"This study evaluates existing cost-sharing programs for wastewater pollution abatement as described in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, describes alternative cost-sharing programs that provide improvements in terms of national efficiency and equity criteria as defined herein, and suggests related areas for further research. Emphasis is on how federal cost sharing biases communities in favor of certain kinds of techniques. The approach is to describe the current cost-sharing programs for both plant and nonplant techniques; to examine cost-sharing, legal, and other institution biases against certain techniques; to analyze efficiency and equity effects of alternative cost-sharing programs; and to describe the incentive effects of cost sharing on nonfederal interests with respect to their choices among abatement techniques. Findings of the study are that more efficient abatement will result if the same percentage cost share applies to all plant and nonplant techniques of abatement; the same percentage also applies to all categories of cost (e.g., capital, land, operation and maintenance) for a given technique; the same percentage applies to large and small communities; institutional constraints on the selection of nonplant techniques are removed; and if the program provides for federal cost sharing of every abatement technique that is technically viable. This report was submitted in fulfillment of program element PE 1BA030 and work order number EPA-IAG D4 H 374 by the National Bureau of Standards, Building Economics Section."--P. iv.

"This study evaluates existing cost-sharing programs for wastewater pollution abatement as described in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, describes alternative cost-sharing programs that provide improvements in terms of national efficiency and equity criteria as defined herein, and suggests related areas for further research. Emphasis is on how federal cost sharing biases communities in favor of certain kinds of techniques. The approach is to describe the current cost-sharing programs for both plant and nonplant techniques; to examine cost-sharing, legal, and other institution biases against certain techniques; to analyze efficiency and equity effects of alternative cost-sharing programs; and to describe the incentive effects of cost sharing on nonfederal interests with respect to their choices among abatement techniques. Findings of the study are that more efficient abatement will result if the same percentage cost share applies to all plant and nonplant techniques of abatement; the same percentage also applies to all categories of cost (e.g., capital, land, operation and maintenance) for a given technique; the same percentage applies to large and small communities; institutional constraints on the selection of nonplant techniques are removed; and if the program provides for federal cost sharing of every abatement technique that is technically viable. This report was submitted in fulfillment of program element PE 1BA030 and work order number EPA-IAG D4 H 374 by the National Bureau of Standards, Building Economics Section."--P. iv.