|
<br />Economic Damages to Households... 35
<br />
<br />Inc. for the Santa Ana Watershed Planning
<br />Agency (1970) which was in turn derivative of
<br />f\:) earlier studies; Patterson (1968) on plumbing
<br />-.J and appliances; and, of course, Black and
<br />...... Veatch and Metcalf and Eddy. The caveats
<br />l\J presented in these reports were not emphasized
<br />in the Orange County discussion; instead, the
<br />methods of data collection were examined, and
<br />only the Metcalf and Eddy study methods were
<br />found satisfactory. To update the "primary
<br />data" of that report, ,Orange County designed a
<br />personal interview questionnaire which was ad-
<br />ministered to 1100 respondents in a modified
<br />and stratified random sample.
<br />
<br />Despite the fact that the average house age
<br />was only 11 years and the average time of
<br />residence six years, Orange County concluded
<br />that significant economic damages could be
<br />related to corrosiveness and hardness in water.
<br />All of the survey data was related to TDS or to
<br />hardness. Reasons for using bottled water were
<br />not correlated to the percentage using home
<br />water softeners, nor to respondent age, although
<br />those two factors appear to be critical variables
<br />in the survey data.
<br />
<br />Thc Metropolitan Water District of
<br />Southern California responded to the Orange
<br />County Water District report in May of 1972,
<br />disputing the approach that showed a linear
<br />relationship of TDS and water quality damages.
<br />MWD did not dispute the fact that TDS caused
<br />damages; rather, the report disputed the direct
<br />linking of TDS or hardness to all types of
<br />damage.
<br />
<br />It was at this point in the literature that
<br />d'Arge and Eubanks prepared their section for
<br />Salinity Management Options for the Colorado
<br />River. Their review included Black and Veatch,
<br />Metcalf and EddYi Orange County, and
<br />Tihansky's article. 4 Their analysis found tbe first
<br />three rcfercnccs acceptable but without any
<br />reference to the caveats stated by Black and
<br />Veatch or Metcalf and Eddy about attribution of
<br />damages to salinity. Instead they were cited as
<br />support for a finding of direct damage linkage.
<br />
<br />Tihansky, on the other hand, was criticized
<br />specifically as justification for the survey
<br />designed by d'Arge and Eubanks. Tihansky was
<br />faulted for: his lack of consumer knowledge of
<br />expected life or frequency of repair for house-
<br />hold items; other variables such as income or
<br />age of housing which the authors feel need to be
<br />addressed; and the fact that Tihansky does not
<br />deal with variations in water quality over time
<br />(but d' Arge and Eubanks likewise do not men-
<br />tion variations in water quality constituents
<br />except to select survey areas with constituents as
<br />similar as possible - although similarities were
<br />not defined).
<br />
<br />The resulting d' Arge and Eubanks survey in-
<br />volved 87 plumbing contractors and sales and
<br />repair personnel who were interviewed in person
<br />or by mail and who served as the basis for esti-
<br />mating household economic damages caused by
<br />salinity in their study.
<br />
<br />In another 1978 study, Consumer Costs of
<br />Water Quality in Domestic Water Use, Lompoe
<br />Area by the Southern District of the California
<br />Department of Water Resources, TDS and hard-
<br />ness were again related to household damage.
<br />The difference between this study and that by
<br />d' Arge and Eubanks is vast. A survey was
<br />mailed to residents of the four area communi-
<br />ties, to bottled water distributors, plumbing con-
<br />tractors, water softener services and appJiance
<br />centers. A 51.3 percent return rate was
<br />achieved. TDS and total hardness were "used to
<br />develop relationships between water quality and
<br />costs [because] ... Data for TDS and TH con-
<br />centrations were available for at least 10 ye"ars.
<br />Historic data for other significant quality
<br />parameters, such as [dissolved oxygen, carbon
<br />dioxide, and Langelier (or Saturation) Index],
<br />were not available.,,25 Nevertheless, the
<br />introductory material to the report contained
<br />several pages of discussion and caveats against
<br />the presumption of a linear relationship of
<br />damages to TDS and even, to some extent, to
<br />hardness.
<br />
<br />24Dennis P. Tihansky, "Damage Assessment of Household Water Quality," Tnllm::ll of the Fnvirnnment::ll Fneinl"'f!rin~
<br />Oivision ^m~rj('an SocietY of Civil Fn{'ineers Vol. 100, No. EE-4, August, 1974, pp. 905-917.
<br />
<br />
<br />25California Water Resources, Con,"umer Cost'" p. 12.
<br />
<br />j
<br />
<br />j
<br />II
<br />
<br />."j
<br />.
<br />,
<br />
<br />.I
<br />.11
<br />
<br />,
<br />';
<br />; ~
<br />",
<br />
<br />"
<br />'i
<br />:1
<br />
<br />1~
<br />
<br />,-
<br />:'~
<br />,-
<br />
<br />:j
<br />;1
<br />
<br />-;,
<br />"
<br />,
<br />ill
<br />"
<br />l
<br />"
<br />
<br />~.I'
<br />'.
<br />-r
<br />(
<br />,
<br />~i:
<br />:j
<br />"
<br />,!
<br />i
<br />,
<br />,
<br />'i,
<br />
<br />)'1
<br />!
<br />1
<br />jl
<br />-,
<br />1
<br />,I
<br />j
<br />i
<br />.I
<br />1
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />;;
<br />,
<br />,
<br />
<br />i
<br />j
<br />J
<br />!
<br />1
<br />!
<br />j
<br />
<br />a,~___,
<br />
|