Working for Clean Water
   An Information Program for Advisory Groups
         Role of

Advisory  Groups

        Why have an advisory group?
   Who should be members of an advisory group?
      What should an advisory group do?
   How should an advisory group be organized?
   What makes an advisory group worthwhile?
           Citizen Handbook

-------
This program was prepared by The
Pennsylvania State University,
Institute of State and Regional
Affairs, Middletown, Pa. 17057;
Dr. Charles A. Cole, Project
Director; Dr. E. Drannon Buskirk,
Jr., Project Co-Director; Professor
Lorna Stoltzfus, Editor. Graphics
support was provided by the Office
of Public Awareness,
Environmental Protection Agency.

This unit prepared by: Irving Hand
and Dennis W. Auker

Advisory Team for the Project:
David Elkinton, State of West
  Virginia
Steve Frishman, private citizen
Michele Frome, private citizen
Joan Jurancich, State of California
John Hammond, private citizen
Richard Heatherington, EPA
  Region 10
Rosemary Henderson, Region 6
George Hoessel, EPA Region 3
George Neiss, EPA Region 5
Ray Pfortner, Region 2
Paul Pinault, Region 1
Earlene Wilson, Region 7
Steve Maier, EPA Headquarters
Robert Hardaker, EPA
  Headquarters
Ben Gryctko, EPA Headquarters
Dan Burrows, EPA Headquarters

EPA Project Officer:
Barry H. Jordan
Office of Water Programs
Operations

This information program was
financed with federal funds from
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency under Cooperative
Agreement No. CT900980 01. The
information program 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.

-------
 Role  of Advisory  Groups
Will They

Listen To Us?

Anyone who participates on an advisory
group will ask at some point: Who cares
about what we say, and will they do
anything about it? This is an advisory
group's most important concern. It is at the
heart of key issues concerning the role of
advisory groups.

• Why have an advisory group?

• Who should be the members of an
advisory group?

• What should an advisory group do?

• How should an advisory group be
organized?
• What makes an advisory group
worthwhile?

The understanding of these issues and how
they are dealt with will go a long way in
determining whether or not an advisory
group is effective.

There is no absolute guarantee for success
in the work of an advisory group. However,
the chances for success are better if the
advisory group:

• Has a balanced membership

• Is interested and willing to devote the
necessary time

• Understands what is expected of all
participants.

This last point is especially important.
Advisory groups need to realize their role,
and the useful things they can  do to help
achieve clean water goals. It is essential
that there is no confusion about their
work.

From the outset the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
the grantee who receives federal funds for
planning and constructing wastewater
treatment facilities, and the advisory group
must understand what is expected of each
other. There can be no hidden agenda.
Why Have an Advisory
Group?
Public participation is as American as
baseball. The "association" or "interest
group" is one important way Americans
participate in making public policy.
Grassroots organizations, public interest
and consumer groups, and voluntary
service organizations all seek
representation on an equal footing with
governmental and economic interests.
Advisory groups can serve this purpose.

The last two decades have shown that the
public can play an extremely important
role in decision making in both the public
and private sectors.  Public participation is
complex and often misunderstood. Not
inherently "good" or "bad", it can help
things to happen or  it can bring projects to
a grinding halt.

Through water quality management
planning we are now making progress
toward meeting our  clean water goals.
These actions affect  everyone in some way:
taxes or user fees, availability of clean
water for recreation, new wastewater
treatment facilities,  effects on growth
patterns, and new political and  statutory
requirements. The people who will be
living with the results should be involved
in the planning. The advisory group is a
useful way to get such involvement.
Advisory groups serve three important
functions in water quality planning.

-------
« identifying the public's interest in clean
water

• making diverse views known to decision
makers

• taking local values into account in the
decision-making process.

Clean water is a necessity of life. We
ignore its degradation at our own risk.
How we go about achieving clean water in
terms of time, responsibilities, and the use
of assets (money, manpower, and natural
resources) is important to the social,
economic, and environmental well-being of
the community as well as the nation.

