Problems
and Approaches to
Areawide
Water Quality
Management
Executive Summary
PREPARED FOR THE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
BY
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
INDIANA UNIVERSITY
-------
TITLE Problems and Approaches to
Areawide Water Quality Management
CONTRACTOR School of Public and Environmental Affairs
Indiana University
400 East Seventh Street
Bloomington, Indiana 47401
SPONSOR Water Planning Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Contract Number 68-01-0199
October, 1973
-------
EPA Review Notice
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency and approved
for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade
names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Professors Richard S. Howe and Nicholas L. White of Indiana University School of
Public and Environmental Affairs and School of Law, respectively, directed the
substantive work of this project and take editorial responsibility for preparing the final
report.
Participating in the research and in the preparation of this report were senior
reseachers George A. Fruit, J.D., and Michael R. Gill, M.P.A., and researchers Gary
Brown, Sandra Dukes, Walter Hasenmuller, Nina Hatfield, F. James Helms, Steven
Johnson, David Mallon, Robert McConnell, John McGee, Cliff Potter, John Sharpe,
William D. Welty, all from the Bloomington Campus of Indiana University.
A number of individuals provided advice and counsel during the study. The Board of
Advisors to the project was comprised of Elwood Barce, Vice President, Paul D. Speer
and Associates, Chicago, Illinois; Blair T. Bower, Associate Director, Quality of the
Environmental Program, Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C.; N. William
Hines, J.D., Professor of Law, University of Iowa; Thomas McKewan, Director,
Environmental Service, State of Maryland, Annapolis, Maryland; John G. Morris,
President, J.G. Morris Environmental Engineering Associates, Wheaton, Illinois.
In addition, consulted regarding particular aspects of the study were Irving K. Fox,
Director, Westwater Resources Center, University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
British Columbia; Anthony H.J. Dorcey, Assistant to the Director, Westwater
Resources Center, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia;
Wayne Echelberger, Ph. D., Professor, School of Public and Environmental Affairs,
Indiana University, South Bend; and Robert H. Maynard, LLM, Attorney, Smith and
Schanke, Dayton, Ohio (formerly legislative assistant to the United States Senator
Thomas Eagleton).
Administrative and technical support for the project was provided by the Division of
Research of the School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Mr. Ralph K. Jones,
Associate Director of the Division, managed this aspect of the project. Gary P.
Simmons, Ed. D., and Gary J. Scrimgeour, Ph. D., provided editorial support in the
development of the final report and made major contributions to the design of the
Executive Summary. Donald M. Goldenbaum, Ph. D., assisted with the mail survey.
Fred N. Fromm and Cynthia Williams coordinated publication activities related to the
project.
Individuals from whom information was requested were generally most cooperative
and in particular instances went beyond the call of duty. We appreciate these efforts on
our behalf.
Bernard R. Hyde, Jr., Project Officer for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
responded promptly to our requests for information and generally facilitated the
completion of this project. David A. Eberly succeeded Mr. Hyde as project officer in
the later stages of the work and he was very helpful in bringing the project to a close.
-------
PREFACE
This volume is the Summary of a report entitled Problems and Approaches to
Areawide Water Quality Management, prepared by the Indiana University School
of Public and Environmental Affairs for the United States Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. The volume abstracts the major ideas and information of the larger
report, emphasizing guidelines for people concerned with the planning and imple-
mentation of areawide wastewater management. Planners should read the full
report; this volume does not include all important details.
-------
SUBJECT OF THE REPORT
The subject of this report is certain sections of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972, henceforth referred to as the Act.
The report is written for anyone with responsibility for implementing the Act at
the state and local level: planners, managers, elected or appointed officials, mem-
bers of citizen groups, engineers, lawyers, anyone concerned with the daily problems
of water quality management.
The Act has many new and important implications. It sets out the requirements
and methods for getting federal funding for water quality control projects. It also
contains avenues for innovation and imagination which could have major effects
on water quality management.
One of the Act's most important emphases is on areawide planning and manage-
ment. The sections of the Act which are the special focus of this report §208
(c) (2) and related sections are of special significance in this respect. §208 (c)
(2) addresses specific problems in areawide wastewater management. It defines
the special features (called "adequate authority") required of an areawide waste
treatment management agency to qualify for federal funds for the construction of
treatment works. The related sections of the Act examined in this study deal with the
planning and regulatory aspects of areawide wastewater management. Anyone
applying for construction grants under the Act needs to know the provisions of these
sections; they offer opportunities never before available.
