THE RECORD OF PUBLIC HEARINGS ON
POSSIBLE ADMINISTRATION PROPOSALS
TO AMEND THE FEDERAL WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL ACT (P.L. 92-500)
AS IT RELATES TO THE MUNICIPAL
WASTE TREATMENT CONSTRUCTION
GRANTS PROGRAM
              Prepared by
 THE OFFICE OF WATER AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
    D.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
          WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

-------
                                  Contents

Transcript of Atlanta Hearing
Transcript of Kansas City Hearing
Transcript of San Francisco Hearing
Transcript of Washington, D.C.  Hearing
Statements for the Record
     NOTE:  Each section contains a Table of Contents

-------
ATLANTA  '

-------
                        UNITED STATES
               ENVIRONMENTAL-PROTECTION  AGENCY
                      WASHINGTON,  D.C.
                       Public Hearing
                             on
              Possible Administration Proposals
                        to Amend the
             FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL  ACT
                     Amendments of 1972
Landcaster Hall
Hyatt Regency Atlanta
Atlanta, Georgia
         Transcript of the proceedings heard commencing  at
    9:00 a.m.,  June 9, 1975,  in  Atlanta,  Gerogia.

-------
APPEARANCES

     For the Environmental  Protection Agency:

         MR. ALVIN L.  ALM
         Assistant Administrator for
         Planning and Management
         Washington, D.C.

         MR. JACK E. RAVAN
         Regional Administrator
         Region IV
         Atlanta, Georgia

         MR. JOHN T. RHETT
         Deputy Assistant Administrator for
         Water Program Operations
         Washington, D.C.

-------
                      CONTENTS

     SPEAKER                        REMARKS

ROBERT SUTTON, JR.,                     13
     Chairman, Board of Com-
     missioners, Cobb County

JOHN WILBURN,                          15
     Executive Director, Louis-
     ville and Jefferson County
     Metropolitan Sewer District

W. EDWARD WHITFIELD,                   22
     City of Hopkinsville
     Sewerage and Water Works
     Commission

ANDREW J. GRAVING,                     27
     Consulting Engineers of
     Georgia

DAVID G. PRESNELL,                     32  .
     Vollmer-Presnell-Paulo, Inc.
     (Consulting Engineers)

JIM TARPY,                             37  -
     Metropolitan Department of
     Water and Sewer Service

J. LEONARD LEDBETTER,                  42
     Director, Environmental Pro-
     tection Division, Georgia Dept.
     of Natural Resources

HAROLD PICKENS, JR.,                   48
     Carolines Branch Associated
     General Contractors

JIM LONGSHORE,                         50
     B. P. Barber & Associates, Inc.

HOWARD RHODES,                         51
     Florida Department of Pollu-
     tion Control

WESLEY B. WILLIAMS,                    56
     Georgia Water Pollution Con-
     trol Association

-------
                                                            3a

CONTENTS (Continued)

     SPEAKER                              REMARKS

PHILIP SEARCY,                               59
     Florida Institute of
     Consulting Engineers

JULIAN BELL,                                 64
     City of Chattanooga

DALE TWACHTMANN,                             68
     Water Resources Coordinator,
     City of Tampa

T. P. CALHOUN,                 .              75
     City of Hollywood

LINDA BILLINGSLEY,   *                       79
     The Georgia Conservancy

HOWARD FRANDSON,                             82
     Fulton County Public Works
     Department

JIM MORRISON,                                86
     Georgia Wildlife Federation
                     •
MAURY WINKLER,                               89
     DeKalb County Department of
     Water and Sewers

ROBERT SUTTON, JR.,                          91
     Cobb County, Georgia


     QUESTIONS TO PANEL                      95

-------
                   PROCEEDINGS

MR. RAVAN:

          I'm looking out there in the audience this morning, look-
ing to see where all  the lady engineers are this morning.  We have
Pat from Washington,  D.C., but she's part of our team, which makes
her part of your team.  So, I can say, so far this morning:  Lady
and gentlemen, welcome to the lower levels of the Hyatt Regency
in the great metropolis of Atlanta, Georgia, the crossroads of the
South, somebody said.

          Mayor Hartsfield, who used to by mayor here, who got
Hartsfield Airport going maybe some of you know maybe some of you
help build it -- said, "There ain't nothing sexy about sewers, but
we've got to have some."  That's what we're going to be talking
about today.

          More formally, we're going to be addressing ourselves to
public hearings on possible administration proposals to amend the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, 92-500, relating
to municipal wastewater treatment grants.  I think most of you are
aware of it, now that you have a piece of paper available here,
at the outer table, concerning the four or five amendments that
have been talked about for a possibility.

          Obviously,  the amendments * the substance of those amend-
ments, things like changing the percentage of the federal share,
are near and dear to all of our hearts.  And I'm certain, in my
own mind -- and I can already feel some of it here in the room
this morning -- that there is a good deal of emotion involved here;
and we want you to express your feelings, ideas and emotions to
us -- if you care to.

          But, so far, I think we're going to start with some basic
groundrules.  I think about fifteen minutes per speaker.  So, if
you want to be clear, lucid, concise, brief and to the point, that
will be helpful.  And if you'll also submit, obviously, your com-
ments in written form to the stenographer here, the recorder for
this meeting; this is a public meeting, it's a public forum, com-
pletely on record.  And that record will be developed not only
here in Atlanta but in two or three other cities across the nation
and in Washington, D.C., also.

          We welcome  you on the part and behalf of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., as well as Region IV
here in Atlanta,  We're glad you have taken the time, we appreciate
you taking the time,  and this opportunity to comment on these pro-
posed amendments.

-------
          We're going to run the Chair this morning with three
people.  Let»me briefly introduce who those are.
                                   •""Is
          I think most of you are familiar with Jack Rhett, on the
right-hand side of the table here -- that does not mean he is more
right than I am right, or it does not mean Al Aim is a center-of-
the-road guy.  It's just the way that some lady but the nameplaces
up there-                          ••• ,
                                       3
        f. Jack Rhett, as you know, hails  from the "High School on
the Hudson," a place about which he and I know just a little bit
about.  He related to me this morning-coming into the room how he
had returned there just recently for his  thirtieth reunion day at
the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York.  And
some of you -- I know I am -- are very familiar with'the fact
that just outside of the gates, strategically, tactically well-
located, is~a Catholic girls' school.  Now, I don't know whether
the Pope figured out that location or whether some mother superior
did, but I can attest to the fact that it's stategically and
tactically located.  I can also attest to the fact that there are
extremely high walls on both sides of the street.  And I don't know
that those walls were ever penetrated;  to the best of my knowledge
and belief, they were not.

          Anyway, Jack Rhett goes back up there the other day to
re-estab— re-establishing himself and getting filled with that
stuff  they put in your blood up there --  and it's good stuff, let
me tell you.  And he slept, he and his  wife slept, for lack of
quarters in that area -- there's only one hotel and a few barracks
and other facilities, but it's not anywhere near adequate to handle
the crowds that do come back for reunion  time — and he slept, he
and his wife stayed at the Catholic school there in Highland Falls.
And he told the mother superior, he told her on the way out the
door,  he said, "You know, I tried for four years to be able to
sleep  in this place -- and I finally made it thirty years later."
      •>                    r\i
          (Chuckles)                      *

MR. RAVAN:
          And I'm sure she appreciated that.
          Jack Rhett's a fine fellow.  He's spent twenty-seven
years  doing his thing for the United States of America in the form
of the Corps of Engineers, both military and civil works.  His
record is — His performance is a matter of record.  And we're
lucky  to have him as a part of the Environmental Protection Agency,
especially in*this construction program;  and he does serve as the
deputy assistant administrator in water programs area, working
specifically and directly for Jim Agiew,  whom, as some of you
know,  is the assistant administrator.
      »•*
          Of course, I'm the regional administrator here in Atlanta.

-------
          And our featured speaker here this morning, our spokes-
man, if you will, on these amendments, also our assistant admin-
istrator for planning and management, is Mr. Al Aim.

          Al Hails from Denver.  He did his basic work there
at -- degree work at the University of Denver.  He's a long-time
familiar employee with the United States Government.  He's had
experience, beginning in 1961, with the Atomic Energy Commission.
He gained significant experience and in-depth knowledge of various
construction programs through his work at the what was then known
as the Bureau of the Budget as the budget examiner, now known as
the Office of Management and Budget, in Washington.  He left the
Office of Management and Budget -- there's only so much that you
can do there -- and, having done his thing -- and I can attest to
the fact that he is extremely expert in his area -- he joined the
Council of Environmental Quality, and in '70, '71 and '72 worked
on the various amendments, in depth, personally, that now consti-
tute 92-500.

          He has a tremendous amount of experience with regard to
the management of this program, and now serves, again, as assistant
administrator for planning and management, working directly for Mr.
Russel Train, who is, as you know, our national administrator.

          Without further ado, I introduce to you, at this time,
Mr. Al Aim, who will serve as our chairman throughout the day.
And, anytime there needs to be groundrules changed, or that sort
of thing, Al will rule from the Chair.

          And we will now hear opening remarks on behalf of the
Environmental Protection Agency.  Al.

MR. ALM:
          Good morning.

          I'm delighted to be here and delighted to get the parti-
cipation that we are in Atlanta.  Due to something somewhat new,
we are soliciting the advice of the affected community in terms
of the wastewater treatment facilities grant program.

          It reminds you a little bit of the story of the mountain-
climber getting toward the top of the mountain, and he slips and
falls and grabs on to a branch.  He looks down and it's thousands
of feet to the bottom of the mountain, and he looks up to the
sky; and he says, "Is there somebody up there?"  And a voice comes
down:   "Yes, my son."  And the fellow explains his dilemma; he's
holding on to the branch, no visible way of getting out of there.
And he said, "What do I do?"  And the voice comes down:  "Have
faith.   Let go of the branch.   You'll be saved."  The fellow looks-
up, looks down, looks back up and says,  "Is there anybody else
up there?"

-------
        •  (Laughter)

MR. ALM:
          Well, we plan to do better, now:  We plan to seriously
take the advice that we get in this series of hearings.  This is
the first of a series.  The others will be held in Kansas City,
San Francisco and then Washington, D.C.

          I would like to begin the hearings by.briefly putting this
plan into focus.  I don't think most of you need it, but to an
extent that some will find it useful, I will go'through a very
brief discussion.  The 1972 federal water pollution control amend-
ments provided $18 billion in construction grant funds at a rate of
75% funding.  That level of funds would support $24 billion worth
of total eligible costs.  The 1974 survey of needs indicated total
needs of $342 billion to meet all requirements defined in the act.
This would be a level of $260 billion in federal grants.

          New, in the traditional program of treatment plants and
interceptors, the cost of that segments was $46 billion,  which
would indicate a federal share of 35 billion.  The magnitude of
the indicated need is obviously well beyond the capacity of the
federal budget to fund with 75% grants in any reasonably near time.
As a result, today we'll be considering alternative means of funding
those projects to achieve the major water quality objectives of
the act.  We will also consider possible ways to extend the 1977
statutory deadline for municipalities to reach secondary or higher
required levels of treatment, and, in addition, a measure to improve
the management of the program through greater delegation  of responsi-
bi1i ties to the states.

          I want to emphasize that these hearings will be related
to changes to be made after the current $18 billion has been obli-
gated and spent.  In other words, we're talking about future authori-
zations for the wastetreatment grant program; it would not affect,
in any way, the current program.

          Specifically, these hearings are for the purpose of
receiving public comment, views and information on the issues
described in the May 2nd, 1975, announcement of these hearings and
discussed in more detail in the background papers published in the
Federal Register of May 28th, 1975.  These background papers are
presented with the intent that they will assist in focusing dis-
cussion at the hearings — they do not cover all possible alterna-
tives and are not meant, in that respect, to confine the  discus-
sion.

          There are five issues that we wish to discuss today:

     1.  The first issue is:  Should the federal share of the
         funding construction grants be reduced from the cur-
         rent level of 75% to a level as low as 55%?  That 55%
         representing the previous level of federal support under
         the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

-------
                                                            8

          The objectives of such an amendment would be twofold.
The first would be to permit the limited funding available to go
further in assisting needed projects.  The second objective is to
encourage greater accountability for cost effective design and
project management on the part of the grantee by virtue of the
grantee's greater investment in the project.

          Some questions which need to be addressed in this context
are:                             -  •-
     A.  Would a reduced federal share inhibit or delay the con-
         struction of needed facilities?

     B.  Would the states have the interest and capacity to assume,
         through state grant or loan programs, a larger portion
         of the financial burden of the program?

     C.  Would communities have difficulty in raising additional
         funds in capital markets for a longer portion of the
         program?

     D.  Would the reduced federal  share lead to greater accounta-
         bility on the part of the grantee for cost effective
         design, project management and post-construction opera-
         tion and maintenance?

     E.  What impact would a reduced federal share have on water
         quality and on meeting the goals of Public Law 92-500?

     F.  Finally, what would be the feasibility of some sort of
         a sliding scale of funding? — perhaps 75% for treatment
         plants, 65% for interceptors, going down to perhaps 35%
         for stormwater discharges.

          Moving on to the second issue, that issue is phrased;

     2.  Should the federal government limit the amount of reserve
         capacity of facilities that would be eligible for con-
         struction grant assistance?

          There are two possible objectives to be achieved by limit-
ing eligibility for reserve capacity.  The first is to permit limit-
ed federal  funds to go further in funding the backlog of projects for
treating existing flows- and the second is to induce more carefu]
sizing and design of capacity so that excessive growth-related
reserve capacity is not financed with federal funds.

          Some questions which may be addressed in this context
are:
     A.  Does the current practice lead to overdesign of treat-
         ment works?

-------
                                                            9
     B.   What could be done to eliminate problems with the
         current program as to reserve capacity, short of leg-
         islative change?

     C.   What are the merits and demerits of prohibiting eligi-
         bility of growth-related reserve capacity?

     D.   What are the merits and demerits of limiting eligibility
         for growth-related reserve capacity to ten years for
         treatment plants and twenty-to-twenty-five years for
         interceptors?

     E.   Are there any other alternatives?

     3.   The third issue is:  Should the types of projects eligible
         for construction grants be restricted?  In other words,
         should the current range of eligibilities in the act
         be somewhat restricted?

          The principal purpose that would be achieved by limit-
ing eligibilities would be to reduce the federal burden in financ-
ing the construction grants program.  A secondary purpose would be
to limit federal participation to those types of projects that
are most essential to meet the water quality goals of Public
Law 92-500.

          Some questions which must be addressed include:

     A,   What impact do different eligibility structures have
         on the determination of need for a particular facility?

     B.   Is there adequate local incentive to undertake needed
         investment in certain types of facilities, even in the
         absence of federal financial assistance?

     C.   Is there adequate local financial capability to undertake
         investment in different types of facilities?

     D.   Which projects are the highest priority?

     E.   And, are there inequities of funding, in the sense that
         some communities might be getting funds for stormwater-
         overflow problems while others have not yet received
         funds for secondary treatment?

     4.   The fourth issue is:  Should the date be extended by which
         publicly-owned treatment works are to achieve compliance
         with requirements of Section 310 of the law?

          We currently estimate that 50%, or 9,000 communities
serving 60% of the 1977 population, will not be able to comply

-------
                                                           10

with the requirements that municipalities have secondary treatments
by 1977.  The amount of construction grant funds authorized thus
far — $18 billion is not sufficient to cover the 1977 needs
that are estimated in the 1974 needs survey for secondary or
higher levels of treatment.  And, in addition, those communities
that are funded with federal grants by 1977 will not all be able
to complete construction by then.  The issue is, we feel, the
obvious fact of non-compliance with the '77 deadline.  The
obvious solution is to extend the deadline, either on a case-by-
ase basis or by an overall extension of the compliance date.

          Some questions which should be addressed are:

     A.  Should Public Law 92-500 be amended to allow either
         case-by-case extensions of the deadline, or an over-
         extension to a certain date?

     B.  Would it be fair to require industry to meet the 1977
         deadline while extending it for municipalities?

     C.  Should an outside limit be provided to the administra-
         tor granting extenstions, for example, five years from
         the date of enactment, or should the possible,compliance
         deadlines be open-ended?

     D.  Should EPA enforce against those communities that have
         been hesitant to use federal funds?

     5.  The last issue is -- and I think EPA's pretty committed
         to it:  Should a greater portion of the management of
         the construction grants program be delegated to the
         states?  EPA clearly believes it should; the question
         is, how?  And what mechanisms are needed to make this
         happen.

          A bill, H.R.  2175, normally called the "Cleveland-
Wright Bill," has been introduced in Congress and would permit
the administrator to delegate to the states the broad range of
grant processing functions, including those that go beyond just
the review and approval of documents.  States would certify that
the requirements for grants had been fulfilled.  Included also
is a provision to compensate the states directly out of state
allotments for administratives costs up to 2% of a state's yearly
allotment.   Under H.R.  2175, EPA activities would be largely
confined to overall policy making and to auditing and monitor-
ing the grant activities performed by the states.  However, EPA
would remain responsible for environmental impact statements
necessary on individual projects.

-------
                                                           11

          Some questions which must be addressed are:

     A.  Exactly what functions in the review and approval of
         construction grant applications should be delegated?

     B.  Should all parts of the construction grants process
         be delegated?

     C.  In addition to ordinary staffing problems, what dif-
         ficulties may be encourtered in state staffing when
         a federal commitment is involved?

     D.  Will the funding level suggested in the proposed bill
         be adequate?

     E.  In actual practice, will greater delegation of pro-
         gram responsibility to the states make the program
         more efficient without compromising environmental
         concerns?

     F.  How much time would be required for individual states
         to assume additional responsibilities?

     G.  Are there alternative delegation schemes, or funding
         schemes, either federal or non-federal?

          For the first four of these issues, the administration
is contemplating the submission of legislative proposals to
the Congress to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control  Act.
The information derived from these hearings will assist us in
developing such legislation.        j:

          I might add, at this point:  One area not covered is
the funding level.  The reason that it's not covered explicitly
here — although implicitly I think it will be — is that it
will be heavily dependent on the questions of what types of
activities are eligible under the program, what the federal
funding share is and to what extent do we fund the growth.  So,
as such, we've not directly formed what the level ought to be;
I think we're assuming that whatever level is chosen, it will be
adequate to achieve whatever objectives are set out in the legis-
lation.

          For the fifth issue, the delegation issue, EPA has
endorsed the Cleveland-Wright Bill.  These hearings will give
EPA a better understanding of the capacity of the states to accept
greater delegation, and will provide views and information concern-
ing the administrative procedures that might be used to accomplish
more timely delegations.  The hearings will also explore any
problems that might be involved to this effort.

-------
                                                           12

          With respect to regulations to implement the Cleveland-
Wright Bill, EPA is currently in the process of developing such
regulations, right, Jack?

MR. RHETT:
          (Nods head.)

MR. ALM:
          Now then just let me briefly talk about the ground
rules for the hearing, and then we can move ahead.  Anyone
wishing to testify must sign the registration card available
at the entrance.

          We currently have what, twenty-three cards?

MR. SABOCK:
          (Nods head.)

MR. ALM:
          I guess we've got everybody signed up.

          As Jack Ravan indicated, we want to keep the testimony
to fifteen minutes.  We have a little bell that will quietly
ring at the end of twelve minutes to give you some idea of where
you stand.

          We have a pecking order, which I'll explain.  Elected
representatives will be given priority and will be called before
others.  Other persons will be called by selecting a registration
card that was filed in one of four groups:  unaffiliated private
citizens, representatives of public agencies, representatives of
special interest groups and associations and representatives of
business, commercial or industrial firms.  I will call one speaker
from each group in rotation.  Within each of the groups I mentioned,
the order will be as you registered.

          If there are any questions regarding procedures or when
you will be called, you should contact David Sabock, executive
secretary of the hearing; he's seated right over here (indicat-
ing).

          I will call each speaker and, in so doing, I will
indicate who the next speaker is so that you can collect your
thoughts.

          Again, we're very pleased to be with you today.  I'm
very optimistic that these hearings will provide us, OMB and the
Congress with very useful information.

-------
                                                           13

          I think we'll start out -- the first person that will
testify will be Bob Sutton, Junior, who is testifying for Ernest
W. Barrett; and he's representing the Board of Commissioners for
Cobb County.

          (Pause)

MR. ALM:
          Oh, let me just mention:  The next person testifying
will be John Wilburn, representing the Louisville and Jefferson
County Metropolitan Sewage District.

MR. SUTTON:
          I want to express Mr. Barrett's concern about not being
able to be here, and I will read to you a statement that he has
prepared.
                                   -*   ., " '•
          "Gentlemen:  I am Ernest W. Barrett, chairman, Cobb
County Board of Commissioners, Cobb County, Georgia.

          "Cobb County is a dynamic county northwest of the city
of Atlanta and part of the Atlanta metropolitan region.  We have
undertaken a wastewater clean-up program that has been jointly
financed by Cobb County and PL-660 funds.  This program began
as a 28% funding level program through the old PL-660 and has
been increased by Section 206 of the present PL 92-500 law.
All of this is to say that we in Cobb County are not unfamiliar
with the programs of EPA.

          "In order that we may conserve time, I would like to
comment directly to the issue as outlined in your notes and Will
follow that formal first.
                                          , ;             ,. ,'t
          "One, reduction of the federal share.  Cobb County, in
her efforts to clean up the streams, found when the Environmental
Protection Agency was conceived and the effects of the Public Law
92-500 brought about additional items of cost that caused the
people of Cobb County,to invest more of their funds into the
program than was anticipated without receiving any direct benefit
and without any cost effective evaluation.  It is estimated that
the additional requirements placed on Cobb County due to restric-
tions imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency along the
Chattahoochee River corridor and up Sope Creek are in the range
of $1.5.  Under the present level of funding, EPA has only about
42% of the cost.  This is not to say that some of the require-
ments were not valid; but it is to say that if the federal share
had been more like 75%, that it would have been an easy pill to
swallow.  Therefore, the reduction of the federal share is not
a valid way to implement the program.

-------
                                                           14

          "Two, limiting federal funding of reserve capacity to
serve projected growth.  In regards to limiting the federal fund-
ing of reserve capacity to serve projected growth, I very strongly
object to this because we find that as we cross property of citi-
zens the first time through they are pretty amenable to our coming
across, but the second time through the costs in right-of-way
corrections and restoration double or triple of what it would
have cost originally.  Limiting the reserve capacity, in my opinion,
is a backdoor way to control land use through the size of sewers.
As chairman of the National Association of County Officials'
Land Use Planning Committee, I strongly object to this method.
Land use planning in an urban county is a matter between the
public officials and the citizens of that county -- it is not a
federal matter.  Therefore, I object to the limiting of federal
funds for reserve capacity.

          "Three, restricting the types of projects eligible
for grant assistance.  It is my opinion that the Congress created
the types of projects as outlined with a specific intent in mind,
which is to clean up the streams of our nation.  Based on this, I
think it behooves EPA to implement a program of construction  fund-
ing that would necessarily meet the intent of Congress without
damaging any phase of the total program.  There seems to be in-
corporated within your paper a concern that there would be no local
incentive to implement a phase that would require clean-up of our
streams.  I think our county will demonstrate to EPA that there is
a major concern and that we have proceeded with projects on good
faith and have  been inovative in our development of these pro-
jects.  The citizens of Cobb County are totally concerned with the
clean-up of our streams and push me, as chairman, to see that this
is done.

          "Four, extending 1977 date for publically owned pretreat-
ment works to meet water quality standards.  As you can tell, I
am proud of the progress that Cobb County has made under the
PL-660.  All of our facilities at this point in time have secondary
treatment.  We feel that if we are allowed to make expansions
based on secondary treatment and continue this program towards
1980, which would mean an extension of the deadline and then
allow us to reach advanced waste treatment by 1985, would be a
logical extension of the law.  Therefore, we recommend that the
deadline of 1977 be extended to 1980 for secondary treatment,
and that the treatment of advanced waste treatment be extended
to 1985.

          "Five, delegating a greater protion of the management
of the construction grants program to the states.  I am of the
opinion that the Environmental Protection Division of the Georgia
Department of Natural Resources has done an excellent job to

-------
                                                           15

date In their efforts to clean up the streams of the state of
Georgia, even though they have been extremely harsh with Cobb
County on various occasions.  I am saying this to emphasize that
I feel that the State of Georgia can handle the management of the
construction grants program well; but I also wish to say that we
would expect that EPA would totally turn over to the state their
responsibilities and not nitpick or introduce another level of
management.

          "I want to thank you for allowing me to'present these
statements to you."

MR. ALM:
          Thank you very much.  It was a very clear statement.

          I had breakfast recently with Bob, and I appreciate
his very forthright manner that he's come across again.

          The next speaker will be John Wilburn, executive director
of the Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District.

MR. WILBURN:
          I am  John J. Wilburn, executive director of the Louis-
ville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District.

          I wish to thank you for this opportunity to present my
testimony.  I will also submit two written copies of this oral
testimony for the record.

          Paper Number 1, reduction of the federal share.  Under
this proposal, the federal government, who adopted the act, would
be relieved of the financial burden as proposed by the act.  In
turn, the burden would he shifted to the states or local governments
who are certainly in no better financial position to fund the
projects.

          The first of the two objectives stated is to permit the
limited funding available to go further in assisting needed pro-
jects.  It has been our understanding that all of the eligible
projects are, in fact, needed in order to meet the requirements
of the act.  Therefore, if the 75% federal share, as proposed
by the act, is reduced, so should the requirements.

          The second stated objective is to encourage greater
accountability for cost effective design and project management.
I think it is absurd to assume that there would be a greater
accountability on the part of the grantee simply because the
federal share would be reduced.  Grantees, such as MSD, do not
determine their own destiny as far as the cost effective design
of a project.  If future experience in dealing with EPA paral-

-------
                                                           16

lels past experience, MSD will have no independent say-so in
determining accountability for cost effective design.

          The further question has been raised as to whether the
1974 needs survey costs can be accommodated in the federal budget
in time to meet the 1977 and, in turn, the 1983 requirements.  I
firmly believe the 1974 needs survey are indicative of the esti-
mated costs necessary to meet the unrealistic, idealistic require-
ments of the act.  The conclusion is obvious:  Either the require-
ments must be reduced or the time extended, especially since the
federal funds will not be available in time to meet the unrealis-
tic deadlines.  It may not be possible to predict the effect of a
reduced federal share on local financing capabilities, but it is
fundamental that all the recent changes in the economy, including
both inflation and recession, exist in the local  communities.
The net effect of this paper is tantamount to saying:  "We haven't
got the money and, therefore, you should have it."

          A reduced federal share would not only inhibit or delay
construction of needed facilities, it would result in a scre-
eching halt of the on-going implementation by MSD of a 201
facilities plan in Louisville and Jefferson County.

          Kentucky does not now have a'state grant program and
it is very improbable that they will adopt one on the future.
There pay-back state loans are the equivalent of MSD financing
its own bond issues, since we must commit to funding the state bond
issue.  If the federal share is to be reduced by amendment, then
that same amendment should require the states to provide matching
grants -- not pay-back loans -- in order to receive their alloca-
tion of federal funds.  Many states — not Kentucky — already
provide state grants -- not loans.

          Paper Number 2, limiting federal funding of reserve
capacity to serve projected growth.  This proposal is so fantasti-
cally ridiculous that I almost hesitate to comment on it.  Where-
as the entire concept of PL 92-500 relates to regional and com-
prehensive planning, I certainly have difficulty in understanding
why it should suddenly be conceived, by an unknown author, that
the local community would be responsible ,to pay for 100% of all
reserve capacity over and above the existing population.

          The statement that the grantee would be "permitted,
and in fact, encouraged" to provide effective reserve capacity is
absurd.  There is certainly not an engineer who would even consider
designing a trunk sewer or an interceptor or a treatment works
for the present population.  However, the implication is that
EPA would, in fact, not disapprove a system so designed, since
they state that the grantee would be "permitted, and in fact,
encouraged" to provide reserve capacity.

-------
                                                           17

          The only logical basis of design is a cost effective
analysis using present worth.  Overdesign will occur only if a
design other than the most cost effective is selected.  EPA should
fund on this basis.

          Based upon the law and the knowledge that EPA would, in
fact, fund 75% of eligible projects, MSD, through a local insti-
tutional arrangement with the Fiscal Court of Jefferson County,
has an agreement by which Fiscal Court will appropriate $1,775,000
annually toward the implementation of a program which conforms to
a 201 facilities plan.  It includes the construction of two new
wastewater treatment plants and hundreds of miles of eligible
trunk and interceptor sewers.  This commitment by local govern-
ment, through its tax revenues,-will fund approximately $25 mil-
lion of local bonds.  This amount, together with the 75% federal
share, will finance a $100-million construction program for
categories I, II, IIIA,''IIIB and IVB only.  And this issonly the
first phase of projects in,those categories.

          Therefore, if the recommendations of papers 1 and 2,
in combination, are followed and the act amended, it would require
approximately $60 million -- not $25 million -- of local funds.
This would mean that the Fiscal Court would have to appropriate
$1,775,000.  I can assure everyone that if the object is to not
only delay but to completely stop the program that is already
under way in Louisville and Jefferson County, please follow the
recommendations as presented in papers 1 and 2.

          It took MSD almost ten years to convince the Fiscal
Court that tax money was necessary for the initial phase of the
program before MSD -- which has no taxing authority -- court
continue and complete the program through subsequent issuances
of revenue bonds financed by revenues from user charges from new
customers on the new systems.   In fact, our agreement with Fiscal
Court would be terminated since it is predicated on MSD's receiv-
ing 75% of federal funds for categories I, II, IIIA, 11IB and
IVB.

          Paper Number 3 -- Excuse me, could I have a glass of
water?

          (Pause)

MR. WILBURN:
          Excuse me.

          Paper Number 3, restricting the types of projects ,
eligible for grant assistance.  The recommendation of Paper
Number 3 is to limit the federal funding to categories I, II,
and IVB.  If all of the costs of meeting the requirements of
eligible projects -- categories I through VI -- would have to be

-------
                                                           18

met by the local communities and if, in fact, EPA funded only
categories I, II and IVB, then local communities would be re-
quired to fund more than 85% of the total requirements covered
by the act.

          If EPA's purpose is to limit federal participation to
only those projects that are most essential  to meet the water
quality goals of the act, then not only the  funding of the other
categories should be eliminated but the requirements as well.
Under any condition, however, categories IIIA and IIIB should
remain eligible for grant assistance.

          Paper Number 4, extending 1977 date for the publicly-
owned treatment works to meet water quality  standards.  Believe
it or not, MSD has no objection to extending this date, since it
really has no apparent impact on us one way  or the other.  We
are under construction with secondary treatment facilities for the
existing system, which should be completed well ahead of the
present July 1, 1977, deadline.  It was funded through EPA under
the old law and would not be affected by a change in date under
the present act.                          .             ,i

          Paper Number 5, delegating a greater portion of the
management of the construction grants program to the states.
Paper Number 5 proposes that the states should assume EPA's res-
ponsibility for enforcing their idealistic law.  The inducement
is the 2% compensation.  This further erodes the federal  share
to the local communities.  It also assumes that the amount will
be adequate and that the states can hire sufficient qualified
personnel to administer the program.  If this amendment should
be enacted, it should apply to only those states which have a
matching-grant -- not a pay-back loan -- program.

          Now, I'd like to take an overall look at the possible
impact if the proposals of all five papers are adopted.

          Paper Number 1 proposes a reduction in the federal
share from 75% to as low as 55%.

          Paper Number 2 proposes that the eligible cost should
be based upon capacity for existing population and that the
cost of all reserve capacity be funded locally.  It further
indicates that the reserve capacity cost in  categories I, II and
IVB is at least $12 billion of a total of $46.2 billion.   This
means the reserve capacity is 26% and the federal share would
be 74%.

          With only papers 1 and 2 considered, the federal
share would become 74% of 55%, or 40.7%.

-------
                                                           19

          Paper Number 3 proposes to reduce the scope of eligible
projects by retaining only categories I, II and IVB.  In the 1974
needs survey, the total amount for all categories is $342 billion.
Included in that total is•$46*2 billion for categories I, II and
IVB.  Therefore, if only those three categories are eligible,
the federal share would be only 13.5% of the federal share for
all needs.

          Now, let's consider only papers 1, 2 and 3.  The
federal share would be 13.5% of 40.7%, or 5.5%.

          I would like to teomporarily skip Paper Number 4 and
go to Paper Number 5.

          Paper Number 5 proposes to pass the buck to the states
for the management of the program and to compensate each state
by using 2% of the state's annual allotment.  Therefore, the
federal share in eligible projects would be only 98% of the tota-1
allocated.

          Grouping papers 1, 2, 3, and 5, the net federal share
would be 98% of 5.5%, or only 5.4%.  Or, in other words, the
present federal share of 75% is almost fourteen times the pro-
posed federal share of 5.4%.

          With this information, let's go back to Paper Number
4.

          Paper Number 4 proposes extending the July, 1977, date
of the act.  It would appear not unrealistic to base the time
extension on the inverse ratio of the federal shares, current
and proposed, and not only for the 1977 date, but for the 1983
and 1985 dates as well.

          The Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments of
1972 provided five years to meet the 1977 requirements, eleven
years to meet the 1983 requirements and thirteen years to meet
the 1985 requirements.  These time allowances, when multiplied
by fourteen, become seventy, 154 and 182 years respectively.
Therefore, the new dates would become:  for 1977, 1972 plus
seventy years equals 2042; for 1983, 2126; and for 1985, 2154.

          The National Commission on Water Quality was formed in
accordance with Section 315 of the act and was given three years
to make a detailed study of, and submit a report on, the 1983
requirements of the act.  The report will apparently not be
completed on time, but it should be delivered to Congress by
mid-1976.

-------
                                                           20

          In light of the fact that this extensive and required
study is taking more than three years, how can the anonymous
author or authors of these five papers come up with meaningful
amendments to the act in so short a time period?

          Further, how could EPA propose any amendments which
do not include the proposed elimination of the ridiculous indus-
trial cost-recovery provisions of the act?

          In summary, if the magnitude of the entire program is
beyond the funding capability of the federal budget, it is like-
wise beyond the funding capabilities of local budgets.  There-
fore, the act should be amended by reducing the requirements to
attain a more practical and economically feasible goal.  I have
always felt that EPA would swing the idealistic environmental
pendulum back to normal, but I never thought they proposed to
destroy the clock.

          Thank you.

MR. ALM:
          I wasn't able to follow all of your mathematics.
We'll review the record carefully.

          I did have one question:  With respect to your own
plans, I gather the serious problem would be not funding
sections IIIA and IIIB, is that correct?

MR. WILBURN:
          That is correct.

MR. ALM:
          And that would add how much to the local share into
the federal government loan under those categories?

MR. WALBURN:
          (No response)

MR. ALM:
          I think it was in your statement, but I don't recall
the number.

MR. WALBURN:
          I was using simply the figures, which I've now
completely forgotten.

MR. ALM:
          Okay; well, we'll just study the record for that.

MR. WILBURN:
          Okay.

-------
                                                           21

MR. ALM:
          Let me make one comment:  The papers presented are
EPA positions or proposals.  They are issue papers designed to
elicit comment -- which they obviously have.

          (Chuckles)

MR. ALM:
          Okay; thankfyou.

MR. RAVAN:
          Mr. Chairman, if I, may ask one question.

          Jack, I'm not trying to string you out of anything,
I just, really, need your views.  Why are industrial cost-
recovery charges ridiculous?  Are you talking about method or are
you talking about you stand so utterly opposed to asking industry
to pay a fair share?

MR. WILBURN:
          I think they can pay their fair share simply by paying
the user charge just like anyone else. *
                   r
MR. RAVAN:
          A user charge as they go?  You don't want a capitali-
zation front-end and so forth payback?

MR. WILBURN:
          That's right; that's right.  I don't see why industry
should be discriminated against.  Frankly, whatever cost is
passed on to them, they'd surely pass back to the buyer of the
products; and, in many cases, the costs passed on to them in this
manner, maybe, would put them out of business.•..

          But, more than that, simply trying to — attempting
to administer the industrial cost-recovery, especially as it goes
on and is continually changing, would make the -- according
to our accountants, just a horrendous accounting problem.

MR. ALM:
          Let me ask just one further question.  The comments
we've heard thus far different federal share, I guess they assume
no state-matching — we haven't had anybody here from the states
yet.  I think the notion behind 55% would assume 25% state-match-
ing as you had in the  '66-'72 period of time, which would bring
the local share to 20%.  Would your comments still be the same
in terms of the federal share if you had a state matching pro-
gram?

-------
                                                           22

MR. WILBURN:
          A state-matching grant, not a pay-back loan.  Kentucky
has had in the past pay-back loans, which are, frankly, the same
as our funding the bond issue -- we have to underwrite it.  So,
that's no advantage whatsoever; we still need sufficient reve-
nues to finance pay-back loans to the states.

MR. ALM:
          I take it that if there were a state-matching program
— and I think you suggested it in your statement -- that if EPA,
or the Congress, were to go that way, which would be a require-
ment that a state have a matching program.

MR. WILBURN:
          Yes.

MR. ALM:
          Jack?

MR. RHETT:
          I just want to clarify one issue -- this is on the
user charge and cost-recovery, it's not a comment, Jack, or a
question or anything of this nature:  User charge and cost-
recovery are two completely separate animals.  User charge is
only to collect for 0 & M and ongoing costs.  Cost-recovery is
a pay-back process.  I just — I think most of us understand it,
but I just want to make sure that there wasn't any confusion
here in that the pay-back is for industry alone, the idea being
that the grant was made for the individual citizens.

MR. RAVAN:
          Yeah; that was the point of my question.  He's against
industrial cost-recovery; he's for user charges as a fair share
for industry.

MR. WILBURN:
          Yes.

MR. ALM:

          Okay; thank you very much.

          The next speaker will be W. Edward Whitfield represent-
ing the City of Hopkinsville Sewage and Water Works Commission.
After Mr.  Whitfield will be Andrew Grevino with the Consulting
Engineers of Georgia.

MR. WHITFIELD:

-------
                                                           23

          Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.  On behalf of
the City of Hopkinsville, we appreciate this opportunity to
be here this morning.

          I can tell you that across the country, I think, today
a lot of people are concerned about legislation and resulting
regulations; and so, we particularly appreciate the opportunity
and time to make comments regarding some of these items.

          As attorney for the City of Hopkinsville Sewage and
Water Works Commission, I'll be submitting their paper today.

          First of all, the first comment is on the reduction of
the federal share.  In Hopkinsville, we have fond memories of the
accomplishments our area made to reduce pollution with the old
law that limited the federal share to 33-1/3% -- excluding the
matching state funds.   In retrospect, it is difficult to see
why this plan was abandoned now that we have come to a near halt
in pollution abatement under the amendment of 1972, the PL 92-500.
It is apparent, however, that today we must change and make better
progress; and it would appear that it would be impossible to
reduce the federal share from the present 75% since so much has
been started under that ratio.  Those that have failed to qualify
to date would certainly demand that this cost share be continued.

         •-.A modified plan involving the 75% basis could be ac-
cepted.  Such a plan would allow this same ratio of federal
to local funds on certain facilities such as treatment plants and
interceptro sewers, and at the same time key the federal parti-
cipation inversely to per capita income of the community for
collector sewers -- that is, the higher federal share, up to 75%,
would be granted to communities with the lowest per capita income.

          As to the second point, of limiting federal financing
to serving the needs of the existing population, first of all, does
this mean that we are not to make provisions for growth?  Or
does this mean a municipality would receive one and only one
federal grant to develop a system that would be in compliance with
PL 92-500, after which the modifications and expansions of the
system would be made from local funds such as user charges?

          If the answer is "yes" to our first question, then we
are working at cross purposes.  An example of this inconsistency
is:  Our community of 8,500 acres has been caused to study and
develop a plan — 201 facilities plan — for treatment works to
serve 44,000 acres.  It has taken 175 years for our town to grow
to its present size, and it has doubled in size in the last
thirty-five years.  At this time, we are being forced to make
plans for an area nearly five times our size in order that we
may be eligible for federal assistance.

-------
                                                           24

          In the past, we, at the local level, have made
provisions for growth in our water and sewer systems.  Had it
not been for the 1972 amendments to PL 92-500, which caused us
to stop normal planning for the sake of the 201 facilities plan,
we would have a sewerage system capable of serving our needs until
the year 2000 in Hopkinsville.  However, due to the 201 facilities
plan, this delay, in excess of two years, has cost the city of
Hopkinsville.at least $4 million due to inflation alone.  Now,
are we to learn that federal grants will not be made that permits
growth in the sewerage systems?

          Should the answer to the first question be "no" and
to the second question "yes," then we are moving in the only
direction that can accomplish the results intended by the law.

          As you know, the common problem with all the federal
grant programs to date has been their short life coupled with
variable rates of appropriations.  Much would be accomplished
if a change in the current law to establish a priority system and
a procedure whereby one and only one federal grant, at the 75%
level, would be awarded to each applicant for a sewerage system
that would be in compliance with PL 92-500 with no fixed dead-
line until after funding and priority are matched.-  Thus, after
the initial development, we would all be put on notice to1 operate
the system in a business-like way -- because future expansion
and-or improvements would come from user charges, et cetera.

          As to the third point, of restricting the types of
projects eligible for grant assistance, historically, items such
as treatment plants, pumping stations and outfall sewers should
remain eligible for grant assistance.  Collector sewers should
be omitted or handled as stated in the modified plan of Item 1
above.

          There doesn't appear to be enough money in this program
to service all portions; therefore, at least it is our contention,
collector sewers should be made a local responsibility.

          As to the fourth point, of extending the 1977 date for
meeting water quality standards, we are very much in favor of the
extension of this part of it; and we feel like there are many
justified reasons for an extension.  First of all, we had impound-
ment of funds by the President; secondly, more time than originally
conceived has been consumed in the development of federal control
agencies and their guidelines.  We've had an understaffing of
control agencies, both at the state and federal levels, and this  ,
has hindered progress.  Inflation has ruined all budgets at the
state, local and federal levels.  Due to our economic conditions,

-------
                                                           25

which have certainly not been favorable in recent months, first,
we had shortages of manufacturing facilities with nearly full
employment; now, many manufacturing plants have been idled by the
recession.  Spme of these plants will never be started again due
to their age and conditions -- all of which will cause another
shortage of equipment for the pollution abatement industry.  If
the deadline is not extended, then a tremendous amount of work will
have to be performed in a very short period of time.  In fact, it
is doubtful that this can be accomplished with the available
construction force and equipment.  One known facet that always
accompanies an accelerated construction program is higher costs.
And this we do not need.  Our presentation here today has been
made with the basic idea of reducing the federal share, and local
portions, to permit more to receive grant assistance.

          As to the fifth point, of delegating a greater portion
of the management of the construction grants program to the states,
we feel that all of the construction grants programs should be
administered by the states except for the annual audits.  Of course,
the grants to the states would have to be increased for this to be
possible; an, for that reason, we favor very strongly House Bill
2175, sponsored by Representative Cleveland, which allocates a
fixed percentage of the federal grant to the state for administra-
tive purposes pertaining to the construction grants programs.

          Mr. Chairman, that's all I have to say regarding these
five.  I would just like to make two additional comments.  Number
one, we are very much opposed to the proposed rules for procure-
ment of engineering services.  And, number two, we would certainly
like to see something done about the Davis-Bacon Act, which we
feel like acts for unreasonable costs in the construction area.

          Thank you very much.

MR. RAVAN:
          Yeah.  Ed, let me ask you a couple of questions, if you
will.

          And, Jack, you feel free.

MR. WHITFIELD:
          Mr. Ravan, before you ask the question, I'd like to say
that if I can't answer it -- because I'm no expert on this —
Jack Boxley, who is in charge of our system, is here.  And if I
can't answer it, I feel like that he can.

MR. RAVAN:
          I'm just looking for an opinion now; I'm not trying to
draw out your presentation or the points you made.  Let's assume,

-------
                                                           26

for a moment, that the planning has to be done.  With that
assumption, if you would have stayed within your boundaries,
basically, in your 201 approach, or Step I grant, then there
would have been left about four fifths of 44,000 acres, who
do you suggest would do the planning for that?

MR. WHITFIELD:
          Of course -- Well, we would like to -- In our local
community, we've had our problems with the county.  The county
absolutely refuses to bear any burden of this.  As a result, the
City of Hopkinsville is having to plan for, you know, the whole
area, a large portion of which is out in the county.  And we would
like to be able to work out at least some plan where they can
share some of the costs with the city.  That's a -- you know, the
way it is now.  You know, we're taking all the burden in the city
of Hopkinsville.
                                                               r
MR. RAVAN:
          And, your real pain, then, is getting them to put of
25% of the costs in that planning area?

MR. WHITFIELD:
          Right.

MR. RAVAN:
          And, failing that, then some method ought to be worked
out covering that area?

MR. WHITFIELD:
          That's true.  And then, we -- we've just had so many
delays in meeting the regulations and the money for this new
sewer system -- for a new sewer system.  You know, it's just that
there's been a lot of unnecessary delays and changes of regula-
tions, and we feel very frustrated.

MR. RAVAN:
          I can appreciate your frustration.

          Jack?

MR. RHETT:
          Mine, again, was a general statement to make sure that
everybody knew:  On aid to procurement, the date for comments was
extended from 9 June to 9 July.  And, if you do have strong
opinions -- no:  any opinions please get them in to us.   Get the
official  one;  get them in to your professional organizations so
that this can be laid out and we can see all sides of it.

-------
MR. WHITFIELD:
          Thank you very much.

MR. RAVAN:
          I believe our next speaker is Mr. Andrew Gravino.
And, following Andrew will be Mr. David G. Presnell.

MR. GRAVINO:
          My name is Andrew J. Gravino, as you so aptly stated.
I am the president of the Consulting Engineers Council of
Georgia.  And with me this morning, we are further represented by
Mr. Robert A. Corbett, the chairman of our sanitary practices
committee, as well as Mr. Harvey Brown, our executive director.

          The Consulting Engineers Council would like to thank
you for this opportunity to present our statement.

          The Consulting Engineers Council of Georgia submits for
consideration the following comments related to this public hear-
ing on "Potential Legislative Amendments to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act."  The Consulting Engineers Council of
Georgia has membership of over 100 firms practicing consulting
engineering in the state of Georgia.  And, I'm sure you realize,
we're also affiliates of the American Consulting Engineers Coun-
cil.  Also, I will have two copies of this statement for the
record.

          The passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
amendments of 1972 -- knows as "PL 92-500" — has brought many
changes to municipal wastewater management programs.  The major
aspect is the requirement for publicly-owned treatment words to be
the most cost-effective alternative for meeting applicable water-
quality goals while recognizing environmental, social and economic
considerations.  National objectives have been established for
abatement levels corresponding to specific schedules for both
private and publicly-owned waste-treatment facilities.  In
addition, a comprehensive national permit system -- or, national
pollution discharge elimination system -- is in effect to provide
enforcement of the objectives of PL 92-500.  Extensive planning
is provided in accordance with provisions of sections 201, 208
and 303(e).

          It will soon be three years since passage of PL 92-500
and, during this time, there has been much confusion related to
the requirements for implementation of PL 92-500.  Some of the key
requirements affecting the construction grants process have been
the publication of interim grant regulations in February, 1973;
a more stringent definition of secondary treatment in August,

-------
                                                           28

1973; final  construction grant regulations in February, 1974;
and proposed procurement regulations in May, 1975.  Furthermore,
there have been additional  regulations for implementation of other
aspects of PL 92-500 as well  as nearly fifty policy guidance
memoranda establishing, altering and-or modifying the construc-
tion grants  program.

          The needs for a national cleanup effort have been
approximated by a needs survey approach required by sections 205
and 516 of PL 92-500, as amended by PL 92-343.   The51974 needs
survey indentified needs of approximately $342 billion, of which
235 billion  were identified for treatment and-or control of
stormwaters.  The 1974 needs  survey also identified some $28
billion for construction of secondary or more stringent treat-
ment facilities to protect water quality.  The magnitude of ex-
penditures identified by the  1974 needs survey should not place
the national cleanup effort in a state of panic, but should
identify the need for a straightforward, longterm commitment
to enhance the quality of the nation's waters.

          The water pollution control program for publicly-owned
treatment works requires a long-term, methodical abatement pro-
gram.  Reasonable schedules and compliance goals should be
established through the cooperative efforts of EPA, state authori-
ties and local governments to obtain cleanup objectives.

          A necessary part of such an objective would be to
stabilize the rules -- and I'd like to emphasize -- stabilize
the rules and regulations under which the program is being admin-
istered.  An amendment — House Resolution 3658 -- has been pro-
posed to provide that all rules proposed by EPA must be reviewed
by Congress.  In addition, measures should be taken to limit the
frequency and impact of policy-guidance memoranda on the construc-
tion grants  program.

          With adequate funding and cooperative efforts toward
a long-term, methodical construction grants program, it is
felt that objectives may be established for conventional secon-
dary treatment by 1980, fishing-quality waters by 1985, and that
zero discharge may be eliminated in lieu of local water-quality
determinations.  This requires the definition of secondary treat-
ment to re-established as conventional practice prior to EPA's
definition in August, 1973.

          The foregoing comments are relevant to the general
objectives desired by the papers prepared for discussion at this
public hearing.

-------
                                                           29

          Paper Number 1, reduction of the federal share.  A
reduction of the federal share is not supported.  The construc-
tion grants program must be stabilized, which requires the support
of a*long-term funding commitment at the 75% level.

          An effort should be made by Congress to stabilize the
rationale behind allocation of construction grants funds.  It is
suggested that an allocation formula based on 50% population and
50% of Category I, II and IVB of the needs survey be utilized for
allocation of future funds, including the $9 billion of impounded
funds.  This approach has been supported by state water-pollution-
control authorities and is the substance of Senate Bill 1216
and House Resolution 4161.  With exception of the provision to
include the $9 billion of impounded funds, this same position
was presented by EPA in their transmittal of the 1974 needs
survey to Congress.

          Paper Number 2, limiting federal funding of reserve
capacity.  Federal funding should not be limited on reserve
capacity to serve projected growth.  In certain cases, individual
determinations may be necessary to determine the relation of
long-term flows to land-use stability.

          An additional aspect to be considered on this position
are the needs to strive for a level of secondary treatment by
perhaps the year 1980, provided that Congress would intervene
and re-establish the conventional definition of secondary
treatment prior to that promulgated by EPA in August, 1973.
Such action should be directed toward local determination of
acceptability of such treatment systems as waste-stabilization
ponds which are expected to be abandoned as a result of EPA's
definition of secondary treatment.  Naturally, this will  have
a major impact upon the funding requirements of the state.

          It is further suggested that an economic analysis
be required to define a reasonable funding level for construction
grant activities.  The analysis of the actual authorization rate
should include the ability of local governments to provide 25%
financing;  support operation and maintenance requirements of
increasingly elaborate systems; and prepare and provide engineer-
ing services for completion of facilities plans as well as engine-
ering plans and specifications.  In addition a sudden increase
and the continual rising of construction costs could be avoided
by a systematic allocation formula rather than an allocation
based on immediate funding to meet all eligible needs.  It is
anticipated an annual authorization in the neighborhood of four-
to-six billion dollars would be reasonable.

-------
                                                           30

          Paper Number 3, restricting the types of eligible
 projects.  The types of projects eligible for grant assistance
 under  PL 92-500 are reasonable and necessary to provide facili-
 ties to meet water-quality objectives.  The results of the 1974
 needs  survey should not be an indicator of a need to restrict
 eligibility but as an indicator of the funds required for elibigle
 projects and how they should receive priority for funds.  By
 the modification of the EPA definition of secondary treatment to
 the conventional secondary-treatment concept, reasonable goals
 could  be established for funding to provide secondary treatment
 by 1980, with fishing-quality waters as an objective for the
 years  1980 to 1985.  Individual determinations may be necessary
 in regard to funding an even more stringent level of treatment
 to protect local water quality.

          The significant needs identified for Category VI show
 that the treatment and-or control of stormwater is a massive
 project and should certainly be part of longterm objectives of
 PL 92-500.

          Paper Number 4, extending the 1977 deadline.  The 1977
 objectives for private and industrial dischargers appear as an
 achievable goal; however, it is suggested that modifications be
 made in the date to allow for reasonable compliance of publicly-
 owned  treatment works.  Firm goals and attainable objectives
 should remain a part of PL 92-500.

          Since almost three years have been devoted to start-up
 and development of programs for implementation of PL 92-500, it
 is suggested that a three-year extension be provided for the
 objectives and deadlines on publicly owned treatment works.  In
 particular, it is suggested that a 1980 goal for achieving conven-
 tional secondary treatment and a 1985 goal for obtaining fish and
 quality waters be established.  It is further suggested that
 across-the-board application of zero discharge be eliminated.
 Sufficient flexibility should be provided to allow for individual
 exceptions which would be governed by availability of funds and
 enforceable through permit-compliance schedules.

          That's the twelve-minute bell, isn't it?

 MR. SABOCK:
          That's right.

MR. GRAVING:
          So, I've got another hour.

MR. SABOCK:
          More or less.

          (Laughter)

-------
                                                           31

MR. GRAVING:

          Paper Number 5, delegating construction grants pro-
gram.  In accordance with the objectives established in Section
101 of PL 92-500, it is felt that a greater delegation of the
authority for management and administration of the construction
grants program should be made to the states as proposed in House
Resolution 2175.  An essential element of implementation of such
a program would be that duplicate reviews and project holdups
as a result of,EPA participation be eliminated or minimized to
the maximum extent possible.  The construction grants program
cannot be subject to duplication and second-guessing efforts if
it is to be effectively administered through a delegation process.

          In summary, the concepts and objectives of PL 92-500
are supported and should represent realistic and attainable
goals for improved water quality throughout the nation.  Strong
support must be developed and maintained for a long-term com-
mitment, with federal funding, to provide the needed support
to the construction grant programs for publicly-owned treatment
works.

          Other than those amendments presented in this paper,
it is recommended that additional amendments to PL 92-500 be
withheld until the final report of the National Commission on
Water Quality in completed.

          Gentlemen, I thank you.

MR.  RAVAN:
          Thank you, Mr. Gravino.

          Jack, question?

MR.  RHETT:
          I've got one.

          You keep talking about the conventional definition
about secondary --

MR.  GRAVINO:
          Yes, sir.

MR.  RHETT:
          I'd like to know what you mean.

MR.  GRAVINO:
          I'd like to refer your question to your committee
chairman, if I might; I have an idea this is a matter of timing
as far as ~

-------
                                                           32

MR. RHETT:
          Well, wait a minute, then, if it is.  I didn't realize
there was one, this idea that. .  .   Maybe what I would ask is:
Could this be furnished to me --

MR. GRAVING:
          Yes.  There is no reason  that --

MR. RHETT:
          — so that I can find out, really, what you all mean?

MR. GRAVING:
          Okay, we'll do that.

MR. RHETT:
          The second question along this line is:   Is this co-
ordinated with ACEC, this conventional  definition of secondary —

MR. GRAVING:
          I'm not sure.

MR. RHETT:
          -- treatment?  Or, are you just talking about —

MR. GRAVING:
          This is a term we have come up with.  We'll be glad
to define it for you.

MR. RHETT:
          Okay, thank you.

MR. RAVAN:
          Our next speaker is Mr. David G. Presnell  -- and I'm
not certain of that pronunciation.

MR. PRESNELL:
          That's close enough.

MR. RAVAN:
          And then, the next people on  deck are Jim Tarpy of
Nashville and Mr. Leonard Ledbetter from the State of Georgia.

MR. PRESNELL:
          These remarks are presented by David G.  Presnell, "
Junior, 100 East Liberty, Louisville, Kentucky.

          I'm president of Presnell and Associates,  Incorporated,
and general manager of Vollmer-Presnell-Paulo, the management

-------
                                                           33

consultant to the Louisville Metropolitan Sewer District and
their massive plant expansion program which you heard Mr. Wilburn
discuss earlier.

          This program encompasses over $500 million in construc-
tion and over 700 miles of sewers.  More than fifty engineers
will be involved in this project.

          The position of the Kentucky professional engineers in
private practice and the Consulting Engineers Council of Kentucky
are also reflected in my remarks.  Categorically, the following
is a response to the notice published in the Federal Register of
May the 2nd, 1975, and I have referred to them herein as "issues"
rather than "papers" because I believe that's a more accurate
assessment.

          Issue Number 1 deals with the possible reduction of
the federal share.  The integrity of the federal government's
control of water pollution would be impuned by these steps being
taken, and they would, in fact, significantly delay and increase
the construction costs of all proposed treatment works.  The
statement contained in the Federal Register that a prediction
relative to the impact of the reduced federal share cannot be made
borders on irresponsibility by the author.  We are presently in
an economic structure which finds municipalities and states
functioning with diminishing revenues and eroded capabilities to
market significant bond issues.  Today's irrefutable example is,
of course, New York City.

          Treatment works and interceptor sewers do not-produce
customers per se, and therefore generage no incentive for their
construction.  Reduced federal funding would specifically encourage
the continued construction of small treatment plants and collector
sewers on a noneffective and fragmented basis, particularly by
the private sector.  The grantee, typically, does presently possess
sufficient funding capabilities to properly  advance the program
and, more importantly, any concern regarding the accountability
of the grantee would — and should — exist under the present pro-
gram.  Conversely, reductions in funding would ultimately result
in higher costs because of the loss in the economy's scale.

          Issue Number 2, which is the limiting of federal funding
on the reserve capacity, is an emotional issue.  It is not to be
reckoned with the realm of emotional judgment.  It would be simple
and perhaps an appropriate filibuster to recite by rote a myriad
of reasons and specific examples as to the total lack of profes-
sional acumen attendant to a zero-growth design.  A typical ex-
ample might be one of our projects in Louisville, Kentucky, where
even under today's constraints from EPA, which is a twenty-year

-------
                                                            34

period from the completion of the 201 facilities plan, requires
for the construction of many miles of 120-inch sewer.  If this
were, in fact, designed for twenty years hence from the period
of each treatment-works segment's construction, this particular
sewer would be one size larger.  The attendant future addition
of a parallel sewer will require a 72-inch sewer to handle the
anticipated growth.  I think we can all recognize the lack of
rationale in that planning.

          The objectives cited in the Federal Register to induce
more-careful sizing and design and design capacity to serve future
growth borders very nearly on the heighth of absurdity and flies
in the face of every conceivable sense of design.  This fact is
specifically concurred in by EPA in their statement regarding
Issue Number 2.  That is, the limiting of eligibility for reserve
capacity is not intended to preclude the cost effective sizing
in the design of the facilities; the grantee would be permitted
and, in fact, encouraged to provide cost effective reserve
capacity, but he would be required to fund 100% of this capacity.
This statement clearly and unequivocally depicts recognition by
EPA that to do other than design for the future would be haphazard
and the grantee would be derelict in his duty.  This proposition
appears only to be a readily assailable attempt to substitute
the grantee's dollar for the federal dollar.

          Conversely, to stop that assailable posture, a profes-
sional approach by the Environmental Protection Agency and the
establishment of a reasonable design criteria commensurate with   n
controlled  population projections is needed.  Legislative change
is not the answer.

          The demerits of prohibiting the eligibility of growth
related to reserve capacity are clearly an irrational thwarting
of proper land-use planning as a parallel objective to proper
sewer design.  This philosophy assumes the following:  Number one,
sound land-use planning can be accomplished at the local  level
with appropriate legislative jurisdiction to enforce this planning.
Number two, EPA does not, and should not, have authority to over-
see land-use planning at the local level.  Number three, the
science of land-use planning has not reached the necessary sophis-
tication to precisely predict development trends twenty years
hence and, practically speaking, this can,.only be accomplished by
increased clairvoyancy on the part of the planners.   Staging
treatment words by ten-year increments may be a reasonable
position then, but with the assumption that funding will; in
fact, be available when expansion is needed.  It seems that ten-
twenty or ten-twenty-five year can be a reasonable approach to
the problem of design, as long as EPA allows this design to be
measured from when the construction of a particular segment is
predicated in the facilities planned for segments of treatment

-------
                                                           35

works.  This is to say, however, that the time frame for the
design of the initial segment should be twenty years from its
anticipated construction segment rather than the current EPA
policy of designing a multi-year program as if it were to all
be constructed simultaneously.

          Issue Number Three.  This issue addresses restrictions
on the types of projects eligible for grant assistance.  Perhaps
the single most significant statement is that the need for a
facility does not rise and fall based on the source of funding.
But its feasibility does, of course, change and this at times
results in the construction of a less-needed facility because it
has become financially feasible to construct.

          Generally, grantee is under considerable duress to
build treatment plants and interceptors with available federal
funds because his physical needs far outweigh the inflow of federal
funds; and because of this fact of life, funding for a certain
element, such as collector sewers, is not sought by the grantee.

          The question has been raised as to whether or not
there is adequate local incentive to attempt to undertake invest-
ment  in certain facilities even in the absence of federal financial
assistance.  If eligibility is limited to interceptors arid treat-
ment  plants, it will become imperative that grantees make ap-
propriate investments in collection systems in order to provide a
complete system.  Collection systems are invariably acknowledged
to be the easiest type of facility to show a direct-cost-to-
service relationship, therefore the ability to finance directly
is much simpler.  Nonetheless, adequate legislation giving the
authority to localities for such construction must be available.

          Stormwater facilities and the construction of combined
sewer overflows and filtration and inflow problems probably never
can be financed through local financial capability.  Therefore,
any local incentive may be totally outweighed by fiscal constraints
from other, completely unrelated programs.

          Issue Number 4 discusses extending the 1977 date for
the publicly-owned pre-treatment works to meet water-quality
standards.  It seem inconsistent for Congress to impose any dead-
line for achievement and then have the President freeze the fund-
ing necessary to meet that guideline.  Congress, therefore, should
consider passing legislation with the following provisions:  One,
establish a new deadline which could reasonably be met by the
grantee; two, provide the funding level to provide in meeting this
deadline; three, place restrictions on the presidential power
to restrict funding; and, four, place restrictions on EPA which
enforce the elimination of the myriad of red tape and initiate a

-------
                                                           36

realistic program to get sewers in the ground and treatment plants
constructed without the present undue delays.

          This entire section of the Federal Register discusses
the failure of grantees to meet their deadlines because of fund-
ing problems and lack of compliance by the grantees.  It's high
time to ferret out the real culprit:,  the program itself.  If
the nation is really serious about water quality, the present
significant delays and stumbling blocks of EPA must be deleted
from the program.  This public hearing should be a forum to
help us strive together in streamlining Public Law 92-500.

          Simultaneously to the efforts to modify this law,
efforts are diligently being pursued by MVA to establish minimum
standards for procurement under EPA grants, as noted in the
Federal Register of Friday, May the 9th, 1975.  These proposed
regulations become another roadblock in the pursuit of pollution
abatement, build in new bureaucratic bottlenecks, increase the
cost to grantees and establish procedures which can be expected
to cause project delays of up to two years more, with attendant
increases in construction costs by as much as 25%.

          Issue Number 5 deals with delegating a greater portion
of the management of construction grant programs to the states.
The ultimate delegation of administrative authority would cer-
tainly be the most efficient.  However, this should be funded
over the above the money allocated to the states for the con-
struction grants program as it would, in fact, reduce the EPA
costs of administration of the program.

          EPA and the states should jointly agree on the priority
system and establish necessary policy.  Then, all of the admin-
istrative functions should be handled by the state, with EPA
serving in an overview capacity.

          Consider also that the states should, in turn, be
allowed to further delegate plan-review authority to the local
agencies where adequate staff and expertise is available.   EPA's
rule should only be in the proper disbursement of the funds to    :
the state and the appropriate review of the treatment works
actually constructed.  The Federal Highway Administration has
been generally accepted in this type of role.         (.

          The final proof of the pudding is not how much
administration and bureaucracy can be involved, but how well
water quality can be improved.  Efforts of EPA can be directed
in such a transition period to assisting states in the establish-
ment of appropriate staffs and programs to insure uniformity
in the implementation of the program.

          Thank you for the opportunity to make these remarks.

-------
                                                           37

          Do any of the panelists have any questions?

          (No response)

MR. ALM:
          I only have one question:  With respect to — I guess
it's Issue 2—2 and 3 -- I wasn't quite sure -- you indicated
that something like a ten-year planning period for treatment
plants and twenty to twenty-five for interceptors would be
appropriate under certain -- I wasn't sure what those were.

MR. PRESNELL:
          Those guiderules being that the grantee would be able
to measure his population growth twenty years from the actual time
of construction of a segment of the facility; because there is
no relationship at all between that period and twenty years from
when a facilities plant is completed.

MR. ALM:
          Okay; I think I understand.

          Well, thank you very much.

          (Pause)
MR. ALM:
          Our next speaker will be Jim Tarpy, representing the
Metro Department of Water and Sewer Services.

          Mr. Tarpy, I'll make this statement to you -- and also
to those following you:  If you have two extra copies of your
statement, I'd appreciate it if you would give one to the execu-
tive secretary and one to me.

MR. TARPY:
          I just gave him both of them.

MR. ALM:
          If the other witnesses would do that, it  would be
very helpful.

MR. TARPY:
          My name is Jim Tarpy and I'm grants administrator for
the Metropolitan Department of Water and Sewer Services in Nash-
ville, Tennessee.  And I'm giving this paper this morning on
behalf of Mr. K. R. Hankton, Director of the Department of Water
and Sewer Services.

          The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson
County, Tennessee, Department of Water and Sewerage Services,
welcomes the opportunity to express its comments and concerns on
the proposed amendments to Public Law 92-500.

-------
                                                            38

          The reduction in the federal share would inhibit and
delay construction of needed facilities due to limitation, which
presently exist in monies available to local governments.  The
state of Tennessee does not have an available grant program, which
aids the local governments, but it does borrow monies to fund a
state loan program, which presently allows the cities of the'
state, who can meet the guidelines, to qualify for a 25% loan
of the eligible cost.  These loan monies can only continue until
the indebtedness of the local community reaches its maximum capa-
city or the state refuses to sell additional bonds to support the
program.  The Department of Water and sewerage Services, presently,
cannot extend its own bonded indebtedness without an increase in
the water and sewer revenue rates.  The present economic condition
of our community would find it extremely difficult, if not impos-
sible, to obtain the support to pass a revenue increase in our local
council.  The metropolitan government is currently striving to-
obtain the optimum capital improvement per dollar invested, whether
it be through federal grants or local revenues.  All projects are
viewed with the full understanding that the government must oper-
ate and maintain the constructed facilities, be it treatment
plant, interceptor sewer, pumping station, et cetera, and it is
our objective to obtain the best possible facility for the dollar,
so we may use our annual budget to continue our water and sewer
programs.  The reduction in the federal grant to something less
than 75% would place an added burden on the state and local govern-
ments to explore other sources of funding; and, during this transi-
tion period, it would continue to cause us to lag further behind
in meeting the goals of Public Law 92-500.  Exactly what the
impact will be on our programs can only be projected, but unless
other funds are provided, we would have to delay our construction
program.  This is a drastic approach for EPA to consider at a
time when there is nine-plus billion dollars of construction monies,
which could be used by local governments today to build needed
facilities, that are tied up with continuing wraps of red tape.
The everyday inflation in this country is eating at these dollars
to the extent that the 75% grant today will only fund what a 55%
grant would have funded some three years ago.  Whatever action
Congress might take relevant to the reduction of the federal grant
monies will have a significant impact on the nation's objective  A
of meeting the goals spelled out in Public Law 92-500.
                                                                 . ' '*
          The local governments have a responsibility to meet the
needs of its citizens; and if, as projected, the population of    'f
an area is going to expand from rural land to a residential area,
the city has the responsibility to protect the public health, the
environmental quality of the area and the environmental impact
on the area.  The construction of sewer facilities provides all
three of these needed functions for the community.  The people
are going to find a place to live, and if steps are made initially
to consider the health and environmental considerations, then   •"»•
the cost to the community is much less.

-------
                                                           39

          The growth and development of a community should be a
major factor considered in the design of a sewerage facilities.
This design should not be for an estimated growth judged on ten
or twenty years, but onjjQodr-sound engineering judgment, based
on the particular situation under study.

  frt '    -Local financing and federal-financing of projects
should not be estimated for a period that exceeds the useful life
of such projects.  At today's extremely high bond interest rates
and amortization periods, less than thirty-to-forty years provide
an annual debt service so great as to make conventional financing
impossible; therefore, long-term bond financing is inevitable.
The plan to reduce the design period of a project to that less
than the financing period of the project is folly economics.
In effect, we.are requiring our subsequent generations to pay
for facilities that would have outlived their projected life.
            '  !,
          The reduction of the types of projects eligible for
grants assistance to only secondary treatment plants, tertiary
treatment plants and interceptor sewers would place a tremendous
burden on any local government.  It has been projected that it
would take approximately $300 million to just correct the com-
bined sewer overflow in our system.  At this time, correction of
combined sewer overflow appears to be prohibitive with federal
assistance; and without federal assistance, it appears impossible.
If the responsibilities for correction of sewer infiltration-
inflow, major sewer rehabilitation, collector sewers, correction
of combined sewer overflows and treatment or control stormwaters
are placed back on the local governments with no assistance', the
compliance requirements would have to be extended way beyond what
presently exists for correcting these sources of pollution.  The
local governments would establish a completely different set of
priorities for correction of its local pollution problems, such
as the extension of sewers to presently unsewered areas.   If these
types of projects are declared ineligible by EPA, most likely
they will not be funded in the future.

