235 



Although these figures are approximate, and understate the magni- 

 tude of the municipal waste load in the estuarine zone, they indicate 

 the tremendous pressure increasing population itself will place on the 

 water quality of the estuarine zone in the future. It does not take into 

 account the increasing use of high-water-use appliances such as wash- 

 ing machines, disliwashers, and garbage disposals, which will con- 

 tribute significantly to higher per capita water wastes in the future. 



These hgures are reasonable statements of pressures from urban 

 populations, but the exterior suburban and rural populations presently 

 not served by sewers will undoubtedly contribute further significant 

 liquid-bearing wastes to the estuaries. For example, beach- front and 

 estuarine communities, particularly resort-oriented developments, 

 have traditionally and continue to depend in large degree on septic 

 tank disposal of municipal wastes. Problems of waste seepage from 

 septic treatment have been noted in such places as the north and south 

 shores of Long Island, Florida resort and retirement communities, 

 and the Delaware-Maryland- Virginia shoreline. Furthermore, many 

 coastal communities were originally sewered with primary treatment 

 facilities. These facilities, often discharging directly into shallow back 

 bays, are no longer adequate to meet increased development, density 

 pressures, and the longer duration of stays caused by burgeoning 

 "second home" markets. The communities, limited to residential tax 

 bases, are hard pressed to finance facilities adequate to handle peak 

 loads reached for relatively short periods in the critical summer 

 months. 



TABLE IV.4.10.-CAPITAL OUTLAYS NEEDED TO OBTAIN ADEQUATE MUNICIPAL WASTE TREATMENT FOR 

 URBAN POPULATIONS IN MARINE COASTAL STATES AND ESTIMATES FOR ESTUARINE-ASSOCIATED PORTIONS 

 OF THOSE STATES, 1969-73 



[In millions) 



Estuarine portions 

 State Entire State of States 



Alabama 



Alaska 



California 



Connecticut 



Delaware 



District of Columbia 



Florida 



Georgia 



Hawaii 



Louisiana 



Maine 



Maryland 



Massachusetts.-- - 



Mississippi..- 



New Hampshire 



New Jersey - 



New York..- - - 



North Carolina -- --- 



Oregon --- -- 



Pennsylvania - 



Rhode Island - - 



South Carolina - - - 



Texas - 



Virginia : - - - 



Washington - - 



Total --- ---. 5,503.0 > 3,285.8 



1 60 percent 



Source: Computed from table 1-3A in The Cost of Clean Water, op. cit., p. 13. 