The multidisciplinary research which produced this report covered two major
areas: the legal authority of present wastewater management entities; and the man-
agement structure of (existing and proposed) wastewater management entities.
The study analyzed the present laws of fifty states to see whether present waste-
water management entities have "adequate authority" to perform as the Act re-
quires an issue which all state and local personnel must resolve if they are to
get funds. The study also examined several successful existing management ar-
rangements, seeking to describe the management problems which the Act may
create, and to identify various workable management organizations.
In sum, the study focused on both the legal and the practical problems of setting up a
management organization aimed at water quality control, with particular attention to
the entire planning process. The final report identifies the kinds of problems planners
and managers may face, recommends some solutions, and identifies some of the
opportunities provided by the Act.
-------
CONTENTS OF THE STUDY'S FINAL REPORT
The full volume of which this is a Summary contains the following material:
CD Section I:
CD Section II:
D Section 111:
Section IV:
LD Section V:
LJ Section VI:
CH Section VII:
D Section VIII:
D Section IX:
[U Section X:
D Section XI:
Conclusions about the planning, management, and regulation of
areawide waste treatment, as required or possible under §208 and
related sections of the Act.
Recommendations to state and local authorities as to how to use
the Act, how to fulfill its requirements, and how to meet the
requirements of §208 (c) (2).
Introduction to the significance of the Act, the Act's
requirements, the study's methodology, and the research group's
guiding concepts.
Adequate authority of present wastewater management entities
to perform, under present laws, as required by the Act's §208 (c)
(2).
Management problems likely to be faced by management entities
turning geographic and hydrologic realities into administrative
realities.
Management models areawide, basinwide, and regionalized
state which may serve effectively for planners implementing
§208 (c) (2).
Legal problems likely to arise when any of the above models are
implemented.
Regulatory approaches, and the ramifications of their
relationship to the Act's plans for improving water quality.
Acknowledgements
References
Glossary
Two appendices to the full volume complete the report. Appendix A
contains suggested or model legislation and Appendix B, a report on
current state laws.
-------
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ACT
The Act differs from previous Acts in important ways. Legislators have identified
various problems in previous efforts at water quality management and laid out new
paths toward their solution. The Act's concepts and methods need specification,
which can be achieved only in time, as real world operations commence, through
cooperation between personnel at all levels of government (especially operational
personnel dealing with the daily problems of water quality). Time, goodwill and
open-mindedness are needed to implement the Act.
1
2
This report concentrates on one important characteristic of the Act: its
emphasis on areawide planning, especially as embodied in §208. Recognizing
that many past efforts at improving water quality have failed because they were
too brief or lacked geographic coordination, the Act deliberately creates the
time and structure for local and state governments to work together. Any state
seeking maximum benefits from the Act will develop an areawide plan (a §208
plan) and waste treatment management agencies. The Act specifies a set of
benefits for them:
I I Geographical and political units now have the methods and funds to
cooperate in a systematic and enduring fashion, rather than working
piecemeal over a short term.
LJ Instead of waiting until the operational stage to find out an approach
doesn't work, communities can now define at the planning stage the
problems caused by the need to improve water quality, and they can
fight their battles early enough to avoid wasting money and effort.
I I All viewpoints within a community, including those of the public,
can find opportunity for expression in the planning effort, which is
no longer confined to specialists.
LJ Instead of only building more, expensive treatment works, a com-
munity can integrate efforts to improve its water quality with the
rest of its environmental, political and economic life.
§208 (c) (2) will strongly encourage state and local personnel to examine seven
basic issues:
I I The linkage between an area's management of its wastewater and its
management of all other residuals.
-------
3
4
5
CH The linkage between an area's management of its wastewater, and its
management of the water supply and of all other water-oriented ac-
tivities.
CH The linkage between an area's water quality management agency and
the area's governments of general jurisdiction with authority over
land use.
HZ! The legal and practical relationships between governments of general
jurisdiction and any agency with a single or special function.
Li The wide range of alternative methods for controlling the quantity
and quality of water, starting from when it is generated for use and
ending before it is discharged as waste rather than concentrating
only on the conventional "treatment works."
L_l The question of representation in decisions about water quality: what
does "representation" mean? who should be represented, and how?
I I The nature of institutionalized flexibility: how does one create a water
management agency which will endure as a cohesive entity and at the
same time easily adjust to dynamic change as the area's needs change?