          The metropolitan government would recommend the 1977
compliance date be extended to late 1978, because this would be
the earliest possible date our wastewater treatment system could
meet the 1977 discharge limits.  This 1978 date is, also, assuming
federal and state grant applications are processed promptly and
no delays are experienced.  During this extended period,  the
Environmental Protection Agency, with the cooperation of the
state agencies, could develop a review board for each state,
which would be responsible for establishing compliance dates for
each discharger, taking into consideration the availability of
resources balanced against the ultimate goals of Public Law
92-500.  It is entirely impracticable to apply the same compliance
date to all discharges without some type of balancing approach
based on the limited resources available to correct the pol-
lution problems of this nation.

-------
                                                           40

          An example of this is the treatment and control of
discharge from wastewater-treatment facilities and sanitary-
sewer system should have higher priority, whereas compliance
date for the management and control of stormwater and combined
sewer overflows could be set at a later date.

          The State of Tennessee should be given a greater share
in the administration of the Public Law 92-500, and this could
reduce the unwarranted time delays we have experienced in process-
ing our recent applications and reduce the duplication of efforts
from the state to the federal level.
                                  i
          The metropolitan government recommends that the State
of Tennessee be delegated the authority to administer the federal
construction grant program, as proposed in the Cleveland Bill,   •
House Resolution 2175.  The existing construction grant program
has, by its very nature, inherent time delays, which have proven
quite costly to local governments and American taxpayers.  The
duplication of efforts in review of engineering design and
specifications by both state and federal  agencies is just one
example of such waste of effort and time  delays.  We have experi-
enced delays, which have extended final approval on several  of
our projects, in excess of six months.  These extended periods,
coupled with the spiral ing inflation, have cost the local govern-
ment several thousand dollars, through no fault of its own.   We
would encourage this legislation to allow the United States
Environmental Protection Agency to delegate its administrative
authority to the states in relation to the construction grant
program.

          The metropolitan government trusts the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, after careful consideration
and-or deliberation on the remarks given  here today, will develop,
for us, a more realistic and workable law.

          Thank you.

MR. ALM:
          I've got two questions.  One of them:  You mentioned
that the state of Tennessee does not have an available grant pro-
gram; during the '66-to-'72 period, did Tennessee have a grant
program during that period?

MR. TARPY:
          Several years ago the state did have a grant program;
it matched the 660. but not --

-------
                                                           41

MR. ALM:
          Well, let me ask the following question:  If that sort
of a grant arrangement -- going back to '66-to-'72 amendments
~ were part of the new law, would you feel different?  Would it
change your comments.

MR. TARPY:
          We have discussed it with the state, and they have
indicated to us that they would not consider a grant program.

MR. ALM:
          They,would not consider it?

MR. TARPY:
          No.  They did indicate that they would possibly consider
extending the  loan to an excess of 251.

MR. ALM:
          I think that would be of limited utility, from your
statements.

MR. TARPY:
          (Nods head.)

MR. ALM:
          One  last question:  You indicated that if the federal
government did not finance all these eligibilities you would
change  the priorities.  I was a little confused at this section.
Are you saying that if the federal government only funded treat-
ment plants and interceptors, it would -- then, you would fund,
mainly, sewers and interceptors, is that right?

MR. TARPY:
          What the local government would be willing to fund
would,be. lateral sewers so that we could recover lateral  revenue,
so that we would have an additional base -- revenue base so that
we could extend to other areas, and possibly construct treatment
plants or whatever we might need.  We're just trying to broaden
our revenue base, and also to correct the pollution problem that
exists  in our  county.  We presently are located on limestone
rock, and we have -- well, septic tanks just do not work.  We
have a minimum of two-acre lot size in the county and, as a
result of this, it creates a problem or difficulty or land-use
problems.

MR. ALM:
          Thank you very much.

MR. TARPY:
          Thank you.

-------
                                                           42

 MR. ALM:
          Our next speaker will be J. Leonard Ledbetter,  director
 of  the environmental protection division of the State Department
 of  Natural  Resources, State of Georgia.

          (Pause)

 MR. ALM:
          Do I get a copy of your statement?

 MR. LEDBETTER:
          I don't have any copies; I'll mail them later.

 MR. ALM:
          I might just indicate, as I promised I would, our
 next speaker will be Harold Pickens, Junior.

 MR. LEDBETTER:
          First, I'd like to welcome you to Atlanta, and  thank
 you for conducting this hearing in Atlanta and giving us  an
 opportunity to be heard.  We trust that in the future you will
 consider Atlanta for such-type hearings.

          I'm going to just summarize my statement and then I'll
 mail you copies later for the record.

          The Georgia Environmental Protection Division does
 appreciate  the opportunity to present the statement of Georgia's
 position on the potential amendments to the Federal Water Pol-
 lution Act.

          We have recommended amendments to PL 92-500 as early as
 February, 1974.  And in the hearings conducted by the investigation
 and review  subcommittee of the House Committee on Public Works
 and Transportation we urged significant amendments be made to
 Public Law  92-500.   Most of the issues being discussed today have
 been reviewed during some of those hearings.

          With regard to the five potential amendments mentioned
 in the May  2, 1975, public notice for this hearing, we have the
 following comments, which I will summarize.

          The issue of the reduction of the federal grant share --
 Georgia's position is that no change should be made in the federal
 grant share.  The history of delays and grant withdrawals on
 projects receiving PL 84-660 grants, due mostly to the inability
 of local governments to finance their 67% or 70% local shares,
 should be sufficient documentation that the federal share must
 remain high.  A reduction of the federal share below that 75%
would result in gross inequities in communities adjacent or
 similar to others which received or have received a full  75%
grant, thus greatly damaging the credibility of EPA and state
water pollution control programs.

-------
                                                           43

          It must also be emphasized that many applicants do not
receive 75% at the present for their project.  The eligible por-
tion of the project can result in a significant amount of the
total portion being funded 100% locally.

          In Georgia, we have approximately 486 municipalities,
about 450 of which are under 10,000 population.  We have a large
percentage of this population with relatively low income.  Water
and sewer rates must be reasonable for these people to afford the
monthly user fees.

    G     State budgets across the country are currently
encountering problems.  Almost daily, as you break out the news-
paper, you read -- you see that another state is considering
reducing the budget or cutting back 5%, 10% et cetera.  Many
of these states are required to live within their income.  There-
fore, it is unlikely that significant increases in the present
state grants or loan programs will occur.  Any amendment requir-
ing states to match the federal grant with some percentage will
greatly disrupt the program and, again, probably destroy the
credibility of the program.  It must be recognized that local
governments are encountering difficulties in assisting or work-
ing with the surrounding communities for solid-waste management
or complying with the recently-enacted federal Safe Drinking Water
Act, et cetera.  So, the water-pollution control efforts are only
one of the demands on that local budget.

          Issue Number 2, limiting the federal financing to
serve the needs of the existing populations.  If local governments
are not allowed to construct adequate and treatment capacity to
provide for normal growth and to attract some industry and other
development, there will be little incentive to build new facilities
or expand old ones until required to do so enforcement action.
Limiting federal financing to the needs of the existing population
will have the same effects as reducing the percentage of the
federal share to below 75%.  Many of those same points that I just
emphasized regarding the 75% federal share issue also apply to
the reserve capacity issue.

          .This is another example demonstrating the importance
of EPA, and particularly the states, having the flexibility and
authority to approve through the 201 planning process a design
life that is consistent with sound economic and engineering
principles, and that will not always be a rigid period such as
ten-twenty.

          Issue Number 3, restricting the types of projects
eligible.  Although nearly all of Georgia's grant allocations thus

-------
                                                           44

far have been assigned to Category I, II and IVB projects, there
have been some ligitimate fundings made in other categories.
For example, some communities do have areas where it can be
documented that runoff of failing, substandard systems is viola-
ting water-quality standards and creating public health hazards.
If such communities have treatment and transport capacity avail-
able but are financially incapable of funding collector sewers,
then collector sewers should be eligible for those cases.

          If the goals of Public Law 92-500 are to be met, the
flexibility to fund projects in all categories provided for in
Public Law 92-500 must be maintained for consideration.  Therefore,
we consider that the real issue here is whether we should change
the goals of the acts, not restrict the project elsewhere.

          Issue Number 4, extending the 1977 deadline for meet-
ing the water quality standards.  It is quite obvious that the
July 1, 1977, date for achieving secondary treatment in all  >
municipal facilities to control pollution of streams will not
be met.  The time-consuming and difficult procedures required -  -
by the grant regulations, the impoundment of grant funds during
fiscal years '73, '74 and '75, and the lack of realistic fore-
sight on the part of the Congress have made the treatment goals
unattainable.

          We urge that the 1977 deadline for publicly-owned
treatment facilities be rescinded and replaced with the require-
ment and NPDES has established in their compliance schedule,
consistent with the availability of the 75% federal grant.  The
states' project funding list can be coordinated with the permit
to provide a realistic schedule.

          We oppose extending the date to just another arbitrary
date.  We must have the authority and the flexibility to use the
permit program and the available departmental grant funds to abate
pollution effectively.  Our recommended approach would allow us
to enforce the discharge and move forward with their program.
We have not encountered any court willing to be lenient on public
officials where the pollution problem exists and federal grant
funds are available to assist them in correcting the problem.

          We urge the Congress to retain the 1977 deadline for
industries.   Georgia industries already have installed a lot of
water pollution-control facilities, and, with some modifications,
will meet the 1977 deadline.  If the program is to maintain any
credibility and equity, it is imperative that these Georgia in-
dustries that installed expensive water pollution-control facili-
ties in good faith be able to approach the market-place with
competetors  that are being required to meet the same effluent
limitations  and deadlines.

-------
                                                           45

          Issue 5, delegating a greater portion of the management
of the construction grants program to the states.  It is urged
and imperative that EPA comply with Section 101(b) of Public
Law 92-500, which states that it is the policy of the Congress
to recognize, preserve and encourage the responsibility and
rights of states to prevent abuse and eliminate pollution.
However, as presently written, Public Law 92-500 is not consistent
with Section 1-1(b) and often requires the administrator to con-
duct those functions.  Title II should be amended to be consistent
with Section 101(b) and authorize the states to conduct their own
programs.  We recognize and would accept the responsibility of
a decision authorizing use of these funds.

          In closing, we urge EPA to review the records of hear-
ings conducted by committees and subcommittees of Congress which
contain additional information on several of these items or
issues.  Also, the Association of State and Interstate Water Pol-
lution Control Administrators, the Water Pollution Control Fed-
eration, National Governors Conference and others have proposed
language regarding greatly-needed amendments to Public Law 92-500.
 We strongly urge that you review and consider those recommenda-
tions.

          As I said, copies of our full statement will be mailed-
to you.

          Thank you.
                           *7V"'- :
MR. ALM:                    *>
          Thank you very much.

          Let me ask a couple of questions.  You mentioned in the
statement that perhaps the ten-twenty formula had some validity
but needed flexibility — I believe that's what you said.  Could
you expand on that?

MR. LEDBETTER:
          Yes.  We consider that there are present situations
where the consultant may be greatly over-extimating the popula-
tion growth potential for some of our smaller, rural-type com-
munities.  New, at the same time, our experience has been,
though, in most of Georgia, that they have been too conservative,
and, by the time we got the system constructed and in operation,
we were beginning to reach capacity again.  So we feel that the
proper approach to this would be to use the 201 planning process.
And if the consultant were to work with the state and give us some
flexibility on determining which ones we could use the longer life.

-------
                                                           46

MR. ALM:
          Okay, secondly, we talked about the state-sharing pro-
gram.  Did Georgia participate in this program?

MR. LEDBETTER:
          No -- not as far as having any type of matching per-
centage.  We have had a very small state-grant program, but it
was not a matching-grant program at all.

MR. ALM:
          So I take it.  Okay.

          And then, a final question:  You indicated  that with
respect to eligibilities, rather than changing eligibilities,
you could change the goals of the program.  I was curious as to
what you meant.

MR. LEDBETTER:
          Well, the eligibility, of course, as far as we're con-
cerned, the goal, in some cases, for some of our smaller com-
munities, with the present definition of secondary treatment,
is really not consistent with the eligibility of the -- or, the
availability of federal funds and local  funds.  And if we could
reconsider the goals and the requirement that all waters be swim-
ming and fishing by a certain date and extended what the down-
stream-water uses are, in many of our cases where we have small
towns with sewage-oxidation ponds, we are adequately protecting
downstream-water uses.  Those ponds were built with federal con-
struction grant funds.  Georgia was one of the last states in
the Southeast to consider ponds acceptable; and after the state
did accept ponds for secondary treatment, and federal grant funds
were used to construct those, many of our smaller towns were
still very much in debt for the next twenty years or longer to
pay off those systems.

          So what we're saying:  Instead of making those waters
necessarily swimable right downstream, look at those uses and,
if it's for agriculture or stock-watering or et cetera, then pos-
sibly not make all waters swimable.  That's what I'm talking about
when you look at the goals.

MR. ALM:
          Well, you suggestion would be to leave the eligibilities
as they are not?

MR. LEDBETTER:
          Yes.

-------
                                                           47

MR. ALM:
          Even — I mean, you also said, as I recall, that most
of your projects fit the traditional definition of treatment
plants and interceptors but some portion of your priorities go
to other priorities, is that right?

MR. LEDBETTER:
          Yes.  But not so far because of our priority list.

MR. ALM:
          Would you like to see that expended in the future?

MR. LEDBETTER:
          Well, we would like to see it expended in the future --
because, as far as we see it, we're going to have to see a large
percentage of the Georgia allocation in use to upgrade oxidation
ponds, which we have information that shows really protecting the
downstream-water uses at the present.  And then, you look at
Atlanta where you have large, combined sewers overflowing at
times; that does not result in meeting water pollution-control
standards at all times.  We need that flexibility to determine,
okay, if we want to protect the West Point reservoir downstream
of Atlanta for recreational uses, if we want to protect the cities
downstream of Atlanta so they can use the river for water supply,
which they need to do , must do, then we should have some flexi-
bility in determining which way we're going to assign the state's
allocation so that we attain those goals.

          But the problem that we have now, some duf the goals,
some of the directions we're forced to go, is that we're going
to be off upgrading two or three hundred smalltown oxidation
ponds and creating horrendous operational problems for those
people in those small towns when we really need to be directing
the sources to places like Atlanta.

MR. ALM:
          Do any of my colleagues have questions?

          (No response)

MR. ALM:
          Thank you very much for an interesting statement.

          The next speaker will be Howard Pickens, Junior, rep-
resenting the Carolinas Branch Association of General Contractors.
The speaker after Mr. Pickens will be Mr. Longshore.

          (Pause)

-------
                                                           48

MR. ALM:
          If you'll pardon me just a moment, I'm going to meet
with the press; and Mr. Ravan will take over and discuss with
you.

MR. PICKENS:
          I am Harold A. Pickens, Junior, president of my own
construction firm in Anderson, South Carolina, and senior vice-
president of the Carolines Branch of the Associated General Con-
tractors of America, Incorporated.  Our organization has a
membership of over 2300 firms engaged in the construction
industry in South and North Carolina, as well as elsewhere
throughout the Southeast.  We appreciate this opportunity to
testify on these complex matters which are of the utmost impor-
tance to the public, to the construction industry and to others.

          My brief remarks will be supplemented by written
testimony, which we will submit within a few days.

          We believe that first, we all should move ahead,j as
rapidly as possible, with what can be done now to unblock the
progress of this vital  program.

          The crucial issue is that of the $18 billion allocated
to the states less than 1 billion has actually been expended
to date.  It is urgent that this money be put to work for the
public as soon as possible and at a time when it is most needed
— from our standpoint — to provide work for our firms and
for the people we employ.

          As background for our recommendations on legislation,
I shall briefly recount the plight of our contractors in the
Carolinas.  It must be appreciated that our difficulties mirror
the problems and frustrations being experienced by our municipali-
ties.  As these difficulties persist and grow, there is a rapidly-
growing understanding by our municipalities and the public of what
has been happening to their program -- one of the largest con-
struction programs ever enacted by the Congress.  Unless there
is clear evidence of positive and early improvement in the
administration of the program, strong public reaction appears
inevitable.

          Our Carolines contractors and municipalities have suf-
fered a virtual moratorium on municipal sewerage projects for
almost three years.  We see further extension of this gap until
the closing months of fiscal year 1976, when crash action will
probably take place to try to obligate, before July 1, 1976,
about $120 million allocated to the Carolines in fiscel year '76
grants.   A similar gap and peck could occur in efforts to obligate
another $180 million in fiscal year '76 funds by September 30, 1977.

-------
                                                           49

These gaps and peaks will result in the extinction of many of
our smaller firms, and in a costly readjustment by the construc-
tion and supporting industries to meet program needs.  They ag-
gravate uncertainties and frustrations for municipalities.
Should these obligation deadlines not be met, funds would be
reallocated to other states.  Especially in a presidential
election year, such and event in any state would bring about
political repercussions upon elected and salaried public officials
involved, at all levels of government; we need no further erosion
of public confidence in our governmental structure.

          Therefore, we urge that EPA, OMB and the administration
undertake full, priority support for the immediate enactment of
the amendments which I shall now outline.

          The enactment of H.R. 2175 would provide the powerful
support of the Congress, and hopefully the incentive, for EPA
to eliminate the grossly-wasteful state-EPA duplication of reviews
and approvals, from the conception of planning through the bidding
process.  We are discouraged to note, even in the Federal Register
announcements relating to this hearing, that EP now only "gen-
erally" endorses these bills. <                       ->
                                         '           ,•     ..
          To ensure that another solid roadblock to the construc-
tion of projects is not overlooked, I must emphasize the need
for an amendment to provide for changes in user charges system.
We are aware that EPA has introduced a bill for such an .amend-
ment.

          Similarly needed is relief for municipalities which
for good reason, financial or administrative, will be unable to
comply with the July 1, 1977, effluent limitations.,            \

          Further, municipalities need the protection of law
against court cases, especially "citizens suits," while acting
in good faith during the administrative process regarding their> n
permit applications.

          We contend that amendments are needed and can be enacted
now.  Our,contentions are supported by the March, 1975, interim
staff report of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Review,
House Committee on Public Works and Transportation, on Public
Law 92-500.  Incidentally, we commend this report for your
thorough consideration.

          The first three amdnements subject to today's hearings
appear to fall into the category of major amendments.  The matter
of relaxing the 1977 standards for private industry probably
falls in the same category.  Such major amendments are unlikely

-------
                                                           50

to be acted upon by the Congress until after the National Commis-
sion on Water Quality submits its report and probably not during
a presidential election year.  Mr.  Gordon Wood, minority counsel
for the House Public Works Committee, confirmed this publicly
on April 23rd, 1975.  Nevertheless, we will address these in
our written testimony.

          In closing, I'll repeat our major plea -- which we have
repeatedly made to the EPA -- that EPA intensify its efforts
to make maximum delegations of authority to the states within
the current provisions of the act.

          Thank you.

MR. ALM:

          Thank you very much.

          I gather we've fouled up the paperwork.  I called you
Howard, I think, when your name is Harold.

          The next speaker is Jim Longshore, representing B. P.
Barber and Associates.  The speaker after him will  be Howard
Rhodes.

MR. LONGSHORE:
          I'm Jim Longshore, representing the consulting engineer
of B. P. Barber and Associates.

          I do not feel it's necessary this morning to reiterate
some of the points that have already been made; and, therefore,
I'll not read a formal statement at this time.

          However, I do have several letters which  I would like
to submit to the committee for part of the record of this hearing.
These letters represent the views of not only our firm but also
the views of the Regional  Council of Governments in the State of
South Carolina as well as four municipal governments.

          I would like to take this opportunity to  request that
the various interrelationships and proposed amendments be given
very careful consideration before any of the amendments are
adopted.

          Thank you.

MR. ALM:
          Thank you very much.  We'll consider all  of these papers
and put them in the official record.

-------
                                                           51

          The next speaker is Howard Rhodes, representing the
Florida State Department of Pollution Control.  The speaker
after that will be Wes Williams.

MR. RHODES:
          Mr. Aim, Mr. Rhett, Mr. Ravan, members of the audience,
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for listening to
our presentation today.  I'll have some copies that we'll be
forwarding to you after this meeting.

MR. ALM:
          Thank you.

MR. RHODES:
          Addressing each one of these papers today, I'd like
to start, first of all, with Paper Number 1.  The recommenda-
tion was that the grant be reduced from 75% to 55%, with two
objectives.  One of those, that it permits more projects to be
funded and encourages greater accountability on the local front.

          I'd like to address three of,these issues very briefly.
The first one is the equilability.  For three years now we've been
under the 75% federal grant program.  In many cases some cities
have ~ and municipalities, counties and local governments have
had an opportunity to be funded at a 75% level.  Now we find that
there may be a possibility or proposal that there be funding at
something less than this.  We have many cities in the state that are
not ready, because of various things -- facility planning and
numerous regulations -- and we feel like it would be an inequi-
table approach to fund them at less than the full'75%

          The second factor is that they have based their fund-
ing over many years -- three, four and five years now -- at
the 75% funding level.  Therefore, they have sold bonds, in some
cases, to fund the 25% funding.  They've actually raised the
sewer rates, in many cases, in order to allow this 25% funding to
be accomplished.  They've had to go back to establish a greater
funding rate.  Therefore, we feel like it should be retained at
the 75% level.

MR. ALM:
          Excuse me.  Can I ask one question?
          j                                             *
MR. RHODES:
          Yes, Sir.

MR. ALM:
          Excuse me.

          Are these communities that would not have funds in the
current allotment of $18.billion?

-------
                                                           52

MR. RHODES:
          Yes, sir.  Several of these projects are just now
starting through the facilities-planning program, and also into
the Step II grants.

MR. ALM:
          So these are communities that would receive funding
under any new authorizations?

MR. RHODES:
          That's correct.  So if there are future authorizations
for larger amounts, then they ought to be in a position to
receive the full 75%.

MR. ALM:
          Thank you.

MR. RHODES:
          The next paper I'd like to address is Paper 2, the
linfiting of federal funding of reserve capacities to serve pro-
jected growth.  On the surface, after dealing for three solid
years with fighting a priority list, the first thing that occurs
is how do you spread the money and achieve a greater distribution
of funds?  However, after looking at it through the perspective
of municipalities, local governments and a state-wide viewpoint,
our position would be this:  that growth areas should be a guide-
line  of ten years on sewage treatment works — roughly ten to
fifteen or thereabouts -- that it be roughly twenty-five years
or somewhere in this range for interceptors.  The,reason for
this is that, in the state of Florida, the growth pattern is so
significant that it's very, very difficult to project much
farther than this on any reasonable basis, and land use is not a
program function for a federal agency of this nature at this time.
                                          T
          However, there are many small municipalities through-
out the state ~ and I feel like it's true throughout the rest of
this region -- that to impose a limit at this point in time would
cause great problems.  For that reason, we would use these as
general guidelines and recommend that they be instituted as such.

          Further, that the state, in agreement with federal  ;
agencies -- with EPA -- have the opportunity to take each one of
these facility plans and adjust them so that if the situation
warrants it, that we have the opportunity to adjust and to agree
to different variations -- that is, that flexibility is permeated
throughout this meeting today, that we have this flexibility that
if an interceptor is required to produce, over a thirty- or forty-
year period, to be more cost effective, that we have the opportu-'
nity to use that flexibility in our prudence.

-------
                                                           53

          On Paper Number 3, restricting the types of projects
eligible for grant assistance, we, I think, all recognize that
there is never going to be sufficient funds in this country to
finance two or three hundred billions worth of federal water
pollution programs.  It's our basic feeling, then, that over a
reasonable period of time, that, one, that the need survey that
stated the types of typical types of I and II and IVB be the ones
for acceptance rather than Type II and IIIA and IVB also be in-
cluded, that makes it more cost effective, we feel, in the long
run; it doesn't preclude the possibility of building retreatment
capacity where taking out filtration would be more effective.

MR. ALM:
          Would you repeat that proposal?

MR. RHODES:
          Essentially, we concur with the proposal as stated, with
the exceptions that paragraphs III, IIIA and 11 IB also be included.

MR. ALM:
          Okay.

MR. RHODES:
          Paper Number 4, we'd like to present -- that being the
extension of the '77 date for publicly-owned treatment words to
meet water-quality standards.  We, as many, many other states
across the nation, have faced the problem of the 1977 deadline.
We have faced other deadlines -- they're staying close.  Now,
we find ourselves, over a three- or four-year period, with im-
pounded funds, insufficient funds to do the job that was originally
mandated.

          Our basic recommendation would be technical extension
of the deatline, inasmuch as it would give the regulatory
agencies the authority to extend this deadline in cases where
grant money will be made available at a future date; but without
the availability of construction grant funds, it's inequitable
that the local municipalities and governments would expend this
type of money, or to be forced by enforcement actions to move
ahead.

          Further, we concur with the state of Georgia in their
proposal that the NPDES formulate a program that the:loan state-
ment permits be used as an instrument whereby this can be achieved.
But we emphasize that these available funds — that these funds
must be available; and we would further point out that the facility-
planning scope and, also, the Step II Type design money should
have priority in cases of this nature, so that you can get pro-
jects ready to move ahead.  And that project would not be re-
stricted to a Step I or Step II basis.  Otherwise, you'll have
project delays ad infinitum to infinity.

-------
                                                           54

          And, on Paper Number 5, the delegation of a greater
portion of the management of the construction grant funds to the
states, philosophically, we, as a state, would greatly love to
head the program in determining water-quality standards, to
control the entire 92-500.  We've looked at the program, though,
for three years and we've watched the problems that EPA's had in
going through the massive law, and the massive requirements that
are contained therein.  We've also looked at the resources that
have been available at the local level, at the state and at the
federal level; and we've found this:  that there are not adequate
resources at any level to adequately implement Public Law 92-500.

          Based on this, we would say that we would love to have
the delegation of responsibility of 92-500.  However, we'd like
to have it with the stipulation that there would not be second-
guessing, accusations, responses, audits; that we'd have the full
inspection audit program.  And we know that this is an unrealis-
tic approach, that  that'll never happen.

          Therefore, the Cleveland-Wright amendments could pro-
vide for the state delegation of certain basic elements.   We
would certainly support that.

          And, in implementing this -- which we feel like would
have a much better opportunity of producing a project resolution
— we would offer the following suggestions:  It is suggested that
funds for state personnel positions, as a part of the Cleveland
amendments, be authorized at least twelve months, and perhaps
more, in advance of the actual delegation in order to allow the
training and the acquisition of the personnel, the hiring of the
personnel, to carry the program through.

          Secondly, these funds should be in conjunction with
Section 106 grant funds.  That would provide sufficient staff
to handle construction programs in time.  This is a major pro-
blem today.  I'm thoroughly convinced, it is the standing level,
along with delayed regulations, which seem to be--- or, are in
doubt -- are in the process of being done.  Secondly, in order
for these funds to be fit into the state budgeting process cycle,
it is suggested that the funds be allocated or available for allo-
cation at least twelve months before the fiscal year commenced
to allow for proper state programming.

          And, I'll conclude my remarks with that -- that it's
critical that we have these funds in advance, or at least know
what they're going to be, in order that they can be properly
programmed.  Otherwise, you have a program that's not properly
going to be administered.

-------
                                                           55

          Thank you, gentlemen.

MR. ALM:
          Let me ask two questions.  One of them:  You advocated,
as have other speakers advocated, continuing IIIA and IIIA —
that is,  infiltration inflow eligibility and major ravamp of
sewers.  Just for the record, I would like a short statement of
why you feel this is desirable.

MR. RHODES:
          Essentially, what you find is that in many systems,
and we -- I'll have to speak and address that in Florida's first,
because I have some direct knowledge of that. There are many,
many systems that are overloaded hydraulically, primarily due
to infiltration inflow type activity.  If that amount can be re-
duced and a more significant role and more cost effectively in
the overall construction expenditure of our federal dollars, then
we feel like this should be the approach.  However, if it can-
not be done through our cost effectively, then it should be --
        \
MR. ALM:
          One other question for the record:  You indicated that
ten-twenty formula growth was a good guideline but in some
cases cost effective to growth thirty or forty years, in terms
of planning, for interceptors.

MR. RHODES:
          Yes.

MR. ALM:
          The issue is posed in,the papers of whether the federal
government should participate in that.  Obviously, it would allow
localities and states and would be desirable to go ahead and do
that.  With that guidepost, would your answer still be the same
for the federal share?

MR. RHODES:
          Yes, it would.

MR. ALM:                                  -
          Would you feel that the federal government should par-
ticipate in its share of the project even when an advantage is
really cost effectiveness for a community.

MR. RHODES:
          Well, what I would like to really point out there is
what has been brought out by others.  It is:  that if you go
through several large municipalities and have to put large inter-
ceptors in, it doesn't make a whole heck of a lot of difference
whether it's thirty-six inches or forty-two or forty-five in the
overall cost.  And it's certainly better to do that than to try
to put it in five years or fifty years down the road.

-------
                                                           56

MR. ALM:
          Okay, thank you very much.

          Our next speaker is Wes Williams, representing the
Georgia Water Pollution Control Association.  The speaker after
Mr. Williams will be Mr. Philip Searcy.

MR. WILLIAMS:
          I am Wesley B Williams, presenting this statement on
behalf of Stan Weill, president of the Georgia Water and Pol-
lution Control Association.  Mr. Weil! sends his regrets at
not being able to be here today.

          The Georgia Water and Pollution Control Association is
an organization that has about 2,000 members.  It is also af-
filiated with the Water Pollution Control Federation.  I am a
past president of the association and a director to the Water
Pollution Control Federation.  Our membership is made up.of a
broad cross-section of people knowledgeable of local, statewide
and national aspects of water pollution control and the work-
ings of PL 92-500.

          We have had the experience of being involved in the
"National Water Pollution Control Experience" from the early
days of the U.S. Public Health Service involvement to the
present state of affairs.  We look upon that alphabetic evolu-
tion with mixed emotions.

          Our organization supported the development of Public
Law 92-500 and thought that the concept and intent of Congress
was truly responsive to problems with which we had personal
experience.  We did.," however, feel that the timetable allowed
was overly ambitious and questioned the final concept of "zero
discharge" when the current state of the art was considered.
We recognized, however, that little is accomplished without
ambitious goals.

          Our membership has reviewed the basic language and
position papers associated with proposed amendments to PL 92-500.
We have carefully considered past and present experience with
the existing law.  We have assigned representatives to partici-
pate in numerous forums which considered problems associated
with implementation of the act.  This statement is intended to
reflect our judgments growing from this involvement.

          The Georgia Water and Pollution Control Association
believes that our present problems and those forecast for the
future derive from a number of causes.  We believe that the
primary problem, however, is the lack of stability in the basic
implementation of an essentially good law.

-------
                                                           57

          We feel that problems attributable to an overly-
ambitious Congress, a maze of environmental constraints, a
general lack of understanding on the part of the critical
parties in the development chain are paled in comparison by the
problems attributable to "the'continuing proliferation of guide-
lines, program guidance memoranda and guidance from on-high.

          When such changing policy is coupled with misguided
impoundment of funds, there is little reason to look elsewhere
for a means to improve the program and accomplish the desirable
objectives of the act in our lifetime.

          The basic concept of. our recommendations and comments
is that the program must have stability.  Stability of attainable
goals.  Stability of program procedures.  Stability of program
funding level.  Stability of administration and stability of
commitment.

          With these thoughts in mind, our specific comments  on
the five proposed amendments are as follows -- and, Mr. Chairman,
I --  I understand these are issues rather than amendments, as
you previously stated.

          Amendment Number 1, reduction of the federal share.
We are unalterably opposed to such an action.  We would suggest,
instead, adoption of SB 1216 and H.R. 2161 which will provide a
more  equitable allocation of present and future funds and place
a badly-developed "needs formula" in better perspective.

          Amendment Number 2, limiting federal funding of reserve
capacity to serve projected growth.  We are opposed to the amend-
ment.  We feel that the concern indicated is not justified and that
existing procedures relating to cost effective analysis and
alternative analysis for such facilities is a more intelligent
means of administering public funds.

          We offer the suggestion that H.R.3658, which would
require Congressional review of guidelines and administrative
rules, be incorporated into PL 92-500.  Such an amendment would
be far more constructive in providing needed stability rather
than  overreacting to a mythical needs number.

          Amendment Number 3, restricting the types of projects
eligible for grant assistance.  We are opposed to the proposed
amendment.  We believe that each of the possible project types
are related to sources of pollution that, in a given instance,
can prevent attainment of the fundamental objectives of the act.

-------
                                                           58

          We feel quite strongly that intelligent cost effective
analysis required by existing regulations provides a proper  -
device for decision making to allow a businesslike approach to
project eligibility.  We should attack the pollution sources that
give us the most benefits for the dollar spent without regard
to the type of project involved.

          Amendment Number 4, extending the 1977 date for the
publicly-owned treatment works to meet water quality standards.
We concur with the concept of the proposed amendment.  We would
propose, however, that the language of such an amendment provide
for attainment of a more conventionally accepted version of
secondary treatment by 1980.   That the goal of attainment of fish
and wildlife quality be established for 1985 and that a decision
on the issue of "zero discharge" be reserved until after 1980.

          The rationale for such a proposal is that acceptance
of a well-operated trickling filter plant or waste stabilization
pond effluent as "secondary treatment" would markedly reduce
wasteful early replacement of such economically operated treat-   "f
ment systems.

          Beyond 1980, the ultimate receiving water quality
would control type of treatment required.

          Amendment Number 5, delegating a greater portion of
the responsibility of management of the construction grants
program to the states.  We concur.  We believe that adoption
of H.R. 2175 — Cleveland -- .coupled with recommendations out-
lined for Amendment 2 will deal with the fundamental program
flaws.  The Levitas Bill will complement the proposed Cleveland  '
Bill and greatly improve the chance for desired program stability.

          As a final statement, I would like to say that our
association also generally endorses the Water Pollution Control
Federation's position paper entitled "Certain Amendments to
PL 92-500."

          Thank you.           ;

MR. ALM:
          Thank you very much.

          Any questions?

          (No response)

-------
                                                           59

MR. ALM:
          I would just make one comment:  I certainly agree with
you on the need for stability for this program.  That's one
of the objectives to look ahead at over a longer period of time,
when we get to that level.  It's one of the critical needs of
the program.  I very much agree with your comments.

          Thank you.

          Our next speaker will be Mr. Philip Searcy, represent-
ing the Florida Institute of Consulting Engineers.

          (Pause)

MR. ALM:
          Do you have a written statement?

MR. SEARCY:
          (Shakes head.)

MR. ALM:
          Will you have it —

MR. SEARCY:
          Yes, I will.  My comments were completed about 7:00
o'clock this morning on the plane.  Upon my .return,  I'll have
them  typed  up.

MR. ALM:
          Those are usually  the best kind.

MR. SEARCY:
          Distinguished panel, ladies and gentlemen, my name
is Philip Searcy.  My business address is 2131 Hollywood Boulevard,
Hollywood,  Florida.  As stated, I'm representing the Florida
Institute of Consulting Engineers and, also, the Florida Engineer-
ing Society.

          My purpose in journeying to this hearing was to be tact-
ful and gracious and emphatic, and to be polite, but firm and to
the point.  Out of respect to the others who also want to be to
the point,  I'm just going to skip the first group of directives
and get to  the bottom line.

          We are opposed to Amendment Number 1; Amendment Number
2 is  no good; Amendment Number 3 is okay, with some  reservations;
Amendment Number 4 is fine, if you choose the right  alternative;
and Amendment Number 5 is great if you can do it, really delegate
— and  I have underlined "really."

-------
          I need to explain a little bit how we got to that bot-
tom line.

          And, briefly, regarding Amendment Number 1, which is
the reduction of grant, Public Law 92-500 was a very positive
act.   In fact, it was considered idealistic from many parts.
In fact, it was considered idealistic from many parts.  It took
struggling pollution-control  effort, set forth specific goals,
provided some muscle and included a very important incentive --
increased grants.

          Many projects are under construction today, many more
are backlogged waiting for funds, many are in Step I and Step II
stages and far too many haven't even started yet.  Caught in
the middle are the many counties, cities and communities who
have banked on the good faith of this act and its 75% grant pro-
gram.

          To reduce the grant at this time would be certain to
rob the grant, the EPA and the Congress of the momentum gained
to date.  At the same time, the increased local  share would send
many projects into economic orbits which would eventually see
the projects landing in some courtroom for determination of
progress.   And I have a question mark after "progress."

          There is mention of the reduction of the federal  share
to as low as 55%.  That's an 80% increase in the local share
during this period of high unemployment and economic distress
when any increase in local demands is critical.   80% would be
disastrous.  The nation's sagging economy has already stopped
many water pollution control  projects because politically-sen-
sitive, public officials are unwilling to thrust new sewer assess-
ment and rate increases as additional burdens to their already
over-taxed constituents.  These are people that believe in environ-
mental protection, many of whom will work long and hard to comply
with the state'and federal programs.

          The proposal to reduce the federal share to spread
the money to more projects is based upon the assumption that
additional funds will not be forthcoming.  That assumption is
the problem.

          And the solution is not the reduction of grants but
rather the realignment of federal spending.  If we're going to
have a viable water pollution control program, let's quit playing
dodgeball  or keepaway and get on with a positive program.  I
believe, in my own mind, that that's what this hearing is really
designed to deal  with.  We've got to realign ourselves, we've
got to get this stability we're talking about.  And Congress,
the people who brought forth the act, now must fund it.

-------
                                                           61

          Incidentally, we believe the ratio of local to federal
share has very little — in some cases, none — influence on the
accountability or cost-effective design, project management of
both constructive operation and maintenance.  And that statement
is based on a great deal of experience within my organization,
the Florida Institute of Consulting Engineers, with both the
EPA grant program and other federal grant programs.

          The proposed Amendment Number 2, which would limit
reserve capacity, again, faces the problem which is the assump-
tion that federal funds would not be available, and we're try-
ing to find means of moving the program forward.

          The solution, again, is realignment of federal  spending
to meet the needs, if that's not too idealistic to expect. And,
if that is not possible, then neither will the program be possible
— at least in a reasonable period of time.  That's been concluded
previously.

          But cost effectiveness must be a primary consideration
for determining reserve capacity.  Setting arbitrary limits in
law will automatically narrow cost-effective determinations;
but what may appear to stretch or save federal dollars at this
time may prove to make the next stage costs unreasonably high.

          There is a great need for a high level of flexibility
in sizing pollution control facilities.  We call for faith in
the ability of the design engineers, the leaders of communities
and provisional staffs of the states and EPA to arrive at proper
reserve capacities.  If there are those that would take advantage
of such flexibility -- and there are -- you now have the respon-
sibility and the authority to control the final decision, Cali-
fornia's system, as stated in the EPA paper, is administratively
expensive — we don't need that.  We need the limited funds that
are available returned as directly as possible to the communities
-- and'I underlined "returned."

          Regarding the secondary environmental impacts of growth
that could result from reserve capacity, we believe that issue
belongs in the family planning program and not in the water pol-
lution control program.  We do not believe that people stop to
consider the reserve capacity in pollution control facilities
in mapping out population control.  There may be, to some
measurable extend, places where people attempt to control it by
controlling such reserve capacity; but to do so is considered
improper.  If the people want federal population and land-use
controls, then let their elected Congressional delegates estab-
lish controls openly and directly.

-------
                                                           62

          Amendment 3, which restricts eligibility, there is a
lot of discussion on this paper, and all the way through — and
I've caught myself doing the same thing -- talking about incen-
tives.  Let's face it, for the most part — this is sad testimony
~ but, for the most part, many communities build pollution
control facilities because they're required to build them, often
by the law, oftentimes because of crises that have occurred --
but it's a requirement.  If the cost per customer — and I have
in parentheses "voter" but I marked it out -- If the cost per
customer is not too unreasonable, communities will work with
the program.  When the cost per customer is not too .unreasonable,
communities will work with the program.  When the cost per customer
becomes too high — and no one can really predict what that break-
ing point is -- the communities will fight against the program.
And, unfortunately, many believe we are rapidly approaching that
point.

          The key to the per-customer cost is the amount of the
grant and the eligibility.  Therefore, if you're to restrict the
projects for eligibility -- and serious consideration should
be given to relaxed compensation -- requirements, the entire
program could be thrown into reverse by a strong reaction or a
possibly prohibitive requirement.  All parties would lose if that
happens.

          Eligibility must be tied to the availability of funds.
This is done now.  Whatever reductions are made in eligibility
— and, if any -- we, in general, agree with the comments of the
state pollution control program in Florida.  And we are therefore
saying that, at least leave in the eligibility rights of infiltra-
tion inflow — because we feel the correction of those problems
is so closely related to the cost of operation and maintenance
of treatment works that correction programs should be a definite
part of those treatment projects.

          Amendment 4, regarding the extension of compliance dead-
lines, we feel it would be unequitable to simply extend the '77
deadlines to 1983.  Many communities have complied in good faith,
others have not.  Those that have not should not be given unfair
advantage.  There are, of course, some projects which deserve
additional time and the law should provide an honorable limiting.

          Alternative 4, presented in EPA's paper, is considered
most acceptable.  This provides authority for the administrator
to grant compliance and schedule extensions on an ad hoc basis
based upon the availability of federal funds.  The paper discusses
-- and rightly so -- a very significant funding problem associated
with this alternative.  And, of course, due to the 70% grant re-

-------
                                                           63

quirement for eligible projects -- however, that goes back again
to the basic problem, which is basic to the entire program, one
which must be fixed by the Congress.
    6
          Amendment 5, delegation of management to the states, we
believe the delegation of more functions to the states is healthy.
The program is bogged down today by far too much duplication of
effort and the professional staffs of EPA.  And some documents
are sometimes reviewed by EPA more than once.  The communities,
the federal programs, the taxpayers and the environment which we
are trying to protect pay those bills in lost time and money.
We believe the administration of the program should be as close
to the people and their projects as possible.

          Florida has the potential to administrate the grant
program in a sound and responsible manner, and we would like to
see a greater delegation of functions.  However, we would not like
to see a store-front or false delegation.  If the proposed delega-
tion is to be so closely scrutinized by EPA that states must con-
stantly look over their shoulders to see how they're doing, then
let's forget it.

          We need delegation of review and approval of all docu-
ments, with substantial exceptions, by EPA; and we need to have
this delegation extended in an honest manner.

          In concluding my remarks on behalf of the Florida
Institute of Consulting Engineers and the Florida Engineering
Society, I want to express our appreciation for the opportunity
to be heard.  Our comments are given in the spirit of cooperation,
dedication and concern for EPA's mission to protect the future
of the public that we're all trying to serve.

          Thank you.

MR. ALM:
          Thank you very much.

MR. SEARCY:
          Any questions?

MR. ALM:
          Yeah.  On the suggestion in the paper for a ten-year
planning span for sewerage treatment plants and twenty-to-twenty-
five-year span for interceptors, do you oppose any system like
that?  Do you disagree that most of them fall in the range of ten
to twenty?  Is the source of your feeling just in your need for
flexibility or what?  I'm not quite certain what your position is.

-------
                                                           64

MR. SEARCY:
          Well, our position is that each project has its own sizing
considerations.  In one situation you may logically design for ten
years and in another situation you might logically design for a
much longer period of time.  And we believe that, frankly, al-
though there are a lot of other reported comments there, frankly,
we haven't experienced the kinds of problems which are to the
extent that's insinuated in the statement.  And we believe that
the professional engineers, the professional staffs of EPA and the
states have done a very admirable job of balancing out the design
period basis.  And, as far as paying for reserve capacity, we feel
it's part of the project.  And if you don't pay for it now, then
in a short period of time people are going to come in and have
other needs that are going to be even greater.   I think you need
to participate in the whole program.

MR. ALM:
          Thank you very much.

MR. SEARCY:
          Thank you.

MR. ALM:
          Our next speaker will be Mr.  William Meadows, represent-
ing G. Reynolds Watkins, consulting engineers.

          (No response)

MR. ALM:
          I guess we've lost a speaker.
                                                         f-i,'
          The next speaker is Julian Bell, representing the City
of Chattanooga.  The speaker after that will be William M.  Lee.

          Pardon me; I'm going to have  to leave the podium
very briefly.

MR. BELL:
          I'd first like to represent the Tennessee Municipal
League, now in session in Nashville, Tennessee, and bring forth
this resolution:

          "The Tennessee Municipal League, assembled in its
thirty-sixth annual conference, opposes  the amendments to the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act proposed by the Environmental
Protection Agency for submission to Congress in July, 1975, includ-
ing the following specific proposals:  One, reduction in the
federal share from 75% to 55% of project costs; two, the limita-
tion of federal aid to serve only the needs of existing popula-

-------
                                                           65

tions instead of aiding facilities to serve future growth; and,
three, the restriction of the types of projects eligible."

          This paper was drafted at the Tennessee Municipal
League's legislative committee meeting and approved by the league.

          Speaking to the position papers, in review of the pro-
posal for reducing the federal grant level from 75% to 55%, we
find little logic in the supporting arguments.  One, if the
federal funds are not adequate, so might the local funds be in-
adequate.  We, as local taxpayers and home owners, support both
the federal and local governments.  Indeed, you're only placing
a lower priority on this program.

          Statements were made in the supporting arguments that
the local officials are not serious or diligent in carrying out
the cost effectiveness of the program.   We contend that we're
both serious and directly responsible to our taxpayers and voters.

          You have obviously side-stepped an issue in the respon-
sibility of the cost or the effective cost on local government.
We will see it first in our bond indebtedness and secondly in our
sewer service charges.

          In noting the questions posed in the Federal Register,
first, it is not reasonable that we raise more money locally to
meet the funding requirements; and it will bring on more delays
in local municipalities and local projects.

          Speaking for the state of Tennessee, we have no indica-
tion that the state would have any state funding without repay-
ment.  We have a bond-repayment program in Tennessee and, if you
are not aware the economic situation of the state government in
Tennessee is at this time experiencing a shortage of revenue and
the apparent reduction of activities.  So, possibly the federal
and state government of Tennessee are in parallel positions.

          All communities are experiencing difficulty in raising
monies in open capital markets.  During the coming months, with
the federal reserve being forced back into the open market to
finance the federal department, we can expect higher interest
rates and a more restrictive bond market.

          The tragic result in the reduction of the federal share
is that it flaunts a basic intent of the law.  Many municipalities
based their revenue and bond indebtedness on the 25% ratio.  Any
variation from this places the municipalities in an unstable
economic position.

-------
                                                           66

          In Paper Number 2, it appears that you are adopting
legislative controls to replace sound engineering judgments.
I shudder to think of a bureaucratic dictatorship setting the
growth limits for our communities.  In response to the ten-year
limit on plant facilities or treatment facilities, our program
outlines in Chattanooga almost continual construction in our
plants in increments.  However, we do not look forward to the
continued disruption of our community with the installation of  '
interceptor or collector lines.  We contend that these lines   '>'•'
must be supported on a forty or fifty-year growth period.

          On the questions supported on Page 23109 of the Federal"1
Register, we do not believe that the current practices experienced
lead to the overdesign of facilities, as there are reviews now
at the local level -- both state and federal level — and that
the application of our professional engineering consultants with
the latest technology available would lead to proper design.
If there is overdesign, it is a result of the misapplication
of all that we, as a group, must interpret as the best available
technology.

          On the installation of sewers restricting the popula-
tion to a twenty-year period with the local  government picking
up 100% of the cost of the reserve capacity we see this as just
another element to reduce the federal funding share.  A slight
decrease in the line size from the present construction will
result only in a small incremental decrease in cost.  However,
if use causes their replacement, it will result in a dynamic in-
crease in cost.  Of course, we will gain some economic benefit
over the short run.
                                                                  f

          Our statements relative to Paper 3, the eligibility of
only secondary and tertiary treatment facilities and interceptor
sewer lines restricts the local municipalities'  earning capacity.
We gain revenue from the number of customers we have tied on to  !
our sewer systems; the broader the base, the less we'll experience
in sewer service charges and the broader our bond indebtedness
can become.

          On the Chattanooga system, the example is as follows:
We anticipate $180 million worth of growth.   Following the Paper
Number 3, Chattanooga would experience $212 million worth of    'bi
construction before it tied on one additional customer.  At that
time, we'd be able to bond all $60 million worth of collectors at
100% local funds, assessing the bond indebtedness in Chattanooga
in the following manner:  25% of 121 million, plus 31 million,
would equal a $31 million addition.  And, added to the $60 mil-  '
lion, we're talking about a bond indebtedness that would approxi-

-------
                                                           67

mate $91 million to be shared by 150,000 people, or approximately
65,000 customers.  To further reduce the ration to the 55-45
level increases the bond indebtedness to $115 million and is
approximately four times the existing sewer service charge if we
pay bond payments alone.  It is absurd to think a town of this
size can support this indebtedness.

          Our position relative to papers 4 and 5, we elected
to have no comment.  We feel that the state of Tennessee can
comment adequately on its own position.

          Now, we trust that the federal government would remain
firm in its guideline procedures.  We're in this position today
because we have attempted, in Chattanooga, to follow the guide-
lines, rules and procedures as laid down under 92-500.  The basic
structure of the program appears to be sound.  If our task is
larger than we first viewed, and more costly, then possibly we
should work toegther -- but not by shifting responsibility of
financial fortune.

MR. ALM:
          Thank you very much; let me ask two questions:  With
respect to the question of the situation in Chattanooga, would
financing 45% of the project costs exceed the limit of Chattanooga?

MR. BELL:
          It appears that it would, yes.

MR. ALM:
          Okay, would you be using general obligation funds or
revenue funds?

MR. BELL:
          No; we -- Well, first of all, are supported by the
sewer service charge, so they'd be sewer charge bond revenue;
they'd have to be totally paid by the charges from the system.

MR. ALM:
          Okay; and, finally, wouldn't there be a difficulty in
raising the financing of a 45% level?

MR. BELL:
          Yes; I think politically we'd experience difficulty.
We'd also experience difficulty on the bond market.  We've reached
a ceiling where we're no longer allowed to bond.

MR. ALM:
          If this program followed the same format as the previous
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, with the states paying 25%,
would you still feel the same way?

-------
                                                           68

MR. BELL:
          The state has a loan position -- Our loan rate is ap-
proximately the same as the state's.  So, we would simply be bor-
rowing money from the state, in essence.

MR. ALM:
          What I gather is that, from the statement, if and the
city people -- if a grant program were available not the state,
but if the federal government put up 55% and the local government
put up 25%, the burden at the local  level obviously would be
acceptable; so that it gets to be a  question of the state level.
I just talked to both the State of Georgia and Kentucky, and
Florida, about it -- excuse me, Georgia and Florida.

MR. BELL:
          I think the State of Tennessee would have to address
that — whether they may or may not  be aware that the governor
of Tennessee has called for a general, across-the-board reduction
of state expenditures.  He seems to  have run short of this year's
budget.

MR. ALM:
          Thank you very much.

          Our next speaker is William M.  Lee, representing the
Alabama Utility Contractors Association.

          (No response)

MR. ALM:
          I think we've lost another speaker.

          The next speaker is Dale Twachtmann, representing the
City of Tampa, Florida.  We may or may not have time for one
other speaker; if we do have time it will be Mr.  Calhoun.

MR. TWACHTMANN:
          Gentlemen, I don't have any written comments -- because
the first ones were so angry that I  tore them up and rewrote these
this morning, and got here and chatted with you and found that the
color of this hearing was so much more pleasant than the repugnant
nature of the three papers that I had read, that I believe that
this can be a constructive operation here this morning.

MR. ALM:
          I appreciate that and --

MR. TWACHTMANN:
          I appreciate that.

-------
                                                           69

MR.'ALM: ,
          The administrator, Mr. Twachtmann, says that — always
says that you've got to have thick skin and tough hide to work
for EPA.

MR. TWACHTMANN:
          All of us appreciate that very well, I think.  I think
that "some of us are so sensitive that we don't even like the matter
of being called a "grantee."  We think it's all our money, it's
the United States', and part of it comes from local sources and
part of it comes from federal sources.  And we would like to be
thought of as a local cooperator working with the United States.
And I don't like the londlord-tenant relationship, the grantor-
grantee.  That's just to show how sensitive we really can be.

          Congress intended the 92-500 to have a 75% grant in it.
And those of you, expecially, who worked in it and those of us
who watched it know that that was a bitter debate.  And it took
a -- They had to come with a strong percentage because they
wanted a strong law; and they wanted a strong law because they
wanted action.  And it took a lot of courage to go to 75%.  And
those battles have been fought; I see no reason to fight them over
again.

          Of course it'll delay the work if you reduce it from 75%.
The local cooperatives are strapped now for money.  Tampa's is
very nearly the largest program in the state of Florida; it'll
be over $200 million in total program before we finish.  And the
total for wastewater improvement, our connection fees now for new
customers are $800, our sewer improvement charges are $600, our
rates per thousand gallons are right not 76<£ to take away 1,000
gallons of wastewater from your home — it's going to go to $1
next year.  And the water bond issue that I'm working on< right
now, in my dual responsibility of promoter of water and sewer in
the city of Tampa, we expect to 7%% in a few months, if not more,
for a water bond issue.  Municipal bonds are at least at 7%%; it's
very difficult for us to pass.

          Now, the needs survey is what scared everybody.   Well,
the needs survey is screwed up.  Because you put that stormwater
thing in it.  Everybody knows that.  And, to put the program
on the track, we're probably going to have to go back to look
straight at sewers.  And probably adjust our priority about storm-
water back somewhat.  I think we'll just have to do that.

          I'm concerned, as you are, about the lack of money
that we all have.  But, to us, to our way of thinking, the way
to approach it is to look at sewers and put that stormwater thing
back in priority.  That's what caused that dollar thing to go
completely out of sight; nobody knew how to approach the problem.

-------
                                                           70

The accountability matter is what really affronted a lot of people.
Cost-effective rules shouldn't change just because of where the
money comes from, and people get, I think, really concerned about
your implications -- the paper's implications -- in that regard.

          If we reduce the percentage it will absolutely slow
construction and it will have a negative effect on the quality of
water in the United States, there just isn't any doubt about it.
From our viewpoint, it would be better, perhaps, to adjust the
eligibles somewhat, but I'll get to that in a minute.

          Okay, Paper Number 2.  For those of us that live in
Florida in what I prefer to call the point of the environmental
wedge, you can recognize a no-growth deal real quick -- and
that's, I think, what this is.  This is just another way that
some have found to bring about no-growth consideration into this
program.  In Florida we can't prevent growth; we know it's going to
happen.  We try to channel it and we try to control it.  We can't
stop it.  The building of a fence at the Georgia line, which is
often talked about, is never going to work, and most of them know
it.  This is still America and people will go where they want to
go.  And we have -- Our problem is as much migration as anything.  ,
We have to look to that and understand it.

          And local officials are very jealous of this business
of being responsible for growth, as you already heard here' four-
teen times this morning.  And it just won't work.

          Now, in the Tampa system itself, I think we're really
quite clean.  Our program was planned in 1971 before the passage
of Public Law 92-500.  So, whatever we plan to build, we were
going to build regardless.  And so, I think, that many other com-
munities would do the same thing; there are certain things that
have to be built.

          And the ten-twenty idea, as I understood the papers,
might put this decision making in the hands of state planners,
if there was a state grant program.  And in Florida we have no
state grant program.  Again, as other states have indicated, some
states have no state grant program.  We don't have one in Florida.
State planners are not necessarily smarter than our local planners,
and they may not -- because they're just not living there day-to-
day.   And so, decisions made by state officials on a ten-twenty
thing with no day-to-day responsibility in the programs may be
very difficult, for Tampa at least, limiting treatment plants
to a ten-year reserve capacity and sewage to twenty years is
unbelievably shortsighted.  And it just would not be cost effective
at all.   It's been adequately stated here this morning that, in

-------
                                                           71

an urban environment, to go more than one time down these very
complicated right of ways where you can hardly find the place
to put the sewer in -- a forth-two-inch or a fifty-four-imch --
the first time, to go there the second time and think you're going
to find space is almost fool-hearty.  Sometimes the space is
simply not going to be available for the second line.  You have to
have a pretty good, long-range look at these things.  And it just
won't work.

          And, besides, 92-500 is what brought about the fact of
looking at the regional plan, through 201, so when you designate
a regional treatment plant, you've added a lot of possible growth
areas to us that we have to face.

          Now, to get around to the matter of adjusting eligibles:
If the United States is in very serious financial trouble, perhaps
that's one of the things that has to be done.  And the citizens
of the United States want to, of course, improve water quality in
this nation.  And that's what you want to do and that's what we
want to do.  And so, I believe, as I said earlier, putting our
emphasis on sewage treatment and take the emphasis on stormwater
down the wheel somewhat.  But I can see, from what I've heard here
this morning.  That that may not work for every state.  So,
maybe each state should prioritize these thing in accordance with
what is important in their state.  In the state of Florida we have
almost no combined sewers; so we might be able to approach it in
a different way from other states would that have a combined-sewer
problem.  But, the top priorities would have to go, it would seem
to us, to treatment plants and interceptor sewers.  And if the
United States is really in deep financial trouble and needs its
burdens reduced, then we should prioritize these eligible items.
And we would suggest that you put treatment and control of the
stormwaters near the bottom of the list; and, from our point of
view, correction of the combined stormsewer, or combined sewer
overflows, down there someplace as well.  And perhaps, I think,
this is probably bold, even I could go down some in major sewer
— oxidation ponds go down in some and, lastly, collector sewers
go down in some.

          Now, some of my friends in the room will say, "Why
even talk about letting collector sewers go down?"  Well, that's
the one thing that the man in the street can understnad.  If you
have to explain to him why he has to pay something extra for
something more, he'll understand about the sewer being built out
in front of his house but he isn't going to understand that about
treatment plants and interceptor sewers.  And it's very difficult
to do that on those items where he pays on a flat foot or a
special collector basis.  As far as the collector basis, you might
sell  it.  If the United States is in desparate trouble, as we are,
then you might have to all look at that together.  And that's the
point on that.

-------
                                                           72

          But if decisions have to be made on this matter --
and this really is a problem to us — although we don't agree with
these amendments, if decisions of this type are going to be made,r
these really tough decisions, then they have to be made very
quickly.  Because, it is presently political dynamite to go
ahead with 100% local funding on anything as long as the pos-
sibility of getting 75% federal money exists.

          And, on Paper 4, Alternative 2 is preferable.  Georgia's
idea is absolutely correct:  use NPDES and enforce it on a steady
basis.  If not, we would think that Alternative 5 is the second
choice, but it may allow somebody to be dilatory and is less
desirable than Alternative 2.

          On Number 5, Paper Number 5, some movement of the work
to the states' level is desirable.  But it would not be --
shouldn't be considered as a cure-all.  And I don't believe I
even agree that it ought to be a total delegation.  The states
will have trouble financing a competent staff and, getting that  -
staff adjusted, as Mr. Rhodes said so well, to the.complexity
of a program of this massiveness is going to be very difficult
for most states; and EPA will have to continue its supervisory
role.  But there must be some way to make a team effort of it
and not to do all of these things twice.  And we are now doing
a lot of things twice -- we're reviewing at the state level and
we review again at the federal level.  And it's hard to do it
all twice.

          Well, after being here and seeing the tenor of the meet-
ing, I think I'd like to say we appreciate being asked to come.
In the past, perhaps that hasn't been done as often as it should.
I think that the production of these papers, although they were
as difficult as they were for some of us, the attitude that each
of you have shown here seems to be honest attitudes about wanting
indications from those of us who live with this day to day; and
we certainly hope you will consider them carefully.

MR. ALM:
          Let me assure you, that is the case.  Not only the people
on the panel, but the record will be reviewed by others.  And I
plan to review the entire record again myself.  I always make
these statements and then rue the day I did; but I will.    '

          Let me ask you one question.  On the question of eligi-
bilities, one suggestion has been put to us as to fund eligibi-
lities of different percentage rates; let me throw out a sugges-
tion that I have, one where -- that you fund treatment plants at
75%, interceptors at the rate of 65%, combined-sewer overflows  ,
at the rate of 55%, collector sewers at 45% and stormwater dis-
charges at 35%.  Obviously, anybody can make up their own series
of percentages, but I would be interested in your reaction to the
notion of differing percentage levels for different types of eligi-
bilities.

-------
                                                           73

MR.  TWACMTMANN:^^   '
          I never heard of that before you mentioned it about an
hour ago.  And it\— I don't really think that I have devoted
enough time to thinking about it.  It sounds like it has possibili-
ties, and I think that would be as far as I'd want to go right now.
I think all of these things have so many ramifications that when
you get into a group of people and you talk about it and you kick
it around, other guys come up with some great ideas about, you;
know, the complications of doing things like that.  And, just off
the cuff, I'm not;certain how-that would work. -But it is an
interesting approach and one that may work.

MR. ALM:
          Well, I threw the idea out to you late -- just at the
beginning of this session.  It was not in our information or
materials.

          If any of you have any thoughts about this, we'd be
interested in just receiving your comments directly.   Also, those
speakers who will be with us this afternoon, you may want to give
some thought to this and see whether you want to make a recommenda-
tion in this hearing.

          I have no further questions; do you Jack?

MR. RHETT:
          The only thing -- again, it's more, I guess, the point
— and I understand, really, what you were saying on this ten-
twenty or zero end of the business:  It wasn't a growth rate at
all; it was strictly a funding thing.  And I think we ought to
try to keep this clear.

          And another — I think somebody here, one or two speakers
-- maybe four -- hit it right dead on the nose.  We're talking
about, you know, 92-500 is a backlog-type law, and who funds to
the future.  I think the —I know I get a little sensitive, as an
engineer, when somebond stands there and says:  "It is -- "ef-
fectively — "Don't you understand that to design you have to
look at individual plants?" — and this nature.  Of course I
understand it.  But it was not the idea of who funds, and where
it is practical to shift this funding and still get cost-effective,
properly-designed plans.

MR. TWACHTMANN:
          I understand.

MR. ALM:
          I think, at this point in time, we ought to have a re-
cess until 1:30.

-------
                                                           74

          Let me make one general  comment:   I think the quality
of the presentations, and their construct!veness is really very
impressive.   I thank you for your  kind words about our role in
this, and I  would like to compliment all  those who have given
statements.

          Why don't we convene again at 1:30 with Mr.  Calhoun
from the city of Hollywood.

          (Whereupon, the hearing  was recessed until  1:30 p.m.
           the same afternoon.)

-------
                                                           75

             AFTERNOON   SESSION


MR. ALM:
          I think we'll try to reconvene.

          (Pause)

MR. ALM:
          All right, why don't we reconvene.

          We have seven more speakers on the agenda at this
point in time.  When we're finished with the speakers, I thought
I'd open up the floor for any questions that any of you might
have.

          Why don't we begin with Mr. T. P. Calhoun, who is
representing the city of Hollywood.

MR. CALHOUN:
          Thank you.

          I come to you in a little different role than the others
that have appeared this morning -- I'm not an engineer nor a
contractor; I'm the operator of a sewage treatment plant in a city
of 130,000 and the manager of a water and sewer system.  My role
is selling what has been sold to us to the customer.

          In 140,000 people, we, in 1964 — '66 -- '64 and '66,
the City of Hollywood, together with some surrounding cities in
South Broward, did work toward regionalization and we did move
toward regionalization.  As a result, we now have been identified
as the South Broward Pollution Control Facility.  We will be
servicing — will be in the process of phasing out twenty-one
sewage treatment plants, with the enlargement and extension of
our plant facilities.

          We have been given the role of enforcer, so to speak,
of 92-500, somewhat reluctantly at times, although we actively
sought it in 1964-66.  We were in trouble, as many other cities
were in trouble at that time, facing expansion.  We looked around
for new partners into our business venture and we fund them:   the
neighboring cities.  The neighboring cities are small, bedroom
communities to us and to Fort Lauderdale and to Miami.  They are,
by nature, not that sewer-minded, sewer-water; they are more
recreation-minded, Little League-minded.  They are politicians;
they come from Little League organizations, civic groups, things
of this nature.  If they're there more than two years, that's quite
often a record — they get the ballparks, they get the lighting
for the Little League and they've satisfied their needs and they
go on into either the state legislature or other areas of endeavor.

-------
                                                           76

          We — and I say "we," I've been in Hollywood eighteen
years as a sewage plant operator --I'm now director of utilities.
But the person in my field is exposed day in and day out to the
question of "Why is my sewer rate so high? Why do I need a sewer?
I have a perfectly-operating septic tank.  My door is being
broken down by criminals; my house is burning down.  I don't need
a sewer to stop the fellow that's at the jalousie jerking on
the jalousie every night."  Or, "I don't need sewers, necessarily,
to stop the fires that are burning a vacant lot next to me and
threatening my home.  My septic tank is not a threat to my home."
I'll probably wind up this afternoon sounding like an applicant
for an LLEA grant, but, let's face it, that's where the competition
is for the dollar that we're out there every day trying to scrounge
through budgetary sessions, through rate increases, facing a room
of 250 irate citizens who can't buy the need for a sewer.  If
you went over there and gave it to them for zero, they're not
anxious to receive it.

          We just went through a program within the last two years
of attempting to sell a sewer-collection system and what we call
our "central area sewers."  There is potentially 7100 connections
to those in that area,  7100 eventually; and "eventually" might
-- twenty or thirty years from now — provide pretty good income
to our system.  'Right now, those, perhaps, 7100 connections,
depending on when they come on the line, and if the city's fathers
put in a ten-year payment plan for assessments, you know the cash
flow isn't going to be there until the ninth or ninth-and-a-half,
or when we put liens on and property is sold twenty years from now.
So, we're not looking at an immediate cash flow from 7100 connec-
tions.  Hopefully, a good amount of that dollar will flow in.

          We are faced with the problem of cash flow, of the
competition for the dollar.  Our country, Breward County, Florida,
has a regulation that is going to require advanced waste treatment
prior to any state or federal regulation.  We're faced with buy-
ing land adjacent to our 36-mi11 ion-gal Ion sewage treatment plant,
which is currently being upgraded at a cost of $23 million, feder-
ally financed to sixteen of that.  So, we're going to have to buy
— possibly buy land with a gun at our head at $55,000 an acre;
and we'll probably need thirty to forty acres.  It's swampland.
$50,000 an acre.  Now, up in Kentucky, I imagine, $50,000 buys
you an awful lot of land; $50,000 in south Florida buys you one
acre that is flooded half the year.

          Competition for that dollar is advanced waste-treatment
requirements for land, but the police -- Hollywood, has had --
it had last year a 41% increase in crime.  That's the largest
crime-rate advance in the country.  Now, the person that has to
part with $800 for a sewer collection, $600 for a capital fee

-------
                                                           77

charge — which is being proposed shortly -- and a sewer hookup
of seven or $800, is not too anxious to do that.  The competi-
tion in our budget session currently is going to police.

          I address Issue Number 1, or Paper Number 1, or Thought
Number 1, that's being discussed today:  We can't make it without
75%.  And many of the other small cities — "small cities,"
140,000, if that's "small'K-- you pick up your own hometown paper
and you either read, depending on which night it is, sewers or
crime most likely.  Most cities have done one hell of a job on
crime:  They've driven it all to south Florida.

          (Laughter)

MR. CALHOUN:
          Every criminal in the country is in south Florida.
Miami is doing an awfully good job:  They're driving them north
of the county line, into south Broward.  Which happens to be
Hollywood.  Fort Lauderdale has a new computer for crime recog-
nition, new radio systems.  They're driving them out of Fort
Lauderdale, into Hollywood.  That dollar that's available for
us is going to crime; it's not going to sewers.  We're carrying
our own load in the water section.  So, Issue Number 1  is vital
at 75%.

          Our O&M costs for the plant that we're currently building
-- we now have a 36-mi11 ion-gal Ion primary treatment plant that was
legislated into absolenscence in about a half an hour by the
State of Florida Legislature four or five years ago -- our O&M
costs, electric alone, are $10,000 a month.  Our electric costs
alone are $10,000 a month for that plant alone-  The new plant
the we're currently upgrading, which will be ready in about a
year, is going to be, at the same loading factor, $94,000 a month.

          Now, we're telling people that "your $3.50 monthly sewer
is probably going to look like $22 very shortly."  "Why?"  "Because
of O&M."  "Okay; I'm glad. ,  I asked for clean water, I asked
for clean air.  I'm willing to pay a water and sewer bill that
might look like an electric bill when I'm running the air condi-
tioner.  But Irm not willing to pay $1200 for an assessment for a
new sewer when my septic tank is operating perfectly."   And
Hollywood celebrates -- we're very fortunate, next year we're
celebrating our fiftieth anniversary as a city along with the
country celebrating its bicentennial.  But their septic ta—
there are septic tanks down there that people have been using
for fifty years.  And they cannot buy the thought,of sewers.
And if we start talking anything less than 75% -- and the sliding
scale appeals to me personally, that there might be some merit in
that ~ we're not going to be able to make it; we're going to

-------
                                                           78

have a revolt.  We're going to have a revolt in the cities.  There
aren't the dollars.  I've been out last week trying to sell a
one-man garbage program to reduce garbage fees, a one-man truck.
We very shortly get around to the water, "What's it going to
cost me for the water?"  We're building a 40-nrillion-gallon water
plant in order to fill up a 36-mi11 ion-gall on sewage plant that we,
hopefully, are looking for the revenue, looking for the customers.

