Even in the absence of a proven optimal solution, the model appears to be a highly useful tool in a man-machine dialogue aimed at formally introducing elements of interdependence into the engineer's design and evaluation procedures at the pre-investment stage. And, given that the costs of developing the tool through its first implementation have already been incurred, its implementation should not prove too expensive in future applications. We are currently working to extend the model in three directions: to improve the specification of labor costs by making labor a separate element; to disaggregate the model to the level of individual tasks performed on particular machines; and, to incorporate choices among alternative production techniques at the disaggregated level. We are also searching for an inexpensive, tailor-made solution algorithm guaranteed to yield the optimal solution. We conjecture that it should be possible to design such an algorithm along the lines sketched above, for the model has a rather simple structure. A NOTE ON E F F L U E N T CHARGES R. E. D. W o o l s e y & H. S. S w a n s o n C o l o r a d o S c h o o l of M i n e s , G o l d e n Ferrar in ~] discussed some of the problems in the implementation of an effluent taxation structure. Two of the problems discussed in his paper were that ( l ) damage from effluents is very d i f f i c u l t to quantify, add (2) often the offenders have l i t t l e motivation to clean up the effluent at a l l , much less give "honest" answers to questions for necessary data. W would contend that the crucial problem is the lack of motivation of the e offender to bring up his effluent to social standards. I t is well understood that c i t y councils that propose sewage bonds to clean up a r i v e r downstream are often not returned to office. The reason is simply that the person in c i t y A sees little reason why he should pay to clean up the water for downstream c i t y B. Further he does not see that such action on his part w i l l encourage c i t i e s upstream to do the same. This is especially.true in Colorado where there are often not any c i t i e s upstream. The problem is then to find an answer to the effluent problem that w i l l motivate the voters to ardently desire such ~ond issues as are needed. Following an e a r l i e r , and more able, management s c i e n t i s t [2] we make the following proposal: The necessary authority (say EPA or a Sta~ Legislature) passes a law that states that "After January l , 1977 no c i t y presently takino drinking water from a running watercourse w i l l be allowed to continue taking such water unless the intake for such water is downstream from the o u t f a l l . " I t is most interesting to note that the above law also neatly takes care of thermal pollution problems in running streams. to meet i t s own standards for use. I . Ferrar, Terry A.,"Nonlinear Effluent Charges",Management Science, Vol 20, #2, Oct., 1973, pp. 16g-177. 2. Machiavelli, Niccolo, The Prince, Chapter IX:Of Civil P r i n c i p a l i t i e s , F l o r e n c e , l 1532 A . D . Any firm not w i l l i n g to use i t s own outfall as intake has j u s t confessed i t s i n a b i l i t y to clean up a stream 46,

/lp/association-for-computing-machinery/a-note-of-effluent-charges-5YZdfe1vsN