These issues show that a major characteristic of the Act is its attention to the
societal implications of water quality control, as well as to technical and
practical issues. The Act gives communities a chance to face both practical and
societal problems in a thorough and systematic manner. It also emphasizes
that planners, at the beginning stages, should face rather than avoid these
issues.
The Act is more detailed than previous Acts. It establishes goals to be met
nationwide. It gives the federal government authority over the authorization of
funds and implementation of its intentions, and it shows in detail the program
plans which statewide and areawide entities are to follow.
The Act continues earlier attempts to achieve water quality by coupling money
with enforcement, but there are important changes. The level of federal
funding has increased substantially, and these funds may now probably be
used for programs other than conventional treatment works (particularly
-------
6
7
8
under §208). In addition to water quality standards, the enforcement
provisions now use effluent limitation standards and a permit system.
Moreover, though the Act retains standards enforcement as a basic
determinant for federal construction grants, there are also provisions requiring
areawide agencies to be self-supporting through charges to all users, and to
achieve water quality by the most cost-effective method. These two provisions
have the potential for improving water quality at the least possible overall cost,
an obvious benefit to local communities.
The Act's standards for securing federal grants for a project provide new
concepts concerning planning, cost effectiveness, and method of operation:
I I The project must arise from a planning process in which a wide range
of alternatives was considered.
II The plan of which the project is a part must have been chosen through
a representative process.
LH The project must be cost-effective.
I I The project must prospectively generate enough revenue from users
to become self-supporting.
The Act emphasizes areawide or regionalized planning, requiring cooperation
between local units of government if water quality projects are to receive
federal funds. The words "planning" and "coordination" should be given full
weight. The Act clearly does not want to establish centralized operational
control areawide czardoms. Equally, however, it does want to discourage
fragmentation. For good reason, it seeks coordination of the optimal number
of management agencies and interests at the planning stage, so that planning
will be realistic, operations smooth, and the entire process both effective and
cost-effective.
Most important to the present report of the Act, in §208, encourages areawide
management as well as planning, including control of both point and nonpoint
sources of pollution. This approach stems from previous failures of federal
funding to improve water quality adequately to justify the outlay of federal
funds. Too often the cause of failure was lack of coordination among political
subdivisions, as people in the field well know. In this Act, the federal
government is also required to be responsive and timely to state and local
-------
9
needs. Cooperation, in other words, is built into the Act, with the special
intentions of helping urban-industrial concentrations with significant waste
water problems and of enabling waste treatment agencies to avoid the costly or
disabling errors of the past.
The Act's view of water quality control will have an obvious impact on land use
planning. To regard water as a communal resource, with associated costs, and
needing planning and management, is to assert that its relationships with land
use deserve careful attention. The Act implies that the use of land and the use of
water are inseparable, and that the problems caused by their interaction need
to be faced rather than avoided.
10
-------
REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACT
Areawide Sequence
To achieve wastewater treatment management on an areawide basis, the Act pro-
vides time, money, and information to move logically from initial planning through
full operation and on to performance assessment.
§303
§303 covers the top-level, state planning process, concerned with river
basins and the effect of discharges on the receiving waters.
§201
§201 covers areawide planning on an interim basis. §201 planning
precedes §208 planning it is smaller in scope and does not deal with
nonpoint sources, but it is intended to initiate the use of a cost efficiency
study.
§208
§208 deals fully with areawide planning and management, including point
and nonpoint sources. It must conform with plans resulting from the §303
planning process and it must include any interim §201 plan. It is the major
planning and operational requirement affecting local jurisdictions. After
EPA has approved it, all construction projects within the area must
conform to it if requesting federal assistance.
11
-------
Under §208, both an areawide plan and an areawide waste treatment management
agency (or agencies) are developed. The following sequence of activities must take
place in order to bring this about:
On the basis of EPA guidelines describing the nature of areawide juris-
dictions, the Governor of a state identifies the boundaries to which the
areawide plan will apply. §208(a).
The Governor also designates a single representative organizational
group to commence the planning process and to design the §208 plan.
This group will include a "planning agency." §208(a).
Having designed the §208 plan according to the Act's requirements,
the organizational group (through the Governor) submits the plan to
EPA for the Administrator's approval. §208(a).
At the same time, after consultation with the planning group, the
Governor designates the waste treatment management agency (or
agencies) to be responsible for implementing the plan. He submits it
(them) to the Administrator for approval at the same time as the plan.
§208(c).
EPA examines the plan and the designated agencies according to cri-
teria set out in the Act. §208(b).
To gain approval, a waste treatment management agency must meet
the requirements of §208(c)(2).