          Limiting the reserve capacity.  We have a strip, let's
say, eight miles long in our "Gold Coast Area" of south Florida.
That eight miles have been developed in forty or fifty years.
There's 76,000 empty units in Dade and Broward County now.  But
somebody mentioned a fence at the Florida line — the representa-
tive from Tampa.  There is no fence up there.  They're either coming
to Tampa or they're coming to Hollywood -- they may not, when they
read the crime rates, come to Hollywood and you'll be blessed
back in Tampa with having your growth.  We need twenty, twenty-
five years to look at.  We're starting out from that plant with
a forty-eight-inch, a sixty-eight-inch, a sixty-inch in another
direction.  We've got to lay those lines out there towards the west.
There's no place else to go:  We're hemmed in on the east of course;
we're hemmed in on the north.  We have an area that we need to
plan for, a growth out to what is Flamingo Road; that's twelve,
fourteen miles out from the plant west.  That's four miles beyond
what is currently build up.  And it took fifty years to build up.
And you're not going to see another fifty years waiting for that
area to build up.  People are coming in.

          The order of construction needs -- I would echo what
has been said this morning.

          Holding the date — I think if we hold the date of '77
but allow some good-faith flexibility built into it, we can live
with it.

          The State of Florida — I — I don't, by any means, want
to address any other state; I'm not familiar with the programs
of the other states, the state programs.  But I do know the State
of Florida has the capability in the people that they employ to
take on much of the responsibility of EPA.  If we could stop
looking at the processing and start looking at the purpose, we
might be further down the road.

MR. ALM:
          Thank you very much, Mr. Calhoun.  Let me assure that
in Washington, D.C., we have not exported all of our criminals
to Hollywood.

          (Chuckles)

-------
                                                           79

MR. ALM:
          Let me move on.  The next speaker is Linda Billingsley,
representing the Georgia Conservancy.  After that, John Langsfeld
will be the next speaker.

MS. BILLINGSLEY:
          My name is Linda Billingsley and I am representing the
Georgia Conservancy, Incorporated.

          We are an environmental group in Georgia with about 4,000
members.
'>
          When we were first advised of this  hearing, we were
not aware that it would be for comments only on the proposed
legislative changes in Public Law 92-500.  By law, because of our
tax-exempt status, we are not permitted to comment on proposed
legislation or to try to sway public opinion of such legislation.
Therefore, I must restrict my comments to the present law and
its capabilities.  Also, I would like to ask some questions
about the proposed amendments -- some of these questions have
already been answered today.

          First, I would like to say that there have been some
problems in implementing PL 92-500.  The blame can be spread to
a  lot of different areas.  Some of the problems are:  One,
shortages and changes in both state and federal personnel handling
the program cause the planning requirements to-take a long time.
A  lot of you have reflected on this today.

       • :.'  Confusion over specifics of the regulations and lack .
of education of public officials by EPA on the law.

          Three, most states and local political jurisdictions
do not  have available the critical information — on land use,
population projections and environmental information.  This should
be mandatory.  Overlapping drainage basins in different political
areas and controversies over growth projections have compounded
these problems.

          Four, public participation is inadequately addressed.
This requirement is being ignored in many states.

          Five, little consideration is being given down stream
water users who have to increase their drinking-water treatment
costs because of lack of enforcement upstream -- such as, removal
of sediment, toxic pollutants, and so forth.

          General comments I would like to make of PL 92-500:
One, granting construction grants for new sewage treatments
plants should be planned concurrently with an update to the
sewage collection system, sometimes antiquated and leaky.

-------
                                                           80

          Two, engineers preparing required considerations of
alternatives of wastewater disposal systems should be directed
to include not only cost but also resource depletion and environ-
mental degradation in their analyses.

          Three, much improvement is needed in the regulations
for meeting the toxic pollutant requirements of the law.

          Four, the NPDES notices are difficult to evaluate.
We, therefore, do not have the expertise to monitor these.

          Five, the goals of 1983 and 1985 must and can be achieved
by greater implementation and enforcement of the law by EPA.   The
elimination of red tape would aid EPA in achieving this purpose.

          Six, greater emphasis should be put on the use of
Section 208 by EPA.

          Seven, we do not believe that non-point discharges
are being addressed adequately.  Even if the streams meet the 1983
standards, urban run-off will completely downgrade their water
quality.

          Eight, we hope the July, 1977, deadline can be met  by
both municipal dischargers and industry, with a little speed-up
in administrative details.

          Now I would like to pose some questions on the proposed
amendments:  One, without further legislation, can Step I and II
grants be combined timewise to speed up the small construction
programs? — this is small municipalities.

          Two, why are the public works committees of Congress
not waiting for the National Commission of Water Quality's report,
due in October, 1975, before proposing changes in the law?

          Three, has EPA investigated or proposed the intermedia
approach to multiple use of advanced wastewater treatment plants,
such as burning solid waste to fuel the incineration process  used
extensively in AWT plants?  Would this require legislation also,
in view of the interagency agreement of coordination of the land-
use related provisions of EPA's 208 and HUB'S 701 comprehensive
metropolitan planning grant program?

          Four, on the use of ad valorem taxes as a means of
assessing user charges, would it be legal to use this for residents
and small businesses and yet collect a user charge from industry
on the basis of the quality and quantity of their wastes?

-------
                                                           81

          Five, on the subject of transferring the construction
grants program to the states for administration, what is a
realistic figure in years for accepting certification by state
water pollution control agencies?  Is the 2% figure for adminis-
trative costs too high or too low?  Since only two states, Georgia
and Mississippi, are now handling NPDES permits, would this happen
under grant administering, too?

          Six, what is the feeling on the transfer of construc-
tion grant money to the states?  Would this speed up the process-
ing or slow it down?

          Seven, on limiting federal aid to certain projects,
would this possibly penalize the urban run-off research in the
stormwater control program?

          Eight, would a reduction in the federal share of grants
-- Item 1 -- penalize small municipalities further, which are
presently our biggest pollution problems in Georgia?

          Nine, does the limiting of federal aid to serve only
the needs of the existing population mean that only the present
systems that need updating would be financed, not the new system
for projected growth in undeveloped territory?

          Ten, is the 1977 deadline unreachable without further
legislation?  With the proposed amendments, will it then be
reachable?

          Eleven, under the law now, since half of the pollutants
present in streams is the result of urban run-off can NPDES
permits be used to limit this as some of it comes from point
sources— parking lots, subdivisions, highways?  Would new
amendments be needed to control this?

          I would also like to submit a further written statement
before your deadline.

MR. ALM:
          Certainly.

          Thank you very much.  As I indicated, we'll have a
period for questions and answers, and you may want to raise some
of these questions at that time.
    •>
          I can just give you a quick answer to Number 1 and 4;
the answer is "no" in both cases -- we've tested them legally.
The answer is "no."

-------
                                                           82

          The next speaker is John Langsfeld, representing the
Association of County Commissioners of Georgia.

          (No response)

MR. ALM:
          Is Mr. Langsfeld here?

          (No response)

MR. ALM:
          Okay, the next speaker is Howard Frandson, representing
the Fulton County Public Works Department.

MR. SABOCK:
          I have two telephone calls:   one for John Bass and
one for Bob Corbett.

MR. ALM:
          After Mr. Frandson, Mr.  Jim Morrison would be next.

          Mr. Frandson?

MR. FRANDSON:                       ,v-.;•-•
          Thank you.

          My name is Howard Frandson;  I'm chief engineer for
Fulton County, Georgia.

          As the Fulton County representative, I respectfully
submit the following comments concerning five potential legisla-
tive amendments Public Law 92-500.
                                                             . j' i
          Amendment Number 1  provides  for the reduction of the
federal share of construction grants from the current level  of 75%
to a level as low as 55%.  Since -the inception of Public Law 92-500
in fiscal year 1972, Fulton County, the largest county in Georgia,
has been awarded only one construction grant.  That for a 3-mi11 ion-
gal lon-per-day wastewater treatment plant project, which had origin-
ally been submitted under Public Law 660.  This means that Fulton
County must depend heavily on local funds.  Currently, Fulton
County has a $30 million backlog of sewage projects, which are
designed and are ready for construction if the funds were available.

          Fulton County has issued revenue bonds in an amount equal
to our financial capacity.  However, we are unable to fund all
of the sewage projects necessary to serve our developing communi-
ties.   The covenants of the bond resolution do specify 75% federal
funding where construction grants  are contemplated.

-------
                                                           83

          Fulton County has historically assumed a responsible
attitude toward the treatment of wastewater.  Therefore, we are
victims of our own good work and are not eligible for construc-
tion grants under the priority system as established by the State
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection
Division, and the Environmental Protection Agency.

          Further reduction in funding for sewage projects from
whatever source can only result in delay.

          I understand this situation is unique among South-
eastern states, but the state of Georgia does not participate
financially in the sewage program.  Therefore, an increase in
required local funding must assumed by the individual county or
municipality.  If the federal government cannot raise monies to
fund sewerage projects, I seriously doubt that local government,
with its multitude of problems in all areas of responsibility,
can raise the necessary funds.

          Amandment 2 proposes limiting the federal funding of
reserve capacity to serve projected growth.  The seven-county
metropolitan Atlanta area has a current population of approxi-
mately 1,600,000 people.  According to the Atlanta Regional Commis-
sion that population is projected to increase by 2 million people
to 3,500,000 during the twenty-five years between now and the
year 2000.  That's an increase of more than the current popula-
tion, from 1.6 to 3.5 mi 11ion in twenty-five years.

          Local government cannot ignore these statistics. We
must be prepared to handle our responsibility, which is to provide
those services which the people cannot reasonably provide for them-
selves.

          Fulton County is designing wastewater treatment plants
for ultimate needs. However, we construct in phases, with each
phase having the capacity to handle estimated wastewater flows
for a period of approximately ten years.

          Fulton County is designing the underground interceptor
and outfall systems to handle ultimate needs based on projected
population desities.  Our experience is that an increase in
pipe size will add a substantial increase in flow at modest cost.
For example, in a recent contract the cost against -- the cost
of installing a thirty-six-inch, reinforced concrete pipe was
only 6% more than the cost of installing a thirty-inch pipe —
yet the flow capacity was increased by

-------
                                                           84

          Fulton County has found that paralleling or relieving
existing sewers can be very expensive.   When we must resort to
the right of immanent domain for property acquisition, the courts
have awarded judgment for permanent easements according to the
purchase value of the property.   That's purchase value of the
property.  Judgments for temporary easements are approximately
one half of the purchase value of the property.  The courts
also find that the county is responsible for substantial  con-
sequential damages.

          By comparison, when we install sewer lines in develop-
ing areas, the necessary easements are usually dedicated --
because the property owners are anxious to gain the benefit of
sewage service.

          During times when construction costs are annually in-
creasing at double-digit rates,  we question the wisdom of deferr-
ing the question of the construction of underground sewerage
when modest additional investment will  satisfy projected needs.

          As a general statement, I have never seen a sewer line
that is too big.

          Amendment Number 3 restricts the type of project f
eligible for construction grant assistance.  The primary thrust
in Fulton County is to provide interceptor sewers and wastewater
treatment facilities.  However,  we must recognize that, in the cost
of drainage and treatment for infiltration and inflow, it is ap-
proximately the same as the cost of drainage and treatment for
sanitary sewerage.

          We firmly believe that the economics of correcting
problems at the source justify the cost of controlling infiltra-
tion and inflow.

          I believe that Fulton County would be receptive to a
sliding scale of construction grant percentages, as proposed
by the moderator during this morning session.

          Amendment Number 4 extends the 1977 date for meeting water
quality standards.  I suspect that I could live in a $150,000
house and have an expensive automobile in the driveway if I
assigned my entire income to this objective.  Similarly, local
government could move more rapidly with efforts to meet water
quality standards if it assigned a disproportionate amount, a
disproportionate share of lit revenue to this single effort.  But
we all recognize that our family has more needs than simply a
big house and a large automobile.  Likewise, local government
has more needs than to satisfy the water quality standards.

-------
                                                           85

          We believe that the delays as proposed are realistic.
  *               s   s               t-
          Amendment Number 5 delegates a greater proportion of
the management of the construction grants program to the state.
We believe that the state environmental protection organization
is closer to local government and therefore, more cognizant of
local government problems.  Therefore, we support the proposed
amendment.
                                         • •  t
          In summary, Fulton County submits that the success of
our mutual efforts to provide clean water is influenced primarily
by the availability of funding.  Good economic judgment is neces-
sary to use every dollar as wisely as practicable.  With this
consideration, we firmly believe that amendments 1, 2 and 3
should be defeated and that amendments 4 and 5 should be adopted.
                                           r
          Thank you.

MR. ALM:
          Mr. Frandson, I have a couple of questions.  One:  I
gather, with respect to the third issue, that you made a statement
that you would look favorably upon some form of sliding scale.
Also, if I understand it correctly, you talked about adding
eligibilities IIIA and IIIB to the ones listed in papers 1, 2
and 4.  I gather you wouldn't mind dropping some eligibility, if
I understood you correctly?

MR. FRANDSON:
          Well, that was meant to be a general statement, and
I didn't try to be specific.  But I think the sliding scale that
you talked about this morning would be most practicable.  I
think that under those situations, all could be included --
although, in the case of Fulton County, with sewer systems that
are comparatively new, we haven't experienced some of the problems
that we've seen in some of the older systems.

MR. ALM:
          I was also interested in your design-planning project
for interceptors.  You indicated that you had never seen a pipe
that was too small — to big, I mean.  What you were getting
at:  You look at the cost in money and make these observations?

MR. FRANDSON:
          Yes, of course.  The metropolitan area, and this includes
unincorporated Fulton County, expands outward; and when we put in
the first leg, the first mile, the first two miles or whatever,
of each leg that's moving away from the central area or away from
the plant, we try to size it so when it finally reaches its
ultimate end, ultimate terminal point, then we don't have to go

-------
                                                           86

back and parallel the first leg.   We think that this is economical
ly wise.  We've had some most unfortunate experience in trying to
put in relief sewers in established areas.  The cost of right-of-
way, for example, exceeds the cost of the project.   There is a
difficulty in dealing with irate citizens who already have their
sewer and are not interested in assisting projecting or extending
their sewer lines into other areas; they just have  theirs and
are not interested in helping others.  So, it's a very, very
difficult situation and we find it much cheaper to  go ahead and
do it right in the first place.

MR. ALM:
          Okay; thank you very much.

MR. FRANDSON:
          Okay.  And I thank you.

MR. ALM:
          The next speaker is Jim Morrison, representing the
Georgia Wildlife Federation.  After Mr. Morrison, we have Mr.
Maury Winkler.

          Mr. Morrison?                 j

MR. MORRISON:
          Thank you.

          I am Jim Morrison, executive director of  the Georgia
Wildlife Federation, which is our state's oldest and largest con-
servation organization of approximately 5,000 members through-
out the state.

          It is a pleasure to be here today to present our views
on the five issues outlined in the Federal Register.   However,
we would like to comment that we didn't receive any written notice
of this hearing from the Environmental Protection Agency itself.
There is an excellent directory of all the state wildlife federa-
tions in the country published by the National Wildlife Federation.
It has our name and address, and we'd appreciate it if you fellows
would put us on your mailing list.

MR. ALM:
          We can guarantee that.

MR. MORRISON:
          On Issue Number 1, the proposed reduction of the
federal share, we don't believe it would be any more practical
to reduce the federal share for construction grants under Public
Law 92-500 than it would be to reduce the federal share on inter-

-------
                                                           87

state highway grants and still expect the roads to be built.
Local resources, without the generous return of federal tax
monies through grants, are insufficient for the task of cleaning
our nation's waters.

          While recognizing that the 1977 goal of secondary treat-
ment or better for all municipal treatment works will not be
met, we do not believe that the rate of federal funding should
slacken until at least the $35 billion share needed to construct
the secondary treatment, advanced treatment and interceptor sewers
reported in the 1974 needs survey has been authorized and appro-
priated.

          Issue Number 2, limiting federal funding of reserve
capacity to serve projected growth.  We believe that federal
funding should be limited to that capacity of sewer plants or
sewer lines needed to serve twenty years of growth estimated
using the OBERS projections with census bureau input from their
Series E, or the lowest, growth calculations.  However, communi-
ties should be allowed to fund 100% of the cost of additional
capacity calculated on the marginal  cost, or incremental cost
analysis which allows for economies-of-scale in construction.

          We have seen some instances locally in Fulton County,
for  instance, which Mr. Frandson just commented on, in which
lines have been built of a greater capacity than was really
necessary to meet the projected growth needs in the area unless
we were really going to pile people on top of people in that
area.

MR. ALM:
          But -- Can I, before you go on. . . Could you repeat
that proposal?  I understand the twenty years, but what was the
other part of the proposal?

MR.  RHETT:
          I think it's really explained in the incremental costs.

MR. MORRISON:
          Right.  The federal funds should be limited to that
capacity of sewer plants and sewer lines needed to serve twenty
years' growth estimated using the OBERS projections with census
bureau --

MR. ALM:
          And the county would pay for anything -- The municipality
would pay for anything beyond twenty years is that right?

MR. MORRISON:
          Right.

-------
MR. RHETT:
          That's under the incremental costs, right?  In other
words, you take the costs that it would normally cost and they
would pay the separate rather than a percentage?

MR. MORRISON:
          Okay, I've got it.

MR. MORRISON:
          Issue Number 3, restricting the types of projects ,•
eligible for grant assistance.  We feel that the six categories
of projects presently eligible for funding should remain.  In
most cases in the Southeastern United States, the state water
pollution control agencies have effectively restricted fundable
projects to categories I, II  and IVB.  This means that a much
more equitable distribution of funding by Congress would be
obtained if funds were primarily allocated among states according
to a formula which placed heavy weight on these needs expressed
in categories I, II and IVB.   This is especially true because
Congress is unlikely to ever appropriate a significant portion
of the $235 billion that is is estimated is needed for storm-
water treatment and-or control, yet this huge amount is included
in the need allocation formula.

          Issue Number 4, extending the deadline.  Because the
initial effect of the tremendous expansion in the requirements
necessary to qualify for grants under 92-500 has had the effect
of slowing actual wastewater treatment plans construction, a
three-year extension of the deadline should be granted.   This  would
eliminate the need for much complex and ineffective legal action
when the July 1, 1977, deadline approaches and 6Q% of our nation's
population is found to be served by a facility that won't meet
the mandated goals.

          Issue Number 5, delegating greater construction grants
responsibilities to the states.  This would be a mistake as the
program would be slowed even  more as the states attempted to
staff up with adequate manpower to meet greater responsibilities.
Procedures and customs are just now beginning to be established
regarding the handling of the Title II regulation, and if they
are soon rewritten again we believe that a year or more of momen-
tum gained will be lost again.  As an ex-federal and state employee,
I can testify to that from personal experience.

          Finally, one issue  not scheduled to be discussed today,
but one that the members of our organization who like to fish
frequently find to be a problem, is the failure of treatment
plants to work after they are constructed.  In EPA's 1974 "Clean

-------
                                                           89

Water Report to Congress" 30% of treatment plants adequately
sampled during routine project follow-up were found to be not
meeting the effluent quality criteria they were designed to
meet.  Here in our area we believe the percentage to be even
higher.  And unfortunately for both the fish and the fisherman,
the organisms in the stream are killed by the extremes of pol-
lution eminating from these plants, not their average weekly or
monthly product.
                                               v
          An amendment should be added to the Water Pollution
Control Act to enforce much stricter controls on operation
and maintenance of federally-funded plants.  Perhaps actual O&M
grants should be authorized and made in some cases.

          Thank you for this opportunity;  I am submitting
two copies of this statement today and reserving the right
to submit an expanded statement during the period the record
is open.

MR. ALM:
          Thank you, Mr. Morrison; I have just one question.
When you were talking about Issue Number 3, on eligibility, did
you have any comment on the sliding-scale proposal?

MR. MORRISON:
          No.

MR. AIM;.
          Okay.

          Our next speaker is Maury Winkler.  After that, Robert
Sutton will be our last speaker.

MR. WINKLER:
          Gentlemen at the head table, ladies and gentlemen,
on behalf of David Brown, director of the water and sewer depart-
ment of DeKalb County -- who regrettably could not be here today
— I submit the following comments.

          The following brief comments on the five topics which
are proposed amendments the FWPCA are being considered for
submission to Congress.

          One, the reduction of the federal share.  Some basic
questions need to be considered:  Would the states set a stringent
effluent requirement and criteria if 75% funding had not been
available?  Would the states require local governments to con-
struct and operate -- that require high capital investments and
high operating costs -- advanced waste-treatment plants under this

-------
                                                           90

situation, that is, if 75% funding were not available?  Or, would
there be a revaluation of the necessity, and also the criteria
for the effluent standards set?

          These questions arise because of DeKalb County's initial
experience with 75% federal funding.  For example, as the result
of a 1972 directive by the State of Georgia that we set advanced
waste-water treatment on the South River, and after having
relief grants for secondary treatment for the same river, DeKalb
County finds that even with 75% federal funding for construction
of such mass waste-water treatment facilities, estimated to cost
$80 million, and to complete it in four years, it is in financial
trouble.  The $20 million, DeKalb's share, will place a tremendous
financial burden in both dollars and from the accelerated time
schedule to construct these facilities.  Obviously, DeKalb County
has to be in favor of 75% federal funding, or even greater.
Obviously, consistency is necessary as to percentage of federal
funding, as consistency, DeKalb County believes, as the achieve-
ment of consistent pollution abatement goals is clearly dependent
thereon.

          And another note on the 75%:  The 75% paid by EPA ap-
pears to inadvertently erode the state government's needed sense
of economic concern.  Greater monetary concern might be shown the
higher the share of local funds.

          On Issue 2, limiting federal financing of reserve serv-
ing the needs of existing population.  A possible consequence of
the present 75% federal funding and future limitation of this is:
Were federal funding limited to serving the needs of the existing
population, the new facilities needed due to increases in popula-
tion would cost the local governments four times as much now as
those 75% federally funded -- that is, assuming 100% local funding.
This would require subsequent sharp increases in local water and
sewer rates.  Rate increases are not locally popular.  And the
goals of 92-500 would suffer limitations DeKalb County feels would
unduly penalize growing communities -- not those already establish-
ed, as much.

          As to Issue 3, restricting the types of project eligible
for grant assistance, guidelines are clearly needed, at this time,
to define the type of projects which would be fully- or partially-
funded by federal  grants.  Local governments need to know projected
cut-off dates for federal funding or reduction, so that longrange
fiscal •planhing~can' be done. Consistency, now, in knowing how many
federal  funds will be received in the future, is again necessary.


          Issue 4, extending the 1977 deadline for meeting water-
quality standards.  DeKalb County is in favor of such extensions
on a case-by-case basis where the target date cannot be realistical-
ly and economically met.

-------
                                                           91

          Issue 5, delegating a greater portion of the management
of the construction grants program to the states.  DeKalb County
is in favor of reducing the layers of governmental control and
review.  Greater fiscal responsibility, as well as environmental
and planning responsibility, should be given to the states that
are capable of administering the program.

          Gentlemen, you requested a comment on percentages to
be funded on the various types of projects.  Initially, I do
not think that setting such a percentage could be a hard, fast
rule for a particular type of project.  Ideally, the largest
percentage should go to the system or project where the greatest
pollution abatement can be obtained.  For instance, if a sewer is
consistently overflowing, it should go there rather than to a
treatment plant that only sometimes does not meet effluent criteria,

MR. ALM:
          Thank you.

          Jack, any questions?

MR. RHETT:
          (Shakes head.)

MR. ALM:
          Okay, Mr. Robert Button, engineer of Cobb County.

MR. SUTTON:
          Gentlemen, I'm Robert L. Sutton, Junior, Cobb County
engineer of Cobb County, Georgia; and I'd like to comment, first,
on what I see as the general problems, as outlined in the papers.

          First, there is a great concern on EPA's part to be sure
that the paperwork is overdone.  This seems to be passed on to
the region by Washington.  Second, we need a uniform or even keel
as to  funding.  I would recommend this to be a level of four to $6
million per year, until the level of secondary treatment is reach-
ed by  all communities -- "secondary treatment" being basically
defined in one way, of 85% BOC removal or post-odoration.  This
will allow properly operated oxidation ponds now in existence to
remain.  Thirdly, at various meetings I've attended, I keep hear-
ing that EPA is requesting additional funds to hire additional
people to increase O&M inspections.  What good is this going to do
if wedo not have the money to operate, nor the people to operate.
Fourthly, I would like to House Bill 4161 and Senate Bill 1216,
as introduced by the Georgia delegation, be passed and implement-
ed, since they allocate impounded funds on the bases of 50% needs
and 50% population, giving Georgia a greater share.  Fifthly, the
disregard of EPA, Washington, for the intent of Congress in their
legislation, whenever it suits their fancy, an attempt to prevent
EPA from legislating, or regulation makes the passing of Congress-

-------
                                                           92

man Levitas1 -- of Georgia -- House Bill 3658, which calls for
Congressional approval of rules and regulations, period.

          I would like to comment on the papers as outlined in
the notice of the hearing in the following manner:  Paper 1, the
reduction of the federal share.  A reduction of the federal share
would only increase the burden of funding at the local level, and
in all likelihood eliminate from the program projects that are
badly needed.  There also is a maximum amount of funds available
at the local level for construction and operation.  If more funds
are spent for construction, there will be less funds for operation.
A citizen can only afford so much.
                                                 s
          Some of the figures in the need survey, especially in
the non-point source numbers, may not be correct since none of us
to this day have even the foggiest idea of how to solve this problem.
Therefore, a reduction in federal participation is no answer, but
a uniform funding as I have outlined above.

          Paper 2.  Reference is made to a study that has been
prepared by the Council of Environmental Quality in which EPA
was criticized for funding excessive capacity, in a seminar
sponsored by the Water Pollution and Control Federation.  One of
the writers of the report indicated that the Council on Environ-
mental Quality took the issue of excessive capacity out of context.

          There is a question in my mind as to whether EPA's
proposed position is a panic solution to what EPA sees as an
excessive demand on funds.  Once EPA is allowed to take a position
on excessive capacity, they seem to make this the rule rather than
the exception, and do not follow good engineering design but make
arbitrary rules and regulations as their method of evaluation.
In my short experience with Public Law 92-500, I find that popu-
lation projections are based on the general feeling of population
and how the particular demographer feels towards birth control
as to whether continuous rates of growth, as projected by local
planners, is applicable.

          And I would refer you to the paper, as presented by the
Water Pollution Control Federation to EPA, which does disprove
the theory that planning for future growth is impractical.  If
EPA desires to restrict growth or not fund so-called "reserve
capacity," then I would suggest that they up their percentage of
participation to 100% of what they determine is needed capacity.

          Paper 3.  The reduction of the types of projects that
will be eligible for grant funding under 92-500 is ridiculous
and arbitrary.  To eliminate any type of project from funding
would remove the local community and EPA's capability of reducing
the contamination that is in our streams.

-------
                                                           93

          Therefore, on this item, I would recommend, again,
a uniform-funding approach, as outlined above, with an orderly
deadline for each level.  EPA has asked each governmental body
to give its needs and place an estimated cost on these needs
through a need survey without even defining, again, the non-
point source of the stormwater clean-up requirements.  As these
are places of question, as are some of the point-source pollu-
tion -- because we have had definitions of this for hundreds
of years.

          Paper 4.  I would recommend that EPA have its secondary-
treatment deadlines extended to 1980, and redefine their defini-
tion of "secondary treatment.1!  I would also recommend that the
requirement for meeting fish and wildlife and clean-stream quality
demands be set in 1985 — and that the zero-discharge date be
deferred indefinitely until someone can define "zero discharge,"

          Paper 5.  I would like to see EPA delegate all  of its
responsibilities as well as its construction grants program to the
Environmental Protection Division of  the Georgia Department
of Natural Resources.  This is contingent upon this delegation
being a true delegation and not some Mickey Mouse approach as
has been demonstrated in the past.  We have confidence in the
Georgia EPD, but we become confused when we have projects ap-
proved and get last-minute regulation revisions created by EPA.

          In summary, I would refer you to my general statements
above, and would add one following comment.  And that is  this:
It makes no difference who invests the funds in the facilities
that we construct if we're not able to maintain and operate these
facilities at the level intended.  This does not mean hiring more
people in EPA or EPD, but it does mean greater support for the
local communities for the operation or the maintenance programs
by leaving us money to operate with.

          Thank you.

MR. ALM:
          I have just one quick question.  I'm a little bit un-
clear as to what you're proposing for Issue Number 3?

MR. SUTTON:
          Well, what I'm saying there is that I don't believe
you can reduce the various projects without -- because there
are certain areas in Georgia that I'm familiar with that have
problems that lie in the other project areas.  And the other
point is that I'm not sure that the sixth item of — seventh,
I guess -- the stormwater clean-up — in that area there, that
the definition of what we are trying to clean up.  Is that finite,
that you can put finite dollars on it?

-------
                                                           94

MR. ALM:
          Um-Hmm.  Well, in your opening statement you suggested
that the program be funded at the four to 6 billion a year until
secondary treatment is reached.  I guess the question I have is
how one gets a coherent rationale here -- everything is eligible.
How do you know what target you're shooting at?

MR. SUTTON:
          Okay, I think that you have -- and what I'm saying
is, your -- there's a secondary-treatment level.   If you set
your secondary treatment and leave the other items in there --
that there are a lot of oxidation ponds out here  in the state of
Georgia and a lot of other facilities that are functioning pro-
perly now -- that if you go and apply the rules and regulations
as outlined by you at this time, they will have to be replaced;
and you'll have to pay money for that item, in which you could
transfer those funds to the --

MR. ALM:
          But that's still treatment.  I guess I  was talking
about stormwater, combined sewer. .  .

MR. SUTTON:
          Okay, I think combined sewer is going to be -- I think
this is a level of — of allowing you to have more money available,
is what I'm trying to say to you.  Maybe I didn't say it too well,
but I'm trying to say to you:  .Instead of rebuilding something
we've got out there that's working now, let's take some of our
money and put it on some of our needs; and if you eliminate ;:
these project categories, then you release -- you destroy your
option of using your money in that direction.

MR ALM:
          I think I understand what you're saying.  But the problem
we have, obviously, is to sell both the administration and the
Congress on some level of funds that will achieve some goal.  And
that's the problem we have to try to define.
                                                                 vn
MR. SUTTON:
          Okay, I'll be glad to look into that level and give
you some information on that.

MR. ALM:
          Thank you very much.

          The next speaker, I believe, is Earl J. Ham.

          (No response)

-------
                                                           95

MR. ALM:
          Is Mr. Ham here?

          (No response)

MR. ALM:
          Well, at this point in time I'd like to leave the
floor open for questions to myself and Jack ~ or, perhaps
if you want to get one of the other speakers.

          Any questions?

          (No response)

MR. ALM:
          The first question is always difficult.  Does anybody
want tos"try and second question?

          (Laughter)

MR. ALM:
          Yes, sir?
                 *•                      •. "
A VOICE:                                                      /
          I have a question.  When you say "delegation from EPA
to the states," does that mean the actual cash too, and the
ability to make grant offers and to process papers?

MR. ALM:
          Jack, why don't you. . .

MR. RHETT:
          The "delegation" we're talking about is almost complete,
with an audit function.  It's an overview and an audit,  But let
me try to explain this.  I guess it might be like checking ball-
bearings -- you know, you check one in so many -- from the audit
setup there.

          But at the same time, the law, I think, and our approach
to it today, has been that the state has to provide the proper
administration of it or the proper stewardship, or any portion
could be withdrawn.  Because there's no way, ultimately, that the
stewardship, shall we say — the ultimate responsibility cannot
be transferred down.  We're back to the old problem of:  You
can transfer out all the authority, all the work, all of this,
but ultimately the administrator is the man who is accountable.

          But I think, to answer your question, it is a true
delegation, not Mickey Mouse or any of this nature, that's involved,

-------
                                                           96

MR. ALM:
          Let me talk about the general  policies that I see.
What EPA would like is:   one, to get the Cleveland Bill, which
gives a great deal  of delegation to the  state,  evaluated for the
possibility of going completely like the grant  program sometime
in the future.  But, again, we think that is a  two-stage effort.
But we are very interested in getting a  maximum abount of
delegation at any point in time.

MR. RHETT:
          I think there is one thing of  interest here — because
it has been brought up before -- is this business of phasing in.
It's been alluded to a number of times today.  Is your states
-- I'm not talking about all of them, but most  of your states
are woefully undermanned.  They just don't have enough people to
handle everything.   And that's, of course, why  it is extremely
important with the idea of the 2%.   Now, that's an "up to 2%
— because you don't just give somebody  2%; it's an auditable
2% -- that was used for administration of the program.  2% would
be what would be given to somebody with  a small program.   One
of the larger programs,  obviously,  would have less.  Then, as the
states built up their staffs, and all, to be able to handle it,
they could take on more and more.  I believe it was Mr. Rhodes
from Florida who really alluded to this  problem of hiring, staffing,
training and otherwise.

          There also are other problems  -- they can be salary-
scaled.  A big one could be just pure space-allocation problems,
where the states are not willing to allocate addition hiring
spaces in one area where another place has a freeze — even though
there is federal money.

          But we're looking into all facets of  this.  But it's
a true delegation; there's no way you can -- and we know this --
ultimately, this problem -- that this program can operate properly
from the Washington-federal level.   It's ultimately a local, state
problem.

MR. ALM:
          Any other questions?

          Yes sir?

A VOICE:
          In reading what has been said  — Well, first of all,
having been in an adversary position, number one, the way I
read the comments that have come out today, is  that there are kind
of three basic things:  stability, flexibility  and consistency.

-------
                                                           97

It seems to me that you can find all kinds of reasons but,
basically, you get down to the point that is involved with the law,
which is a very complex law, and what has been done to that law
in the nature of regulations to make it even more complicated,
that the-EPA would be well advised*to suggest -- to do away with
some of the regulations and give back to the states and the local
communities some flexibility to handle things on a case-by-case
basis.  Now, I can use Mr. Rhodes' and Phil Searcy's comments
about combined sewers in this area of Florida.  I can use others'
comments about control of infiltration inflow being a low-
priority item.  Yet* we're involved in one project at the moment
of infiltration inflow that the inflow isn't controlled -- any
new secondary sewage treatment plant will operate approximately
one year out of every four, because the events that occur statistic-
ally are such that it would wipe any biological process out.  So,
that's true in our community; and I know another community has
an entirely different problem.  And it seems to me that there
has to be a greater degree of flexibility allowed to the states
because they are closer to the problem and how they assess it.

          Thank you.

MR. ALM:
        '-.Jack, I think that we basically agree with that.  And
one area -- we're looking to get flexibility, of course — is the
1977 date.  Perhaps we may ask for flexibility in other areas.
One of the problems is that, to the extent to which we ask for
flexibility, it has an impact on stability and consistency.  In
other words, we -- and when I say "we," I mean the federal govern-
ment, the states, the localities, consulting engineers and every-
body else — have had a very painful three years adjusting to the
current act.  I think most of the adjustments have been made.
Whenever one changes the act in a dramatic way, even in terms of
simplification, there is another long period of confusion and
instability.  And I would say that those kinds of changes ought
to be evaluated very carefully, so that we only deal with the most
important changes to the law.  I do agree that we do need flexibi-
lity in certain areas -- clearly in the '77 statutory date for
municipalities.  We definietly need flexibility there.

          I don't know if I've had responsive.

THE VOICE:"
          I didn't expect you to respond.  I think some flexibi-
lity has to be'included in priorities in state to state and city
to city.
                 f
MR. RHETT:
         I wonder, Al, if I could come into one thing here, that
I think was one that was mentioned.  I've been really traveling

-------
                                                           98

all around the country with a lot of groups, and one thing that
sure comes across loud and clear to me right not -- and I'm
coming to one part of it — it Title II may be bad.  We may not
like it, it may be writtin in legalese rather than English and
all, but for gosh sakes don't change it.   Right now, we under-
stand -- it's taken a long time — we understand what's required
and what we're supposed to do.  Consequently, we have tried very,
very hard — there are a number of things in Title II -- just to
simplify or to write it in, let's say, a little more understand-
able -- that could sure be done now, but we're scared stiff that
if we ever tried to do something like that that we'll stop the
program again.

          The program has started taking off:  We've been averag-
ing over 400 million a month.  I hope we can maintain it.  I am
quite encouraged that we can.  But I think — well, we've been
picking up here, too, this business of stability.  We're afraid
to even think about it right now.

MR. ALM:
          Yes?

A VOICE:
          Will there be any correlation between these hearings and
the findings on the Council of Environmental Quality:

          (No response)

THE VOICE:
          Can you hear me?

MR. ALM:
          No, I couldn't.  By. the way, could you give your name
and organization just so everybody'11 know?

THE VOICE:
          Will there be any correlation between these hearings and
the National Water Quality Commission? — commission, I believe
it is.

MR. ALM:
          I'm not sure.  We've got a very difficult time problem.
I mentioned, we could have amendments out sometime this year or
early next year.  Now, whatever the National Water Quality
Commission has available will be very useful; I'm just not entirely
sure of their schedule.  The last time I talked to Joe Moran, he
expected that they might have a report out this fall.

          Is that your understanding?

-------
                                                           99

MR. RHETT:
          (Nods head.)

MR. ALM: .
          So, whatever we can get from him, we can move ahead.
We've run into a problem where a lot of communities are con-
cerned.  A lot of communities are concerned that there is not
an authorization to the program for this program for '77 and sub-
sequent years.  And that's beginning to have a deleterious effect
across the country.  So, we're convinced that we need to make it
a long-term authorization.  And to do that we need to grapple
with the program, as we have discussed today.

          So, I guess,, in short, we'll use whatever we have;
but we have to limit our own schedule.

THE VOICE:
          I would like to comment, now, the intentions of
that organization are very good, but some of the questions
they asked me in an interview one time were quite abmiguous and,
I  thought, a "yes" or "no" answer was very hard to give.

MR. ALM:
   •       You must have taken the same test I did; I refused to
answer about a third of them.

THE VOICE:
          "When are you going to stop beating your wife?"

MR. ALM:
          That's right.

          (Laughter)

A  VOICE:
          F. C. Biggs, ATC, Mississippi chapter, a comment and
question:  About the most stable thing that a contractor notices
about the EPA is the total lack of working construction in any
large amount of projects.  You talk about the money that you're
spending.  We haven't seen any of it.  It has been about three
years.
           •-.',:•:'
          We notice something else:  We can talk this subject
to death — it's a little like having sex by proxy, it may sound
great but it doens't do anybody any good.  And until we get the
program constructed, we're still just talking about it.

MR. ALM:
          I know Jack Rhett is probably jumping off the side of
the chair.  Let me just mention one thing and then turn it over
to Jack.

-------
                                                          100

          Right now, this is clearly the administrator's number
one priority.   He sent out a memorandum to all  the regional
offices.   A very blunt memo about getting the construction grants
program moving.  He indicated,  in that memo,  he wanted to set
quotas; and then he was looking to Jack Rhett as the national
program manager to get the program moving.   So, if Jack doesn't
do it, we know how to go after to scalp.

          So,  go ahead, Jack.

MR. RHETT:
          I'd like to come into a
-------
                                                          101

          The difficulty is the pipeline is — we start and
look down the pipe here --the pipeline will start to run dry
here in the fall  in certain areas if all of us don't get in and
push to make sure the plans and specs and everything are getting
out, getting in,  and we're getting approvable projects.   And
that's a very simple statement, now, I'm making — I realize the
complexities.

          But in  addition to this, the administrator has just
sent a team around — we've hit all ten regions, we've hit —
what was it?  ~  thirteen states? --

MR. ALM:
          (Nods head.)

MR. RHETT:
          -- a number of consulting engineers, a number of
municipalities, a number of contractors, both A<3C and NUCA; and"
all of them have  turned in a report.  There are a number of things
that are being done now.  And, really, I am cautiously optimistic
that we can keep  the program moving and keep it moving quickly.
                                 '51
          But I'm the first one to say that, if you look at it
today, it's spotty.  There are certain areas that have to move
faster.

THE VOICE:
          I have  one more question ~ I appreciate your answer.
One other thing:   If EPA is able to delegate to the states a major
portion of this grant function, will EPA then be able to introduce
more management into this situation by the possibility of con-
densation of regulations and this and that?  Does that matter have
any priority?  Because if someone's going to manage something,
they've got to get into management.  I believe you fellows are
kind of hung with an unmanageable program here.

MR. ALM:
          I think — Yeah; well, I think your question has a
number of dimensions.  If we get the authority to delegate, then
the job will tend to be phased in.  In other words, nothing's
going to happen overnight.  The states will take on more and more
of the responsibility.  One thing we have learned, and learned the
hard way — and that is not to try to change something overnight.
We need to take this one step at a time.

          The problem is, own personnel crunch, is to be able
to manage the program effectively.  We just do not have the per-
sonnel right now  to do that.  Whether or not that ultimately winds
up being translated into regulations implication, I can't say.
Because, again, you get to the same point that I raised and Jack
Rhett also raised, and that is the extend to which you change the

-------
                                                          102

rules of the game even when you try to simplify them.  You
introduce a great deal of instability into the system.

          Any other questions?

          (No response)

MR. ALM:
          Comments?

          (No response)

MR. ALM:
          Let me make just one last announcement -- we all have
an extra hour today.

          The hearing record will be held open,until the close
of business of July 7th, 1975.  Any written comments received
by that deadline will be considered as a part of the record.
                                            i
          The next hearing on these issues will  be in Kansas
City, Missouri, June 17th, and the Muhlenbach Hotel at 9:00
a.m. o'clock.

          Without any further business, I'll  call  this hearing
to a close.

          Thank you very much.

          (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter was concluded.)

                            -oOo-

                   CERTIFICATE

GEORGIA   )
                )
FULTON COUNTY   )

          I, 0. Gary Proctor, being a notary public in and for
the State of Georgia at large, do hereby certify that the above
and foregoing is a true and complete transcription of my steno-
graphic notes taken at the hereinabove set out time and place,
and was reduced to typewriting by me personally.

          I further certify that I am neither of kin nor counsel
to any of the parties, nor financially interested in the event
of these causes.

          WITNESS my hand and official seal at Atlanta, Fulton
County, Georgia, on this the 18th day of June, 1975.

                                     J GARY PROCTOR  T-39
                                     (SEAL)

-------

-------
         UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                          REGION VII
 PUBLIC HEARING ON POSSIBLE ADMINISTRATION PROPOSALS TO AMEND
THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT, AS AMENDED, RELATING
            TO MUNICIPAL WASTE TREATMENT GRANTS
                    KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI

                       JUNE 17, 1975
 PANEL:

   JAMES L. AGEE,*  Assistant Administrator for Water and Hazard-
                   ous Materials, EPA, Washington, D. C.,
                   Chairman.

   JEROME SVORE,   Regional Administrator, Region VII, Kansas
                   City, Missouri.

   John T. RHETT,  Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water
                   Program Operations, EPA, Washington, D.  C.
                       Hotel Meuhlebach
                        Grand Ballroom
                    Kansas City, Missouri

-------
                         IH2IA
SPEAKERS:                                                   PAGE
  Jerome Svore  	     3
  James Agee 	     3
  James Shaffer  	     9
  Frank Weaver  	   14
  Frank Eaton 	   16
  Robert Elsperman  	   19
  Bruce Gilmore 	....	   22
  R.  W. Grant 	   24
  Paul Haney 	   29
  Horace Smi th 	   34
  Char!es Kai ser 	   41
  Ken Karch	   47
  Sue Hoppel 	   53
  Paul Trout	   55
  F.  L. Endebrook 	   57
  Melville Gray 	   59
  Richard Cunningham	   64
  Esther Woodward 	   68
  David Snider 	   69
  Oliver!. Williams 	   71
  Dan T. Drain 	   76

-------
          MR. SVORE:  Ladies and gentlemen, it is my pleasure to
welcome you to this hearing on the possible administrative pro-
posals for the amendments to Public Cause 92-500.

          I am Jerry Svore, Regional Administrator for EPA in
the Kansas City Region.  It is also my pleasure to introduce
the other two members of the hearing panel.

          To my far right is John T. Rhett, who is an engineer
that has been with EPA for the last couple of years in charge
of the construction grants program.  Prior to that time he was
with the U.S. Corps of Engineers.

          The gentleman on my immediate right is James L. Agee,
who in his past experience was also a Regional Administrator for
EPA, and was the original Regional Administrator in Region 10
in Seattle.  And Mr. Drain talked him into leaving one of the
better jobs of EPA and go into headquarters as an assistant
administrator in charge of the Water Program and Hazardous
Materials.

          With that introduction, Jim, I will turn it over to
you.

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you, Jerry.

          Ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much for coming.
We appreciate your presence here today to present your views on
possible administration proposals to amend the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1972.-  This is the second of a series
of public hearings.  We have had one in Atlanta.  We will have
another one in San Francisco, and another one in Washington,
D.C., all in this month of June.

          I would like to begin for a few moments here by reading
a statement and putting the Wastewater Treatment Facilities Grant
Program of EPA into focus and get to the purpose of these hear-
ings and how we will use the hearing testimony that you folks
will be presenting today.

          The 1972 Amendments authorized, and the Administration
has allotted to the states, 18 billion dollars in construction
grant funds, these grant funds at the rate of 75 per cent Federal
Share would amount to something like 24 billion dollars in con-
struction.

          As some of you know, the 1974 survey of state needs
indicated that approximately 350 billion dollars are eligible,
and that is what our need survey indicated under the Water Pol-
lution Control Act.

-------
          In the aggregate this would amount to a Federal Pro-
gram of something like 262 billion dollars to fund that 350
billion dollar need survey that we have.

          The magnitude of the need is well beyond the capabi-
lity of the federal budget to fund with 75 per cent grants in
any reasonable future time.  As a result, today we will be con-
sidering alternative means of funding of these projects that are
absolutely essential to attaining required treatment levels with-
out negating major water quality objectives of the Act.

          Also considered will be possible ways to extend the
1977 Statutory Deadline for municipalities to reach secondary
or higher required levels of treatment; and, in addition a
measure to improve the management of the program through greater
delegation of responsibilities to the states.

          I want to emphasize that these hearings will relate
to changes to be made in any future funding that Congress may
make available after the 18 billion dollar allocation.  In
other words, any of the proposed changes as to funding will not
pertain to changing the provisions under which grants are to be
made with presently available funds.

          Specifically, these hearings are for the purpose of
receiving public comment, views and information on the issues
described in the May 2, 1975 announcement of these hearings,
and discussed in more detail in the background papers published
in the Federal Register of May 28, 1975.

          These background papers are available at the registra-
tion desk today if anyone desires additional copies.   The back-
ground papers are presented with the intent that they will assist
in focusing discussion at the hearings—they do not cover any
possible alternatives, and are not meant to confine the discus-
sion.  Nor do they indicate any pre-determined course of action
already selected by EPA.  On the contrary, these very hearings
will assist EPA in determining our course of action.

          There are five issues that we wish to address today:

          The first issue reads like this:  Should the federal
share for funding construction grants be reduced from the cur-
rent level of 75 per cent to a level as low as 55 per cent?

          The objectives of such an amendment would to two-fold:
The first is to permit the limited funding available to go further
in assisting needed project.  The second objective is to encourage
greater accountability for cost effective design and project
management on the part of the grantee by virtue of the grantee's
greater investment in the project.

-------
         Some of  the questions which might be  addressed  are:

         A.  Would a reduced  federal share inhibit or  delay
             the  construction of needed  facilities?

         B.  Would the  states have  the interest  and  capacity
             to assume,  through state grant or loan  programs,
             a larger portion of the financial burden  of the
             program?

         C.  Would communities have difficulty in raising ad-
             ditional funds in capital markets for a larger
             portion of the program?

         D.  Would the  reduced federal share lead to greater
             accountability on the  part  of the grantee for
             cost effective design, project management,  and
             post-construction operation and maintenance?

         E.  What impact would a reduced federal share have
             on water quality and on meeting the goals of
             PL 92-500?

         The second issue  is: Should the  Federal Government
limit the amount of reserve capacity of facilities that would
be eligible for construction grant assistance?

         There are two  possible objectives to  be achieved by
limiting eligibility for reserve capacity.   The first is  to
permit limited federal funds to go further  in funding the back-
log of projects for treating existing flows; and  the  second is
to induce more careful sizing  and design  of capacity  so that
excessive growth-related reserve capacity is not  financed with
federal  funds.

         Some questions which may be addressed are:

         A.  Does current  practice  lead  to over-design of treat-
             ment works?

         B.  What could be done to  eliminate problems  with the
             current program  as to  reserve capacity, short of
             a legislative change?

         C.  What are the  merits and demerits  of prohibiting
             eligibility of growth-related reserve capacity?

         D.  What are the  merits and demerits  of limiting eligi-
             bility for growth-related reserve capacity  to 10
             years for  treatment plants  and 20 or 25 years for
             sewers?

-------
          E.   Are there other alternatives?

          The third issue is:  Should the types of projects
eligible for construction grants be restricted?

          The principal purpose to be achieved in limiting
eligibilities is to reduce the federal  burden in financing the
construction grants program.   A secondary purpose is to limit
federal participation to those types of projects that are most
essential to meet the water quality goals of PL 92-500, and to
require that some projects be fully financed by local and state
authorities where such projects are clearly within their res-
ponsibilities and capabilities.

          Some questions in these areas are:

          A.   What impact to different eligibility structures
              have on the determination of need for a particular
              facility?
                          *  ,j-
          B.  Is there adequate local incentive to undertake
              needed investment in certain types of facilities,
              even in the absence of federal financial assistance?

          C.  Is there adequate local financial capability to
              undertake investment in different types of faci-
              lities?

          The fourth issue is:  Should the date be extended by
which publicly-owned treatment works are to achieve compliance
with requirements of Section 301 of the law?
                                                              • r
          It is currently estimated that 50 per cent, or 9,000 ,,.,;,
communities serving 60 per cent of the 1977 population, will
not be able to comply with the requirements that municipalities
have secondary treatment of their wastewaters by 1977.  The
amount of construction grant funds authorized thus far -- 18 bil-
lion do liars—is not sufficient to cover the 1977 needs that
are estimated in the FY 1974 Need Survey for Secondary or Higher
Required Treatment.
                                                   I,
          And, in addition, those communities that are funded
with federal grants by 1977 will not be all able to complete
construction by 1977.  The issue is faced as to how to address
the question of non-compliance with the law in 1977.  The obvious
solution is to extend the deadline either on a-case-by-case
basis, or by an overall extension of the compliance date.

-------
          Some questions which may be addressed are:

          A.   Should the Act be amended to allow either case-
              by-case extensions of the deadline, or an over-
              all  extension to a certain date:

          B.   Would it be fair to require industry to meet
              the  1977 deadline, while extending it for
              municipalities?

          C.   Should an outside limit be provided to  the admin-
              istrator granting an extensions,  for example five
              years from date of amendment, or  should the possible
              compliance deadlines be open-ended?

          D.   Will EPA lose credibility supporting an across-the-
              board extension for municipal compliance, especial-
              ly in cases where it is unnecessary?

          The fifth and last issue which we would discuss today
is:  Should a greater portion of the management of the construction
grants program be  delegated to the states?
                  ' <, '•': '
          A bill,  H.R. 2175, has been introduced in the Congress,
which would permit the administrator to delegate to the states
the broad range of grant processing functions,  including those
that go beyond the review and approval of documents.   States  would
certify that the requirements for grants had been fulfilled.

          Included also is a provision to compensate  the states
directly out of state allotments for administrative costs which
they incurred up to a maximum of 2 per cent of  the states yearly
allotment.  Under  H.R. 2175, EPA activities would be  largely
confined to overall policy making and to auditing and monitoring
the grant activities performed by the states.   However, EPA
would remain responsible for any environmental  impact statements
necessary on individual projects.
                      t.
          Some questions which may be addressed are:

          A.   ;What exactly functions in the review and approval
              of construction grant applications should be
              delegated to the states?

          B.   Should all parts of the construction grants pro-
              cess be delegated?

          C.   In addition to ordinary staffing  problems, what
              difficulties may be encountered in state staffing
              when a federal financial commitment is  involved.

-------
                                                            8

          D.  Will the funding level suggested in the proposed
              bill be adequate?

          E.  In actual practice will greater delegation of
              program responsibility to the states make the pro-
              gram more efficient without compromising environ-
              mental concerns?

          F.  How much time would be required for individual
              states to assume additional responsibilities?

          G.  Are there alternative funding schemes, either
              federal or non-federal to support the states in
              this construction grants effort?

          For the first four of these issues, the administration
is contemplating the submission of proposals to the Congress to
amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.  The information
derived from the hearings will provide EPA with a better under-
standing of each of these four issues.

          Should these hearings result in specific suggestions
for legislation to be formally submitted to Congress, EPA would
have in its possession the views of interested parties and data
on the potential impact of such proposals, including data for the
draft environmental impact statement that would have to accompany
such proposals.

          For the fifth issue, that is delegating greater pro-
gram responsibility to the states, EPA has endorsed*H.R. 2175
and H.R. 6991.   These hearings will give EPA a better understand-
ing of the capacity of the states to accept greater delegation
and will provide views and information concerning the administra-
tive procedures that might be used to accomplish more timely
delegations.  These hearings will also explore any problems that
might be involved in this effort.

          Now for the ground rules by which these hearings will
be conducted.  Anyone wishing to testify today must sign the
registration card available at the entrance.  Testimony should
be limited to a maximum of 15 minutes.  I will call the speakers
in the following manner to come to the lecturn over here, and
if you would do so to make your presentation, please try to con-
fine it to 15 minutes.

          Our secretary today, Dave Zobop over here, has a little
timer, and it will ring.   So when the 15 minutes are up, it will
keep us on schedule today.

-------
                                                             9

          If there are any questions regarding  the procedure
or approximately at what time you will be called  if you do wish
to testify, you can see Mr. Sabock over here and  he can give you
a fairly good estimate as to when you might be  called for this
testimony today.

          We are pleased to have you here today,  and we are
looking forward to your testimony.  Are there any questions  that
I might answer about the purpose of these hearings at this time?

          (No response.)

          CHAIRMAN AGEE: O.K.  There being none,  we will move
right  into the testimony.  I would like to call at this time
Mr. James Shaffer, who is with the Little Blue  Valley Sewerage
District.  Mr. Shaffer?  I mentioned that the buzzer will ring,
.Mr. Shaffer, in 12 minutes, so that will be the key that you
have got three minutes left.  It is not for your  benefit.  It
is for everybody's.

          MR. SHAFFER:  O.K.  Ladies and gentlemen, my name
is James Shaffer.  I am General Counsel for the Little Blue
Valley Sewer District, which is a common sewer  district located
in Jackson and Cass Counties, Missouri.

          I have been requested to read into the  record this
morning a statement prepared by Mr. Harvey Jones, Chief Engine-
er and Chief Operations Officer for the Little  Blue Valley   ;
Sewer  District.

          The driving force behind the nation's water pollution
control effort is  the Municipal Waste Treatment Grant program.
This program must  not be allowed to falter and  come to a halt
while  amendments to the act are debated and new regulations  and
rules  are formulated.

          The lessons learned from attempting to  implement
PL 92-500 must be  heeded to prevent cost escalations from push-
ing project financing out of reach while paperwork is shuffled.

          We suggest a two-phase approach be adopted to permit
the grant program  to proceed without further delay.  First,  ex-
tend authorizations at a seven billion to nine  billion dollar
annual level for the next five years.  This action is needed im-
mediately to permit state and local governmental  units to proceed
with any semblance of order in their planning.

          Second,  approach any amendments to the  act in an order-
ly fashion and avoid additional costly time-consuming provisions.
This time lesten to the professionals.

-------
                                                           10

          Paper No.  4 states that 60 per cent of the 1977 popula-
tion will not be receiving secondary treatment by that date.
How much advice of the professional committee was heeded in
establishing this date for secondary treatment?

          The following suggestions are offered as possibilities
to be considered in  order to optimize expenditure of the grant
dollar:

          A.  The federal share should be maintained at the pre-
              75 per cent level.   State and local governments
              have,  in most instances, made arrangements for
              financing projects  at this level.  A change in
              the federal share at this time would in almost
              every instance create delays, and in some instances
              probably force abandonment of projects under deve-
              lopment.

          B.  Limiting federal funding of reserve capacity to any
              fixed perameter will not be cost effective.  Local
              governments are not overspending because of the
              grants.  Even the 10 per cent local share is bur-
              densome, and the electorate also knows the final
              source of the matching funds.  The capacity design
              must be established at a case by case level to  be
              cost effective.  The California Plan may have spread
              the money, but still could not be economical.  To
              attempt to coordinate population projections on a
              statewide basis would merely result in delay, and
              duplications of the Regional planning efforts.

          C.  Funding at the 75 per cent level should be limited
              to treatment facilities and interceptor sewers.
              There should, however, be flexibility to permit
              funding of a lesser degree of treatment for com-
              bined sewer overflows should this be more cost
              effective than providing secondary treatment at
              the main outfall.  States should have also the
              authority to permit funding at a lower level such
              as 50 per cent for treatment or control of storm
              water after all sanitary wastes have been cared for.
              Grant money should not be made available for main-
              tenance items such as correction of inflow, infil-
              tration, in collection systems, sewer rehabilita-
              tion, separation of combined sewers, or for the
              construction of collecting sewers.

          q.  The 1977 date for meeting water quality standards
           '"  should be extended to a reasonable, obtainable date,

-------
                                                           11

              and should still  be based upon the availability
             "of matching funds.   In addition, the requirements
              for treatment should be reinvestigated and where
              the cost effectiveness of secondary treatment
              cannot be proven, the requirements should be re-
              laxed.   Funds saved by this plan could be better
              utilized to improve potable water treatment plants.

          E.   Many of the roles played by the EPA should be phased
              out and be returned to state governments for more
              responsive action than

          Thank you very much.   That concludes our statement.

          CHAIRMAN A6EE:  Mr.  Shaffer, may I ask you a question?

          MR. SHAFFER:  Yes.

          CHAIRMAN AGREE:  You indicated, if I heard you right,
that the states should be given the opportunity to have, require
a greater local share of certain eligible projects?

          MR. SHAFFER:  That is correct.

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Do you think it would work better to
have the states have that perrogative or would you recommend
that that be in, an amendment to the federal legislation, which
would permit this in all states,  or require it?

          MR. SHAFFER:  Well,  I read the statement, it is Mr.
Jones'  statement.  And I believe it would be fair for him or
Mr.  Paul Andrews to answer that.   They are both here this morning.
So,  I think in fairness to them,  because I have just read their
statement, they should give their answer to it.  Paul is here.

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Would you care to answer that?

          MR. ANDREWS:  Would you care to repeat the question
again,  please?

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  I believe Mr. Shaffer said that a
state should be given the opportunity to use federal funds and
require a higher percentage at the local  level for some kind
of project.   I think Mr. Shaffer said stormwater separation,
for example,  or for sewers.

          MR. ANDREWS:  I believe it was suggested a lower per-
centage.  He said that the interceptors at treatment plants which
were included in the original  legislation should be maintained

-------
                                                           12

at a 75 per cent level, but that some of the facilities which were
added to eligible projects under PL 92-500 might be funded at
a lower level under such time as the primary projects had been
taken care of, the ones which are most cost affected.

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you/

          MR. SHAFFER:  Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

          MR. SVORE:  Mr. Shaffer, I would like to ask you a
specific question in connection with the Little Blue project,
or your entire development in the valley.

          How would changing the percentage of funding on future
phases of your project affect your, how does the bond market
affect this?  How would you finance it?  How would it affect
the financing?                                  ,

          MR. SHAFFER:  In the case of the Little Blue Valley
Sewer District, it would have a very drastic affect.  The pro-
posed construction costs of the, for the completion of the con-
struction for the district is about 270 million dollars.   For
those who are not acquainted with our district, it'is an  inter-
ceptor line and treatment plant which will service 11 incorporated
cities in Jackson County and Cass County, Missouri, plus  two
federal installations.              vr

          In order for, because of the fact that the Little
Blue Valley Sewer District is a common sewer district it  is not
a taxing authority.  Therefore, in order for the district to
provide for its local  share, it was necessary to go into  the
public market and sell revenue bonds.  It was based on the
contemplated federal and state funding of 90 per cent and the
local share of 10 per cent.

          The district authorized the sale of 54 million  dollars
in revenue bonds.  Twenty nine million dollars of those revenue
bonds have been sold and in the prospectuses, which were  pre-
pared when the bonds were sold to the public, there were  state-
ments made, of course, that the funding was based on, that the
projections for the payment of these bonds and for the payment of
the local share was based on the present funding at 90 per cent
by federal and state.

          If the local share were increased, as an example,
supposed the local share were increased from 10 to 20 per cent. '
Then the local share would be doubled; it would then be neces-
sary for the district to go back to the public and try to at-
tempt to sell a revenue bond which is not backed by taxing
authority.

-------
                                                           13

          And in the opinion of our investment advisor, who is
here today, it would be impossible for us to be able to sell
the public on these bonds.  So I think the net result in the
Little Blue Valley Sewer District, if we were required to go
back and try to attempt to sell another sizeable amount of
revenue bonds based on some other contingencies, that we would
not be able to effectively do that.

          MR. SVORE:  Thank you.

          MR. RHETT:  Just one procedure, I wonder if the gentle-
man from the Little Blue would give us his name so the reporter
can pick it up?

          MR. SHAFFER:  Yes, the answer to that was given to Mr.
Svore, or was it Mr. Agg'e question?  That was Mr. Paul Andrews,
who is with Burns, McDonnell Engineering Company, consulting
engineers.

          Also present this morning was Harvey Jones for Little
Blue.  He is the chief engineer.  Mr. Hawkins of Hawkins Brothers,
who is the bond advisor for the District is here also.

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you, Mr. Shaffer.

          MR. RHETT:  I have one more I would like to pursue a
little bit more on the sliding scale.  Would this sliding scale,
as you all see it, be a fixed sliding scale, so much per treatment
plant, 75 per cent for treatment plants and interceptors, I think
you mentioned 50 per cent for stormwater?  Or would there be any
flexibility in these lower ones?  I was really trying to--"

          MR. SHAFFER:  Yes, I believe our theory is that the
states should be given some latitude in determining the, not only
the priorities but determining the cost factors and it should be
flexible.

          MR. RHETT:  O.K.  Thank you.

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  I would like to call at this time Mr.
Oliver Williams, who is with the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources.  Is Mr. Williams here?

          (No response.)

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  All right.  We will move on, then.
Mr. Max Foote from the Municipal Utility Contractors of America.
Is Mr. Foote here?

          MR. WEAVER:  I am Mr. Weaver.  I am supposed to speak
for Mr. Foote.

-------
                                                           14

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Very good.  Following the next
speaker, we will ask to come forward Mr.  Frank Eaton, following
this presentation.

          MR. WEAVER:  Gentlemen, my name is Frank Weaver.  I      •
am a contractor from here in Kansas City.  I am here today to
speak in place of Mr. Max Foote, who is the chairman of Region
7 Municipal Utility Contractors of A.G.C.

          First let me state that the position statement of
Region 7's Ad Hoc Committee accurately reflects the feeling of
the A.G.C. Region 7 Utility Contractors.

          To be more specific, we feel that it would be a mistake
to reduce the federal share of this fundjng.  Whereas, the amount
of money that is available from federal funds is'said to be limit-
ed, it appears to the contractors that to date the regulations
and requirements are so complex that only about half of the
money allocated has actually been committed.  The purpose, we feel,
of the act cannot be accomodated in time to meet the 1977 and 1983
Municipal Pollution Control requirements of PL 92-500, regard-
less of the amount of federal  participation, as long as these
restrictive regulations and requirements remain in effect.

          We also feel that reducing the amount of money avail-
able at this time, or in the near future, would actually only
further delay the program because of the new regulations and
new powers that would have to be promulgated,, and because of the
fact that about the only way a municipality can come up with
their share of this is through taxation.   And taxation purposes
today are just not very popular and they are hard to get through.
So we would think we would be defeating the purpose of PL 92-500
if the federal amount was restricted or lowered.

          Now, as to limiting federal financing to serving the
needs of the existing population, it would seem that this would
not be very progressive-  Region 7, EPA Office, has made re-
strictions which, and rules covering this, which  we believe are
very realistic.

          In other words, they have more or less  taken a case
as it comes up, gone over it,  seen if maybe it is just somebody's
dream as to the anticipated growth, or if it is real.   And if it
is real they have gone along with it.  Or, in some instances I
know where they have cut drastically.

          And we feel that it should be done on this basis rather
than just automatic or an across-the-board cut.  In other words,
this is something which we think should be worked out between the
EPA and the consulting engineers.

-------
                                                           15

          Now, when you restrict the type of projects eligible
for grant assistance, you are liable to discriminate against
some municipalities, because the needs of the city is very great.
But nevertheless, they are as real  to each city as the other.

          The needs of some of our smaller towns are not the
same as the needs of our larger metropolitan areas, but I think
that they need this clean water protection as much as the larger
cities.  Maybe they don't need a big treatment plant, but they
probably would need a collection system.  So I think that it
should be left more or less the way it is, but I do believe also
that the system of priorities could be established at very
definitely saying how it would be done.  And I do think that
there is a great deal of merit in maybe reducing the federal
share on something like stormwater treatment, rather than waste
treatment.

          Now, Region 7 Contractors, as well as the National
A.G.C., have advocated the passage of H.R.2175, which would
grant a greater portion.of the management of the construction
grants to the states.  We feel that the states are closer to
home, and that they are more in touch with the needs of the
community than the federal government.  And we feel, in other
words, I think the federal government is just a little too big
and a little too far away.

          And also maybe it would be better if things were done
from a local level.  Or at least a statewide level, and we feel
that this really is probably the greatest thing in, that you
are proposing that would help move the grants along and would
help accomplish this PL 92-500.

          Now, in closing, I would only like to say that Region
7 Contractors feel that the present law and regulations will
never allow the quality standards to be met.  We all feel that
it is just like dangling a carrot out in front of a rabbit.  No
city councilman in his right mind would vote to use city tax
money for these purposes, when federal money appears to be their
for the asking.

          What he doesn't realize is that the system is so complex
he will probably never qualify for the grant.  Neither do we feel
that most of these proposed amendments will remedy this situation,
or even make it much better.

          I do want to thank you for giving me the opportunity to
speak on this most important of all thoughts.

-------
                                                           16

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Mr. Weaver, thank you.  Jack or Jerry,
do you have any questions of Mr. Weaver?

          MR. RHETT:  No.

          MR. SVORE:  No.

          CHAIRMAN AGREE:  Thank you, sir.

          Mr. Frank Eaton, is he in the room?  Yes?  Mr. Eaton's
representing the Consulting Engineers of Kansas.  Following Mr.
Eaton, our next witness would be Mr. Williamson.

          MR. EATON:  Good morning, gentlemen, Mr. Agee, Mr.
Svore, Mr. Rhett, ladies and gentlemen.

          I am presenting this statement today at the director
of the members of the Professional Engineers in Private Practice
of Kansas Engineering Society, and the Kansas Consulting Engineers
Council.  I welcome the opportunity to provide input and comments
regarding the proposed amendments to the Federal Water Pollution
Control Ate.

          I realized that there would be several persons appear-
ing to present statements, and therefore, I have attempted to
be brief in my comments.  This is a summary statement and we
may choose to present more in detailed and specific written com-
ments at a later date.

          This is the Position Statement for the Professional
Engineers in Private Practice, and the Kansas Consulting Engineers
Council for presentation at EPA Public Hearing on June 17, 1975,
Kansas City, Missouri.

          Members of the above professional societies have met
and reviewed the material presented in the May 28, 1975 Federal
Register entitled, "Municipal Waste Treatment Grants," and sub-
divided into designations "Papers No. 1 through 5."  We present
the following statements relative to each of these papers.
                                                          "\
          Paper No.  1 - Reduction of the Federal Share.  In our
          opinion the reduction in the amount of the federal  share
          would inhibit the construction of the needed facilities
          and would delay the meeting of the goals of PL 92-500.
          Local governments have generally adopted the criteria
          and water quality standards promulgated by the EPA in
          expectation of a promised high level of federal fund-
          ing.   To reduce the level of federal funding at this
          time would not be keeping faith with local governments,
          and would seriously endanger local planning where local
          funding has been completed but federal funding not al-
          located.

-------
                                                 17

Paper No. 2 - Limiting Federal Funding of Reserve
Capacity to Serve Projected Growth.  Anything less
than a reasonable reserve capacity in treatment plants
and interceptor sewers would be unsound economics.
The incremental additional cost is small relative to
future cost of parallel units.  A reasonable reserve
capacity cannot be described by a "10/20" program or
by any other fixed time program.  What is reasonable
for one city is not necessarily reasonable for another.
What is reasonable for a large metropolitan area is
not necessarily reasonable for a city of 5,000 or 10,000
population.  Reserve capacity should be evaluated upon
the most effective approach for each project.  A reason-
able reserve capacity should be included in federal
funding.  One hundred per cent funding of reserve capa-
city by local governments will bring pressures for under
design and result in greater future problems.

Paper No. 3. - Restricting the Types of Projects Eli-
gible for Grant Assistance.  Restriction of the types
of projects eligible for grant assistance, and yet
maintaining the existing guide lines for water quality
can create great inequities in grant assistance.  All
projects are individually different.  One project may
meet the goals by providing treatment only.  Another
may require treatment plus inflow correction.  Yet
another may require treatment, inflow correction, and
combined sewer overflow correction.  Restricting eligi-
bility by type of"project can result in doing only a
part of the job and failing to meet the goals.

