By MICHAEL AYERS, JOHN MUNKIRS and AL GRANDYS
Ayers and Munkirs are professors of
economics at Sangamon State University.
They both received their Ph.D. from the
University of Oklahoma. Grandys holds an
M.A. in economics from the University of
Illinois and is the research coordinator
of the Division of Energy in the Illinois
Department of Business and Economic
Development.
Sewer bans: Burdens and benefits
THE ISSUANCE of a sewer ban in your
community by the Illinois Pollution
Control Board (PCB) might be a step
toward cleaning up the polluted rivers,
lakes and streams of the area. It might
also mean a slowdown in economic
growth: lost jobs, lost profits, and lost
local tax revenues. The PCB issues a
sewer ban when more raw sewage is
being sent through sewer lines to the
treatment plant than the plant is able to
handle. The Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) determines
the standards by which the operation of
these plants is judged. As of July 1,1975,
there were 111 sewer bans in effect in
Illinois. The operations of an additional
106 treatment plants are under review
by the EPA's Division of Water Pollution Control (DWPC). Simply stated, a sewer ban forbids
any new connections to existing sewage
treatment facilities for a set period of
time. The PCB uses the sewer ban as a
means to encourage rapid compliance
with the new water quality standards
developed under the authority of the
1970 Environmental Protection Act.
The intent of the 1970 act was to provide
Illinois with a way to deal with the
pollution arising from the rapid industrial and population growth the state
has experienced. The idea is that by refusing to allow new sewage to flow into
already overloaded plants, communities
will be encouraged to build new plants. Many are needed. In June 1970 it was estimated that
only 82.6 per cent of Illinois' population
was served by sewage treatment facilities. Making the problem worse is the
fact that many existing treatment
facilities could not meet new environmental standards. In short, a combination of new EPA standards, old plants
and population growth and change has
resulted in a situation where the construction of new housing and business
has been held back in many communities. Without increased tax revenues,
communities cannot finance new treatment plants, but as long as sewer bans
are in effect new homes and businesses
cannot be completed and so tax revenues do not go up — a vicious circle. The process works like this: The
Pollution Control Board issues a sewer
ban to a specific sanitary district. These
districts are special purpose governmental bodies established to deal
specifically with the treatment of raw
sewage. Sanitary districts have the
power to levy taxes on the assessed value
of real estate within the district's
boundaries and to issue bonds to
finance the expansion of existing treatment facilities. Once a sewer ban is
issued by the PCB, the sanitary district
may comply with the order or formally
petition the PCB for a variance. The case of the North Shore Sanitary
District (NSSD) north of Chicago
illustrates the process. In the fall of
1970, shortly after the PCB was created,
the board imposed a sewer ban on the
NSSD. The PCB argued that:
In the present case . . . such an order [sewer ban] is imperative if we are to avoid the continuing threat of increased water pollution and serve the purposes of the Act. It would be anomalous indeed for this Board, after holding that gross pollution is occurring, to issue an order that permitted the situation to get still worse (Illinois Pollution Control Board Opinions, Vol. 1, PCB 70-7, p. 384).
About nine months after the NSSD ban had been put into effect, representatives from the district and other interested parties appeared before the PCB to present the adverse economic effects of the ban. In presenting its case the district noted that the First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Waukegan had "ceased the issuance of all normal construction loan commitments, except where the Lake County Health Department had approved installation of a septic system." First Federal noted that their loans for the year (1971) were $1.8 million for the first quarter, $42,000 for the second quarter, and $41,000 and $58,000 for the third and fourth quarters, respectively. A construction company executive testified at the hearing that "a majority of his employees were laid off due to the lack of new work brought about by the imposition of the sewer ban." The executive secretary of the Waukegan-North Chicago Chamber of Commerce testified that "virtually no new construction was underway within the district."
Similar setbacks to construction resulting from the imposition of sewer bans, although not all of the same magnitude as the case cited above, have occurred in other cities — Mattoon and Springfield for example.
In dealing with inadequate treatment of raw sewage by sanitary districts, the PCB attempts to weigh the probable damage to the health of citizens if pollution continues or is increased, against the effects of limiting the economic development of the district. On several occasions, the PCB has granted exceptions, or variances, to a ban so that construction will not be totally stifled. For example, the NSSD, after the PCB's consideration of their dilemma, was granted a blanket variance of 5,000 connections.
There are other ways to mediate the conflicting environmental and economic claims in sewer ban cases besides the compromise solution described above. One of these alternatives comes from the recognition that a sewage treatment plant is not the only legitimate form of treating residential sewage. In the case of industrial operations, however, this is generally not the case and a full-scale treatment operation including chemical additions is generally required. But for residential sewage, a sanitary district may be permitted to construct community lagoon treatment facilities or allow the installation of septic tanks for individual dwellings.
March 1976 / Illinois Issues / 21
There are alternatives
for communities: build
lagoons, use septic tanks or
petition for a variance
The lagoon treatment process involves the construction of a series of
connecting settling ponds, which must
be large enough to deal with the waste of
the number of homes to be built. The
lagoon or pond receives the sewage from
the homes and allows the natural forces
of bacteria formation, air, .and sunlight
to "treat" the water. The design specifications for this type of operation can
be obtained through the EPA's Division of Water Pollution Control. The use of
septic tanks is dependent upon the type
and composition of soil on which the
house is to be constructed. Tests for the
percolation ability of the soil can be
arranged by contacting the Illinois
Department of Public Health. When the land needed for lagoons is
not available or the soil is not suitable
for septic tanks, the only available
alternative for communities is to file a
petition for a variance with the PCB. A
variance petition, if approved by the
board, allows a specified number of new
connections to the existing treatment
facilities. The PCB has indicated that it
will grant a variance (1) for economic
hardship; (2) pending completion of
buildings already under construction
when the ban was issued; and (3) when a
new connection is accompanied by the
detachment of an older connection. A
variance because of economic hardship has generally been granted by the PCB
when lower income families stand to
increase the quality of their living by
moving into new homes. When Americans first became aware
of pollution problems in the early
1960's, the conflicts between economic
growth and environmental concerns
were not generally anticipated. After
much anguish, it soon became apparent
that economic growth could be made
compatible with environmental concerns only through long-range community planning. The sewer ban is seen
by the PCB as a valuable way of
encouraging more planning at the local
level. But, by itself, the sewer ban cannot
solve the problem. If communities are to
avoid the economic hardships that often
accompany a sewer ban, they must
develop specific plans for their sewage
treatment facilities to keep ahead of
their growth. 22 / March 1976 / Illinois Issues