Achieving clean water involves the
government, the private sector, the people
of an area, and special interests. There  are
many voices to be heard. The forum
provided by the  advisory group can help
harmonize  these voices into actions which
will be of the greatest possible benefit.

A plan must fit  the needs and conditions of
the local area or community. Advisory
group members  should be knowledgeable
about local issues, resources, and potential
conflicts.

Resolving conflict, if it can be achieved  at
all, can often be accomplished through the
use of an advisory group. Consensus is an
achievable goal  in an atmosphere of open
communication and understanding.

It's the Law

Section 101 (e) of The Clean Water Act,
states:
Public participation in the development, revision, and
enforcement of any regulation, standard, effluent
limitation, plan or program established by the
Administrator or any State under this Act shall be
provided for, encouraged, and assisted by the
Administrator and the States. The Administrator, in
cooperation with the States, shall develop and publish
regulations specifying minimum guidelines for public
participation in such processes.

The 1977 Clean Water Act and EPA
regulations implementing the Act require
public participation when developing and
carrying out water quality management
plans. Each state and agency conducting
208 areawide planning must have an
advisory committee. Advisory committees
are required in  201 facilities planning only
for large, complex, or controversial
projects. The EPA's Rules and Regulations
govern the formation and functioning of
these advisory groups.
Who Should Be the
Members?

There should be a balance of
representative interests in the membership
of an advisory group. The EPA regulations
specify:

• Private citizens

• Public interest groups

• Public officials

• Representatives of organizations with
substantial economic interests in the plan
or project.

Having such interests represented is
important if a politically acceptable water
quality management system is to be
developed.

Size of Membership

There is no magic number for the size of
an advisory group. It should not be so
small as to be unrepresentative, or so large
as to become unmanageable. A dozen
like-minded people may make a very
congenial group, but their
recommendations  and advice may be
highly suspect because they may not
represent a full range of community
interests. A group of fifty would have
difficulty in setting mutually agreeable
meeting dates, in  organizing, and even
greater difficulty in reaching consensus on
an issue.

The size of the group should be determined
on a case-by-case basis by the complexity
of the job to be done and the number of
interested people.  Time, interest, and a
pertinent agenda are the essential
ingredients for an advisory group that
expects to function successfully.

Identification of Membership

The grantee is charged with the
responsibility of establishing an advisory
group. This agency must identify the
private citizens, public interest groups,
economic interests, and the public officials
who are interested in or who might be
affected by a project. The agency must
make active efforts to inform people in the
area, and get  suggestions for potential
advisory group members. These activities
include:

• Announcements to news media

• Written notices  to interested
organizations

-------
  Public appearances

  Direct contacts.

During its first meeting the advisory group
should check to see if its membership is
representative. Are any relevant
individuals, organizations, or interests
missing?
What Should An Advisory
Group Do?

The advisory group must recognize that
the primary responsibility for decision
making in water quality management lies
with elected officials or their appointees.
Even so, the role of an advisory group can
be extremely useful during the planning
process. It is essential that early on a
well-defined,  important role is established
for the advisory group.
The responsibility of the advisory group is
to advise. This can be an important
undertaking if several things happen,
including:

  The group does its homework in
understanding the issues

  The group develops  practical, thought-out
recommendations
  The group achieves  consensus in support
of its recommendations
  The group establishes credibility through
its work.

Remember, the role is to advise! An advisor
is not expected to become a professional or
a technician in water quality management
planning. Advisory groups may not be able
to offer highly detailed and technical
judgments. However, they should  have
enough technical knowledge and an
understanding of local conditions to
provide credible advice about policy
matters.  Advisory groups should make sure
that the  public's views and values are
communicated to the grantee.

