m ZOHBUDmBmZOUIQmmfimm m mfidflme 116 inflation rate to arrive at a 1986 estimated cost of $4,877,000. This figure was then discounted back to 1976 at the 7 percent bonding rate to arrive at the Present Net Worth of $2,479,000, imposing a $599,000 handicap on this Option. In the first two alternatives, constant O&M costs were established by the engineers as the cost Of treating l mgd. This was the capacity of the two existing plants and, based upon then-current flow figures, was the minimum flow of a new plant regardless of eventual size. This figure for all options is $2,309,500. The variable O&M is the amount by which O&M costs increase as the number of gallons treated increases. It is calculated on a straight-line basis from 1 mgd in 1976 to 5 mgd in 1996. The figure is less for the phased construction option because the smaller plant apparently could Operate for less money during the first 10 years, with Operating costs increasing at $26,000 per year, while operating the larger plant would cost $32,200. After the smaller plant's expansion, variable costs would rise at a $37,800 increment per year, reaching the same total cost at the end of 20 years. This is illustrated graphically in Figure 4. The third difference between the options is in the salvage value at the end of the 20—year planning period. Since part of the phased plant would be only 10 years old, it would have a value estimated to be $822,200 more than 117 .m manna =.>p2um coHuosuumCOU pmmnbn= ..Hn um xomnbnap “mm manna =.nnan suaaaonme ..Hn um xomnnnam "mmombom .cOHumo QOHUODHumaoo pmmmnm Ou pmummfioo ucmHm me m HMfluflsH .mumou z w o manmwum> cw mmmmuocH Hmscc< .v Tasman on mp or m o a 1 EN _ _ _ 5:230 .o 23> 98.33 II I a BOOB» 356w 2&0 50> ON a 2260 02m 59* Ed 838» S 9.885% 3.5.23 1 838» as... 93> 9 9.80m 3 83 Boson» 233 12.9“. a... .o Ea... .mm x 893. Em.» Ba EOESOE 08.3 .99...» or at“. 3 353m 550 cozoazmcoo 38.5 23» 23a 23a 2:» 23» 28.33 62:20 8o. .Soado 030...; 335.1 118 the value of the non-phased plant. Thus, although the phased construction would result in lower O&M costs and a higher salvage value, the assump- tion of a 10 percent inflation rate resulted in the con- clusion that that Option would be more costly by $31,092 per year. (If a 7 percent inflation rate had been assumed, the phased plant would have cost $25,448 less per year than the non—phased, large plant.23) Accepting the 10 percent inflation factor, Table 8 also includes the possibility that a larger plant would not be needed. The second two columns summarize the cost of a 2.7 mgd plant during the first ten years, the same as the engineers' forecast, but with no increase in sewage treated during the second ten years. This possibility is included because the rate of growth in the area had declined by more than half of its value during the preceding ten years. A similar decline during the following ten years would reduce expansion to nearly zero.24 Constant O&M is the same, and variable O&M increases by the same amount for the first 10 years. The cost of expansion is elimin- ated, and the increasing variable costs (to reach 5 mgd for the second ten years) are eliminated. The fourth column illustrates an initial growth rate of only half the engineers' projections, with growth to 2.7 mgd spread over 20 years. All figures are the same as in column three, except that with lower variable O&M costs initially, Present Worth of these costs is reduced by 119 about $440,000. In sum, then, in the "Phased Construction Evalua- tion" the engineers considered only the possibility that the smaller plant would have to be expanded. If they had also considered the possibility that no expansion would be necessary, the same phased plan might have saved either $225,534 or $266,990 per year, depending upon the timing of the slower growth rate. Before approving the larger plant, decision makers could have weighed the potential annual loss of $31,000 (Table 8, col. 2) against a poten- tial annual gain of almost $267,000 (Table 8, col. 4). Operation and Maintenance Costs The other part of the cost-evaluation process was the estimation of O&M costs. The magnitude of O&M costs is sometimes not appreciated because of the practice of expressing them in terms of Present Worth. While this is helpful in comparing one proposed facility with another, it does tend to de-emphasize the O&M component. Construction costs are presented