Paper No. 4 - Extending 1977 Date for the Publicly
Owned Treatment Words to Meet Water Quality Standards.
It is of course obvious that direct action must be
taken to extend the 1977 deadline.  Of the alternatives
presented in the May 28 Federal Register, that pre-
senting the greatest fairness to the American'People
is to seek statutory amendments that would maintain
the 1977 date, but would provide the administrator
with discretion to grant compliance schedule extensions
on an ad hoc basis based upon the availability of federal
funds.

Paper No. 5 - Delegating a Greater Portion of the Manage-
ment of the Construction Grants Program to the States.
We support the passage of bill H.R. 2175 with EPA
activities confined to overall policy making and audit-
ing of the grant program.

That concludes the remarks presented by our group.

-------
                                                           18

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you.  Mr. Eaton, you mentioned
that you would recommend against changing the federal share from
75 per cent.  In your judgement would the, if there were a great-
er than 25 per cent, would the local communities have more desire,
interest, concern in the cost effective design and also the main-
tenance operation of facilities afterward if they had a larger
capital investment at the local level?

          MR. EATON:  If I may say so, Mr. Glen Gray in the
audience is the chairman of our committee, which drafted this
statement for presentation.  And if I may, I would like to have
that question directed to him for reply.
                                                        i t
          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Mr. Gray, would you mind responding
to that question?

          MR. GRAY:  Well, you know, the answer to your question
really can be both ways, I think.   Of course, we have to, I would
personally have to agree that if the local community were putting
more money into it they would be more concerned about it.

          I don't think we can deny that.  But on the other hand,
I believe that this grant program, since it was first started,
the original one, the one in 1956, I really have not found the
city's feelings about it.  It was different than when they were
getting 30 per cent and when they were getting 75 per cent.
                                       -.   i''
          Personally my observation is that I don't think it makes
much difference whether you are giving*them 50 per cent or 30
per cent, or 75 per cent of what they are basing that to.  I
know what you are saying.  There is some truth to it, some local
responsibility is left in any kind of direct grant program.

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you very much. Do you have any
questions?

          MR-. SVORE:  Pardon me, Mr. Eaton, but did you address
the different percentages or different types of work, the eligi-
bility for collection business, for instance, that 30 per cent and
50 per .cent to 75 per cent.  Did you touch on that?  I didn't
catch it if you did.

          MR. EATON:  Yes, may I direct that to Mr. Gray, also,
please?

          MR. SVORE:  Yes.

          MR. GRAY:  I would say to the committee that the state-
ment did not consider different amounts.  Maybe it would in a
written statement.  To comment on that, at this time no, we have
none.

-------
                                                           19

          CHAIRMAN  AGEE:   Thank you very kindly.

          Mr.  P.  A.  Williamson, is he here today?

          (No  response.)

          CHAIRMAN  AGEE:   Mr.  Robert Elsperman:   I am sorry if
I mispronounced your name.

          MR.  ELSPERMAN:   Mr.  Agee, Mr.  Svore, Mr. Rhett, I am
Robert P.  Elsperman, Registered Professional  Engineer, President
of G.  L.  Tarleton Contracting Company, St. Louis.  I am here
representing the  ad hoc committee of the Region 7 Pollution
Control Conference.

          This committee  functions in behalf of municipalities
and such  firms and  industries  involved with the design and con-
struction  of water  pollution control facilities in Iowa, Kansas,
Missouri,  and  Nebraska.

          The  committee was  formed at the behest of the first
meeting of the Region 7 Pollution Control Conference, convened
at the Alameda Plaza Hotel  in  Kansas City, Missouri, January
28 and 29, 1974.  That conference was attended by 224 municipal
officials, consulting engineers, contractors, and manufacturers.

          The  committee was  charged with the responsibility of
recommending changes which would alleviate problems relating to
PL 92-500,  This  would include changes in dates, procedures,
priorities, and the methods  of funding.   A copy of the goals
and objectives is appended to  this statement.

          The  committee held successive meetings on February 24,
1975,  and  March 31,  1975, and  adopted the attached recommendation.

          These were submitted to the full list of organizations
and were  subsequently adopted  by the Associated General  Contrac-
tors of America,  and included  in their recommendations submitted
to EPA Administrator Russell Train on April 14,  1975.

          The  organizations  are the A.G.C. of America, the American
Consulting Engineers Council,  The Professional Engineers in Private
Practice,  The  American Society of Civil  Engineers, WIMA, Water
Pollution  Control Federation,  the American Public Works Associa-
tion the  Mayors'  Conference, National League of Municipalities.

          On May  16, 1975,  the committee held a special  meeting
to prepare the following  statement in response to the proposed
amendments to  the Federal Water Pollution Control Act recommended
by the Office  of  Management  and Budget.

-------
                                                           20

          The Ad Hoc Committee of the Pollution Control  Conference,
while realizing that there is a need for an overall reduction of
federal expenditures feels that a reduction of the1 Water Pol-
lution Control program at this time would not only cause dele-
terious effects on our environment, but would jeopardize the
economy by weakening the industry that has tooled itself to cope
with water pollution problems.

          For that reason, we strongly urge that any reduction
in federal participation in the Water Pollution Control  program
be limited to the March 31, 1975 recommendations of this com-
mittee which was subsequently adopted by the Associated General
Contractors of America.

          Basically we are recommending that any reduction of the
federal share be accomplished by reducing the complexity of
federal requirements.

          Our reaction to the proposed amendments to the federal
Water Pollution Control Act by the Office of Management and
Budget are as follows:

          1.  A reduction of the federal share.  Since the incep-
              tion of the Act, local governments have been adopt-
              ing the criteria and more stringent standards pro-
              mulgated by EPA in anticipation of a promised high
              degree of federal funding.  Should that degree of
              federal participation be reduced, these communities
              would face dire financial consequences.

          2.  Limiting federal financing to serving the needs
              of existing populations.  A proposal which would
              not permit design and construction for eminent
              population growth without adequate reserve capacity
              would definitely not be cost saving.  It also would
              not be effective in controlling water pollution.
              EPA has already established adequate controls, which
              in Region 7 are being properly administered to     •
              prevent overdesign.  The expense of underdesign,
              which could involve duplication of certain costs,
              is pennywise and pound foolish.

          3.  Restricting the types of projects eligible for
              grant assistance.  The act itself, PL 92-500
              restricts funding to programs for preventing, re-
              ducing, or eliminating the pollution of the navi-
              gable waters and ground waters and in improving
              the sanitary conditions of surface and underground
              waters.  In some communities this can only be ac-
              complished by the*construct!'on of collector systems.

-------
                                                           21

              In  others,  plant construction  is  necessary.   The
              establishment  of arbitrary criteria  would only
              subvert the intention  of the act.

          4.   Extending  the  1977  date  for meeting  water quality
              standards.   The  committee concurs  that the 1977
              standard is impracticable.   It recommends that in
              extending  the  date, priorities and firm schedules
              be  established on a case-by-case  basis, consistent
              with  the availability  of funding.  The extension
              should not be  such  that  the resulting  slowdown would
              abregate a  national goal  established by Congress in
              the act, Title 1, Section 101, Declaration of Goals
              and policies.

          5.   Delegating a greater proportion of the management
              for the construction grants program  to the states.
              The committee  concurs  with this proposed amendment
              and reiterates its  recommendation  on Marcy 31, 1975,
              which in effect  supports passage  of  the Cleveland
              Right Bill, H.R. 2175, and which  would permit the
              administrator  of the EPA to delegate to those states
              which are  equipped  to  do so, responsibility of
              certifying compliance  with all requirements.

          This concludes my  report,  and I thank  you  for this
opportunity.

          CHAIRMAN  AGEE:   Thank you.  Jack Rhett,  do you have
any questions?

          MR.  RHETT:  I  guess  the only one that I  have is,  again,
on the sliding scale.  I  am  wondering  what you  might feel  on this?

          MR.  ELSPERMAN:   I  think you  are finding  in certain areas
that in essence this is  being  done through other avenues,  especial-
ly as it pertains to stormwater.   The  committee  itself did not
address itself to that question.

          I am certain that  they  can meet and formulate a  more,
a better statement  than  that.

       -  MR.  RHETT:  We would sure  like it  if you could.

          MR.  SVORE:  You made some  comment  on  collector systems.
Do you feel that  they need to  be  financed at a  75  per cent level?

          MR.  ELSPERMAN:   Sir, we feel  that  it  has to be evaluated
as to the problem with that  particular area  as  to  the project and
what the requirements are to satisfy the regulation.

-------
                                                           22

          MR. SVORE:  Would you consider a sliding scale then
as far as the collection systems are concerned?

          MR. ELSPERMAN:  I think our committee has toi as I
mentioned before, would have to address itself to that parti-
cular topic and we will do so.

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you very much.

          I would like to call  Ken Cartz from the Missouri
Department of Natural Resources. Mr. Cartz?

          (No response.)

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Mr.  Bruce Gilmore from the Nebraska
Consulting Engineering Association.  Mr. Gilmore?

          Following Mr. Gilmore I would like to call on Mr.
Grant from the Iowa Consulting Engineering Council.
           i
          MR. GILMORE:  Members of the panel, ladies and gentle-
men t.
                                        • i. .;' . i\
          This statement is on behalf'of the Nebraska Consult-
ing Engineers Association, and we appreciate the opportunity
to make this statement and present some constructive, hopefully,
suggestions.

          Our statements to the proposed amendments to the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act by the Office of Management
and Budget are as follows:
                                         0
          1.  A reduction of the federal share.  In our opinion
              the construction program will certainly be delayed.
              From our experience, some of our clients will  ex-
              perience financial difficulty in funding their share
              of the water quality facilities.  As long as the
              NPDES Permit establishes efficiency standards,  and
              as long as the EPA regulations require cost effec-
              tive designs and value engineering analysis, tt
              appears to us that a reduction in federal  grants
              will not increase the accountability of the grantee.
              A reduction in the federal share, in our opinion,
              will result in greater resistance on the part of the
              grantee to meet effluent standards and the goals of
              PL 92-500.                                       .   .

          2.  Limiting federal  Financing to serving the needs of
              existing population.  A proposal which would not
              permit design and construction for imminent popula-
              tion growth without adequate reserve capacity would

-------
                                             23

not be cost saving.  It also would not be cost
saving.  It also would not be effective in con-
trolling water pollution.  The expense of under
design which could involve duplication of certain
costs is penny wise and pound foolish.  The EPA
has established adequate controls which, in Region
7, are being properly administered through metro-
politan and statewide planning agencies.  The
determination of local population projections is
best done by these agencies.  The design and con-
struction of facilities that do not include reserve
capacity would result in many instances where these
facilities are starting up at capacity or overload-
ed.  This will demand that additional facilities
be planned or under construction when the new facili-
ties are started.  Such planning of water quality
facilities could not be cost effective.  It is our
opinion that the design of treatment facilities
to include a reserve capacity to 10 years from date
of start up may be cost effective.  The changing
effluent standards and the state of the art may make
this a practical consideration.  It is also our
opinion that 20 to 25 years' reserve capacity for
sewers in many instances is not cost effective.
Since sewers have a life in excess of 50 years,
engineers should not be limited by an administra-
tive cut off date, but be allowed to make a cost
effective analysis over a longer period of time,
taking into consideration local conditions.

Restricting the types of projects eligible for grant
assistance.  The states through their priority sched-
ules can most effectively direct available funds
to meet the standards of the act.  To restrict the
types of projects that are eligible ignores the
reality of diverse problems to be solved by the
grantee.  We feel that the present range of projects
allows a better cost effective approach because all
alternatives are funded alike.

Extending the 1977 date for meeting water quality
standards.  In our opinion, as a practical matter,
it is impossible to meet this deadline.  It is our
suggestion that the 1977 date for publicly owned
pre-treatment works to meet federal quality standards
remain in the law, but that the law be amended to
permit extensions of time to be made on a case-by-
case basis consistent with the availability of
funding and the priority schedule as determined by
the state.

-------
                                                           24

          5.  Delegating a greater portion of the management
              of the construction grants to the states.   We
              concur with this amendment because it provides
              for more local  control  of the program.   However,
              we also feel that the transfer of more administra-
              tive responsibility from the regional  office of
              the EPA to the  states should be done on a  gradual
              basis so as not to slow down the program.

          Thank you, gentlemen.

          CHAIRMAN A6EE:  Mr. Gilmore, on the matter of  a reserve
capacity, have you had any observations, or do you have  any
opinion as to as we put inside look to the future, taking in the
design life of these sewers,  that excess capacity, is that an
invitation to growth?  In other words, is the federal construc-
tion grant program, or the construction grant program in some
way determining the complexion of the growth of a municipality?

          MR. GILMORE:  I don't think very extensively,  sir.

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Is  some of the criticism that  we
frequently get from our construction grant program,  where you put
in reserve capacity and then  some people say, "Well,  you are
directing growth, your invitation to growth is in the wrong
area."  And this is something that we would like to hear about.

          MR. GILMORE:  Yes,  well, you have the other side of the
coin, I suppose, that we have no provision for growth and then
we are limiting it to whatever social benefit that may be.

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Very good.   Jack, do you have  any
questions?

          MR. RHETT:  No.

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you, Mr. Gilmore.

          I would like to call Mr. R. W. Grant, representing the
Iowa Consulting Engineering Council.

          Following Mr. Grant I will call Mr. Haney from Black
and Veatch.

          MR. GRANT:  Gentlemen and ladies, I am reading the
report of a special committee that we appointed in Iowa  to reply.
If you have questions, gentlemen, three members of that committee
are here, Mr. David Curtis, Mr. David Fox, and Robert Frederick.

-------
                                                           25

          Our statement is as follows; and I would add that the
committee has asked that perhaps after the hearings they may have
additional comments over those that I am reading to you now.

          The reactions of the member firms of the Consulting
Engineers Council  of Iowa to five papers published in the
Federal  Register on May 28, 1975, have been summarized by a
special  committee of our member firms.  These reactions are as
follows:

          Paper No. 1 - Reduction of the federal share.  The
          Congress of the United States of America has set a
          high priority for abatement of pollution of the nation's
          watersways.  Our members are of the opinion that the
          federal  government should review the priority of the
          Water Pollution Abatement Program in perspective with
          other federal spending.  If improvement of the water
          quality of our rivers and streams is as high on the
          priority program list as indicated by the actions of
          the federal government, then federal assistance through
          construction grants should be maintained at the present
          percentage level or increased to a higher percentage level
          It is our suggestion that the present 75 per cent level
          of federal construction grant funding for construction
          of all water pollution control related projects be
          maintained for projects requiring secondary treatment.
          It is further recommended that the construction grant
          program funding be increased to 100 per cent for all
          treatment facilities required to meet water quality
          standards higher than can be achieved by secondary
          treatment processes.  An alternative to the above would
          be that whatever regulatory body, federal or state,
          dictates higher than secondary treatment requirements,
          should be responsible for providing 100 per cent con-
          struction grant funds for the instrumental  treatment
          facilities required for higher than secondary treatment
          standards.  Water pollution abatement requirements have
          largely been promoted at the federal level.  Local
          governments cannot be expected to raise the necessary
          money for financing programs which seemingly provide
          little local benefit.  Many small communities are at
          their indebtedness limits as set by state statutes, and
          are unable to arrange reasonable revenue type financing. ,
          Perhaps a federal loan insurance program, similar to FHA
          Mortgage Insurance for home loans, to guarantee municipal
          revenue type financing would allow communities to eli-
          minate the bonding coverage provisions set up in most
          revenue sales proceedings to generate additional revenue
          over the required principal-interest payments so as to
          increase the sal ability of bonds.  No appreciable change

-------
                                                 26

in local accountability for cost effective design is
anticipated in as much as past and present design
methodologies and federal and state review methodo-
logies require a cost effective analysis of project
alternatives.  Further, it is anticipated that water
quality pollution abatement objectives would not be
enhanced by a decrease in the amount of federal and
state construction grants funding program.  An in-
crease in the requirement for local financing of both
capital improvements and operation of treatment faci-
lities will have an adverse impact to water quality pol-
lution abatement objectives.

Paper No. 2 - Limited Federal funding of reserve capacity
to serve projected growth.  It is the opinion of many
of our member consultants that under design of waste
water treatment facilities, rather than overdesign,
has been the predominant problem.  In many of these
cases the limitation of financial resources has been
a major reason for the under design.  We agree in
principle with the design and construction of treat-
ment facilities on a stage basis, providing that the
planning stages are of sufficient length of time, 15
to 20 years, so as not to create a continuous construc-
tion program which interferes with the operation of the
treatment facility.  However, our experience has shown
that a similar concept for sanitary sewer systems      !
design and construction is not a reasonable or practi-
cable or cost effective program for the owner.  It is our
recommendation that sanitary sewer systems be designed
to handle the flows based on 50 year population growth
projections, plus an allowance for infiltration inflow
based on local experienced conditions, rather than
an imposed standard.  Other forms of legislation and
land use control should be looked to for controlling
growth of an area where there are environmental concerns.
If federal grant monies are going to be allocated for
certain designated capacities for treatment works com-
ponents, we suggest the formulation and adoption by all
EPA regions of a uniform system of curves for sewers,
treatment plants, pump stations and other facilities for
determination of percentage of capacity chargeable to
EPA approved design capacity and to owner desired excess
capacity.  Otherwise inequities will develop between
the various regional EPA offices in the administration
of the policy.

Paper No. 3 - Restricting the types of projects eligible
for grant assistance.  If the type of projects listed
in five correction of combined sewer overflows, and six,

-------
                                                           27

          in  treatment  of control  of storm sewers  were  eliminated
          as  being  eligible  for construction  grant funding,  and
          if  the  further treatment of waters  from  these sources
          were  delayed  until  such  time as  practicable and  feasible
          program can be developed for abatement or reduction
          of  all  nine point  pollution, a  substantial  portion of
          the 225 billion of the need's requirement set out in the
          1974  Need Survey would be removed from the construction
          grant funding program.   This would  reduce the remain-
          ing program for pollution abatement to a reasonable
          level so  that an increase in the federal  construction
          grant funding to a 35 billion level  from the  present
          18  billion and would allow the  nation to proceed with
          an  orderly program for elimination  of most of the
          major points  of pollution.  Most urban communities are
          not in  favor  of spending large  sums of money  to  abate
          non-point pollution unless it can be clearly  proven that
          the sources being  abated are major  source in  comparison
          with  other non-point pollution  sources,  such  as  runoff
          from  agricultural  lands.

          Paper No. 4 - Extending  1977 date for the publicly owned
          treatment works to meet  water qualtiy standards.   It
          is  recommended that the  combination of alternative
          three and four, as set out in the paper  be implemented
          whereby the 1977 date would be  maintained,  but the
          administrator of EPA be  given the discretion  to  grant
          compliance scheduled extensions  on  an ad hoc  basis, based
          on  the  availability of federal  construction grant funds
          and a display of good faith by  the  grantee to build the
          necessary facilities.

          Paper No. 5 - Delegating a greater  portion  of the manage-
          ment  of the construction grants  program  to the states.
          The concept of the state agencies administering  federal
          construction  grants program is  endorsed.   It  is  also
          recommended that the federal government  monitor  the
          states; administration of the methodology and enforce-
          ment  of the program to establish a  consistent program
          throughout the nation.   It is also  recommended that the
          administrator of EPA develop standards for use by all
          of  the  EPA regional offices in  order to  develop  nation-
          wide  consistency in the  administration of the construc-
          tion  grant program.

          That  is the end of our statement.

          CHAIRMAN  AGEE:  Mr. Grant, thank you very much.   I have
two questions.  In  your testimony  I think  you recommended  that the
federal  government  should fund 100 per cent of sewage treatment

-------
                                                           28

facilities where the requirement is beyond secondary treatment.
Would you care to expand on your reasons for this.

          MR. GRANT:  Which member of the committee would choose
to reply to that question?  They are all in a bunch there.

          MR. FREDERICK:  It is our basic opinion  here that with
the definition of secondary treatment as the national  goal  that
where it implies greater treatment is required for the standards,
that might be questionable to achieve the Clean Water Act.   Either
a local or a federal share would be added to the 75 per cent.

          Here again, the basis for the funding would be upon  that
agency and would require a higher standard, per se, as to either
more restrictive stream standards or a water quality limit standard
imposed by the state.  They would therefore fund this as far as
federal funding and it would be applicable more to it.  This
influction principal whereby a federal requirement of blanket
disinfluction, whereby no benefit can be shown, we feel  this
should be funded totally.

          MR. RHETT:  All right.  You know, I'd like to pursue
this slightly further, to make sure we completely  understand.
Really what you are saying there, or did I understand you correctly,
that if the state sets a higher water quality standard than the
national, then the state should pay for this?  I that what you
were saying?                              •-•..,

          MR. FREDERICK:  Yes.

          MR. RHETT:  O.K. Thank you.

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Jerry, do you have any questions?

          MR. SVORE:  One question.  You are addressing yourself
to the fact that if additional capacity was needed that probably
the local or the state would pay for the additional capacity that
might be required.  Did I understand you correctly on that?

          Really, my question is whether I understood you
properly or not, assuming that there, the grantee's requirements
for future reserve capacity, that the contact was  left at that
level.  Now, in the event that the federal share would only be
applied to the needed capacity at the present time, as a consulting
engineer what about the mechanics of ever arriving at that figure?
Would that be a major obstacle where the engineer comes up with
one and the EPA comes up with another answer?

          How do you arrive, at what part of that project satis-
fies the present demands?  Is this a, is it possible ~

-------
                                                           29

          MR. CURTIS:  I am Dave Curtis.  What we were attempt-
ing to say especially with regard to wastewater treatment facili-
ties, we feel that the design can contemplate a 20 or 30 year load
capability.  We feel the design should be developed in such a
way that the state construction is over a 20 to 3- year period
so that the initial construction would serve the immediate popula-
tion, and 10 years later or 15 years later the basic cor plan is
there to be expanded with relative ease to then serve the popula-
tion that has come into the area over this development growth
period, rather than try to design for that 30, 40, 50 year date
now.

          That excess capacity would be sitting there essentially
being unused.  This design would provide for expansion over a
period.  This is in the area of the waste treatment program.

          MR. SVORE:  My question probably would apply to inter-
ceptors more than to treatment plants, where the interceptor
might be designed for a longer period of time than what EPA's
federal share could --

          MR. CURTIS:  I think we are not taking exception to this.
We can see a great problem associated with it, providing intercep-
tor sewer capacity to date for some unknown future flow.  I don't
think that the committee members take much exception to perhaps
writing down the view Of the design of inteceptors, at least
within certain restraints and limits.

          MR. SVORE:  Do you see a problem in the mechanics of
determining just what percentage of that, then, should be eligible
in the event that the grantee wasn't to go to 50 years?

          MR. CURTIS:  Yes, we see a real problem and this is why
we suggest maybe a curve system approach, simply to set a basis
from which to operate from.  This is the way to go.

          MR. SVORE:  Thank you.

          CHAIRMAN A6EE:  Mr. Grant, thank you.  Thank you to
your colleagues, also.

          Mr. Paul Haney of Black and Veatch Consulting Engineers.
Following Mr. Haney's testimony, I would like to call Mr. Horace
Smith from Houston, Texas, representing the city.

          MR. HANEY:  Members of the panel, ladies and gentlemen,
my name is Paul Haney.  I am a partner with the firm of Black
and Veatch, Consulting Engineers located here in Kansas City,
Missouri.

-------
                                                           30

          This discussion hopefully represents a composite
opinion.  However, if you think you detect some personal bias
in this, you are probably right.

          The discussion is keyed to the series of papers pub-
lished in the Federal Register, and Paper No. 1 relates to the
reduction of the federal share.

          The issues are Issue No., Issue No. 2, 3, 4 and 5.  We
will try to discuss and be responsive in that order, although
I am not sure I understand all oft.  I don't believe I am along
in that respect.

          A reduced federal share would further delay the con-
struction of needed facilities that have already been delayed
by the administrative inflexibility of the Act, and the pro-
cedures adopted by EPA.

          While it may be possible for some states to assume
a larger portion of the financing program, any change in the
financing structure should rely more heavily on local financing,
rather than either federal or state grants or loans.  Any shift
to an increase in state or local financing will have to be ac-
companied by extended time schedules to gain public acceptance
of the change.                _
                                             t
          The volatility of interest rates during the past year
has placed a cloud over the financing methods which have tradi-
tionally been available to local authority.  But barring a return
to high interest rates, local financing of a greater portion may
be possible through taxes or sewer service charges.  However, I
am not optimistic.

          A reduced federal share might lead to better cost con-
trol and management in the water pollution control program.'
Local leaders are in a better position to evaluate local priori-
ties than are federal officials in Washington.  Our rationale for
this statement is as follows:  Throughout the development of the
program local governments have accepted standards and criteria
that in many instances are more stringent than necessary in anti-
cipation of a high degree of federal funding.

          It might be possible to couple a reduced federal share
with the change in requirements to that a local government unit
could be induced so assume a larger portion of the capital cost
by the prospective operating cost being reduced with a less
sophisticated facility.  However, a reduction in the federal
share will be interpreted by most local governments as a failure
to fulfill a promise.

-------
                                                           31

          A reduced federal share would delay even further the
time schedule for meeting the goals of PL 92-500.  But it appears
to be impossible to meet that schedule anyway.

          Eliminating legal and administrative and engineering
expenses from the portion eligible for federal partieVipati6n\  ,
might accelerate the program.  These activities are difficult
to define and have been subject to threat of inordinate amount
of red tape by the EPA.

          On Paper No. 2, eliminating the federal funding of
reserve capacity to serve projected growth, rather than provid-
ing an incentive for overdesign the current practices exert al-
most unreasonable pressure toward underdesign

          A waste treatment plant is the, is most complex.  It
is developed over a long period of time and it must have consider-
able versatility.  Complicated chemical and biochemical process-
es are invariably involved, yet only a minimum amount of control
can be exercixed over the raw material processed by the plant.

          The flow of raw sewage varies hourly in quantity and
quality.  A reasonable allowance for future growth is essential.
A high percentage of the spills that occur are the result of
underdesign of some portion of the collection system or the
treatment plant.

          The problems in the current program appear to be more
financial and administrative than technical.  Consequently,
changes in technical requirements will not eliminate the pro-
blems.  There are many changes that could be made to expedite
the program.

          For example, elimination of the requirement for detail-
ed infiltration inflow analysis would expedite the program.
This items has been administered ineptly and has become an
unnecessary barrier to achieving the objectives of PL 92-500.

          If all funding for reserve capacity were eliminated,
there would be a strong temptation to build only for today
with the hope that federal funding relief would be available
in the future for expensive parallel or additional facilities.

          The current 20 year cost effectiveness analysis is
generally reasonable, and it might be reasonable to use that
same period as the maximum design period for which the federal
funding would be available.  However, there should be flexibility.
I don't think you can fix this precisely.  With inflation con-
tinuing at high rates, future construction promises to be ever
more costly.

-------
                                                           32

          Additional pressures toward the delaying of construc-
tion is not what the program needs.   Any reduction in design
periods will be counter-productive.

          Currently there is at least a five year lag from ini-
tiation of engineering studies to operations, at least a five
year lag.  Facilities designed for less than 20 years of growth
are hardly operational before they become too small.   The cur-
rent cost effectiveness guidelines of EPA provide a generally
reasonable basis for design.

          Shortening the design period would sink a program
that is already mired in sludge, legislative and bureaucratic
sludge generally termed red tape.

          An alternative would be to permit local communities
to prefinance facilities and recover the federal share as
federal funds become available.

          Paper No. 3 is restricting the types eligible for grant
assistance.  The eligibility structure has a significant effect
on the priorities assigned by local  officials.  Those elements
eligible for federal participation frequently receive higher
priority for expenditure of local funds.

          In the past enforcement actions have not been parti-
cularly effective or popular as a means of obtaining compliance.
The available sanctions that can be applied to publicly owned
systems are distinctly limited.  The carrot certainly works bet-
ter than the stick in solving water pollution problems.

          Publicity may be even more effective in dealing with
local sanctions.  Local financing capability is seldom a serious
problem, if there is adequate time allowed for complete public
information programs.

          There may be special circumstances in some severely
impacted communities making local funding impossible.  It is
important to retain within the program the ability to allocate
at least a portion of the available federal funds to communities
having severe financial problems.

          In Paper No. 4, extending the 1977 date for the publicly
owned pretreatment works to meet water quality standards, pre-
financing with reimbursement from federal funds should be per-
mitted.  It is basically unfair to require industry to meet the
1977 deadline, while extending it for municipalities.

-------
                                                           33

          Since municipal compliance has been dependent upon the
availability of federal funding, a case can be argued despite the
inequities or less stringent requirements for municipalities than
for industries.  However, aconsiderable discretion must be allow-
ed in determining the requirements for the joint municipal and
industrial systems.

          Unless federal funding can be assured, there is little
reason to establish an outside limit for extensions.  The 1977
deadline is unrealistic.  Credibility loss or not, it will have
to be extended in some way.

          Anything that extends mandatory compliance dates proba-
bly will cause some delay in local funding.  A revised definition
of secondary treatment would take into account that process employ-
ed seems desireable.   It is doubtful whether this alone would
eliminate the need for extension of the 1977 deadline.

          A two-year extension is not enough if federal funding
is not increased.  Only: with the massive release of impounded
and additional funds would it be possible to meet a 1979 deadline.
If the federal share significantly reduced an extension to 1983
would be a bare minimum time for compliance with the stated 1977
deadline.

          Letters of authorization would appear to be preferable
to short term permits.  Until the permit process can be made
more expeditious, short term permits should not be given any
further consideraion.  We favor alternative number four, which is
listed on Page 23111 of the Federal Register.

          Paper No. 5 deals with delegating a greater portion of
the management of the construction grants program to the states.
We favor delegation of all parts of the construction grants pro-
cess to the states.  State and local officials are quite capable
of administering federal funds, and are more responsive to local
interests and priorities.

          Thank you.

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Mr. Haney, thank you very much for a
very detailed statement.  Jack Rhett, do you have any questions
of Mr. Haney?

          MR. RHETT:  Yes, your secondary.  I believe, secondary
treatment, I think I would like to find out really, exactly what
you mean here.  Are you talking about changing the law from an
effluent requirement to a process requirement?  Is that what you
were saying?

-------
                                                           34

          MR. HANEY:  No, now, the definition for secondary treat-
ment, I can't recall it exactly.   Do you mean like the 30-30 on,
I am not sure of the exact numbers.   Anyway, we have got these
numbers in there.  Without reference to any type of process
employed, this can be achieved by some processes that are giving
what we have always termed secondary treatment.  Sometimes it
can't be achieved.  That is what I had in mind.

          MR. RHETT:  In other words for different, let's say
for activated sludge you would have one for physical chemical,
one for --

          MR. HANEY:  Well, I am thinking principally of filters,
strictly filters.

          MR. RHETT:  Strictly filters, so there would be a  -
whole series of them?

          MR. HANEY:  You would be entering secondary treatment
for this and you possibly wouldn't be hitting this 30-30 average
all the time.

          MR. RHETT:  O.K.  Thank you.

          CHAIRMAN A6EE:  Mr. Haney, thank you very much.

          I would like to call on Mr. Horace Smith with the City
of Houston, Texas.  Following Mr. Smith's testimony we will call
on Mr. Charles Kaiser from St. Louis.

          MR. SMITH:  Chairman Agee, Mr. Rhett, Mr. Svore, I am
Horace L. Smith, Assistant Director of Public Works and Manager
for the Wastewater Division of the City of Houston.

          Mayor Hoffines will officially transmit this statement
at a later date, and it may be supplemented at that time.

          Our general observations with respect to Paper No. 1
contain two points.  First, irrespective of the governmental
level or the source of construction funding for wastewater and
water pollution control facilities, the people of the United
States will foot the bill.

          Reducing the federal share will not have a material
effect or impact on the magnitude of the construction required,
and consequently will not significantly decrease the fiscal
impact upon the people as a whole.

          Secondly, there has been a traditional concept that
property within local jurisdictions be assessed for capital
improvement.  Generally these assessments have been related

-------
                                                           35

to benefits per se received by the property, and also benefits
have been interpreted to be an increase in the value of the pro-
perty.   There is legal  background which says that property can't
be assessed in excess of the benefit received from the improvement.
In the absence of legal requirements to provide a level, degree
or standard of treatment, then it is impossible to establish
benefits the property being served by a treatment facility has.

          Therefore, it is submitted that the backlog of water
pollution control facilities is directly related to the previous
lack of standards of water quality control and not the benefit.
It is conceded that some states, including the State of Texas,
have set standards for water quality control prior to the federal
concern in the matter.

          But the emphasis of the mandate for construction of water
pollution control facilities to a prescribed performance level
was provided by federal legislation.  With respect to the specific
questions, would a reduced federal share inhibit or delay the
construction of needed facilities?

          It is submitted that there is not a proper yardstick
to relate to in response to this issue.  The administration or
the implementation of PL 92-500 to date at least has certainly
fallen short of expectations, and for that matter has fallen short
of the Congressional mandate.  Impoundment of authorized and
appropriated monies coupled with EPA's inability or lack of
enthusiasm to administratively implement the act is not much of
a track record to compete with.

          Realsitically, and appropriately, the federal govern-
ment can be more expedient in the generation of money to accomplish
national goals established by Congress.  What is needed is equal
expediency and efficiency in the implementation of the goals.

          Secondly, would the states have the interest and
capacity to assume through stofte grants or loan programs a larger
portion of the financial"burden of programs?  It is a matter for
speculation but not for projection.  State legislators would not
be overjoyed with such an opportunity.

          Three, would communities have difficulty in raising
additional funds in capital markets or in larger portions of the
program?  Yes, the major metropolitan cities have an abundance
of worthy programs, many of which are presently unfunded.

          Fourth, would the reduced federal share lead to greater
accountability on the part of the grantee for cost effective
design, project management and post construction operation and
maintenance?  This is an issue-begging question, rather than an

-------
                                                           36

issue-raising question.  If Congress and the EPA really want
cost effective programs, then the major part of the analysis and
evaluation process must be to consider local conditions with
respect to discharge standards, limitation in degree of treat-
ment required.

          A cost effective analysis based upon such secondary
treatment is a given perameter.  It is an academic process when
one considers that the selection of the level of treatment was
arbitrary.

          A true and therefore realistic cost effective study
must consider all factors that affect cost, and certainly the
ability of the environment to absorb pollutional load, without
adverse effect relates to the level of treatment selected and
is therefore germaine to the cost effective analysis.

          Irrespective of any consistency of logic reflected in
this example, it is submitted that there is, for the most part,
the professional engineers charged with the responsibility of
performing these studies as being capable and competent and honor-
able people.  And the source of funds will have no bearing whatso-
ever upon the conclusions of their study.

          Fifth, what impact would reduce federal  share have on
water quality in meeting the goals of PL 92-500.  The 75 per cent
federal share is a justifiable level based upon the magnitude
of the backlog of facilities required to catch up.  With the
standards established by the federal government, it is submitted
that the fact that the need survey has projected more construction
requirements than first anticipated by the government, and is more
of a justification than ever for the 75 per cent share.

          The demands are so great that local and state govern-
ments will not be able to readjust their existing priorities for
local funds without unduly affecting their local goals.  The
resulting economic impact upon the people would certainly immodera-
te  their desire for environmental quality.

          With respect to Paper No. 2, regarding limiting the
federal funding of reserve capacity to serve projected growth,
generally the proper planning and prudent financial management
dicataes that reserve capacity be projected for growth which
will be served by wastewater and water pollution control facili-
ties.

          It is the City of Houston's position that the federal
government is committed to financing the lion's share, 75 per cent,
of the construction of facilities required to improve existing
wastewater and water pollution control systems wherein they col-

-------
                                                           37

lect, contain, intercept and treat and otherwise control waste-
water sufficient to discharge an effluent which is in compliance
with the water quality and discharge standards of the law.

          Additionally, Houston's position is that the federal
government is equally responsible for the financing of a facility
required to adequately dispose of waste removed from the treat-
ment process.

          With respect to the obligation of the federal govern-
ment to finance reserve capacity for future growth, the City
of Houston recognizes that the priority for funding should be
first directed towards the construction of facilities required
to bring systems into compliance with the standards of the law.

          We recognize the argument that once the standards have
been set and the systems brought into compliance, that then the
financial burden for the future might be that of the community.
We hasten to add, however, that we do not agree with the arbitrary
position of the law relating to the degree of treatment and the
quality of effluent discharge.

          Further, we are of the opinion that the federal govern-
ment and the states must establish a compatible policy of standards
relating to the disposal of waste removed by treatment processes
upon the land and into the air in order to finally establish
local environmental quality relationships or standards.

          A concern that Houston has with respect to the financ-
ing of environmental control facilities and the provisions of
reserve capacity is that the level of financing and the level of
environmental standards not be used to control local growth
policy.  A discussion of the issues is, first, does current
practice lead to oyerdesign of treatment works.

          Population and waste!oad projections are the basis
for the design of reserve capacity facilities and not financial
capabilities.  The magnitude of these factors are arrived at by
professionals in this that have experience in such evaluations,
and the results are related to many factors, the least of which
is not local policies.

          As stated previously, we would hope the primary purpose
of the act is to control pollution and not growth.

          Second, what could be done to eliminate problems with
treatment programs, short of legislative change?  The problem
implied in the question has to be anticipated rather than divined,
because most experiences to date is that overloaded sewers and
treatment plants are the rule.  And that is the major problem.

-------
                                                           38

          We certainly couldn't agree with state and federal
supervision of projection of overgrowth.   We foresee that the next
step would be to control the sewer connection permit to the extent
that the growth would not exceed those arbitrary projections.
We submit that the locality is the best judge of the factors
relating to its future, and that we must make a final  decision
relative to provision of reserve capacity based upon local  con-
ditions and policies.

          The City of Houston, for example, has been,  is, and is
projected to continue to be a dynamic growing city, and it is
unreasonable to even consider, for example, the projection  of its
short or ultimate growth upon the historical averages  of the
State of Texas.

          We would hope that arbitrary or inflexible criteria
for projection of growth is not established.

          Third, what are the merits or demerits of prohibiting
eligibility for growth related reserve capacity?  In its own
discussion of this question, EPA implied that over design is  a
fact.  We submit that that, there is no basis for such specula-
tion.  Irrespective of this policy in thinking and objective
analysis in response to the question leads us to conclude that
the so-called 10-20 program adopted by California might be  an  -
equitable break point between federal and local responsibilities
for financing.

          Fourth, what are the merits and demerits of limiting
eligibility for growth related to reserve capacity to  10 years
for treatment plants and 20 to 25 for sewers?  We responded to
this question previously.

          Five, are there other alternatives?  There is a need
to proceed immediately with the implementation of the  law as
presently written, and to the extent of presently authorized  and
appropriated funds.  The need for immediate financial  planning,
but EPA and Congress, in order to make additional monies avail-
able to finance 75 per cent of the cost of facilities  identified
in the need survey.

          With respect to Paper No. 3, restricting the types  of
projects eligible for grant assistance, generally wastewater  and
water pollution control efforts are accomplished by a  system  of
facilities which collect, contain, intercept, treat and finally
disposes of effluent and separate wastes.

          If there is not a bound system, then wastewater tributary
to that system will not be controlled.  An orderly and systematic
approach to a pollution abatement problem is a community considers
all components of the system, including the establishment of
priorities on a realistic basis.  We do not feel that the federal
burden of wastewater and water pollution control is limited to the
interception of the treatment of wastewater.

-------
                                                           39

          I  had more to add.

          CHAIRMAN  A6EE:   How much more do you have?  You have
three minutes.

          MR.  SMITH:  O.K.  Very good.   I will try to complete
in that time.

          The  basic question  posed by the EPA to be explored and
evaluated in the issue of restricting the types of projected pro-
jects eligible for grant assistance are vague and confusing to us.
At least, the  answers would be speculative and philosophical.
Our general  response to this  group of  so-called basic questions
is that there  would be little change in the net environmental
impact.  The administration of programs would be just as complex
as it is presently, and there would not be a material change in
investment and employment areas.

          We qualify our answer on the basis that the need survey
reflects, for the most part,  upon requirements to bring existing
systems into compliance with  PL 92-500.  And therefore, the
inventory identifies the deficiencies by classification of system
components.
                            _ y
          Restricting the federal grant assistance to some com-
ponents of the system in emphasizing the grant assistance to
others would not make the system as a whole efficient.  With
respect to the closely related question^ what impact different
eligibility structures have on the determination of need for a
particular facility, restricting the eligibility structure would
not provide the flexibility required to establish priority of
construction based upon need.

          This restriction would provide another arbitrary pro-
vision in the  way of implementation of abatement action through
the construction of needed facilities.

          Too, is there adequate local incentive to undertake
needed investment?  Local officials are generally responsible
people with a  good understanding of what the needs of their
communities are.  They are also responsive to the priorities
established by their constituents.  The basic reason that com-
munities have  not,  on their own, actively reconciled pollution
problems is that local funding was and is limited, and other
programs were  and are more important to the majority of their
citizens.

          With respect to number three, is there adequate local
financial capability to undertake an investment on a different
level type of  facility?  For  the most part, citizens of locali-

-------
                                                           40

ties are willing to be assessed an additional  amount of their
taxes and serve charges to implement a pollution control pro-
blem.

          Local officials, however, have related to their constitu-
ents that the federal involvement in terms of financing is signi-
ficant.  Local officials have told their citizens that their
increase in cost of wastewater service, or taxes, is to secure
the 75 per cent level share for eligible construction of pro-
jects and to pay for an increased operation and maintenance
expenses.  Future growth can probably support its facilities' >•
requirements.                                                    '
                                                                an:
          This is an appropriate point to remind EPA and the
Congress for that matter that the only issues, the only costs
involved in the realization of the national anti-pollution goals, •
let me finish making this point, required by Congress are not
just the types of projects eligible for federal grants systems.
But also a multitude of other costs which the grantee, the
localities must absorb.

          These costs are for the most part new to the communi-
ties, and therefore another burden.  The implementation of a
national goal mandated by PL 92-500, for all intents and purposes,
has caused communities to organize and operate wastewater service
utilities.

          Costs associated with engineering, planning, operation
and maintenance, capital improvements ineligible for federal
grant assistance, administration in management and research and
development will exceed the cost recovered from the federal
grant and will provide localities with sufficient incentive to
seek cost effective methods.

          I am sorry that I ran over.

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Mr. Smith, thank you very much.   Jerry
Svore, do you have some questions?

          MR. SVORE:  Yes, I would like to just make one comment.
In practically every instance the local political subdivision
likes to have control over its own destiny.  And as far as expan-
sion, future planning and so forth, if the federal government is
to go along with financing of reserve capacity in interceptors,
primarily, shouldn't there be some responsibility on the part
of the local community to develop a firm plan, that they should
be required to have local zoning and exercise that authority
over their future destiny with some degree of formality?

-------
                                                           41

          MR.  SMITH:   Yes, in that type of control it is not
always in the  form of zoning.  Nor does zoning always function
to cause growth control.   In most of the experiences that I have,
zoning laws can be easily, as easily changed as they can be
initially set.

          MR.  SVORE:   Yes, but shouldn't it be a part of the
overall plan of future expansion in any community?

          MR.  SMITH:   I think that so far as the control of the
growth of the community,  that the lane use and the sewer use must
be balanced.  Now, I  think that an in-community design of the
sewer use components  based upon projections of growth, based
upon the experience of the growth, can certainly be analyzed.

          Certainly if that growth did exceed the sewer use
capacity, then that municipality would have to restrain itself,
as Houston is presently doing.

          CHIARMAN AGEE:   Mr. Smith, thank you very much.

          I will call Mr.  Charles Kaiser, who represents the
Metropolitan Sewer District of St. Louis and also the Associa-
tion of Metropolitan  Sewerage Agency.  Following Mr. Kaiser I
would like to call on Ken Karch from the State of Missouri.

          MR.  KAISER:  Mr. Agee, Mr. Rhett, Mr. Svore, ladies
and gentlemen, my name is Charles B. Kaiser, Jr.  I am General
Counsel for the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District and also
Chairman of the Legislative Committee of the Association of
Metropolitan Sewage Agencies.

          I am not speaking for AMSA here today, only the
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, but I would like to note
that AMSA will  present its statement on the same subject at the
federal hearing June  25 in Washington, D.C.

          I would like to thank the Environmental Protection
Agency for the opportunity to appear here today to express
MSD's views on the proposed amendments to PL 92-500.  I will try
to be brief and discuss the five issues to be covered here
today in the order in which they were discussed in EPA's papers
QI\ the proposed amendments.

          Paper No. 1 - Reduction of the federal share.  Would
          a reduced federal share inhibit or delay the construc-
          tion of needed facilities?  I will condense this.  I
          was  quite amused by the question raised in the paper
          as to whether the total amount or even the amount for
          critical categories can be accomplished in the federal
          budget in time  to meet the 1977 and 1983 municipal pol-

-------
                                                 42

lution control requirements of PL 92-500.   If the
federal government thinks it has financial  proglems, I
think those of the states and local  government are far
more critical.  We cannot, by just a mere  vote of our
board increase our debt limit to 50 billion of 100
billion.  It takes statewide constitutional amend-
ments.  In short, it was my understanding  that 75 per
cent federal grant figures were placed in  PL 92-500
so that this job could be accomplished in  a reasonable
time, and that Congress realized it had to be under-
taken by the federal government, because it was beyond
the financial capabilities of the local governments.
I think that it has been discussed by many, but basical-
ly, could the state help?  The State of Missouri passed
150 million dollar bond issue for matching funds.
Inflation is eroding that, and if anything I think that
state is thinking about reducing its share by at least
5 per cent so that these limited state funds will go
a little further.  If anybody can get a nickel out of
the governor or the legislature for the water pollution,
he is a better man than I.  And I have been up here try-
ing to do it for many years.  Like Harvey  Jones will
tell you, you can't get a nickel for education.  You
can't get a nickel for anything anymore.  They have
made up their minds they are not going to  raise any
taxes.  Just how much difficulty local communities
would have in raising additional funds, both St. Louis
and Kansas City are heavily in debt for the 100 million
dollars or plus that we each put in to primary treatment
in the 1960's, and whether or not we could sell addi-
tional bonds I think the financial experts have already
discussed it.  There is no sense in my wasting your
time.  We at the Metropolitan Sewer District feel that
our responsibility to our local taxpayers  has given
us the greatest accountability for cost effective design,
project management and post construction operation and
maintenance of the facilities.  We think that our record
stands for itself.  I am not so sure the opposite effect
would not be the case if you severely limited the fund-
ing.  It has been our experience throughout the country
that when there were limites on funding, people tried
to design to the funding capabilities without regard for
the efficient operation of the plant, or they tried so
hard to cut costs that an adequate job was not done in
producing an effluent that was satisfactory for the
stream conditions to which the effluent was being dis-
charged.  I am sure that if local municipalities have to
go heavily in debt to build new treatment facilities
they will be very reluctant to spend any additional money
to hire sufficient personnel of adequate skills to
operate and maintain the plants efficiently.  If I
remember hearing Congress scream about one thing at

-------
                                                 43

GAO and the Office of Management and Budget, it was
that the government was putting money in the plants
but they were not being operated properly.  If you
break the municipalities in the construction costs,
then they are not going to have sufficient funds to
operate these plants.  There is no doubt in our minds
that a reduced federal share below the 75 per cent
level for eligible projects will have a disastrous
effect on efforts to meet the water quality goals
set out in PL 92-500.  Here, I think, we already have
proof as to what effects the limit on funding would
have by the Presidential impoundment of ",e funds pro-
vided in 92-500.  I think had the President not im-
pounded these funds, that even with all the red tape
we all talk about, we would be at least 18 months
to two years ahead of our construction program today.
One of the problems in keeping a constant program going
throughout the United States to clean up our waters was
the frequent changing of the grant amount or eligibili-
ties in federal water pollution control act.  Therefore,
we feel that to keep continuity and be fair to every-
one, the 75 per cent level should be reatined.   Whether
OT not the 75 per cent construction grant should apply
to all types of projects eligible for grant under
PL 92-500, or receive the same priority for these grants
will be discussed later under Paper No. 3.

Paper No. 2 - Limiting federal funding of reserve
capacity to serve projected gorwth.  We certainly don't
feel at MSB that the current practice leads to over-
design of treatment works.  But certainly in some cases
in recent years, the growth has not equalled our anti-
cipation of some 10 or 20 years ago in certain areas.
To make a brief answer to Paper No. 2, it is our belief
that to spend the limited federal funding further, and
in the interest of efficiency, some limitations on the
eligibility for growth related reserve capacity for
treatment plants is not only in order at this time but
might be very wise so long as treatment facilities are
designed in what we call a modular way, so that addition-
al capacity can be added in an efficient manner without
much additional cost.  However, some reserve capacity
must be provided in all wastewater treatment facilities
to insure that they will not be overloaded by the time
they are completed and to provide the lead time neces-
sary to expand them before they are overloaded.  On
the other hand we feel that sewers should be designed
for the ultimate growth of the watershed that they
serve and that to do otherwise would be pennywise
and pound foolish, and cost our taxpayers billions of

-------
                                                 44

dollars in the future.  In closing our discission on
this subject, let us say that it appears to me an
attempt to reduce the federal 75 per cent federal share
without having to amend the act.  I would like to say  -o
that I am a lawyer and I end up with the clients when -
the basement is backed up, and it has taken us 100
years to get engineers to try and design a little ex-
cess capacity in sewers.  And now we are going to go
backwards.  And all I can say to you is that in this
business, for every sewer that somebody can show me
that is overdesigned, I will show you 1,000 that are
overloaded and underdesigned, almost by the time we
get the things in operation.  So, I feel that on
sewers we ought to build some capacity in there.  And
maybe we will learn something from infiltration and
inflow studies that it is nice to talk about it, but
it is kind of like taxes and death.  Infiltration is
with you, and I don't know how to stop it, so if you
have a little extra capacity I think it is a little
better to handle it in the sewer than in the people's
basements.

Paper No. 3 - Restricting the types of projects eligible
for grant assistance.  When one considers that the 1974
need survey reported a total of need of 342 billion
dollars for facilities eligible for construction grants
under PL 92-500, and that a 75 per cent share if satis-
fied would require almost 260 billion' dollars in federal
funding, it becomes apparent that there must be some
method of restricting the types of projects elibig!e
for grant assistance, or at least a priority system
for determining projects eligible for grant assistance.
I think that all of us who have followed PL 92-500 and
have been involved in the water pollution control field
in the last 10 to 20 years realize that there will not
be forthcoming from Congress 342 billion dollars with-
in the next five or 10 years.  Therefore, we have to
seriously look at the problem posed by Paper No. 3
very carefully.  The need survey further stated that the
cost of secondary treatment, advanced treatment and
interceptor sewers would be 46 billion and would re-
quire a federal funding of nearly 35 billion.  I think
we could anticipate this level of funding and, in fact,
we recommend a federal funding level of at least seven
billion dollars a year for the next five years.  If
this is done, certainly we could construct the neces-
sary secondary treatment, advanced treatment and inter-
ceptor sewers needed.  We at MSD feel that so long as
there are certain time deadlines on such things as

-------
                                                 45

secondary treatment, advanced waste treatment, and
interceptors for certain areas, then those areas
should definitely be given priority in the federal
funding to meet these deadlines.  We feel there are
adequate local incentives to undertake needed invest-
ment in certain types of facilities, even in the ab-
sence of federal financial assistance.  All of us in
the urban areas of the United States have to had to
construct collector sewer systems without any federal
assistance.  When the septic tank problem reached a
level that was either dangerous to public health or a
public nuisance, we have been able to finance the con-
struction of'these facilities.  In fact, many of our
homeowners are still paying off special benefits
assessments which were made against their properties to
provide them with a sanitary collector sewer system.
I think this point was well put in EPA comments on the
proposed amendments when it said that it may be hard
for some local agencies to raise capaital to clean up
the waters for their downstream neighbors.  Our people
in St. Louis feel they spend 100 million dollars to
provide primary treatment, and we are sending it pretty
good down to Cape Gireadeau and St.  Joseph and to
Memphis.  And they are not too happy that Memphis said
no to the federal government about treatment years ago
and build a new port authority, and now they are getting
75 per cent grants to build their treatment facilities.
So, when you think a mess is going downstream, they are
not too anxious to do it.  On the other hand I can
tell you that my experience has been that when local
conditions caused by failing septic tanks gets so bad,
you are amazed at how people can find the money and
support to clean up the local mess.   To this order I
would like to state that I think that from talking
to people that maybe we ought to all take a hard look
at farm and home administration loans that used to be
available for collector systems, and take a look at
maybe that would be cluttering up this EPA program or
even our state clean water commission program.  And
maybe that program should be reactivated, particularly
in view of the fact that we are not going to get to
the type of funding that will fund all these collector
systems throughout the 50 states.

Paper No. 4 - If there is one amendment to PL 92-500
that seems to be obviously needed, it is that of ex-
tending the 1977 date by which publicly owned treatment
facilities are to achieve compliance with the require-
ments of the Act.  We all agree that it is impossible

-------
                                                 46

for the publicly owned treatment works to achieve these
deadlines.  Therefore, Alternative No. 1  is out of
the question.   In fact, none of the five alternatives
really solves  the problem.  If the 1977 deadline is
impossible to  meet, why keep it in the law?  We feel
the best solution would be to extend the deadline to a
realistic year based on the level of federal funding,
and then use the fourth alternative which would provide
the administrator with discretion to grant compliance
schedule extensions on an ad hoc basis based upon the
availability of federal funds.

Paper No. 5 -  Delegating a greater portion of the manage-
ment of the construction grants'program to the states.
It seems that the general consensus of opinion of the
federal government and most state and local agencies
is to delegate a greater portion^of the management of
the construction grants program to the states.  We hope.
if this happens we don't lose another year or two while
the states staff up to do what the federal government *
says it does not have sufficient staff to do.  Certainly
we have no quarrel with this delegation to the state »
authorities, but we do feel that the states will have
difficulty in  securing any additional funding from
state legislatures.  Therefore, this delegation must be..."
accompanied with some financial help from the federal
government as  is proposed.  We only hope that they can
staff up in time to not delay the clean water program.
We do have one objection in the area of delegation to
the states and in particular letting each state set its
own priority program.  We strongly feel that if a state
secures its federal funding based on needs or population,
then the state should set up its priority system for
awarding construction grants on a needs, or population,
basis.  To give an example much of the federal money
Missouri gets  is based on the needs of the urban areas
and the population of the urban areas.  But it could
totally disregard this when it sets its priorities and
award its grants through out the state for collector
systems.  This could result in areas such as Kansas
City and the St. Louis metropolitan area receiving     i;
little or absolutely no federal funding to achieve the
goals set out  in PL 92-500.  This is in no way to at-
tempt to quarrel with the rural areas of the outstate
areas, but to  merely state a fact that pollution origina-
tes where people are, and people are in the urban area,
and this is where the pollution is that PL 92-500 was
enacted to clean up.  The federal government must place
conditions on  the award of construction grants that
comply with some criteria set out by the federal govern-

-------
                                                           47

          ment to  insure that the goals of PL 92-500 are being
          achieved.   To quote a phrase, "Point source pollution
          is  where people have sewer discharges into the rivers
          and lakes  and oceans of this country."  I don't see a
          point source coming from 20 septic tanks in a town,
          or  200 septic tanks.  By building a collector system
          you are  making another point source, and you are not
          correcting those existing point sources.

          In  closing, let me say we appreciate the opportunity to
appear and discuss these five papers regarding PL 92-500, and it is
hoped that in the  future we will be able to discuss and make some
other recommendations on possible amendments to PL 92-500.

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Mr. Kaiser, thank you very much.  Mr.
Jack Rhett, do you have any questions of Mr. Kaiser?

          MR. RHETT:  No.

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Jerry?

          MR. SVORE:  No.

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you,  Mr.  Kaiser.

          At  this  time I would like to call Ken Karch from the
Missouri Department of Natural Resources.   Following Mr.  Karch
will be Sue Hopper of the Natural Resources Commission of the
State of Nebraska.

          MR. KARCH:  My name is Ken Karch.  I am Deputy Director
of the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, which is a state
agency under  reorganization in the State of Missouri that has
responsibility for the Missouri Clean Water Program, including the
Clean Water Commission.  I am here to present the Department's
testimony on  the proposals that are the subject of this hearing.

          Before I make specific comments  about the individual
proposals, I  would like to say a few words about the 1972 law.
First of all, I think we all recognize that going to a 75 per
cent match virtually assured greater federal involvement in the
construction  grants  program.  That program is now at a level  of
five billion  or even four billion, the largest single construc-
tion in the country.

          And it has many of the atributes that other similar
federal construction programs have that we are aware of.   The
dollar figure for  achieving the needs that were identified, that
Mr.  Kaiser mentioned a few minutes ago, 350 billion dollars
or so nationwide,  has caused EPA and the states a great deal  of
grief in attempting  to struggle to prioritize where we attempt
to put our money.

-------
                                                           48

          And even though we have been trying to prioritize, there
is one major distortion in the entire system and that is the con-
cept of uniformity that pervades many of the programs.   And all of
the proposals that we are talking about that are before this
public hearing, I address that particular issue in one way or
another.

          We are talking about the uniformity which caused us to
overkill in some situations, treatment where it is not necessary
to achieve the water quality of an adequate nature to suit the
needs.  And that wouldn't be bad provided that we could do it, and
could affort it.  But the fact is at the same time it leaves the
inadequacies in treatment in other areas.

          Now one of the patchwork approaches to solve that
problem has been to address the issue of water quality, limited
segments of streams, and additional  treatment requirements.
I just bring that up as a philisophical question.

          The states also tie themselves virtually in every
case, I believe.  I know of none that have not tied themselves
to the availability of federal dollars, and I think that is a
base line that we have to work with.   We think in Missouri that
progress is slower than it has to be.  We are attempting to work
internally to solve some of those problems.

          We are talking about inflation rates, which are
another base line that we have to work with that range any-
where from 15 to 25 per cent a year during the last few years.
These comments and base lines underlie the comments that I
will make about the issues before us.

          We recognize that it is going to be very difficult to
decrease the percentage of federal funds on the first issue.
Even though we don't think that there were any substantial
demands back in 1972 to increase from 55 to 75 per cent, at
least from the state perspective, a reduction in the federal
share would no doubt allow an expansion in the number or pro-
jects funded.  This would thereby reduce the time required to
meet the overall needs of the State of Missouri.

          Based on Missouri needs as reported in the 1974
Needs Survey, it will probably take 10 to 15 years to meet second-
ary treatment alone, if federal funding is retained at the pre-
sent levels of four to five billion dollars per year.  Missouri's
needs in 1973 dollars to meet secondary treatment is approximately
471 million dollars.  Escalated to present cost that might be
550 million dollars.

-------
                                                           49

          That,  with an escalation for inflation in the next
few years, will  mean a minimum of 1980, possible 1986 before
we can meet secondary requirements if we spent every federal
dollar and associated state and local dollars for secondary
treatment.  We have got other needs as well in the state, how-
ever.

          A reduced federal share will place increased burdens
on the state and on local communities, however, too.  We are
going to use up our state bond issue, which Mr. Kaiser mentioned,
150 million dollars several years ago.  We have got about 75
million dollars left.  I have a table attached to my statement,
which I will make available, which indicates that if we go from
75 per cent, 75-15-10, down to 55-25-20, which was the former way
of doing it, our state share will go from about 19 million to
43 million, meaning that we have got less than a year and a
half or so of state funds left in that bond issue.

          But the local share would go from 12 and a half mil-
lion to 35 million, roughly.  It is going to have a significant
impact on local  expenditures, even though it will increase the
total construction from 126 million dollars per year to 172 mil-
lion dollars per year.  The difference between those two figures
if we spent every dollar for secondary treatment requirements,
and assuming the 20 per cent inflation rate, is the difference
between the achievement of secondary treatment throughout the
state by 1980 versus 1986.

          At the same time that is will cost local communities
more, if we go that direction, it will also increase local
participation in the process.  And it will provide a much needed
incentive for local public officials to take a more active in-
terest in overall project costs.  We think that is sorely needed.

          We have got adequate projects to use the federal appro-
priation of 55 per cent federal funding, and we would expect
the same to be true in the future.

          The State of Missouri feels very strongly that the
federal government is obligated to assist in providing large sums
required to meet federally mandated standards.  We do believe,
however, that any reduction in the federal grant percentage should
only be made if there is a corresponding decrease in federal
requirements and control and delegation of more authority to the
states.

          With respect to the second issue, on reserve capacity,
we do acknowledge the possible impact of funding access reserve
capacity'on urban sprawl and in individual cases, but we are
generally opposed to restricting funding for reserve capacity.

-------
                                                           50

          We think that without a careful  analysis on a case-
by-case basis that such a limitation would result in poor
engineering or economic design, and it is  another case for
uniformity for uniformity's sake.  This would discriminate
against high growth areas, which is where  the most serious
water pollution problems are likely to occur in the future,
if they are not adequately addressed by providing adequate
facilities today.

          Communities are going to be reluctant to provide
adequate reserve capacity if they are required to fund 100 per
cent of the incremental costs, underdesign leading to overload-
ing.

          We favor retention of flexibility to select design
periods, which are based on sound engineering and economic judge-
ment to take into account things like local cost differences,
growth rates in a particular area, and interest rates, that are
prevelant in the particular location.

          With respect to Item No. 3, restricting the types of ,
projects eligible for grant assistance, we think that limiting
eligibility to Categories I, II, and IV B, as proposed, secondary
treatment, tertiary treatment where it is  needed, and intercep-
tor sewers, may be acceptable depending on how infiltration-
inflow matters will be handled.

          If infiltration-inflow is found  to be more cost effec-
tive, correction,  is found to be more cost effective than expan-
sion of the treatment capacity, then we ought to make that
eligible either under Category I or II.  If, on the other hand,
it is at a treatment capacity and is more  cost effective than
handling the infiltration-inflow in the sewer itself, then we
think that ought to be handled as an eligible item in Category
I or II.

          If neither case is true, then we would favor retention
of Category III A, so that we can address  some of those problems
in a particular situation.

          Furthermore, deletion of the eligibility of collection
sewers is going to be unpopular with small community officials,
and will result in continuing health hazards in unsewered areas.
We would therefore urge EPA very seriously to press for an ex-
pansion of those programs that provide alternate methods of fund-
ing for sewer systems, such as HUD and FHA grant and loan programs.

          This is  basically in line with the present Missouri
state matching grants.  When the federal share was increased  <
from 55 to 75 per cent and collection sewers were made eligible

-------
                                                           51

under the  federal  law,  the Missouri  legislature determined that
the state  matching grant should not cover collection sewers.
Consequently,  it is a separate state funded program for providing
funds for  sewer systems not to exceed 600 dollars per connection.

          Subject to those considerations regarding infiltration-
inflow,  and the collection system, the Department generally sup-
ports the  limiting of eligibility as proposed.

          With respect to the extension of the 1977 date for
publicly owned treatment works to meet water quality standards,
the Department supports a combination of alternatives three and
four, which would provide EPA administrators with discretion to
grant compliance schedule extensions on a case-by-case basis for:
(a) time required with the expenditure of good faith to build
the necessary facilities; or (b) extension due to lack of suf-
ficient federal funds.

          There is no question that we will not be able to meed
the 1977 secondary requirements based on inflation rates and
available  federal  funds.

          With respect to Item 5, delegating a greater portion
of the management of the construction grants program to the
states, we certainly support maximum delegation of authority.
We also favor the Cleveland-Wright Bill, H.R. 2175, which would
provide sufficient funding for the states to carry out the manage-
ment of the grants program.

          We think we are more familiar with the problems in our
state and  are better able to manage the problem, and we also
feel that a considerable amount of duplication of state-federal
review would be eliminated.

          That concludes my remarks.  I appreciate the opportunity
to make them.

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Mr. Karen, thank you very much.  In
your analysis or review of the Cleveland-Wright Bill, the dele-
gation of the construction grant program to the states, do you
feel that  the 2 per cent funding would be adequate to support
the administrative staffing costs for the states to carry out
the construction grants program?

          MR.  KARCH:  I haven't personally reviewed that.  I
would like to call on my staff for a recommendation on that.
Charley, do you have any feelings on that?

          MR.  STIEFERMAN:  Yes, I think 2 per cent is adequate.

-------
                                                           52

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  How long do you think this State of
Missouri would take to gear up so that a complete delegation
from Missouri to EP could occur?

          MR. STIEFERMAN:  I would hope that we could geared
up, provided these adequate funds were made available, in a
period of six months to two years.

          MR. SVORE:  May I ask another question?  Do you
anticipate any problems with the legislature or with the adminis-
tration as far as funding these additional positions with total-
ly federal money?
                                                         i
          MR. KARCH:  In view of the fact that this a construc-
tion grants program, I would think that the problems would be
minimal, compared, for example, with regulatory function.  I
think we could probably sell that idea.

          MR. SVORE:  What I have reference, of course, is to the
attitude that many states these days, the federal government
introduces a program and then they finally turn it over to the
states for them to carry.  And that attitude has been expressed
by your state.  And I was wondering if you had run into this
same thing as far as it was concerned?                         <';

          MR. KARCH:  Again, I think there is a difference in
the attitude about the program, a difference between a, essenti-
ally a grant program that provides funds to local communities
versus a regulatory program, which is a very significant one I
think in the attitude of the legislature.  We had some difficul-
ties as you are well aware in the last session with respect to
funding for our air and water quality programs.        -

          MR. SVORE:  That was a good question to ask you.

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Mr. Karch, do you think the states
can do a better job in administering the construction grant
program than the federal government?

          MR. KARCH:  Unequivocably, yes.

          CHAIRMAN AGREE:  Just another example of the EPA giving
themselves a hot foot.

          Jack do you have any questions of Mr. Karch?

          MR. RHETT:  No.

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you very much.

-------
                                                           53

          I  would like to call  at this time Sue Hoppel, from
the Natural  Resources  Commission of the State of Nebraska.
Following  this  testimony I will  be calling on Paul Trout from
the Container Corporation of America.

          MS. HOPPEL:   Mr. Chairman, my name is Sue Hoppel, and
I am representing the  Nebraska  Natural Resources Commission.
Our address  is  7th Floor, Terminal Building, Lincoln, Nebraska.
We are the state agency preparing Nebraska's Water Quality Manage-
ment Plan  for implementation by the Nebraska Department of En-
vironmental  Control.   We agree  with and support the goals of
PL 92-500  for fishable, swimmable waters, for zero discharge
of pollutants,  and for public support of wastewater facilities.

          We are making progress in Nebraska toward implementing
these goals.  We have  our six most difficult water quality plans
completed, and we expect to complete the other seven in the
next year.

          The Nebraska Department of Environmental Control  is ad-
ministering the NPDES  program in the state and they have all the
municipal  permits issued.  They are implementing the plans through
all their  water pollution control programs.  Public understanding
and acceptance of the  new law have come a long way in the last
year and we have enjoyed a useful working relationship with the
EPA in Kansas City.

          For the sake of continuing this progress, and since
we support the original law, changes which are not necessary
for program function and improvement and do not accelerate pro-
gress towards the goals should be and will be opposed by this
agency.  We appreciate the opportunity to address the five amend-
ments before this hearing.

          Amendment 1  - A reduction of the federal share.  We
          oppose this  amendment.  The federal share should re-
          main  at 75 per cent and sufficient funds should be
          allocated to meet the needs.  Clean water has been ac-
          cepted as a  public benefit and the public is going to
          pay for it one way or another.  The most logical  way
          to accelerate needed treatment is to require it and pay
          for it.  We  would favor setting an ending date for the
          75 per cent  share, say 1983, after which the federal
          share would  be decreased.  This would discourage any
          unnecessary  delays by grant recipients.  Federal  money
          must be raised, allocated, authorized, and spent if
          treatment facilities  are to be built.  That, not the
          75 per cent, is our problem.

-------
                                                           54

          Amendment 2 - Limiting federal financing to serving
          the needs of existing population.  We oppose this
          amendment.  As a planning agency we feel the legitimate
          needs of the future should be considered.  If these
          needs are not met, we will always be behind and our
          goals will never be achieved.

          Amendment 3 - Restricting the types of projects eligi-
          ble for grant assistance.  From a practical point of
          view, the construction grant program in Nebraska is
          almost wholly directed toward treatment plants, and we
          fund some interceptors.  We feel that the construction
          required under the most cost effective solution should
          continue to be eligible, and changes in the law are
          not necessary.

          Amendment 4 - Extending the 1977 date.  This deadline
          has to be extended, but it should be only on a case-
          by-case basis.  We favor alternate three, which would
          keep the 1977 date but allow the administrator to   .
          grant extensions.  Secondary treatment is still a desire-
          able minimum goal, and will be achieved in many areas
          in Nebraska by 1977.  Maintenance of the 1977 date
          should not be dependent on the availability of federal
          funds.                                                •

          Amendment 5 - Delegating a greater portion to the states.
          We favor this amendment.  It would expedite the construc-
          tion grant process.  The entire program should be trans-
          ferred to the states as they are ready with appropriate
          reviews, audits and funding by EPA.

          I appreciate the opportunity to participate here and I
would be glad to answer any questions.

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you very much.  Jack Rhett, do
you have any questions?                •*
                                                       >• f ..

          MR. RHETT:  No.

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Jerry?

          MR. SVORE:  No.

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you very much.
                                                i
          We call on Paul Trout from Container Corporation of
America.  Following Mr. Trout's presentation I will be calling
on Richard Cunningham from the League of Kansas Municipalities.

-------
                                                           55

          MR. TROUT:  Chairman Agee, members of the board, we
appreciate the opportunity of meeting with you this morning,
although we are not concerned particularly with the first three
of the four papers published in the Federal Register.  My company
and certain others of our industry have significant interest in
this subject of municipal waste treatment, and treatment plants.

