Intergovernmental responsibilities for water supply and sewage disposal in metropolitan areas. Page: 21
135 p., [24] p. ; 26 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
The genius of the American Federal system is that it can
provide alternatives to inaction or panic. Three seem appropriate
in the case of inadequate investment: inducement, compulsion,
and improved service area organization. The reluctance of local
governments to provide water and sewer facilities is greatly
reduced when someone else foots part of the bill. Only during
the 1930's when the Federal public works programs were in effect
did water facilities and sewerage construction keep pace with
demand. More recently, the handful of State assistance programs
for sewage treatment works, the Federal grant program established
in the Water Pollution Control Act of 1956, and the public facility
loans program of the Housing and Home Finance Agency have provided
a definite inducement to local investment. More effective and
rigorous State, interstate agency, and Federal enforcement against
pollution which endangers public health or welfare with court
action against local governments where necessary, is another element
in spurring greater local investments in sewage treatment
works. 20/ Finally, more inclusive metropolitan arrangements,
because they offer economies ofscale, provide more permanent
solutions, spread construction costs over a broader base, and
protect the community from having its efforts undermined by the
inaction of a neighbor, may induce more adequate investments in
water and sewer utilities in some metropolitan areas. 21/
Fragmentation and Its Consequences
As noted earlier, examples of fragmentation abound. In the
Sacramento metropolitan area, water supply and distribution are the
most splintered of all public functions, with 44 public and 55
private agencies serving the public. Minneapolis-St. Paul and their
suburbs have 45 individual water utilities operating without an
organizational or operational tie, except for the minimal controls
exercised by State agencies. Fifty-six agencies supply or distribute
water in Pittsburgh and Allegheny County. This fragmentation for
water supply and distribution is concentrated in the suburbs, and
parallels a similar pattern for sewage disposal service.
20/ State facilitation, assistance, and enforcement programs are
considered in Chapter 5, as is the work of the interstate
pollution abatement agencies. In Chapter 6, Federal activities
in sewage treatment assistance and pollution control are evaluated.
21/ Metropolitan approaches to water and sewer problems are treated
in Chapter 4.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations. Intergovernmental responsibilities for water supply and sewage disposal in metropolitan areas., book, October 1962; Washington, D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1424/m1/33/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.