| OCR Text |
Show increases low flows. After stream regulation, pri- mary treatment may be adequate where secondary treatment was previously required. A saving of as much as 50 percent in treatment cost is thereby made possible. Harlan County Reservoir on the Republican River serves as an example. In this instance stream regulation will enable downstream communities in Nebraska and Kansas to control pollution with primary treatment. Water releases will also serve fish and wildlife, navigation, and other interests. There is no forecast to indicate that such releases will interfere with irrigation or other uses for at least 50 years-well beyond the useful life of a sewage plant. Flow regulation may provide stream sanitation without consuming water. For example, the pro- posed flow to Glendo Reservoir in Wyoming would considerably improve the annual low stream flow at Casper, Wyo. This increased flow would greatly alleviate muncipal and industrial waste disposal problems, and the entire flow would be conserved in the Glendo Reservoir for its primary purposes- irrigation and hydroelectric power. The proposed diversions from the Missouri River will greatly ease water supply and stream sanitation problems along the James, Souris (if built), and Red River of the North sub-basins. These benefits will be in addition to the primary purposes of the diversion. The plants at Minot, Jamestown, Fargo, and Grand Forks, N. Dak.; Aberdeen, Huron, Redfield, and Mitchell, S. Dak.; and Moor- head and East Grand Forks, Minn., will benefit as will industries throughout these areas. The Big Sioux Basin has a comparable need for diverted water, although the proposed plan has not yet taken these needs into account. However, additional action beyond stream flow regulation will be necessary. For this, new State legislation will frequently be needed. Under the Water Pollution Control Act,11 the Federal Gov- ernment's only original enforcement powers are to hold public hearings on individual violations. Conclusions (1) Pollution abatement is an integral part of the water resources plan in the basin. Pollution may adversely influence or even jeopardize some water use programs. (2) Streams in the basin, as elsewhere, have great value as a means of partial treatment and "Ibid. ultimate removal of the liquid wastes of municipali- ties and industries. This capacity is often abused through inadequate treatment of municipal and industrial wastes. Treatment should be provided to prevent impairment of water for downstream uses. (3) Stream regulation an<3 related measures may alleviate pollution, or reduce the degree of treat- ment required. Significant savings thus can be made. Often this can be accomplished without consuming water. Planning for maximum and efficient use of water should dnclude this considera- tion wherever possible. (4) Treatment works involving new plants or improvements at 592 municipal and 86 industrial installations, at an estimated cost of 100 million dollars, are needed for municipal and industrial pollution abatement in the basin. (5) Improved legislation, would do much to expedite abatement program s. State laws are par- ticularly inadequate in the basin as they affect authority of State agencies to abate pollution, and authority of municipalities to finance abatement works. (6) The Federal interest £n pollution abatement in the basin is related to protection of the public health; maximum utilization of water resources for various purposes; protection of the investment of individuals, and of local and State governments in undertakings associated with development pro- grams; and protection of the public investment in major development programs. (7) Pollution control activities of the Federal Government should go forward under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.12 Experience thus far under the act, however, indicates that it has several limitations in the Missouri Basin. Funda- mentally, Federal programs are based upon one of two premises: a strong regulatory or enforcement provision; or a significant ixicentive, as grants-in- aid or comparable measures. While the Federal Pollution Control Act touclhes on each of these premises, it lacks the advantages of both. Guaran- tee of local bonds or provision of loans for abate- ment facilities by the Federal Government, as has been applied to housing, might be advantageous in a pollution control program, by affording lower in- terest rates, and increased bond salability. "Ibid. 206 |