          In my own company's case we operate 12 paperboard
mills, nine of which use recycled fiber, or waste paper as they
are furnished, and therefore, are located in urban areas and
after suitable pretreatment, discharge their effluent to muni-
cipal treatment systems.  This is also generally true of the
industry.'s converting plants.

          As I mentioned, we do not feel it our province to
comment on Papers 1, 2, or 3, but relative to Paper 4, entitled
"Extending the 1977 date for publicly owned treatment works to
meet water quality standards,"  there are several fundamental
matters with which we are concerned.

          Discussing the various alternatives, we feel that alter-
native one, as you have already noted, should be abandoned.
Alternative  two is based in large part on a relationship between
the enforcement arm of the agency and the non-compliant municipal-
ity, and it  is our opinion that this probably leaves too much
to fate.

          Alternative three has the barrier of the 1977 date,
which various testifiers this morning have indicated is not a
viable date  as it cannot be attained on the parts of many of the
municipalities.

          The alternative four appears to by company and others
in similar situations to be the most workable of the alterna-
tives, although we still have the concern about maintaining the
1977 date.

          Alternative five could be useful if the date were ex-
tended to 1983.  I think probably, however, we still would report
alternative  four as most favorable of those listed.

          We have several questions relative to Paper 4, which
we would like to broach at this point.  The first is what ac-
comodations or amendments could be considered to protect in-
dustrial point dischargers who have planned to tie in to munici-
pal systems, where it subsequently develops that the municipal
system will not meet the 1977 deadline because of inadequate
funding?

          Secondly, where, and I think this is the subject that
we must bring out, that industry is in the same competitive market
for funds as municipalities, and in fact, as is the federal govern-

-------
                                                           56

ment.  And in this area we sometimes suffer the same economic
shortfall as a municipality, where the municipality finds it
impossible to meet the 1977 deadline.

          Alternatively, we might be faced with the possibility
of installing our separate treatment facilities, but here we
have the same economic shortfall.  How can we have some con-
sideration for the same problems as face these municipalities
in this economic area?

          And I might comment that there have been several  com-
ments about various municipalities reaching their limit of bond-
ed indebtedness, their lawful limits of indebtedness.   I believe
we should all consider that the federal government may also be
reaching its limits of indebtedness, and that certainly the ex-
pediency of simply running the printing presses faster is in
large part responsible for the fact that the cities' bonded
indebtedness now doesn't go as far as  it did earlier.

          In other words, this is the  root cause of inflation,
which makes all of our projects suffer in this pollution abate-
ment area.

          The third question is what procedures can be  developed,
either through an amendment or through regulations, to advise the
public that a particular municipality  will not be able to meet
the 1977 requirements as a result of no federal funding?

          The point here is to give industrial point sources maxi-.
mum leave time to either make other arrangements for effluent
treatment, or secondly, to petition for exemptions based on the
unavailability of a municipal treatment facility.

          Thank you.

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Mr. Trout, thank you.  You raised great
questions.  I am glad I am not here to answer them today, but I
would like to get your views on one of them.  What would your
views or recommendations to EPA be in  one of the examples you
cited where an industry or industries  should logically tie into
that community, and that community is  not moving ahead because
of the absence of federal funds.  Would you have a recommenda-
tion to us as to how we should deal with that kind of situation
with the industry?

          MR. TROUT:  Well, we have, I would say, a somewhat
broader recommendation as far as amendments to the act.  There,
by and large I think the, our industry, the pulp and paper industry,
will probably at least in 90 per cent compliance with the 1977 re-

-------
                                                           57

quirements.  And we feel that equitable treatment of industry
as well as municipalities would require that the 1977 date be
extended to 1983, or at least that the 1983 requirements be not
made effective until 1977 attainment has been reached by all
dischargers into the waters of the United States.

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Very good.

          Do you have any questions of Mr. Trout?

          MR. RHETT:  No.

          MR. SVORE:  No.

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you, Mr. Trout.

          Richard Cuningham, I understand that he is not here but
that he will come a little later.  I would like to go on then and
call on Mr. F. L. Endebrook, from the City of St. Joseph, Missouri,
Following Mr. Endebrook will be Harvey A. Jones.

          MR. ENDEBROOK:  Mr. Chairman, I am Frank Endebrook,
director of Public Works, City of St. Joseph.  I do represent
Mayor Bennett, and he concurs in my remarks.

          We want the federal funds to be maintained at 75 per
cent for treatment plants and interceptors.  In our case, we
are ready to advertise again, and if we had to go back and vote
an increase in the bonds to be able to pay our share, it would
be an impossible situation.

          The bonds did have a contingency in them and we can
cover current situations.  But if the federal share was dropped,
we would have an impossible situation.  I would recommend that
the collector systems be limited to 33 per cent federal funding,
because I don't think you are going to fund them anyway.

          I do realize the situation on federal funding, and I
would suggest that several things could be done.  One would be
to eliminate the requirement for disinfection into the Missouri
and Mississippi Rivers.  I would suggest also, of course, that
the date for compliance be extended under EPA directions.

          I would recommend that the state take on great manage-
ment of projects, particularly on design criteria, on the determi-
nation of design criteria, and on population growth.  This covers
my statement. Thank you.

          MR. ENDEBROOK:  Correct.

-------
                                                           58

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  The proposal  that we are considering
testimony on would not apply to the existing 18 billion dollars
that have been allotted to the states.   It would be for future
money beyond that.  It will take us another three years or so   h
to obligate the existing--

          MR. ENDEBROOK:  This might eliminate our objection,
because we think we are going to be able to cover it, but if for
some reason we didn't get fully funded, why then we would face
that problem.

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  You mentioned that you thought maybe
the federal share could be reduced on collector sewers to 33
per cent, possibly because you are not going to get them funded
anyway.  But if you have a problem, and I am sure you do have some
need for collector sewers in St. Joseph, as other people do, do
you think the city would go ahead and fund them with the 33 per
cent grant?

          MR. ENDEBROOK:  We do have a problem.  We are trying
to extend our sewer districts, which is the collector system.
In all cases in the past, the city has fully funded them.   The
costs have risen from about four cents a square foot to the
newest ones at 11 cents, and 11 cents a square foot makes a very
heavy burden on the local taxpayer..

          That is why I do think that if we could get, say 1/3
federal share on it, we might be able, I believe we could sell
the people to proceed with the rest.  Now, we have tried in the
past two years to get federal funding on collector systems, and
the answer is no.  It is just that it is just not high enough
in the priorities to ever be reached.

          MR. SVORE:  Would you recommend that this be a separate
line item, so it does not compete with funds available for treat-
ment purposes?

          MR. ENDEBROOK:  I would, yes, sir.
                                                                *
          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you very much, sir.

          I will call now Harvey A. Jones, representing the
Little Blue Valley Sewer District.  Mr. Jones?

          MR. JONES:  Mr. Shaffer has already presented my
statement.

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  All right, fine.  Thank you.

-------
                                                           59

          I will call next Melville Gray from the Department of
the Environment.  Following Mr. Gray's statement and testimony,
I will be calling on Kenneth W. Fair, from the Citizen's Environ-
mental Council  in Kansas City, Missouri.

          MR. GRAY:   Mr. Agee, gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen
of the audience, if my diction is impared today I hope you will
forgive me.  This is not my normal appearance.

          We would like to make a presentation that reflects
the State of Kansas, the Association of State and Interstate
Water Pollution Control Administrators, and some of my own per-
sonal feelings and reflections on the program.  And I hope that
I am able to identify which particular segments the statement
represents; if you are unable to determine, do not hesitate to
ask on this.

          Paper No.  1 - The reduction of the federal share.
          We would like to indicate from the standpoint of the
          association that Congress should provide for authori-
          zation and for appropriations of at least five bil-
          lion dollars per year, for FY 76 through FY 80 for con-
          struction grants.  This would be in addition to the
          impounded nine million dollars, which was recently re-
          leased, giving a total of approximately 34 billion
          dollars authorized.  This approximates the need survey
          costs of Categories I, II, and IV B, and can reasonably
          be accomodated in the engineering and manufacturing
          and construction business.  Knowledge of funds avail-
          able for future years could do much to expedite planning
          and scheduling of projects.  And if provisions are
          made for reasonable reimbursements for Steps 1, 2, and
          3 grants, considerable lag time can be eliminated in
          the construction of needed facilities.  I think we /
          have to consider also the public works aspect of this
          proposal are significant from the standpoint of the
          nation's economic situation.  With regard to the over-
          all reduction and the allocation of these funds, we
          would recommend that state allocations for construction
          grants be made on a 50 per cent need basis, and 50
          per cent on population, with Categories I, II, and
          IV B being considered for the 50 per cent needs, but
          allow actual expenditures of these monies on the basis
          of state priority determination, and to maintain the
          eligible grant at the 75 per cent level.  We would
          suggest considering limiting or making ineligible
          the legal  and engineering fees as being ineligible
          for reimbursement or for actual participation in the
          construction grants.  As a general comment with re-

-------
                                                 60

gard to the potential for reducing the federal share,
I would call your attention to the fact that we have
many communities throughout the nation and throughout
the, our state that went ahead and constructed waste
treatment facilities under the 30 per cent grants.
At that time, the majority of the states were recom-
mending against increasing above the 30 per cent grant
share.  However, this was increased to the 50 per cent
level, or 55 per cent level, hence making those who had
proceeded on their needed construction programs suffer
as a result of rapidly assuming their responsibilities.
Once again, the grant increase was made to 75 per cent,
and once again we had additional cities who had suf-
fered for earlier fulfilling their responsibilities.
Now we are asking that additional communities be penali-
zed in the potential for reduction from 75 per cent to
some lesser figures.  And I say penalized in this sense,
we in Kansas have 276 active projects.  Those communities
which wish to proceed on a construction grant program now,
and have been designed to do so for the past three
years, the lack of proceeding has not been caused by
any fault of theirs.  But the fact is that the grants
program has not proceeded as rapidly as anticipated, ,
and they have been ineligible to proceed with construc-
tion.  In the past three years we have dropped to 15
per cent of our construction activities, as opposed
to the passage of 92-500 on October 18, 1972.

Paper No. 2 - Limiting federal funding of reserve
capacity to serve projected growth.  We reject the
proposal of the 10/20 design period.   We think it is
inappropriate from a cost effectiveness standpoint,
and what we really need is greater flexibility in de-
termination.  We would be opposed to establishing a
50 or 40 year limit on the construction of interceptor
sewers, and would point out the need for flexibility
in this sense.  We have cases in our communities where-
by once you commit a route for the construction of an
interceptor, this is it.  And that costs will increase
by tenfold by the virtue of there not being another
route for that interceptor and you either tear out
an existing interceptor to make room for an increased
size of the proposed interceptor, or take a circuitous
route that will prove to be extremely costly.

Paper No. 3 - Restricting the types of projects eligible
for grant assistance.  I would refer you to the comments
under Paper No. 1  in the possibility of limiting or
restricting eligibility for A and E and for legal fees;
and additionally, point out that under the present

-------
                                                 61

priority system, if grants are made available to the
states on the basis of Categories I, II and IV B, there
is a built-in system which is inherent in the current
priority procedures in that if a project is not of a
high priority, such as the majority of the states are
considering collector systems, then they will not be
within the eligible limits of funding, not from the
funds available.  We feel that this is adequate safe-
guard in the procedure,- and even though grants may be
allocated on the grounds only of I, II, IV B, that
the states should still be allowed to fund at a high
priority level; for example it might be a storm sewer
project.  In some cases you are going to find in these
other categories of projects, as a high priority a
real contribution to pollution and is needed to be
funded in order to eliminate this particular source.

Paper No. 4 - Extending the 1977 date.  It is our
position that the Congress should consider amending
Section 301 (b) (1) of 92-500 as it related to the
requirement that publicly owned treatment works must
achieve a minimum of secondary treatment by July 1, 1977.
The amendment should be similar to those that have been
under consideration by EPA; specifically the administra-
tor of EPA, and with this one addition.  Or, if a state
has been delegated to permit issuing authority under
NPDES, the state also should be able to extend the time
for achieving the requirements set forth in Sections
301 (b) (1), (b) and (c).  If it is determined that
the construction of the necessary treatment works can
not be completed within the time frame, specified in
those paragraphs, or that adequate federal  funds will
not be available for their construction, I  think the
dichotomoy is obvious here in that the state that has
NPDES authority is writing and issuing the  permit, and
to not also have authority for extension  of time would
cause considerable confusion, delay and extra work
on the part of both the state and EPA.  And we do need
to expedite this program.  We support this  recommenda-
tion for several reasons.  To begin with, the 18 billion
dollars authorized under PL 92-500 was grossly inade-
quate.  This has been confirmed by the two  need studies
that were conducted by the states since the original
passage of the act.  And even though EPA had, at times,
tried to discredit the need surveys and the total dollar
figures involved, the National Water Quality Commission
has recently completed a study of point source costs
to fully comply with PL 92-500.  And this totals up to
be within 2 per cent of the dollar figures  submitted
by the states.  This is 105 billion dollars versus the

-------
                                                  62

 107 billion dollars.  At the present level  of funding,
 or even the proposed level of funding, it should be
 quite obvious that the 1977 date deadline will  not
 be met because Congress is not of a frame of fimd to
 allocate or authorize in excess of 100 billion  dollars
 within the next two years.  Some projects because of
 their size, Detroit for example, did not be completed
 even though funding might be available if the total
 state allotment were used for this one project.  -Other
 projects could not be completed in that the lead time
 for planning, design, and construction of necessary
 treatment facilities frequently exceeds five years.
 And I would remind you that there is no provision for
 taking in the gross considerations of Steps I,  II, and
 III at one time, and you must await the completion of
 the individual steps.  Adherence to the 1977 deadline
 requirement and the permit program already has  incre-
 ased the state work load.  Short term permits have been
 issued, which expire before July 1, 1977; and where it
 was determined the 1977 deadline could not be met ,
 because of construction time or lack of funds,  we do
 not believe that this exercise should be repeated more
 often than is necessary.  We further are concerned
 about the additional work loads that may result from
 action required by citizen's suits if we fail to en-
 force the 1977 requirement.  We also feel that  some
 consideration should be given to industrial organiza-
 tions on a time deadline factor, because indeed many
 industries have been prohibited from building their,
 own waste treatment plants due to the presumed  benefits
 of discharging to a community areawide collection
 system; and that, until such time as that community
\system is completed, then industry has no place to
 go except into the receiving stream.

 Paper No. 5 - Delegating a greater portion of the
 management of the construction grants program to,the
 states.  We do endorse and support the Cleveland Wright
 Bill, which provides that states may administer and
 certify to administer the performance of the responsi-
 bilities required under the actions of PL 92-500.  We
 do have one specific recommendation for clarification
 in this legislation.  It is recommended Congress clarify
 the term authority as used on Page 2, Line 8.  This is
 used in a legal sense, as in other instances in the
 past, a state may be required to have a specific state
 law authorizing the state agency to make certifications
 of the proposed Cleyelnad Wright Bill.  This would
 require a year, .or in some cases, two years for state
 legislatures to adopt the necessary legislation, and
 further delay the intent of the bill in expediting the
 construction grants program.  It is further recommended

-------
                                                           63

          that the administrator's rules and regulations, as
          authorized by the bill, be minimal and not unduly
          restrictive.   It is assumed, but we need clarifica-
          tion, that a state could request certification in any
          or all of the program functions as delineated by the
          Cleveland Wright Bill.  The bill provides for up to
          2 per cent of the construction grant monies to be
          used for additional state program grants to cover
          the costs of performing the responsibilities of the
          bill.

          Two other items I would like to call to your attention
is in relation to the operation and maintenance charges.  And we
firmly believe that municipalities should be allowed to use what-
even legal mechanism is available to them in their state or local
community to pay for the costs and to assure that sustaining
the system will be proveded for.

          Additional item is in regard to Section 106 (d), in the
non-federal program funds of states.  In this day and age we find
many states suffering severe budgetary limitations.  It is not
considered to be.in the best interests of the nation or the states
in the event a state legislature should cut back on the base
limits of funds as required under the law to completely disallow
federal funding of that state program.  We feel that this should
be modified to provide a proportionate reduction in the federal
state program grant, corresponding to the decrease below the
base level required for state maintenance.

          Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks.  If there are
any questions, I would be happy to address them.

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you, Mr. Gray.

          I would have one question,  I think you recommended in
your statement that the architect engineers fees should not be
eligible for the construction grant program.  What are your
reasons for making this recommendation?

          MR. GRAY:  The recommendation to make A and E and
legal services not eligible for the construction grants program
is based upon the proposed regulations coming from EPA covering
A and E and legal services.  We feel that this could bring about
as much as an additional six months or more delay in the process-
ing of and the awarding of a construction grant.

          We feel that normally we are speaking in terms of 5
per cent of the construction costs of the project. And that it
would be better for Water Pollution Control and for overall

-------
                                                           64

efficiency and for cutback on administrative responsibilities to
delete these as being eligible, and hence, allow the municipali-
ties to, so to speak, fend for themselves, of which I have no
fear that they can compete with their A and E and legal services.

          CHAIRMAN A6EE:  Thank you.  Jack or Jerry, do you have
any questions?

          MR. RHETT:  No.

          MR. SVORE:  No.

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you, Mr. Gray.     <>

          I would like to call at this time Kenneth W. Spare •
with the Citizen's Environmental Council of Kansas City, Missouri.
And following that I -- Mr.  Spare is not here?               *

          Thank you.  Richard Cunningham, representing the League
of Kansas Municipalities.  Following Mr. Cunningham I will be
calling on Esther Woodward.

          MR. CUNNINGHAM:  Mr. Chairman, my name is Richard
Cunningham, Associate Director of the League of Kansas Municipal!-"
ties.  The leasgue of Kansas Municipalities represents over 475
cities in the State of Kansas.  These cities compose approximately
99 per cent of the total population of persons within cities  ;.
of the State of Kansas.                                   "     —.

          The League of Kansas Municipalities has had a long
interest in various environmental matters.  League policy commit-
tees have considered environmental matters for several years
and the purpose of my testimony is to describe to you the attitudes
of Kansas local government officials insofar as they relate to
the five questions under consideration by this hearing board.

          First, let me note to you how League policy is developed.
The League of Kansas Municipalities does have a policy statement
which represents a foundation upon which the cities build legis-
lative programs at both the state and federal levels.

          The Policy does not attempt to set forth the League's
position on specific bills which may be considered.by the legis-  ,?
lature and Congress.  Rather, the policy attempts to set forth •>.?;  :
principles and guidelines at the basis for specific action by
staff.   This policy is developed through an extensive process
of committee meetings composed by both elected and administrative
city officials.  Finally, each year the Statement of Municipal
Policy is considered at an annual convention of City Officials.
It is on the basis of this policy I appear here today.

-------
                                                           65

          With regard to question number one, should the federal
government reduce its share of municipal wastewater treatment
grants, the answer to that question is a strong and emphatic no.
The cities of Kansas are primarily dependent upon the property
tax and other relatively stable revenue sources for funding.
And these sources are not expanding.

          The federal government has established through both
congressional and executive branch decisions a clear indication
of the standards toward which environmental quality improvement
efforts should be directed.  As noted later in my presentation,
there is question as to the appropriateness of these standards
now that they have been interpreted by the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency staff, but we can find no reason why the ratio of
the federal match should be reduced.  If the intent is to save
federal dollars, then-most city officials in Kansas would suggest
that there should be some other priorities that could be tested.
Another approach to cost reduction or deferral would be deferral
of deadlines.

          Question number two regarding limiting federal financing
to serving the needs of existing population is not clear.  It
seems an idea, whose implementation, even with a vast bureaucracy,
would be almost nonenforceble.  Added or new population pays
federal taxes just as does existing population.  We can see than
attempts to limit to existing population might lead to rather
unrealistic conclusions, actions and certainly would seem to be
arbitrary in its basic nature.  We therefore oppose such a limita-
tion.

          Question number three, should the EPA restrict types of
projects eligible for grant assistance, might receive some support
from Kansas cities, but I would expect the vast majority would
be in opposition to any reduction of projects eligible for assis-
tance.  It seems that all municipal facilities contributing to po-
tential or additional pollution of our streams and waterways
should be eligible.

          Any reduction of types of projects eligible would most
likely be done on a rather arbitrary basis and such changes could
discriminate against particular types of situations or parts of
the country.  Kansas city officials are particularly sensitive
to regulatory and legislative actions that do not adequately re-
cognize the character of Kansas.  The concept suggested by
Question 3 is one which does not seem to have much merit and
therefore would not be supported by the majority of cities in
Kansas.

          Should the 1977 date for water quality deadlines be
extended?  The cities of Kansas have suggested that such eaten-

-------
                                                           66

sions should have been considered previously.  We do support
such action.  We believe that the deadlines should be timed to
the federal government's ability to provide its share of
matching costs and the construction industry's ability to deliver.

          Additionally, we are quite concerned about the ability
of the EPA, state agencies, and consulting engineers to do their
part as it relates to current and existing technology, as well
as ever-changing administrative regulations.   The cities of
Kansas would support some extension of deadlines.

          In answer to question number five,  should a larger
portion of the management of the construction grants program
be delegated to the states, the cities of Kansas would support
such delegation.  The cities, however, would  want1the federal
government to continue to exercise monitoring oversite as to the
quality of administration, state by state.

          In recent times, the cities of the  State of Kansas
have generally had a favorable record of experience with the
State Department of Health and Environment.  This had not always
been true.  I believe that the cities are not as concerned about
whether it be the state government or the federal government
who administers the program, but that as little as possible
duplication exists and that the bureaucrats,  for whomever they
work, be responsive and sensitive to the realistic situations
and needs that exist in various parts of the  State of Kansas.
We, therefore, would support some further delegation of manage-
ment of construction grants programs to the states.

          Two final notes.  To our knowledge, the League of
Kansas Municipalities did not receive a notice of this hearing,
other than through the Federal Register.  The league of Kansas
Municipalities, as well as leagues in other states,  are used to
receiving some type of timely, direct mailed  notice as to impor-
tant matters and we consider this hearing an  important matter.
We would not be here otherwise.   There are many other matters
on our agendas.

          We strongly recommend that when hearings of such magni-
tude are held, that regional administrators of the;EPA be directed
to notify municipal leagues so they in turn may consider notify-
ing their constitutent members.   I understand .very well that
postage costs are high these days and that there are a great
number of special interests who would like to be notified direct-
ly-
are
      We do believe, however,  that city governments,  who
governed by elected officials  in  this  representative  system

-------
                                                           67

of government, should receive some type of unique consideration.
Cities are not special interests.  City government is the
democratically selected representatives of the people who reside
in cities.

          We appreciate this opportunity to be heard.  We do not,
however, appreciate the fact that we were notified in a rather
untimely and ineffective manner.  According to last estimates,
Kansas cities need to expend approximately 2.25 billion dollars
in the next several years to meet existing standards for plants
(Parts 1, 2, and 4 (b)).  Another 2.4 billion dollars is estimat-
ed for other standards.  Effectively dealing with water quality
is serious business in Kansas.

          Finally, we ask that EPA intensify its efforts to
simplify the administration of the municipal wastewater treat-
ment program.  The improved treatment of water can not occur if
all of the inlets to the system are clogged with paper.

          If Congressional changes are needed, then you can be
sure that many city officials from Kansas will do their dead-
level best to convince the Kansas Congressional delegation of
the rationale for such changes.  In the meanwhile we plead with
you to get the scissors out and cut every inch of bureaucratic
tape out that is not vital to your true legal obligations.

              CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Mr. Cunningham, thank you very
much.  Your recommendation or statement not supporting the
elimination of some of the eligible features of the construc-
tion grants program, I just want you to reaffirm this for me.
You don't feel that the sewers a sewer extension, should be
removed from the priority or from the eligible features?

          MR. CUNNINGHAM:  I believe the comment was that city,
some cities might look at some possible changes in eligibility,
but that probably the majority of cities would not want any change
from what is there now.  And I am sorry, since I am not a specific
city official from the City of Dodge City, Kansas, I can't tell
you what my governing body would say.  But I can speak to you
on behalf of all of the cities.

          I think overall they would say no change, but I think
it would also be realistic to say that some cities would look
to some possible modifications, but which ones, no answer.

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  In working with your cities in Kansas,
do they have any problem with the priority lists that are estab-
lished by Mr. Gray and his people?

          MR. CUNNINGHAM:  I think it would be fair to say that
from the information that we have that there have been relatively

-------
                                                           68

few complaints about the priority lists.  I think that the tradi-
tional kinds of separation between the large city and small city
exists.  There are some small cities who wonder if they will ever
get on the list, particularly with the extremely limited funds.

          On the other hand, we have had relatively few com-
plaints, particularly when compared to other categorical  federal
grant and issue programs where lists are extremely long.

         • CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Very good.  Thank you.  Jack, Jerry,
any questions?
                                                                  >
          MR. RHETT:  No.

          MR. SVORE:  No.

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you, sir.

          I would like to call now on Esther Woodward, represent-
ing the Water Quality League of Women Voters, Coalition for Water
Quality from the League of Women Voters.

          MS. WOODWARD:  Thank you.

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Mr. Sabock did remind me to ask all
of the people who have testified that if you have written state-
ments we would really be very•pleased to have them.   It will make
our job much easier, and we won't have to rely entirely on the
recording machine.  So, if you have written statements, please
leave us a copy.

          MS. WOODWARD:  I am Esther Woodward, Coordinator of
the Mo-Kan Coalition for Water Quality, one of eight citizen
organizations contractors in EPA District 7 in the Water  Quality
Awareness and Information Exchange Program of EPA to implement
101 (E) of the law.

          It is confusing because I  am also on the Environmental
Quality Committee of the League of Women Voters, which is one
of the member organizations.

          The Mo-Kan Coalition for Water Quality is  hereby pro-
testing the inadequate public notice of this hearing.   I  under-
stand 300 telephone calls were made by the public affairs
department of District 7 on June 11, after, a disastrous show-
ing of public interest in Atlanta on June 9.  As Mo-Kan Coordina-
tor, I received such a phone call and asked and received  the
background papers the same night.  I was told the Federal Register
notice of May 2 was all that was legally required.  That  does  not
seem to fulfill 101 (E), which ways  the administrator and the
states are "to encourage, assist and provide for public partici-
pation."

-------
                                                           69

          It is tragic that the background papers for this hearing
were not distributed at the very least to the eight contractors
of the Water, Quality Awareness and Information Exchange Program in
District 7.   I now formally request that at least 25 copies be
sent to each of them immediately.

          Mo-Kan Coalition was in contact weekly with the PAD
of District 7 during May, and published a newsletter mailed
June 9 to 380 organized citizens.  It could have announced the
meeting and given background material.  Our only conclusion can
be that the failure to notify as least these eight contractors,
of course understanding EPA has other important matters, but
this is an organization for public awareness organized by EPA,
that it either seems malicious or incompetent, one or the other.

          We hereby formally request that the designated Water
Department Coordinators with this program and the Public Affairs
Department of District 7 establish lines of communication on
matters concerning PL 92-500, so that the eight contractors for
public participation can be kept informed and up to date.

          As one member of the coalition, the Environmental
Quality Committee of the League of Women Voters of Johnson
County, Kansas, concurs in this statement.  We expect to make
a written statement before July 7 on the subject of this hearing.

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  We will look forward to receiving
your written testimony.  Thank you very much.  We will see that
you will get copies of them as you requested.

          David Snider of the City of Springfield, Missouri.
Mr. Snider.

          MR. SNIDER:  Thank you Mr. Chairman.  I will make my
remarks brief, because I really am speaking as the Director of
Public Works, but without the city's sanction at this point.
Again, not to be derragatory, but we just learned about this
meeting also and came  up at the very last minute.

          We do want to comment, though, briefly on the five
items.  Of course, the first one, we are funded for sewage
treatment plants, and they are currently under contract, and the
75 per cent will not bother us there.  But, we are very concerned
about the future, and the fact of our inability to provide addi-
tional taxation from our population and the inability to even
get bond issues passed of any magnitude.

          So anything different than this 75 per cent, 15 per
cent by our State Water Commission, would definitely deter our

-------
                                                           70

ability to provide future treatment plants, or even future
interceptor trunk sewers, which we have about 42 miles under
consideration and design at this time.
                                                                  i
          As far as your Paper No. 2, this is very complex.   In
discussing it with my Superintendent of Sanitary Services, the
question we have is really academic in that what is excess growth,
and what is excess capacity?  And in our part of the country,
once you put the line in you don't want to think about having
to go back there again, due to the fact of difficulty of getting
easements and this sort of thing.

          And many times ultimate growth versus say 10 or even
20 year's growth is very close, especially in our fast-growing
community, and I am certain in other communities this same situ-
ation would occur.  Say a 10 year growth versus ultimate pop-
ulation which is only 15 years away changes the line from 24
inches to 27 inches, or even 30 inches.  And cose effectiveness,
we question it seriously.

          In regard to Paper No. 3, we are basically in agree-
ment with the position taken here in that, except that some  major
sewer rehabilitation needs to be left in there, although maybe
not total, but at least part, some major rehabilitation.  Infil-
tration inflow, we feel should be left in, definitely.  Collectors,
we have no problems at this point in time with financing col-
lector systems ourselves.

          Like the gentleman from St. Joseph, though, our costs
are now approaching 10 cents a square foot, and of course our
concern right now is trying to get treatment plants and trunk
sewers.  So we are really not even giving priorities ourselves
to collectors, but it would definitely be of benefit, I am certain.

          Stormwater control, I think that is the thing that is
going to show up in our part of the country, because we are  under
that special area of having to have tertiary disinfection type
treatment plants, and once we get those in operation we think
there is going to be a noticeable degree of problems from storm-
water run off.  And after last night's storm, three inches in an
hour and a half, it becomes a great concern.  We have had fish-
kills, which have been proven not to be from our sanitary system,
but our storm system more than anything else.

          In regard to Paper No. 4, the 1977 deadline, we are
under contract and can't  make it.  Our contractor, he can't
get materials and this type of thing, and I just look at this as
I relate it to other federal aid programs.  I have been directly
involved with some, and sometimes the dates are set and they do
not take into effect enough of the ability to get the money.
And if Congress can not see itself clear to fund these programs,
then the dates have got to be accordingly.

-------
                                                            71

          I am not so sure I agree with any five, other than
I will agree with the compromise of three and four, which some
discretion on specific programs should be given directly and
definitely.  But to come up with hard and fast dates,  I have
heard this 1983.  I say that is no better as far as I  am con-
cerned than 1977.  If Congress or the President would  impound
funds, what good is it?
       >r              • •" •.' -  '    K ••;'*i''"'
          It is not going to'be done, and my question  is what
type of discipline are you going to give communities if they
can't make it because they don't have the funds?  It can go on
and on.

          Finally, on Paper No. 5, we have had, of-course, ex-
tremely good working relationships with the regional office here,
as well as our state and city water commission, but I  guess being
local we like to see things one step closer to the people.  So  '
therefore we would support, I am certain, a getting it to our
state, giving them enough time, of course, to staff up and to
be ready to accept it advertently.        *->;

          Thank you.                        •'•'•'<; -   ^ •>•'•  ;

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Mr. Snider, thank you.

          Mr. Rhett, do you have any questions?
                         ..],
          MR. RHETT:  No.     - •       ^^
                                      1 ;' • ' "" , '''1
        'CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Jerry?      • ••-;-•

          MR. SVORE:  No.

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you very much, Mr. Snider.

          Mr. Kenneth W. Spare, is he here?

          (No response.)

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Mr. T. A. Williamson?

          (No response)

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Mr. Oliver T. Williams

          MR. WILLIAMS:  Thank you, Mr.^Chairman.  I hope you
will  recognize that the actions of the Milwaukee Bucs  in trading
Abdul-Jabbar is not representative of the mentality of all the
people from Winconsin.

-------
                                                           72

          My name is Oliver D. Williams.  I am the Administrator
of the Division of Environmental Standards in the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources.  If I were to have a major mes-
sage to bring to this hearing today, it would be a call for some
program stability.

          Predictability of funding levels is critical to budge-:
tary and program planning, whether at the state or municipal   !
level.  Uncertainty at both levels concerning which projects
can be financed, and when, has resulted in severe loss of credi-
bility for the pollution control program.

          We found that the changes in the construction grants
program in the 1972 amendments and thereafter created consider-
able chaos.  Only now, nearly three years later, are we beginning
to achieve in Wisconsin some public understanding of the new
requirements.  And here we are today, discussing further changes.

          Announcements of Federal initiatives have raised false
expectations about how quickly there would be visible results
from these efforts.  I am sure that all Wisconsinites share the
national awareness that environmental quality problems are
urgent.
                                          '•      •    !   r,"
          On the other hand, we know that major changes take  ,
time.  Nowhere has this become more evident than in the adminis-
tration of municipal waste treatment grants, where the gesta-
tion period, from conception of a project through, facilitates
planning and design, to awarding of a contract and final con-
struction, can easily stretch out to the full five yearHife
of an NPDES permit.

          This problem has become particularly acute in the
public perception of the 1977 deadline.  The national  pollution
control effort will suffer drastic credibility problems when  it
hits home to the taxpayer that the release of the impounded
money, despite the great publicity which it has received, will
scarcely  dent the construction needs in this country.  While
the issues being discussed here today are important, it is re-
greta;ble .• that the paramount question—how much is Congress will
ing to authorize for Fiscal Year 1977 grants and beyond—apparent-
ly is not being discussed in this or any other national forum.

          The simple fact is that the Congress, in the bold en-
actment of the 1972 amendments, assumed a major federal responsi-
bility for cleaning up the nation's waters.  Without any signifi-
cant prod from the states that I am aware of, Congress opened the
federal purse in magnanimous fashion, offering guaranteed 75 per
cent grants for municipal projects, with almost unlimited eligi-
bility.

-------
                                                           73

          The warnings of those experienced in the municipal
grants program, if heard at all, went unheeded.  As a result,
federal appropriations at seemingly generous proportions are,
when combined with rampant inflation, producing far less in
tangible results than the relatively modest appropriations
accomplished in pre-1972 years.

          Now, after a handful of high priority communities have
shared in the 75 per cent bonanza, the suggestions are put forth
that this be cut back to 55 per cent so that the federal dollar
will stretch further.  This smacks of a bail-out.  If, as the
position paper introduction states, "the magnitude of this
indicated need appears to be beyond the funding capability of
the federal budget," how is the pressure to be eased by shifting
the burden to state and local budgets.

          The same taxpayers are footing all of tfre bills, and
it is no easier for clean water advocates to win the battle of
the budget at state and local levels than it is the Congress.
                                       ' -     - -    ' "         •*! "
          What is needed, in'our view, is a clear'federal   >
statement that it intends to get out of the construction grants
business after specified objectives are met.  These objectives
might be the attainment of BPT, BAT or water quality related
effluent limitations through the construction of necessary
waste treatment facilities on a one-time-only basis. J13y limit-
ing the use of federal funds to treatment facilities and those
interceptors and sewer rehabilitation projects'identified as:»
necessary to insure the integrity of those facilities', there is
some hope that the plant owners will beconte more cognizant of
their management responsibilities.

          Further, by limiting federal funding to treatment
facilities, the question of the sizing of interceptors or the
extension of collection systems will become relatively academic.

          These decisions, related to land use determinations
and the intrinsically local judgements of whether or not to
seek and encourage community growth, can be made in the frame-
work of local and regional planning, with whatever involvement
state agencies feel they need to make.

          The regulatory form of PL 92-500, the permits program,
can never be made to function effectively in the municipal sector
if the permitee can effectively raise the issue that his compliance
is predicted upon a pending federal or state grant.

          Thich brings us to the issue of whether the 1977 date
should be extended.

-------
                                                           74

          There is de facto recognition that the 1977 deadline
has already been extended.  A vast majority of municipal  permits
have been issued on an "operation and maintenance" basis, re-
cognizing that existing facilities cannot achieve the defined
secondary standards, let alone something better to assure
compliance with water quality standards.

          If the priority system under which federal  construction
grants are distributed is to have any significance at all, there
must be recognition that enforcement will be geared to availabi-
lity of funding for the initial  design period.   To select an alter-
native deadline date, such as 1983, is useful  only if it becomes
the deadline for Congress to carry out its end of the bargain.

          If selection of a target date is not geared to this
theory, then alternatives three or four are the only logical
choices.  Those familiar with administrative law should,  however,
review this decision carefully.   If ad hoc extensions will not
protect permittees against civil suite, then another direction
should be- taken by Congress.  The perchant for citizen or environ-
mental group lawsuits is increasing, and administration of the
clean waters program is not enhanced when a substantial portion
of staff time is tied up in legal actions.

          I have already touched on Paper No.  3, dealing with re-
stricting the types of projects eligible for grant assistance.
These should, in my opinion, be limited to secondary and tertiary
treatment plants and correction of sewer-infiltration/inflow,
and those interceptors which have traditionally been eligible.
                                                          ',
          At some later date, should studies moving forward
under 208 planning so indicate, special funding for correction
of combined sewer overflows and treatment or control  of storm-
waters might be considered.  Point source pollution,  because of-
the regulatory relationship to the permit program, should be
funded separately from control of nonpoint sources, such as
stormwater runoff.

          Our experience has shown that one of the greatest
drains on the federal grant program may be construction of
collector sewers.  These have traditionally .been a local  res-
ponsibility, and I strongly encourage return to that basis.

          I intend to leave to municipal officials and their
consultants the burden of response to Paper No. 2.  We will,
with support from EPA, administer this aspect of the grants
program in whatever fashion Congress or EPA, through its
regulations, might determine to be in the national interest.
This is an area in which state-by-state consistency appears
highly desireable.

-------
                                                           75

          With respect to Paper No.  5, Winconsin has mixed
emotions.   We have had an excellent working relationship with
the EPA grants staff in Region 5,-and do find that we can be
mutually supportive in achieving the objectives of the federal
regulations, both those promulgated by EPA and by other federal
agencies.

          Wisconsin is already reviewing plans and specifications
and operations manuals, and is certifying I-I reports and environ-
mental assessments.  While we believe that we can assume full
responsibility for the construction grants program and carry it
out successfully, there are some functions which might better
be left at the rational level.  We  would suggest flexibility in
working out these arrangements.

          As to the source of funding for these administrative
responsibilities, our preference would be a beefing up of the
Section 106 program grants rather than a skim-off of the con-
struction grants program funds.  It scarecely makes sense to
cast about for mechanisms to stretch the construction grants
dollar and, at the same time, hitch new administrative costs
to the same wagon.

          One other topic I believe worthy of consideration
in this legislative package is a realistic appraisal  of the 208
program.  It is already abundantly  clear that the budgeting, and
the time schedules, for effective planning in designated areas
are unrealistic.  Even more critical is the prospect that state
agencies,-with no financial support, must provide 208 planning
in non-designated areas.  In Wisconsin, at least, this cannot
be accomplished in any meaningful was at present budget levels.
                                           .,."•*
          Certainly the admonition  of Judge John Lewis Smith, Jr.,
to complete this process by 1976 is not feasible, and this should
be addressed in Congressional oversight hearings.

          In summary, although I believe that the Congress should
not have been so generous in selecting to finance 75 per cent
of eligible project costs in the 1972 amendments, I now feel that
the federal government has a responsibility to live up to that
commitment and to fund the program  at a level commensurate to
the need.   That need can, however,  be reduced by cutting back
on the types of projects considered eligible for federal grants,
such as collection systems, stormwater controls, etc.  A funding
level  of 5 billion dollars per year, which is less than 2 per
cent of the federal budget, would not be inappropriate for this
effort.  At this rate, treatment facilities should be upgraded
to secondary or better by 1983 or sooner.

          The 1977 deadline for compliance with secondary stan-
dards  is totally unrealistic and must be extended.  Permit issua-

-------
                                                           76

nee and enforcement must be geared to the priority system for
distribution of these grants if it is to have any validity.
Congress cannot now duck the clear resonsibilities stated in
the 1972 amendments, but it should have learned from that ex-
perience that it would be a mistake to establish a new dead-
line without shouldering full responsibility for its achievement.

          Again, we strongly support extension of the 1977
date, only that it be done with caution in such a way that it
does not expose the permittees or the agencies to a nuisance
legal action.

          Thank you.

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Mr. Williams, thank you very much.
                            ,       i ' "*
          Jack or Jerry, do you have any questions of Mr.
Williams?

          MR. RHETT:  No.

          MR. SVORE:  No.

          CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you.  I think we have exhausted
all the cards that I have for anybody :who wished to make a pre-
sentation.

          Is there anyone that did wish to make a presentation
that had not been called on?  How many other people wanted to
make a presentation?                   .«    .,
                           r
          It appears we just have one more.  Why don't you make
your statement, sir, and we will hear it now.

          MR. DRAIN:  Mr, Chairman, myj name is Dan Drain.  I  am
the Director of the Department of Environmental Control in the
State of Nebraska.

          I do not have a written statement,  but I would like,
after hearing the remarks of the various people who have pro-
ceeded me this morning, to make a few comments indicating the
position of the State of Nebraska in this important matter.

          First, let me note, which is apparent to everybody
here, including you gentlemen, that the statements that have
been presented have been remarkably similar in their positions
on these various five papers.  This, to me, tells a story, and
expresses how the people in general must feel  about these cer-
tain matters.

-------
                                                           77

          I would like to comment on three, the federal share
at 75 per cent.   I think there are a lot of reasons for why
it should remain at this level, as have been very well expressed
this morning.  One of the things which would reinforce this,
in my opinion, which has not been addressed here this morning to
my knowledge,  is the fact that in the large projects like a
municipal wastewater treatment facility involving millions of
dollars,  these are public funds.  These are tax dollars.

          These  are dollars  provided by the American people, not
merely for the benefit of that community and providing them a
wastewater treatment plant,  but as we all  know,  for the benefit
of those  who use the water,  and the  people who  live downstream.
So, therefore, it seems  to me  only proper that  the federal  govern-
ment should undertake to support such at the highest possible
level, items which are supported by  tax dollars  and in the  public
interest.

          Therefore,  I think that is  another good  reason.

          I also have not heard  anyone  mention  this this morning,
but it ties in with the  whole  program of construction  grants  for
wastewater treatment facilities,  and  recognizing that  this  is a
long term program, and recognizing that stability  is needed.
Not only  do we have the  possibility of  achieving the water  quality
objectives of PL 92-500,  but something  that we  cannot  overlook
in this kind of  a broad  national  program supported by  national
tax dollars, is  the continued  incentive and support it gives  to
the very  depressed construction  industry.

          We can not only help to achieve our water quality ob-
jectives  through this program, we can certainly put federal tax
dollars to good  use in what  I  would  consider a  way of  providing
jobs which are much needed in  our country from  an  economic  point
of view.   And in realizing something  from the mere payouts  which
you get in other programs, you have  got brick and mortar to show
for it.

          So,  I  add those comments to the first item of the public,
federal support  in the program,  75 per cent.

          On the subject of  eligibility, the State of Nebraska
in its priority  evaluation system in effect gives the major
support to items, Categories I, II,  IV B.  Those are the ones
that really rank high on the priority list, and those are the
ones which these dollars are going to support.   We have a situa-
tion where a lot of communities need collection systems, and they
can t afford to  buy them. And we recongize this.   I also recoq-
nize that one of the motivating factors which is apparent in

-------
                                                           78

trying to reduce the number of categories is to bring the 300-
plus billion dollars reflected in the need survey down to some
comprehensive figures which the Congress can understand, and
which they could possibly expect to appropriate in the foresee-
able future.
                                                               ..r~t
          So, I think we have reduced categories down so that
we can get the dollars into something that most people can under-
stand, that are attainable.  Perhaps, as a suggestion, it would
be fine to reduce the categories of eligibility to these three,
but at the same time encourage at the national level through
EPA and contracts with the federal agencies, support on the part
of HUD and Farmer's Home Administration, as has been mentioned
here this morning.             •<   .                           •:'

          In helping to provide small communities who can't af-
ford to put out the money for these types of needed facilities
so that money other than EPA funds could also contribute to the
water pollution control goals.

          As far as the extension of the date is concerned,
beyond 1977, I suppose all of us would readily admit that to
be truly honest extending-it to'1983 for attainment of secondary
treatment is the way to go.  But on the other hand, and we have  ,
kicked this around at great length and really never came to a>
consensus in our own department, there is merit to retaining the
1977 date, because we actually.expect to^achieve secondary treat-
ment in many of our municipalities, and we are not going to slow
down with respect to dates in our permit system.

          I think we shouldn't overlook the fact that there are
a lot of people in the United States who look with a certain
amount of suspicion at programs in which you set a date and
then back it down.  On that basis I would say we have good reason
to try to retain that date in the interest of maintaining credi-
bility.

          But, as has been pointed out, here is a combination of
those alternatives to allow some flexibility in extending the
dates where there has been good faith shown, or the municipality
just can't comply, or if you will, if it is tied to the federal
construction grant program and money is not available.  I recog-
nize that we were, I know you-wanted to stick to the papers
today, but the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Williams, brought
up something which is very close to our thoughts in .Nebraska,
which are not unique to Nebraska, but are general as far as
this part of the country is concerned.
                                        *
          We are faced with the requirement in PL 92-500 to pro-
vide a 208 plan for non-designated areas.  That happens to be the

-------
                                                           79

State of Nebraska,  in our case.   It was pointed out that funds
have not been made  available, separately indentified to support
this type of thing  at the state level.

          I would support, from Nebraska's standpoint, the recom-
mendation or suggestion of Mr.  Williams, that this matter be
considered very seriously by EPA and perhaps if not included in
this set of amendments, at an early date.

          Thank you, sir.

          CHAIRMAN  AGEE:  Mr. Drain, thank you very much.

          Is there  anyone el so in the room that would like to
make a statement today?
                                              "i
          MR. BOMGRAN:  Mr.  Chairman, my name is Carl  Bomgran.
I am the Water Division Director for EPA in Kansas City.   I
just want to make one point.
                                              '-."• i.;  !i"
          Mr. Cunningham's letter was mailed from  the Regional
office.  Mr. Svore  advised them of this hearing.  We will  furnish
you with a copy of that, Mr. Chairman.        •   '

          CHAIRMAN  AGEE:  O.K.   Thank you.  If there are  no other
statements to be given today, I will shortly adjourn this  hearing.
I would like to advise everybody that the hearing  record will be
held open until the close of business on July 7, 1975, and that
any written comments received by that deadline will certainly be
considered as part of the record.

          I would encourage you to, if you did not make a  state-
ment today, if you feel inclined to send us your comments,  we
really need help on these matters.  We will be holding two addi-
tional hearings, one in San Francisco on June 19,  and one  next
week.  What is the  date of the one in Washington,  D.C.?

          MR. SABOCK:  June 23, and possibly it will go over
to June 24 in Washington, D.C.   So we have two additional  hearings.

          With that I will adjourn this hearing.

          (The hearing was adjourned.)

-------
                   CERTIFICATE
          I, DAVID L.  ARGIE,  do hereby certify that I  appeared
at the time and place first hereinbefore set forth;  that I  took
down in stenomask the entire proceedings had at said time and
place, and that the foregoing one hundred sixty-six  pages con-
stitute a true, correct and complete transcript of my said steno-
mask notes.
                                          David L.  Argie
                                             REPORTER

-------
..SAN^F.RANCXSGO;-

-------
                     ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION AGENCY
    PUBLIC HEARING ON POSSIBLE ADMINISTRATION  PROPOSALS TO AMEND THE

       FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT, AS AMENDED, RELATING TO

                     MUNICIPAL WASTE TREATMENT  GRANTS
                          Thursday,  June  19,  1975
                             9:00 O'clock A.M.
                               Colonial  Room
                             Hotel  St.  Francis
                         San Francisco,  California
     The Panel:
         JAMES L.  AGEE,  Chairman
         Assistant Administrator for Water and  Hazardous  Materials,
         EPA,  Washington,  D.C.

         PAUL  DE FALCO,  JR.
         EPA Regional  Administrator, San Francisco

         JOHN  T. RHETT
         Deputy Assistant  Administrator for Water Program Operations,
         EPA,  Washington,  D.C.
Reported by:

Paul  Schiller,  C.S.R.

-------
Morning Session:                                              Page
Call  to Order                                                  2
Welcome —  Paul  de Falco                                       2
Opening Remarks  - Chairman Agee                                2
Testimony:
   RALPH C. BOLIN, President, Bay Area Sewage Services
   Agency                                                      6
   ROBERT H. MENDELSOHN, BASSA Trustee                         7
   LAYTHON N. LANDIS, BASSA Trustee and Representative
   of East Bay Dischargers Authority                           9
   DONALD G. MILLER, Councilman, City of Livermore            13
   STANLEY DALY, Mayor of Camarillo                           16
   PETER R. GADD, Chairman, Kings River Water Assn.           19
   FRED A.  HARPER, Association of Metropolitan Sewage
   Agencies and County Sanitation Districts of
   Orange County                                              21
   LAWRENCE K. TABER, Vice President, Canners League
   of California                                              26
   LARRY HERBERT STONE, Chairman, Environmental
   Committee, Canners League of California                    27
   JOHN S.  HARNETT, General Manager, East Bay
   Municipal Utility District                                 32
   BOB BURT, California Manufacturers Association             36
   ALINDA NEWBY, Manager, Public Services Division
   Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle                       39
   WALTER E. GARRISON, representing California Association
   of Sanitation Districts and Sanitation Districts of Los
   Angeles County                                             43

-------
                                                              ii,
Morning Session (Continued);                                 Page
   BILL B. DENDY, Executive Officer, California
   Water Resources Control Board                              47

   ROBERT G. FLEMING, Director, Control Operations,
   Texas Water Quality Board      .                            50

   WENDELL McCURRY, Nevada Department of Human
   Resources                                                  55

   LILA BULER, Chairman, Livermore-Amador Valley
   Water Management Agency                                    58

   GRANVILLE BOWMAN, Deputy Director, San Diego
   County Sanitation District                                 60

   HENRY F. EICH, Conference of Local Environmental
   Health Administrators                                      63

   GEORGE HAGEVIK, Chief, Environmental Resources
   Division of the Association of Bay Area Governments        64

   PETE ZARS, Sierra Club                                     67

   DONALD E. EVENSON, representing  Consulting
   Engineers Association of California                        69

Luncheon Recess                                               71

-------
                                                                  iii
                             INDEX
Afternoon Session:                                            Page
   ED SIMMONS,  Public Relations Officer for the
   California Resources Association                           72

   HERMAN ALCAULD,  representing City Engineers
   Office, CHy and County of San Francisco                   75

   MICHAEL HERZ, Executive Director, San Francisco
   Bay Chapter, Oceanic Socity                                78

   CONNIE PARRISH,  California Representative,
   Friends of the Earth                                       82

   JOHN A LAMBIE, representing Ventura
   Regional Sanitation District                               83

   E. L. MacDONALD, representing North Bay Water
   Advisory Council                       .                    87
                             /  '    v i, '
                                   '\
   GORDON MAGNUSON, representing Monterey Peninsula
   Water Pollution Control Agency                             89

   JACK PORT, Assistant Public Works Director
   Environmental Control, Contra Costa Public
   Works Department                                           91

   ARNOLD JOENS, City Engineer, Public Works
   Director, City of Salinas                                  94

   JACK BEAVER, member President's Advisory Board
   on National  Water Pollution Problems                       95

   EDWARD BOHN, representing Planning and Conservation
   League, Sacramento, California                             98

   JERRY RAKER, representing Guam Environmental
   Protection Agency                                         102

   DONALD TILLMAN,  representing City Engineer and
   City of Los  Angeles                                       102

   SANFORD KORETSKY-, member of consulting firm
   engaged in Clean Water Act Projects                       105

-------
                                                               -2-
      ...The Hearing was called to order at 9:00 a.m. ...

      MR. PAUL DE FALCO:  Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen.  My
name is Paul De Falco.  I am the Regional Administrator of Region
IX of the EPA.  I would like to welcome you all to this hearing to
discuss your views on possible Administration proposals to amend
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972.

      I would like to introduce the Panel:  On my far right is Jack
Rhett.  Jack is the Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water Program
Operations with specific responsibility for Construction and Grants
Program, which most of you are interested in.

      And to my immediate right, the Chairman for today's session,
Mr. Jim Agee, who is the Assistant Administrator for the Water Pro-
gram in Washington.

      At this point I would like to turn the program over to him.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Paul, thank you very much.

      I have a brief statement that I would like to read to set this
session in focus and give the background why we're going into it
and what we might get out of it.

      I appreciate your coming here today to present your views on
possible Administration proposals to amend the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act Amendments of 1972.  This is the third of a series,
of Public Hearings that are being held across the country in this
month of June.  The first was held in Atlanta, Georgia on June 9th;
the second in Kansas City, Missouri on June 17th; and the last(hear-
ing will be held in Washington, D.C. on June 25th, so we are holding
four hearings across the country.
                                •••-.y
      I would like to begin these hearings by putting the Waste-
water Treatment Facilities Grant Program of EPA and these hearings
into focus.  The 1972 Amendments authorized, and the Administration
has allotted to the states, $18 billion in construction grant funds.
These grant funds, at the rate of 75% federal funding, will support
$24 billion in total eligible costs.  However, the 1974 survey of
state needs indicated that approximately $350 billion is the esti-
mated cost to satisfy all of the eligible treatment works as defined
in the Act, or $262.50 billion in 75% grants.

      The magnitude of the indicated need is well beyond the capa-
bility of the federal budget to fund with 75% grants in any reasonable
future time.  As a result, today we will be considering alternative
means of funding those projects that are absolutely essential to
attaining required treatment levels without negating major water
quality objectives of the Act.  Also considered will be possible ways
to extend the 1977 statutory deadline for municipalities to reach

-------
                                                               -3-
secondary or higher required levels of treatment, and, in addition,
a measure to improve the management of the program through greater
delegation of responsibilities to the states.

      I want to emphasize that these hearings will relate to changes
to be made in any future funding that Congress may make available
after the $18 billion allocation.  In other words, any proposed
changes as to funding will not pertain to changing the provisions
under which grants are to be made with presently available funds.

      Specifically, these hearings are for the purpose of receiving
public comment, views and information on the issues described in
the May 2, 1975 announcement of these hearings and discussed in more
detail in the background papers published in the Federal Register of
May 28, 1975.  These background papers are available at the regis-
tration desk today if anyone desires additional copies.  The back-
ground papers are presented with the intent that they will assist
in focusing discussions at the hearings—they do not cover all
possible alternatives and are not meant to confine the discussion.
Nor do they indicate any predetermined course of action already
selected by EPA.  On the contrary, these very hearings will assist
EPA in determining our course of action.

      The five issues that we would like to have discussed today:

      1.  The first issue is:

          Should the federal share for funding construction grants
          be reduced from the current level of 75% to a level as
          low as 55%?

      The objectives of such an amendment would be twofold:  The
first is to permit the limited funding available to go further in
assisting needed projects.  The second objective is to encourage
greater accountability for cost effective design and project manage-
ment on the part of the grantee by virtue of the grantee's greater
investment in the project.

      2.  The second question that we would like to discuss today is:

          Should the Federal Government limit the amount of reserve
          capacity of facilities that would be eligible for construc-
          tion grant assistance?

      There are two possible objectives to be achieved by limiting
eligibility for reserve capacity.  The first is to permit limited
Federal funds to go further in funding the backlog of projects for
treating existing flows, and the second is to induce more careful
sizing and design of capacity so that excessive growth-related
reserve capacity is not financed with Federal funds.

-------
                                                               -4-
      3.  The third issue we would like to cover deals with the
          eligible pieces:

          Should the types of projects eligible for construction
          grants be restricted?

      The principal purpose to be achieved in limiting eligibili-
ties is to reduce the Federal burden in financing the construction
grants program.  A secondary purpose is to limit Federal participa-
tion to those types of projects that are most essential to meet the
water quality goals of PL 92-500 and to require that some projects
be fully financed by local and State authorities where such projects
are clearly within their responsibilities and capabilities.

      4.  The fourth issue is:

          Should the date be extended by which publicly-owned
          treatment works are to achieve compliance with require-
          ments of Section 301 of the law?,

      It is currently estimated that 50 percent of 9,000 communities
werving 60 percent of the 1977 population will not be able to comply
with the requirement that municipalities have secondary treatment
of their wastewaters by 1977.  The amount of construction grant funds
authorized thus far - $18 billion - is not sufficient to cover the
1977 needs that are estimated in the FY 1974 needs survey for secon-
dary or higher required treatment, and, in addition, those communi-
ties that are funded with Federal grants by 1977 will not all be able
to complete construction by 1977.  The issue is faced as to how to
address the question of non-compliance with the law in 1977.  The
obvious solution is to extend the deadline either on a case by case
or by an overall extension of the compliance date.

      5.  The fifth, and last issue is:

          Should a greater portion of the management of the construc-
          tion grants program be delegated to the States.

      A bill, H.R. 2175, has been introduced in the Congress which
would permit the Administrator to delegate to the States the broad
range of grant processing functions, including those that go beyond
just the review and approval of documents.  States would certify that
the requirements for grants had been fulfilled.  Included also is a
provision to compensate the States directly out of State allotments
for administrative costs which they incurred up to a maximum of 2
percent of a State's yearly allotment.  Under H.R. 2175, EPA acti-
vities would be largely confined to overall  policy making and to
auditing and monitoring the grant activities performed by the States.
However, EPA would remain responsible for any Environmental Impact
Statements necessary on individual projects.

-------
                                                               -5-
      For the first four of these issues, the Administration Is
control ating the submission of proposals to the Congress to amend
the Federal  Water Pollution Control  Act.   The information derived
from the hearings will  provide EPA with a better understanding of
each of these four issues.   Should these hearings result in specific
suggestions  for legislation to be formally submitted to Congress,
EPA would have in its possession the views of interested parties and
data on the  potential impact of such proposals, including data for
the draft environmental impact statement that would have to accompany
such proposals.

      For the fifth issue,  delegating greater program responsibi-
lity to the  States, EPA has endorsed H.R. 2175 and H.R. 6991.  These
are bills that are normally referred to as the Cleveland-Wright Bills.
These hearings will give EPA a better understanding of the capacity
of the States to accept greater delegation and will provide views
and information concerning  the administrative procedures that might
be used to accomplish more  timely delegations.  These hearings will
also explore any problems that might be involved in this effort.

      Now for the ground rules by which these hearings will be
conducted.  Anyone wishing  to testify today must sign the registra-
tion card available at the  entrance.  Testimony should be limited
to a maximum of 10 minutes, if you can possibly do so.

      We have between 30 and 40 people who have indicated that they
would like to testify today.  We have an egg timer, on Dave Sabock.'s
desk, and it will ring in 10 minutes, and somewhat after that the
trap door opens and lets you out of here.

      But please try to limit your testimony to 10 minutes.
If you have written statements that are longer, try to summarize them
for us, but we would be very, very pleased to have the full text of
your written statements.  That way we can really get at your total
views, and it would be much easier for us, also better for you, so
if you do have written testimony, please submit it to us.

      With that, I think we can probably get started.

      I might spend a moment or two, if anybody has any questions
about the hearings or the procedures that we might want to follow.
Are there any questions at  this time?  (There were no questions.)

      Very good.  I do have a whole stack of cards here and I will
just peel them off top-wise.

      The first individual  that did ask to testify this morning is
Ralph Bolin, and he is representing the Bay Area Sewage-Services
Agency.  He is the President of the Bay Area Sewage Agency.

-------
                                                              -6-
      The second individual to testify this morning will be Donald
G. Miller--! will try to alert the next speaker so you won't get
surprised.

      We will now hear from Mr. Ralph Bolin.

      MR. RALPH C. BOLIN:  Members of the Panel and others in the
audience.  I am Ralph Bolin, and, as you have indicated, President
of the Bay Area Sewage Agency.  I am also the Mayor of the City of
Napa, and my comments are presented in response to the notice by the
Environmental Protection Agency regarding proposed changes to Public
Law 92-500.  They are rather thick, but I assure you that even though
I have two colleagues with me to testify, our total time will be
less than 10 minutes.

      Everyone who has been actively concerned with protecting and
improving  the waters of the nation can agree that Public Law 92-500,
while providing some of the most comprehensive programs for environ-
mental enhancement, nevertheless is in need of revisions to assure
accomplishment of necessary programs, provision of equity to waste-
water dischargers, and to be cost-effective and to realize our national
clean water goals.  As President of the Bay Area Sewage Services
Agency, a 9-county regional public body responsible under California
law for development and implementation of water quality management
plans in the San Francisco Bay Region, I can assure you that the
people of the San Francisco Bay Area and the wastewater discharging
agencies whom we serve welcome this opportunity to air our views.
Because of the lengthy program scheduled, I will keep my remarks
brief and general, and I will be assisted by BASSA Trustee Robert H.
Mendelsohn, who is also a Supervisor of the City and County of San
Francisco; and BASSA Trustee Laython N. Landis, Director of the Oro
Loma Sanitary District and a Commissioner of the East Bay Dischargers
Authority.

      I would like to comment on a general concern that we, in the
water pollution control business, have -- that today's hearing and
subsequent amendments to Public Law 92-500 will not herald a change
in direction in the nation's water pollution control programs away
from the goals to which all of us have committed ourselves.  While
federal law has presented many constraints and restrictions to swift
program functioning, we are hopeful that these have been worked out
in the three years since the Act was adopted.  We are also hopeful that
the national program can proceed on the foundations which have been
built for it.  We hope that ways have been found to streamline the
administrative procedures that have shackled many of the current
programs in fee Bay Arrea and which have created the impression that
we are fighting a no-win war against pollution.  Lastly, we are hope-
ful that the Environmental Protection Agency will find the means to
blend environmental protection and public works spending in the most
forthright manner to provide economic as well as environmental bene-
fits to our communities and our construction industries.

-------
                                                               -7-
      Several months  ago,  I  was in Washington and met with some of
you regarding concerns  of  the  San Francisco Bay Region.  We were
assured  that positive actions  were being taken to restore momentum
to the nation's water pollution control  programs.  I trust that
today's  hearing will  be a  step in the direction of getting the nation's
pollution  control  programs off dead center.

      The  Bay Area Sewage  Services Agency has gone on record, follow-
ing many months of investigation, that forthwith action is necessary
to enable  water quality management programs in the San Francisco Bay
Area to  proceed without delays in evaluation, approval and processing
of grant funds.   The  Bay Area  Sewage Services Agency also has gone
on record  as  seeking  authorization for full reimbursement of monies
due local  agencies for  projects constructed between 1966 and 1972
as provided for  in Public  Law  92-500.  Copies of the Agency's policy
statements are  included in the appendix papers submitted with this
presentation.

      Before I  introduce Trustee Robert Mendelsohn, I would like to
close with a request  that  your Agency review the circumstances and
application of  federal  law which appear to be delaying a satisfactory
solution for the  Crockett-Valona Sanitary District, located in Contra
Costa County.   A summary of the Sanitary  District's problem is con-
tained in  Section 6 of  the appendix.  Rigid application of land owner-
ship provisions  is precluding  a cost-effective solution involving
the benefits of consolidation  of municipal and industrial dischargers
into a mutually beneficial program.  The Sanitary District's best
solution is to  consolidate its present flows with those of the Cali-
fornia and Hawaiian Sugar  Company refinery in a common plant.  Un-
fortunatley, the District's share of the joint plant construction has
been ruled as ineligible for grant funding, a circumstance which will
force a much more costly and duplicative solution to be followed.
The Bay Area Sewage Services Agency is concerned with this problem
and will be pleased to  offer its services to EPA in finding a satis-
factory solution.

      I would like now  to  introduce Robert Mendelsohn from
the City and County of  San Francisco.

      MR.  ROBERT H, MENDELSOHN:  Thank you, Mr. Bolin,

      Mr.  Chairman, Gentlemen:  Thank you for the opportunity to
address you briefly.  The  Mayor took the first four minutes ~r Mayors
do that, I will  try to  keep mine to about three and leave time for
Mr. Landis.

      Gentlemen:   My  comments  on proposed amendments to Public Law
92-500 are based upon the  regional experiences of the Bay Area Sewage
Services Agency and the local  experiences of the City and County of
San Francisco where I serve as a member of the Board of Supervisors.
I also have a deep interest in environmental protection acquired
through participation as a member of the California Coastal Zone
Conservation Commission.

-------
                                                               -8-
      I would not, Mr. Chairman, speak to all of the questions you
raised, but I certainly would like to speak first with regard to the
question of whether or not the federal share of the Clean Water Grant
Program should be reduced.

      I guess you're going to hear something similar from me^that
you heard in the Atlanta and Kansas City hearings, and if you had
another 20 hearings you would hear it in 20 cities throughout the
country.

      Such consideration at this time seems almost incomprehensible
in view of the overwhelming commitment which the communities in the
Bay Area, including San Francisco, have given to the region's clean
water program.  The issue of reimbursable grants, alone, speaks
rather to increasing the federal commitment.  We ihave determined from
EPA's own figures that approximately $5.2 million of funds authorized
under Public Law 92-500 have not been reimbursed to those qualifying
local agencies who acted on their own and in good faith to protect
the region's waters during the years immediately prior to enactment
of Public Law 92-500.

      Gentlemen, we will provide this information to you and you will
see a breakdown of the $5,200,000.  But that is $5,200,000 that we  ;,
are already spending, and we can't afford to spend and which, in"fact,
as far as we are concerned, the Federal Government owes us.

      I would urge that the Environmental Protection Agency take
immediate action by whatever means available, as a matter of equity
and sound business principles, to reimburse fully those agencies
which quality.

      We have determined that nearly $2 billion in water pollution
control facilities must be built in the San Francisco Bay Area if
state and national goals for clean water are to be achieved.  The
federal share for the San Francisco Bay Area would amount to approxi-
mately $1.5 billion.

      According to the California State Water Resources Control
Board, only $1.8 billion in federal monies have been allocated to
California under PL 92-500 since 1973.  The San Francisco Bay Region's
share is approximately 20%, or $360 million.  Contrasting this to the
Region's $1.5 billion need  for  federal monies based on a federal  share
of 75% of project cost indicates the inability of the Act to do the job
at current spending levies.  Reduction of the federal share to 55%, as
proposed in your Agency's position paper, would mean that the Bay
Region would be eligible for only $1.1 billion in /federal monies, and
would require the taxpayers of the Bay Region to be saddled with an
additional burden of $400 million for Bay Region needs.

-------
      In the City and County of San Francisco, approximately $982
million, nearly a billion dollars in San Francisco alone must be
spent for a comprehensive system to eliminate wet weather overflows
from the City's combined sewer system.

      We get that addition flow, gentlemen, in the rain, and when
there is a heavy fog, when we get a heavy fog -- and we hardly ever
do -- providing the treatment necessary for discharge to offshore
coastal  waters.

      Accomplishment of San Francisco's program will require appro-
ximately $740 million in federal assistance at the 75% level.  The
local share of San Francisco's program will amount to nearly $125
million, which, for our population of 679,000, creates a financial
burden of $185 on every man, woman and child in a City faced with the
extreme financial pressures which all urban core cities now are
experiencing.

      Let me quickly pass the baton for hopefully no more than one
minute to Mr. Landis.

      MR. BOLIN:  Supervisors talk longer than Mayors.

      MR. LAYTHON N. LANDIS.  Thank you, gentlemen.  Since I'm not
a mayor or supervisor, I will keep it very short.  You will get the
entire testimony, let me get the highlights and continue where my
colleagues left off.

      First off, with respect to the 75% federal level, we definitely
feel that you must maintain that level, as the Supervisor indicated.
Most of us out in the community cannot afford even the 12% that we
are faced with in many instances.

      With respect to designing to existing population, to determine
the community's needs, we find that when you try to do this, we wind
up with very inadequately designed facilities, it is like opening
a half a can of meat, how do you add to it?  It is an economy of
scale situation, you can't do it.  We think that these need to be
looked at on an individual case basis.

      One of our other concerns in the Clean Water Program is that
we find ourselves in land use consideation, whether it is termed
population control, and the whole thing gets mixed up in trying to
clean up the water, and we think the issues should best and need to
be addressed to the clean water situation and drive on from that
program.

     We also feel that there needs to be some more flexibility in
the administration of the grant assistance.  We feel that the priori-
ties that have been established by the California State Resources
Control  Board should be used as a model for the rest of the nation.
We think we are leaders in this day.  We suggest that you look to what
California is doing and use that as a model for the rest of the country.

-------
                                                              -10-
      With respect to the extension of the 1977 requirement and also
the 1983 requirement, we think this is mandatory.  You cannot alle-
gedly have capacity, you have got to construct them, the EIS says
that is required.  We would definitely recommend that you on a
blanket basis extend that 1977 date.

      We hate to find ourselves constantly under violation, which
we're going to be with the 1977 deadline.  They're just not realistic
dates at all.

      With regard to industry, we find that the pressures on them
are greater than they are on the municipalities, and as was mentioned
earlier, there are instances where a combined facility would be much
more economical, and we recommend it on a case-by-case basis.

      But those things we looked at and where it is possible that
we build joint facilities, that is overall in the best economic
interests of the country.

      With respect to a greater portion of the grants program to be
given to the state, we laud Mr. De Falco in what he has done to date
in the contract with the State of California, and we hope that to be
a model for the rest of the nation.

      We very, very strongly recommend that you stay with this pro-
gram, and we are hopeful it will be successful.

      With resppct to the delays that we have encountered, these
things are very, very costly.  We tie up projects, and with the esca-
lation of costs -- and we have some specifics in the written testi-
mony -- these things run on the order of 80 to 100,000 dollars a day
for some relatively small projects, just the escalation of costs.

