GUIDELINES FOR
ESTIMATING PERSONNEL
REQUIREMENTS FOR STATE WATER
QUALITY CONTROL AGENCIES
rotecuon Agency
December 1970
-------
GUIDELINES FOR ESTIMATING
PERSONNEL REQUIREMENTS
FOR STATE WATER QUALITY
CONTROL AGENCIES
by
WALTER R. HAGER
Program Grants Officer
Office of State Program Review & Assistance
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington. D.C. 20242
December 1970
-------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 35 cents (paper cover)
-------
CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE 1
I. INTRODUCTION 3
Variations in Legislation, Administration,
and Organization of Programs 4
Requirements for an Effective Water
Quality Control Program 8
Need for Guidelines 9
Scope of This Study 10
II. TYPICAL STATE WATER QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM 11
Authority 11
Program 17
Organization 22
Staffing 27
III. PROGRAM STAFFING GUIDELINES 31
Idealized Water Quality Management Program 31
Guidelines 35
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 47
BIBLIOGRAPHY 47
TABLES
TABLE 1. Positions Authorized for the Staff of Texas
Water Quality Board 28
2. Comparison of Public Administration Service
Recommendations and Fiscal Year 1969 Man-Years
Assigned to State Water Pollution Control Agencies 37
3. Texas Water Quality Board 1970 Workload 45
4. Estimates of Personnel Requirements for the
Texas Water Quality Board Using Guidelines 46
iii
-------
FIGURES
Page
FIGURE 1. Organization—Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration, January, 1970 6
2. Relationship of the Water Quality Board to Other
State Agencies 14
3. Organization of Texas Water Quality Board 23
4. Field Operations of the Texas Water Quality
Board—Districts and District Offices 26
5. Program Activities of Idealized State Water
Quality Control Program 34
6. Idealized Organization State Water Quality
Control Agency _ ,_ 36
o j ~ ™^ ^"
7. Relationship of Inspection Frequency to Percent
Urbanization 40
IV
-------
PREFACE
HIS work's purpose is to dispel the air of mystery surrounding
staffing of Government agencies charged with regulating the quality of
public waters. It was presented as a report to the faculty of the Graduate
School of the University of Texas at Austin in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Public Administration
hi April 1970. While focusing on staffing needs for State water quality
management agencies, the premise underlying the guidelines is that an
agency's staffing is a function of the authority granted it and the work-
load resulting from the exercise of that authority. Since the bulk of
expenditures by a State water quality management agency is for salaries
and associated benefits, the numbers of personnel and the skills and
experience needed to carry out the agency program also furnish a means
for establishing an operating budget.
As State water quality management agencies are by and large staffed
and directed by engineers and scientists, the guidelines, through use of
an engineering methodology, may be readily useful to those agencies with
only minor modifications for those functions not covered by the general
model.
As presented, the guidelines provide only a method of approach
founded upon the experience and observations of those using them. Used
in this way, the methodology is responsive to varying conditions. How-
ever, the overall measure of their utility is the results of the water
quality management program staffed using the guidelines, i.e., the quality
and usefulness of the State's water stemming from the implementation of
the authority assigned to the agency and exercised through its staff. The
guidelines can provide direction in estimating total requirements for
existing agencies, or for undertaking added functions, as well as serving
as a tool for evaluating the effects on staffing and budget of reorganiza-
tion and/or reassignment of functions.
The author's hope is that the guidelines provided in this report, by
formalizing what program managers have been doing informally in
various ways, will lead to the development of more effective water quality
management programs.
W. R. HAGER
Washington, D.C.
NOVEMBER 1970.
-------
INTRODUCTION
HE CASE for water quality management was well put by the Select
Committee on National Water Resources of the U.S. Senate. It reported
that by 1980 total requirements of water for all purposes, from surface
and underground sources, will almost equal total developable supplies
of 650 billion gallons per day and may by the year 2000 amount to
almost double the available water. This magnitude of use is not nec-
essarily a cause for alarm, as water can be used again and again as it flows
to the sea.1 Yet in the process of being used, these waters become
polluted and may become unfit for some useful purposes. Hence, the
growing demands for water in the face of limited supplies and increasing
pollution necessitate an approach to water resources management
founded on quality considerations as well as quantity.2
While the select committee's findings were published nearly 10 years
ago, the general conclusion that future water needs will be met only by
using the available supply over and over again, as is already occurring
in some of the more heavily populated and industrialized areas of the
country, has been increasingly validated with the years. To be used or
reused, water must be of suitable quality. Use almost always results in
degradation of the physical, chemical, biological, bacterial, and esthetic
qualities of water, i.e., it is polluted.
Preventing and minimizing this pollution is the purpose of water
quality management. Stated simply, water quality management means
"providing the right quality of water in right quantities for the purposes
to be served at the points where it is needed." 3 With the placing of
increasing demands upon limited supplies, "more usable water can be
provided to meet these needs by controlling pollution than by any other
means." 4
Water quality management has been correctly described as "both a
concern and a responsibility of every segment of our society, and calls
for the exercise of sound judgment and discerning statesmanship."5
Satisfactory meeting of this responsibility, however, requires that much
factual information regarding water availability, quality, use, and con-
trol, including the multitude of water pollutants and their effects, must
be collected, analyzed, and disseminated, and also that sound technical,
1U.S., Congress, Select Committee on National Water Resources, U.S. Senate,
Water Resources Activities in the United States, Water Quality Management, Com-
mittee Print No. 24 (Washington, B.C.: Government Printing Office, I960), p. 1.
2 Ibid., p. 4.
3 Ibid., p. 2.
'Ibid., p. 3,
-------
legal, and administrative procedures for the cooperative planning for
multiple use of the available water resources be developed and applied.6
These requirements, the basis of sound water quality management, are
dependent upon the efforts of governmental water pollution control
agencies.
Variations in Leglislation, Administration
and Organization of Programs
The national Government and various States have followed similar
paths in developing and implementing water pollution control legislation,
resulting in continuing water quality management programs. Water pol-
lution control legislation was first introduced by Senator Cockrell in the
U.S. Congress on December 18, 1897.7 Since that time, numerous bills
have been considered in both the House and the Senate until at the
present time, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
(hereafter referred to as the act) guides the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration's activities.8
Even a cursory comparison of the legal, administrative, and organiza-
tional aspects of these programs reveals that no two are alike; but a broad
generalized description can be given that all are expected to protect the
quality of the waters of the States from degradation which makes them
unsuitable for legitimate uses. The national water quality management
legislation interlocks with the States' legislation and programs in purpose,
administration and organization.
National Water Quality Control Program
The general interrelationship of the national program to the States'
programs is setout in the declaration of policy of the act:
(a) The purpose of this act is to enhance the quality and value of our water
resources and to establish a national policy for the prevention, control, and abate-
ment of water pollution, (b) In connection with the exercise of jurisdiction over
the waterways of the Nation and in consequence of the benefits resulting to the
public health and welfare by the prevention and control of water pollution, it is
hereby declared to be the policy of Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect
the primary responsibilities and rights of the States in preventing and controlling
water pollution, to support and aid technical research relating to the prevention
and control of water pollution, and to provide Federal technical services and
financial aid to State and interstate agencies and to municipalities in connection
with the prevention and control of water pollution. * * * (c) Nothing in this
act shall be construed as impairing or in any manner affecting any right or
jurisdiction of the States with respect to the waters (including boundary waters)
of such States.8
6 Ibid.
7 U.S., Congress' House, Committee on Rivers and Harbors, Pollution of Navi-
gable Waters, Hearings on H.R. 519, H.R. 387, and H.R. 4070, 79th Cong., 1st
sess., 1945, p. 180.
8 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, U.S.C., vol. XXXIII sec 466 et sea
(1969).
9 Ibid., sec. 466.
-------
The control of water pollution is essentially a local function, with the
State water pollution control agency responsible for coordinating local
measures and works for preventing and controlling polluting conditions.
The act does not alter this fundamental relationship. The national water
quality management program places the primary responsibility for water
pollution control on the State and interstate agencies with the Federal
Government providing technical and fiscal support together with enforce-
ment of national water quality standards on interstate and coastal waters.
National government interest hi pollution began when regulation as
carried out by the State agencies did not adequately control pollution in
various waters, e.g., the Ohio River Basin. Through the years, the
emphasis on control of water pollution at the national level has expanded
from the protection of the public health (sanitary) aspects of water use
to include protection of all legitimate uses through the addition of water
conservation considerations. The passage of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act in 1956 10 and its amendmentsu have provided for a
program on a national scale which will serve the various purposes of
water quality management.
The act created the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
(FWPCA) and provides for its staffing in general terms. In January,
1970, FWPCA was organized (as shown in fig. 1) under a commissioner
and five assistant commissioners for Environmental and Program Plan-
ning, Administration, Operations, Research and Development, and En-
forcement, respectively. The commissioner is in turn responsible to an
Assistant Secretary of the Interior. The Administration's field operations
are administered through nine regional offices. FWPCA during fiscal
year 1969 had an authorized staff of approximately 2,200 positions and
an operating budget of $73 million.12 At the present time, there are
more positions allotted to the national agency for regulation of water
quality than by the combined 50 States to their water pollution control
agencies.13
The key authorization in the act has the purpose of melding national
and State programs through the preparation and development of com-
prehensive programs for water pollution control. The FWPCA is to
develop such plans with the cooperation of other Federal agencies, the
State water pollution control agencies and interstate agencies, and the
municipalities and industries involved. The act requires further that in
the survey for or planning of Federal agency reservoirs consideration
10 U.S., Congress, Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Public Law 84-660,
84th Cong., 2d sess., 1956.
11 U.S., Congress, Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1961,
Public Law 87-88, 87th Cong., 1st sess., 1961. U.S., Congress, Water Quality Act
of 1965, Public Law 89-234, 89th Cong., 1st sess., 1965. U.S., Cong., Clean Water
Restoration Act of 1966, Public Law 89-753, 89th Cong., 2d sess., 1966.
12 U.S., Congress, Public Works Appropriations for 1969 for Water Power
Resources Development and the Atomic Energy Commission, Public Law 90-147,
90th Cong., 2d sess., 1968.
13 State and- Interstate Programs for Water Pollution Control, Digest of Fiscal
Year 1969 State Program Plans (Washington, B.C.: U.S., Department of the
Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, State and Regional
Program Grants Branch, 1969), sec. 2.
-------
COMMISSIONER
Ov
ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF
PUBLIC INFORMATION
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
FOR ADMINISTRATION
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
FOR OPERATIONS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL AND
PROGRAM PLANNING
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
FOR RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
FOR ENFORCEMENT
REGIONAL DIRECTORS
NORTHEAST
BOSTON, MASS.
MIDDLE ATLANTIC
CHARLOTTES-
VILLE, VA.
SOUTHEAST
ATLANTA, GA.
OHIO BASIN
CINCINNATI, OHIO
GREAT LAKES
CHICAGO, ILL.
MISSOURI BASIN
KANS. CITY, MO.
SOUTH CENTRAL
DALLAS, TEX.
SOUTHWEST
SAN FRANCISCO
CALIF.
PACIFIC
NORTHWEST
PORTLAND,ORE.
FIGURE 1.—Organization—Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, January, 1970.
-------
be given to the inclusion of storage for regulation of stream flow for the
purpose of water quality control. Also, with respect to water resources
planning, the act authorizes grants to planning agencies for administra-
tive expenses of developing effective water quality management plans
for a basin.
