evaluating alternative water uses appear to be (1) minimizing public and private 

 costs (SOCCOST), (2) maximizing gross benefits (PRITOT), and (3) maximizing 

 net benefits (REVOWAT). 



Other than the lake-oriented recreation sectors, resource allocation is greatly 

 influenced by river-flow level as well as choice of goals. Resource allocation by 

 sector is taken up in detail in ensuing parts of this report. The discussion here 

 is mainly limited to the interaction between goals and flow level. 



Selected resource-use quantities for the rural, recreational, forestry, agri- 

 cultural, intensive residential, urban, and industrial sectors for the objective 

 functions maximizing net benefits (REVOWAT), as well as minimizing public 

 and private costs (SOCCOST) and maximizing gross benefits (PRITOT), are 

 shown in Table 3.1. 



3.41 Rural Household Sector 



Disposal of waste from private households directly or indirectly into a river 

 or stream without treatment is a low-cost method of waste-water disposal. This 

 practice is not uncommon. It should come as no surprise that for each of the 

 optimized objectives, rural household disposal of untreated waste water was an 

 optimal method of waste disposal at liigh (and sometimes median) river-flow 

 levels.' When minimizing public and private costs, about one-fourth the rural 

 houses were on this method, even at low river-flow levels. Optimizing in terms 

 of lowest cost still called for this practice. Maximizing net benefits did not. 



3.42 Recreation Sector 



As will be discussed later, the recreation sector, mainly based on availability 

 of lake areas, was not influenced by river-flow levels. In contrast with benefit 

 maximizing objectives, when only cost of providing clean water (SOCCOST) 

 was considered, shore-front vacation homes with bigger lots as well as sub- 

 stantially fewer non-shore cottages were shown to be optimal. The cost was 

 also accompanied by less recreational activity in almost all areas of water-based 

 recreation. Minimizing cost became less attractive as an objective in terms of 

 quantity of use. 



3.43 Forest and Agriculture Sector 



Forestry production remained unaltered by river flow except when minimizing 

 public and private costs of providing water supply and waste-water disposal. In 

 median- and low-flow years, forest cutting practices were curtailed. This revenue- 

 producing activity was curtailed due to flow and water-quality constraints, even 

 though half the rural houses were allowed to dispose of household waste water 

 directly into the river. For all objective functions, the number of farms was 

 reduced and production practices were changed in low-flow years. The change 

 occurred at median-flow years for the objective of minimizing public and private 

 costs (SOCCOST). 



High-flow levels were at the 90th percentile level (for August, 90 percent of the years 

 were below this level), and low-flow levels were at the 10th percentile. See Part II for 

 description of flow levels. 



18 



