Laserfiche WebLink
<br />38 Estimating Economic Impacts of Salinity... <br /> <br />N <br />-.J <br />~ <br />w <br /> <br />Coe's 1982 dissertation on Water Quality <br />Related Consumer Costs in Domestic Water Use26 <br />followed the same general format as the - <br />California DWR study. He also discussed other <br />water quality parameters that can increase con- <br />sumer costs, but linked his data to that of avail- <br />able historic parameters - TDS and total <br />hardness (TH). <br /> <br />Assignment of TDS share of damages. <br />This brief review of the literature illustrates <br />a critical point. That is, in developing economic <br />damages that result from poor water quality, the <br />constituents about which most inform~ljon is <br />available are TDS and hardness. Therefore, <br />those two related constituents (which not always <br />are related linearly) are the ones most often <br />used in discussions and fmdings of damage. Yet <br />they are not always solely responsible for <br />increased consumer costs, because of the <br /> <br />influence of other damaging factors. Therefore <br />damage estimates related to TDS or hardness <br />must be considered as approximations rather <br />than as precise measures. The 1972 MWD27 <br />response to the Orange County report has <br />attempted to qualify the calculated damages <br />attributed to salinity by judgmentally adjusting <br />them to reflect other factors. See table 7. <br /> <br />MWD's response to the Orange County <br />report makes valid points throughout. First, <br />TDS or hardness cannot be claimed as the sole <br />causes of water-related appliance problems. <br />Toilet flushing mechanisms, for example, are sub- <br />ject to enormous daily mechanical wear and tear <br />depending upon family size and number of <br />toilets. <br /> <br />Second, either salinity and hardness or <br />advertising can influence consumer actions such <br /> <br />Table 7. - Orange County Water Quality Cost Study <br />Answered by Metropolitan Water District <br /> <br />Hardnes.s. factors <br />Home water softeners (% of homes) <br />Total annual cost of softening <br />Increased cleaning supplies <br /> <br />TDS & TH factors comhined <br />Bottled water total annual cost <br />Water Heater total annual cost <br />Water Piping per home" <br />Faucets per home" <br />Toilet F1ushing mechanisms per home" <br />Garbage Disposals per home" <br />Clothes and Dishwashers per home" <br />Water damage per home" <br />Pool Cleaning per home" <br /> <br />Orange <br />~ <br /> <br />MWD <br />Respons.e <br /> <br />Percentage <br />MWD attributes <br />toTDS <br /> <br />31% <br />$6,138,000' <br />6,210,000' <br /> <br />19% 19% <br />$3,762,000 39 <br />o - at the time MWD had a <br />central softening plant <br /> <br />2,160,000 <br />1,290,000 <br />14 <br />7 <br />1 <br />4 <br />18 <br />16 <br />1 <br /> <br />1,404,000 <br />390,000 <br />6 <br />4 <br />1 <br />o <br />6 <br />7 <br />1 <br /> <br />13 <br />50 <br />43 <br />50 <br />70 <br />o <br />33 <br />42 <br />? <br /> <br />'Total costs for estimated 150,000 Orange County homes <br />.. Annual cost differential <br /> <br />26Jack Jacobi Coe, Wllter OUAlity Related C'n",,"umf!r ('.ost!;: in nome!;tir Water IJ"e, unpublished doctoral dissertation, <br />University of Southern California, 1982. <br /> <br />27Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, "Review of Report of Orange County Water District on ~ <br />Onality Rnd ('.onJ:umer ['.ost," May 2, 1973. <br />