The act directs that the Secretary of the Interior shall encourage
"Interstate Cooperation and Uniform Laws" and gives the consent of the
Congress for the negotiation of compacts between two or more States
for water pollution control purposes. The act authorizes the Secretary to
conduct in the Department of the Interior a "Research, Investigation,
Training, and Information" program and to make "Grants for Construc-
tion" of necessary treatment works. A Water Pollution Control Advisory
Board is established within the Department of the Interior consisting of
the Secretary (or his designee) who shall serve as chairman and nine
members appointed by the President, none of whom shall be Federal
officers or employees. The act provides for the establishment of water
quality standards for interstate waters under a procedure in which the
States play the primary role. Standards and a plan for their implementa-
tion and enforcement adopted by a State become the standards applicable
if, subsequent to their adoption, the Secretary determines them to be
consistent with the purposes of the act. Enforcement measures against
pollution of interstate and navigable waters by the Federal Government
are also authorized. Cooperation to control pollution from Federal in-
stallations is likewise provided.14
At the outset, the act's "Declaration of Policy" recognizes the primary
responsibilities and rights of the States in enhancing the quality and
value of our water resources by prevention, control, and abatement of
water pollution. Further, the act provides for technical assistance and
financial aid to state and interstate agencies by the National Government.
This policy is supported by the establishment of grants for water pollution
control programs to assist the State and interstate agencies in meeting
the costs of establishing and maintaining adequate water quality control
programs.15
State Water Quality Control Activity
Though differing in the details of organization and other administra-
tive aspects, the fifty states can be said to have similar water quality
control legislation since all authorize the adoption of water quality
criteria for interstate waters and a plan for the implementation and
enforcement of those criteria. Further, the standards and implementa-
tion plans adopted by the States have been approved by the Department
of the Interior.16 Stemming from the similarities in legislation and
approved plans, all State water pollution control programs are similar
in function. All are designed for the purpose of protecting water quality.
The Texas Water Quality Board is typical in authorizing legislation,
administration, and organization for achieving that purpose. Having
u Federal Water Pollution Control Act, United States Code op. cit, passim.
KIbid. passim.
18 Digest of Fiscal Year 1969 State Program Plans, sec. 1.
-------
much in common with the other 49, it will provide an empirical model
for examining the workings of State water quality agencies.
The day-to-day control of water pollution is essentially a function of
the local governmental entities together with the industries which dispose
of wastes to the various watersheds. The State agency's relationship
with this function is in regulating water quality. This regulating authority
stems from a declared policy that the quality of the waters within the
State is subject to control by the State government and that pollution of
these waters constitutes a menace and shall be prevented, controlled,
and abated.17 Regulation of water quality through control of the actions
of municipalities and industries which would result in quality degrada-
tion is the implementation of that policy.
The practical difficulties of dealing effectively with water quality prob-
lems are accentuated by the complexity of the pollutants and the frag-
mentation of control. While waste treatment and disposal is for practical
purposes a local activity, it does not demand the duplication of facilities
within limited areas as now exists. Resources in personnel, advice,
training, finance, inspection, and enforcement are dissipated over an
unnecessarily large number of sewage authorities, districts, and indus-
tries. Development and implementation of comprehensive programs for
control of water pollution by the State water quality management agency
is suggested by the national legislation as a remedy for this problem.18
Relations with industry present a problem when the industry is the
main source of employment and prosperity in a locality. Some local
authorities feel that too enthusiastic implementation of water quality
activities by the State agency will drive tl industry out and keep new
industry from the area.19
Thus, the State water pollution control agency is faced with a complex
balancing of values in protecting water quality through local pollution
control entities under legislative and economic restraints which have
developed over the years and continue to evolve.
Requirements for an Effective Water
Quality Control Program
In a recent publication entitled An Action Program for Clean
Water, a State water quality management program is described in five
basic elements of effort: program administration, planning, facilities
construction, technical services, and enforcement.20 The basic elements
"U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Admin-
istration, Suggested State Water Pollution Control Act, Revised, (Washington,
D.C.: Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, 1966), p. 1.
18 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.
"Thomas R. Jacobi, Richard A. Pavia, and E. F. Ricketts, "Staffing and
Budgetary Guidelines for State Water Pollution Control Agencies," Journal Water
Pollution Control Federation, vol. 37, No. 1 (January 1965), p. 10.
20 Phillip L. Tate and James M. Hudgens, An Action Program For Clean Water,
Joint Study and Proposals by South Carolina Pollution Control Authority and
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Middle Atlantic Region (1969),
p. 59.
8
-------
in turn must be supported by suitable legislative authority, funding, and
a plan of implementation to coordinate the five basic elements using the
resources and personnel available.
Given all three of the essential supports—legal authority, funding,
and an implementation plan to carry out the five basic elements—there
remains a requirement for perhaps the most essential ingredient for an
effective water quality control program: personnel. The essential supports
are devised by men of various disciplines, and suitably trained person-
nel in adequate numbers are needed to carry out the plan of implemen-
tation. As surely as it is man and his endeavors which have affected
water quality degradation, it is likewise man who must deal through
his societal programs with this degradation by preventing and controlling
it.
Need for Guidelines
Though much information and data have been provided to State
legislatures and water pollution control agencies for guidance in setting
up water quality control legislation, implementation plans, and funding,
there has been little study of personnel requirements for effective State
water quality management programs.21 In January 1965, Jacobi, Pavia,
and Ricketts presented "Staffing and Budgetary Guidelines for State Water
Pollution Control Agencies." 22 The work for that report was done by
Public Administration Service, Chicago, 111. on a contract from the
Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control, Public Health Service,
U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. As such, it was
oriented mainly toward public health program implementation and
centered, in general, on service per unit of population. Since that time
water quality management has broadened its emphasis from a public
health orientation to involve other considerations noted but not used in
the Public Administration Services study as foundations for criteria. For
example, implementation of standards for interstate waters to enhance
water quality and protect all legitimate uses was not a requirement of
state water quality management agencies at the time of that sudy. Also,
much weight was placed in the study upon needs to eliminate untreated
discharges of sewage and industrial wastes. While this is still a considera-
tion for some States, the bulk of the State agencies are now concerned
with upgrading treatment of municipal and industrial waste to meet
water quality standards in the streams.23 Also, the number and complexity
of water quality management considerations do not necessarily increase
in concert with population and industrial growth. Guidelines for estimat-
ing personnel requirements could be made more useful through inclusion
of consideration of diverse environmental conditions.
21 The reader is directed to: U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, Guidelines for Establishing Water Quality
Standards for Interstate Waters, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration,
May 1966; State Water Pollution Control Act, Revised, supra; and U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, The Cost
of Clean Water, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1968.
23 Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, supra.
23 Digest of Fiscal Year 1969 State Program Plans, sec. 6.
-------
Scope of the Study
This study proposes the development of general guidelines for esti-
mating personnel requirements for state water quality control agencies
based upon an examination of a typical program, that of the Texas Water
Quality Board, and the projection of an idealized water quality control
program.
10
-------
TYPICAL STATE WATER QUALITY
CONTROL PROGRAM
HE AUTHORITY to regulate water quality in Texas is vested in
the Texas Water Quality Board. The Board was created by the legisla-
ture to administer the policy of the State on water quality, which is:
to maintain the quality of the water of the state consistent with the public
health and enjoyment, the propagation and protection of terrestrial and
aquatic life, the operation of existing industries, and the economic develop-
ment of the State; to encourage and promote the development and use of
regional and area-wide waste collection, treatment, and disposal systems to
serve the waste disposal needs of the citizens of the state; and to require
the use of all reasonable methods to implement this policy.1
The program for carrying out this policy is developed by the Board and
its staff.
The relationship between the program's requirements and the staff
needed to carry out the requirements can be understood by examining
the program which implements the State's water quality control policy and
the organization which is evolving to operate the program effectively.
Authority
The Texas Water Quality Board was created by the Texas Water
Quality Act of 1967.- This act was the culmination of legislative efforts
to protect the quality of Texas waters which extend back at least to
I860.3 Additional authority was given the Board by amendments passed
during the 1969 session of the legislature.4
History
The first water pollution prohibition appeared in the Penal Code as
the result of the acts of 1860 and prohibited the depositing of dead
animals in Texas streams.5 This prohibition underwent evolution and
modification over the years and was repealed when the Texas Water
Pollution Control Act was enacted in 1961.6 The first civil statutes on
1 Texas Legislative Service, S.G. 147 (61st Legislature, Reg. sess., 1969), sec.
1.02. Also Article 7621-d-l, Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes.
2 Texas, S.B. 204 (60th Legislature, Reg. sess. 1967).
3 Texas, acts 1860, p. 97.
* S.B. 147, supra.
5 Texas, acts 1860.
6 Texas, H.B. 24 (57th Legislature, Reg. sess., 1961), sec. 14.
11
-------
water pollution were codified in 1913,7 and underwent modification and
change until repealed by the 1961 act.
Early water pollution control program activities in Texas were carried
out primarily by the State Health Department, but protection of fish
and wildlife was the responsibility of the Game and Fish Commission.
The program was markedly informal, since the State was for the most
part rural with its population spread thinly about the State area. Most
early efforts were concentrated on regulating disposal of municipal
sewage. The informality permitted considerable latitude and judgment
by the law's administrators.8
As water pollution grew as a problem, the Texas Railroad Com-
mission joined the health and fish and wildlife authorities, with respon-
sibility for control of pollution from oilfield wastes.9
In 1953, the legislature created the Texas Water Pollution Advisory
Council, composed of representatives of the Attorney General, the State
Health Department, the Game and Fish Commission, the Board of Water
Engineers, and the Railroad Commission and provided for a systematic
exchange of views and information among the key State agencies al-
though it had no real statutory authority, funds, or personnel as does
the present Board.10 The Water Quality Board has cited the Council's
actions as the beginning of an effective program, with two significant
steps. First, a program was undertaken to control pollution resulting
from disposal of oil field wastes, principally brines. Second, a statewide
water sampling network was established in order that the quality of the
waters of the State would be monitored regularly to detect water quality
degradation in advance of serious damage. This "Statewide Water
Quality Monitoring Program" was a cooperative operation of the State
Health Department and the Texas Parks and Wildlife Departments,
i.e., game wardens collected water samples at strategic locations on the
streams throughout the State, while the State Health Department labora-
tory analyzed the samples.11 As with the other legislation which had
evolved for the regulation of water pollution in Texas, the statute creat-
ing the Council was repealed by the State Water Pollution Control Act
in 1961.12
The 1961 act authorized a six-man Water Pollution Control Board
which was increased to seven by the 59th Legislature in an amendment
adding as a member the chairman of the Texas Railroad Commission.
The Board, under the 1961 act as amended in 1965, was closely aligned
with the State Health Department by having the Director of the Water
Pollution Control Division of that Department serving as Executive
Secretary to the Board. The Board's technical, scientific, legal, and other
services were performed by personnel of other State agencies. The execu-
7 Vernon's Annotated Revised Civil Statutes of the State of Texas (Kansas City,
Mo.: Vernon Law Book Company, 1969), art. 4444.
8Texag Water Quality Board, Texas Water Quality, A Summary of Water
Pollution Control in the State of Texas, undated statement, p. 1.
9 Ibid., p. 2.
10Texas, H.B. 448 (51st Legislature, Reg. sess., 1953).
11 Texas Water Quality, op. cit., p. 2.
"H-B. 24 (57th Legislature, 1961), sec. 14.
12
-------
tive secretary was designated the administrator of water pollution control
activities for the Board.13
A new board with independent water quality management authority
and its own staff was created by the Texas Water Quality Act of 1967.14
The new Board also consisted of seven members: three appointed by
the Governor and four from interested State agencies, Railroad Com-
mission, Parks and Wildlife, Water Development and Health (see fig. 2).
.The Board's Executive Director, an employee of the Board, serves as
chief administrative officer.
The Texas Water Quality Act of 1967 was the first general Texas
statute dealing entirely with water quality control; other statutes con-
cerning water pollution control either concern local jurisdiction or deal
with regulation of specific segments of the economy, e.g., petroleum
production or protection of fish and wildlife. The 1967 Texas act set
out the State policy with regard to water quality control, created the
Texas Water Quality Board, outlined a system of water quality control,
provided for coordination of water quality control programs of various
State agencies and local governments, and provided a basis for co-
ordinating water quality control programs of the State with those of
the National Government.