While gaining competence in water quality
planning, the advisory group should
always remember its responsibility.  An
advisory group represents the public. It is
not part  of the staff. Many advisory groups
have suffered when they inadvertently
have become working extensions of the
grantees and their staffs.

Water quality planning is done at several
levels. 208 planning has a state, regional,
and areawide scope. The 201 deals with
planning, designing, and constructing local
wastewater treatment facilities. Although
these plans sometimes overlap, they are
basically compatible. Local 201 facility
planning issues are often addressed  in 208
planning. State 208 planning documents
are correspondingly used as an
informational  resource in 201 facility
planning.

-------
201 Issues

• What are the water quality problems?

« Are the existing control facilities
adequate?

• What unique resources does the area
have that are worth protecting?

• How large should a new facility be if it is
to be cost-effective?

• How much wastewater will the
population produce?

• Where  does industry fit into the
facility-sizing picture?

« What about commercial and industrial
wastewater flows?

» How is the total wastewater flow
estimated?

• Is it better to reduce flows or to plan for
growth?

• What geographic areas will the facility
serve?

• Are there any small-scale service, area
options?

• What are the regional options?
208 Issues
8 What is the economy of the region, and
how will it develop?

« What will be the future population, and
how will it be distributed?

• How significant is the rural or urban
stormwater runoff?

• What future land uses are projected, and
what existing laws and regulations apply?

• How is the  state and areawide water
quality management plan expected to be
implemented and operated?

• What are the nonpoint sources of
pollution in the area?

» How does water quality management
planning relate to other types of local,
county, and areawide planning? How are
differences resolved?
 From such current and future issues the
 advisory group will select its agenda of
 work, always keeping in mind the overall
 objectives and schedule of the project. This
 should be done with a clear understanding
 from the grantee as to where the advisory
 group can be most helpful. The group
 should determine if it has the resources to
 deal with those responsibilities, and then
 develop a course of action.

 Also the progress of the project should be
 monitored as it relates to the agenda of the
 advisory group. To do this effectively
 efforts must be made to increase the
 understanding and competency of the
 group members. The training sessions
 offered by the EPA and the grantee can be
 of assistance.

Makes Recommendations

 The advisory group assists public officials
 in their final decision-making
 responsibilities. It offers recommendations
 to these officials on the important issues
 involved in water quality planning.

Promotes Dialogue

 The workings of the advisory group should
 encourage constructive communication and
 understanding among all parties. This kind
 of "give and take" is extremely important
throughout the planning process.  It will
help to develop:

* Mutual respect for various viewpoints

« A willingness to take all considerations
into account

• The ability to arrive at recommendations
that serve the public interest.

In order to promote dialogue, each member
has the dual responsibility of representing
as clearly and accurately as possible
his/her ideas, and of listening carefully to
the views of others. Often this key
responsibility is overlooked. However,
effective advisory groups have members
who are good talkers and good listeners.

-------
Responsibilities of the
Grantee

The grantee is expected to provide support
for the activities of advisory groups, and
consider their recommendations. The EPA
regulations address a number of the
responsibilities of the assisted agency:

  Establish advisory groups

  Inform people in the affected area

  Receive suggestions as to the make-up of
the advisory group

  Provide information, technical skills, and
staff support

  Carefully consider advisory group
recommendations and requests, and
respond to them

  Transmit the advisory group's
recommendations to the decision-making
officials

  Involve the advisory group in a public
participation program.

Communication is crucial to effective water
quality planning and implementation. A
liaison often conducts relationships
between the grantee and the advisory
group. The effectiveness of the liaison can
be judged through a few questions: Is this
person comfortable in working with people
in an advisory group-agency relationship?
Are the activities of the advisory group
relevant and mutually agreeable? Are the
requests or recommendations of the
advisory group receiving reasonably
prompt consideration? Is the advisory
group receiving sufficient support?
Become knowledgeable of the needs
and values of the community

Listen to the viewpoints  of all
advisory group members

Attend meetings regularly

Take actions and present findings to
the grantee

Help mobilize community support for
water quality management decisions.

