WSP08207 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

002S31 ~ .[~ - 13 - . outside the jurisdiction undertaking a project share the benefits, direct grants may be desirable. Under other circumstances, loans repayable from user charges or through assessment of beneficiaries may be used. It may be found that direct state construction (or cooperation with federal agencies in the construction) of some projects is desirable. This, for example, may be true of the development of large water supply reservoirs and transmission facilities to deliver water to local agencies. It may be most feasible for a state agency to act as sponsor for a water project eligible for federal aid or to contract for storage space in federal reservoirs and provide transmission facilities to localities. Pollution Control Water quantity is closely related to water quality. As the de- .mands for water increase, one of the important ways of augmenting effective supply is to maintain the quality at a high enough level to meet the requirements for desired use. Entirely aside from the recent pressures on supply, there is a continuing public health problem since pollution can become high enough to constitute a serious threat to the health and welfare of the connnunity. Furthermore, the factors that have contributed to the general water demand picture have also helped to pro- duce a pollution problem. Concentrations of population and industries have materially increased the concentrations of polluting wastes in some areas. As recently as 1953, it could be reported in one of the co- operative state-federal reports on water pollution that only five Missouri Basin states had legislation relating pollution to all legitimate water uses; that, in three, only pollution influencing public health was sub- ject to abatement proceedings; and that, in two, there were virtually no legislative provisions for control and abatement of pollution. At the present time, the situation in relation to legislative authorization is considerably changed. Eight states have broad, basic legislation pro- viding for a fairly comprehensive program of pollution control and abatement. The 1953 report indicated that no water pollution control agency in the Basin had statutory authority for the development of a comprehensive program for the control and abatement of water pollution. Recent legislation has specifically given this authority in at least half of the states. It might seem that these recent developments, coupled with the improvements in administrative organization outlined previously, would remove water pollution control from a list of major future problems. As a matter of fact, much remains to be done. Approximately a fourth of the municipalities with sewers in the Basin have no treatment facilities for sewage. Another fourth provide only primary treatment, which reduces waste by only one-fourth--a fairly low efficiency even for primary treatment facilities. The total waste reduction by treatment for the Basin is about 25 per cent. For individual states, discharge of un- treated sewage into streams varies from a high of 80 per cent of the total discharge to a low of less than 1 per cent. Waste removal by treatment is approximately 14 per cent of the total waste produced in one state and 67 per cent in the state with the best treatment. Figures for all Basin states are shown in Appendix D. Owing to the inadequacy of available