at face value, being the same as Present Worth, while O&M costs are discounted by increas— ingly larger factors over the planning period, with the 25 Thus, 20th year being discounted by 74.16 percent. Table 8 of the present study indicates that construction costs are $2,309,500, and variable O&M costs are $2,495,800. It might not be readily apparent to the average reader that this translates into a 20—year O&M expenditure of 120 11,122,000.26 Further, there is a possibility that the "Facility Plan's" projections were modest. As indicated in the introduction to this paper, the actual O&M cost for the first year of Operation, 1981, was $620,725,27 $70,000 more than the engineers' projection for 1990--and this is with the plant Operating at only 20 percent of capacity. Table 9 presents a comparison of the "Facility I Plan" projection and the first year's actual budget. TABLE 9 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS "Facility Plan" Actual Item‘ Projection for 1981 f::¥::§; First Yr . Operation Budget Labor $ 112,000 $ 206,750 85 Power & Utilities 33,000 184,750 460 Maintenance and Solids Handling 25'000 53'450 113 Chem. & Supplies 48,000 60,775 26 Replacement Res. -0- 115,000 - TOTALS 5 218,000 $ 620,775 185 NOTE: The SCCSSA budget does not categorize costs in exactly the same way as does the "Facility Plan." Labor and Utilities are readily identifiable, but some budget items were arbitrarily assigned by the author to either (1) Maintenance and Solids Handling (e.g., vehicles, gas- oline) or (2) Chemicals and Supplies. How these items are categorized does not affect the totals. SOURCES: Fishbeck et al., "Phased Construction Evaluation"; SCCSSA, "1981 Budget" (Lansing, Mich., December 1980). 121 The final budget item is a reserve fund required by EPA regulations and originally not recognized in the "Facility Plan."28 The remainder of the increase can be accounted for only as a result of inflation or inaccurate estimates, since there were no changes in the design or Operating standards of the plant since the "Facility Plan" was written. As the percentage figures illustrate (Table 9, last column), energy costs are a major source of the cost increase. These costs were questioned when the plan was 29 The engineer stated at that time presented in 1976. that "costs used in the Facility Plan were developed based on anticipated costs in the year 1990." Some projected costs were based upon "expected cost increases over the next twenty years."30 The record does not provide more-specific informa- tion on how the projections were made, but a graphic display of the four cost categories (Figure 5) reveals some possibilities. The consumption of power and chemicals is generally proportionate to the amount of wastewater treated, and should increase in linear fashion as the flow increases from 1 mgd to 5 mgd. The cost of these items will increase, then, prOportionate to total quantities consumed, and any cost increase beyond that amount would be an indication of an inflation factor. Labor costs tend to be fairly fixed for this type of plant and would rise mainly through inflation.31 122 .m wanna =.mcsum cofluosuumcoo pmmnnm= ..Hn um gownnmam “mm manna =.npam suaaaunm= ..Hn um xomnsnam "mmomDOm .mmumEfiumm umou S w o MOM muouomm umoo coflumecH .m musmflm ea m. up . m w e 5:82.013 83> 28am“ 28699 :rl\n\l 8.... 28289 28629 . 999.33 999.85 . 8.33, 28698 999.993 4 28628 286234 999.993 4 4h yflhrl, .SQsfla A} .582 9032.5 :9 959305, \\\\ .929 352.... 2: c. :93 2620:. 9.: «283...... 98.8...» 1\ 2.. 8:8 8.5:... 52:; 89: m 2 BE 4 Z 338:. 392.5999 8.252: 0:: Bow ”9:093 r. l _ A 25623 .30890 .365 123 As suggested in a previous section of this study, predicting the rate of inflation is a delicate under- taking. In fact, in an engineering study, a strong case can be made for avoiding it altogether, on the assumption that inflation will affect all areas of the economy some- what evenly.32 However, the O&M cost estimates in the "Facility Plan" indicate that the engineers had considered inflation. This effort shall now be examined. Cost projections for the four principal cost items are charted on the graph in Figure 5, comparing the Fishbeck et a1. estimate to the prOportionate increase attributable to higher quantities of sewage treated. The extent to which the engineers' projections exceed the pro- portionate growth is presumed to be an allowance