|
|
- Info
Interceptor sewers and urban sprawl
| Author: |
Binkley, Clark; Collins, Bert; Kanter, Lois [and others] |
| Date: |
1975 |
| Periodical: |
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, D.C. Heath and Company |
| Abstract: |
To date, little research has been done to study the interaction of wastewater management facilities and land use. This book is based on a study conducted for the Council on Environmental Quality which sought to analyze the relationship of urban growth and the federal sewer grant program. The questions studied were, Does the presence of sewers tend to induce growth in an area? Are federally funded sewers being over-designed? And, most important, does the public planning process consider the program's implications for community growth? The resulting answers were strongly criticized by some segments of the water pollution control industry. The most important finding was that almost every aspect of the interceptor design process conspires to increase the size of the pipe that is finally built. Population projections for fifty years into the future are monotonically increasing extrapolations of the unprecedented growth rates of the sixties. Per capita water consumption is projected to climb from figures which often are already above actual consumption patterns. Everyone errs on the side of safety, and in sewer design that means building big. The excess capacity provides the potential for growth.
Our study found that, on the local scale, sewers actually induce growth that would not otherwise occur. Overall the presence of sewers probably has little effect on the total growth of suburbs, but on the local scale sewers seem to attract and concentrate development because they provide wastewater disposal services at a subsidized low cost. The stress this unbalanced growth can place on other sectors of an urban system receives little attention in the planning process. Since the projects that formed the basis of this study were initiated, the EPA has revised its project planning and review guidelines. Planning for future projects may, therefore, include more extensive consideration of potential land use effects, and future projects may not encourage development to the extent that the projects examined in this book did. At this time, no evidence is available to make this determination. Much of the criticism this report has received dwells on particular technical issues like per capita waste generation and optimum design lives for infrastructure investments. We feel the report's conclusions on these subjects are valid, though further research in some areas may be called for. We hope, however, that readers will bear in mind a broader issue raised by the report: what is the proper role of the federal government in providing infrastructure for local community development? It is the conclusion of this book that the proper role of federal subsidy is to clean up today's water pollution problems-to fund as many wastewater management projects as possible in areas where existing population has degraded local water quality. New developments should be required to meet today's environmental standards without federal financial assistance. Efficient in the economist's sense of the word, this policy encourages better local community growth and land use decisions by removing a misdirected federal influence. At the same time it helps reverse the failure-widely acknowledged by Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency, professional engineers, and others-of the federal water pollution control program to meet its stated objectives.
|
|
