Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T18:44:22.246Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Impact of Wastewater Treatment Regulations on Rural Communities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

C. Edwin Young
C. Edwin Young*
Affiliation:
Natural Resource Economics Division, Economic Research Service, USDA, University Park, Pa.
Get access

Extract

Federal and state laws require all communities to construct and operate facilities to treat domestic sewage. The 1972 Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (P.L. 92–500) require that all facilities provide the “best practical treatment” by 1977. They established the goal of “best available treatment” by 1983. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines best practical treatment as secondary treatment. It is the premise of this paper that required treatment levels and cost sharing arrangements specified in the current wastewater treatment laws impose relatively greater economic costs on small rural communities than on larger communities.

Type
Resource Economics
Information
Journal of the Northeastern Agricultural Economics Council , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , October 1977 , pp. 157 - 167
Copyright
Copyright © Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Comments by Donald Epp and Frank Goode of The Pennsylvania State University and Lee Christensen of the Economic Research Service were very helpful.

References

1. Current Developments, “Sewage Treatment Order,” Environment Reporter, The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., 6(46):1900, 1976.Google Scholar
2. Marshall, Harold E., and Ruegg, Rosalie, “Cost Sharing to Induce Efficient Techniques of Abating Wastewater Pollution,” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 2: 107–119, 1975.Google Scholar
3. Newman, Barry, “Mud and Debt,” The Wall Street Journal, CLXXXVIII (17): 1, 10, July 26, 1976.Google Scholar
4. Pound, Charles E., Crites, Ronald W., and Griffes, Douglas A., Costs of Wastewater Treatment by Land Application, Technical Report EPA-430/9-75-003. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
5. Pound, Charles E., Crites, Ronald W., and Robert, Smith G., Cost-Effective Comparison of Land Application and Advanced Wastewater Treatment, Technical Report EPA-430/9-75-016. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 1975.Google Scholar
6. U.S. Department of Commerce, Finances of Municipalities and Township Governments, Government Finances, 1972 Census of Governments, Vol. 4, No. 4, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1975.Google Scholar
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Construction Grants for Wastewater Treatment Works Grants Awarded under P.L. 92–500, U.S.E.P.A., Grant Administration Division, Washington, D.C., 1976.Google Scholar
8. Van Note, Robert H., et al, A Guide to the Selection of Cost-Effective Wastewater Treatment Systems, Technical Report, EPA-430/9-75-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1975.Google Scholar
9. Young, C. Edwin, and Carlson, Gerald A., “Land Treatment Versus Conventional Advanced Treatment of Municipal Wastewater,” Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 47 (11): 2565–2573, Oct. 1975.Google Scholar
10. Young, C. Edwin, The Cost of Land Application of Wastewater: A Simulation Analysis, Technical Bulletin 1555. Economic Research Service, U.S.D.A., Washington, D.C., 1976.Google Scholar