12
-------
REQUIREMENTS: §208 (b)
The requirements for a §208 plan to gain approval are set out in §208(b). In order
for a §208 plan to be approved by the Administrator of EPA, it must include, but is
not limited to,
A the identification of treatment works necessary to meet anticipated
*ğ needs over a twenty-year period; necessary wastewater collection
and urban stormwater runoff systems; and a program to provide
necessary financial arrangements;
B
D
the establishment of construction priorities and time schedules for ini-
tiation and completion;
the establishment of a regulatory program to implement require-
ments of §201(c), to regulate location of any facilities which result
in discharges in the area, and to assure that industrial wastes
discharged into a treatment works meet applicable pretreatment
standards;
the identification of those agencies necessary to construct, operate,
and maintain all facilities required by the plan and otherwise to carry
out the plan;
the identification of the measures necessary to carry out the plan
(including financing), the period of time necessary to carry out the
plan, the costs of carrying out the plan within such time, and the eco-
nomic, social and environmental impact of carrying out the plan
within such time;
a process to (i) identify, if appropriate, agriculturally and silvicul-
turally related nonpoint sources of pollution, including runoff from
manure disposal areas, and from land used for livestock and crop
production, and (ii) set forth procedures and methods (including
land use requirements) to control to the extent feasible such
sources;
a process to (i) identify, if appropriate, mine-related sources of pol-
lution including new, current, and abandoned surface and under-
ground mine runoff, and (ii) set forth procedures and methods (in-
cluding land use requirements) to control to the extent feasible such
sources;
13
-------
H
K
a process to (i) identify construction activity related sources of
pollution, and (ii) set forth procedures and methods (including land
use requirements) to control to the extent feasible such sources;
a process to (i) identify, if appropriate, salt water intrusion into
rivers, lakes, and estuaries resulting from reduction of fresh
water flow from any cause, including irrigation, obstruction, ground
water extraction, and diversion, and (ii) set forth procedures and
methods to control such intrusion to the extent feasible where such
procedures and methods are otherwise a part of the waste treatment
management plan;
a process to control the disposition of all residual waste generated
in such area which could affect water quality; and
a process to control the disposal of pollutants on land or in subsur-
face excavations within such area to protect ground and surface
water quality.
In addition, the areawide plan must be certified annually by the Governor (or his
designee) as being consistent with applicable basin plans. Of the requirements
listed above, clauses (F) through (K) may be developed and submitted on a state-
wide basis if consistent with a §303 plan.
14
-------
REQUIREMENTS: §208 (c) (2)
In §208(c)(2) appear the requirements imposed on a waste treatment management
agency if it is to receive approval by the Administrator of EPA. The requirements
of §208(c)(2) are implemented or enforced by the Administrator, who has the
authority to accept or reject the management agency designated by the Governor.
The criteria for rejection are set out in §208(c)(2) as follows:
The Administrator shall accept any such designation, unless within
120 days of such designation, he finds that the designated manage-
ment agency (or agencies) does not have adequate authority
fa to carry out appropriate portions of an areawide waste treat-
ment management plan developed under subsection (b) of this sec-
tion;
B to manage effectively waste treatment works and related facilities
serving such area in conformance with any plan required by subsec-
tion (b) of this section;
C directly or by contract, to design and construct new works and to
operate and maintain new and existing works as required by any
plan developed pursuant to subsection (b) of this section;
D to accept and utilize grants, or other funds from any source, for
waste treatment management purposes;
£ to raise revenues, including the assessment of waste treatment
charges;
F to incur short- and long-term indebtedness;
G to assure in implementation of an areawide waste treatment man-
agement plan that each participating community pay its proportion-
ate share of treatment costs;
H to refuse to receive any wastes from any municipality or subdivision
thereof, which does not comply with any provisions of an approved
plan under this section applicable to such area; and
| to accept for treatment industrial wastes.
15
-------
It is not required that a single management agency have all these authorities. Two or
more agencies, each with adequate authority to perform in compliance with the
areawide plan, may collectively meet the requirements of §208 (c) (2).
In addition to the requirements imposed by this section of the Act, a waste treat-
ment management agency must also meet the requirements imposed on any partic-
ular project within its area. Other requirements in other sections of the Act are also
interrelated. For example, to be accepted by the Administrator, a waste treatment
management agency must conform not only with the areawide plan but also adopt
an acceptable system of user charges. Such relationships between §208(c)(2) and
other sections should be kept clearly in mind. Requirements imposed on partic-
ular projects are discussed in the following pages.