Specifically, the 1967 legislation delegated to the Board authority to:
(1) Administer the Act and to establish and control the quality of the waters
of the State;
(2) Regulate, through a permit system, waste discharges into or adjacent to the
waters in the State;
(3) Regulate, through area-wide orders, septic tank use to prevent pollution
that may directly or indirectly injure the public health.
Further, the 1967 act imposed duties to:
(1) Encourage voluntary cooperation by various groups in preserving the greatest
possible utility of the waters in the State;
(2) Encourage the formation and organization of cooperative groups of users
of waters in the State for the purpose of providing a medium to discuss and
formulate plans for the attainment of water quality control;
(3) Establish policies and procedures for securing close cooperation among
State agencies concerned with water quality;
(4) Cooperate with governments of the United States and other States;
(5) Conduct studies and research on water quality criteria or control problems,
disposal systems, and treatment systems for various wastes.
The 1967 Act granted the Board and its employees quasi-judicial
powers to hold hearings and take testimony, quasi-legislative powers to
make rules, and authority to institute legal proceedings to compel com-
pliance with provisions of the legislation. In carrying out its duties and
authorized function, the Board and its employees were granted the right
of entry for investigating conditions relating to water quality in the
State and to examine records pertaining to these matters. Authority was
also granted to conduct investigations as the Board may deem advisable
in discharging its duties, make contracts and agreements as necessary
to the exercise of the Board's powers, and to perform such other func-
tions as are necessary to carry on the Act.
Court review of Board decisions was provided for by this legislation.
13 Ibid., sec. 3(g).
14 Vernon's Annotated Texas Civil Statutes, op. cit., sec. 7621 d-1.
13
-------
TEXAS
WATER QUALITY
BOARD
3 MEMBERS
APPOINTED BY
GOVERNOR
MEMBER
MEMBER
MEMBER
MEMBER
EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR
GOVERNOR
OF
TEXAS
TEXAS
WATER
DEVELOPMENT
BOARD
MEMBERS
APPOINTED BY
GOVERNOR
TEXAS
PARKS 8
WILDLIFE
DEPARTMENT
TEXAS STATE
DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH
MEMBERS
APPOINTED BY
GOVERNOR
EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR
MEMBERS
APPOINTED BY
GOVERNOR
RAILROAD
COMMISSION OF
TEXAS
EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR
POSITION
^ STATUTORY
POSITION
COMMISSIONER
OF HEALTH
STATUTORY
POSITION
MEMBERS
ELECTED
CHAIRMAN
LIAISON WITH ALL STATE AGENCIES
FIGURE 2.—Relationship of the Water Quality Board to Other State Agencies.
Source: Texas Water Quality Board.
-------
A requirement that all persons proposing to construct or alter a sewer
system or treatment system file preliminary plans and specifications 30
days prior to the start of construction was incorporated in the legislation
as well. The Board was specifically granted power under the 1967 act
to enter into agreements with Federal agencies and to accept funds from
the Federal Government to aid in carrying out its program and duties,
but imposed various restrictions, i.e., no grant shall be made for any
project unless the project is approved by the Board and unless it is
included in the State water quality program.
The 1967 law provided a general prohibition against pollution, set
forth the enforcement procedures and penalties, the authority of local
governments, exceptions, notice procedure, protection of common law
remedies, protection of confidential information, validation of previous
permits, orders, etc., repealed previous legislation, provided for sever-
ance of unconstitutional clauses, and set the effective date as September
1, 1967. These latter portions of the 1967 act supported and clarified
the duties and authorities of the Board and its employees.
Texas Water Quality Act, as Amended
The legislature amended the Texas Water Quality Act of 1967 in
1969 by the enactment of a piece of legislation known simply as the
Texas Water Quality Act (TWQ Act). This law amends, revises, and
rearranges the 1967 act to improve its structure and provide for more
effective control of water quality. The most recent legislation is broken
into six sections covering the various authorities provided by the
legislation.13
The 1969 Act designates the Board as the principal authority on all
matters relating to water quality in Texas and responsible for establish-
ing a statewide water quality sampling monitoring program. The 1969
legislation provides for prompt action when necessary to effectuate the
policy and purposes of the law by authorizing the issuance of temporary
orders relative to existing or impending waste discharges. The Board is
specifically empowered to approve the construction or material alteration
of all sewer systems, treatment facilities, etc. other than those reviewed
by the State Health Department and the Water Rights Commission.
The 1969 Act includes a procedure for the Board to define the areas
in which regional or area-wide waste collection, treatment and disposal
systems should be used in place of a multiplicity of small plants and
the Board can designate the system or systems to serve the area. The
Board is granted authority to set rates which may be charged to the
users of such a system.
With regard to accidental discharges and spills, the Board is given the
power to adopt rules or issue orders establishing safety and preventive
measures for activities which are potentially capable of causing or
resulting in the spillage or accidental discharge of pollutional materials.
The new law changed the enforcement provisions so that the discharge
of certain defined types of waste is a violation unless the discharge is
made pursuant to a permit, rule, or order of the Board, irrespective of
15Texas, S.B. 147 (61st Legislature, Reg. ses., 1969).
15
-------
whether or not pollution results. In this way, a permit will serve as a
device to regulate and control the quality of the discharges to Texas
Waters.
In addition to these authorities, the legislature in 1969 placed the
responsibility for regulating industrial solid waste disposal under the
Solid Waste Disposal Act with the Board 16 and transferred the function
of issuing subsurface waste disposal permits under the Injection Well
Act from the Water Development Board to the Water Quality Board.17
Other Texas Statutes Affecting Water Quality Management
While the Board is under the Texas Water Quality Act vested with
the largest portion of water pollution control authority, there does exist
a substantial body of State and Federal law authorizing others to perform
similar functions. The 1969 legislation is a synopsis of the cooperating
agencies' functions. These duties and authorities are extensions of
powers previously granted to the Water Well Drillers Board, the Water
Development Board, Railroad Commission, Parks and Wildlife Depart-
ment, State Department of Health, and local governments.18
The other statutes are:
(1) The Water Well Drillers Act establishes a licensing agency for persons
engaged in the drilling of water wells and grants pollution control authority with
respect to proper drilling and plugging of this type well.19 The 1969 amendments
transferred authority for regulation of injection wells for disposal of wastes to
subsurface stratum from the Water Development Board to the Water Quality
Board.20
(2) The duties and responsibilities of the Texas Water Development Board
as specified by the TWQ Act are: "The Texas Water Development Board shall
investigate all matters concerning the quality of ground water in the state and
shall report its findings and recommendations to the board." The Texas Water
Development Board is the state's chief water resource planning agency. The
agency historically has been the state's groundwater investigation agency and has
an extensive program for the protection of the quality of groundwaters and the
investigation of possible pollution of these waters.21
(3) The Railroad Commission is vested with authority to control:
(a) pollution from wastes produced in connection with the production of
• oil and gas;22
(b) pollution which is likely to result from the plugging of abandoned oil,
gas, injection or exploration wells; ** and
(c) the business of transporting salt water from oil and gas wells for
disposal elsewhere.24
(4) The Parks and Wildlife Department is charged with enforcement of the
TWQ Act insofar as any violation occurs which affects fish and other aquatic life,
birds, and animals.25
10Texas, S.B. 125 (61st Legislature, Reg. ses., 1969).
"Texas, S.B. 138 (61st Legislature, Reg. sess., 1969).
18 Texas Water Quality, op. cit., p. 6.
19 Vernon's Annotated Texas Civil Statutes, op. cit., art. 762le.
20 Texas, S.B. 138 (61st Legislature, Reg. Ses., 1969).
21 Texas, S.B. 147 (61st, 1969), sec. 1.07.
22 Vernon's Annotated Texas Civil Statutes, op. cit., arts. 60029 and 6005 (Oil
and Gas Wastes).
23 Ibid.
24 Ibid., art. 6029b.
25 Vernon's Annotated Penal Code of the State of Texas (Kansas City Mo •
Vernon Law Book Co., 1952), art. 978f.
16
-------
(5) The State Health Department's pollution control function is concerned
essentially with protection of public drinking water systems and sewage disposal
systems.26
(6) City governments are empowered to prohibit pollution of any stream which
may constitute a source of water supply and to provide protection of a watershed
using the concept of nuisance abatement and prohibition.27
(7) The General Land Office is vested with authority to control pollution
resulting from all development (oil and gas production) of state owned (public)
land.28
In addition, there are other statutes granting various degrees of au-
thority to control water pollution to local governmental institutions
such as river basin authorities, cities, and water districts. These together
with certain interstate compacts providing for control of pollution of
interstate waters complete the array of authorities augmenting the Water
Quality Board's authority.
Program
The duties and authorities vested in the Water Quality Board by the
legislature have resulted in a broad-based program for control of the
quality of the waters of Texas consisting of six major program elements:
Water Quality Standards, Permits, Enforcement, Planning, Construction
Grants, and the Galveston Bay Study.
Water Quality Standards
Until very recently, the water quality in Texas streams and coastal
waters was undefined. The program objective of the water pollution
control agency was usually to prevent obvious pollution and to maintain
the streams in such condition that pollution complaints were kept at a
minimum. Also the quality was kept adequate to serve the various water
supply functions that might be made of the State's waters.
In 1965, during the course of consideration of the water pollution
problem in the Houston Ship Channel of Harris County, the Water
Pollution Control Board began defining quality standards for the waters
in that area. Following the enactment of the 1965 amendments to the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Board developed water quality
standards for all Texas waters, both inter and intrastate. The standards
and plan for their implementation were adopted by the Board in June
1967, and shortly thereafter were approved by the Secretary of the
Interior. The standards are not uniform throughout the State but reflect
natural differences occurring from stream to stream and varying quality
requirements related to water use.
The Board administers a program for changing the standards as re-
quired by improved technical and economic evaluation techniques and
changing quality needs in the various portions of Texas waters. This
program also provides for monitoring the quality of the State's waters
to ascertain whether the standards are being met and, if they are not,
determining the cause of the departure from the set standards.29
26 Vernon's Annotated Texas Civil Statutes, op. cit., art. 4477-1.
27 Ibid., art. 1175(19).
28 Ibid., arts. 5351 and 5366.
28 Texas Water Quality, op. cit., p. 9.
17
-------
Permits
As provided in the TWQ Act, waste discharges into the waters of
the State shall be made only in accordance with the terms and conditions
of a permit issued by the Board. At a minimum, each permit states:
(1) The duration of the permit; (2) the maximum quantity of waste
which may be discharged thereunder at any time and from time to time;
and (3) the quality, purity, and character of waste which may be dis-
charged in keeping with the permit requirements. Three types of permits
are issued to regulate the quantity and quality of wastes discharged
to State waters:
(a) A "statutory permit" (commonly called a grandfather clause permit) allows,
under the 1961 law, waste discharges in existence at that time to continue;
(b) A "regular permit" is issued by the Board for new waste discharges; and
(c) An "amended permit" is a statutory or regular permit which has been
altered at the direction of the Board following the carrying out of required quasi-
judicial procedures.
The procedures to be followed in issuing permits require full investi-
gation by the Board and its staff, full public disclosure of pertinent
information, and notification of interested persons. The procedures
provide for the protection of those subject to its regulation by notice,
opportunity to be heard, and decision without bias. Independent review
of Board action is available in the appropriate courts.