-------
How Should An Advisory
Group Be Organized?

An advisory group should determine the
details of its own organization. Time
should not be wasted in establishing an
elaborate structure. Time should be spent
dealing with activities that the group
determines are important.

Choose  Officers

Minimal  organization should include a
chairperson and vice-chairperson. A
temporary leader may be chosen for the
first few meetings. After the members have
become better acquainted with each other,
permanent officers may be elected. Officers
should serve a specified term (one or two
years) and be eligible for re-election.

The group may also wish to have a
secretary and/or treasurer. Since the
grantee may provide  recording and support
services,  this consideration depends upon
the given situation.

Establish By-Laws

The advisory group may establish its own
by-laws and rules of procedure, or may use
something which is more formal and
generally recognized  such as "Robert's
Rules of Order". The  group should not get
bogged down in determining formal or
detailed procedures so that the really
important matters can be accomplished
without delay.

Schedule Meetings and Agendas

A regular schedule for meetings should be
established as soon as possible. However,
this determination may be delayed until
the membership is relatively certain
(perhaps  after the first two meetings). It is
an important decision where busy people
are involved, and conflicting schedules can
bring last minute complications.

Meetings should be scheduled, as
necessary, and have an agenda. They
should be announced as far in advance as
possible and should be open to the public.
An opportunity for the public to  comment
should be provided at each meeting.

Regular attendance at meetings  should be
expected. A policy concerning the number
of acceptable consecutive absences by a
member should be established. If a member
misses more than the accepted number,
he/she should be requested to reconsider
participation on the advisory group.

Set Budget

The financial resources needed for the
advisory group activities should be
determined jointly by the grantee and the
advisory group. This could include
technical assistance and payment for
reasonable out-of-pocket expenses such as
educational materials and field trips.
Provision can be made for these needs in
the budget of the grantee with the
agreement of the EPA.

Appoint Subcommittees

Depending on how the advisory group
wishes to proceed, subcommittees may be
established to investigate and develop
recommendations on specific issues.
Technical assistance may be provided if the
group desires expert advice from someone
other than the grantee  or its consultant.

Similarly, information should be sought
from reputable people and interests in the
community. This will help to insure that
advice to the grantee takes into account
every appropriate resource and
consideration.

Recommendations made to the decision
makers should be made through the
advisory group, not  subcommittees of the
group. Subcommittees should make
recommendations only to  the advisory
group as a whole.

Take Action

As fully as possible  advisory group actions
should express the consensus of the
members. Depending on the situation,
unanimous actions may or may not be
achievable. Gaining a significant
consensus, not just a simple majority,
should be a general objective.

The advisory group  is a forum. It provides
an opportunity for the presentation of
wide-ranging views and judgments. It
provides the opportunity for argument,
debate, and the resolution of conflicts. It
provides the opportunity to hear the facts,
to become aware of individual concerns,
and to appreciate the emotional climate
that may bear on an issue.

-------
Present Findings

The preparation of various memoranda and
short reports presenting the views and
findings are part of the group's
responsibilities. Just as important, these
activities should be visible to all parties
involved through meetings, press releases,
and other efforts. This will help the
community to gain an understanding about
water quality issues, and how the
community might best deal with them. The
work of the advisory group should help
provide a sound basis for taking actions.
What Makes An Advisory
Group Worthwhile?

What happens to the recommendations of
advisory groups? The answers given to this
question reflect the usefulness of the
group.

Are the recommendations simply ignored?
Are they listened to and then rationalized
away? Do they generate questions which
require further consideration and response,
perhaps including a modification of the
recommendations?  Are the
recommendations followed? Every advisory
group should periodically answer these
questions. Simply put, the  group's
recommendations should be monitored. If
the recommendations of the advisory group
are being ignored or are not being followed
in any significant way, members should
determine why this is happening. The
immediate reaction should not be one of
hurt feelings and rejection.