16
-------
REQUIREMENTS FOR
PARTICULAR PROJECTS
In addition to the general requirements listed in the previous section for the estab-
lishment of a waste treatment management agency, other sections of Title II
(Grants for Construction of Treatment Works) impose requirements on particular
projects after a §208 plan is adopted. Some of the most important are noted in this
section.
Some requirements for a particular project appear technological in nature. As an
example, §201 (g) (2) provides that the Administrator shall not make a grant for a
treatment works (from funds authorized for any fiscal year after June 30, 1974) unless
the applicant has satisfactorily demonstrated that (A) alternative waste management
techniques have been evaluated and that the proposed project represents the
application of the best practicable waste treatment technology; and (B) as appropriate,
the proposed project takes into account and will allow the application of technology at
a later date which will provide for reclaiming or recycling of water or otherwise
eliminating the discharge of pollutants. As noted in Section V of this report, the
consideration and adoption of alternative techniques is vital if water quality
management is to be accomplished as conceived under the Act. §201 (g) (3) also
requires the applicant to show that the sewer collection system discharging into the
proposed works is not subject to excessive infiltration. From a technological and
operational point of view, meeting these requirements can be both difficult and costly.
§203(a)
§203(a) of the Act requires that the applicant submit for the Administrator's ap-
proval the plans, specifications and estimates for the project.
§204(a)
§204(a) provides that, before approving any grants, the Administrator shall deter-
mine:
1 that the works are included in any applicable areawide waste treat-
ment management plan developed under §208 of the Act;
2 that such works are in conformity with any applicable state plan
developed under §303(e) of the Act;
3 that such works have state certification as to priority within the state
in accordance with any state plan developed and §303(e) of the Act;
17
-------
4 that the applicant agrees to pay the non-Federal costs of such works,
and has made provision for proper and efficient operation;
5 that the size and capacity, including reserve capacity, of the works
relate directly to the needs to be served; and
6 that no specifications for bids are so written as to contain no priority,
exclusionary or discriminatory requirements.
The waste treatment management agency must also be cognizant of, and be pre-
pared to overcome, any adverse effects on the environment. §511(c) of the Act pro-
vides that action of the Administrator in approving a grant for a publicly owned
treatment works as authorized by §201 is not exempted from the impact statement
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The applicant
must, therefore, be in a position to supply information for the required impact
statement.
The foregoing are not exhaustive, but are examples of requirements imposed on
particular projects for which federal funding is sought.
After a §208 plan has been adopted and approved by the Administrator, there is a
clear sequence of requirements for any project in the area applying to be ap-
proved and funded. The major requirements are as follows:
1 The applicant (waste treatment management agency) must be ac-
cepted by the Administrator, and, in order to be accepted, the appli-
cant must have adequate authority either alone or in conjunction
with other agencies (i) to carry out its (their) appropriate portions
of the areawide plan and (ii) to perform as otherwise required.
2 The proposed project must be in conformity with any applicable
state plan and be certified by the state agency as having priority for
funding.
3 The proposed project must comply with the areawide plan and be
under management of an approved management agency.
4 The proposed project must meet the technical and special require-
ments of the Act as promulgated by the Administrator.
18
-------
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
19
-------
CONCLUSIONS
Planning
The planning process should be integrated with other activities (design
and construction, operations, and performance assessment) throughout
the entire process of wastewater management. It may be separate but
must not be isolated and can never be complete without continuous
exchange with the management organization. Existing agencies may be
designated by planners to implement the plan; however, designating too
many agencies runs the risk of creating further problems by
fragmentation of responsibility.
Planners should look at innovative policy alternatives for improving
water quality, not just conventional physical structures for waste-
water treatment.
Choices between alternative treatment strategies must be made on a
cost-effective basis.
Planning for the improvement of water quality is inseparable from the
planning of land use.
The ways in which public participation in water quality control de-
cisions can be assured have not yet been sufficiently defined.
Disagreements between entities within an area engaged in §208 plan-
ning can be expected. They are normal and healthy. They deal mainly
with the designation of geographical and functional powers and duties.
20
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
Planning
Q The planning process should consider a wider range of alternative and
complementary strategies to achieve water quality. Among these strat-
egies should be the following:
land use controls
permit systems
differentiated user charges
prohibitions
in-plant process changes
by-product production
materials recovery
use of assimilative capacity
Q Planning entities should use the provisions of the Act to ensure that all
interested parties receive adequate information about alternative strat-
egies and their consequences. The public being served, as well as the
waste treatment management agencies and the policy-makers, should
be kept informed.