The Board requires the holding of a public hearing on each permit
application following notice to the general public through newspapers
and interested persons through direct mail advice. Persons wishing to
support or deny the issuance of the permit are given an opportunity to
be heard at the hearing, which is held as close to the area of the State
where the waste discharge is to be made as possible. Hearings are held
by a Hearing Examiner for the Board (usually an attorney) with the
assistance of technical and scientific personnel. The examiner's report
is reviewed and evaluated by the Board's staff and, after acceptance by
the executive director of the Board, is considered by the Board. Majority
approval of the Board is required for issuance of the permit. Similarly,
majority opposition results in denial of a permit. The primary considera-
tions in the Board's deliberations are: (1) the information obtained
at the public hearing; (2) the technical staff's findings that in com-
pliance with the Board's requirements the pollution control measures
proposed are, as far as is reasonable and economical, the highest degree
that can be obtained; and (3) the Water Quality Standards established
for the State waters involved.30
The permit program element is closely allied with the water quality
standards and enforcement program elements. The procedures and staff
utilized in setting standards are a salient part of the permit program
element. The water quality standards provide the bases for setting the
effluent quantity and quality requirements contained in the waste dis-
charge permits. The water quality monitoring portion of the standards.
program element furnishes the data required to evaluate the effectiveness
'Ibid., pp. 10 and 21.
18
-------
of the permit program, as well as information needed to allow for suit-
able revision of existing permits.
Enforcement
The enforcement program element is concerened with gathering the
data and information needed to achieve compliance with the water
quality standards and permits and initiation of suits against polluters,
i.e., those discharging without a valid permit or in violation of a valid
permit. The TWQ Act provides that the Attorney General, at the di-
rection of the Board, institute and conduct a suit for the State. In advance
of the Attorney General's formal action, various informal and formal
actions would be undertaken by the Board and its staff.31
Enforcement is based upon an inspection system, involving all permit
holders, operated to assure that all significant waste discharges for
which permits have been issued will be inspected at appropriate intervals.
During the inspections, field analyses are performed and samples collected
for laboratory analysis to confirm the quality of the waste water dis-
charged.
When an inspection reveals that a waste discharge is not in com-
pliance with the governing permit, the permittee receives a letter in-
forming him of the violation and requesting remedal action. This
letter does not specify a course of action. Should the violation continue,
specific instructions for remedying the violation are provided through
the following steps:
(1) Approximately two months following the initial notice of non-
compliance, a followup inspection is carried out, and additional samples
are collected.
(2) Should the followup indicate no substantial improvement, the
permittee is notified that a detailed study will be made and specific
recommendations submitted to the permittee. These recommendations
are provided to the permittee in both informal and formal forms, i.e.,
verbally and in writing. Variations of this procedure are employed as
circumstances dictate. However, in all instances, every conceivable step
is taken to secure voluntary compliance to avoid institution of a suit by
the Attorney General.
The Board refers to a policy of "enforced compliance" as denoting
all those activities necessary to bring about compliance with water quality
standards in cases where the agency is faced with recalcitrant or un-
cooperative attitudes on the part of polluters. For violations originating
within the State, the Board (or other agency having authority) can,
acting through the State attorney general, initiate suit. In general, a
public hearing, in advance of the suit, is held in the area of concern to
gather pertinent evidence as to the causes and effects of the alleged
violation. Should the facts warrant, the matter is then referred to the
Attorney General's office with sufficient evidence to support a suit.
Following referral, the Board continues to gather data and to attempt
settlement of the matter through voluntary compliance.
Ibid., p. 10.
19
-------
When pollution originates outside of the State and adversely affects
the quality of State waters, contact is initiated with the appropriate
agency in the State involved to undertake the action which may be
necessary to correct the difficulty through joint efforts.32
In a broad sense, the actions taken following the setting of water
standards, the issuance of permits, and the followup inspection to assure
compliance are all a part of the enforcement of the TWQ Act.
Planning
The planning program of the Board is setup to evaluate how the
social and economic trends in the State will affect the Board's adminis-
tration of a comprehensive water quality management program and how,
in turn, the Board's programs, policies, and decisions will influence
the social and economic growth of the State. The Board's program is co-
ordinated with those of other State agencies. The Board's planning
staff provides it with pertinent information on land use planning and
economic considerations so that the Board will be able to properly
evaluate the total effect of its decisions. The Board is represented on
the 15 member Planning Agency Council for Texas (PACT). PACT
is coordinated from the Governor's office and insures (1) that the
results of planning efforts by one State agency are available to other
State agencies; (2) that the impact of the plans of one State agency
on the plans of another State agency are considered; and (3) that the
total resources available to the State (universities, colleges, foundations,
Federal Government, and industry) are applied to State planning
for the solution of a problem and that the use of basic data by State
agencies involved in planning is uniform.33 The Board's planning activi-
ties, therefore, are conducted under the concept voiced by the legisla-
ture that the Governor is the Chief Planning Officer and that he is
authorized to appoint Interagency Planning Councils in certain func-
tional areas including natural resources and health. An example of
this concerns area-wide sewage disposal planning.
The Texas legislature, at its Regular Session in 1967, appropriated
$2 million to the Board to be used for "planning and feasibility studies,
by contract, of area-wide sewage treatment facilities." M As a result,
an ad hoc committee, consisting of representatives of the Office of the
Governor—Division of Planning Coordination, the Texas State Depart-
ment of Health, and the Board, has under preparation an "overview"
of the State with respect to the need for area-wide sewage planning
funds. The committee deduced that the extent of pollution problems
is related to a significant degree to the population density of the area.35
It is the Board's responsibility to implement and administer the plan-
ning grant and loan program and to this end has setout policies and
procedures for the use of these funds in the Rules of the Texas Water
32 Texas Water Quality Board, State Program Grant Application, Water Pollution
Control Program, FY 1970 [FWPCA-112 (Rev. 4-68)], pp. 25-27.
33 Vernon's Annotated Texas Civil Statutes, op. cit., art. 4413 (32a).
34 Texas, S.B. 15 (60th Legislature, Regular Sess., 1967).
35 Texas Water Quality, op. cit., pp. 10-11.
20
-------
Quality Board.36 While the area-wide sewage disposal planning activities
using the planning grant appropriations are the keystone of the Board's
planning program, the Board's planning effort is not limited to admin-
istration of that appropriation.
River basin planning, for the most part, is carried out by river
authorities in Texas. Several of the larger authorities have plans and
most of the remainder are in the process of devising and/or initiating
plans. The Board through its planning grants has funded or partially
funded a large amount of planning in 8 of 14 basins.37
All of the long-range water quality management planning by the
Board is keyed to State and Federal research efforts having to do with
Texas waters. Constant attention is given to water quality management
as the water resources of the State continue to be developed and used
as the result of the growth of municipal and industrial water needs. A
major effort toward developing area-wide waste disposal systems for
the State's metropolitan areas and river basins is a large part of the water
quality management plan. From these planning outputs come the neces-
sary information to guide the Board in the issuance of permits and
orders to promote logical orderly development of water quality control
facilities.
In its general concept of planning the Board recognized the broad
impact of its adoption and implementation of water quality standards
for the surface waters of the state and that the effect of its decisions
concerning permits for individual waste discharges is broader than the
prevention of stream pollution. The planning program is the result of
this realization, together with the need for inter agency coordination and
administration of planning grants.38
Construction Grants
Under section 8 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended, the Board administers at the state level Federal grants for
the construction of municipal sewage treatment works. Any municipality
or similar public body created by or pursuant to State law and having
jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes
is eligible for a grant. The Board sets the priority of this eligibility as
the requests for grants usually exceeds the funds available. Applications
for funds are rated on the basis of financial need, condition of existing
facilities, pollution aspects, nuisances, and readiness-to-go factors. This
program is carried out in cooperation with the State Department of
Health, which sets the design criteria for sewerage facilities under its
public health authorities and reviews plans and specifications for pro-
posed works to assure compliance with these criteria. (In addition, the
Texas Water Rights Commission reviews and approves sewage disposal
systems constructed by certain water districts.) During the construction
of pollution control facilities under the Federal grant program, inspec-
38 Texas Water Quality Board, Rules of the Texas Water Quality Board, adopted
Nov. 28, 1967, pp. 46-55.
37 State Program Grant Application, op. cit., p. 42.
38 Ibid., pp. 51-52.
21
-------
tions are made at the 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent stages of comple-
tion.39
The TWQ Act authorizes grants to supplement those of the Federal
Government. However, no funds have been appropriated by the legisla-
ture to implement this program element.40
Galveston Bay Study
The Galveston Bay Study is a major program being conducted under
the direction of the Board utilizing a wide variety of sources of finances
and services. As planned, it is a 3-year, $3 million, multidisciplinary
effort to determine the optimum management program for the Galveston
Bay system waters. Expectations are that the managerial mechanism
derived from the correlated findings of the study may result in the
creation of a State agency patterned after the River Development Boards
that have been successful in controlling water quality in the rivers of
Germany. The study is being carried out by various State universities,
agencies of the Federal Government, and consulting engineering firms
under the management of a small Board staff to coordinate the contracts
and inputs of the various agencies.41
Organization
The staff -of the Texas Water Quality Board is organized into five
divisions (see fig. 3) to carry out the program authorized and funded by the
legislature. Each of these divisions is headed by a Director responsible
to the Executive Director, and the Deputy Director, who assumes the
duties of the Director in his absence. The five operating divisions are:
Administrative Services, Field Operations, Central Operations, Hearings
and Enforcement, and the Galveston Bay Study.
The Executive Director and his immediate staff direct and coordinate
the activities of the five divisions and perform other required functions,
such as coordinating the Board's activities with those of other agencies
or institutions and reporting Board activities. These functions include
public information, legislative liaison, interagency coordination, program
and plans development and analysis.
Public information keeps the public informed of agency program
activities, the effect these programs have on individual members of the
public, and what can be done to gain maximum benefits from the pro-
grams. The information is as candid, nontechnical, and timely as possible.
Similarly, this information in slightly more technical and detailed form
is available to the legislature. Contacts with legislative committees are
extremely important in making known to the legislature information on
program progress, goals, and problems.
Interagency coordination provides the vehicle for the Board to interact
with those State agencies affected by or having responsibilities in the
39 Ibid., p. 34.
40 Ibid., p. 33.
41 Texas Water Quality, op. cit., pp. 13-14.
22
-------
TEXAS
WATER QUALITY
BOARD
EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
GALVESTON BAY
STUDY
ADMINISTRATIVE
SERVICES
FIELD
OPERATIONS
CENTRAL
OPERATIONS
HEARINGS
PERMITS
to
u>
DIST. I
AMARILLO
DIST. 2
LUBBOCK
DIST. 3
WACO
DIST. 4
DUNCANVILLE
DIST. 5
KILGORE
DIST. 6
ORANGE
DIST. 7
LA PORTE
DIST. 8
SAN ANTONIO
DIST. 9
SAN ANGELO
DIST. 10
PECOS
DIST. II
EDINBURG
FIGURE 3.—Organization of Texas Water Quality Board.
Source: Texas Water Quality Board.
-------
management of water quality, e.g., the Water Development Board, Parks
and Wildlife Department, Railroad Commission, and the State Depart-
ment of Health. The coordination is accomplished through informal
contacts by agency staff and by membership on committees such as
PACT and the water quality data committee chaired by the Board's
representative, the Executive Director.
The analysis of on-going programs and their development along with
new undertakings resulting from legislative actions is also handled by the
executive staff. This is a continuing function for maximizing the value
of objectives reached by the agency, considering the resources of man-
power and money available to achieve those objectives. Based on these
evaluations, changes in program management can be recommended
to the Board, such as alteration of priorities or changes in goals. Pro-
grams and plans are developed to meet projected needs.42
The Executive Director has an Administrative Coordinator to aid
in planning and coordinating agency activities and programs and a staff
assistant with journalistic experience to carry on a public information
program.43
Administrative Services Division
The Administrative Services Division has five sections: Personnel,
Fiscal, Files and Reproduction, Purchasing, and Staff Services. This
division provides functions without which the program activities of the
Board staff would be severely hampered. Its clientele is the other
divisions. Each section supplies a specialized service interrelated to the
other sections of the Administrative Services Division and auxiliary
to the operations of the other divisions.44
The Personnel Section is responsible to the Director of Administrative
Services for carrying out personnel policies concerning recruiting and
keeping qualified personnel and for the Board's continuing staff training
and career development program.
