10.5 Projected Lake- and Related Land-Resource Use and Implied Prices 



Lake and related recreational-land resource use is separated by dams from 

 river resources. When these bodies of water are used for recreational use, they are 

 employed in the highest value use. An alternative is their use for low-flow 

 augmentation, and even then their value for low-flow augmentation is usually 

 low. 



Due to the separation of lakes from the central river and the above industrial 

 assumption, projected lake-resource use will probably focus on more shore and 

 non-shore cottages and more beach day-use facilities with less or perhaps no 

 undeveloped shoreline. Price of lots, with or without cottages, will rise as will 

 prices of day-use and camping facilities. The increase in prices may not be pro- 

 portional and will reflect demand for each kind of resource use, with an 

 accompanying change in price ratio. Bevens^ suggests a doubling of camping fees, 

 with prices rising to $5 to $8 per camping day. 



Shoreline, surface water, and the recreational area will become increasingly 

 used. The economic pressures are for development of many small-lot units. The 

 picture will be one of a body of water surrounded by a housing development 

 about one city block deep, with all the problems of a city block, including the 

 usual urban water-facility needs. The development found on many lakes support 

 this city block view of development. 



10.6 Projected River-Related Resource Use and Implied Prices 



The influence of moving from 1970 population to 1980 projected population 

 on resource use is described in Table 10.2. The river-quality classification for the 

 two comparison years was B level for median-river flow. The increase in population 

 is accompanied by an increase in water demand and waste-water disposal 

 activity. 



It is interesting to note the relatively modest net increases in public waste- 

 water treatment facilities called for in the optimal 1980 solution. This is for two 

 primary reasons. First, the 1970 solution is so tightly constrained that there is 

 relatively little untreated waste water permitted to enter the river, hence, there is 

 little room left for expansion. Second, the assumption of 100 percent effective- 

 ness of individual septic tanks was recognized in the 1980 solution as a means of 

 further reducing BOD discharge to the river. This assumption requires closer 

 scrutiny, particularly in the intensive residential areas. 



Forest cuttings were unaffected as were number of dairy farms, which for 

 both years were held to the minimum now in the basin. Manufacturing activity 

 was unaffected between the two years for B-quality classification. 



The two main influences on water-related resource use were a shift in waste- 

 water treatment. More intensive residential houses were on private, septic tank 

 waste-water disposal systems; more than 800 of these were shifted to more 

 effective but more costly methods. The shift in waste-water treatment, mainly 

 confined to residential houses, left the shadow price per pound of BOD at $4.15 

 for both years. Some 9 to 10 million more gallons of water were handled per 

 month. 



With an objective of minimizing the public and private cost of providing water 

 supply and waste-water treatment for present economic activity, a slightly 

 different picture emerged. More water passed through the system, even though 

 fewer differences in treatment processes were found. The shadow price of BOD 

 increased from $0.12 per pound in 1970 to $0,146 per pound in 1980. 



63 