      Lastly, in my position as a. member of the East Bay Dischargers
Authority, we have again in the appendix to our testimony some detail
of how not to do it, and we would hope that this might also be used
as a model to other people across the country with respect to the
obstacles  that you do encounter and the delays that occur.

      That terminates my testimony.

      As a member of BASSA, I'm also submitting testimony as a
representative of the East Bay Dischargers Authority, an Authority
with whom all of you are very, very familiar.  It is kind of a model
as to how not to do it.

      I will leave you that written testimony, let me get five items
very, very quickly.

-------
                                                               -11-
     With respect to the reduction of the federal share, as I men-
tioned earlier,  as a BASSA representative, we strongly recommend that   '
it not be reduced.

      With respect to the present population, economy of scale comes
in, the testimony will  speak to that.

      With respect to restricting types of projects, we think that
good business practices ought to apply, since you ought not to blanket
out specific types.  I  think you need to look at these each indivi-
dually.

      Again, with respect to State administration, we strongly recom-
mend that that be carried forward.

      Lastly, with respect to the 1977 deadline, the East Bay Dischargers
Authority sees no way that we can meet the MPD requirements.

      In summary, for the East Bay Dischargers, we think plain good
business practices and good judgment is the best way to administer
the program.  We do not recommend any specific or major changes in
the law.  If there are changes to it made, we feel strongly those
would be the bigtest bottleneck.

      Thank you.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  May I ask you a question on the excess capacity.
Assuming that it is right at that particular installation that you
have reserved capacity, one of the things we are trying to seek an
answer to is this:  Should the federal grant money support excess
capacity for future development, or should the federal support be
limited to the existing population, given that it might be better
design and cost effectiveness to have excess capacity, and whether
federal funds should be used to support new growth?

      MR. LANDIS:  To answer your question, we think the federal
funds need be, and these things need to be looked at perhaps on a
case-by-case basis.  I can cite an example, and the gentleman has       r
yet to testify from the Livermore Valley.

      If you look at the population projections we have to work with,
we are already five years past where we were supposed to be with
regard to people.

      Actually, you would have to build one-half in ME or three-
quarter in order to expand that plant.  It is not economic, and the
community is predominantly residential and could not afford it.

      You're talking about 80% of the cost of the project to build
something, and in those kinds of instances, we think it is incumbent
upon the Federal Government to investigate them and to make grants

-------
                                                               -12-
whereby the local community can afford it.  Otherwise, they can't.  It
takes money and the people just don't have it, particularly today, in
today's economic climate.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you.

      Paul or Jack, do you have any questions?

      MR. DE FALCO:  I wonder if Supervisor Mendelsohn might respond
to that same question, since he has a different area of concern,
possibly.

      MR. MENDELSOHN:  Whether or not we ought to be funding for
expanded growth?

      MR. DE FALCO:  Right.

      MR. MENDELSOHN:  My basic feeling is very strong that before
we ought to be talking about growth beyond the present growth level,
we ought to be talking about meeting responsibilities to the problems
that we have already got, and which I have indicated in San Francisco
are enormous.

      But you will find that an urban answer to that is going to be
a little different than a suburban one.

      MR. BOLIN:  May I make one comment to the same subject.  I am
Mayor of a city of about 45,000, and we are struggling to slow the
growth down in the City of Napa.  I know Paul and others of you are
familiar with Petaluma and other cases.  We cannot stop it, period.

      We can slow it considerably and we are successfully doing that,
I think, in Napa, but the point that Laython is making is that it is
very difficult for us to build just for today and build a cost-effective
plant, when we know that even though we might have a growth rate of
one percent instead of five or six, we're going to have some growth,  ,
and if we don't take that into consideration it is very difficult for
us to do the proper thing in the construction of plants.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you very much.

      MR. RHETT:  One thing that I would like to make sure of, when
we were talking about limiting, we were not talking about limiting
growth, we're talking about who pays here.  In other words, in the
proposal, in the issue paper, it is strictly whether federal funding
should be used or not, and I want to make that clear.

      One other question, but I think it is very apropos when you talk
about your wet weather flows or anything of that nature, what about
the possibilities of using a sliding scale?  We take a need survey,
you start to throw in straight storm water and our needs start to get
way out.

-------
                                                               -13-
      How about something like 75% for treatment plants, interceptors,
scaling down  the line to combined sewers, and ultimately down at the
bottom of the list storm water overflow?  Have you considered this?
It is a combined system.

      MR. MENDELSOHN:  I think San Francisco is the only city in the
Bay Area, because it is the oldest and largest city that has a single
sewer system.  We don't have storm drains, unlike the newer communi-
ties, but like the other older cities in the country that, of course,
you have run  into.

      Therefore, we got a unique problem in the Bay Area which is
enormously costly for our citizens.

      You asked who pays?  It is clear, the taxpayer pays, whether it
is federal, state or local  money.  However, right now the San Fran-
cisco Bay Region as a region is spending much more in monies to the
Federal Government through the Federal Income Tax than we are re-
ceiving in programs of this nature.

      You can look it up, as the saying goes, and I do believe that
this region ought to be getting a better return on its money that it
is sending to Washington.  These are not monies that come from some-
place else as, of course, you know.

      MR. RHETT:  I realize that.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you very much.

      Gentlemen, I would like to call on Mr. Donald Miller, who is
a Councilman of the City of Livermore.  Following that I will call on
Mr. Stanley Daly.

      MR. DONALD G. MILLER:  Thank you very much.

      I am Donald G. Miller, Councilman, speaking on behalf of the
City of Livermore.  Before discussing the issues, I would like to
provide some background information to show why we are strongly con-
cerned about the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

      Our city has 50,000 people out of 100,000 people in the Livermore-
Amador Valley.  This valley is 40 miles southeast of San Francisco and
is a natural  smog bowl partially separated from the Bay Area which is
in turn a critical air basin.  Our Valley itself has the worst smog
in Northern California, and is the next worst region after Los
Angeles.  We had 93 adverse oxidant days in 1974 and have already had
over 20 this  year.  Almost all of the pollution is from cars, and most
of it is generated by local residents commuting out of the valley and
driving locally.  The Livermore-Amador population is largely commuter,
and the rapid population growth of the last 10 years has been almost
entirely white middle-class commuters.

-------
                                                               -14-
      Our Council and the majority of our citizens are concerned
about air pollution and its effects on our health.  We are also dis-
turbed by the peculiar view that long-term effects on air quality and
energy wastage should be ignored in sizing wastewater treatment pro-
jects.
                                                    *
      Our testimony on the five areas of interest follows general
1i nes:

  A.  Reduction of the Federal Share

      The cost of plant improvements to clean up wastewater pollu-
tion is expensive far beyond the means of local governments.  Con-
sequently, we urge that there be no reduction in the federal share for
cleaning up the water for existing populations.  However, if federal
funds are short, we urge that none be provided for plant expansions,
particularly in crictical air basins.

  B.  Limiting Federal Financing to Serve Existing Populations

      We strongly support the principle that FWPCA funds should be
used primarily for pollution cleanup, not for massive plant expansions.
The law should be very specific on this point.

      Population growth from plant expansions almost universally
leads to more air pollution and energy wastage.  Consequently expan-
sions should be allowed only in areas where (1) federal air quality
standards are already met and (2) where the expansion will not result
in fuel wastage or exceeding of air quality standards later, both
based on conservative estimates.  Clearly expansions in critical air
basins should be sharply limited.

      If expansions are permitted in critical air basins, then the
law must require and EPA must administer severe restrictions on the
use of any excess capacity until the federal air quality standards
are met.  Mitigation measures should only be considered once they are
actually in effect.  Promises are without value.
                                                r

      Air pollution is a generally recognized health menace,  Conse-
quently, it is wrong in principle to use clean water grants which
include expansion to solve water pollution problems, if at the same
time the air quality problem is worsened; esepcially when both problems
can be solved if there are ma expansions.

  C.  Restricting Types of Eligible Projects

      We urge that eligible projects be restricted only to those
whose size and nature are simultaneously consistent with the Clean
Air, Clean Water, and Energy Conservation Acts.

-------
                                                                   -15-
     This point is important.   We  commend EPA's limited attempts in
this direction, but hope that both  the law and EPA would be stronger.

     We believe it is  irresponsible to endanger public health with
air pollution and to waste  national  energy resources by encouraging
population expansions and commuting.  Special  interests looking to
economic gain and some  local government agencies oppose this view.
You and Congress will hear  much  testimony from them.  They argue that
among other  things grant restrictions interfere with local land use
control.

      It is  precisely the failure to control  land use by some city
and county governments  in our area  that has led to our smog.  In fact,
the City of  Livermore itself  in  past years has been guilty of this
practice,  it is not now.  This  smog will continue to worsen if their
desired expansions are  permitted.

  D.  Extension of Dates for Water Quality Standards

      Clearly the 1977  date cannot be met.  However, near term dates
and pressure to meet them must  be maintained - or  no  real progress
will be made towards reducing pollution.

      Expediting wastewater management programs is desirable, pro-
viding  they  are consistent  with  environmental  and energy conservation
goals.   However, no compromises  should be made by ignoring long-term
effects.

  E.  Delegating Greater Portions of Management to the States

      We  recommend that EPA retain overall control.

      So  far, grant administration by the State in our Valley has not
shown much regard for environmental problems,  despite California's
Environmental Quality Act.  For example, the State Water Resources
Control  Board staff has approved substantial  population increases for
sizing  sewer projects in the  LAV.  As I mentioned in the beginning, we
have the worse  smog in  Northern  California.  These approvals have
occurred  in  spite of EIR and  air pollution reports which clearly point
out that  the Federal Air Quality Standards will never be met if there
are any further population  increases in the LAV (without unacceptable
changes  in life styles).  These approved population increases corres-
pond to  the  deliberate  concentration of population in the worse part
of this  overall critical air  basin.  Since our population growth is
almost wholly commuter, such  approvals also show a distressing dis-
regard  for national energy  conservation goals.

      In these circumstances, we do not believe that state agencies
are necessarily better  qualified than EPA to administer grants.  The
state is surprisingly susceptible to pressure to downgrade environmental
standards.

      Our  final comments are, first:

-------
                                                               -16-
      We believe in the principle of cleanup first in priority and
expansion last.

      2.  We stress that self-fulfilling prophecy aspect of utility
expansions in environmentally sensitive areas.

      3.  We know that EPA receives criticism from every direction.
We wish to support their efforts, and believe they should take a
stronger role.

      4.  We have repeatedly stressed the intimate connection between
air quality, water quality, and energy conservation because it is
important to our health and future.  Many local governments wish to
ignore this connection in part because of competition amoung them-
selves, in part because of a devotion to the obsolete slogan that
growth is always progress, and unfortunately in part because they are
sometimes dominated by special interests whose concern for the public
interest and the public's health is non-existent at best.

      Finally, everyone now recognizes that what happened in LA
was a ghastly enviornmental mistake.  Those of us trying to learn from
that mistake hope that this lesson will be written into the FWPCA.
We need the support of that law and responsible agencies to keep us
from being the San Fernando of the North.

      Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

      I would be glad to answer any questions, and particularly on
expansion.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Paul, do you have any questions?

      MR. DE FALCO:  No questions.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Jack?

      MR. RHETT:  No.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you.

      I would next like to call Mayor Stan Daly, Mayor of Camarillo.

      MR. STANLEY DALY:  Honorable Chairman and Gentlemen, and
Honorable Members of this Hearing Body.

      I owuld like to correct the record, I believe on the speakers'
list my name is D-a-l-y, it nevaer fails, I come up to San Francisco,
it is D-a-i-1-y.  In fact, when I was back East in 1970 one of my
staff members set up an appointment with Senator Humphrey, and at the
appointed hour I walked in, and the red carpet was laid out, several

-------
                                                               -17-
aides were there,  and I  said, "I have, an appointment to see the Senator,"
and he said,  "Who  are you?"  I said "Mayor Daley."  "Mayor Daley?"  I
said "Yes, Mayor Daley from Camarillo," and he said "Where?"

      Anyway, I  am the Mayor of the City of Camarillo and a Director of
the Camarillo Sanitary District, a subsidiary district of the City of
Ventura.

      I am a  Director of the Ventura County Regional Sanitation Dis-
trict and Chairman of the Advanced Planning Committee of that District.

      I would certainly like to thank your body for having this
hearing and taking the grass roots approach by asking for input from
us on the local  level.

      Now that PL 92-500 has been in effect for several years, we
can now assess what changes are needed.

      We want to commend you on the law, we think that it has
accomplished much.

      We would here today like to make a special plea that this law
be amended or changed to include the use of ad valorem taxes for
maintenance and operation of treatment facilities.

      Many areas within the service area of our district that when
served, many of which are now on septic tanks, will require additional
improvements to our water reclamation plant.

      We currently are using ad valorem taxes for maintenance and
operation purposes.

      There are certain functions that are of a totally general
benefit in our society, for example, the education of our young as
a function of general benefit.

      Similarly, sanitary facilities are also of a general benefit, if
no more than through the health and safety spectrum,

      We feel that the use of ad valorem taxes is a fair, and if there
is such a word as equitable, an equitable system for funding these
types of services.

      If  I may, I would like to offer into  the record a resolution
from  the Camarillo Sanitary District, piror to which I would
like  to pull  out what I think is the meat of the resolution.

      Number one, we commend the Congress of the United States for
progress .that has been made toward improvement of water qualtiy
standards through enactment of that law.

-------
                                                              -19-
      We  observe that it is necessary to revise this legislation that
has been  in  operation for a time.

      We  are opposed to the reduction of the federal share of waste
treatment grants and limiting the  scope of the grants to facilities
to serve  the existing population and restricting the types of eligible
projects.

      We  are in favor of extending the 1977 date for meeting water
quality standards,  delegating a greater portion of grant and manage-
ment to the  states, and allowing the use of ad valorem taxes for
operation and maintenance of treatment facilities.

      I would like  to offer this into evidence at this time.

      Thank  you for allowing me to make this presentation on behalf
of the agencies involved.

      CHAIRMAN A6EE:  Mr. Mayor, thank you very much.

      Paul,  do you  have any questions?

      MR. DE FALCO:  No.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:.  Thank you.

      Next we have  Mr. Peter Gadd, a private citizen.

      MR. PETER R.  GADD:  Mr. Chairman, Gentlemen of the Committee,
Ladies and Gentlemen:

      Mr. name is Peter R. Gadd, Chairman of the Kings River Water
Association, whose  service area boundaries compreise approximatelyoone
million acres of highly productive farming acreage in the San Joaquin
Valley.

      Although my remarks today are being made relative to the subject
matter suggested to be discussed before this hearing group, my statement
is especially directed, and will be delivered to the United States
Congress.

      Public Law 92-500, the "Federal Water Qualtiy Control Act
Amendments of 1972" should not be amended, it should be rewritten.
It is too broad in  scope, as it attempts to cover water and water
pollution in all of its aspects in the United States.  The differences
in problems  and solutions between municipal, industrial, agricultural,
mining, lakes, waste treatment, basin planning, oil pollution as it
relates to water, marine sanitation, and ocean discharge are too
broad a coverage for any one law even if certain above-named problems
were identical for different areas in this country.  They are not.

-------
                                                              -20-
      In my humble opinion the question before this hearing group
today should not take the form of possible amendments to try to alle-'
viate the inadequacy of funding an unfundable law.  It should recommend
to Congress that the law be rewritten.

      It is obvious that when Congress passed this law and the President

signed it that the actual costs, impossible time constraints, policy
state surveillance, aid overbearing  monitoring of the private citizen
was not contemplated.

      Now, three years after the signing of this Act into Law, all of
these unbearable factors are emerging  for public scrutiny.  The
public, and particularly the taxpayer, does not like what he sees.  He
especially does not approve of the half measures, through amendment,
that are offered to remedy the fatal weaknesses of this law.  Amend-
ment can only worsen an already impossible situation.

      The Office of Management and Budget stated in part "This require-
ment is made even more pressing by the results of the most recent
EPA-State survey which indicates a need under current law to fund
eligible projects in excess of $350 billion."  I should say the figure
will be in excess of $350 billion.  It doesn't include any of the cost
to agriculture.  Naturally, nobody knows what this cost will be but
it will also be astronomical.  For this reason alone this law, when
rewritten, should exclude agriculture.

      One of the solutions offered by the five papers printed in
the Federal Register of May 28, 1975 and being discussed here today
propose as a solution a greater monetary input by States and Local
Agencies and lesser federal funding than called for by the law "without
negating the major water qualtiy objectives of the Act."  Does it
really matter at what level of taxation the taxpayer's back is broken?

      I give Congress and the President the benefit of ally doubt.
At the time they passed this law they undoubtedly thought they were
doing what was besJt for the country.  Time has proved them wrong.
Give them a chance to rewrite the law in light of the mistakes  that
were made.  One of the mistakes of course was their failure to contem-
plate that the cost of this law, according to the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget, would come close, if not exceed the present National
Debt.

      I trust that Congress will now realize that agriculture is a
subject of its own and cannot be incorporated in the rewriting of this
law.  Agriculture faces a number of problems to survive that may be
present, but to a far  lesser extent, in other spheres of enterprise.
When a crop is planted the weather factor may produce disaster.  When
the crop is sold, the prices may prove disastrous.  When the total cost
of 92-500 to the farmer is finally determined, the first two problems
mentioned may be found to be of secondary importance.

-------
                                                               -21-
      I  thank you for your time, gentlemen, and if there are any
questions  you might ask,  I would be glad to answer.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:   Mr.  Gadd, thank you very much.  Are there any
questions, gentlemen?

      MR.  RHETT:   No.

      MR.  DE FALCO:  No.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:   You  mentioned a thought that the Act was too
broad and should  be rewritten.   If there were only amendments, would
you favor an extension of  the 1977 date requirement?

      MR.  GADD:  If that were the only alternative, I feel it would
be something that would have to be done, because the 1977 year is
an impossible situation.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:   Thank you, sir.

      MR.  GADD:  You're welcome.

      CHIARMAN AGEE:   Mr.  Fred Harper.

      MR.  FRED A. HARPER:   Thank you, Mr. Agee.  I happen to have two
statements to present, but I will stay within the 10-minute period
or slow down with the bell.

      I think it  was inthi-sroom, Paul, that you introduced us to Bill
Ruckelshaus a few years ago, and a lot of things have changed.  Many
of us have gotten older and grayer, some of us lost our good disposi-
tions ~ I think  some have even lost their wives.  God or bad, we
are here.

      First of all, I would like to make a presentation representing
the Association  of Metropolitan Sewage Agencies.  This Agency was
formed about five years ago for the purpose of bringing together the
wastewater treatment entities throughout the United States that have
a population of 250,000 or greater.

      The purpose of getting together was to jointly work for the
reduction and elimination  of water pollution in the United States, and
to do everything  reasonably necessary to achieve such purpose.

      Earlier thisyear, AMSA, as this organization is known, con-
ducted meetings for their  53 member agencies in each of the EPA
regions for the purpose of discussing and determining possible desired
amendments to the Federal  Act.

-------
                                                               -22-
     We were fortunate in Region IX to have a two-day meeting, during
which our Regional Administrator, Paul De Falco, his immediate staff
and representatives of the State, met with us to discuss the current
status of PL 92-500 with reference to construction grants, state
programs, area-wide planning, effluent standards, and other matters of
local concern.

      Without making direct reference to the subjects listed for
today's hearing, I would like to briefly cite the results of our
February meeting relative to proposed legislation amendments.

      With regard to secondary treatment, we urge that the Act be
amended to introduce administrative flexibility and to specifically
allow for standards other than "secondary treatments" for the character
of the receiving waters,does not require disportionate expenditure
of public funds.

      Compliance dates:  The inadequacy of construction financing,
coupled with delays inttie construction grant program, have made the
nationwide compliance date impossible.  We recommend that the Act be
amended to harmonize the compliance deadlines with the flow of the
funds.

      With regard to funding, we recommend that Congress authorize
appropriations through fiscal year 1983 to*make documented aids or
upgrading, and we underline upgrading treatment, to meet state and
federal effluent requirements.

      Ad valorem taxes, the Act should be revised to permit local
agencies any combination of revenue services available to them, pro-
vided that one, the goal of proportionality among classes of reci-
pients will be substantially achieved; and two, that additional
surcharges on industry will assure that they pay their proportionate
share on the basis of volume, strength, and other factors.

      Industrial costs recovery:  We suggest that the Act be revised
to delete industrial cost recovery requirement as being too complex
to administer.

      We believe that under the Revenue-Sharing portion of it,
industry will pay its share-

      Treatment and plant sites:  We recommend that the grant position
be amended to provide federal funding of treatment plant site acquisition.

      Research:  We recommend that Congress insist that EPA add or
dramatically increase the grant funds available for construction of
innovative treatment works, using new technology.

-------
                                                              -23-
      By  the  way,  I  did not stick that in there, Jack.

      Carry-over  paper work, I  stuck this one in, either change the
law or EPA  regulations to restrict additional requirements, reports,
studies,  etc.,  as  of the date a project has received concept approval.

      With  regard  to federal delegation to the states, we recommend
that EPA  be authorized to delegate major portions of its administrative
responsibility  under the construction grant programs to the states
and reimburse them out of grant allotments for their additional expense.

      Our members  represent the final administrative level for the
implementation  of  Public Law 92-500 by the construction and operation
of the major  municipal treatment facilities throughout the United
States.

      As  in the past, we will continue to offer our assistance and
advice to expedite all efforts  to convert the Act and EPA regulations
into hardware.

      On  behalf of AMSA's board and membership, I wish to thank you
for this  opportunity to comment.

      If  I  might go on, Mr. Agee, this next will be as a representa-
tive from the agency that is giving me my paycheck.

      The County Sanitation Districts of Orange County are located
in Southern California, serving 23 cities encompassing an area of
320 square  miles,  and a population of 1% million people.

      We  have submitted to the State EPA our project report which
calls for a total  expenditure of $275 million to meet current and
State and Federal  requirements.  We are financing our aggressive
water pollution construction program with ad valorem taxes, which is
approximately $18 million a year, sewer service connection charges,
industrial  user fees, and State and Federal construction grant funds.

      We  welcome this opportunity to present our views on potential
legislative amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

      Paper No. 1  - Reduction of the Federal Share.

      The construction of needed treatment facilities has been con-
tinuously inhibited and delayed for the lack of Federal financial
commitment.   Even  when funds are available, the construction program
is still  delayed because of the numerous amounts of red tape at both
the State and Federal levels.  A reduction in the federal share of
grant participation will completely erode the program for clean water
throughout  the  United States.

-------
                                                               24-
      The people of California have authorized two State bond issues
to financially assist the local communities in solving their water
pollution problems.  These funds will run out in the foreseeable
future.  Under these circumstances, it is doubtful that the State would
be anxious to pick up an additional portion of the present Federal
share.

      The local entities are having difficulty in maintaining the
various services they provide on a status quo basis because of infla-
tionary pressures.  If additional funds for capital improvements are
necessary, the local electorate must authorize the sale of bonds or
other long-term commitments.  If the voter will sustain additional
taxes or charges by voting yes, he will vote no.

      In speaking for a large metropolitan agency that has been in-
volved with the design and operation of treatment facilities for many
years, we are and will continue to be cognizant of cost-effective
design.  Ongoing costs of management, operation and maintenance of
constructed facilities are the concern of the applicant.

      What impact would a reduced Federal share have on water quality
and meeting the goals of PL 92-500?  -With respect to our agency, which
is a deep water ocean discharger, this would have little or no impact
on water quality, based on our oceanographic studies to date.  However,
we would not meet the 1977 goal of secondary treatment as defined by
EPA.

      I did include in the prepared information our version of the
best practicable waste treatment technology for ocean discharges,
which shows a comparison in the costs.  Our emphasis rather than on
BOD is on toxic substances, suspended solids, turbidity, grease and
oil.

      I am also enclosing a report comparing the costs of the two
programs, the one to meet the State and Federal requirements, where
we're talking about $275 million, and the program that we think will
protect the environment at $113 million.

      Paper No. 2 - Limiting Federal Funding Reserve Capacity to
      Serve Projected Growth.

      We will support limiting  Federal funding of reserve capacity
if the applicant can have the discretion of utilizing the economics-
of-scale and pay for the increased capacity on an incremental basis.

      Paper No. 3 - Restricting the Types of Projects Eligible for
      Grant Assistance.

      We suggest that the authorization in PL 92-500 remain unchanged.
The states should continuously update project priority lists and ,
approve only those projects which will  provide a measurable improve-
ment in water quality.

-------
                                                               -25-
      Paper  No.  4 -  Extending the 1977 Date for the Publicly Owned
      Treatment  Works to Meet Water Quality Standards,

      Our agency would support Alternate 4, which is to seek statutory
amendments that  would maintain the 1977 date, but would provide the
Administrator with discretion to grant compliance schedule extensions
on an ad hoc basis,  based on the availability of Federal funds.

      We also think that would accommodate the suggestion of the EPA
Task Force to allow postponement of construction of secondary treatment
facilities for municipal treatment works for the ocean discharge, pen-
ding further study.

      Paper No.  5 - Delegation of Greater Portion of Management of
      Grants Program to the States.

      We also support that.
          4
      Thank you.
                  i
      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you very much, Mr. Harper.

      On the matter of ocean storage, I believe you stated in your
remarks that you favored keeping the eligibility features as they are
and permitting them to stage the control through their priority list?

      MR. HARPER:  Yes.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Do you have any feelings whether or not we
should eliminate the eligibility for sewers, collector sewers?

      MR. HARPER:  The collector sewers, I think I would support that.
We have not had any luck.

      I don't think collector sewers is really part of the program,
particularly here in California we have had a program of assessment,
sewer assessment program, probably most popularly known as the 1911
Act, that put in many sewers throughout the communities.

      Even the people in the communities, those that pay for their
sewers, would be upset to find funds to be given to another area for
one reason or another after they had paid their own bill.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you.

      Do you have anything, Paul?

     ~ MR. DE FALCO:  No.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Jack?

-------
                                                               -26-
      MR. RHETT:  Fred, how about on the sliding scale?  Have you all
considered this, the idea of 75 down to some lower one for storm water?

      MR. HARPER:  We have not heard that proposal before.  I think it
certainly deserves some attention and discussion.  It would appear to
me, particularly as I understand the Act, it is the principles at the
very beginning of the Act where it is discussed that the Federal Govern-
ment will financially assist local communities in the construction of
treatment facilities.
                                                i
      I would suggest that should have highest priority.
                                                                 P,
      MR. RHETT:  Fine

      MR. DE FALCO:  Fred, where would you like wastewater reclamation?

      MR. HARPER:  I'm sorry you asked me that question.  Frankly, I
think it should have a rather high rating.  We have some problems here
in California with water reclamation.  I know that some people in
the East can't understand it, but we have a very high TDS content in
our water supply in Southern California.  We're talking about desali-
nization.  I think when we get into desalinization and the energy
problems and so forth, maybe that would have a high priority, but if
there is water that we can reclaim and put back into our water supply
in some manner or means through underground or something, I think it
should have a rather high priority.

      MR. DE FALCO:  Thank you.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Next we will hear from Mr. Lawrence Taber.  Before
Mr. Taber starts, I have a request to read through the names of the
cards, so people have some idea when they might testify.  I will take
a moment to do that.

      (Reading of Names)
                                 '"' '.• i.' '
      This will give you some idea when we will get to you.  We're
doing about seven an hour, some of you will probably not be able to
testify until late this afternoon.

      MR. LAWRENCE K. TABER:  As you know, my name is Lawrence K.
Taber and I am Vice President of the Canners League of California.

      We appreciate this opportunity to present these comments to
the Agency regarding PL 92-500 as it relates to the California canning
industry and the possible effects of the potential amendments to the
law.

      By way of brief background, the Canners League of California is a
nonprofit trade association located at Sacramento, California.   Its
member companies produce approximately 85 percent of the canned  foods

-------
                                                              -27-
processed in California.   In a typical year, the California canning
industry packs  well  over  200,000,000 cases of canned fruits and vege-
tables.  The factory  value of this pack is estimated at over 1% billion
dollars.  Approximately 57 companies, with over 85 canning plants in
this State, employ upwards of 65,000 workers duirng the peak processing
season.   The California industry accounts for approximately 35 to 40
percent  of the  entire U.S. production.

      With me today  is the Chairman'of our Environmental Committee,
Mr. Herb Stone, and  Mr. Stone will give some brief, substantive comments;
on behalf of our organization.

      MR. LARRY HERBERT STONE:  Mr. Chairman, Members of the Panel,
Ladies and Gentlemen:  For the record, as Larry said, my name is Larry
Herbert  Stone.   I am Chairman of the Environmental Committee of the
Canners  League of California.  Although I did fill out a registration
card, I  did not hear my name called, so I kind of snuck in here.

      With regard to the  first issue, the Reduction of the Federal
Share of Construction Grants.

      The reduction  of the federal share of construction grants from
the current level of 75 percent to a level as low as 55 percent would
probably not have a  significant impact on the wastewater treatment costs
being borne by the canning industry, except to the extent that without
the amount of federal funds provided by the present funding formula it
is conceivable that  some  of the more ambitious wastewater construction
projects undertaken  or contemplated in this State might be scaled down
to more modest, yet  effective, levels.  In fact, we believe that a
reduced  federal share might tend to promote more careful and effective
allocation of financial resources.

      Regarding the  question of the State's interest and capacity to
assume through State grants or loan programs, a larger portion of the
financial burden of  the program, we would point out that this State's
commitment to obtaining optimum water wuality is second to none and
we would conjecture  that  both State and local communities would come
up with the necessary financial support for needed projects.  Although
the State and its communities are burdened with numerous demands for
bonding  improvements in schools, rapid transit, and many commendable
projects, the record indicates that if the project is truly worthwhile
the means frequently are  found to finance the construction work.

      We would like  to stress at this point  that  the so-called bene-
ficial uses of water must be reviewed periodically to assure that
such uses of water must be reviewed periodically to assure that such
uses continue to reflect  the needs and desires of the community for
which they were established.  It is our opinion at this point that many
of these beneficial  uses  of water quality objectives have been established
at both  the State and Federal level without an adequate review by all
concerned as to their feasibility and practicality in terms of the
cost and benefits received.  Once established, the beneficial uses are

-------
                                                              -28-
not set in concrete, either literally or figuratively until their
costs are reaffirmed.

  2.  LIMITING FEDERAL FUNDING OF RESERVE CAPACITY TO SERVE PROJECTED
      GROWTH.

      As proposed by the EPA, limiting funds to serve ten years of
growth for wastewater treatment facilities and twenty years for
collection and/or intercepter sewers to the treatment facilities would
appear to impose a burden on the community, particularly where large
projects are involved.  Current planning procedures, administrative
reviews, engineering programs and finally the construction of the
facility frequently require a substantial portion of the time period,
perhaps 50 percent of the time (five years).  This has been the case
in some instances in California.  A ten-year planning period would
require a community to complete the first phase and almost immediately
request additional funds from the community to begin the design and
construction of the necessary second phase.  Any delays in this
schedule could mean restrictions being imposed on the current dis-
chargers into the municipal facility.  This could be a serious problem
to large water users, such as canners.  I will not detail the research
efforts and studies our industry is making in the area of reclaiming
and reusing water or process changes which may allow reductions in     »
the volume of water previously utilized.  These efforts have been
substantial, and details can be provided at another time.  However, we
must recognize that unreasonable or unnecessary limitations on the
volume of water or waste in the effluent may result in a reduction in
the quantity of food which can be processed.  Technology and other
regulatory requirements with which we must comply such as those directed
by the FDA or State counterparts are also imposing limits on our pro-
duction efficiency and capacity.  Such policy is contrary to our na-
tion's objective to increase its available food supply and to keep
food prices at reasonable levels.

      To solve a community's problems careful planning is desirable,
but should not be unduly or unreasonably restrictive upon a community
or discriminate against a segment of the community.  A long-range
program and funds to allow the development of this long-range program
are necessary.

  3.  RESTRICTING THE TYPES OF PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR GRANT ASSISTANCE.

      The statement of issues for this paper indicates consideration
is being given to eliminating the eligibility of several types of
projects from federal grant assistance.  The proposal to limit eligi-
bilities to categories I (secondary treatment plants), II (tertiary
treatment plants), and IVb (intercepter sewers) is worthy of serious
consideration.  However, we also believe that such items as V (correc-
tion of combined sewer overflows), and VI (treatment or control of

-------
                                                              -29-
storm waters),  should not be eliminated from the list of eligible
projects for several  reasons.  Storm waters do indeed contain signi-
ficant quantities of BOD and suspended solids, particularly during
the first few hours of any storm.  Failure to recognize these wastes
would jeopardize a treatment program proposed by the community.  We
believe a community might be unable to provide the funds necessary to
achieve adequate control of these storm water generated waste loads
within the time frame imposed by EPA.  A community violation of best
practical technology, as defined by EPA, would therefore be likely.
The diffusion of limited grant monies to the array of currently eligible
projects is, and will continue to be, a matter of concern.  A full
review of the priorities used for establishing eligible projects is
considered desirable.

      It has been estimated that 55 to 60 percent of the canners in
the nation discharge into municipal plants, in California, it is even
higher.  The cannery wastewater is compatible with other wastes in
the normal secondary treatment plant constructed by a municipality.
Cannery wastewater is composed largely of BOD and some suspended
solids similar in nature to discharges from the kitchen sink in every
residence.-  Only the quantity or concentrations are greater.  The
publicly owned treatment works treats this waste and charges for the
service.  The public facility must be sized to treat the .cannery
effluent and its other community wastes in accordance with their
NPDES permit.  This sizing is frequently equal to the plant size which
might be required for storm water control, and thereby allows for
a noncurrent use of the same facility.  Wet industry, such as a
cannery and a munipality, can share in the capital cost of this facility.
To eliminate the eligibility of the storm water control from a con-
struction grant would place the full financial burden for capital
construction on industry.  We believe this would be an excessive and
perhaps hopeless burden for a wet industry to bear.

      We wish to bring to your attention another consideration regar-
ding the eligibility or qualifications of a project.  Many so-called
water quality management plans are mandating the formation of regional
plants and abandoning the substantial portions of secondary treatment
plants which currently comply with EPA's requirements for 1977.  These
two examples in California are represented by the communities of
Sacramento and San Jose.

         > In the case of Sacramento, large sums of money are projected
for the construction of a new super regional plant and abandoning sub-
stantial portions of secondary plants, which currently comply with
EPA's requirements for 1977.  It has been proposed that all discharges
into the American River be ceased.  Admirable as eliminating discharges
into rivers may appear to be, this objective may be misleading,  By
all environmental quality standards-, the American River is far better

-------
                                                              -30-
than most rivers throughout the country that serve many municipal water
supplies, and certainly is exemplary as compared to rivers in highly
urban areas.
                                                                        r
      In another form, this approach is being attempted at San Jose,
California, where the present secondary treatment plant achieves a
better than 90 percent BOD removal, and where the receiving waters have
shown a marked improvement in recent years.  A 99 percent removal of
BOD is now being proposed, together with transportation of this treated
waste to a remote area without, we believe, full justification.  In
both situations, we believe idealistic enviornmental objectives were
established a number of years ago and that they now require a re-
evaluation to confirm that they continue to reflect the best interest  -
of the community.  The substantial improvements in the enviornment
whcih have been made since initially establishing those objectives
merit serious consideration in relationship to the complex economic
factors and significant increases in project scope which these two
examples represent.

      As stated, we strongly urge and recommend that all projects be
reviewed by EPA, not only in light of priorities that may be set
locally or by State Boards, but that EPA identify and be assured that
a significant reduction in pollution is achieved for the money expended.
With a great need for secondary treatment over most of the country
and the lack of funding available to complete much of this work, it
would appear that this-type of regional project should be held in
abeyance until all communities in the country have adequate treatment
to eliminate true public health hazards, and that there be a new assess-
ment of environmental impacts to judge the benefits of such a program.
With the scarcity of funds and the complex economic situation in our
nation, there needs to be a priority listing based on maximizing
pollution removal rather than simply relocating treated waste.

  4.  EXTENDING 1977 DATE FOR PUBLICLY'OWNED TREATMENT WORKS TO MEET
      WATER QUALITY STANDARDS.

      Extending the 1977 date for compliance of publicly owned treat-
ment works is, in our view, a realistic approach to what would other-
wise be an impossible situation.  As EPA estimates, 50 percent of the
municipalities will not be able to comply with their requirement for
achieving effluent limitations by July 1, 1977.  For some, we are
confident that this is due to lack of funds.  For others, it is possibly
due to the scope of the project which prevents full and adequate environ-
mental assessment, development of complex engineering plans, and the
lengthy construction period of sewers and treatment facilities; and  '
for still others, delays in defining water quality objectives, stan-
dards and limitations have prevented implementation of the necessary
treatment programs.

-------
                                                               -31-
      Many of these same reasons apply to industry, who may not be
able to achieve 1977 levels of treatment and should also receive con-
sideration for a similar extension of time for compliance.  For example,
effluent guidelines for the entire canned and preserved fruits and
vegetable industry have not been promulgated by EPA, with the excep-
tion of three commodities - namely, potatoes, apples  and citrus
products. .Neither the food processors who are direct dischargesrs
to a navigable water or those publicly owned treatment works who
receive and treat excessive strength from a fruit and vegetable pro-
cessor are truly able to prepare plans for adequate discharge levels
which would comply with effluent limitations.  We recognize that this
matter is not directly included in the issues which are proposed
for discussion here today.  We do, however, wish to call your atten-
tion to this problem and strongly recommend EPA consider modification
of 1977 and 1983 deadlines for industry where these may be warranted
on the basis of current knowledge or technological or economical     >
unreasonableness.  The current serious national economic siutation
would, on our opinion, support the recommendations for extending the
time period for implementing the full program or for penalizing vio-
lators of the statutory deadlines.

      Our overall concern is that rigid numbers are being applied to
a complex environment for the sake of simplistic enforcement.  As
stated in the Federal Register on Page 23110, "Ensure that Federal
funds provide greatest water quality benefits", we would support this
concept.  If our goal is to protect the environment without wasting
energy, natural resources and capital resources, there should be
a need to make rational judgments locally for each stream and pollu-
tion control program.  If these matters are placed on a priority or
overall national interest, then the potential for wasting energy and
funds^will be greatly reduced.                   ^

      We thank you for the time at this hearing and will be pleased
to answer questions or expand on any issue in a written communique
at a later date.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you, Jr. Stone,

      Jack, do you have any questions?

      MR. RHETT:  No.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Paul?

      MR. DE FALCO:  Yes.
       »     t.r-      '   • -
      Mr. Stone, should EPA take strong enforcement action against
municipalities who appear-to be hesitant to apply for Federal funds
in order to meet their requirements?

-------
                                                              -32-
      MR. STONE:  That is a very good question and I think it would
have to be answered on a specific situation, because there would be
some communities that, because of this complexity of the project or
the scope of the project, would be unable to meet the '77 deadlines
that have been proposed.

      As I stated earlier, I believe that as commendable as the '72
Water Act plan and its predecessors are, we are now at a point in
time where we are beginning to recognize the tremendous economic burden
which this is imposing upon all of us, and we have Suggested a re-
evaluation of these beneficial uses and the objectives or standards
that are used in an attempt to achieve them.

      If the municipality has some concerns with regard to these bene-
ficial uses and the tax burden that it would have on its residents,
these may be reasons for delays also.

      I'm not sure if I have answered your questions.

      MR. DE FALCO:  Thank you.

      CHAIRMAN A6EE:  Thank you, Mr. Stone.

      I will now call on Mr. Richard Bradley, representing the Air
Resources Board of the State of California.

      Following Mr. Bradley I will call on John L, Maloney.

      Is Mr. Bradley here?

      We will move on tl\en, to Mr. Maloney.  Mr. Maloney representing
the civic organizations of the San Fernando Valley.  Is Mr. Maloney
here?

      He is not here.

      We will hear from John Harnett, the General Manager of the East
Bay Municipal Utility District, Mr. Harnett.

      MR. JOHN S. HARNETT:  My name is John S. Harnett, I am the
General Manager of the East Bay Municipal Utility District, and we
appreciate this opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments to
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

      The amendments to the Act, which are the subject of this hearing,
appear to reflect a concern on the part of the Office of Management
and Budget as to ability of the Federal Government to finance the
present program which, as stated in the Public Hearing Notice, is
currently estimated to cost in excess of $350 billion.  The effect
of the proposed amendments to reduce the Federal share, and to limit

-------
                                                               -33-
Federal  financing to serving the needs of existing populations, and
restricting the types of projects eligible for grant assistance, would
be to shift a greater proportion of the financial burden for this
Federally mandated program from the Federal Government to the local
taxpayer who is already overburdened by the costs of Federal and State
mandated programs.

      The full financial impact of the present program has not yet
been felt at the local level.  When the facilities now under construc-
tion are completed and placed in operation, the users, already bur-
dened by demands at the local level, will be faced with substantial
increases in use charges to defray operating maintenance and debt ser-
vice costs.  Reduction of the Federal share, as proposed, would require
still further increases in the user charges to finance the additional
long-term debt service costs of this Federally mandated program.

      A more realistic solution to the financing problem would appear
to be to scale-down or stretch-out the present program and institute
a system of funding priorities which would insure that the projects
most urgently needed and which would provide the greatest benefits in
terms of water quality improvement receive the highest priority.

      Limiting Federal financing to that requried to serve existing
populations,, as proposed under the second amendment, would also in-
crease local costs by forcing the communities to pay the full capital
cost of any capacity that was provided for future growth.  Some re-
serve capacity must be provided in all wastewater treatment facili-
ties to insure that they will not be overloaded by the time they are
completed and to provide the lead time necessary to expand them before
they are overloaded.  Facilities provided under the proposed funding
limitation would likely not have adequate reserve capacity to insure
that NPDES requirements would be continuously met.  For the foregoing
reasons it is recommended that Federal funding be limited in the case
of treatment plants to that necessary to serve the projected indus-
trial, commercial and industrial flows within 10 years of the start
of construction.  In the case of interceptors, outfalls and
sewer lines, the cost-of capacity for 20 years' growth should be
allowed.            '          -'

      Restricting the types of projects eligible for grant assistance
(Proposed amendment No. 3) would appear to be unnecessary and un-
desirable.  Unnecessary because EPA and the States through the author-
ity they presently have to assign funding priorities to projects, can
effectively restrict the types of projects that are grant funded.  It
wQUl.d..be undesirable because it would limit flexibility by prohibiting
the funding of certain types of projects which might in a given instance
be more cost effective in terms of pollution control than those eligible
for grant assistance.

-------
                                                              -34-
      Extension of the 1977 date for meeting water quality standards
(Proposed amendment No. 4) is a practical necessity.  Public Law 92-500
required municipalities to meet the secondary treatment requirement by
July 1, 1977.  In some cases secondary treatment is already being pro-
vided;  in others, there is still sufficient time to comply before
July 1, 1977.  However, in most instances the July 1, 1977 date is no
longer realistic.  We also recommend that the 1977 compliance date
be extended and made contingent upon the availability of Federal funding.

      The District supports proposed amendment No. 5 which would dele-
gate to the states a greater proportion of the responsibility for
managing the Construction Grants Program.* The State of California which
has successfully played a major role in the administration of the Con-
struction Grants and Permit Program for several  years, is in the pro-
cess of assuming essentially full responsibility for these programs.

      In addition to the foregoing, we would like to take the oppor-
tunity to recommend several other amendments to PL 92-500.  First, we
recommend amendment to provide for the exercise of professional dis-
cretion in the application of the secondary treatment requirements.
The Act presently requires municipal waste treatment works to achieve
effluent limitations based on secondary treatment.  This requirement is
unrelated to the qualtiy of receiving waters and to the enormous costs
of achieving that objective, with the result that in some instances
treatment is being provided because it is required, not because it is
needed.  For example, coastal communities have questioned the wisdom
of this requirement for discharges into an ocean environment,and other
siutaitons exist where the characteristics of receiving waters are such
that secondary treatment will not achieve any measurable benefit.

      The financial impact of the present secondary treatment require-
ments is illustrated by the situation the District is facing in
complying with this requirement.  We presently have under construc-
tion facilities which will provide biological secondary treatment
for 98.6 percent of the wastewater flow in our service area,  TKe
capital cost of these facilities is $70 million.  To fully comply
with PL 92-500 it will be necessary to provide secondary treatment for
the remaining 1.4 percent of the flow which overflows untreated from
the system during the three-month winter season.  This will require
the expenditure of an additional $167 million,
                                     6 '
      The benefit that will be derived from this additional investment
in plant will be very small since these overflows occur only 10 to
12 times per year; they occur only during the winter months; and
each episode averages 6 hours in duration.  In view of the high cost
and limited benefit, it would be very difficult to convince the tax-
payers that they should approve this expenditure if they were required
to pay all or a major portion of the cost.             '-

-------
                                                              -35^
      We therefore urge that PL 92-500 be amended to provide adminis-
trative flexibility and to specifically allow for standards other than
secondary treatment where the nature and frequency of the discharge
and the characteristics or receiving waters do not reasonably require
the disproportionate expenditure of public funds.

      Secondly, we recommend that the Act be amended to permit the
use of ad valorem taxes or combinations of taxes and use charges to
finance the operation and maintenance costs of wastewater treatment
facilities.

      Finally, the effect of NPDES permits issued for municipal water
treatment plant discharges prompts us to make the following comments
and recommendations:

      (1)  Federal grant funding should be broadened to cover the
design and construction costs and facilities for disposal of sludge
from municipal water treatment plants.  Such plants are now deemed
to be in the industrial category but should more properly be changed
to the municipal facility category.  It is inconsistent to consider
sewage sludge projects eligible for Federal grant funding on the one
hand and on the other hand to consider that sludge processing projects
for municipal water treatment plants are not eligible.  If, as has
been determined, both sludges contribute to water pollution, then there
is no clear logic why Federal grant funding should not be provided for
both types of projects.

      (2)  In limited situations under very special circumstances
where the municipal jurisdiction concerned can demonstrate that com-
pliance with the NPDES is not required to achieve the objectives of
PL 92-500, discretion on the part of the regulatory authorities should
be permitted or the law itself should be amended to allow such dis-
cretion.  For example, in the case of this District, the Regional
Water Quality Control Board presently is requiring an NPDES permit for
the District's Orinda water treatment plant discharges.  These dis-
charges flow a short distance down a creek owned by the District into a
reservoir also owned and operated by the District.  All water with-
drawn from this reservoir is completely treated at two filter plants,
Continued insistence of an NPDES permit and complying with the present
standards would result  in an expenditure of several million dollars
for treatment of these wastes before the backwash water is released
into the creek and the reservoir and then would be treated once again,
in other words, twice.  EPA has stated it is bound by the law to
require an NPDES permit and the Regional Board insists that it must
require some type of treatment of filter backwash water from this
plant.  A return to standards based on receiving waters rather than
on the discharge itself would at least result in this instance of
reduced cost of compliance and provide a more rational solution.  How-
ever, unless the law is changed or some flexibility applied in its
application, this situation could result in an expenditure of funds

-------
                                                               -36-
totally unwarranted and be a flagrant case of a waste of taxpayers'
money.  It is strongly recommended that flexibility on permits be
provided in cases such as this or standards modified so as to preclude
the necessity of expenditure of public funds which are not justified
or warranted.

      In conclusion, I would again like to state that the opportunity
to appear before you and discuss these extremely important questions is
greatly appreciated.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you very much, Mr. Harnett. Jack, do you
have any questions of Mr. Harnett?                          H

      MR. RHETT:  No.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Paul?

      MR. DE FALCO:  No.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you very much.

      I will not call on Mr. Bob Burt, representing the California
Manufacturers Association.                                       ,s!,

      MR. BOB BURT:  I'm R. Burt for the record of the California
Manufacturers Association.

      By way of introduction, our Association represents companies
doing the bulk of manufacturing and payroll in the State.

      Industry does not receive any grants but obviously we are vitally
affected by the program.

      One more item of introduction, let me state that in order in
a brief time to cover a complex subject, one must oversimplify and
use a certain amount of hyperbole.

      Let me start off with some conceptual points:  Everyone recog-
nizes that it is our own money that is being given to us in these
grant programs.  We also recognize that taxes will be spent some other
way if they did not come to us in the program, therefore it is a
common attitude, and we talk about following money, when we see a
Federal grant coming our way.

      The second conceptual point I would like to make, if the Federal
Government wants something stupid and wants to pay 75 percent of the
cost of that, that is one thing; but if the guy who prints the money
and therefore has better credit than anyone else, and whose taxes form
the business climate of the nation,) and therefore has less trouble
raising taxes than anyone else, if that guy has trouble raising money,
what on earth is the problem for the other jurisdictions raising money?

-------
                                                                -37-
      So my point there is that there is not any free lunch, and  if
the Federal Government thinks they are having a hard time raising money
to promote this program, I suggest they review the program.

      Let me give you some specifics about reviews:  One has already
been mentioned a couple of times, so let me just state that I think
that we need elimination of nutrients and ocean discharges like a
moose needs a hatrack.

      Another point conceptually I would like to make is that we  have
to face the fact that many girls now alive are going to grow up and
have children, and they are going to do that before us older people
have the grace to die, and therefore the population will increase, and
we have got to face the fact, and if we don't allow for increases in
population, we don't prevent the increase, we simply prevent the  proper
servicing of that population, because it will be there.
                                                                    r f; -
      I am glad to see the cost effectiveness entering the vocabu-
lary, and I feel that the Federal Government has got to look strongly
at that.  Fundamentally I want to talk to here is the problem of dis-
charge and elimiantion.  To paraphrase K. Chesterton's famous comment
on Christianity, "Water quality was not really tried and found wanting
as a basis for legal enforcement.  It was just looked at, found diffi-
cult, and not tried in most parts of the nation."

      Water quality has to be the basis.  If you say what is feasible,
it was pretty well known a couple of centuries ago that the most
feasible ways of cleaning water was triple distillation.  That can be
done, if you're going to do anything less than triple distillation,
which is the most technically feasible, you have got to have some
•objective in mind, not simply beaucratic simplification of a rule for
everybody to meet.  If they hire an engineer to do something, his job
is to do it with the smallest amount of money to accomplish the objec-
tive.  It seems to me the only rational objective is water quality.

      If water quality should have then some cost effectiveness, let
me ask the question — and this is a case of hyperbole but it is only
slightly so — is shellfishing, not shellfish survival, but shell-
fishing in South San Francisco worth something like the present value
of a billion dollars?

      I submit that we could provide chauffeured limousines to Pismo
Beach for every person who desired to shellfish this South Bay for
a considerable amount less than that.

      Let me comment on some of the specific proposals, following
the rationale I just delivered:  The reduced Federal percentage,
obviously, to reduce that percentage would probably cause more effective
analysis of local projects, but don't reduce the Federal percentage

-------
                                                              -38-
without reducing the Federal dictation.  In other words, if you're
not going to pay the fiddler, let's not dictate so much of the tune.

      With respect to reserve capacity, that idea is being lived with
in California, but let me point out that there is about a 10-year lead
time on each project, and if you look and take a rational view of the
overhead involving in following all of the various regulations, in-
cluding environmental impact statements, etc., what you are providing
for with a 10-year capacity is a continuous design and planning over-
head, and I think that overhead, if carefully evaluated, will  be found
to provide a very big share of the total cost of your projects.

      As an engineer, I can say I am certainly in favor of some work
for eingneers, but there is other work for us to do.

      Eliminating the categories, the third item in your papers, I
submit that is bureaucratic simplification, and others have already
given examples where different places have different problems.
                                   < ,.   ,    . . .
      If the Federal Government wants to allocate money by its
priorities, that seems a rational thing, but not to simply overrule
it and tell local people where their priorities should go.

      Extension of dates, of course, what do you want to happen?
Self-destruct in 1977?  There is no way that the law can be met.
You will simply have one more case of contempt for the law, because
everyone will say, "Well, the law is not being obeyed."

      Ana finally, more State .control -- very fine, but I would pro-
pose that it not be just the shadow with parallel Federal overhead
having a precise item veto on each item.

      In summary, pay the piper ordon'tcall the tune.  Put your money
where your mouth is.  If you want the quality and you think it is
desirable, pay for it, or pay a good share of it.

      We're only talking about paying for capital, and many of these
newest proposals have tilted toward very high-operating costs  with
a little lower capital costs.  The most recent proposals involving
physical chemical work, for example, water quality is the: only rational
base for controlling.  The water quality of the receiving water is
the only rational basis for controlling, and that can't be done from
Washington, because there has to be an awful lot of local expertise
involved.

      That makes us look at existing projects, extend dates, of
course, and increase authority, fine.

      Do you have any questions?

-------
                                                               -39,
      CHAIRMAN AGEE:   Mr.  Burt, thank you very much.  Do you have any
questions of Mr.  Burt?

      MR. DE FALCO:   No.

      MR. RHETT:   No.

      CHAIRMAN  AGEE:  Thank you.

      I will not call on Alinda C. Newby, representing the Muncipality
of Metropolitan Seattle.

      ALINDA C. NEWBY:  I  appreciate having this opportunity to appear
before you and present my testimony regarding amendments to PL 92-500.
Before I direct my remarks to the Act, I would like to provide you
with some background information on Metro.

      Briefly, Metro serves over thirty cities and sewer districts
and 900,000 people in its three hundred square mile service area in
the Seattle Metropolitan Area.  Metro was created because of local
concern for the quality of waters in the Puget Sound area.  During
the late 1950's, a citizen-inspired effort succeeded in winning state
legislation for, and voter approval of, the organization of Metro
to finance, build and operate a metropolitan sewerage system.

      Consulting engineers were retained to prepare a comprehensive
plan for the Metro system which would solve the Seattle area's
pollution problems.   The plan described the sewerage services and
facilities necessary for the entire Lake Washington-Cedar and Green-
Duwamish basins, and was,  in fact, an early example of comprehensive
long-term river basin planning.  A 125 million dollar ten-year con-
struction program begun in 1961 was finished ahead of schedule and
within two percent of original cost estimates.  Four new plants were
built to replace more than twenty small facilities.  More than one
hundred miles of interceptor tunnels and trunk sewers were constructed
to implement the first stage of the comprehensive plan.  This is what
we have done.  We began before the current federal grant program and
received less than 5 percent funding from federal grants during those
first ten years.  Although some reimbursement for projects initiated
since July 1, 1966,  has been received from allocations for Section
206(a) of the Act* we have not been reimbursed for our earlier pro-
jects under Section 206(b).  We believe appropriations should be
requested by EPA to satisfy this yet unfulfilled federal commitment.
Our citizens have already done more than their share.

      Since the passage of the 1972 Amendments, Metro has adopted a
strategy to meet the 1983 goals of the Act, and has committed funds
to river basin planning and facility planning and invested more than
one million dollars  in university research studies to investigate the

-------
                                                               -40-
effects of Metro waste discharges on Puget Sound waters and resident
marine life.  Metro has also been designated as a 208 planning agency,
and is gearing up for this work.  We have established active working
relationships with the State Department of Ecology (DOE), and deal
regularly with DOE on NPDES permits, planning and construction grant
matters.

      As for the five potential amendments discussed in the issue
papers published in the May 2-, 1975, Federal Register, I do have a
number of comments.  First, I-would like to make a general observa-
tion.   It appears to us that most of ithe proposed amendments are a
short-sighted reaction to the high costs shown in the 1974 needs
survey.  Unfortunately, this reaction further limits local options
rather than reexamining the best ways to meet water quality needs.
You suggest less money and less flexibility;   we suggest you-re-
examine the Act and the 1974 needs survey.  If your conclusion is that
there are not enough federal resources, don't pass the problem down
to the local level where financial pressures are already extreme.
                                                    : i •,      i        ;
      To be more specific, I offer-the following comments in the order.
the published issue papers were originally presented.

      Paper No. 1  -  Reduction of the Federal Share '*
                                               f
                                                    !*r     •     '
      The question of the appropriate federal share of the cost for
water quality projects is an ironic issue for Metro.  As mentioned
earlier, we are still waiting for $27 million in reimbursement for
previous projects.  If the federal share is reduced, we suspect the
reimbursement issue will arise again in a new form.

      While it is said that some communities lack the incentive to
manage their water quality because all of their effluent is carried
downstream, Metro is both the upstream and the downstream community.
Because of this and a strong citizen commitment to maintain the water
quality of Lake Washington and Puget Sound, Metro has expended large
sums of local money on the collection and treatment of area water dis-
charges.                                      :.
                                                              "i
      For all our efforts and success, we must remind you that now
we are being forced into massive and costsly construction programs
which we cannot see good reasons for in the Puget Sound area.  Spe-
cifically, I am referring to the secondary treatment requirement for
effluent discharge into Puget Sound.  You want us to spend more -- in
this case, more than $50 million of unnecessary expenditures -- yet
threaten to grant us less.  This does not make sense to us.

      Paper No. 2 — Limiting Federal Funding of Reserve Capacity-
      to Serve Projected Growth

-------
                                                               -41-
      Metro would support limiting federal grant assistance for pro-
jected growth,  leaving to local  government the responsibility for
planning and funding additional  reserve capacity, provided something
equivalent to the California 10/20 plan is instituted.  Additionally,
municipal agencies should be encouraged to build in cost-effective reserve
capacity at local expense.

      We believe the key to controlling sprawl is effective local
land use planning, not arbitrary limits on utility extensions.  Metro
supports land use planning in the Seattle area and works closely with
the regional land planning agency and the local governments which
have land use authority.

      Paper No. 3 — Restricting the Types of Projects Eligible
      for Grant Assistance

      Metro favors retaining or broadening current eligibilities for
construction grant funding rather than restricting the existing eli-
gibilities.  We recognize that restricting eligibilities to those
currently highest on most priority lists, such as upgrading primary
treatment plants to secondary, might benefit Metro by securing maxi-
mum grant funds for its treatment facilities; however, we so seriously
question this simplistic approach that we prefer to stand with those
endorsing implementation of more truly cost-effective programs.  The
benefit side of cost-effectiveness analysis causes us to search for
more innovative solutions to our local water quality problems, which,
in most cases, are wet weather related.  A broader spectrum of eli-
gibility is also essential to Metro's ongoing 201 and 208 planning
efforts which are committed to the development of the best methods for
attaining the 1983 goals; to restrict the eligible grants categories is
to narrow prematurely the economically feasible planning alternatives.
We ask you not to restrict eligibility, but to broaden the possibili-
ties for locally cost-effective solutions.

      Metro supports the 1983 water quality goal and understands the
need to maintain a national compliance schedule.  However, we strongly
favor amending the law to allow local flexibility in the means of
accomplishing the goals.  Flexibility is the key to sound water quality
decisions.  For example, as you know, for reasons of water quality
relevance and environmental impact, Metro took early exception to
secondary treatment requirements of the 1972 amendments.  We continue
to believe that there are more locally relevant options and more cost-
effective programs available for us to attain the 1983 water quality
goals.

      Paper No. 4 — Extending 1977 Date for the Publicly Owned
      Pretreatment Works to Meet Water Quality Standards

      As just mentioned, in response to the requirements of PL 92-500,
Metro mapped out an extensive implementation strategy which skips over
the 1977 requirement for conventional secondary treatment, focusing on

-------
                                                              -42-
BOD removal in preference of more direct means to achieve the 1983
goals of the Act.

      Let me underscore two key features in Metro's strategy.  First,
we are not seeking to do nothing.  We are trying to determine what
the best treatment method is for wastewater discharging into the
deep, cold salt waters of Puget Sound. , The second key feature in our
strategy is to place the burden of proof for not building conventional
secondary treatment on the local agency.  The local agency should be
in compliance with water quality standards and should be required to
demonstrate to EPA the water quality and cost advantages of any
alternative treatment process other than conventional secondary treat-
ment.  We have assumed this responsibility through our research and
planning program.  Our intentions are good and our commitment is
strong;  what we need is the opportunity to design a locally relevant
program to meet the goals of the Act.  To do this, we need flexibility
in the Act and funding fior implementation.  Legislative language and
examples of alternative approaches have been provided in the past, and
we would like to continue to discuss these alternatives with you.

      Metro's strategy calls for completion of 201 facility planning
(Step 1) by Ajpril, 1977, followed by design of plans and specifi-
cations (Step 2) and construction (Step 3) to meet the 1983 deadline.
The Metro strategy is yet another alternative to those listed in
this issue, the principal difference being the skipping of the secon-
dary treatment requirement in favor of a program directed toward
best practicable treatment or other means to achieve the 1983 goal.

      Paper No. 5 -- Delegating a Greater Portion of the Management
      of the Construction Grants Program to the States
                   1                                       f
      As indicated earlier, in Washington State, the State Department
of Ecology is the state water pollution control agency.   The DOE
has been delegated authority to manage the construction grant program;
at present, EPA Region X retains much of the plan and specification
review.  It is difficult and perhaps improper for Metro to comment
on the workability of delegated grant programs where other states or
other EPA regions are involved.  We wish to stress that delegation
should be supported with appropriations.  Delegation works in Wash-
ington State.  We may argue with our State and EPA colleagues from
time to time, but we respect them.  One of the reasons it may work
in Washington is the close liaison maintained between the EPA's
Washington Operations Office and the State Department of Ecology
offices in Redmond and Olympia.  The EPA officials work in the field
with their DOE colleagues on many matters.

      In closing, I would like to point out that Metro is a member
of the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA), and
has worked with AMSA on previous testimony.  Metro suggests the EPA
carefully consider AMSA testimony on this matter, since this group

-------
                                                               -43*
speaks from a national  baseline of experience with many states and
other EPA regional  offices.

      I thank you for providing the opportunity for public comment
on these potential  amendments and the issue papers.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:   Thank you very much, Ms. Newby.

      Jack, do you have anything?

      MR. RHETT:   No.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:   Paul?

      MR. DE FALCO:  No.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:   Walter Garrison, representing the California
Association of Sanitation Agencies and also the Sanitation Districts
of Los Angeles County.

      MR. WALTER E. GARRISON:  Mr. Chairman, As you announced, I
will represent two agencies here today.  I would like to speak first
about the position of the California Association of Sanitation Agencies.
This particular Association represents most of the special districts
in California with responsibilities for the treatment and discharge
of wastewaters. It is comprised primarily of managers and directors
to meet four times a year to discuss problems of common interest.  They
met on May 24, 1975, the Managers' Committee and the Executive Com-
mittee, to discuss this particular hearing, and it was the consensus
of opinion of the members present that each member of the Association
will speak to the five points that were raised in the announcement of
this hearing, but we would like to stress as far as our Association
is concerned that there are two major points that were not mentioned
among the five points that we had unanimous approval, or a unanimous
position by all the members of the Association.

      The first releates to the requirement of a user fee for the
cumulation of local funds.  It has been expressed many times, at
hearings throughout the country, why there is so much opposition to
this particular requirement.

      We recognize that users of a sewage system must pay their fair
share of the capital and operation and maintenance costs.  This goal
can be achieved by a sewer charge on industry, and special class
users, without the necessity of arbitrarily eliminating the ad valorem
tax.

      It is the position of the members of the California Association
of Sanitation Agencies that the elimination of the ad valorem tax
and the substitution of a user fee would cost substantially higher
administration cost to local agencies.

-------
                                                               -44-
      There is beginning to be more and more of a concern at the
local level about the cost of the new Water Pollution Control Program,
and we are particularly upset about the effect that the user fee
would have.

      We have been assured that this item is before Congress and that
action will be taken, but as far as we're concerned, until the action
is actually taken by Congress, we feel this is an excellent forum to
stress the unanimous opinion not only of the people in California but
we think of most of the people in the United States,

      The user fee, incidentally, we don't feel is necessarily
equitable in the distribution of costs.  For example, a piece of un-
developed land which has paid its assessment for many, many years for
a sewage system would not pay any costs under a user fee, and yet
that land would be substantially more valuable by virtue of its
having capacity rights in the system.  Therefore, that type of pro-
perty should pay a share of the cost of the system.
                                                                      f
      The ad valorem tax takes care of this admirably.

      Another very important point against the use of a user fee, in
our opinion, is the fact that the user fee would be very difficult to
collect for many agencies.  We don't have the mechanism, for example,
to levy and assure payment of a special charge.  There would be high
delinquency and consequently very high administrative and legal costs
trying to collect the user fee, and I think that applies to both large
and small agencies, and I may elaborate on that more when I speak as
a representative of the Sanitation Districts.

      The other point beside the user agency that the California
Association of Sanitation Agencies felt very strongly about is the
matter of the reimbursement fund.  Despite any arguement that might
obtain as to the cut-off date for reimbursement money has been paid
and that the Act is specific in terms of who is eligible or what pro-
jects are eligible, within reasonable limits.

      It is the opinion of the Agencies that it seems proper that
those agencies eligible under current law receive reimbursement fun-
ding due them at the earliest  possible time, and this would help
to solve some of the current problems of local funding,

      I would like to now speak as the Assistant Chief Engineer,
Assistant General Manager of the Sanitation Districts,

      Again, it is our position in the Sanitation Districts that we
would like to speak to those points in Federal Law 92-500 which we
feel are most necessary, most in need of change.

-------
                                                                -45-
      The Sanitation Districts recognize that we will be living with
92-500 and therefore we;think that if there are going to be relatively
few changes, that they should look.to parts of the law which we think
need adjustments.
 i , •"   -'   • :•         . •      *       . . ; "i'
      Without too much further emphasis, the first points that we feel
very strongly about is»again the arbitrary, requirement for user fees
for the local share of operations and maintenance funds.
           .,'ii'; .    '-.;'.'        •'     ;..,,.     '•
      We could cite you a very specific example of one of our small
districts, just a few months ago, consisting of only 40,000 people,
which was faced with the need for additional local funds, and they
held an election to choose between a user fee or an increase in ad
valorem taxes.              ,

      A good number of people in this community were elderly people
on retirement, and when we brought hpme to.these people the true cost
of a user fee versus the ad valorem tax, we received a 73.6 percent
vote in favor of increasing the ad valorem taxes rather than levying
the user fee.  We think that is significant.
       *  t           •• ,                .         •    .
      They're still very much;concernedsabout the local costs, and
they obviously want to reduce those costs.  ^.   • .^.
                                            . • c - •
                                             v
      The Districts represent almost four million people, 27 Sanita-
tion Districts, and these people reside in 72 cities and county areas.

      The user fee would be an administrative monstrosity for our
organization to administer.  It would literally cost us millions of
dollars each year over and above what it costs us to administer a
surcharge on industry, plus an ad valorem tax on residential and
commercial establishments.
               "'H'            '                    :         '
      There is one other point that we feel very strongly about:
The;Districts admittedly argued before 92-500 that there should be some
rational limit on the percent of Federal grant,money, so that there
would be more responsibility at the local level.  But faced with the
situation as it is now in 1975, and the fact that the program has been
in effect for three or four years, it i,s incredible to us that at
this time the Federal Government could consider any reduction below
the 75 percent grant level.

      This we speak to in some.detail in our letter.  But the point
is that the, additional-money admittedly went out to those agencies
which were in the most dire need, or at least that was the intention,
It does not seem proper now that those agencies that maybe in 1972
had a reasonable system and therefore were low on the priority system
at the time when their turn comes to upgrade their treatment system,
that they would be eligible to less than 75 percent Federal grant
money that, was available to other agencies.

-------
                                                               -46-
      As to other points, rather than speak to  the  five  issues  raised
in the hearing again, we reviewed  in some detail the draft copy of
the report which was just released by the Subcommittee on Investiga-
tions and Review of the Committee  on Public Works of Congress,  and
we would like to point out that this report was based on over ten days
of public hearing.  It was testimony presented  not  only  by our  organi-
zation but throughout the country  there was testimony that was  very
carefully thought out, and the Sanitation Districts totally endorse
the six positions taken by that committee in terms  of changes that
are necessary to Federal Law 92-500,

      I could itemize them for you, if you choose that I do so,  but
we think that serious consideration should be given by EPA to these
recommendations.  Incidentally, a  number of them are recommendations
which EPA themselves have made,

      Then speaking directly to the five issues that were raised
in the Notice of Public Hearing:   I have already spoken about the
level of Federal grant participation.

      As far as the limit on reserve capacity,  really what we're
talking about is a problem of land use planning.  And there is
a real conflict between good planning for water pollution control
facilities and making provision for land use planning and growth
control .

      Most of us have expertise in water pollution  control planning
and design, but we are admittedly  having as much trouble as everyone
else has in terms of defining an adequate land use  plan
for the area that we serve.

      The third item that was mentioned was the types of projects
eligible.  Again, it is really interrelated.  The amount of funds
available would dictate the projects that would be  eligible and  the
priorities have to be set, we would hope, on the basis of receiving
watdr quality matters rather than  arbitrary legislative requirements
for some level of treatment.
       Item four scarcely needs mention,   It  is obvious tha,t the
 line must be changed consistent with the  funds available,  if nothing
 else.

       The Sanitation Districts feel that  the State of California
 has developed a meaningful program for administration of the grant
 funding.

       We think there is really no point in interjecting another level
 of control as it  is now we're pretty much, in terms of technical
 matters, dealing  with our  State, and Mr.  De  Falco has reserved to his
 Region certain specific items such as EIS and overall review of pro-
 ject reports, and that is  very proper.

-------
                                                              -47-
      There is one point we did not make in our written testimony
that I would like accentuate, and that is the point Fred made repre-
senting AMSA.   We happen to be members of AMSA but we would strongly
feel that the  elimination of the individual cost recovery would be
most appropriate.