A primary operation of the Fiscal section concerns budgeting, the
allotting of funds to carry out the Board's functions. A second activity
of this section is budgetary accounting, which is an integral part of the
operating budget procedure. All disbursements made by the Board are
conditioned on the Board's formal approval on recommendation from the
Executive Director and certification from the Fiscal Section as to the
availability of funds prior to the commitment of any funds. The account-
ing system is operated so that the Executive Director can know the
fiscal position of the agency at any time.45
The Files and Reproduction Section maintains the Board's records
and reproduces for distribution the documents which are a part of co-
operation and coordination within the State government and intergov-
ernmental organizations.
42 Emory G. Long, Administrative Coordinator, Texas Water Quality Board,
private interview, Jan. 21, 1970.
43 State Program Grant Application, op. cit., p. 52.
"Emory G. Long, Administrative Coordinator, Texas Water Quality Board,
private interview, Jan. 21, 1970.
^ State Program Grant Application, op. cit., pp. 13-14.
24
-------
The Purchasing Section handles the procurement of goods and services
for the Board and its staff.
The Staff Services Section is responsible for dispersing office supplies,
opening and distributing incoming mail, collection and posting of out-
going mail, clerical and secretarial assistance, office services and mis-
cellaneous support to the agency staff. Originally, all secretarial and
clerical staff was assigned to this section on pool basis.46
Field Operations Division
The Field Operations Division is organized to carry out routine tech-
nical operations and investigations in the field. For this purpose the
State is divided into 11 districts with an office in each (as shown in
fig. 4). The primary function of this division is determination of whether
the municipal and industrial permit holders are operating in compliance
with effluent requirements contained in their permits granted by the
Board. This is accomplished through a routine permit surveillance pro-
cedure. In addition, the district personnel collect 15 quarterly and 145
monthly samples in the 109 zones of the inland river basins and 64
monthly profile samples in the 51 coastal water zones. These samples
are collected and forwarded to the laboratory of the State Department
of Health for analysis in order to monitor the State's inland and coastal
waters with respect to the standards set for water quality. Field personnel
conduct routine investigations to discover pollution discharges for which
no permit has been issued; make inspections to determine qualifications
and needs of communities applying for grants to construct sewage
treatment facilities; instigate joint studies and surveys with other agencies
of Government into causes, effects, and possible remedies of water
pollution; and report their findings to the Board. The Field Support
Section at the Board's headquarters in Austin provides technical backup
for the field staff and augments them as needed for special situations
which arise with regularity. In effect, this is a "trouble shooting" group.47
Central Operations Division
The Central Operations Division has three sections: Technical Services,
Construction Grants, and Planning and Research.
The Technical Services Section furnishes complete technical review
of the treatment schemes proposed for various waste-producing opera-
tions which are submitted to the Board for permit approval, permit
amendment, or for other actions. This section also develops the tech-
nical information required for evaluation of proposed or existing waste
treatment facilities, the expected effluent quality, and the expected effect
on receiving waters.48
The Construction Grants Section administers the program providing
federal funds granted for construction of municipal treatment facilities.
This section's staff processes applications for grants, determines priorities,
w Emory G. Long, Administrative Coordinator, Texas Water Quality Board,
private interview, Jan. 21, 1970.
47 Ibid.
48 Ibid.
25
-------
DUNCANVILLE
4 \ 5
KILGORE
LA PORT
SAN ANTONIO ft \ 7
ORANGE
LEGEND:
2 DISTRICT NUMBER
CENTRAL OFFICE
DISTRICT OFFICE
FIGURE 4. — Field Operations of the Texas Water Quality Board-
Districts and District Offices.
Source: Texas Water Quality Board.
makes onsite inspections at 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent completion to
ascertain construction progress and assure that all permit requirements
are being carried out. Also, post-construction inspections insure that
performance and maintenance are satisfactory and alert the district
office personnel that followup is needed should operating problems
be revealed.49
The Planning and Research Section administers funds appropriated
by the legislature for the development of comprehensive water quality
control and pollution abatement programs as well as handling the staff
work involved in contracting for various research studies on the myriad
1 Ibid.
26
-------
of problems associated with water quality control. In developing recom-
mendations for the Board's use in awarding planning grants or research
contracts, priorities are established according to guidelines set by the
section's staff. Applications are evaluated according to these guidelines.
After the grant is awarded, this section follows the progress of the
planning activity or research project.
In addition to the grants and contract activities, the section provides
information and evaluation to the Board concerning planning and goals
for its water quality management program.50
Hearings and Enforcement Division
The Hearings and Enforcement Division consists of the Hearings
Section and the Permits Section.
The Hearings Section provides specific legal services for the scheduling
and conduct of public hearings required by the TWQ Act for the modi-
fication of water quality standards and the granting or modifications of
permits to discharge to State waters. Further, the section obtains legal
information and technical data necessary to make recommendations to
the Board regarding formal enforcement of Board orders.
The Permits Section issues waste discharge permits following favor-
able Board action and gathers and reviews all applicable data to insure
adequacy of application content. This section also records all permit
issuances and compiles statistical data pertinent to waste discharges.51
Galveston Bay Study
The Galveston Bay Study is a major effort to devise a program for
optimum management of the waters of the Galveston Bay System. As
such, it is an integral part of the overall water quality program of the
State. As originally authorized the survey portion of the study was to
be completed by 1971. However, due to the way the project funds were
made available, it may be necessary to extend the study beyond the
original completion date to accomplish the goals set in the study plan.52
Staffing
The program of the Board is carried out by a staff having a currently
authorized strength of 135 positions as shown in Table 1. Approximately
half of the positions are professional with the remainder being technical
aides, secretarial, or clerical.
According to interviews with members of the Board's executive staff
and the budget analyst for the Legislative Budget Board who is familiar
with the Board's budget requests, the Board's staff is at a level which is be-
low that required to administer the act effectively. However, while neither
50 Ibid.
31 Ibid.
53 Ibid.
27
-------
agency has devised parameters for determining adequacy, the staff is
being developed on a phased basis.53
TABLE 1.—Positions Authorized for the Staff of Texas Water Quality
Board.
ACTIVITY POSITIONS
Executive:
Executive Director 1
Deputy Director 1
Administrative Coordinator 1
Staff Assistant 1
Secretarial 4
Sub Total ... 8
Administrative Services Division:
Director 1
Operating Staff 18
Sub Total 19
Field Operations Division:
Director 1
District Offices Staff 41
Central Office Staff 15
Sub Total 57
Central Operations Division:
Director 1
Operating Staff 25
Sub Total . 26
Hearings and Enforcement Division:
Director 1
Operating Staff 20
Sub Total 21
Galveston Bay Project:
Director 1
Staff 3
Sub Total 4
Total . 135
Source: Interview with Texas Water Quality Board personnel, Jan. 21, 1970.
Current evaluation of staffing is based on three principal considerations:
(1) Availability of the various disciplines and skills at the current
State pay scales. Practically speaking, could the positions be filled with
qualified personnel if the funds were appropriated? There has existed
over the years a scarcity of qualified water pollution control engineers,
technicians, and specialists, such as chemists and aquatic biologists
53 Joe Teller, Deputy Director, and Emory Long, Administrative Coordinator,
Texas Water Quality Board, private interviews, Oct. 1, 1969. Bill Wells, Budget
Analyst, Texas Legislative Budget Board, private interview, Jan. 22, 1970.
28
-------
willing to work at the pay scale established for State agencies. In this
situation, the Board, knowing that the legislature is unwilling to appro-
priate funds which cannot be suitably expended, requests only the amount
which it expects can be expended in the current technical skills market.
(2) The geographic and program distribution of staff within the
organization, whether in the central office or in the field. This distribution
of the existing staff and the disciplines represented on it is compared
with the projected program needs. Staff assignments are correlated with
the current and expected workload at each location and in each program.
Current opinion is that the Board is understaffed, but it is not clear as
to how much. Program goals are as yet not clearly defined enough to
estimate total requirements for central and field operations.
(3) Recognition that administrative and auxiliary operations are func-
tions of the size of the technical staff. For example, jc number of engi-
neers requires y secretaries or clerks for support. No firm parameters,
such as amount of correspondence or filing operations, are used. As
with the availability of technical skills, administrative personnel require-
ments are based primarily upon the judgment and experience of those
planning, budgeting, and evaluating the personnel needs.
Requests for increases in auxiliary staff are evaluated upon expecta-
tions of increase in workload, including possible reallocation or reorga-
nization of existing staff to handle the expected increase in activity.
This type of evaluation is used for agencies which have existed long
enough to- be considered fully staffed to meet the administrative re-
quirements of the laws under which they function. The Water Quality
Board has not yet reached that point, as the legislature expanded its
duties and responsibilities during both the 1967 and 1969 sessions.
The Legislative Budget Board's budget examiner keeps in close contact
with the Board executive staff so as to be sensitive to the agency's con-
ception of its effectiveness and budgetary problems, often offering
advice as to potentially useful techniques and devices which have been
used by other agencies within the State or in other States or govern-
mental institutions.54
In summary, staffing requirements of the Texas Water Quality Board
are determined through the judgment of the Board's executive staff in
concert with that of the Legislative Budget Board considering mainly
availability of competent recruits and expected workload. However,
no workload criteria have been developed to date.
Ibid.
29
-------
PROGRAM STAFFING GUIDELINES
HIS REPORT proposes guidelines for the development of estimates
of personnel needs of State water quality control agencies using the
pollution control legislation suggested by the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration1 as the authority for an "idealized (model)
program."
Idealized Water Quality Management Program
The "ideal" water quality management program functions authorized
in the suggested legislation prompts the derivation of an organization
of general design to carry out these functions. This organization serves
as a framework for the presentation of guidelines for the workload
projections employed to estimate the number of personnel required for
effectively implementing the authorized program. Thus, in this report
the base for estimating the staff needed for program implementation
is the suggested legislation.
Several current trends in State pollution control legislation should
be noted. First, there has been recognition of the relationship between
water quality control and solid waste disposal, with regulation of both
based in the same agency, as in Texas.2 Further, regulation of all forms
of environmental pollution has been placed in one agency, i.e., control
of air and water pollution as well as solid waste disposal, as in Arkansas.3
While cognizance is taken of these apparent bellwether conditions, this
report is limited to consideration of personnel requirements for State
agencies concerned only with water quality control.
Ideal Program Authority
The model authority for the "ideal" program is the suggested act de-
veloped to aid in carrying out the requirement in section 4(a) of the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, "to encourage the enact-
ment of improved and so far as practicable, uniform state laws. * * *" 4
The revised suggested act was issued in 1966 to include establishment
of water quality standards throughout the United States and a "shifting
emphasis from the mere abatement of existing pollution to the policy
of preventing pollution in its incipiency." 5 The suggested act provides
1 U.S., Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion, Suggested State Water Pollution Control Act, Revised, (Washington, D.C.:
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, 1966), p. 10.
2 Texas, S.B. 125 (61st Legislature, Reg. Sess., 1969), sec. 2.(7).
3 Arkansas Water and Air Pollution Control Act, Act 472 of 1949 as amended
by Act 183 of 1965, Arkansas Statutes sec. 81-1909 et seq. and sec. 19-2743.
4 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.
5 Suggested State Water Pollution Control Act, Revised, op. cit., p. vm.
31
-------
the base for a model water quality control program. This program
should be capable of responding to changes in: (a) pollution control
technology, (b) water use and subsequent waste production, (c) popu-
lation and industry size and location, and (d) water quality requirements
to meet use shifts without requiring changes in the authority granted
the regulatory agency by the legislature. Further, the program under
this Act should be capable of responding to trends affecting water
quality with resulting changes in the number and skills of the personnel
required to carry out the program.
