PART VI. INFLUENCE OF OBJECTIVE FUNCTION AND 



OPTIMIZATION ON THE THREE AREAS IN THE 



ASHUELOT RIVER BASIN 



Many New Hampshire river basins appear to be separable into areas with 

 distinctive flow as well as water- and related land-use characteristics. The 

 Ashuelot River basin was not an exception and was divided into three areas 

 (see Figure 2.1, Part II). The northern area is distinguished by relatively rapid 

 river flow, rural residences, little or no industrial activity, and undeveloped lakes 

 with potential recreation areas. The central area has much slower river flow, 

 more urban area, and a larger agricultural land-use base. The potential recreation 

 areas were more highly developed than in the northern area. The southern area, 

 by contrast, has a generally rapid river flow, with water-dependent industries 

 located in small communities along the river. 



All three areas contained a portion of the headwater areas within the basin 

 boundary. Extensive residential and recreation activity was found, but the rela- 

 tive importance of these activities varied with the area. The central and southern 

 areas contained more residential and commercial-industrial development hence 

 the rural and recreation sectors were less important in the total economic 

 activity in these two areas. 



6.1 Effect of Goals Optimized in Each Area 



The decision-making structure in river basins is largely one of meeting overall 

 legislated standards while each community or sector works with whatever water 

 quantities and quaUty are available in the adjacent river or lake resources. This is 

 illustrated in the analyses of various objectives optimized for the three separate 

 portions of the river basin. In the analysis each area uses incoming water quantity 

 and quality from the edge of the closest upstream checkpoint. The downstream 

 resource allocation reflects the effects of the resource allocations made by the 

 upstream users. 



A comparison of the effects of optimizing five objectives on net benefits, 

 gross benefits, public and private cost, and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) 

 released into the river, coliform bacteria released into the river, and annual total 

 of both direct and indirect benefits to the area are shown in Appendix B, Table 4. 



The effect of choice of objective on the selected items in the northern, central, 

 and southern areas is similar to that found for the basin as a whole. Maximizing 

 benefits, both gross and net, results in greater resource use and total benefits to 

 each area. The difference among the three areas is due to the quantity of 

 resources available and the type of economic activity found in the area. 



In the northern area, the difference between the effects of maximizing net 

 benefits and minimizing public and private costs was not as great as it was for 

 the other two areas. This reflects less economic activity and a different pre- 

 dominant activity in the northern area. Maximizing environmental quality by 

 minimizing coliform bacteria count and BOD reduced benefits and increased 

 cost in all areas. The environmental quality goals were met, subject to constraints 

 of present economic activity and treatment methods. Improving the quality of 

 the environment in terms of cohform bacteria and BOD beyond the levels shown 

 in Appendix B, Table 4, could only be accomplished by removing people and 

 industry from the basin. 



42 