      Thank you very much.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you very much.

      I will call on Bill Dendy at this time, representing the Cali-
fornia State Water Resources Control Board.

      MR. BILL B. DENDY:  My name is Bill B. Dendy, I am the Executive
Officer for the California Water Resources Control Board.

      I do appreciate this opportunity to present the Board's views
on the several Papers which have been prepared by the Environmental
Protection Agency Staff.  These Papers address issues which have
frequently been raised in connection with the construction grants
program pursuant to PL 92-500.  California has a special interest in
the outcome of these hearings:  not only-do We have a construction
grants program of our own but the State also has been allocated almost
10 percent of the total national appropriation,

      Today I  intend to present only a very brief statement which
gives you our position on the main subject of each of the five Papers.
We are still developing detailed responses to each of the specific
questions raised in each Paper.  I will provide those to you in the
next few days and I request that they be made a part of the record
of this hearing.

      Paper No. 1 --Reduction of the Federal Share

      We oppose any reduction of the Federal share for construction
grants from the current level of 75 percent.  In addition to the
Federal share, California contributes a 12% percent State grant, bring-
ing the grant total for each project up to 87% percent,  Even under
those conditions, we find many communities experiencing financial
hardships in providing for their share of the costs.

      Paper No. 2 — Limiting Federal Funding of Reserve Capacity
      to Serve Projected Growth .
         " i ""•    '  .         .        , • ,              -;
      As Paper No. 2 points out, we have already adopted capacity
funding limitations regarding population which reduce grant partici-
pation, thus allowing more projects to be funded for a given alloca-
tion.  We have adopted other funding limitations on capacity such as
lower population projections for critical air basins, further infil-
tration allowance made only for tight sewer systems, no allowance made

-------
                                                               -48-
for capacity to serve new independent and undeveloped areas, minimum
residency requirements for second home areas, and a one-time grant
for capacity.

      We believe that limitations placed on reserve capacity, as we
are now doing in California, is one of the more desirable means of
reducing the need for Federal funds.  We feel it is a significant
step toward reducing overdesign.

      Paper No. 3 — Restricting the Types of Projects Eligible for
      Grant Assistance

      We are opposed to the enactment of any proposal to restrict
tye types of projects eligible for grant assistance.  We feel that it
is essential to maintain a certain degree of flexibility and dis-
cretion in the Grant Program to take care of critical water quality
problems.  Since types,of projects needed for meeting Federal stan-
dards and approved water quality goals will vary in each state, any
restrictions would be best imposed by the States.  One means of
achieving this is with the priority system.

      Under the current California priority system, those projects
which are needed to meet discharge requriements receive high priority
for funding and are comprised primarily of Categories I, II and IV-B
(Needs Survey) types of projects.  However, where an unsewered com-
munity has a serious public health hazard, they will generally receive
high enough priority to allow funding.  On the latest priority list,
fundable projects for collection systems involving serious public health
hazards comprise less than one percent of the total fundable projects.

      Projects that are in Categories V and VI are low priority pro-
jects in California's priority system.  However, for good cause, the
State Water Resources Control Board may elevate such projects to
fundable priority classes.  The State Board did so on the latest
priority list for the City of San Francisco.  San Francisco has com-
bined sewers and has numerous raw sewage overflows into San Francisco
Bay each year during wet weather.  The State Board determined that
funding projects for San Francisco for correction of combined sewer
overflows was necessary for protection of the Bay,  Any restrictions
in funding of these types of projects would have serious conse-
quences for San Francisco Bay,

      Paper No. 4 -- Extending 1977 Date for the Publicly Owned
      Treatment Works to Meet Water Quality Standards

      Of the five principal alternatives identified as possible
solutions to the problem of noncompliance with the mandated dates in
the Act, we favor the approach outlined in Alternative 4, which is to
"seek statutory amendments that would maintain the 1977 date but would
provide the administrator with discretion to grant compliance schedule
extensions on an ad hoc basis based upon the availability of Federa1
funds".	

-------
                                                               -49-
      We support the concept of granting the administrative agency
discretion in extending compliance schedules.  However, the discretion
should be exercised not by the administrator but by the regional admin-
istrator or by the state vf_ the state is operating an approved NPDES
permit program -- this will allow full coordination of the permit and
grant programs.

      One additional thought on this:  If the 1983 requirement of
BPT for municipalities is to be based on an analysis of case-by-case
practicability, I suggest you consider moving ahead with those analyses
and perhaps municipalities who will not complete installation of
secondary treatment until after 1977 can go directly to BPT if it is
beyond seconary.

      Paper No. 5 — Delegating to States a Greater Portion of the
      Management of the Construction

      We believe that delegation will be beneficial and we fully
support it.

   ..  On May 23, 1975, the Water Resources Control Board and the
Regional Administrator of Region IX executed an agreement delegating
considerable authority and responsibility to the State in the con-
struction grant program.  The agreement provides California with the
authority to charge a grant processing fee whereby grantees are charged
for State review services.  The fee is a grant eligible cost and we
are compensated out of the project grant.  We are in favor of proposed
amendments which permit the Administrator to delegate to the states
a broad range of grant processing functions and approvals, and which
provides for a fee schedule like ours or any other appropriate funding
mechanism to compensate the state for the incurred administrative costs.

      We are ready and able to assume any and all administrative
fucntions in the grants program in order to preclude any duplication
and delays. >

      That concludes my statement on the five Papers.  You can expect
to receive further and more detailed comments and recommendations from
us within a few days.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you very much, Mr, Dendy, and your written
remarks that you will put in later will be made part of the record,

      I would give everybody the opportunity to do that, whether you
are testifying today or not, the hearing records will be open until
the 7th of July, and if you can get your written testimony to us by
that date, it will certainly be part of the record and we will give
it consideration.

      Are there any questions?

-------
                                                                •50-
      Next, we have Robert G. Fleming, representing the Texas Water
Quality Board.

      MR. ROBERT G. FLEMING:  The Federal Register of Wednesday,
May 28, 1975, outlined five issues proposed to amend the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act of 1972.

      We can concur in only two of the proposed'changes.  Those being
Issue Number 4 to extend the 1977 date for publicly owned treatment
works to achieve compliance with water quality standards, and Issue
Number 5 to delegate a greater portion of the management of the
Construction Grant Program to the States.  As far as Issues 1, 2, and
3, we cannot concur in a general reduction of the Federal share of
the grant, limiting Federal funding of reserve capacity, or restric-
ting the types of projects eleigible for grant assistance.

      For simplicity, we will address each of the Issues, or papers,
as they appeared in the Federal Register.

      Issue Number 1 - Reduction of the Federal share.
                                 *  - -.
      This issue proposes-to amend the Act to reduce the Federal grant
share from the current level of 75 percent to a level as low as 55
percent to obtain the two objectives of:  (1) permit limited funding
available to assist more projects, and,(2) encourage greater accoun-
tability for cost effectiveness on the part of the grantee.

      Evidently, the reduction of the Federal share is motivated by
the impact of the 1974 Needs Survey, which would require some $260
billion in Federal funds to assist all legislative eligible costs.
However, the more critical categories of secondary treatment, advanced '
treatment, and interceptor sewers would only require some $35 billion
in Federal funds.  Therefore, it would appear that the "grass roots" of
the problem is not a reduction in the Federal grant share, but a matter
of establishing realistic priorities and deadlines to meet the critical
categories.  This is not to say that cost effective infiltration/
inflow rehabilitation is not a critical category.  Such rehabilita-
tion category should be considered in cost effectiveness of the treat-
ment plant project.  Also, collection systems that are a part of
water quality management in areas with critical septic tank problems,
is also important.  However, until a state of art can economically
treat runoff storm waters, then such category should be considered a
low priority for Federal grant assistance.  In addition, much could
be done in redefining eligible processes to meet secondard treatment.
In the past, many stabilization ponds have been constructed with
Federal grant funds.  These systems in many areas could still serve
water quality management without the added expense of modifying the
systems to meet a sophisticated definition of secondary treatment.

-------
                                                               -51
      The reduction of the Federal share is considered arbitrary and
would create inequity.  It would be completely inequitable to pros-
pective grantees and future grantees to be faced with a lesser grant
than their neighbors received.  Many communities that have planned
treatment work improvements have not been able to receive Federal grant
assistance due to many historical facts that we all are familiar with
and do not need to bring up again.

      But just considering the realignment of capital improvement
program priorities and increased requirements that affect previous
bond elections, several months delay will be created and, in some
cases, an indefinite delay.

      It could be anticipated that any significant delay will tend to
create a proliferation of temporary small treatment plants in areas
that need, or are without, sewer service, or on the other hand create
delays in building these treatment plants.  This, naturally, will
impact the permit, monitoring, and enforcement programs.

      As to a grant reduction to encourage greater accountability
for cost effective design, we feel that a reduced Federal share would
not result in any appreciable degree of greater accountability.  The
grantee is presently, by regulations, accountable.  In addition, the
State and the Environmental Protection Agency both have a responsibility,
regardless of the percent of the Federal share, to exercise respon-
sibility, along with the grantee, for cost effectiveness, project
management, and operation and maintenance practices.

    '  Therefore, we do not agree to any reduction of the Federal share
as authorized by the Act.

      Issue Number 2 - Limiting Federal Funding of Reserve Capacity
      to serve projected population.

      Under this proposal, reserve capacity would be limited to some
specified value related to time for the objectives of, (1) permitting
limited Federal funding to go further, and (2) inducing more careful
planning for design to serve future.growth.

      We do not concur with the proposal.  It may stretch dollars
but it is legislative control of engineering judgment, and this is
repulsive to us.  We do agree that cost effective engineering judgment
must control project design.  We cannot accept the philosophy that
we can tell a grantee that he must design a cost effective project and
pay out of his own pocket for the cost effective reserve capacity that
exceeds some arbitrary limit.

      We must remember that local government has a direct responsibility
to their citizens for public health, services, and environmental effect.
Therefore, reserve capacity must be considered on the basis of community

-------
                                                              -52-
need to protect the enviornment and fulfill the intent of the present
Act.  Each project has its own project design consideration that must
be developed within sound engineering judgment.

      The only thing that reserve capacity restriction can do is to
substitute the limited available local dollar for the limited avail-
able Federal dollar.  Therefore, we do not concur in the issue.  We
do feel that through the present program requirements the State and
Federal agencies can exercise their responsibility to preclude inflated
or unjustified population projections.  But once the need has been
justified for a project, no arbitrary restriction on Federal partici-
pation should be imposed.

      Issue Number 3 - Restricting the types of projects eligible
      for grant assistance.

      This proposal would eliminate projects that are directly related
to water quality management.

      Looking at the preliminary needs Survey Report of September
3, 1974, we find the total reported needs, excluding storm water,
exceeds $114 billion with some $52 billion in Categories I, II, and
IVB.  75 percent of $52 billion would be 39 billion in grant funds,
thus leaving the local level approximately $75 billion to support.
This is equivalent to a decrease in the Federal share from some 75
percent to some 35 percent, or a jump in the local share by around
260 percent.

      We must remember that Congress is responsible for the interests
of the nation and must exercise this responsibility to the benefits
of the nation.  Projects they feel are needed to support the water
quality interest of the nation should be financially assisted with
Federal funds.  On the other hand, and we fully recognize that we are
all citizens with an interest in our country, local government is
controlled by the interest of its own area of responsibility and its own
citizens.  These interests and responibilities by necessity includes
far more than water quality management.  Our communities'must maintain
support of all their local needs such as Law Enforcement, Fire Pro-
tection, potable water supply, community betterment projects, etc.
needed to maintain proper community life.  All of these projects com-
pete for the limited local funds.  Therefore, any increased spending
for water quality projects made necessary because Federal funds have
been restricted, will take funds from other necessary community pro-
jects.  There is a limit to local funds.

      Issue Number 4 - Extending 1977 date for the publicly owned
      pretreatment works to meet water quality standards.

      We feel that this is strictly a matter for Congress.  In the
legislative history of the Act, Mr. Muskie during the Senate debate
of November 2, 1971, brought out in connection with contract authority,

-------
                                                               -53-
that it is the kind of Federal commitment upon which municipalities can
build their planning requirements, their engineering requirements,
their financial  requirements, and the kind of momentum they need in
order to get their people to support the taxes, land issues, and the
building of sewer treatment facilities.

      We realize that the dates now existing in the Act cannot be
met.  Therefore, Congress must decide what commitment they desire to
meet the goals of the Act.  Either modify the commitment or the goals
of the Act, or both.  The program must be stabilized immediately and
with a long-range stabilization.  We cannot continue with the insta-
bility and a conflict between enforcement and limited commitment of
grant funds.  If they are to exist together they must be compatible.

      Therefore, we would prefer that the dates in the Act be amended,
possibly even to 1983, and Congress establish a commitment for stabili-
zation of the program and resolve the conflict between the enforce-
ment - Title II relationship.

      Issue Number 5 - Delegating a greater portion of the management
      of the construction grants program to the States.

      We feel that this is essential.  The closer we can get the
operation of the program to the needs of the local government and
still maintain proper control, the better we will be able to serve
the needs of our communities.              .                 •

      We would highlight that the delegation of the management to
the States must be one of honorable partnership, contracted in good  ».
faith.  We understand that the delegation to the States will be
controlled by EPA through annual audits.  We feel that this is suffi-
cient control and do not anticipate that there will be any direct
day-to-day supervisory interference.

      In some cases it may require States to obtain additional
qualified personnel and/or undergo a training program before assuming
the increased management.  We feel that this should be decided on
a state-by-state basis.  In all cases, delegation of all management
functions that a state can assume with their present personnel,
should be implemented as soon as such action is authorized.

      Gentlemen, we appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
and would like to close our remarks by asserting that we stand ready
to enter into partnership with EPA to objectively approach water
quality management.  Thank you.

-------
                                                               -54-
      CHAIRMAN AGEE:   Mr. Fleming, in your judgment, how long would it
take the State of Texas to be in a position to receive the delegation
and essentially carry out the construction grant program?

      MR. FLEMING:  In less than one year, sir.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:   You think you can do it in one year?

      MR. FLEMING:  Yes, sir.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:   We have been asking a number of the states across
the country to get an idea how long it would take.

      MR. FLEMING:  We currently have entered into contract with the
regional office.  This will be our second year for plan and specifi-
cation review and maintenance certification, etc., so very definitely
within a one-year period we can assume the rest of it.

      CHIARMAN AGEE:   Let me ask you another question about the excess
capacity.

      In your testimony you recommended against putting a limit on
that, essentially keep it the same way it is now.

      Are you experiencing any difficulty in Texas on dealing with
the evaluation of excess capacity?

      MR. FLEMING:  In some cases we are, yes, sir, but in these
cases by sitting down jointly with the personnel in your regional
offices and with the applicants, we were able to resolve these to
the mutual satisfaction of all of them.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:   You also recommended not eliminating but against
eliminating the eligibility features.  Did that include the matter of
collector sewers?

      MR. FLEMING:  Yes, sir.  We feel that collector sewers must
remain in the program.  We have a number of communities in the State
of Texas, several hundred, that are communities of longstanding hist-
ory, very slow or moderate growth rate, or remaining constant.  They
do need sewerage systems as a community betterment project, as well
as water pollution abatement projects.  These communities need collec-
tion systems to be eligible in order to be able to build these systems
now, the expansion of the existing collection systems, to take care of
future growth, and that responsibility falls in a little different
category and possibly should be looked at as a special case.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:   Assume we want to keep collector sewers as
eligible items:  Can you recommend to us how we should do that?  Should
we give the state the control through the priority list?

      MR. FLEMING:  I think that would be an appropriate way, and I
feel sure we can do it through our priority system.

-------
      CHAIRMAN AGEE:   You prefer that to earmarking a specific amount
of money to a specific state?

      MR. FLEMING:   Yes.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:   Thank you.  Jack, do you have anything?

      MR. RHETT:   No.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:   I would like to call Mr. Wendell McCurry, repre-
senting the Nevada Department of Human Resources.

      After Mr. McCurry,  I will be calling on Li la Buler.

      I would like to make one announcement.  If anyone is wondering,
we will run the hearing up to 12:30 and recess until 1:30, for one
hour.

      MR. WENDELL McCURRY:  Mr. Agee, Jim.

      These remarks refer mainly to your position papers, although I  o
have some general remarks at the end.                                .••'>

      Referring to Paper 1, Reducing the Federal Share, and the five
questions that you posed in the paper:  Reduced Federal share would
delay construction of necessary treatment facilities, since the local
entities have enough trouble in raising only their 25 percent share.
                                   i
          •j
      On No. 2, the states may have an interest in providing the
financial share,  but when it comes to financial wherewithal, states
such as Nevada do not have this to assist in the financing of the whole
share.

      Communities would have difficulty in funding a greater percentage,
and in some communities in Nevada, as I stated before, they have an
extreme difficulty raising a 25 percent share.  If it were not for
FHA coming into assist with the local share, they wouldn't be able to
even raise the local  matching money.

      This would mainly pertain to the smaller communities.

      I do not believe that a reduction of the Federal share would
lead to a greater accountability of the grantee.  The only effect of
a reduced Federal share would be a reduction of the number of communi-
ties which could  afford to build the required facilities in a timely
fashion.
                           i
                           f.
      If cost-effective design, effective project administration proper,
operation of maintenance is not being achieved, then the problem is
in the administration of the construction grants program and not because
of the 75 percent funding level.

-------
                                                               -56-
      If this is the case, more emphasis should be placed in this area
of administration instead of reducing the assistance.

      The major effect a reduced share would have on water quality
would be a delay in the construction of the facilities necessary to
achieve which is mandated under Bill 92-500.

      Paper No. 2, Limiting the Eligibility for Growth of Related
Reserve Capacity -- this is just another way of stating in the first
paper of reduction in the Federal share.

      In my opinion the current practices in Nevada do not lead to
overdesigning of major facilities.

      Major plants, which serve the majority of the population in
Nevada, which are located in the Las Vegas, Reno and Carson City
area, are averaging about ten years or less on their design life, from
when you have to expand.

      Smaller communities naturally go to longer design periods, but
as the gentleman mentioned a while ago, yiou hardly finish building
one plant when you start designing on the expansion of that plant,   -
and that is the way it has been the past ten years in Nevada.

      To remedy possibly the problem of overdesign, EPA and the states
should concentrate on problem areas where inflated population figures
and per capita are being used, and do a better job on the cost-effective
analysis.  Since cost-effective analysis can be manipulated to paint
more than one picture, if no reserve capacity is allowed, the same
effects as reducing the Federal share could occur.  It would delay   i
construction of facilities which are necessary to comply with 92-500.

      As to the so-called 1020 Program that is referred to as Cali-
fornia's program, I would rather rely on cost-effective analysis, common
sense, and sound engineering judgment rather than on an arbitrary design
period.

      On Paper No. 3 - regarding restricting eligibility, if eligi-
bility is going to be restricted, Types I, II and IVB should remain
eligible, since they are the most important categories ,at this time.

      But if eligibility is going to be restricted, collector sewers
before A should be eliminated.

      As far as eligibility in V and VI, definitely they should be
reduced.  As far as we're concerned, they have very, very low priority,
although we don't have the problems that California has regarding
combined sewer overflows.

-------
                                                               -57-
      With  regard  to IIIA and B, regarding the inflow, at the present
time I believe they should remain eligible where it can be demon-
strated the cost effectiveness and not just routine maintenance that
the city should be doing, but over the long run, these categories should
be phased out as being eligible.

      Making the national allocation because of the Type I, II and
IVB as reported in the survey should be used, since the cost for the
other types are not as reliable and probably tend to be more inflated.
Maybe that is the reason there is such inflated cost reported.

      Paper 4, Extending the 1977 Date, the first two alternatives
are totally unacceptable and unrealistic.

      Alternative 5 would put us in the same position in 1983 as we
are in today, looking for extension of some mandatory deadline, and
could result in jeopardizing the entire Water Pollution Control Pro-
gram.

      Your Alternates 3 and 4 are similar.  However, Alternate 3 we
suport, since this alternate will give the greatest flexibility for
achieving compliance in an equitable and fair manner, without jeopar-
dizing the credibility of the Water Pollution Control Program and
the momentum that hopefully we will achieve.

      As to Paper 5, we support the delegation to the states of a
greater portion of the management for the construction grants program,
though we naturally expect this to be tailored to each state as to
how much management would be turned over.

      As to general comments, with regard to the ad valorem taxes,
ten city should be allowed to use any financial plan which results in
any equitable cost to all the users of the system, instead of somebody
that really does not know how it affects the city, or to say "You
can't do it this way, there is only one way you can do it."  There is
always more than one.

      Relative to the special interest groups being allowed to obtain
EIS consideration and stopping a project after the community, state
and EPA have gone through all the processes of hearing some public input
and finalizing facility plans in the EIS, with no objections from spe-
cial interest groups, I believe some restriction should be established,
since these types of actions do cause unwarranted delays and increased
costs of the projects.

      I have two specific projects in mind where the public hearings
were held.   There was either zero input from special interest groups
or just no objections, and after everything was finalized they came
back to the EPA to reopen it, reopen the issue, to delay the project,
which does nothing except cost more money to the taxpayer.

-------
                                                               -58-
      Since the major reason for these hearings is to obtain comments
and ideas on the use of the amount of Federal funds in the Water
Pollution Control effort, a considerable reduction could be achieved
if the review times could be shortened.  For example, total EPA review
of simple projects, non-controversial, is about 10 to 12 months.  This
is entirely too long.  In that 10 to 12 months' time the cost of
building the plants was escalating, and you might as well go 35 percent
more.  In fact, that is just about what happened in a particular pro-
ject where under the old and the new Act we had it on a 33 percent
grant, and from the time with all the delays, the city still had to
bring up the same amount of money, even though they got a 75 percent
grant.

      To reduce Federal and local funds due to escalation of costs of
project, the project should be allowed to proceed on a reimbursable
basis.

      That is all.  Thank you.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Mr. McCurry, thank you very much.  Let me ask
you a question about delegation, the same as I asked the gentleman
from Texas.  How long would it take Nevada to gear up in a position
to assume the major work?

      MR. McCURRY:  I would say we can do it in less than a year,
although we have an interim delegation, a step between no delegation
and full delegation.  We entered into this Memorandum of Understan-
ding with Region IX with the idea that we could operate in one year
on this interim delegation and in that time we would revise the Memoran-
dum of Understanding for a greater management of program.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you very much.

      I would like to call on Lila Buler, representing the Livermore-
Amador Valley Water Management Agency.

      MS. LILA BULER:  I am the Chairman of the Livermore-Amador Valley
Water Management Agency.

      The LAVWMA is a joint powers undertaking between the cities of
Pleasanton, Livermore, and the Valley Community Services District
charged with studying, recommending and implementing policies and
programs pertaining to water supply, wastewater treatment and disposal
planning.  Current work is directed towards planning and implemen-
tation of facilities for the disposal of wastewater in the Livermore-
Amador Valley in order to meet the requirements of the San Francisco
Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board.

      The LAVWMA has been in existence since January of 1974, and it
has endeavored to work closely with the Regional Board, the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and the EPA to ensure the acceptability

-------
                                                              -59-
of the recommended facilities plan.  The time involved and familiarity
with EPA procedures qualify the agency to address this subject.

  (1)  Reduction of Federal Share -

      It is the opinion of the LAVWMA directors that the Federal revenue
contribution to Water Pollution Control projects should not be reduced
for the following reasons:

      a)  Federal standards are strict to the point that huge sums
      are necessary to meet those standards.  Raising additional
      revenue at the local level is difficult, if not impossible.
      Of the alternatives being considered by LAVWMA only one would
      be financially feasible without Federal and State funds,
      (EIS - 4-130).  Others exceed bonded debt potential of the
      three Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) members combined.  Local
      agencies need the current level of federal funding if standards
      are to be met in the foreseeable future.

      b)  Lowering the federal share to projects currently in advanced
      planning stages, or currently under way, will necessitate re-
      planning, cause time-consuming, inflation-plagued delays and
      further discourage implementation.

 (2)  Limiting Federal Financing to Serve Existing Populations -

      Between the two extremes of limiting financing to existing
population and funding extraordinary expansions, the LAVWMA Board
felt that funding for an E-o population growth would be a reasonable
alternative.  This would allow control of existing pollution and in-
clude allowance for basic population growth which can be realis-
tically assumed.

 (3)  Restricting Types of Projects Eligible for Grant Assistance -

      The funding of projects should not be limited by type.  Clean
Water projects should be considered for grants regardless of the
source of pollution.

 (4)  Extending the 1977 Date for Meeting Water Quality Standards -

      Realistic dates need to be set for meeting standards.  Specifica-
tion of the 1977 deadline in the Act has required EPA and the State
to build this deadline into NPDES permits even though they are well
aware that the deadline cannot be met in most instances.

      The draft Project Schedule for LAVWMA calls for construction of
facilities to begin in February of 1978 and to be completed in February
of 1980.  Although LAVWMA is working conscientiously and with all
possible speed, it would seem meeting a 1977 deadline is impossible.
The most recent delays have been caused by EPA requirements for addi-
tional review of the EIS.

-------
                                                               -60-
      It is the agency's understanding that EPA desires extensive
environmental review to determine that one environmental project
(for water) does not promote other forms of environmental degradation
and to avoid environmental litigation which would stop projects.
These are both excellent reasons.  However, where the requirements of
EPA itself cause delay, it would seem a wise alternative for EPA
to extend deadlines imposed on the wastewater management agencies.

 (5)  Delegating a Greater Portion of Management of the Grants Program
      to the States -

      The most pressing problems surrounding the Grants program con-
cern its administration.  Delegating from EPA to the'State is not
necessarily the answer.  The State has not demonstrated any excep-
tional ability to administer governmental programs with any organi-
zational expertise.  They are as prone to inconsistency and confusion
as other administrators of Grant program.  EPA has been given the
responsibility to "Clean up the Nation's Waterways" and should accept
it.

      Local agencies, such as LAVWMA, would benefit from changes in
administration of the Grant program that would:

      a)  simplify procedures;

      b)  reduce the number of agencies involved in regulations;

      c)  reduce the number of agencies involved in administration;

      d)  provide clear, specific, justifiable written regulations
          which are applicable to all.

      I should be happy if I can answer any questions for you.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Does the Board have any questions?

      Thank you very much.

      I will call on Granville Bowman, representing the County of
San Diego.

      MR. GRANVILLE BOWMAN:  Gentlemen, I'm Granville Bowman, Deputy
Director of the San Diego County Sanitation District.

      In response to your announcement of hearings to be held to
discuss amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA)
(PL 92-500), the San Diego County Board of Supervisors takes the
following position regarding those amendments listed and directed
staff to participate in the hearings to be held on June 19, 1975 in
San Francisco, California.

-------
                                                               -61-
      1.   Proposed reduction of the Federal grant share from the
      present 75 percent level.

      The San Diego County Board of Supervisors is responsible for
the operation of 14 sanitation  districts.  ATI of these districts
presently have existing facilities, paid for by the property owners
and users within those districts.-  Many of the districts now must
abandon or construct major improvements on these facilities in order
to comply with the FWPCA.   Some of the districts are experiencing
severe financial problems  and are virtually unable to provide even the
12% percent local  share (75 percent Federal funds, 12% percent State
funds) required to construct the new facilities required by the FWPCA.
Any reduction in the Federal share will have to be provided by the
local  districts.  The additional financing cannot be borne by some
of these districts.  Assuming a reduction in the Federal funding share
some of the smaller districts will be faced with two undesirable alter-
natives:

      a.   Noncompliance with the FWPCA, or
                                 '.•",'       ~     )
      b.   Severe financial hardship.

      To illustrate some of the problems we have, I might illustrate
the Julian, California, program. -We have a community of only 66
connections.  In order to comply with MPDS permit, they must construct
a facility of approximately $300,000, leaving the 12% percent share at
the present time that the California districts must provide.  That
would mean in that district that the annual service charge to district
users will approximate $310.

      That is in contrast with  some of our urban users where sewer
service charges are around 28 to 72 dollars.

      Another illustration is Carlsbad, California, where we have a
connected population of 17,000  people. Assuming a 20 percent reduction
in the Federal share, that will  mean an increase in the local share of
a million and a half dollars.
                                     f
      Looking at Paper No. 2, we feel that the State of California zero
population projection is a better solution to the dilemma than pro~
viding funds for growth versus  no growth.  It ensures that the dis^
charges provide careful sizing  and design of capacity to serve the
limtied future growth.

      Paper No. 3, restricting,the types of project eligible for
grants.
            .'»-     .  /  •..  ,;'  '    . '•
    -  We feel I the kinds of projects presently eligible for Federal
grant funds are all related to  water pollution abatement.  Eliminat-
ing some of the projects will be counterproductive to the achievement
of the clean water objective.  In fact, considerations should be given
to expanding the types of  eligible projects.

-------
                                                               -62-
      For example, secondary treatment is mandated by the FWPCA for
ocean water dischargers on the Pacific Coast.  It is recommended that
the use of primary treatment be continued under certain limited condi-
tions and the requirements for secondary treatment be investigated.
There are a number of ongoing studies to determine the effects of
wastewater on the ocean environment, but additional data is required
prior to the uniform application of secondary treatment.  Water quality
standards must take into consideration the possible adverse effects
they may have on land use and energy consumption.  Furthermore, it is
recommended that Federal grant monies be appropriated to perform an
extensive monitoring program in order that the effects of ocean dis-
charge may be properly evaluated.  The results of the study may deter-
mine that primary treatment, as presently practiced, is adequate in
most West Coast applications or that treatment other than secondary
is required.

      The county of San Diego operates two ocean outfalls.  We're
presently required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board to do
monitoring on those outfalls.  The discharging on the outfalls ranged
from five to nine mgd.  They are not large discharges, but it is evi-
dent of the fact that we are not experiencing a problem that the
monitoring programs are not being increased.

      4.  Extending the 1977 date for meeting water quality standards.

      It is already quite evident that additional time is required by
many of the projects in San Diego County.  The time required for the
implementation of a project has increased substantially duirng recent
years because of grant review procedures, environmental impact reviews,
citizen reviews, requirements of the California Coastal Commission, etc.

      5.  Delegating a greater portion of the management of the con-
      struciton grants program to the states.

      In California, the Environmental Protection Agency presently
delegates some portions of the program to the State.  Further dele-
gation is desirable to eliminate duplication of efforts thereby causing
delays and attendant cost escalation.

      We would like to give additional comments that were not solicited.

      Presently, the FWPCA requires the grantee to recover from indus-
trial users an amount equal to the portion of the Federal grant allocable
to industrial users.  Fifty percent (5)%) is then returned to the
Federal treasury on an annual basis.  The administrative costs asso-
ciated with returning revenues from industrial waste dischargers are
substantial.  In the County of San Diego we have many bedroom communi-
ties with some associated small industrial dischargers, such as stores
and service stations.  The administrative costs to recover, account,
and forward funds from these industrial discharger industries is not

-------
                                                              -63-
economical.   It is  recommended that these monies remain with local
governments  for necessary capital improvements or wastewater reclama-
tion investments.

      Alternately,  the list of dischargers considered to be "industrial
dischargers" should be modified to eliminate those businesses normally
supportive of urban residential development  (grocery stores, restau-
rants, service stations, etc.).

      Thank you.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you very much.

      What are your views on excess capacity as to Federal funding
used to fund reserve capacity?

      MR. BOWMAN:   As we mentioned, we feel the California approach is
the more desirable  approach, considering the two alternatives for
extensive growth versus not growth.

      Some of our community will be faced if there is no growth pro-
vided at all, with  the possibility of upgrading our facilities, and
then still be faced with a building moratorium.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you very much.

      Next we will  hear from Mr. Henry F. Eich of the Conference of
Local Environmental Health Administrators.

      MR. HENRY F.  EICH:  Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee:

      The Conference of Local Environmental Health Administrators is
made up of Engineers, Sanitarians, educators, and other professionals
in local Environmental Health agencies throughout the country.  We
appreciate the opportunity to provide our comments on the proposals
under consideration of this hearing.

      Our review in preparation for this hearing extended also to the
1972 Act, PL 92-500, with the help of your staff, also included the
Strategy Paper, which, incidentally, was rather surprising to a lot
of people as we examined all of these papers.  This included the
statement of the objective of 92-500, where it does not make any men-
tion of this particular aspect of sewage treatment or sewage collec-
tion.  The Strategy Paper, of course, is merely a policy statement.
This fact, therefore, prompts this Conference to recommend to the
Federal Water Pollution that the amendments to the Water Pollution
Control Act be prepared to accomplish this purpose.

      If less grant money is forthcoming which, incidentally, we do
not favor, should we not place higher priority on people than.on the
general environment?

-------
                                                               -64-
      While our members support constructive efforts to protect the
environment whether the ocean, estuaries, lakes, forests or streams
are involved, the health of the people of the nation must be considered
of paramount importance.

      The correction of sources of water pollution will not necessarily
eliminate all cases creating hazards to public health.  At this critical
time of establishing the manner of setting priorities for the funding
of future projects with some possible restrictions on such funds  it
is most important that we insert the fundamental element of protection
of the public's health as one of the base line yardsticks.  It should
be applied to collector and interceptor sewers as well as to treatment
works since in many instances serious public health problems may never
be corrected without some funding assistance.

      It is interesting that the approach to priorities was mentioned
in the section of the Strategy Paper on Treatment Works priorities,
while it is not specifically found in the legislation.  Mr. Russell
D. Train states in his introductory letter:  "The Strategy Paper also
functions as an exposition of policies that may be implemented in
the future."  It is our hope that this will prove true in the recom-
mended amendments that will be developed for the consideration of
Congress.

      Recommendation

      It is recommended that Public Law 92-500 be amended to incor-
porate "the elimination or alleviation of threats to public health
as a key parameter for the establishment of priorities for the funding
of treatment works, collector sewers and interceptor sewers."

      Thank you.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you very much, sir.

      Next will be the testimony of Mr. George Hagevik, Chief of
the Environmental Resources Division of the Association of Bay Area
Governments.

      MR. GEORGE HAGEVIK:  Thank you.  My comments will be brief,
because I see it is approaching long after lunchtime and we have
been sitting for a long time.

      My comments are of a general nature, referring to all five
papers.  I suppose the comments would relate more to Paper No. 2 on
projected growth than any other, but they're primarily related to
Section 208 of the Act, a topic whcih has not been discussed at all
today, although I would submit a lot of the issues that have been
raised relate directly to the 208 planning process, and I want to very
briefly review some recent history with you.

-------
                                                              -65-
      On May 15,  the State Water Resources Control Board designated
a number of 208 agencies in California, including the Association
of Bay Area Governments•  Because of restrictions on funding, funding
deadlines,  we had to prepare a 208 work program in nine working days.

      Our work program, which is not part of the plan, I might add,
is over a hundred pages long.  This work program had to be to EPA
by the end  of May.

      We found out that ONB had frozen some of the 208 funds.  These
were finally unfrozen last Wednesday, I believe, so we now understand
that we're  going to get funded.  However, as of today we do not know
the level of funding we will receive.  So it is difficult to perceive.
We hope to  hear very soon, hopefully as early as next week.

      I think this is important to note, because under the Act we
have two years to complete this planning process. This is a multi-
million dollar process which relates to a whole set of water quality
issues.

      Now we are considering here today delays in other aspects of
the Act.  I think it will be appropriate to also consider the rela-
tionship of 208 to the other topics addressed today.

      As I  noted, we have two years to complete this product.  We
have to gear up, we have to complete the product and get it out for
review.  We have been at it two years, it seems like.

      We have to do a detailed working program to submit to the State
Water Resources Control Board for the review of individual Board members
by next summer, so it looks like we have really six or seven weeks
to decide how to spend these funds.

      I think the question we have to raise is whether it is appro-
priate to consider a delay inthe two-year time frame we're working
with.  I am sure my agency would be very much in favor of that.

      I would like to briefly make some comments on the work program
that we expect to undertake in the Bay  'Area,  We are accepting all
the 208 facility plans, completed or under way.

      A very strong point was made on this in the Public Hearings
held in the Bay Area on the 208 designation.  The point was also made
by the State, and as part of our 208 program we're looking at the ques-
tion of agriculture and urban runoff.

      Now we addressed Federal funding for water pollution control
programs, and I think eventually we will have to discuss whether
facilities  that result in the achievement of maintenance of water

-------
                                                               -66-
quality objectives should just be point source facilities or whether
we ought to consider retention basin, for example, for dealing with  -
urban runoff.

      The basin plan for the San Francisco Bay includes, on the basis
of a literature review, that secondary treatment with the Region --
40 percent of the POD loadings in the Bay will come from urban runoff.
We will have to deal with that issue somehow eventually.

      A number of people today have discussed the issue of growth.
Growth is, of course, one word, but it means a lot of things to many
people.  As the discussion papers note, if certain facilities are
eligible for funding, it seems logical that planning agencies will
come up with proposals that are funded out of the Flederal treasury.

      It might follow that some other strategy, such as not building
in a certain location, building at different densitites, or requiring
mitigation measures for urban runoff would not be emphasized as part
of a 208 plan, for example.

      Now in Califronia, most of the designated agencies, and parti-
cularly ABAG is tying in the 208 plan closely to the air quality
maintenance plan with the assistance of Region IX staff and the
State Water Resources Control Board and Air Resources Board.

      In the Bay Area we are trying to fully integrate the air quality  f
maintenance plan with the 208 plan.                 :v -

      The present position of EPA is that the EQMP, as it is called,
might not have to be done until December of 1977 if you get an exten-
sion, and if therefore an extension is available, !• would submit that
extension is going to be given, given the difficulties of completing
the studies.

      So we are out of sync here a little bit, if the one plan is
going to be completed before the other.

      I think it is important to note in conclusion when we*re'talking
about funding excess capacity, we have to decide what this means.

      I have not heard this term defined today.  The 208 program is
really in with the issues expressed today, providing adequate funding
for existing population that is already there.

      That, in a nutshell, is what we hope to do on 208, and I would
like to see the concerns of the 208 program addressed in the context
of revision of the Act.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you very much.  Are there any1 questions,
Paul?

-------
                                                               -67-
      MR.  DE FALCO:   No

      CHAIRMAN  AGEE:   We will  call  at this time Joseph Edmiston from
Los Angeles, representing the Sierra Club.

      MR.  PETE ZARS:   Mr. Edmiston was prevented from presenting
the Sierra Club statement.

      My name is Pete Zars.   I  am from Atascadero, California.  My
statement is in behalf of the Sierra Club, a full spectrum internationaal
conservation organization with  a large membership in California.

      As I said, our Southern California representative could not
attend on such short notice,  so I speak on his behalf as well.

      In a large sense, however, my statement reflects the interests
and the concerns of the broad public for a clean environment.

      We understand that today EPA is under severe pressures from
the politically strong, narrow interest groups, which threaten the
stability and the ultimate value of this massive public works program
under Public Law 92-500.

      The present stampede for the precipitous route of release of
grant funds may be counterproductive, if it should further the objec-
tives by narrow selfish interests to destroy the sensitive quality
of life, and if cheap expedients should spell the end of our productive
water resources and the oceans in particular.

      There seems to be a strong indication that entrenched interests
may be digging our collective environmental grave, yet there are
still some people as the Chamber of Commerce beating the drums for
growth, and equating growth with the quality of life.

      The present crush for Federal  funds threatens to produce
problem on problem, people on people, and waste on waste.

      Why not go back to our tried and true virtue of making do with
less?  Of getting by with less than we want?  And above all, frugal
housekeeping.  Why encourage a $350 million expenditure?  Is it
necessary if the human species is still so intent on fouling it?

      I'm thinking of the Lake Tahoe problem in particular.  Why
solve such a short-term problem by projecting it in the future?  That
is like sweeping dirt under the rug.

      Here are the direct responses to the five questions raised in
the background materials in the Federal Register of May.

-------
                                                                   -68-
      No. 1, Santa Claus, Uncle Sam, should look at each of his 50
kid states and automatically chop of those Christmas wishes that are
totally out of line.  Why penalize an honest Californian, if the Texan
has an impossible wish?  If the Father EPA can't do it, ask the Mother
OMB.  If neither can do the problem of cost effectiveness, cut back
everybody to 55 or even 30 percent.  There will be cries from the
states, but that is all the money there is.  The disappointment can
go the paper route way like taxes and bonds, and maybe they can be
paid back in the future if they have done a good job.

      No. 2, in Califronia at this stage of history there should be
no reserve capacity beyond that proposed to E-0.  Least of all should
there be a reserve capacity for second homes or future non-residents.
It might not even be bad, on the day the plan is finished, to let growth
pay for itself, that is let those who want the growth pay for it.

      But there is one reserve capacity we do insist on, and that
is for future stages of higher treatment.  This does not mean larger
capacity or more people, but it means better treatment, and this means
that present population funding for secondary treatment facilities
must contain a design and enough land to accomplish this.  The tertiary
treatment stage at some future date.

      No. 3, restricting the types of projects. Federal assistance
should not be forthcoming to bale out local incompetents.  Let the
locals figure out how to stop infiltration.  Then let them do their
sewer and filtration and let them accept their combined sewers and let
tern fund the added capacity to handle storm flows.

      Interceptors or collectors required for new regional economy
of sale plants, but they should be eligible for cutoff participatron
plants.

      Storm water treatment and control should be a local chore and
perhaps they're more easily locally controlled.
                            ,                                      • V-.J;
      No. 4, we feel the 1977 treatment criteria must be adhered to.
That the time for compliance might be extended, however, only on
a case-by-case basis and never to exceed 1983.

      No distinction whatever should be allowed between those public
agencies accepting and those refuisng Federal grants.  It is imperative
that all conform to the Federal law.  We feel that there should be
no waiving of the organization interview requirement of agricultural
waste requirements, etc.

      No. 5, a greater portion of the grant administration program
should be assumed by the states, especially those lagging behind in
assuming this responsibility.   We would rather see the present stampede
for funds retarded by prudent EPA control and review, that is from the

-------
                                                               -69-
standpoint  of environmental  protection, than to see vital monies
lavished on growth-infusing  and growth-provoking boondoggles, rubber
stamped by  local  control.

      As it stands  today,  we're sure at least in the case of Lake
Tahoe, that more  local  control  would only make the TTSA system
worse.  As  it is, the facility will in all likelihood contribute to
the decay of the  lake and  its Air Basin.

      In conclusion,  the Sierra Club is alarmed by the strange fact
that labor  and industry have joined the conservationists and EPA in
our quest for a cleaner and  healthier environment.

      We were not prepared for the four of us to be in One frail canoe.
Maybe our Christmas wish will be for a sturdier one, that is a canoe,
plus two additional paddles, if you please.

      CHAIRMAN A6EE:   Thank  you very much, Mr. Zars.

      I would like  to call on George Alcalde, who is from the City
Engineer's  Office,  City and  County of San Francisco.

      He is not present, apparently.

      I will now  then call on Donald E. Evenson of Walnut Creek,
California, representing the Consulting Engineers Association of
California, and this will  be the last testimony we will have before
we break for lunch.

      MR. DONALD  E. EVENSON:  Thank you.  My name is Donald Evenson.
I am a Water Resources Engineer and lam here representing the Con-
sulting Engineers Association of California, commonly referred to as
CEAC.  CEAC thanks  you for the opportunity to discuss these issues
and to present our  ideas.

      On Paper No.  1, reduction of the Federal share, OEAC recommends
that the Federal  share construction grants required to meet the goals
of PL 92-500 be maintained at the present level of 75 percent.

      In California,  we have a unique problem in that many agencies
dealing with water  pollution control activities have limitations
placed on them by Senate Bill 90, which precludes or limits the ability
of many of  these  districts to raise money through property taxes.
Therefore,  we recommend also as a result of the increased Federal shares
that the State in its bond issue probably cannot continue to absorb
the cost.  Therefore, we urge that the EPA continue the 75 percent
funding.

-------
                                                              -70-
      On Paper No. 2, limiting Federal funding of reserve capacity to
serve projected growth:  CEAC supports the concept of limiting the
reserve capacity eligible for Federal funding, the limitations adopted
by the California State Water Quality Control Board with ten years for
waste treatment plans and 20 years for interceptors and outflow, which
are reasonable guidelines.  However, we do urge that such flexibility
be accommodated in any proposed amendments to account for. local varia-
tion in growth within counties, or-where substantial cost efficien-
cies can be demonstrated by taking various limitations.

      On Paper No. 3, restricting the types of projects eligible for
grant assistance:  CEAC believes it is not desirable to restrict the
types of projects eligible for grant assistance.  Instead, as an
alternative, it suggests a priority system be established whereby the
importance of the project.is related directly to its contribution to the
solution of a water quality problem and to the achievement -of the goal
after Public Law 92-500.
               . •-•              -t •    ,  i         ••  •>.
      The priority system used by the California State Water Quality
Control Board is a positive step in this direction and should be
reviewed and considered by the EPA.

      On Paper No. 4, extending the 1977 date for the publicly owned
pretreatment works to meet water quality standards:  CEAC recognizes
that it is impossible to meet the 1977 deadlines and recommends that
extension be granted, based upon the availability of Federal and
State funds and upon the actual time required to design and construct
the facilities.  This is a combination of your Alternatives 3 and 4.

      Paper No. 5, delegating a greater portion of the management
of the construction grants program to the states:  CEAC supports this
concept.  However, it should be contingent upon the states demonstrating
a willingness and capability to administer the program.  Where the
state has not demonstrated this capability, EPA should retain the
responsibility.

    ,  The California Water Resources Control Board is developing
an effective program to manage construction grants, and we urge the
EPA to actively support the continued development and improvement of
this program.                      <     m             -

      Nationally, we feel that perhaps one of the most difficult pro-
blems that we will find in this construction grant program is the
ability to find qualified and experienced engineers to administer
the grant program as well as those required to design and construct
the facilities.

      So we would like to have careful consideration being given
to the requirements for state certification and concepts such as re-
quired registration for all state or EPA engineers that are making
decisions on design and construction, or on plans and specifications
be required.

-------
                                                               -71-
      CEAC is  looking forward to working with EPA and the State Board
in making  the  grant program a more efficient program and continuing
its efforts along  this line.

      Thank you.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Mr.  Evenson, you made reference to the fact
of the short number of engineers and technical people available to
carry out  this program.   I think you made mention of the fact that
also in the consulting engineering ranks the people who design the
facilities —

      MR.  EVENSON:  I don't believe that any firm or the state agencies
will deny  that there is  a shortage of qualified and experienced per-
sonnel. These are people with five or ten years of experience in
sanitary engineering design,  and you're not going to get these over-
night.  Therefore, it is a concern, we have problems of recruiting
people for our own firm, finding people that have the necessary exper-
ience, and this goes  not only to the private companies but also
public agencies that are going to be enforcing or 'administering these
grants.

      CHARIMAN AGEE:  Let me ask another question:  Do you find that
consulting engineers designing for cities are making choices that
are more capital  intensive because they can reduce the maintenance
and operation costs in future years?

      MR.  EVENSON:  I personally, our firm, do not engate in design
of sanitary engineering facilities, so I really cannot address that
question.

      But  my question is that as professional engineers they should
be looking for the most cost-effective solutions.  I am sure the
fact that  they are In California, where there is an 87Vpercent funding
on capital costs makes an important weight that bears on their decisions,

      However, I -don't think that they can disregard the operation and
maintenance cost estimates that are used and which the State has for
all the plants throughout the State — so I think once those ground
works and  costers  have been established, I don't think there is any
way in their choices.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you.  Paul?

      MR.  DE FALCO:  No questions.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you, sir.

      Ladies and gentlemen, we will recess now and reconvene at
1:30.

-------
                                                               -72-
      ... The Hearing was called to order at 1:30 p.m. ...

      CHIARMAN AGEE:  Ladies and gentlemen, if you will be seated, we
will get started.

      Our first witness this afternoon is Ed Simmons representing the
California Water Resources Association.

      Following Mr. Simmons we will be calling on Herman Alcauld,
representing the City Engineers Office, City and County of San Fran-
cisco.

      MR. SIMMONS:  Mr. Chairman, Members of the Panel:  For the
record my name is Ed Simmons, Public Relations Officer for the Cali-
fornia Resources Association which is a statewide'association of some
350, 400 water and power agencies, countries, municipalities, indus-
tries and individuals.
                                       •.
      We appreciate the opportunity to appear.

      I would just like to touch on the fact that during the latter
part of 1971 and most of 1972, the Congress was considering testimony
as the program envisioned by the public was liable to cost in the
hundreds of millions of dollars rather than in the tens of millions
originally envisioned by the legislators.  :
                                         .,-»' •-.''•
      Now, the Federal Government acknowledges a 350 billion dollar
price tag and concedes that the total program is beyond the ability
of the Federal Government to fund at 75 percent but may still insist
the program be undertaken and the community assume a greater portion
of the financial burden.

      There is one alternative action.

      We consider this single alternative as unrealistic.   The grants
were adopted in the first place because it was assumed that the
localities could not comply with the Act with their own financial re-
sources.                                                   -
                                                              "i S : "  :
      As you reduce the Federal share from the 75 to 55 percent,^that
would require the local share to jump 160 percent, assuming State
participation at the present level.

      Aside from the local municipality's inability to pay that share
in the present time frame, this creates I think a situation that is
politically unrealistic at the local level.  All of these projects
had a long time to plan and get the financing arranged.  The communi-
ties many times cannot simply change the amount of financing in
midstream because most of it comes from bond issues which they have
to put to their people and the major problem arises then of changing
this thing in midstream from a financing standpoint.

-------
                                                               -73-
      I  would have to be the man that tried to sell the idea to the
local  constituency that the treatment plant that I told them would
be a good investment at a price of $100 million will also be a whale
of a bargain at $260 million.  That is a tough story to sell, even
if the local community could afford it.

      As has been mentioned this morning, when you attach the price
tag beyond the ability of a local community to pay or to convince
local  voters to pay within a reasonable time frame, then you build
inefficiency into planned projects because many communities in an
effort to meet the law and are unable to build to accommodate long-
range or even medium growth needs, would find themselves forced to
build minimal systems and plants, to go back to the voters to expand
the facilities at a later date.

      We think it would be the worst possible use of funds to build
these minimal plants and especially work underground.  It is so much
more expensive to enlarge underground facilities at a future date
than to size them adequately now.

      Treatment plants can be built in a modular form much cheaper,
at least that's the way we do it in California, so the problem there
is perhaps much less acute.

      If the Federal is determined that it will share only in facili-
ties needed for present population, it will only further incur such
inefficient approaches.  The most important, as far as we are con-
cerned, our association, is that the cost of waste water treatment
could be substantially reduced if the broad-sided approach to the
problem were abandoned in favor of tailoring treatment needs more spe-
cifically to the local problems.

      We think it becomes obvious, for example, that uniform stan-
dards requiring the secondary treatment of municipal waste water dis-
charges to all receiving waters, including the ocean, are unnecessary
and uneconomical.

      Western ocean waters are rich in oxygen and secondary treatment
is primarily designed to remove oxygen-demanding chemical substances
from the effluents discharged into the ocean, is not necessary to
protect the marine water quality and especially where the effluent
is well-affused into very deep water.

      Many authorities appear to agree that pollutants such as
chlorinated hydrocarbons and heavy metals are best controlled at
the source anyway.

      The technology is available to eliminate many of them.  If
this approach were adopted as a federal standard, Orange and Los
Angeles Counties alone would save some $500 million over the next
eight to ten years as compared with the mandated secondary treatment.

-------
                                                              -74-
      Willard Bascom who conducted studies of the California
coastal waters -- now heading the Government-funded southern coastal
waters research project -- claims that the oceans have remarkable
capacity for cleansing themselves.

      A continuing study by that project of the needs of the environ-
ment find that present waste water disposal practices are not causing
any substantial damage to the ocean environment.

      Apparently the law was written to apply to such enclosed waters
such as the Great Lakes and perhaps even such as the Mississippi
River and should not be uniformly applied to deep, open ocean waters.

      In Paper No. 3 we learn that the control and treatment of
storm water runs the cost up $235 billion.  It is quite obvious that
this function should have a lower priority than correcting inadequate
treatment facilities.  The law now requires even a massive runoff of
water from a storm would have to be controlled and/or treated and
there is certainly no significant pollution contributed to waterways
in times such as that.

      It would seem storm waters, if anything, would be purifying
on balance and would at least be a very low priority.

      So we think this is unnecessarily/ stringent.  This Act is
unnecessarily stringent.  We hope the requirements can be tailored
down to meet the specific problems existing in each region and for
the local community and with the most urgent requirements getting
first priority and secondary treatment next.

      It might be 25 years time frame would be more realistic than
total compliance within ten years.  The present total costs are of
such magnitude they may be counter-productive.  Since few if any of
the original goals were achieved if they were insisted upon.

      The Federal funding need, aside from Public Law 92-500, there
is need for the San Joaquin Master Drain so that its construction
could be completed before large areas of the Central Valley go out
of production.

      Now, that is an agricultural problem because of the salt
buildup, and we think it is most unfortunate that there is absolutely
no provision made for Federal financial support for construction of
facilities needed for proper disposal or reducing of degraded agri-
cultural waste water and not even if urban waste constitute a portion
of such degraded water.

      We think it is high time for Federal acceptance of financial
responsibility for related disposal costs like those being afforded
municipal water facilities construction program and the agricultural

-------
                                                              -75*
segment of our economy generates considerable tax revenues, both for
Federal and State Government which now assist in deferring the urban
costs in this field of action.

      So we suggest that this kind of funding be considered when the
Federal Government decides what it can afford to do in behalf of the
States and the local  communities over the next ten years.

      I might close by reminding you that waste water reclamation
is always cheap when the water  initially supplied is of the highest
quality.  The way to assure delivery of adequate amounts of high-
quality water to a given place  at a given time is through timely far-
sighted development of available surface water resources and their
delivery systems and that of course is the objective of the California
Water Resources Association.  Thank you, gentlemen.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:   Mr. Simmons, thank you very much.  Jack, Paul,
any questions?

      MR. RHETT:  No.

      MR. DE FALCO:  No.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:   I would like to call at this time Mr. Herman
Alcauld representing the City Engineers Office of the City and County
of San Francisco.  Following Mr. Alcauld, I will call on Michael
Herz.

      MR. ALCAULD:  Herman Alcauld.  I represent the City Engineer,
Mr. Robert S. Levy, City of San Francisco.

      There are five major areas of Public Law 92-500 according to
the position papers set forth by O&B.

      I would like to discuss those proposed changes briefly, how
they would affect the Water Pollution Control Program in the City
and County of San Francisco.

      I would also like to add  some suggestions on how the law might
be amended or clarified in areas of more immediate concern to the City
and County of San Francisco.

      Item No. 1, work proposed to reduce the immediate fair share
of grants would have a detrimental effect on the already slow progress
of the program.  Parts of the Public Law 92-500 were adopted in order
to compensate for the previously inadequate or non-existent Federal
funding.  Reducing this share would only be a step.backward.

      Assuming the enforcement  requirements for the permit system
remains unchanged, the City would be required to carry a large share
and thereby adding another demand on the already strained municipal
bond market.

-------
                                                               -76-
      The City's limited resources and growth demand for funds by
other high priority programs to provide needed services, casts a
doubt on our ability to assume an increased share of the funding bur-
den.

      Item No. 2, limiting the Federal funding, reserve capacity to
serve projected growth, would have little effect on the City and County
of San Francisco.  This is all population projections now available
show little or no growth over the next 30 years.  However some provi-
sion should be made to guarantee existing capacity funding even when
that capacity includes wet weather and to provide capacity for his-
torical trend and per capita water consumption and highly-stringent
tourist and commuter population for which most central cities provide
sewer service.

      Item No. 3, restricting the types of projects eligible for
grant assistance would have a disastrous effect on cities like San
Francisco who have combined sewerage systems.  It has just been this
year that the release of impounded Federal funds has allowed the
State of California to place community sewer projects in a category
that will be funded.

      In a city like San Francisco with combined sewerage systems,
the dry weather and wet weather planning and construction are inter-
related and often inseparable.  Restriction of this type would cause
a delay in solving the wet-weather problems and not affecting the
cost of constructing of wet-weather facilities.

      If both fully integrated and funded, it would result in year
round water quality improvement and overall cost savings to the tax-  -
payers.  In addition pollutants from wet weather can approximate that
of dry weather.

      Item No. 4, extend the 1970 date for the publicly-owned treatment
works to meet water quality standard appears to be a necessity in
some cases.  San Francisco will not reach substantial secondary
treatment until 1980 or '81, and I am sure many other communities
have the same problem.  I am sure when Public Law 92-500 was passed
no one envisioned the mountain of red tape involved required to deal
with not only 92-500 but many other Federal and State laws which use
the grant program for incentive such as the NEPA Act, the Uniform
Relocation Act, the Historical Monument Preservation and even the
National Flood Insurance Program.  The Califronia Environmental
Quality Act and many others.

      An example of this delay is our own Yerba Buena Project in San
Francisco.  Delayed well over four years and may not get off the ground
at all.

-------
                                                              -77-
      In our own case,  as I am sure the case is with other urban
cities,  available land  is either non-existent or at a premium in the
prospect of removing more land from the tax rolls, relocating busi-
nesses and residences sometimes to other cities raises much community
opposition and slows the progress considerably.  Some special consi-
derations should be given to cities with these problems by extending
the 1977 deadline to some more realistic date.

      Item 5, San Francisco, as most other cities in California, has
a good working relationship with the State Water Resources Control
Board and we endorse a  greater delegation of the construction manage-
ment to the State since it is most familiar with our local problems.
However increased staffing should be provided with the increased respon-
sibility in corresponding degrees in the amount of APA review and
approvals or nothing will be gained from such delegation.

      Other possible amendments to Public Law 92-500 which San Fran-
cisco would endorse, including a use of ad valorum tax to support the
revenue progranrin lieu of increased user charge and industrial re-
covery.   Supporting the program through ad valorum tax gives the home-
owner the advantage of deducting from Federal taxes whereas the user
charge was not.

      Savings can be effected by the simple collection along with
property taxes.

      The industrial payback will create an accounting nightmare
for the various grant applicants and industry through property
taxes -- and industry through property taxes and source control is
already doing its share.

      Finally, the action is needed -- action is needed to clarify
the degree of treatment necessary for wet weather overflows and com-
bined sewage overflows.  The law is not clear whether or not secon-
dary treatment is required for these overflows.

      Cost-effective treatment can in most cases be provided at
something less than secondary treatment for^combined sewage flow.

      This concludes my remarks and I will submit a copy for the
record.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you very much.  Mr. DeFalco, Mr. Rhett?

      MR. DE FALCO:  No.   ;J   £?ct  '

      MR. RHETT:  No.

    t;  CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you very much.  You mentioned favoring
the retention of the existing eligible features,

      MR. ALCAULD:  Yes.

-------
                                                               -78-
      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  What would your view be with respect to reducing
Federal share, maintaining Federal share for 75 percent for sewage
treatment facility interceptors but a reduced Federal share for the
other kinds of eligible features such as separation of storm water,
treatment of storm water?

      MR. ALCAULD:  San Francisco in our combined system, the cost of
wet weather improvement is as expensive as dry weather and we do not
support any reduction in Federal share.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Do you have any views on whether or not we
should retain collecting sewers as eligible features?

      MR. ALCOULD:  Major sewers, yes.  That doesn't seem to be a major
problem of San Francisco.  Transport is a major problem, if that is
included in what you consider collecting sewerage.  Yes, we feel it
should be included.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Very good.  Thank you.  Any questions?

      MR. RHETT:  No.

      MR. DE FALCO:  No.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you very much, sir.

      Call on Mr. Michael Herz, Oceanic Society of San Francisco.

      I will be calling on Connie Parrish representing Friends of
the Earth after Mr. Herz.

      MR. HERZ:  Thank you for the opportunity to comment.  My name
is Dr. Michael N. Herz, Executive Director of the San Francisco Bay
Chapter of the Oceanic Society which is a non-profit, private citi-
zens association devoted to protection of marine environemnt.

      The society currently has about 50,000 national members and
a large portion of those are located in California.

      I must take exception with the comments that were made by the
gentleman from the California Water Resources Association about ocean
outfalls.

      We feel very strongly that the solution of pollution is not the
dilution and that people who want to use the ocean today are analogous
to those who wanted to use the Bay 100 years ago and thought all
waste could be discharged there.

      We feel ultimately we will be caught up with if we dump it in
the ocean and that isn't the solution either.  We view ourselves as

-------
                                                               -79^
allies of EPA in the battle to clean up the nation's water and feel
we have achieved some expertise in this to such a degree that EPA
awarded us a contract to increase local and state awareness concerning
Local  Law 92-500 and its relation to water quality problems.

      I hope our testimony today will not be perceived as biting
the hand that feeds us.   We do not have a copy covering the topic
of today's hearings as we thought our time could better be spent
reading the papers and related documents.

      It is our opinion that EPA has created somewhat of a credibility
problem by having called these hearings and by having timed them as
they have.  It is our understanding that the hearing was originally
to be billed as legislative hearings since this agency is a part of
the Legislative Branch.   Also rumor is that the reason these hearings
have been requested is that EPA creates a method for reducing the cost
required under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendment but
our main concern is the timing of these hearings and their relation-
ship and the relationship then of their subject matter and that of
the National Commission of Water Quality.

      Establishment of this Commission was provided for under Section
315 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act along with an appro-
priation of $15 million for carrying out and studies.  For the purpose
of today's hearings, it is important to point out that the Commission
was charged with studying "all of the technological aspects of achieving
and all the aspects of achieving or not achieving the effluent limita-
tions set forth in the Act."

      Since all of the issues to be covered in today's hearings
relate to achievement of the limitations set forth in the Act and in
particular the fourth item addressed the possibility of extending the
1977 deadline for meeting those limitations, it would appear that the
work of the National Commission on Water Quality is extremely relevant.

      To our knowledge EPA has made no effort to include the Commission
into this hearing.

      In discussions with members of the Commission and its Washington
staff, held within the last 24 hours, we were informed EPA had made
no contact to contact or discuss the hearing with -- in fact I was
told by the contract manager for the Regional Assessment Study being
conducted in the Bay Area under the auspices of the Commission, that
he had learned of the hearing only five days ago.  In Section 315(d)
of 92-500  it states "Heads of departments, agencies and instrumen-
talities of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government shall
cooperate with the Commission in carrying out the requirements of this
section".

-------
                                                               -80-
      Since the final report of the Commission on Water Quality Con-
trol, which will include eleven regional studies at a cost of almost
four and a quarter million dollars on the impact of the meeting and
not meeting the limitation, since these will not be available until
the fall, it is our feeling that these hearings should have been post-
poned until such time that the Commission's results were in and con-
cluded.

      If time was an important consideration in the holding of these
hearings, the Commission should have been invited to participate since
the information which it obtained is some of the most relevant which
could be considered by EPA although it is realized the result of
this hearing as well as the National Commission will ultimately communi-
cate to Congress the situation outlined above.

      I might add that we are not 100 percent backwards of the
Commission because we have some problems with some of the specifics
of their report so we are just trying to share a little criticism
with all agencies and groups.

      Finally, I wish to comment more specifically on the issues
under consideration in today's hearing.

      As an organization devoted to the protection of marine environ-
ment, we strongly oppose modification of Public Law 92-500 which would
result in the original intent being modified by reducing Federal share
or in extending or postponing deadlines.  It would appear that the
intent of these hearings is to test the water so to speak to determine
the public is sufficiently concerned with water quality to voice its
opposition to reduce the opposition funding required to implementing
the Act.

      As an aside, we have a feeling that a large number of people
in the Bay Area who should be concerned or are concerned with these
problems did not know about these hearings.

      The local problems we are having with, for example, the Southeast
Treatment Plant in San Francisco where the neighborhood people have
gotten very involved in the process, I would imagine had they known
of these hearings, they would have been a representative of that group
here.

      As a citizen group which cares enough about water quality,
illegal discharges, they sent volunteers out to collect water samples
for analysis and we are concerned and do oppose weakening of one of
our country's most impressive pieces of legislation.

      In reference to 92-500 papers, we oppose reduction of the
Federal share.  We favor limitation of the reserve capacity which we
see as growth-inducing.  We oppose restrictions on the kinds of
facilities that can be funded, oppose postponement of deadlines, but

-------
                                                               -81-
if pushed  to the wall,  we go for the fourth alternative and favor the
State taking a greater  responsibility in the management of the Con-
struction  Grants Program.

      We trust these comments will be received in a constructive
sense since they were assimilated with the philosophy, while addressing
a group of citizens, that agreed in a recent EPA support conference
on Public  Law 92-500 stated that he wanted our criticism because our
pressure was necessary  for his agency to do a more effective job.  Thank
you.

      CHAIRMAN A6EE: Mr. Herz, do your science people that you have
in the Oceanic Society, do they have some real concern about the dis-
charge of  organic-demanding, oxygen-demanding substances into the
ocean?

      MR.  HERZ:  We feel that the ocean, the situation in terms of
ocean discharge has really not been studied carefully enough and the
people that are proponents of it, we think are speaking a little too
early.  That if in fact we are going to go to a system which will be
in favor of ocean outfalls, that some very serious kind of search has
to be undertaken.

      I think the only  in-depth work we know of is that being carried
out by —  which mentioned a Tittle earlier.

      I am not sure we  necessarily agree with all their findings, but
we have some very serious concerns that that is not the solution.

      CHAIRMAN A6EE:  Let me ask you this:  Perhaps provision on the
new ones,  but would your group support an extension of requirements
for the secondary ocean outfalls based on the fact produced some studies
1n the intervening period of time on the basis it is already there,
should delivery require secondary treatemnt until we know more about
it.

      MR,  HERZ:  I am very apprehensive about anything that is going
to make it possible to  dump more rather than less polluting materials
into the ocean, particularly some of the — well, if the problems
with the industrial portion can be handled so that heavy metals and
hydrocarbons can be removed, that would take care of part of the pro-
blem.

      The  organic on the other hand may be possible to cope with
those but  the ones we see in the Bay, were it granted, is a much
shallower  environment.   We still find heavy metals in pesticides,
in the organisms and in tie bottom sediment.

      CHAIRMAN A6EE: Thank you very much.

-------
                                                              -82-
      Connie Parrish representing Friends of the Earth.  Following
Ms. Parrish we will move on to Donald Tillman, City of Los Angeles.

      MS. PARRISH:  My name is Connie Parrish, California representative
of the Friends of the Earth.  Thank you for this opportunity to comment
on the proposed revisions of the grant program for construction of
municipal sewage treatment facilities.  Friends of the Earth is in
firm support of EPA's efforts to maintain water quality.

      We believe the action that comes out of today's hearing should
reflect the agency's commitment to clean, unpolluted water.  Keeping
in mind the motivation behind consideration of new amendments -- the
Office of Management and Budget ~ we hope the goals of EPA will take
precedence over the money-minded concerns of a finacially troubled
Administration.

      We have a few recommendations for each of the five areas of
discussion:

      1)  A reduction of the Federal share of grant money is acceptable
to Freinds of the Earth, if it is truly necessary and providing such
a reduction of funds will not have a detrimental impact on the con-
struction program.  We feel that the option of granting up to 75 per-
cent of the cost, though, should remain open to EPA administrators,
for there surely will be areas of the country where the larger Federal
share will legitimately be required.

      2)  Federal funds should be limited in all cases to facilities
designed to meet present needs.  Projects that are built for expected
future population increases create an incentive for growth and urban
sprawl.  In the Seattle area, for example, sewers are planned to handle
40 times the present need.  When EPA helps fund projects like this,
which are far beyond the need of the existing community, the agency
becomes an increment of growth (and its accompanying environmental
impacts).

      Economically, this limit makes sense, also.  The money not
granted can be used in other, more important Federal actions.  The
benefits accrued from using this money elsewhere should outweigh the
claimed savings due to economies of scale in large plants.  The bene-
fits of not promoting growth, though less tangible, are nonetheless
real;-?. Land acquisition .and .plant design, however, should maintain an
option for future expansion.

      EPA should under no circumstances fund sewage treatment facili-
ties in excess of present population needs in cities where trans-
portation control strategies are required for the area to meet the
standards of the Clean Air Act.  It is proving difficult enough to
implement these strategies aimed at coping with,the air pollution
generated by existing populations without providing further impetus
for growth the air basin cannot handle.

-------
                                                              -83-
      3)   Restricting the types of eligible grants to secondary and
tertiary  treatment plans sounds reasonable as it will not impinge
upon the  essential mandage of Public Law 92-500.  Although interceptor
sewers are necessarily included also, we would urge more careful
consideration of small treatment planst as an alternative.

      4)   Recognizing the problems EPA faces in enforcing the 1977
deadline, we support alternative "3" as a solution.  We believe the
1977 date should be complied with where possible, however EPA should
be able to exercise case-by-case administrative discretion in granting
extensions.

      5)   FOE has no objection to allowing the states to assume a
greater role in managing the grants program, as long as the intent
of the Act is not subverted.

      In  closing, a word of warning to EPA.  This grant program is
destined  to become the biggest public works project in the world,
larger than even the Highway Program.  We must be wary of a "sewer
lobby" forming, made up of trade unions, businessmen, and banks —
similar to the infamous Highway Lobby -- that may push us into buil-
ding outsized facilities and plants in 'areas that have no need for
them.

      Thank you.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you very much.  At this time I would like
to call on Ernest Muller who is the Director of the Department of
Environmental Conservation of the State of Alaska., Is Mr. Muller
here?

      John A. Lambie representing Ventura Regional Sanitation District?
Mr. Lambie, I am sorry I didn't give you some warning.