Cognizance is taken of the budgeting and appropriations procedures
which describe the limits to which programs for water quality control
can be implemented; however, it is assumed that the program for water
quality control authorized in the suggested act is of key importance to
the health and welfare of the State and, as such, enjoys the support of
the people of the State and is granted adequate appropriations by the
legislature. The suggested act sets no limit as to quality of the program
authorized; so it is assumed that protection of the State's water resources
is of considerable importance, thus requiring a program to meet the policy
objectives of the suggested act. "
In general, the legislation authorizing the program of the Texas
Water Quality Board is congruent with the suggested act and the "ideal"
program functions parallel those of the Board.
Ideal Program Functions and Organization
The ideal (or model) program and organization to carry it out is for
study purposes. Perhaps the program and organization to be discussed
and which will serve as the base for developing the personnel guidelines
should have been designated "suggested" as was the act providing the
model authority. However, it is not necessary for the purposes of this
report to suggest a program and organization, only to devise them as
a step to developing the guidelines. The specification of the program
and organization as ideal should not be interpreted as representing it
as best, for there is no general best program and organization for all
state water pollution control agencies. The program and organization
are nevertheless presented as ideal in the sense of being archetypal
ideal (or prototype) for developing the personnel requirements guide-
lines under the authority described in the suggested Act. The various
program elements and organization segments described below can be
expected to exist in similar forms in those states using the water quality
standards-permit type system for management of water quality, as in the
typical program.
Under the suggested act the comprehensive program plan serves as
the basis for management of the various program functions and activities
such as planning, water quality standards, facilities construction, permits,
and enforcement. All activities are dependent upon information and
data describing water quality and the waste discharges affecting it.
This information must be kept current to serve the planning and evalu-
ation function which provides a means for assigning priorities to activities
in terms of immediate, urgent, near future, and long-range needs to
32
-------
assure compliance with existing standards or permit conditions and/or
prevention of damages to water quality by the amendment of permits.
Thus, the basic continuing program function is surveillance of the
quality of the waters of the State and the waste discharges to them.
The information and data gathered by the surveillance activity in the
field provide the bases for the planning, water quality standards, facilities
construction, permits, and enforcement program activities. Each of the
program activities requires different types of information and depth of
detail in the information and data. The use of these data by each of the
major program activities will illustrate the significant program functions
and how each is coordinated with the others (as shown in Fig. 5).
Planning is carried on as a continuing program activity in two inter-
related areas: water quality control program for the State's waters and
the State's administration of that program.
Under the model program, the State's comprehensive water quality
control program plan is assembled to meet present, near future (five
years), and long range (25 and 50 years) needs of the State and as
such will use the data furnished by surveillance activities to establish
base data and trends in water quality, as in the typical program. The
plan, as developed, serves as the foundation of the budgeting and ap-
propriations process, since each year's needs would result from evalua-
tion of progress in meeting the criteria set in the plan and development
of conditions relating to them. The complexities of controlling water
quality through the governmental process do not permit a piecemeal
operation based upon solutions to problems after damage and degrada-
tion. Current practice recognizes the validity for prevention of pollution
and, thus, the necessity of the continuing planning function. The de-
velopment of the overall state plan for preserving water quality at a
high level to serve a wide'range of uses makes possible the develop-
ment of a plan for the agency itself so that the required staff and leader-
ship will be available when needed.
The data obtained from the stream (and coastal waters) surveillance
activities can be evaluated to determine whether progress is being made
toward meeting the standards, when a water quality improvement is
required, or whether a degradation trend is developing requiring action
to prevent pollution from violating the standards. The economic de-
velopment of the state as projected in the state plan may from time to
time require modification of standards. Information from surveillance
activities is needed to determine whether such a modification is feasible
and what its effect will be on water quality in downstream and upstream
locations. Information developed by the water quality standards program
activity provides inputs to the planning, permits, and enforcement ac-
tivities.
The review and evaluation of data obtained from surveillance activity
coupled with the water quality standards and state plan provides the
basis for the permit function, i.e., issuance, denial, modification, or
revocation. Permit program activities provide the foundations for the
facilities construction activities.
33
-------
EXECUTIVE
FUNCTIONS
FIGURE 5.—Program Activities of Idealized State Water Quality Control
Program.
The facilities construction program activity also utilizes data obtained
from surveillance of treatment plant construction and operation to pro-
vide information to the other program activities and administers the state
and federal grants to municipalities for construction of water pollution
control works.
A significant adjunct activity to the facilities construction program
element is operator training. The engineering works for treatment of
wastes will prove to be of little value without suitably trained personnel
to operate them. Certification of operators is a permit activity for
regulating those who operate water pollution control works. The absence
34
-------
of adequate water pollution control facilities or operation of existing
works can result in formal enforcement action under the suggested act.
The results of surveillance activity are the bases for formal enforce-
ment action, when combined with inputs from permits, water quality
standards, and facilities construction. The enforcement activity pre-
pares the technical and legal instruments required for action by the
Board in turning >a violation over to the Attorney General. Supporting
all of the functions authorized by the suggested act are the auxiliary
activities which must be provided to keep the administration of the
program elements working smoothly.
Over all these program segments is the executive function stemming
from the authority granted to the Board's executive director. This
activity provides coordination and direction of the program activities
within the Board's staff. Further, this activity furnishes the focus for
interagency coordination with other state agencies and the agencies of
other states, agencies of the federal government and interstate institu-
tions, as well as providing information to the legislature and the public.
Government agencies are organized on the basis of either or both of
two models. One is known as the staff and line model; the other is the
functional model. However, most organizations are a composite of
each rather than pure types. A major problem is the relationships be-
tween the functional headquarters and the individuals carrying out the
program in the field.6 There is, as with the idealized program, no one
best organization, only those that perform effectively. As illustrated in
Fig. 5, all program functions are equally important and interrelated, re-
quiring full-time coordination by the executive. For purposes of descrip-
tion in this report in estimating staffing requirements, the idealized orga-
nization will be divided into five segments:
Executive
Headquarters Program
Field Program
Auxiliary
Legal Counsel
Figure 6 illustrates the idealized organization.
Guidelines
The purpose of the guidelines developed in this report is to provide
a tool for estimating the workload of an effectively administered State
water quality management program much in the manner of Taylor's
"Scientific Management." 7 However, these guidelines are not considered
6 John M. Pfiffner and Robert V. Presthus, Public Administration, 4th ed. (New
York: The Ronald Press, 1960), p. 249. ,»*!.„
Frederick W. Taylor, Scientific Management (New York: Harper & Brothers
Publishers, 1947), passim.
35
-------
to be useful for setting work rates. Conversely, the work rates determine
the program workload and the number of personnel.
A study by the Public Administration Service,8 based upon data avail-
able for all of the 50 States, developed guidelines based on two types
of staffing needs: general and facility service. Facility service staff are
those personnel involved primarily in surveillance of existing water
EXECUT1VE
LEGAL
COUNSEL
\ ,
\ 1
HEADQUARTERS
PROGRAM
\
f
/
/
/
1
FIELD PROGRAM
f
/ /
AUXILIARY
FIGURE 6.—Idealized Organization State Water Quality Control Agency.
pollution control facilities, including the training and licensing of treat-
ment plant operators. Facility service staff requirements criteria were
based upon absolute ratios of staff to number of treatment plants and
water-using industries. The general staff needs included those personnel
not included in facility service and were determined on a relative scale.
State population, area, recreational use of water, and industrial work
force, coupled with jnterviews with the water pollution control program
administrators of 13 States were used to derive estimates of minimum
and desirable general staff needs. That report indicated that staffing for
special problems, such as acid mine drainage and oil-field brine pollu-
tion, would require additional staff.9
Table 2 compares the staffing for State water pollution control agen-
cies recommended in 1964 by Public Administration Service with the
number of man-years assigned to water quality management by the same
State agencies during fiscal year 1969.
Criteria for Guidelines
The guidelines to be used in estimating personnel needs are based
upon the primary function authorized by the suggested act, i.e., regula-
8 Thomas R. Jacobi, Richard A. Pavia, and E. F. Ricketts, "Staffing and
Budgetary Guidelines for State Water Pollution Control Agencies," Journal Water
Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 37, No. 1 (January 1965).
'Ibid., p. 13.
36
-------
TABLE 2.—Comparison of Public Administration Service Recommenda-
tions and Fiscal Year 1969 Man Years Assigned to State
Water Pollution Control Agencies.
STATE
Ala
Alas.
Ariz.
Ark.
Calif
Colo. _._
Conn.
Del. „
Fla.
Ga.
Ha.
Ida.
111
Ind. _.._
la.
Kans.
Ky.
La.
Ma.
Md.
Mass.
Mich.
Minn.
Miss.
Mo
MAN-YEARS
MlN.1
— 33
_. 15
24
26
_.. 180
-- 32
— 46
.— 20
..._ 58
._.. 43
..._ 12
.._ 21
..... 133
._.. 61
~~ 41
.__ 32
__ 26
34
32
__ 38
76
__ 110
58
__ 26
58
DBS.2
59
25
35
38
274
48
67
34
93
76
17
30
204
106
63
49
45
61
46
68
117
171
104
38
103
FY 1969
15.20
11.80
12.50
26.30
124.00
18.00
37.15
37.33
68.00
38.00
25.60
9.25
56.00
61.50
14.60
37.31
35.00
24.56
18.17
24.70
59.00
73.85
46.10
19.00
30.33
STATE
IMnnt
Neb
Nev. ...
N.H. ..
N J
NM
NY
NC
ND
Ohio
Okl
Ore
Pa
R.I.
SC
S.D
Tenn
Tex
Utah
Vt.
Va.
Wash.
W Va
Wise.
Wv.
•• j '
Total
MAN-YEARS
MlN.1
99
- - £*{*
96
15
21
86
16
194
56
11
137
35
35
155
31
39
16
40
28
17
41
39
22
71
17
2,410
DES.2
33
40
26
30
133
24
293
99
17
209
53
53
236
46
47
25
70
191
41
28
74
70
32
126
28
3,995
FY 1969
7.00
12.32
8.15
16.50
80.30
12.70
202.50
51.50
8.90
46.00
19.50
40.25
159.51
27.65
27.75
11.70
33.00
89.00
12.30
19.80
55.60
66.30
34.30
68.00
2.60
2,036.43
1 Minimum. 2 Desirable.
Sources: Minimum and Desirable from Thomas R. Jacobi, Richard A. Pavia,
and E. F. Ricketts, "Staffing and Budgetary Guidelines for State Water Pollution
Control Agencies," Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 37, No. 1
(January 1965), p. 20. State and Interstate Programs for Water Pollution Control,
Digest of Fiscal Year 1969 State Program Plans (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, State and
Regional Program Grants Branch, 1969), Sec. 2.
tion of water quality, and should reflect changes in workload resulting
from variations of water quality requirements, improvement in the tech-
nology of water quality control, and shifts in population and water uses
affecting water quality. Alterations of these factors and/or the agency
function will result in increases or decreases in staffing needs. The
guidelines should be sensitive to these changes. Likewise, as for the guide-
lines developed by Public Administration Service, "they must be relatively
37
-------
simple if only because there still are no foundations for a technically
refined 'scientific' approach in detail."10
Since all of the States have adopted water quality standards and all
but six require discharge permits,31 guidelines based upon a water quality
standards-permit type regulatory model administration are presented in
this report. Further, the guidelines are applicable only to activities con-
tained in the program as planned under the authority in the suggested
act. Contingency planning for disasters, either natural or manmade, are
not within the purview of this report although it is recognized that staff
will be diverted to such highly necessary activities from time to time.
Only state agencies of small proportions with respect to the manpower
required to cope with the disaster are expected to be severely affected by
such situations. However, even these, if adequately staffed, would possess
the necessary degree of flexibility to handle emergencies without serious
disruption of routine operations.
In keeping with the policy set out in the suggested act to prevent
pollution, surveillance of stream quality and waste discharges is the
fundamental activity of an idealized water quality control agency. Sur-
veillance activity workload can be estimated by determining the num-
ber of discharges requiring inspection, the frequency of inspection, the
number and type of water quality monitoring stations and the frequency
of sample collection. As various program activities affect or are affected
by the surveillance function (see Fig. 5), the other program activities can
be estimated as a function of the surveillance workload.