for inflation. For instance, power consumption was estimated at $33,000 for l mgd, so a proportionate increase for 5 mgd would be $165,000 (dotted line in Figure 5). The fact that the engineers predicted that power costs would rise to $205,000 indicates an inflation adjustment of $40,000 over 20 years (at a compounded annual rate of 1.1 percent). As Figure 5 illustrates, after variable expenses were increased by a factor of five, the "Facility Plan" assumed an inflation rate of 1.1 percent per year for power and utilities, just over one-fourth of 1 percent for chemicals and supplies, and a reduction of $3,000 (less than one-fourth of 1 percent per year) in maintenance 124 and solids-handling expenses. If labor is assumed to be a fixed expense, the plan allows for an annual inflation rate of 4.7 percent for that item.33 While the "Facility Plan" was being developed, the EPA released a study by Culp/Wesner/Culp, consulting engineers, concerning projected inflation rates to the year 2000.34 This study predicted annual price increases of about 4 percent for power and chemicals and about 3 per- cent for labor. Figure 6 shows the effect of inflation on one particular variable cost, such as power. The "Facility Plan" authors estimated this cost at $33,000 for treating l mgd for the first year. If power consumption were to increase in exact prOportion to treatment volume, the cost would be $165,000 at 5 mgd (the O—percent inflation line). The "Facility Plan" contemplated a 1.1 percent inflation factor, resulting in annual costs of $205,000 in 20 years, as illustrated on the second line. The other lines illus- trate the results of a five-fold increase in consumption with the 4 percent inflation rate predicted by the Culp study and the lO-percent rate predicted by Fishbeck et al. for construction costs. To further illustrate the impact of a small per- centage increase over a long period of time: If labor units were fixed, and all other expenses increased five- fold, annual operating expenses for the SCCSSA plant in 20 years, adjusted for the 10 percent inflation rate used 125 Annual Cost ”00% $1,110,000 3000% 2500% 200M. 1.500% 1MM% “Mtflm a aw“ 8205.000 500% $185,000 3$NMM Figure 6. SCCSSA Variable O & M Costs with Selected Rates of Inflation. SOURCES: Fishbeck et al., "Facility Plan," Table 23; Fish- beck et al., "Phased Construction Study," Table 3; Donald G. Newnan, Engineering Economic Analysis, "Compound Interest Factors" (San Jose, Calif.: Engineering Press, 1980). 126 in the phased-construction study, would be $4,318,734, in contrast to the $862,000 shown in the plan.35 Local Costs In the final phase of the cost study, the planners turned their attention to the matter of how the local share (i.e., 36 percent of the capital investment and 100 percent of the O&M costs) would be paid. This phase is covered in one page of the plan, and is presented here as Table 10.36 Each municipality is responsible to the SCCSSA for its share of the expansion, but is free to decide how these obligations will be met. Municipalities could raise the funds through assessment of charges as sewer-connection fees, monthly debt retirement fees, front-footage assess- ments, or ad-valorem taxes on all property.37 Front-footage assessment had been considered in DeWitt Township because it would spread the cost over many property owners, including those whose property might appreciate because of sewer service, and thereby reduce the cost per capita. However, the sewer system traversed a considerable amount of vacant land in order to connect the populated areas to the treatment plant, and the town- ship board decided it would be inappropriate to charge large frontage fees to farmers who never intended to use the system.38 Knowing that front-footage assessments had not been used in the past, the engineers appeared to have 127 .Amm magmas ovm .m =.:mHm suflflflomm= ..Hm um somhnmflm .momsom Aooo.ch oom.muooo.mm OH.~H 00.5 oo.a o¢.m oa.m oo.H .. oa.m oo.~ mfism Icsoe czouumumz oom.muooo.mm mH.oH mo.o mN.H ov.m om.m oo.H -- om.o oo.m mflsmc3oe numm oom uooo w om.m om.o 0H.H ov.m om.m oo.a oa.o om.o oo.m mflnmcsoa uuuzmo oom.muooo.mw mm.OH om.o OH.H ov.m mm.m oo.H oa.o ms.o oo.m panama mo suflo mhw3mm ucwfixnwm Z w 0 HwUCH ABE #QwQ mumOU .Umm HwBGm @933 Houomaaoo >Hnucoz Hmuoa HmuOB .CHEpd H\H umuaH Mom ku09 muwoo zwo wofl>umm anon moud mmmumsu .ZCOU BZMA<>HDOm A