Attention should be directed to whether or
not the advisory group is dealing with the
right issues. Perhaps the issues simply are
not important  to the community or to the
decision makers. If this is the case the
advisory group must decide whether to
convince the community and  decision
makers of the  importance of the issues, or
modify the work program to address
different issues.
Additionally, the advisory group should
attempt to determine its credibility: does it
have credibility? if not, why not? does the
membership reflect the community? is the
work regarded as meaningless? is the
group perceived as being under someone's
thumb, and therefore highly suspect?

The group can strive to make its efforts
worthwhile by:

• Developing a program that is important
to the community and decision makers

« Being certain that recommendations are
well thought out

• Being persistent in following up on
recommendations

• Being protective of the reputation of the
advisory group.

For its part the grantee should:

• See that the advisory group has staff
support and access to information

• See that the advisory group plays a role
in the overall public participation program

• See that advice and recommendations of
the advisory group are carefully
considered.

Remember, the advisory group is just one
element of a larger public participation
effort. The time and effort undertaken in
advising the grantee can make a big
difference in realizing the maximum
benefit from water quality management
planning.
         Citizen       Review   Task     Advisory
   Representatives   Board   Force      Group
                     Public   Informational   ...   .   ,
                    Hearing      Meeting      Workshop
The advisory group is one of many public participation opportunities.

-------
_Case_Study

Can an Advisory Group Make A
Difference?
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania
Introduction

In the summer of 1979 the Gettysburg Municipal
Authority's Advisory Group held its first meeting—three
years after the Gettysburg 201 Wastewater Management
Facilities Plan had been completed and approved by the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources!

The complexities of designing a water quality
management system which meets with public approval
had again become a seemingly impossible task. The
uncoordinated and sometimes contrary goals of state,
local, and federal agencies became apparent. The result
was the halt of facilities planning, with the process
returning to preliminary planning in Step One1 and
preparation of an environmental impact statement.2

The specific circumstances surrounding this case are
indeed unique. The basic problems, however,  are repeated
in similar situations across the nation. The question is, of
course:

Can an advisory group make a difference?

Background

Located in southcentral Pennsylvania, Gettysburg is most
commonly recognized for the Civil War battlefield
surrounding the town. The wastewater treatment plant at
Gettysburg became inadequate for the treatment of wastes
in the 1960's. In 1969 the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources (DER) informed the municipal
authority that the plant was in violation of the state's
Clean Streams Law, and that corrections had to be made.
By 1973 the additional pollution load placed on the system
by increased development and excessive stormwater
infiltration prompted the DER to order a construction ban
on new development until the situation could be improved.
During this period it became obvious that a new
treatment plant was needed. A consultant was hired to
begin Step One planning for a new facility. During the
facility planning period flow controls and water
conservation corrected the infiltration and overload
problem to the degree that the ban could be temporarily
lifted. A schedule was developed for constructing new
facilities, but opposition to the plan mounted.
The Arrangement

In the early 1970's regional facilities were favored by
planners. Accordingly, the Gettysburg Plan called for a
regional plant what would serve not only Gettysburg but
also four townships surrounding Gettysburg. Between
1976 and 1978 the task of developing a mutual agreement
between the townships and the Gettysburg Municipal
Authority for service and financial arrangements was
undertaken. It was finally secured in 1978. During the
same period, the Authority worked with  the National
Park Service to  resolve the concern that  future
development permitted or prompted by the sewage system
would intrude on the beautiful historic surroundings of
the park.

A Delay

The Authority was prepared in 1978 to apply for a Step
Two design grant.3 However, yet to be signed was a
memorandum of agreement between six groups: The
Municipal Authority, the DER, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the Pennsylvania Historical and
Museum Commission, the National Park Service, and the
Council on Historic Preservation.