Unit of Measure: Man-Year
The unit of measure for estimating staff requirements in this report
is the man-year, which has available no more than 1,840 man-hours,
46 (40-hour) man-weeks, or 230 8-hour man-days. This unit was deter-
mined on the basis of a 2,040 man-hour (52 40-hour man-weeks or
260 8-hour man-days) year and the average employee having: 10 days
of annual leave (80 hours); 10 days of holidays (80 hours), although
most States have more official holidays; 5 days of annual sick leave (40
hours); and 5 days of annual training (40 hours) either on the job
or at suitable institutions. Few employees will follow this outline exactly,
but it is an indication of the considerations involved in estimating staffing
needs. Adjustments can be easily made in this estimate to provide a more
realistic appraisal of available working time per person.
Program Operations—Field
Program operations in the field consist essentially of:
(1) Inspections of municipal and industrial waste treatment plants to assure
compliance with discharge permit conditions;
(2) Inspections of construction of water pollution control works to assure
compliance with permit conditions and expected completion schedule;
10 Ibid.
11 State and Interstate Programs for Water Pollution Control, Digest of Fiscal
Year 1969 State Program Plans (Washington, D.C.: U.S., Department of the
Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, State and Regional
Program Grants Branch, 1969), Sections 5 and 6.
38
-------
(3) Monitoring of quality of the waters of the State;
(4) Participation in conferences and hearings on water quality standards and/or
issuance, modification, or enforcement of waste discharge permits; and
(5) Preparation of reports concerning the above activities.
The inspections activities workload can be estimated on the basis
of the number of locations to be inspected, the average frequency of
inspection, and the average time required per inspection. The number
of locations to be used in the estimate are a function of the agency's
policy on regulating discharges. For example, many industries have
multiple outlets, each with its own treatment system and all operating
under a single permit from the agency. The same is true of many munici-
palities. In general, each treatment works or system rather than each
permit holder should be considered a location for estimating purposes.
Frequency of inspection can be discussed in terms of complexity of
treatment (secondary or tertiary), amount of waste handled (in million
gallons daily), complexity of waste treated, downstream uses, etc. All
have merit as considerations while not providing a basic measure of
workload. To date, inspection programs of State pollution control agen-
cies have been handled on the basis of devoting resources to inspections
not needed for report compilation, special technical studies, and other
"crash projects." The result has been that, while the agency insisted on
construction of treatment works, no surveillance program is provided to
assure that works are being operated effectively at all times.12
Frequency of inspection, on the whole, can serve the purposes of the
pollution control program by being setup proportional to the uses pro-
tected and the potential for water quality degradation. Quality degrada-
tion, in turn, can be described as a function of concentration of industry
and population as measured by urbanization, i.e., the more highly ur-
banized, the more frequent the inspection should be to assure compliance.
This inspection program would be analogous to that carried on by the
Department of Agriculture in the meatpacking industry or the Depart-
ment of Defense among its contractors, where the packers or con-
tractors are under surveillance in proportion to their size or significance.
For estimating purposes, Figure 7 displays the relationship between
per cent urbanization as defined by the Bureau of the Census and aver-
age annual frequency of inspection. Not all discharges need be inspected
this often while others need more frequent and detailed inspections. Also,
the inspection program goals of the various state agencies are plotted
against 1960 percent urbanization in this figure. Frequency of inspec-
tion goals are, in general, arbitrary under existing conditions, as staff is
seldom available to meet them.
The average number of inspections needed per discharge are deter-
mined from figure 7. The manpower needs for this activity can be
estimated by multiplying by the average time required per inspection
and the number of locations requiring surveillance by the average fre-
quency of inspections, i.e., Mf = (I)(T)(L), where
'Ibid., sec. 8.
39
-------
Mf= Manhours/year, field
I = Inspections/year (Figure 7)
T= Average manhours per operation
L= Number of locations.
In general; the construction inspections workload can be estimated
on the basis of expected activity in issuing permits to municipalities
and industries and grants for construction to municipalities. As with
plant operation surveillance, inspections planned multiplied by the aver-
X
ki
1
\
Px.
<0
20
10
8
6
5
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
O.I
DO
2 2
o o oo o o o
J.
_L
±
0
10
20
J_
±
±
70
80
90
100
30 40 50 60
PERCENT URBANIZATION
LEGEND:
o Reported Inspections /Year v. Percent Urbanization (for each state)
FIGURE 7.—Relationship of Inspection Frequency to Percent Urbaniza-
tion.
Source: Percent urbanization—U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the
Census, 1960; inspections - State and Interstate Programs for Water Pollution
Control, Digest of Fiscal Year 1969 State Program Plans (Washington, D.C.: U.S.,
Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, State
and Regional Program Grants Branch, 1969), sec. 8.
40
-------
age time required for each will determine the workload for this activity,
i.e., M'f = (P) (T) (L), where P = number of inspections of plant con-
struction.
The protocol in carrying out each inspection is important. The indus-
trial plant manager (or responsible municipal official) is usually con-
tacted prior to actually entering the plant for the construction or opera-
tions inspection. This brings the gravity of the need for compliance
to the attention of a responsible official. The construction superintendent
or plant operator is then interviewed to determine the current status of
construction or operation. A tour of the plant ensues to verify the
information shown in construction or operations reports. Samples are
collected and analyzed for further verification of operating results. Usu-
ally a summary report of the inspection is prepared for the record. This
may be as simple as filling in of blanks on a form, or it may be more
involved.
Inspection time can be diverted to unscheduled investigations of
fish-kills, unauthorized discharges, etc., as these activities properly
are a part of the surveillance function.
Like inspection activities, stream sampling is another field operation
which can be planned and its manpower requirements estimated. Most
states have established the water quality monitoring station locations
required to implement their standards program. In general, there are
two classes of monitoring: (1) small streams and (2) large streams
and coastal waters. Different sampling techniques are used in each
class. Samples of small streams are easily obtained, whereas large streams
and coastal waters usually must be "sectioned," using boats and special
sampling equipment.13 As with inspections, estimates can be based
on number of locations, frequency and manpower per sample run (in
man hours), i.e., M"« = (S)(T)(L) + (S')(T)(L), where
S= Samples collected/year from small streams
S' = Samples collected/year from larger streams and coastal waters
In general, participation in conferences and hearings can be estimated
on the basis of anticipated activity. The field personnel have a feel for
what is developing as the result of contacts during inspections and ob-
servations, much as a salesman "knows the territory," and can provide
a base for estimation M'"* = (C)(T), where
C = number of conferences/year.
Preparation of reports on program field activities workload can be
estimated as a function of the workload required by those activities, i.e.,
Mtr = k (Mf + M/ + Mf" + Mf'"). In this equation, k represents
the ratio between the man-hours required for report preparation and the
man-hours expended in the various field activities.
Other Field Activities
The field personnel estimates should also include manpower required
by special problems, such as acid-mine drainage, oil-field brine, feed
13 Emory Long, Administrative Coordinator and Joe Teller, Deputy Director,
Texas Water Quality Board, interviews on Oct. 1, 1969 and Jan. 21, 1970.
41
-------
lot run-off, or irrigation return flows, the control of which is a significant
part of the field operations. However, each requires special estimates
which would follow the pattern set in the general operations estimating
procedure outlined above, i.e., number of operations per year, time per
operation, and number of locations.
In general, a ratio of clerical-stenographic personnel to technical
personnel should be established for field operations. This ratio may
range from 1:3 to 1:7 depending upon the amount and detail of cor-
respondence to be handled in the field.14
Program Operations—Headquarters
Program operations at agency headquarters consist of:
(1) Technical support including data evaluation, specialized services, and lab-
oratory services;
(2) Construction grants activities;
(3) Enforcement (including hearings); and
(4) Planning.
The headquarters technical support activity serves not only the field
by handling contacts and correspendence with industries and municipal-
ities concerning compliance but provides technical service to other
headquarters elements, such as construction grants and enforcement
activities. This activity evaluates the data gathered by the surveillance
operation in the field and assesses the need for actions to achieve
compliance with water quality standards and permits.
Operator certification and training is a necessary adjunct to this
activity, being directly related to treatment plant operation. Many states
water quality management agencies require that those operating munici-
pal and industrial waste treatment works be certified as a device to
assure operating proficiency.
Operator training should be included as a program activity in the
State water quality management agency. Often this activity is carried
out by other groups, agencies or institutions, such as the State water
pollution control association, State education agency, or colleges and
universities. The operator training program, while taking a variety of
forms, should be coordinated with the certification activity to assure
communities and industries that an adequate number of suitably quali-
fied operators are available and that those working operating personnel
have an opportunity to keep abreast of new development and techniques
in water quality management.
The number of technical support personnel required should be a
function of the activity in the field, together with the activity level in
enforcement operations, i.e., MQ = k' (M*t) + k" (Me), where
Ma=manhours/year, headquarters
Mft = manhours total field activities
k', k" = constants and
Me = manhours/ year, enforcement.
The manpower needed to staff the agency laboratory is a function of
"Data obtained on staffing of Texas Water Quality program during interviews
with Emory Long and Joe Teller, Oct. 1, 1969 and Jan. 21, 1970.
42
-------
the number of samples to be analyzed, the detail of analysis required,
and the average time required per sample analysis, i.e., Mi = (S) (T) +
(S')(T) + (S'")(T), where S'" = number of samples collected/year
from water pollution control plants during inspections. Automation has
had a significant impact on laboratory operations so that a high volume of
work is required to operate efficiently. Agencies having less than the criti-
cal amount of work needed to operate a laboratory efficiently usually con-
tract for their laboratory work, as is done in Texas. State health agencies
usually have developed an efficient laboratory program which can ac-
commodate the water quality agency's load until it has the workload
required to operate its own laboratory.
The staff required to operate the construction grants activity is a func-
tion of the number of grants applications processed and the average
time spent per application, i.e., Mg = (N)(T), where N = number of
applications/year.
The enforcement activities staff in headquarters can be estimated on
the basis of the expected number of hearings, compliance and enforce-
ment actions relating to water quality standards, and permits and the
average input required for completion of these actions, i.e., Mo = (A)
(T), where A = actions/year.
The amount of field activity is a suitable guide to workload for the
planning activity on the basis that planning will be affected by the find-
ings of these activities, i.e., MP = K (M*t).
Headquarters program operations are concerned mainly with prepar-
ing correspondence and reports. Therefore, the ratio of clerical-steno-
graphic personnel to technical-professional personnel can be based upon
workload but should not exceed 1:4.15
Executive
The staff required to perform the executive functions can be based
upon the complexities of the activities involved, such as interagency co-
ordination, activities planning, public information, legal counsel, legis-
lative liaison, and special projects. Estimates of the workload for inter-
agency coordination can be founded upon the number of agencies having
interrelated activities with the water quality control agency. As with
the surveillance portion of the agency operations these contacts are more
often than not relegated to being done "hit or miss" or more often when
a crisis arises resulting in the lost motion of reestablishing rapport with
the coordinating agency. Therefore, time should be planned to carry out
this function, i.e. a set program of interaction varied according to the
scope of the interrelationship. The workload can be estimated as MX =
(n)(T)(B) where
n = number of contacts per year
B = number of agencies to be contacted.
Activities planning, public information, legal counsel, and legislative
liaison are functions needed to carry out an effective program of water
quality management though no bases for estimating the workload
15 Ibid.
43
-------
have been derived. Of the three, public information comes closest to being
estimated on the basis of activity in the field and rapidity of program
change, with needs being proportional to enforcement and compliance
activities tempered by the change factor. The frequency of Board meet-
ings also influences the public information function.
