Intergovernmental responsibilities for water supply and sewage disposal in metropolitan areas. Page: 51
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:
suburban newspaper noted that "we think if Seattle is to
be 'saved', it should be done by Seattlites and at their own
expense -
we want no part of it." 40/
Suburban areas usually raise vociferous complaints about
the representation formulae on metropolitan agencies, claiming
that the result will be a Trojan horse designed to expand the
control of the central city. While the experience in metropolitan
arrangements both supports and refutes these claims,
Los Angeles has attempted to utilize its predominant position
on the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California to
veto expansion which would reduce its percentage of membership
and to prevent facility development of primary benefits to
suburban members. In the Seattle area, despite the hue and
cry from the suburbs about Metro being an instrument for
domination of the entire area by the central city, Seattle with
only 50 percent of the representation on the Metro board, will
pay 90 percent of the user's fees for the development of a
regional sewage system. The city must also bear the cost of
10 to 15 percent of the total capital investments needed to
provide sewage capacity in the presently undeveloped areas of
anticipated future growth, all of which lie outside the city
limits. Growth in these areas, which will be spurred by
Seattle's "subsidization" of utility services, ultimately will
produce population changes that will reduce Seattle's percentage
of the membership of the Metro board.
Compensation has been another important issue in metropolitan
water politics. Proposals to transform Milwaukee's
water supply system into a regional network were met with cries
that the suburbs were trying to "steal" the water works. In
the Twin Cities area, Minneapolis-St. Paul objected to payment
for existing facilities on the basis of reproduction cost less
obsolescence, and depreciation, and Federal aid. As a result,
the compensation issue remains a major hurdle to the creation
of a metropolitan sewage district in the Twin Cities area. The
experience in Seattle, however, indicates that the compensation
issue need not be a barrier to the development of comprehensive
approaches. To forestall conflict, the Metropolitan Council
decided to reimburse communities on the basis of total local
investment, less only Federal aid. No major conflicts resulted.
Although some money probably could have been saved by a less
liberal reimbursement formula, these savings in all likelihood
would have been purchased at the cost of increased acrimony.
40/ The White Center News, November 1, 1957.
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/m1/63/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.