Q Because any areawide plan will fundamentally affect development
within an area, it should be formulated by local governments and their
constituents. This will help both to overcome local apprehension about
any loss of autonomy as a consequence of areawide management, and
to facilitate adoption and implementation of the areawide plan. The
plan must not merely be "announced" or "given" to a local area.
Q The provisions of the Act requiring appropriate representation in
areawide planning should be so implemented that elected representatives
of local general purpose governments comprise a substantial portion of
the membership of policy boards.
Q The rules and regulations to be promulgated by EPA should contain
an explicit statement that under §201(g)(2)(A) federal assistance will
be available to support a wide range of alternative strategies aimed at
achieving desired levels of ambient water quality at least cost. Such
activities as resource utilization charges, materials recovery, and by-
product production could be eligible for federal assistance.
21
-------
CONCLUSIONS
Management
The Act significantly increases the number of different treatment strat-
egies eligible for federal funds. Construction of more and larger treat-
ment plants (the "end-of-the-pipe" philosophy) is not enough.
In all states the present legislative basis for the "adequate authority"
required by the Act of a waste treatment management agency should
be examined to determine the need for new legislation.
Though any waste treatment management structure must be very
adaptable to local needs, three model structures (areawide, basinwide,
regionalized state) offer the appropriate flexibility.
The price mechanism can reduce wastewater discharges and is an al-
ternative strategy to be considered under the terms of the Act.
The political boundaries of existing management agencies may cause
problems, mostly because present laws give them limited respon-
sibilities.
22
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
Management
Q In addition to recovering the direct costs of treatment, management
entities should adopt user charges to recover the costs of management
activities (such as planning, monitoring, operation of facilities, admin-
istration, and technical assistance provided within the service area).
Q] Both EPA and areawide agencies should consider using such economic
incentives as full cost recovery user charges to influence:
point source discharges (public-owned facilities, industrial
and commercial establishments, etc.)
nonpoint source discharges (construction runoff, agricultural
runoff, stormwater runoff, etc.)
r~j EPA, state agencies, and waste treatment management agencies
should seek eventual integration of the management of water quality
with the management of solid and gaseous residuals, at both state and
local levels.
Q Through creative administration of the provisions of §208(c)(2), EPA
should encourage and strengthen the programs of existing entities
whether local, areawide, or state which already have the authority
to plan, design, construct, and operate facilities and to apply non-
structural measures.
23
-------
CONCLUSIONS
Regulation
Q Methods for regulating water quality include:
land use control
permits and licensing
standards
price mechanisms
persuasion
traditional enforcement
the purchasing power of government
The operations of the marketplace are at least as effective as direct
government intervention.
Q Where an areawide plan encompasses several municipalities or waste
treatment management agencies, the noncompliance (non-coopera-
tion) with the areawide plan by one or more of the municipalities or
agencies may be difficult to rectify if such noncomplying agency or
community is not violating effluent or water quality standards.
Performance Assessment
Q The federal government needs to disseminate explicit criteria for
assessing the performance of planning and management agencies.
Q Assessors and assessed will have to design these criteria together and
should agree on later changes.
Q The federal government will need to equip itself with the capability
for performance assessment, just as it can now perform money audits.
Q Most state and local governments lack enough trained personnel, es-
pecially to conduct performance assessment. The federal government
could usefully provide training grants.
24
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
Regulation
Q The state and areawide agencies should consider a full range of regu-
lating tools, or combinations thereof, including
land use controls;
permits and licensing;
standards;
pricing mechanism;
persuasion;
traditional enforcement procedures; and
their purchasing power.
Q To overcome problems of the noncompliance (non-cooperation) of
communities within the area encompassed by an areawide plan, an
areawide agency or a state agency should have the power either (i)
to require compliance from all municipalities and agencies encom-
passed by the areawide plan; or (ii) to take over all or part of the
functions of the noncomplying community and perform in accordance
with the areawide plan. As an alternative or supplement, the permit
system and grant system of the state should be used to influence non-
complying communities.
Performance Assessment
Q In addition to a procedural checklist, the EPA should develop and im-
plement a performance assessment capability focusing on the ability
of water quality management agencies to perform as required.
r~| Each state should also develop and implement a performance assess-
ment capability. This capability, however, should focus on evaluating
the programs of regional authorities, sanitary districts, municipalities,
and other intrastate operating agencies with the responsibility for im-
proving water quality.