Auxiliary Operations
In general, the function of auxiliary operations, which include the
personnel, fiscal, purchasing, filing and reproduction, automatic data
processing, and other service activities designated as staff services in the
typical agency, are related to all the activities of the agency and should
be estimated on the basis of total agency program. Much consideration
must be given to the experiences and staffing of other state agencies
(such as Highway Department, Health Department, etc.) regarding these
functions.16 Often, since these functions are common to all agencies,
standard practices are adopted which can be used to guide the personnel
needs estimate, particularly those concerned with personnel, fiscal, and
purchasing activities. Based upon these practices, a proportionality can
be determined between agency activities expressed in man-years and
auxiliary services, i.e., M* = K' (Mft + MUt).
One auxiliary service runs counter to the proportionality expressed
above. Automatic data processing (ADP) can be used to increase the
agency's productivity by handling routine tabulation and computations.
Increases in ADP personnel may be required hi the absence of an in-
crease (and perhaps a decrease) in the number of personnel in the other
agency activities.
Program Coordination
The idealized program and organization are schematic only and do
not provide specifically for program coordination through other than
the program planning function in the Executive. Day-to-day coordination
is recognized as necessary for effective program operations. An estimate
of staffing needs therefore must include the supervisory staff required to
accomplish this function. Just as there is no one best organization there
is likewise no one best way of estimating staff needs for program co-
ordination; however, a coordinator (supervisor) is needed for each
operating unit, such-as field offices, divisions and sections in headquar-
ters, et cetera.
Occupational Distribution
In a manner similar to the Public Administration Service report, it is
desirable to touch upon the aspect of staffing needs concerned with the
major occupational categories. That report weighed heavily the judgment
of the administrators of the 13 States visited during the course of that
survey. It was found that practice and judgments varied considerably. The
findings of that study concerning occupational distribution were that,
in general, the States with the smallest staffs have the highest ratios of
10 Bill Wells, Budget Analyst, Texas Legislative Budget Board, private interview,
Jan. 22, 1970.
44
-------
professional to nonprofessional personnel.17 As shown in Table 2, few
of the States have been able to meet even the minimum levels recom-
mended in the Public Administration Service report. With the expecta-
tion that staffing will not be provided at minimum levels any more than
water quality will be managed to meet minimum standards, it "seems
highly probable that as such staffing objectives are approached increased
opportunities will be available for more extensive use of support person-
nel (nonprofessionals including clerical employees, inspectors, engineer-
ing aides and technicians, and laboratory assistants)." 18 Based on the
staffing of the typical water quality control agency, approximately 50
percent of the total may be nonprofessional in the model program
founded upon regulation of quality through surveillance.15*
Example of Use of Guidelines
In order to test the suitability of the broad guidelines presented, the
idealized program and organization are combined with program opera-
tions of the typical program of the Texas Water Quality Board
(TWQB). The TWQB program plan for fiscal year 1970 indicates the
information pertinent to estimating staffing needs as shown in Table 3.
Using these data and the guidelines, Table 4 illustrates the staffing needs
for the idealized program.
The example does not consider staffing requirements for special
projects, such as the Galveston Bay Study, nor special problems requiring
continuing operations or project type research or technical assistance.
These latter would concern control of acid-mine drainage, oil-field brine,
feed lot run-off, wastes from water craft, oil and hazardous materials
spills, etc. Staff for administration of these functions is authorized in
the suggested act, but the workload for program elements of this type
should be estimated separately and added to the staff needs for the
basic water quality standards-permit type regulatory program.
17 Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, op. cit., p. 20.
18 Ibid., p. 21.
19 Data obtained on staffing of Texas Water Quality Board program during inter-
views with Emory Long, Jan. 21, 1970.
45
-------
TABLE 3.—Texas Water Quality Board 1970 Workload.
Surveillance
Number of field offices H
Discharges to be inspected 2,200
Construction sites to be inspected 300
Water Quality Monitoring
Total-stations 224
Stream 160
Quarterly 15
Monthly 145
Coastal waters 64
Quarterly 64
Hearings and Compliance
Actions on permits and standards 400
Conferences 300
Interagency Coordination
State agencies 5
Interstate agencies 3
Federal agencies 5
Source: Texas Water Quality Board, State Program Grant Application, Water
Pollution Control Program, Fiscal Year 1970 [FWPCA—112 (Rev. 4-68)], passim.
46
-------
TABLE 4. — Estimates of Personnel Requirements for the Texas Water
Quality Board Using Guidelines,
MAN- MAN-
Program operations — field: HOURS YEARS
Mt = (I*)(T)(L) = (4)(8)(2200) = ___________ 70,400 38.3
Mf' = (P)(T)(L) = (4)(8)(300) = ____________ 9,600 5.2
(4)(16)(64) = ______________________________________________ 7,696 4.2
M*'" = (C)(T) = (300)(8) __________________________ 2,400 1.3
90,096 49.0
M.r = k (Mf + M/ + /' M/")
= 0.25 (90,096) = ____________________________________ 22,500 12.3
Supervision (11 offices) ________________________________ 20,200 11
Field subtotal (M«) __________________________________ 132,796 72
Clerical-stenographic, 1:5 ___________________________________________________ 14
Field total ____________________________________________________________________________ 86
Program operations — headquarters:
Ma = k' (M*t) + k" (M*) = 0.75 (72)
+ 0.5 (12) __________________________________________________ 110,400 60.0
Mg = (N)(T) = (300)(24) ____________________________ 7,200 3.9
Me = (A)(T) = (400)(56) __________________________ 22,400 12.2
MP = K (M«) = 0.1 (72) ____________________________ 13,300 7.2
153,300 83.3
Supervision _______________________________________________________ 18,400 10
Headquarters Subtotal (Mht) __________________________ 171,700 83
Clerical-Stenographic 1:4 ---------------------------------------------------- 20
Headquarters Total ____________________ ..... ------------------------------------- 103
Executive:
Director, Deputy Director, activities
planning, public information, etc. ---------------------------------------- 3
Interagency Coordination MX = (h)(T)(B) =
(12)(8)(18) __________________________________________________ . 1,728 0.9
Executive ____________________________________________________________________________ ^
Clerical-Stenographic 1 : 1 ---------------------------------------------------- 4
Executive total __________________________________________________________________ °
Auxiliary Operations:
Ma = Kr(M" + Mht) - 0.2 (72 + 83) = ------------------------ 31
Agency total — 86+103 + 8 + 31 ... 228
* Based on 75 percent urbanization.
47
-------
The guidelines presented in this report can (and should) be altered
to reflect changes in program function and supporting technology. For
example, the trend line in Figure 7 should be shifted when data become
available on the impact of an effective surveillance program on plant
operations. A study correlating number and quality of plant inspections
with operating efficiency would greatly aid in better setting the slope
and location of the trend line. Also, the user of the guidelines should
be aware that the various constants (k and K) were estimated for the
typical agency in the example and will vary from agency to agency.
However, those used in the example provide a suitable "point of de-
parture" for use in estimating program staffing needs. Likewise, the
time factor (T) for each program activity must be derived from pro-
gram experience, as travel and other conditions affecting this factor vary
widely. In summary, the guidelines in this report provide a framework
for estimating personnel needs for state water quality management
agencies to be tempered in use with judgment and experience.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A
PPRECIATION is expressed to Dr. Emmette S. Redford, Ashbell
Smith Professor of Government, The University of Texas at Austin,
for the opportunity to develop this report under his guidance and to
Lynn F. Anderson, Director, Institute of Public Affairs, for his advice,
comments, and confidence regarding this report.
For their very good help in furnishing the information and data re-
garding the operations of the Texas Water Quality Board, the author
is most grateful to Hugh Yantis, Executive Director of the Board,
Joe Teller, Deputy Director, and Emory Long, Administrative Co-
ordinator of the Board's staff. Likewise, the comments and suggestions
of Bill Wells of the Texas Legislative Budget Board were most helpful.
The encouragement and comments of Kenton Kirkpatrick of the Dallas
Regional Office of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
during the development of this report are gratefully acknowledged by
the author. Also, the author is indebted to Mrs. Kay Estes for her skill
in preparing the drawings for this report. Finally, the author wishes to
acknowledge the contribution of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration in providing the opportunity to study for 1 year at the
University of Texas at Austin.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Public Documents and Reports
Arkansas. Arkansas Water and Air Pollution Control Act, Act. 472 of 1949 as
amended by Act 183 of 1965.
1 TATE, PHILLIP L., and HUDGENS, JAMES M., An Action Program for Clean Water.
Joint Study and Proposals by South Carolina Pollution Control Authority
and Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Middle Atlantic Region
1969 '
48
-------
Texas. Acts 1860.
Texas Water Quality Board. Rules of the Texas Water Quality Board, Adopted
November 28, 1967.
Texas Water Quality Board. State Program Grant Application, Water Quality
Board, Fiscal Year 1970.
Texas Water Quality Board. Texas Water Quality, A Summary of Water Pollution
Control in the State of Texas, undated statement.
U.S. Federal Water Pollution Control Act, U.S. Code. Vol. XXXIII, 1969.
U.S. Congress. Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966. Pub. L. 89-753, 89th Cong.,
2d Sess., 1966.
U.S. Congress. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1961. Public
Law 87-88, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., 1961.
Books
PFIFFNER, JOHN M., and PRESTHUS, ROBERT V. Public Administration. 4th ed. New
York: The Ronald Press, 1960.
TAYLOR, FREDERICK W., Scientific Management. New York: Harper & Brothers
Publishers, 1947.
Other Sources
Texas Legislative Budget Board. Private interview with Bill Wells. January 22, 1970.
Texas Water Quality Board. Private interviews with Emory Long, Administrative
Coordinator. October 1, 1969 and January 21, 1970.
Texas Water Quality Board. Private interview with Joe Teller, Deputy Director,
October 1, 1969 and January 21, 1970.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.
Suggested State Water Pollution Control Act, Revised. Washington, D.C.:
FWPCA, 1966.
Legal Citations
Texas. H.B. 24. 57th Legislature, Regular Session, 1961.
Texas. H.B. 448. 51st Legislature, Regular Session, 1953.
Texas. S.B. 15. 60th Legislature, Regular Session, 1967.
Texas. S.B. 125. 61st Legislature, Regular Session, 1969.
Texas, S.B. 138. 61st Legislature, Regular Session, 1969.
Texas. S.B. 147. 61st Legislature, Regular Session, 1969.
Texas. S.B. 204. 60th Legislature, Regular Session, 1967.
Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes.
Vernon's Texas Penal Code.
Articles
JACOBI, THOMAS R., PAVIA, RICHARD A., and RICKETTS, E. F., "Staffing and
Budgetary Guidelines for State Water Pollution Control Agencies," Journal
Water Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 37, No. 1 (January 1965), 5-24.
U.S. Congress. Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Public Law 84-660, 84th
Cong., 2d Sess., 1966
U.S. Congress. Public Works Appropriations for 1969 for Water Power Resources
Development and the Atomic Energy Commission. Public Law 90-147, 90th
Cong., 2d Sess., 1968.
U.S. Congress. Public Works for Water, Pollution Control, and Power Develop-
ment and Atomic Energy Commission Appropriation Act, 1970. Pub. L.
91-144, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., 1969.
U.S. Congress. Water Quality Act of 1965. Public Law 89-234, 89th Cong., 1st
Sess., 1965.
U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Rivers and Harbors. Pollution of Navigable
Waters, Hearings on H.R. 519, H.R. 387, and H.R. 4070, 79th Congress,
1st Sess., 1945.
U.S. Congress. Select Committee on National Water Resources, United States
Senate. Water Resources Activities in the United States, Water Quality Man-
agement. Committee Print No. 24. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Office, 1960.
49
-------
U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.
The Cost of Clean Water. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office,
1968.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.
Guidelines for Establishing Water Quality Standards for Interstate Waters.
FWPCA, May, 1966.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.
State and Interstate Programs for Water Pollution Control, Digest of Fiscal
Year 1969 State Program Plans. Washington, D.C.: State and Regional Pro-
gram Grants Branch, 1969.
50
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1971 0—411-020
------- |