The Council on Historic Preservation in its draft
memorandum of agreement called for zoning to prevent
unsightly development in townships adjacent to the
service area. However, such  zoning in the conservative
farm areas of southcentral Pennsylvania was impossible to
achieve. The Council documented  that a  significant
adverse cultural impact could occur without such
restrictions on development. A full-scale  environmental
impact statement was ordered.

-------
A New Beginning and an Advisory Group

What essentially happened at Gettysburg was that the
goals of one agency conflicted with the goals of other
interests. Regional treatment plants often spur
development. In some areas this pattern may be desirable,
but in Gettysburg such development would intrude on the
national park. This plan conflicted with the goals of the
Council on Historic Preservation. Thus, the planning
returned to the beginning of the Step  One planning
process.

If an advisory group had been in existence throughout the
project, could it possibly have made a  difference in  the
final outcome? The  answer would appear to be yes!  An
advisory group would have been integrally involved in the
discussions over mutual agreements among the federal,
state, and local agencies. An advisory group, representing
the community as a whole, could have been a unifying
force in these  discussions.
The Gettysburg Advisory Group and Its
Activities

The Gettysburg advisory group was formed in the summer
of 1979 in accordance with the EPA guidelines for public
participation. Its task was to advise the Municipal
Authority on development of a treatment system which
would not only be compatible with the goals of state and
federal agencies, but would also meet community goals.

Membership

The Gettysburg advisory group membership, as selected
by the Municipal Authority, consists of the following
representation:

• Private citizens

• League of Women Voters

• National Park Service

• Taxpayers Association

• Historic Gettysburg Adams County

• Gettysburg Area Chamber of Commerce

• Retail Merchants Association

• Builders Association

• Landlords of Gettysburg

• Four public officials from area municipalities.


Concern
The initial meetings of the advisory group developed a
dialogue typical of newly formed organizations.  Such
questions as Why are we here? and What can we possibly
achieve? characterized the feelings of the new group. This
is not surprising since the citizens sitting on this advisory
group had witnessed the complex history surrounding the
previous plan. The proposed project had been controversial
due to:
• the concern over the ability of the community to afford a
regional system

• sharing of costs by the municipalities involved

• the planning and zoning restrictions stipulated by the
National Park Service

• the building ban implemented by the DER, and the
possibility of future bans if a treatment facility was not
built within reasonable time.

Organization

At the first monthly meeting of the group, administrative
responsibilities, budget, and scheduling were addressed.
Informational materials were distributed.

At the second meeting the role of the advisory group was
explained by both the chairman of the Municipal
Authority and the Public Participation Coordinator of the
EPA. A briefing about the history of the project was
given. Following this discussion the group considered the
role it was expected to play. One of the concerns noted
was that the advisory group might find itself in the
thankless role of being arbitrators between all the parties
involved.

After the first two meetings the group still had  not
selected permanent officers. However,  during the third
meeting a permanent chairperson was elected.

Initiatives

After discussion of organizational and procedural matters
at the second meeting, the group chose to hear a progress
report from the representatives of the  consulting firm
preparing the environmental impact statement (EIS) for
the EPA. It was hoped that this report might help the
group better understand its role. Indeed, this did occur.
During the presentation it became  obvious that the degree
of investigation into water supply was inadequate in the
eyes of the advisory group. The citizens in the advisory
group are acutely aware of water supply problems, as they
have seen many of their neighbors' wells go dry. The
advisory group suggested that the EIS consultant take a
more in-depth look at the water supply problem since it
would potentially restrict development in the future,
reduce the needed size of the plant, and jeopardize the
cost-effectiveness of a regional system.

The advisory group ended its second meeting by
requesting the EPA Public Participation Coordinator to
delay the public hearing scheduled on the  EIS until the
advisory group could analyze and comment publicly on the
information being developed by the EIS consultant.  They
requested that an agenda and pertinent materials be
distributed in advance of the third meeting so that they
would have better opportunity to prepare.