25
-------
CONCLUSIONS ABOUT §208 (c) (2)
§208 (c) (2) (A)
rn Few existing management agencies established by state and local laws
have adequate authority to perform all the functions required of a
waste treatment management agency as set forth in §208(c)(2) and
related sections of the Act. In most states, however, there are two or
more agencies with jurisdiction in the same geographical area which
collectively could meet the requirements of §208(c)(2); i.e. could per-
form one or more of the "appropriate portions" of the areawide plan.
Therefore, if the areawide plan adopted pursuant to §208(b) assigns or
delegates performance of such "appropriate portions" to the one or
more agencies with the legal capacity and demonstrated capability to
perform such within the area, the requirements of §208(c)(2)(A) can
be met in these states without new or amendatory legislation.
§208 (c) (2) (B)
Q In order to assess the adequate authority of waste treatment manage-
ment agency (agencies) to "manage effectively waste treatment works
and related facilities" as required by §208(c)(2)(B), both the legal ca-
pacity and management capability of the management agency
(agencies) should be considered; therefore, such assessment cannot be
made, and it cannot be determined whether the agency (agencies)
meet the requirements of §208(c)(2)(B) and the requirements of
§204(b)(l)(C), until the areawide plan is adopted and the functions
of the agency (agencies) are set forth therein.
26
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT §208 (c) (2)
§208 (c) (2) (A)
Q To facilitate compliance with §208(c)(2)(A), the §208(b) areawide plan
should assign or delegate implementation of "appropriate portions" of
the plan to existing waste treatment management agencies that have
the legal capacity and demonstrated management capability to perform
such assigned portion (portions) provided, however, that such dele-
gation does not result in excessive fragmentation. "Appropriate por-
tions" has both functional and geographic implications.
§208 (c) (2) (B)
Q Federal and state authorities should define the term "manage effec-
tively" in this section so as to evaluate the capabilities of management
agencies to perform, rather than focusing on the procedural aspects
required to be eligible for a grant under the Act. Management agen-
cies should be given time enough to demonstrate their ability to per-
form.
27
-------
CONCLUSIONS
§205 (c) (2) (C)
Most waste treatment management agencies have adequate authority to
design, construct and operate waste treatment works as required by
§208(c)(2)(C), including the broad meaning of "treatment works" as
defined in §212(2). The emphasis, however, so far has been on a single
option conventional treatment plans.
§208 (c) (2) (D)
Q Most waste treatment management agencies have adequate authority to
accept and utilize grants, or other funds from any source, for waste
treatment management purposes as required by §208(c)(2)(D) of the Act.
28
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
§208 (c) (2) (C)
Q State authorities should emphasize the broader meaning of "treat-
ment works" when enacting new legislation about a waste treatment
management agency's authority to design, construct, and operate
was^e treatment works as required by this section. States and man-
agement agencies should take advantage of this broader meaning when
determining the type of project for which a grant will be sought.
§208 (c) (2) (D)
\^\ Most waste treatment management agencies have adequate authority
to accept and utilize grants as required by this section. However, in
cases where an intermediate agency is to receive the grants for dis-
tribution to a waste treatment management agency, the states should
provide (if they have not already done so) that such federal grants can
be used only for the specific project for which the grant was made.
29
-------
CONCLUSIONS
§208 (c) (2) (E)
Most waste treatment management agencies as operating agencies
have adequate authority to raise revenues and assess waste treatment
charges as required by §208 (c) (2) (E) of the Act.
1 In many states, however, although there is the legal capacity so to
charge, the existing systems of charges utilized by such agencies
do not meet the additional requirements that such charges result in
each category of user paying its proportionate share of the cost of
operation and maintenance as required by §204 (b) (1) (A).
2 In most states, however, not only do existing systems of charges
fail to meet, but there is no express statutory authority to enable
the agency (agencies) to meet the requirement that industrial
users repay the federally funded portion of construction costs as
attributed to treating industrial wastes as required by §204 (b)
d)(B).
3 In addition, in large urban-industrial areas with many industries
discharging into the system, the securing of firm and binding com-
mitments from each industry to pay its share of the federal portion
of construction costs as required by §204 (b) (1) (B) presents sub-
stantial implementation problems. This in turn affects the imple-
mentation of §208 (c) (2) (E).