-------
What Does Gettysburg Mean to You?

At the beginning of the second meeting the group was still
struggling with "why are we here?" By the end of the
meeting, they had made two significant recommendations.
This was done even though the group had no officers, and
was not sure of the expectations of the federal and state
agencies. The group took the initiative and appears to
have persuaded those involved to take a closer look at the
complexities of overall planning for the municipal
wastewater treatment facility. The group also requested
an opportunity to analyze and comment on the EIS
information being developed before a public hearing was
held.

At future meetings the group will be reviewing,
evaluating, and commenting on the information being
developed for the EIS. Major areas of concern include:

• Where are the focal points of future growth in the
Gettysburg area, and what implications will they have in
regard to planning this water pollution control project?

• What are the alternatives, including innovative
technologies and multiple use options, available for
meeting the water quality goals?

• What are the needs of the community and what
alternatives will be acceptable to the community?

• How can the concerns of the interested parties be
addressed in a fair and equitable way?

During the third meeting, the group continued to review
the progress of the environmental assessment being
developed for the EIS. The group had recommendations as
well as many questions for the consultant preparing the
document. Although, it is still unknown whether the
advisory group can help in achieving a more feasible
wastewater treatment system, it is clear that they plan to
ask worthwhile, but "sticky" questions. Such actions will
likely enchance the coordination among agencies and
clarify decisions made during the planning process. This
atmosphere, alone, can be beneficial in helping to achieve
a solution which is compatible with the goals of various
agencies while meeting the needs  of the community. It
would appear that the group has now established its
identity, has a definite idea about its role,  and is ready to
make a  significant contribution to the water quality
management planning and decision-making process.
10

-------
Municipal Wastewater Management: Citizen's Guide to Facility Planning. FRD-6,          Need
Publication Number EPA-430/0-79-006. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection  More
Agency, February 1979. 263 pp.                                                       Information?
        This handbook is designed to acquaint citizen leaders with important decisions
        that need to be made in managing municipal wastewater. The book lists key
        decision points throughout the planning process that are critical to the facility
        plan and the community; identifies environmental, economic and social
        considerations affecting these decisions; discusses citizen input, and helps
        citizens understand the legal tools to facilitate their involvement. It is a good
        reference book. It is available from General Services Administration (8FFS),
        Centralized Mailing Lists Service, Building 41, Denver Federal Center, Denver,
        CO 80225.

"Public Participation in Programs Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
the Safe Drinking Water  Act and the Clean Water Act, Final Regulations, Title 40,
Chapter 1, Part 25." Federal Register, Vol. 44, No. 34, Part V  Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,  February 16, 1979. pp. 10286-10297.

        This document presents the rules and regulations for public participation
        including the Clean Water Act of 1977. It deals with advisory groups in detail,
        including both the responsibilities of the groups and the EPA.

"State and Local Assistance, Grants for Construction  of Treatment Works, Title 40,
Chapter I, Part 35". Federal Register, Vol. 44, No. 23, Part VI, Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,  February 16, 1979. pp. 10300-10304.

        This document presents the rules and regulations for public involvement in the
        wastewater treatment Construction Grants Program.

-------
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis—
determination of whether a project or
technique is worth funding; both monetary
and nonmonetary factors are  involved.

Environmental Impact
Statement—detailed analysis of potential
environmental impacts of a proposed project.
It is required when the EPA  determines
that a project may have significant adverse
environmental effects or  is highly
controversial.

Infiltration—seepage of water into a sewer
system through defective pipes and joints.

Liaison—a go-between to ensure concerted
action between parties.

Step One Planning—initial planning stage
for water pollution control facilities as
administered through the Construction
Grants Program.

Step Two Design Grant—the second stage
of planning when a water pollution control
alternative is designed as administered
under the Construction Grant Program.
                                                                                                * U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1980 O— 319-181
12

-------