30
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
§208 (c) (2) (E)
Q Although most waste treatment management agencies have authority
to raise revenues and assess waste treatment charges,
1 such agencies must devise user charge systems and methods which
ensure that each category of user pays its proportionate share of
costs so as to comply with §204 (b) (1) (A). These charge systems
and methods should be based on the characteristics of the user's
discharge. These characteristics include volume, delivery flow rate
(timing of discharge), and composition of the effluent (e.g. biochemical
oxygen demand, suspended solids, toxic substances); and
2 to meet the requirements of §204 (b) (1) (B), the states should
enact legislation expressly authorizing recovery from industrial
users of the federally funded portion of construction costs attrib-
uted to treating industrial wastes; and
3 to recover these costs from industrial users, each major contributor
of industrial wastes into the system should be required to give
firm commitments to pay its share. "Major" is determined by the
impact of the characteristics of the industry's discharge into the
system. For less than major contributors, a charge system should
be devised so as to recover costs from them as a class. Agreements
by an industry to repay costs should be transferrable to a new or
different industry to permit the latter to discharge into the system.
31
-------
CONCLUSIONS
§208 (c) (2) (F)
Most waste treatment management agencies have adequate authority
to incur both short- and long-term indebtedness as required by §208
(c) (2) (F), although certain approval or procedures are required under
state laws.
§208 (c) (2) (G)
Q Under most state laws, waste treatment management agencies do
not have express statutory authority to assure that each participating
community (municipality) pay its proportionate share of treatment
costs as required by §208 (c) (2) (G) of the Act. Most states do, how-
ever, permit contracting for services by and among communities, and
such contracts usually provide for sharing treatment costs.
§208 (c) (2) (H)
Q] One of the most prevalent problems is the inability or lack of authority
of any agency within an area to comply with §208 (c) (2) (H) of the Act,
which requires that the waste treatment management agency have
adequate authority "to refuse to receive any wastes from any munici-
pality or subdivision thereof, which does not comply with any pro-
visions of an approved areawide plan."
32
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
§208 (c) (2) (F)
Q Since most waste treatment agencies have adequate authority to incur
short- and long-term indebtedness as required by this section, the
applicant agency also should make certain of approval from all elected
and administrative entities and should ensure that all procedures
required by state and local laws have been followed. This is to ensure
that the funding is not contingent upon securing such approval.
§208 (c) (2) (G)
\^\ To comply with this section, many states should enact specific statu-
tory authority requiring that each participating community pay its
share of treatment costs. In all cases, the areawide plan should make
the same requirement. (In the case of interlocal agreements, the pro-
portionate shares of each participating community should be openly
and freely agreed upon and made part of the general agreement.)
§208 (c) (2) (H)
Q It is highly unlikely that an operating agency would cut off sewer ser-
vice to a municipality or subdivision thereof which does not comply
with any provision of the areawide plan as provided in this section.
State laws, therefore, should authorize waste treatment management
agencies to deny service to any new users within the noncomplying
municipality or subdivision, and/or to assess penalties against it which
would assure compliance within a reasonable time. Such laws should
include adequate notice or warning periods to permit voluntary com-
pliance.
33
-------
CONCLUSIONS
§208 (c) (2) (I)
Most waste treatment management agencies have adequate authority
to accept for treatment industrial wastes as required by §208 (c)
(2) (1) of the Act, and, in addition, most waste treatment management
agencies have authority to establish pretreatment standards and to
refuse industrial wastes which do not comply therewith or which would
interfere with the operation of the treatment works.
34
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
§208 (c) (2) (I)
Q In the case of industrial wastes, as provided in this section, waste treat-
ment management agencies (or state laws or regulations) should es-
tablish pretreatment standards for industrial pollutants which, if not
pretreated, would either not be susceptible to treatment by the treat-
ment plants or would interfere with the operation of the treatment
plants. The waste treatment management agency should also make
provision to control and assist in the disposition of wastes which
treatment plants cannot accept.
35
-------
CONCLUSIONS
§208 (b) (2) (C)
Few states currently permit waste treatment management agencies to
regulate the location, modification and construction of facilities, other
than publicly owned treatment works, which result in any discharge
of pollutants to waters in the area.
Most states have sufficient legislation to implement a wide variety
of regulatory tools such as permits and licensing, standards, pricing
mechanisms, and traditional enforcement procedures such as fines
and penalties.
36
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
§208 (b) (2) (C)
Q The states should enact legislation requiring that areawide planning
agencies and/or waste treatment management agencies have enough
input into land use planning so as to influence (or control) the location
of facilities discharging pollutants into the area's waters.
ĞU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:1973 546-313/171 1-3 37
------- |