          MR. LAMBIE:  That's all right.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Following Mr. Lambie's testimony I would like
to call E. L. MacDonald, City of Richmond, California.

      MR. LAMBIE:  Mr. J. A. Lambie.  I commend you on calling this
hearing together.  I think they should award you the Purple Heart
for sitting here so long and being so patient.

      The regional sanitation district that I work for is a special
district  embracing the entire county including the cities and special
districts.

      I work for a Board of twenty consisting of the Mayors of the
cities, the Supervisors and we get all together and we have a jolly
good time.

-------
                                                               -84-
      The purpose of our effort is to put together a regional system.
We are second to be named to the 208 Agency and we are proud and have
already moved into this because we are convinced that our plans must
be consistent with our air, irrigation plan and our transportation
plans.  We have already had meetings with these groups and the planning
organizations within Ventura County.

      The most critical amendments, in following through your line
of reasoning, in reducing Federal share, we believe that Ventura County,
reduction would inhibit and delay the construction of required facili-
ties.  Further the matter of the State, then you heard Bill Daly
earlier talk about that regarding their willingness to pick up the
additional financial burden and there is a definite significance in
all of the agencies with the county to raise any additional fund over
and above what we are required to raise at this time.

      The point was made in regard to if you reduced the Federal
grant, will you obtain a greater accountability because you really
only have twelve and a half percent, do you have less accountability?

      I think that the State has done an excellent job in this area
and believe me we have the accountability thing, are screened very
well and as far as the State of Califronia is concerned, I don't think
that that is a significant factor.

      Would the reducing of the share have an impact on water quality
because of inability of the agencies to carry the burden?  I believe
that's true.  In limiting the financial -- that is number two --in
limiting the financing to projects which serve the needs of an existing
population.  Current practice does not lead to over-design because
the State Water Resources Control Board now administers grants on an
EO population increase only.  Legislation change would not be neces-
sary to eliminate problems with the current program.  The State and
EPA can eliminate some of these situations such as using the Depart-
ment of Finance figures back in 1970 instead of the 1972 when we
started moving on the program.

      We have one example of the City of Port Hueneme whose popula-
tion growth has reached the 1990 levels now.  It is a rather small
city, about 10,000 people, and built a large series of apartment
houses on the ocean front.  It is a locked-in city and can't grow
anywhere else.  They tore down some packing houses and built these
condominiums but they are having to add additional money for their
current flows.

      The merits and demerits of prohibiting eleigibility for growth-
related reserve capacity to ten years for treatment plants and twenty
or twenty-five years for sewers would be substantial.

-------
                                                              -85-
      This  could  be sufficiently and effectively administered if
the determinations had restricting elements in the plants or the sewers
and not denying the construction of a facility which is proper.

      Mr.  Simmons mentioned the fact that you had the sewage treatment
plants built as modules.   These modules come in different sizes and
if you took the one model, you may have ten more years of capacity
beyond zero.

      We believe  you could have a small restriciing feature in the
facility that would limit its capacity but which could allow design to
be practical.  You don't  put in pipelines that are too small in dia-
meter and by the  time you finish them, fourteen-mile intersector or
outfall, built with your  own money above the zero range, then I think
you could exercise restraint by restricting factors, one governed
by our air quality and that is the capacity of that plant which would
limit its capacity which  could allow design to be practical as I had
explained above.

      In three, restricting the types of projects eligible for grant;
assistance different eligibility structure should have determination
of the need for the particular services.  All needed facilities cannot
be built at once.  The grant system should ideally seek to provide
the greatest improvement  in water quality.  However we do not believe
that the grant program should be extended into providing collector
systems, storm water treatment plants, et cetera, because of the
limitation of funds.

      There is local incentive to undertake needed investment in
certain tyeps of  facilities.  These local projects relate directly to
a benefit to the  land that they are serving.  Petition districts
and local funding methods through improvement acts could be used for
this need.   For extreme hardship cases, HUD does provide Federal  >
assistance and this should continue.

      In most cases there is adequate local financial capacity to
undertake-needed  investment in certain types of facilities.  There
clearly isn't adequate local capacity to undertake further investment.

      Four, extending the 1977 date for meeting water quality stan-
dards.  To retain the 1970 date and enforce against violators I think
is impractical because, you know, you have got State statute there and
it should be enforced or  it should be changed.  I go along with the
fourth one where  you change the statutes by amendments to provide the
administrator with the discretion but you don't want it to be figh-
ting against the  violation that's clear in the law.

      Last, delegating a  greater portion of the management of the
construction grants program to the States.  If it could possibly be
delegated any more, I wouldn't know what more Paul could have done

-------
                                                                -86-
because I think he's delegated all legally he can do.  We deal with
the State and EPA and through his office.  Again mentioning the matter
of ad valorum tax, and this is significant in our area.

      We have all kinds within the cities and we have one city with
ad valorum tax and other cities use mostly service charges and the
rest of them sort of have a plan, depending on the character of the
city.

      I can take an argument on any one of the three things, but I
can tell you that the ad valorum tax gives you an opportunity to
spread the assessment and the costs of the operation on a much more
equitable basis, especially in the areas of low-valuation homes
versus high-valuation, and we get I think fair distribution.

      In conclusion a resolution of the Regional District Board I
have here which commends Congress for the progress being made for
improving water qualtiy standards.  However, the Board opposes the
reduction of Federal share, the limiting of scope of the grant and
restricting the types of projects and favors extending the 1977 date
delegating more to the State and allowing the use of ad valorum taxes
for operation and maintenance.  Copies are attached.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you very much.  Do you have any questions?

      MR. RHETT:  I am not sure really I quite understood what you
said on the financial capability and capacity,

      MR. LAMBIE:  The financial capability of our cities is they are
small and to carry on, as we are confronted with a small city of
undertaking, is right now $30 million addition to the treatment plant
which will be twelve and a half percent funded.  If that were to go
higher, it would be a real strain on us people to fund that addi-
tional share.  It hits the small ones.  The larger agencies have
greater sources of revenue but the smaller cities, it is really
critical.

      MR. RHETT:  The second one, didn't you say that as far as
collector services go, that you felt these could probably be dropped
out?

      MR. LAMBIE:  Yes,  There are hardship cases here I filed for
under the HUD program where the sewer connection would cost more than
the assessed value of the property,  I mean those are real hardship
cases, but for a second home up in the mountains, I really don't go
with that.  I think that in individual cases where there is hardship
and it is proved, it ought to be set aside and in another program
and not competing with our treatment plant project and things like that.

-------
                                                               -87-
      MR.  RHETT:   All  right,

      CHAIRMAN  AGEE:   Mr.  Lambie, thank you very much.

      I  would like to  call  now Mr.  E.  L. MacDonald representing the
North Bay   Water  Advisory  Council.
            5
      Following  Mr. MacDonald I will  call on Gordon Magnuson.

      MR.  MacDONALD:   Mr.  Chairman, my name is E. L. MacDonald.  I
am employed by  the City of Richmond but I am here this afternoon to
testify  for the North  Bay  Water Advisory Council.

      I  have been directed by the Council to submit these comments
to you:

      The  specific purpose of this organization is to provide a
central  agency  through which local  public corporations and private
industries can  cooperate for the purpose of improving water quality
standards  in the  northern  portion of San Francisco Bay.  Furthermore,
the organization  will  obtain and disseminate information and sti-
mulate interest concerning water quality of the northern portion of
San Francisco'Bay and  to cooperate with, be advisory to and consult
with State and  Federal bodies and agencies in seeking the most satis-
factory  interim and long-range solutions to the problems of main-
taining  and improving  water quality in the northern portion of San
Francisco  Bay.

      I  wish to speak  to three of the  five areas described in your
hearing  notice.

      Reduction of Federal  Share

      We strongly oppose reduction of the Federal share of project
costs for  a variety of reasons.  Reduction of Federal funding without
reduction  of Federal requirements would place intolerable burdens on
the already over-extended  taxing ability of local agencies.  Voters
are consistently  refusing  to take on larger property tax loads.  The
Federal  Government, on the other hand, has the greatest capability
of funding the  national pollution control program thoough withholding
taxes.

      Our  citizens are also opposed to increased service charges.
Therefore, we reiterate a  request that has previously been made to
Congress;  that  the law be  amended to permit use of ad valorum taxes
for maintenance  and operation of wastewater facilities.

      Of great  concern to  local agencies is EPA potential for enforce-
ment. If  Federal  funds were reduced,  communities could be forced to
reduce other necessary services, e.g.  fire and police protection.  To
prevent  such a  disaster, we recommend  an amendment which would prohibit
enforcement whenever Federal  funds are not provided.

-------
                                                               -88-
       Also of concern is the possibility that the entire grant program
will be prematurely abandoned, just as general revenue sharing threatens
to be.  We recommend that Congress be asked to commit itself for at
least a ten-year period.  This would allow for a more reasonable
scheduling of our programs.
                                                                    i
      Extending the 1977 date for Meeting Water Quality Standards.

      There has never been sound justification for the 1977, 1983
or 1985 dates in the Act.  Therefore, they should all be deleted.
Dates should be established at administrative levels where they can
be matched to local conditions.  They should not be incorporated into •
a law, as they have in PL 92-500, causing both the Federal Government
and local agencies to be in violation of them.

      The 1977 deadline will be met by very few communities in the
Bay Area.  In most instances, Federal and State planning requirements
will prevent compliance.  Industry is making an extraordinary effort
to comply with the 1977 deadline.  It is inequitable,to make industry
comply with a date that adjacent communities cannot meet.

      There is insufficient information to support the timing of
the 1983 deadline.  The treatment requirements would be far more
cost-effective if they were directly related to the receiving water
quality necessary to protect beneficial uses.

      The 1985 date for elimination of discharge of pollutants is
both unwarranted and confusing.  This objective is open to inter-
pretation.  If it is kept in the Act, a more precise definition of
what it means should be included.  However, our preference is to
delete it.

      Delegating a Greater Portion of the Management of the Grants
      Program to the States

      We strongly support full delegation of the entire program to
California.  This delegation should include grants, environmental
impact, permits and enforcement.  The State has a 25-year history of
pollution control which has placed California well ahead of the rest
of the nation.  It is unsound government to overlay a monolithic
Federal program on the State.  The same requirement which brings
compliance in a less advanced state often brings over-reaction by
California agencies.  This governmental overlay gives local communi-
ties two masters who do not always coordinate their instructions.  We
see Federal intervention delaying our wastewater management programs.
Full delegation to California would speed up the program and make it
more cost-effective.

      This concludes the comments of the North Bay Water Advisory
Council, Mr. Chairman.

-------
                                                                -89-
      CHAIRMAN AGEE:   Thank you very much.  Paul, Jack, do you have
any questions?

      MR.  RHETT:   No.

      MR.  DE FALCO:   No.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:   I will call now Gordon Magnuson representing
the Monterey Peninsula Water Pollution Control Agency.

      Following Mr.  Magnuson's presention I will be calling on Jack
Port.

      MR.  MAGNUSON:   Mr. Chairman, Members of the Panel, Ladies and
Gentlemen:

      My name is Gordon Magnuson with Engineering Science, Incorpo-
rated.  I  have been  requested by the Monterey Peninsula Water Pollution
Control Agency to transmit a position taken by their Board of Directors
at a recent meeting  to be read into the records of your hearing.

      The  Board of Directors of the Monterey Peninsula Water Pollution
Control Agency, the  joint appointive agency formed a plant and control
to operate a regional  wastewater treatment systema nd is generally
opposed to the proposed legislative amendment to the Federal  Pollution
Water Control Act promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency
on April 25, 1975.

      The  Board convenants entered into good faith must be honored.

      Construction of a regional wastewater treatment system was
in effect  mandated by the EPA and the anticipated cost of the communi-
ties is considerable,  even under the present 75 percent Federal share
agreement.

      The  application of that agreement by reduction of Federal share
would involve an additional financial burden on the member municipali-
ties which might well  jeopardize the existence of our agency.

      As to the specific amendments proposed for consideration by
the EPA, our agency  comments as follows:  Number one, reduction in
the Federal share.  It is estimated that EPA facilities of planning
and project guideline reports have added 20 to 30 percent project
planning costs.  Delays in construction of various phases of our pro-
ject vary  from one to four years, occasioned primarily by EPA regu-
lations increasing construction costs by an estimated 10 to 40 percent
due to inflationary  factors.  Costs to the taxpayer for wastewater
and disposal will  increase 60 to 100 percent due to EPA discharge
standards  and requirements for regionalization even under the present
Federal 75 percent share of capital costs.

-------
                                                               -90-
      Number two, limiting Federal financing to current population.
Such action will increase construction costs to the local taxpayer.
No municipal government can afford to build wastewater treatment
plants without provision for normal growth.

      Number three, restricting type projects eligible.  Our agency
agrees this proposal might result in overall reduction costs.  If
regionalization and reclamation and re-use are mandated without
adequate justification, construction, energy costs incurred may out-
weigh any dubious environemntal advantage or economies of scale and
operation and maintenance requirements for the storm water runoff
would effect major savings.

      Number four, extending the 1970 date for mean water quality
standards.  The date for meeting the water quality standards will have
to be extended.  It is obviously impossible to meet the 1977 date
in many localities.  However, it is mentioned the date will not reduce
the final cost to the Federal Government.

      Item number five, delegating a greater portion of the manage-
ment construction grants program to the State.  This is the alterna-
tive proposed which could conceivably reduce costs of the program.
Single-level Government approval would hopefully reduce planning and
cost by expediting project completion.  This alternative would be most
effective if the States were given authority to modify discharge stan-
dards to suit local conditions and circumstances.                 '

      I realize in California now we do have the program operating,
the State does have the authority.  However the item regarding
authority to modify discharge standard is something we have not had.

      In summary our agency is heartily in favor of reducing the
overall cost of the program mandated by the FWPCA and believes revi-
sion to the Act with regard to discharge standards to permit basing
treatment standards on local conditions would provide such a reduc-
tion.

      Revision of arbitrary numerical effluent limits and relating
treatment standards to equitable public health purposes would satisfy
the basis intent of the Act and reduce the overall cost of the program.

      The emphasis of the regionalization and reclamation and re-use
to those specific instances in which there is an obvious economic or
environmental advantage would further reduce program costs.

      Gentlemen, that concludes the comments which I have to offer
for the Monteray Peninsula Pollution Control Agency,  If there are
any questions, I will attempt to answer them.  However, I am speaking
on their behalf and I am not sure of all of their situations that
might need comment.

-------
                                                               -91-
      CHAIRMAN  A6EE:   Let me ask you a question.  I don't think we
asked it today  yet.   What is your impression?  Do cities generally
have city funds or other financing arrangements so they incur suffi-
cient revenue for replacement of some of the newer facilities, ulti-
mately replacing twenty, twenty-five years?

      MR. MAGNUSON:   I am not sure that many cities have really come
to grips with this situation.  I think they are more concerned with
the day-to-day  at hand problem, the current one facing them and I
believe they are not  making adequate probably to 'do this.

      I concede this  is a program which undoubtedly should be taken.

      CHAIRMAN  AGEE:   I think it is obvious.  I was just wondering
what the Federal Government evidence will get out of supporting con-
struction of municipal treatment plants and this is one of the ques-
tions we have to face as a nation and certainly the Administration and
Congress ultimately is when will the Federal Grant Program in this
area be stopped.

      MR. MAGNUSON:   Because obviously the problem, however temporary-
it may be, is going to continue at some slower pace in the future.

      CHAIRMAN  AGEE:   Paul or Jack, do you have any questions?

      MR. DE FALCO:   No.

      MR. RHETT:  No.

      CHAIRMAN  AGEE:   Thank you very much.  I would like to call  Jack
Port representing Contra Costa County.

      MR. PORT:  For  the record my name is Jack Port.  I serve as
Assistant Public Works Director, Environmental Control in Contra  Costa
Public Works Department.

      I am submitting this statement on behalf of the Board of Super-
visors of .our county.

      I have a  short  statement I would like to read into the record.

      Rather than speaking today on these specific issues that are the
subject of this hearing, I will make a few general comments and submit
a more detailed statement prior to July, 1975.

      We have been in close contact with Congressman George Miller
and he agrees with us that administration of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act (Federal Act) should be more strongly directed toward
meeting its goal rather than concerning itself with peripheral issues
that have delayed construction of water pollution control fa-cilities.

-------
                                                              -92-
I understand that he will also be submitting a prepared statement in
support of this position before July 7, 1975.

      Contra Costa County's trip through the maze of bureaucratic red
tape in an effort towards obtaining Federal and State financing of
water pollution control facilities has resulted in much frustration
on the part of the people in our county.  More importantly, progress
has not been made towards meeting the goals and policies of the Federal
Act.  We find that emphasis at both the Federal and State levels has
been placed on reclamation and consolidation at the expense of cleaning
up our waters.  In Contra Costa 'County»\we'have spent thousands of
dollars on planning efforts designed to consolidated, regionalize,
subregionalize, and reclaim, and all we have gotten in return is post-
ponement, rising construction costs, and an almost total absence of
knowing in what direction to take in solving our water pollution
control problems.

      Contra Costa County's amazing trip through the bureaucratic
jungle started in late 1966.  At that time, Kaiser Engineers were
retained by the State of California for the purpose of preparing a
comprehensive report on solving the water pollution problems of the
San Francisco Bay Area and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Area.
As one of the nine Bay Area counties, our County was included in the
study.  Some $3 million was spent in conducting the Bay-Delta Water
Quality Control Program ("Kaiser Report") was submitted to the
California Legislature in June, 1969.

      This is not the time nor the pliice to go into the details of
the findings of the study except to say that as far as Contra Costa
County is concerned the recommended construction of a regional
facility located in the westerly portion of the County would receive
all sewage emanating from our County for treatment and eventually dis-
charged to Central San Francisco Bay.  I would also add that the Bay
Area was in almost complete unanimity in rejecting the proposed water
pollution control facilities.

      A special note:  The Kaiser Report includes a "Proposed Schedule
for Implementation of the Recommended Plan" indicating that by July,
1975, i.e. next month, construction bids would be received on Phase
One.  The first series of bonds would be sold and additional bonds
sold as required to meet land acquisition costs for progress payments.
Needless to say, this optimistic projection has not materialized.
Far from it.  The only facility in Contra Costa County, which could
in any way be construed as being at least a subregional facility, is
the 40-50 million dollar plant being constructed in Pacheco, with
Federal and State grant monies, under the jurisdiction of the Central
Contra Costa Sanitary District.  The construction of this facility,
as far as we are concerned, almost completely obviates the planning
concepts for our County as set out in the "Kaiser Report."

-------
                                                               -93-
      Since the issuance of the Kaiser Report, two other studies have
been undertaken in Contra Costa County at the cost of some $165,000
of which $30,000 represented Federal monies contributed by the State
of California.   At the present time, three separate studies on sub-
regional water  pollution control systems are underway in the county
amounting to over $500,000.

      What I want to point to here is the fact that wastewater
management planning in Contra Costa County started as early as 1966
and might come  to completion.by 1976.  Yet, I want to say for the
record, past actions of the Federal and State Governments give rise to
the uncomfortable feeling that we are not through yet.  The planning
process has led to no real solutions to which we can hang our hats on,
either from an  engineering standpoint or from an environemntal stand-
point.

      Nevertheless, with all this uncertainty hanging in the air, it
is our experience that the Environemntal Portection Agency issuing
funds made available under the Federal Act for the construction of
water control pol-lution facilities as a lever in obtaining information,
studies, and data on their concerns which are not directly related to
the:elimination of water pollution.  For example, the EPA is re-
quiring, in both our West County Study and our East County Study, an
assessment of impact proposed projects on air quality, transporta-
tion, land use  planning, and growth inducement.

      In closing, I would like to speak to just one issue which is
the subject of  this hearing, "Restricitng the Types of Projects
Eligible for Grant Assistance."

      In view of the fact that the express purpose of the Federal
Act is the cleaning up of the 'nation's water, I would agree that new
legislation should be concerned with types of projects eligible for
grant assistance.  It .would', appear logical to me that as an initial
step, municipal and industrial waste discharges be required to upgrade
treatment to the secondary level with the understanding that a higher
degree of future treatment is in the offing.  This would serve a dual
purpose:

      1.  It would meet the specific objections of the Federal Act.

      2.  Provide the "interim" period needed to arrive at intelli-
      gent decisions, not only on water pollution control, but also
      on our overall environment. ,
                             {•;•
      It also seems very important to me that we recognize that we
have spent millions of dollars on planning toward implementing an
ideal goal, and yet the answers are not forthcomingv  As I have stated
earlier, we in  Contra Costa County have found that our planning
efforts, on which we have spent thousands of dollars, have yet to
come up with a  clear-cut solution.  It appears to us that the best use

-------
                                                              -94-
of our monies (Federal, State, etc.) would be almost total investment
in secondary facilities, which we will point out under Issue No. 1
in our detailed statement.  This would reduce the Federal share and
concomitantly the local share of, what are in reality, interim
facilities.

      Finally, progress towards the realization of water pollution
control facilities which are needed and construction of which is the
real purpose of the Federal Act is not occur!ng.  We would agree that
a master comprehensive plan, taking into account all the environmental
factors that the EPA wants to be examined, is an exemplary concept.
But in so doing, it is our contention that the intent of the Federal
Act is being violated.  The planning process on these concepts has
gone on for a number of.years without producing definitive results.
This leads us to the conclusion that we are not ready at this stage
of the game to enter into consolidation or reclamation in California
as optimistically hoped for.  We would therefore suggest that the
Environmental Protection Agency and the State of California take a
more realistic approach to the water pollution control problems.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Mr. Port, thank you very much.

      Paul, John, do you have a question?

      MR. DE FALCO:  No.

      MR. RHETT:  No.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you, sir.

      Mr. Arnold Joens, representing the City of Salinas,  Following
his presentation we will call on Jack Beaver,

      MR. JOENS:  Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
here today.  I am the City Engineer, Public Works Director for the
City of Salinas, which is the county seat of Monterey County.

      Mr. Magnuson represented the Monterey Pollution Control Agency,
Monterey County Water Pollution Control Association of which Salinas
is one of the major members.

      I want to make two points before the Committee this afternoon.
One of these is concerning the Federal share in the grants.  I feel
that the Federal Government should maintain its 75 percent level for
several reasons.  One of these is because the standards of discharge
have really been set by the Federal Government and some of these dis<-
charge requirements seem unnecessarily high.  Several of the speakers
today related to that same point.  We feel that these discharge stan-
dards might be adjusted to meet the requirement to maintain the quality
of the receiving waters rather than having a fixed level.

-------
                                                               -95-
      As demonstrated by the revenue-sharing program that's currently
in effect,  not all  of the red tape is required in a Federal program.
We are receiving those funds with a minimum involvement and the program
is working  out well.   But when it comes to the Clean Water Act, we
seem to be  getting  to all sorts of peripheral requirements that might
be reviewed in reconsidering this legislation.

      No one at the Federal  level seems to want to assume respon-
sibility for some of the things that have been tied onto the tail of
this program and it is hard  for those of us at the local level to
really find someone who is willing to consider changing them.  In
our particular program the planning was going along well, then we
had to backgrack into a 208  back-planning program without which we
wouldn't be able to go ahead with our other one.

      So we would urge that  the Federal staff review whether all of
these requirements  are really necessary to get on with the purpose
of cleaning up the  waters in the country.  We strongly endorse the
delegation  of authority to the State level.  We feel that Federal
involvement is somewhat of a duplication and that some of this red
tape I referred to  might be  cut down by giving the State more author-
ity.

      We don't endorse the concept that the people are more qualified
to judge on some of these matters at the Federal level than at the
State level and we  think they will get just as good a job done at
the 1ower level.

      I have submitted a statement on these points to the secretary.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:   Thank  you.  We will be pleased to have you.

      Any questions of this  witness?

      MR. DE FALCO:  No.

      MR. RHETT:  No.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:   Thank  you very much.

      Mr. Jack Beaver.  Following Mr. Beaver I will be calling on
Edward Bohn representing the Planning Conservation,

      MR. BEAVER:  Mr. Agee, Mr. Rhett, Mr. De Falco.  It is always
a pleasure  to appear before  you as I have on so many occasions both
formally and informally.

      My name is Jack Beaver.  I am a member of the Presidentls Advisory
Board on National Water Pollution Problems and his advisors to EPA,

-------
                                                              -96-
      At the outset let me say I was a bit stunned at the rapidity
with which this hearing was presented.  I am moved to observe that
from my experience on the National Board and my prior exposure to your
activities that much of the purpose of this hearing has been stimulated
by the Office of Management and Budget in the Executive Branch of
Government.

      I also am painfully aware of the fact that we have sitting in
the audience a member of the Commission on Water Quality Control Agency
that was created by Federal statute to mini tor and review and comment
and critically analyze the effect of Public Law 92-500 and like an
earlier speaker, I am a bit confused as to the timing of your hearing,
although I recognize that you gentlemen here had perhaps very little
personal input into that selection of timing for your hearing.

      Speaking primarily to your five issues as presented in the
paper, those brief papers as published in the Federal Register, I
think it is almost begging the question to write a paper which wants
to inquire into whether or not the Federal share of these programs
should be reduced.                                                *
                                                                     -'•, '(
      In a quick and perhaps facetious phrase, I have never yet
heard of any American wanting to shoot Santa Claus so I don't think
that your four hearings will produce much in the way of substantive
testimony which indicate to the OMB or anyone else that we'don't want
some money back that we have been sending to you under great pain for
many years.

      Now, the second item of significance to limit the Federal funding
of reserve capacity to serve the projected growth rate.  You know some-
times Congress in writing a bill does it very much like the drafting
of the Ten Commandments and there are more do nots than thre are dos.
                                                                  i

      I think any notion that Public Law 92-500 is going to have any
impact on the growth rate of the United States is purely wishful
thinking.  I think that issue is being settled by the pharmaceutical
houses thoughput the United States.

      With respect to your first paper, with reference to restricting
the types of projects eligible for grant assistance, in my experience
I think that whole subject needs to be more exhaustively inquired
into and any of the others listed in your issues to be discussed.

      I do not believe that the six categories listed necessarily
are illustrative of all those that should be considered.   <

      With respect to Paper No. 4, outlining some remarks and obser<-
vations concerning the extension of the 1977 date for publicly<-owned
pretreataent work to meet water quality standards, I think the impact,
Mr. Agee, on publicly-owned agencies is far more severe than it is on
non-publicly-owned utilities.

-------
                                                               -97-
      The reason I  say that is that if the Federal Government would
ultimately take a look at the available credit that is left for local
government to obtain capital  for all sorts of public worthwhile pur-
poses, they would realize that the well is about dry.

      If the Federal  Government and your committee and the EPA would
do some research into the financial resources remaining to local
government, not only in California but in all of our fifty states,
I think they would see that the curve of the cost of capital money
to the local taxpayers is on  a very-highly accelerated rate of claim
and that even triple-A bonds  of the largest agencies, public agencies
throughout the nation now are nudging seven percent.  That is a burden
which the local taxpayer can  almost not bear since the cost of his
money doubled approximately every 11 years.

      Now, with respect to Paper No. 5, delegating a greater portion
of the management of the construciton grants program to the states,
I think you will recall one of the most stringent arguments that we
presented to you in our advisory paper of last July after the hearings
conducted in Seattle in which we urged the EPA and the Congress and
the Administration to do everything within the If power to adjust the
language of the bill  and the  concommitant administrative regulations
to permit the maximization of local management of the construction
grant program.

      I underscore that because that was the most oft repeated
statement in the public hearings that we held throughout the United
States.  Two things are fallout of the remarks we heard.  One was
that the local governmetns, and I include in those not only minor
political subdivisions, cities, counties and so on, but I include
state agencies, consistently testified that they felt the fact they
they were not given enough control over the management of the con-
struction grant program was not only an insult to local intelligence
but that they had to abandon  common sense to the holy waters of the
Potomac and I think they had  a splendid point.

      To follow up a bit more, I don't think you have asked all the
right questions and I suppose you are asking me questions as they
were published in the Register, being of the fact that they were
perhaps not altered by yourselves.  But by the OMD, if that is true,
I would add a couple of other questions just for the record:  It has
been said here today, and I have sat through most of your hearings
since early on this morning,  there is considerable concern about the
local application of effluent guidelines.

      The second most important volume of testimony heard by the
President's Advisory Board during its hearings was that this was
the most complicated and irrational  part of the Act and was the most
difficult to understand.  We  recommended then, and on behalf of the

-------
                                                                   -98-
report signed by all our Committee, I again recommend as their spokes-
man that immediate consideration be given to allowing increased
flexibility in meeting these local environmental needs simply because
all the situations are not the same.

      This is particularly true in coastal areas such as where you
are, where our ocean outfall problems are different in the Bay Area,
they are different than the Los Angeles Coastal Plain, they are differ-
ent in Seattle and they are most, certainly different than the mouth
of the Columbia.

      I think I should reiterate that what I am really saying is
that the repetition of what was said so frequently in the Northwest,
Mr. Agee, I am sure you are familiar with that, having spent a good
part of your professional career in that area, that most of the pollu-
tion concerning water, at least in that part of the world, stems in
silver culture nad not from man-made ways.  So you have a problem that
is far more complicated than simply the construction grant program.

      There is a third point that came up and I think some of you
were attendant when we discussed these matters and that was that the
Commission found great disapointment in the amount of money that was
being provided and the amount of leadership that was being provided
by EPA on questions of R&D.

      I don't know what the current situation is, but if the question
raised in the Federal Register is any indication, I would assume not
a great deal of progress has been made there.

      Finally let me commend you for coming out here.  I understand
you have one more hearing in Washington.  I would assume at that time
almost all that has been said before will be repeated, but I presume
that in the atmosphere of that non-state state of our Government, that
the words will be emblazoned upon your record even more firmly.  I
may even attempt to appear there before you again.

      Thank you good friends and keep up your work.  I think you are
entitled to a seventh inning stretch.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you, Mr. Beaver, very much. Mr. Edward
Bohn.

      MR. BOHN:  I am representing the Planning and Conservation
League based in Sacramento and the person who was going to be here,
Bill Press, who is the Executive Director fo the League, couldn't
attend and I am acting in his place.

      The notes are my own and I don't have a prepared statement to
give to you at this time.  Perhaps later I will submit one.

-------
                                                               -99,
      I  would  like to  go right into the papers.

      In the beginning — the first paper concerning the Federal share,
I would  think  as  a previous  speaker mentioned, that no one wants to
see the  Federal share  reduced.  I  would like to see it maintained at
75 percent,  one of the reasons being that it is  evidence that both
local  and State Governments  are having as much trouble as the Federal
Government and I  think many  layers of government will  have to share
the burden of  paying for the treatment plant.

      Paper  No. 2  concerning the  reserve capacity, I  think this
should be consistent with the California Water Resources Control Board
guidelines and regulations,  esepcially for the EEO projections for
critical areas and perhaps in those regions selected by an agency such
as the Coastal Commissions who are selecting areas to  certain degrees
of growth and  I think  reserve capacities should be consistent with
those guidelines.

      Again  this  points out  need for paying both on Federal and State
level  and I  think once we have that, certainly these factors would
be easier to resolve.

      The third paper, restricting types of eligible projects, again
as some of the speakers have mentioned earlier,  the State Water Re-
sources  Control has a  priority list.  I think it seems to be doing a
good job and I think  it should continue.  Again, before I go on, these
statements are directed to California in particular, and I realize
other states have their quality programs that are different in certain
degrees.  So bear with me for California.

      The fourth  paper concerning  various alternatives and changing
the 1977 deadline, personally I am not satisfied with  any of the alter-
natives.               .

      Number 4 does appear to be the most favorable.  However, perhaps
some other alternatives can  be searched for before the deadline or
even later.

      The fifth alternative  in that appears to be the  least favorable
and in fact  seems to be kind of repugnant since if flies in the face
of the objectives of the Federal Act and as mentioned  in the guidelines
and in the Federal Register, Alternative 5 says  it could possibly
jeopardize the entire  MPDS Program and also that water quality stan-
dards  would  be violated unless new regulations were written providing
for some sort  of  exception.

      In sum,  I don't  think  that these water quality standards should
be changed and I  think they  should stand as they are now.

-------
                                                               -100-
      The fifth paper, delegation to the State, the Water Resources
Control Board seems to be doing an excellent job in solving some of
the water quality problems.  EPA has recognized this and will probably
continue to do so.  I also urge that EPA stay and closely monitor
the State Board's activity.  I think it would be kind of a safeguard
mechanism, especially for enforcement activities.  There are a few
concerns that have been mentioned by Mr. Beaver, the speaker just
before me, and Mr. Herz of the Oceanic Society.  Two of these con-
cerns, the lack of participation by the National Commission of Water
Quality, the Planning Conservation League, is a member of the Advisory
Board working with the National Commission on regional study for the
San Francisco and Sacramento study and EPA people have attended these
meetings and we wou.ld have liked to have seen a combined meeting with
both EPA and NCWQ personnel and unfortunately this hasn't occurred and
I think this is a weakness on the hearing.  But again, as mentioned
by the previous speaker, perhaps this is not your fault, unfortunately.

      Another concern has been the lack of participation of several
groups I have in mind here.  Offhand I was thinking of groups in
Sonoma and Marin Counties who, for the last few years, have been con-
cerned about growth-inducement impact from sewage treatment plants.

      Unfortunately they aren't here as well as some other people
and I think you would have had perhaps a different perspective than
the one you are receiving today because the views here today are from
the small minority of business, labor, industrial organizations who
have the time to come here.

      Again, I am not sure why these groups aren't here.  I have
certain theories, one of them being that the publicity didn't appear
to be very good for this meeting.  I found out only through.EPA's
mailing list, I know some groups aren't on that mailing list.
Other problems may be lack of funding, which we have urged throughout
the whole process working with the Federal Act.

      We have tried to obtain as much funds as possible for partici-
pation.  We have received refunds from the EPA on a limited scale
and we are thankful for that and hope to see some more participation
by the general common citizen.

      I think it would help in this program and perhaps resolve some
of your problems.

      In summary, I would just like to say that the Federal_Act of
1972 is now received as a landmark law and I don't think the standards
should be changed but in fact may be even enforced due to future
lawsuits.

      In respect to the costs that we will have to pay, there is no
way we can get around that and the costs will undoubtedly increase
as time passes.

-------
                                                               -101-
     I think we all have the burden  to  share and I think that more
hearings on these proposed papers would  contribute to a more accurate
portrayal of what is going on in California  and the rest of the country.

     Thank you very much.

     CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you.

     That exhausts the cards that  I  have  for the people that have
indicated they want to testify.  Have I  overlooked anyone who didn't
fill  out a card that wants to testify or is  anybody present in the
audience that would like to testify at this  time?

     MR. 6ADD:  Mr. Chairman, I testified.   I  would like to ask one
question if I might.

     CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Go ahead.

     MR. GADD:  Once again my name is Peter  Gadd.   I  have a question
that shouldn't take a minute.

     In the Paper No. 1, Statement of Issue,  this paper deals with
the issue of whether PL 92-500 should  be amended  to reduce the Federal
share for construction grants from the current  level  fo 75. percent
to a level as low as 55 percent.

     75 percent of 350 billion is about 260  billion and the Office
of Management and Budget has objected  to this,  I  understand.

     55 percent of 350 billion equals approximately 190 billion.

     My question is this:  Does the  EPA have a firm commitment from
the Office of Management of the Budget that  they  will  agree to the 55
percent allocation of Federal funding  in the amount of $190 billion
for this program?

     CHAIRMAN AGEE:  No.

     MR. GADD:  Thank you, sir.  I just wanted to know.

     CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Let me say this;   OMB  is kind of taking tt on
the chin today and I have escaped a lot  of criticism by a lot of you
thinking a !>ot of the arrangements might have been passed on.  I can
take full credit for this hearing,  so I  can't pass this on to somebody
else.  But we are very appreciative of the testimony that you people
nave given us today and the patience  you people have exhibited here.

      I do have at least one more individual that would like to
testify and we will get it in just  a  moment.  We want your guidance
and counsel.  As I said earlier this  mroning, we do not have preconceived

-------
                                                              -102-
ideas on any of these issues.  They are still wide open in our agency
and what we can do administratively we will do administratively.

      If it appears there should be initiated legal action, we will
request the Administration to do so.

      We do have one additional individual that would like to testify.
Mr. Jerry Raker representing the Territory of Guam.

      MR. BAKER:  Thank you.  I have a very brief statement.  I am
Jerry Raker representing Guam Environmental Protection Agency.
                                            „-
      We oppose the reduction in Federal share construction grants
and restrictions in types of projects for grants.  On Guam our struc-
ture is weak and reduction in the grant assistance would have serious
impact on our ability to achieve island water quality goals.

      In addition, in the future some of our most serious water quality
problems will be to control indoor treatment of urban storm water.  Both
the uses of our marine waters and our drinking water supplies are
threatened by the excessive silt, heavy metals and other pollutants
found in our storm water.
                                "? ;
      Lastly, although it is not an agenda item, I want to reiterate
our position on the provision of secondary treatment in the Pacific
Island.

      We feel the Administrator of the EPA, Federal EPA, should be
given the discretion to waive on a-case by case basis secondary treat-
ment required, improvement, that the primary treated waste will not
adversely effect the deisgnated uses.  Thank you.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Thank you.  I would like to call at this time
Mr. Donald Tillman representing the City of Los Angeles.

      MR. TILLMAN:  Thank you.  I am sorry I am late.  I will try to
make it as fast as I can and sum it up for you.  I appreciate this
opportunity to represent the City of Los Angeles' viewpoint as ex-
pressed recently in a City Council  action.  I have turned the Council
Resolution in.  I would add to it that besides these five papers that
we hope that there will be other hearings on this to look at other
areas wherein we have concern.  There is no time to go into it, but I
think the Congressional staff report covers other subjects and it would
be well in the future to look at these.

      As to the.five items, the Council went over them and I will
just summarize it for you.

-------
                                                               -103-
     The reduction  of  the  grant  would be a serious blow to us in
Los  Angeles,  that  is  the  Federal  grant.   We must have that support in
order to do the job.

     Our program  to  meet the  requirements of the law is expected to
be $400 million and we  are  dependent  upon $200 million in grants to
the  City of Los Angeles.  So you  can  see any reduction, even 10
percent reduction, would mean  $34 million for us to find and this is
very difficult.

     You have probably heard  this  story previously today, of local
finances  , budget  balancing, extremely difficult on the home front.

     The second point  is that relative to the size of reserve
capacity as a means  of  control  growth.  This is a real problem and
we think that a cost-effective approach, that is reserve capacity
should  be allowed  where it  is  warranted.  I think you have to custom
design  for each geographic  area and what is needed I believe is a
20-year period being  desirable to look at and the matter of treatment
plants  for example,  it  should  be  designed on the area served by that
plant rather  than  region.           '   •

     The reason I am saying this is  that there is 454 square miles.
Within  those  city  boundaries,  you have movement of population, con-
dominium living, high-rise  intensity  along Wilshire Boulevard or
changes in the San Fernando Valley.  I think you have the whole system
rather  than the specific  area  to  be served by that plan.  If through
any future error we  try to  control  population, you may miss the point
of the  City's rearrangement of land use and those values are placed
on our  planning efforts of  the future.
                                                         '!(
     So just limiting  size is not  a  way to control population neces-
sarily.

     The third point is  that  we  think that all the types of projects
you now have  should  be  eligible for funds, that we think you have a
control by the priority order  of  the  Fund, that is put a cutoff point
and that is it.  So we  think that all these things are necessary.

      I don't think any agency wants  to be left out of it.

     Just by realizing the problem of spreading the funds but we think
priorities would be a way to do that, to get the most for what dollars
are available.
                     ( ,    ' ''? !"'  '•'
     Finally on the  1977 date, that  is the fourth item on which we
have a  comment, we think  that  the impoundment of the Federal funds
did produce a delay and I think that  all of us of this nation were
victimized by that as far as proper scheduling of funds, timing,
what you'd do, so  we  think  that the Regional Administrator fs the one
that would handle  this  on a case-by-case basis, that that line should
be extended where  he  finds  it  is  justified to do so.

-------
                                                               -104-
      As in the fifth point, delegating to the states a greater portion
of the management, we think to a large degree this has already been
done in California and in Los Angeles we certainly have.

      That, gentlemen, is the action of the Los Angeles City Council
and Board of Public Works and I would end by repeating that we appre-
ciate the opportunity always in this buisness for the hearing that you
are allowing.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Mr. Tillman, thank you very much.

      Would you like to testify?

      MR. KORETSKY:  I would like to ask a question, sir.

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Yes.  Would you come up and ask it,  please.   Give
us your name.

      MR. KORETSKY:  My name is Sanfprd Korets:ky, member of a con-
sulting engineering firm that is engated in Clean Water Act projects
and related projects and it is a procedural question.

      I have heard today with great interest very many stimulating
comments and very many different comments and there were also some
suggestions about perhaps holding either additional hearings or having
further inquiries on this very important subject.

      My question relates to what you intend to do with this massive
input and whether any of us out here will get some feedback so that
we can get a broader picture, perhaps more insight and perhaps some
new ideas as to which way the thing ought to go before a very critical
change is in fact made.                                 ;

      CHAIRMAN AGEE:  Yes.  That is a very good question.   It is a
good one for us to get to before we terminate this hearing here.

      We will take this data and information and we are obviously very
interested in getting your testimony on the five points or the five
items that we laid out.  Normally this kind of hearing is not con*
ducted by an agency such as EPA, but in this particular.case all of
these items are directly related to budgetary matters, budgets and
other features and the construction grant programs, so it is of vital
interest to the Administration.

      The EPA, OMB, both are very concerned about the levels of funding
and this is not a legislative action or hearing that we are undertaking,
but, as I said in my opening statement today, after reviewing the testi-
mony, getting your views, the views of other people around the country,
we may make the decision for the Administrator to go forward with a
recommended legislative change to the Congress.  If we do that, we will

-------
                                                              -105-
prepare the necessary environmental  impact statements that accompany
such.   However we  may make the decision we do not want to make the
recommendation to  the Congress on legislative changes.  The Congress
are in session now obviously.   The House Public Works Committee has
been looking at potential  legislative amendments.  Some of the matters
that we have been  talking  about here today have been under active
consideration.

      We will  also see a report,  the recommendations of the National
Water Quality Commission.   I believe the legislative date for them
to submit that report to the Congress is October of this calendar
year.

      The staff report apparently will  be done by tha time, whether
the Commission itself will  have a chance to give their stamp of
approval after their  review, we will  just have to wait and see.  But
the study of the Commission is fairly well  on schedule.   So Congress
is going to have an awful  lot  of  input  from the National  Water
Quality Control  Commission  from their own hearings,  from the recom-
mendations that the Administration may  give them for fundamental
changes or consideration of changes  in  the Water Pollution Control
Act.

      We particularly value this  kind of testimony and discussion of
our programs because  there  are a  lot of things we can still do from
an administrative  sense with the  agency and I think we can take this
where we see the general support  for an action or inaction by EPA and
we can handle it in an administrative way.   We want to give due con-
sideration to this, too.

      We did advertise this hearing  in  the Federal Register to go to
four o'clock.   It  is  about  3:15 now, but I think we will go ahead and
recess this hearing and essentially  it  will be over right now but we
will stay here until  four  o'clock in case anybody else wants to come
in.

      I would like to alert everybody to the fact that the hearing
record will officially be  open and we will take written comment any
time up until  July 7th, and I  would  encourage you, any of you that
would like to provide additional  testimony, if you don't today, to
submit those to us.

      The last hearing will be next  week, June 25 in Washington, D.C.

      So with that, I will  recess this  hearing and will officially
adjourn at 4:00 o'clock this afternoon.

      (Recess  taken.)

      CHAIRMAN A6EE:   It now being 4:00 o'clock and no other persons
having come forward,  this  hearing is now adjourned.
                            --oOo—

-------

-------
                    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARINGS ON  POSSIBLE
ADMINISTRATION PROPOSALS TO
AMEND THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL ACT,  AS AMENDED, RELATING
TO MUNICIPAL  WASTE  TREATMENT
GRANTS.
                                          June 25,  1975

                                          Civil  Service Commission
                                          Auditorium
                                          19th and  E Street,  N.  W.
                                          Washington, D.  C.
The above-described hearing was held,  pursuant to notice,  on
June 25, 1975 at 9:00 A.M.

          BEFORE:

                   JOHN R.  QUARLES,  Deputy Administrator,  EPA

                   JAMES L. AGEE,  Assistant Administrator  for Water
                                  and  Hazardous Materials

                   ALVIN L. ALM, Assistant Administrator for
                                Planning and Management

                   GERALD M.  HANSLER,  Regional  Administrator,
                                      EPA, New York

                   JOHN T.  RHETT,  Deputy Assistant Administrator for
                                  Water Program Operations

-------
                       TABLE OF CONTENTS

STATEMENT OF:                                            PAGE

Frederick Knox                                           10
George Tomko                                             1.4
East Hanover Township, New Jersey

Robert Davis                                             14
Virginia State Water Control Board

Richard Dougherty                                        20
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission

Sam Warrington                                           25
Water Pollution Control Federation

Peter Inzero                                             35
David Shevock                                            37
National Utility Contractors Association

Billy T. Sumner                                          39
Am. Consulting Engineers Council

Alfred Peloquin                                          41
New England  Interstate Water Pollution Control
Commission

J. G. Speth                                              51
Natural Resources Defense Council

Seymour A. Lubetkin                                      55
Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners
New Jersey

Bill Marks                                               67
Newardk, New Jersey

Clem Rastatter                                           70
Conservation Foudation

Warren Gregory                                           89
Tom Walker                                               90
National Solid Waste Management Association

Richard Rosen                                            94
Energy Resources Company, Inc.

-------
                                                                  2-A

STATEMENT OF;                                             PAGE

James A. Romano                                           99
National Society of Professional Engineers

Martin Lang                                               104
New York City Environmental Protection
Administration

Charles Samowitz                                          111
New York City Dept. of Water Resources

Neal Troy                                                 111
National Association of Makufacturers

Kenneth S. Watson                                         113
Kraftco Corporation

Bart Lynam and Lee White                                  116
Association of Metropolitan Sewer Agencies

Jay Lehr                                                  122
National Water Well Association

Eugene Seebold                                            130
Department of Environmental Conservation

Lynn Goldthwaite                                          137
Tourne Valley Coalition, New Jersey

Morris A. Wiley                                           142
American Petroleum Institute

James A. Huffcut                                          147
New York State Water Pollution Control Agency

Wesley Gilbertson                                         150
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources

Peter Gadd,                                               154
Kings River Water Association

William H. Markus                                         157
McCandless Township (Pa.) Sanitary Authority

Larry Snowhite                                            161
New Jersey Governor's Office

-------
                       £. i 0 £ 11 i I N_ G S_

         CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  Good morning ladies and gentlemen.  I
appreciate your coming here today to present your views on possible
administration proposals  to amend the Federal  Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972.

         This is the fourth and  final  of a series of public hearings
that are  being held across  the  country in this month of June.  The
first was held in Atlanta,  Georgia  on the 9th; the second in Kansas
City, Missouri on June 17th; and  the third in San Francisco on June 19th.

         I would like to start off by taking a few minutes to put the
issue into some perspective.  The 1972 amendments as you know authorized
an $18  billion construction grant program, and the law provided that all
municipal waste treatment facilities should be equipped with secondary
treatment facilities, not later than 1977 together with any further
facilities required to achieve  compliance with the water quality
standards.

         They have provided for  the Federal funds to be granted to
municipalities at a rate  of 75  per  cent Federal funding.  That meant
that the  $18  billion would  support  $24 billion in total eligible costs.

         Now, many of you  were very much involved and interested at
the time  when those laws  were enacted, and will remember that at that
time, while there was a good deal of controversy over the total needs
to be met by  Federal funds, the general  ball park estimate was in the
range of  about $20 billion  or thereabouts.

         The general expectation was that the funds provided by the
1972 Act  would be sufficient to get the job done.  The role of EPA
is, of  course, the role of  being  in the middle, sometimes in the middle,
between the hopes and dreams of the public to get the job done, and the
hard realities of running the program.

         The purpose of  these  hearings is to focus upon some of the
hard questions which we feel, on  the basis of our experience in
attempting to operate this  program, must be faced and to put the
program onto  a sound basis  for  the  future.

         One of the hard questions relates to the future of funding
and where we  are headed in  terms  of providing for the continuation of
the grant program over the  long run.

         Subsequent to enactment of the initial statute a second need
survey  was conducted and  came in  with the figure of about $60 billion,
and then  after that another need  survey a year ago came in with a figure
of $350 billion.  These tremendous  increases in the estimated needs
arose principally from two  sources.   One was the expansion of the work
required  to meet the standards  in response to the 1972 Act requirements
for installing secondary  treatment  everywhere and tightening up on the

-------
water quality standards.
          The second feature of the expansion was, the expansion in
the eligible projects to be covered by eligible funds.

          So, as a consequence of those two features and the re-
calculation of estimated needs, we are now facing a situation where,
very clearly, the $18 billion is only going to start us down the road
towards finishing what we are looking at as the total job, and we
need to look well beyond that and develop a basis to fund the program
in the future.

          The magnitude of these total needs is well beyond the
capability of the Federal budget to fund with 75 percent Federal
grants in any reasonable time.  I think we all need to recognize that.

          We probably, also in that context, can and should recognize
that this program of building sewage treatment facilities and related
facilities, is and will be the largest public works program in the
country, and I will estimate it will be the largest public works program
in the country for the next decade or two.

          I want to emphasize that these hearings are going to relate
to changes that will be made in any future funding Congress will
make available after the $18 billion, which has already been allocated
among the states.  In other words, we are not talking about anything that
will interfere with or change the ground rules insofar as the first
$18 billion is concerned, but what we are doing is trying to look ahead
to consider what the future-should be after that.

          I might say a word on our understanding of the role of
EPA on this.  Obviously, the decisions will be made by Congress.  These
are not legislative hearings in the sense that Congress conducts
legislative hearings.  They are an effort on our part to bring together
the interested groups who specifically are concerned with this program
and talk out with you in a formal way and in a form that is open
to the general public, what these problems are so we can have a better
understanding of your views as we at EPA attempt to develop a position
that would be one of the recommendations to be submitted to Congress.

          These hearings were announced on May 2, 1975 in the Federal
Register, and the purpose of the hearings was described in more detail
in background papers which were published in the Federal Register on
May 28, 1975.

          These background papers are available at the registration desk
today, if anyone desires additional copies.

          The background papers are presented with the intent and will
assist in focusing dicussion at the hearing.  They do not cover all
possible alternatives, and they are not meant to confine discussion,
nor do they indicate any predetermined course of action selected by EPA.

   ,       The point of the papers is to provide discussions and guide
it in areas which we feel will focus on areas that should be explored.

-------
There are five specific issues that are identified in those hearings
and I am going to run through those, and outline each of them briefly.

          The first issue is, should the Federal share for funding
construction grants be reduced from the current level of 75 percent to
a level  that might be as low as 55 percent?

          The objectives of this type of a change would be twofold.
One would be to limit --  To provide the limited funding which is available
and could go to assisting needed projects further.

          If you have a lesser share, the second objective would be
to encourage greater accountability for cost effective design and
project management on the part of the grantee by virtue of assuring
a larger investment in the project by the grantee by the municipality.

          Some of the questions which might be addressed in this regard
as as follows:
   'w'..   ' ' *
    :      Would a reduced Federal share inhibit or delay the construc-
tion of needed facilities, or on the other hand, would the States have
the interest and capacity to assume, through some state grant or loan
program a larger share of the financial burden, in which case the program
would go ahead faster on the average?

          Thirdly, would communities have difficulty, or would they
have the capability to raise additional funds in the capital markets
for a larger portion of the program?

          Would the reduced Federal share lead to greater accountability
on the part of the grantee for cost effective design, project management
and post construction operation and maintenance?

          And, of course, ultimately, what impact would a reduced
Federal share have on water quality and on meeting the goals of PL 92-500?

          The second issue, closely related to the first, is should the
Federal Government limit the amount of reserve capacity of facilities
that would be eligible for construction grant assistance?

          There are two possible objectives to be achieved by limiting
eligibility for reserve capacity.  The first is to permit limited
Federal funds to go further in funding the backlog of projects for
treating existing flows, and the second is to induce more careful sizing
and design of capacity so that excessive growth-related reserve capacity
is not financed with Federal funds."

          Some questions which may be addressed that relate to this are
as follows:

          First, does current practice lead to overdesign of treatment
works?

-------
          Secondly, what could be done to eliminate problems with the
current program, assuming there are such problems, to some sort of
administrative change or legislative change?

          Three, what are the merits and demerits of prohibiting
eligibility of growth-related reserve capacity, or what are the merits
and demerits of limiting eligibility for growth-related reserve capacity
and are there any other alternatives?

          The third issue is, should the types of projects eligible for
constructions grants be restricted?

          The principal purpose that might be achieved by limiting
eligibility would, again, be to reduce the Federal burden in financing
the construction grants program.

          The secondary purpose is to limit Federal participation to those
kinds of projects that are most essential to meet the water quality
goals of PL 92-500, and to require that some projects be fully financed
by local and State authorities, where such projects are clearly within
their responsibility and capabilities.

          Some questions which may be addressed on this one are, what
impact do different eligibility structures have on the determination of
need for a particular facility?

          Is there adequate local incentive to undertake needed invest-
ment in certain types of facilities, even in the absence of Federal
financial assistance?

          And, is there adequate local capability to undertake invest-
ment in different types of facilities?

          Now, a possibility along this line might be to develop
different Federal shares for different types of facilities.  One of the
suggestions that has been made would be to have a Federal share of
75 percent for treatment plants as we now have, but to have a Federal
share of 65 percent for interceptors, 55 percent for combined sewer
overflow and 45 percent for --  That is an idea, and those particular
figures might be altered, but the notion would be to suggest consideration
of some gradations among the Federal share related to a sense of what
has the highest priority to meet the water quality goals.              ,

          Now, all three of those issues, of course, very explicitly
are aimed at the question of the balance of funding provided for projects
to be carried by the Federal Government, as distinguished from the State
or the local government.

          The desirability of suggesting any change in the 75 percent Federal
share would be resting upon the sense that the program could go faster
if the states and municipalities would pick up a larger share, or
the program could be more effective, more cost-effective.

-------
          So,  general  judgements on that basic issue, obviously, would
underline the  specific questions raised.

          Now, we turn to a rather different type of issue.  The fourth
issue which is, should the date be extended by which publicly owned
treatment works are required to achieve compliance with Section 301 of
the Law?  Specifically, the 1977 deadline for completing secondary
treatment facilities and coming in compliance with the water quality
standards.
               i
          Our  estimates are 50 percent or 9,000 communities serving
roughly 60 percent of the 1977 population will not be able to comply
with the requirement that municipalities have secondary treatment of
their wastewaters-by-1977.

          I think we have all known that this dealine was not going
to be met.  As we come closer to the deadline there is increasing clarity,
not a prediction, a fact, that deadline will not be met by a substantial
part of the communities subject to it.
                                        *
          The  amount of construction grant funds authorized thus far,
$18 billion, is not sufficient to cover the 1977 needs that are estimated
by the 1974 need survey for secondary or higher required treatment.
Moreover, the  communities that are funded with Federal grants in 1977
will not all be able to complete construction by 1977.

          The  issue is faced as to how to address the question of non-
compliance with the law in 1977.  We can argue whose fault it is, EPA
obviously is going to take some share of the blame because we are in the
middle of this.  There is probably enough blame to go around in other
quarters, and  there may be some benefit in arguing whose fault it is,
but above and  beyond that is the clear necessity to deal with this
problem and begin to face up to what provision in the law will put the
program on a sound footing for the future.

          The  obvious solution is either to extend the deadline on a
case by case basis, or make some overall extension.

          The  questions here are?

          Should it be amended to allow case by case extensions or by
an overall extension?

          A related question obviously is, is it fair to require industry
to meet the 1977 deadline while extending^ it for municipalities?

          I think we must continue with that legal requirement, but it
is a question  that needs to be addressed.

          Another question is, should an outside limit be provided to
the administrator for granting extensions?

          For  example, five years, or should the possible compliance
deadlines be open-ended?

-------
                                                                     8

          Will EPA lose credibility supporting an across-the-board
extension for        compliance, especially in cases where it is
unnecessary?

          Now, the fifth and last issue is, should a greater portion of
the management of the construction grants program be delegated to the
States?

          A Bill, H. R. 2175, the Cleveland-Wright Bill, has been
introduced in Congress, which would permit the Administrator to delegate
to the States the broad range of grant processing functions, including
those that go beyond the review and approval  documents.

          States would certify that the requirements for grants had
been fulfilled.  Included also is a provision to compensate the States
directly out of State allotments for administrative costs which they
would incur up to a maximum of two percent of a state's yearly allotment.

          Under H. R. 2175, EPA activities would be largely confined to
an overall policy making and to auditing and monitoring the grant
activities performed by the States.  At least, as each state's program
might be approved, and the delegation carried out.

          However, EPA would remain responsible for any environmental
impact statements necessary on indivisual projects.

          Some questions related to this:

          Exactly what functions in the review of and approval of construc-
tion grant applications should be delegated?  Should all parts of the
construction grants process be delegated?

          In addition to ordinary staffing problems, what difficulties
may be encountered in State staffing when a Federal financial committment
is involved?

          Will the funding level suggested in the proposed bill be
adequate?

          In actual practice, will greater delegation of program
responsibility to the States make the program more efficient without
compromising environmental concerns?

          How much time would be required for individual States to
assume additional responsibilities?

          Are there alternative funding schemes, either Federal or
non-Federal?

          I think, as you know, that completes the question of the five
issues.  I appreciate your patience in remaining with me in running
through these.

-------
      ;n   We have felt,it is useful  to take a few minutes at the outset
and be sure we are all  sort of working off the same agenda.

          On the first  four of these issues, the three relating to the
Federal  funding and the fourth relating to the deadline, the Administra-
tion is contemplating.proposing amendments to Congress.  Not in the
immediate future, but some point in  the relatively near future.
               :•*
          On the fifth  issue, the EPA has endorsed the principles of
H. R. 2175 and these hearings are going to provide more information and
understanding on all of these issues.

          Let me cover  a couple of administrative matters.  We have a
large list of people who have asked  to testify, and obviously everybody
would prefer to go first, or at least very early in the program.  We
simply cannot accommodate that natural human desire.

          What we have  attempted to  do is work out a list of witnesses
that in a couple of cases accommodates particular personal needs, but
it primarily developed  in order to give a balance of witnesses from  -
different types of concerns in order.

         Jhe people who have registered, in a sense fall into four
groups, as follows:

          Unaffiliated  private citizens; secondly, representatives of
public agencies; thirdly, representatives of special interest groups
and associations; and fourth, representatives of business, industrial
and commercial firms.  And, we will  call on speakers from these groups
essentially in rotation,

          In order to get through this, we will ask each person to limit
your presentation to ten minutes. We will then expect to take a few
minutes after that for  questions, but attempt to move through the group
of you in an order that will move along to provide opportunity for the
maximum number to speak.

          I would ask each of you cming forward, if you have a prepared
statement, please to submit a copy of it to the court reporter seated
below me to the left, so that she can have it for her benefit as you are
making your presentation, and in many instances you may simply prefer
to submit that for the  record and make extemporaneous remarks.

          I would like  to introduce  the panel.  I am John Quarles, the
Deputy Administrator.  On my left is Alvin Aim, the Assistant Adminis-
trator for Planning and Management.   On his left is Gerald Hansler, the
Regional  Administrator  from our Region II Office in New York.  On
my right is James Agee, the Assistant Administrator for Water and
Hazardous,Materials and next to him  is Jack Rhett, the Deputy Assistant
Administrator responsible for the Construction Grant Program.

          I think you probably know  all of these people, and Jim-and
Jack have been, between them, at the previous hearings.

-------
                                                                     10

          Now, are there any questions in regard to procedures before
we begin?

          (No response)

          CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  If not, I will ask the first speaker to
come forward.  He is Mayor Frederick Knox and George Tomko.  You are making
a joint presentation?  You are representing East Hanover Township, New
Jersey.

          After you, I will ask Robert Davis to come next and then
Richard Dougherty and then Sam Warrington.

          MAYOR KNOX:  Gentlemen, thank you for this opportunity.  We
brought down the whole committee because we feel we have many problems in
New Jersey, especially in East Hanover, and I feel  we have a selfish mo-
tive here.

          Just to give you background, in East Hanover, we are in a
unique position.  We wanted our own sewer plant, but due to the DEP of
New Jersey, it was decided they would go to a regional system.

          It was decided a few years ago that New Jersey go into a
regional setup and at that time in New Jersey or East Hanover we applied
for sewage.

          We were told the only way we could go would be to the Hanover
Sewage Authority.  The reason for this is that we had come under the
emergency sewage program, which meant that New Jersey or the State
wanted us to move immediately into Hanover Sewage Authority.

          From that time on, we have had nothing but roadblocks with
the Water Policy, EPA and the rest.

          Therefore, we are not, in ourselves, building a sewage
plant.  We are going into a regional system which means, in effect, the
money that will be picked up for that will be spent by the Hanover
Sewage Authority for our convenience.  What we would be doing is
picking up the money for the interceptors and the collectors.

          This, I think, brings it up to date as to what our problem
is.  I think it is unique in nature.

          Just going on to your statements of before, on paper number
one, I ask the question, is it fair for the Federal Government to change
its percentage grant after municipalities have proceeded with the project
planning?

          What has happened to us is this.  We have felt all along
that we are going to get 75 percent from the Government and 15 percent
from New Jersey.  We proceeded immediately with our engineering.  We
set our towns up into three different areas, phase one, two and three.

-------
                                                                    11

          We have completed phase one of our program to a tune of
about $250,000 as far as engineering is concerned.  We do not have any
pipe in  the ground and we do not have a service agreement with
Hanover  Township.

          The problem that we will have if the grant is reduced from
75 percent to 50 percent, is rather than pick $1 and a half million, we
will probably have to pick up $6 million.

          Under our $6 million bonding program, I think it would be
catastrophic to our township.  We moved on this basis.  We don't say
that we  don't want anything for nothing, but we say, in effect, if this
is the way the Government is going with the program we feel they should
live up   to this.

          If there are to be changes as you mentioned, the $18 billion,
at this  time I don't know how much of that money has been expended,
how much is left.  We were 54 on the list.  We are now 66.  Hanover
Sewage Authority is waiting for the EPA to certify that the grant move
forward.  As yet, that has not come about.

          We are in the middle, no matter what we do.

          At this point in time, our people need sewers and now it
looks as if we may have to spend double the money we would not have had
to spend before.
                                                 •<
          The next question, would the grant change make projects
unfeasible?

          It would appear the Federal Government has these grant ideas
for projects, but does not have the money to finance them.  If it
does, they go ahead and change the program on the basis you need cleaner
water or you need an upgrading of the plan.

          Therefore, if money is expended now for that type of program
and six  months from now, another program comes along and we go from
secondary to tertiary, it costs all these different sewage outfits,
cities or towns, more money.

          I can see where your $18 billion would be unfeasible if it were
to be limited in the program to $18 billion for secondary treatment
plants as such.  No problem.  But, the minute it begins to move out of
that context, something should be done to see that this can be financed,
whether  it be 20 percent or 30 percent, whatever.  But, it should be
done this way rather than have these municipalities hung up.

          Under three, which is still paper one, what impact would
reduced  Federal shares have on meeting quality standards?

          The Federal Government has stated the only way to meet the
intent of the law is to reduce the size of the grant.

-------
          It would appear this would not be a help in meeting the
standards, but to myself and to the township, it would be a hinde
                                                                  12
                                                            hinderance.

          As I mentioned before, the cost and everything else involved,
since we do not have our own treatment plant on paper two, it is
difficult for me or the township committee to find any fault with the
possible exception that 30 years for a sewer line, the art of science
has not designed — where sewer plants change from day to day.

          It is entirely conceivable within a ten year period there
would be a new process, not even thought of today, which would be more
efficient and economical.

          Therefore, if the grants are to be limited, I would feel on
a ten year program, since we are getting new upgradings every day and
every year in sewage, we would then have more money later that you
could expend for these programs.

          On paper number three, it would appear that the concept
of better water quality can best be achieved if the question were
left to be answered by the State on an individual project basis.

          One type of concept may be needed in one municipality and
another type in another.

          The condition I mentioned before, we are in a regional system.
Our needs are entirely different from a municipality going into a
complete sewage program.

          There are differences here, and these are the differences
that I think should somehow be rectified.

          Paper number four.  I only have ten minutes?

          CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  I would appreciate it.

          MAYOR KNOX:  The deadline date should be based on the Federal
funding available.  If the fundings are such that the 1977 date is
sensible, sobeit.

          If the funding matches a 1983 deadline date, then this should
be it also.

          I still reiterate the fact, we should have it case by case
and not as an overall Federal Program for all the municipalities in the
country.

          Number five, which is my pet peeve, because we have had so
many problems in New Jersey.  To give you background on that, we had
loan grants in New Jersey.  We were told we were going to have $525,000
for funding for engineering.  Fifteen percent was the money that was
going to be available for us.  We just got word a week ago, no more
money was left, so that is it, fellers, you have phase one finished.

-------
                                                                  13

You are going to have to leave the stuff in the ground for a year or
two.

          Now, number five, does it undoubtedly make sense to remove
duplication, which I would agree with, by the Stated and Federal
agencies.  However, in the case of New Jersey, it would appear that this
State is grossly inefficient and incapable of funding this type of
program.

          I think if the Federal Government itself were to take this
on and do the job and carry the accounting that is necessary for it,
there would be no problem, because right now in New Jersey we are.in
a chaotic condition-as far as financing and everything else is
concerned.

          For that I would like to thank you very much.

          CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  Why don't we, just as a matter of course,
ask the speakers to stay for a moment as they finish their comments, to
see if there are questions?

          I would like to say, I thank you for setting the pattern of
being concise and completing your remarks in a brief period of time,
even though I know it is difficult and I know there is more you can
say on it.

          Are there any comments or questions?

          MR. AGEE:  Yes, I would like to ask one question.  Before I
do, I would like to share with everybody that at the end of this fiscal
year, the $18 billion, we will have roughly $12 billion that has not been
obligated.  We expect by the end of this fiscal year.

          Mr. Knox, the eligible features in the grant program, what
would your views be to reducing funds eligibility?  Do you feel the
cities with municipalities would have the desire and financial capability
to fund these and remove them from eligibility?

          MAYOR KNOX:  I would say this.  I could answer it both ways.
If we felt we wanted to be on the Federal programs for handouts, great.

          In the present program, as we understood it, was the fact
that we were going to have the plant and the interceptors, not the
collectors.  The township felt in this area we could handle the funding
for collections.  We totally intend to do this.

          And, then, I understand you are considering going to collectors
also, as another option.

          As far as East Hanover is concerned, we expect to do this
ourselves.

          CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  Thank you very much.

-------
                                                                  14

          George Tomko.

          MR. TOMKO:  I will be very concise.  I want to address myself
to paper number one and the questions that are posed here in the paper.

          Just to make some comments about it.

          Would a reduced Federal share reduce related construction
of needed facilities?

          If I were to take and use the anology of the statement
of New Jersey with their cut-backs at this particular time, there is
considerable delay and considerable inhibition with regards to construc-
tion.  We are quite held up.

          The State of New Jersey would have to reiterate or reset
their schedules or plan, and this will probably take another year.
Besides, I do have a problem in considering the reduced portion from
75 to 65 percent, because to me in my calculations, if it only gives
the accommodation of possibly another three percent of the total,
dramatic large amount of $42 billion that we are looking at, would
the States have the interest and capacity to assume those State grant
programs, a larger portion of the burden of the program.
                                                                  *
          The State of New Jersey is drastically cut back, both in loan
and grant programs, and to get those back on stream again, would
probably take another two years and that would be caused by an
additional bond issue required.

          Would communities have difficulty in raising additional funds
and capital markets?  Necessarily so, where costs are considerations
and the economy the way it is today, and also with the statuatory
requirements we have.

          Now, the last one, I am going to refer myself to is number
four and it irritates me, and it irritates me to think that,a design
based on Federal funding or based on municipal funding, or based on
State funding would not be cost effective.

        *  I think it is unfair for professional people to assume that
would be a consideration and that would be less effective.

          Thank you very much.

          CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  Thank you.

          Robert Davis, please.

          MR. DAVIS:  Mr. Chairman, members of the panel, ladies and
gentlemen, my name is Bob Davis, Assistant Executive Secretary —

          CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  May I interrupt and ask if the microphone"1
is working?

-------
                                                                  15

          MR.  DAVIS:  I have submitted a detailed statement and I would
like to take a few minutes to summarize Virginia's position on each
of these proposed amendments.

          In regards to paper number one, reduction of the Federal share,
the Virginia State Water Control Board does not support the proposed
amendment for the reduction of the Federal share of 75 percent to
55 percent.

          We believe that with such a reduction, it would delay
construction and bog down the program.  In Virginia in 1974, some $57
million worth of sewage works was completed.  Currently we have $293
million worth of sewer work under construction, and we estimate in the
next ten to 12 months, some $250 million worth of sewer work will be
placed under construction.

          We also see as our need for 1977 to complete steps one, two
and three in the pipeline, some $4 million worth of construction will
have to be initiated.

          Translating that into Federal grants, some $300 million.  It
has taken us about three years to build up this momentum, and it is our
feeling that if the Federal grant is reduced to 55 percent, we will
bog down for another three years.

          The Virginia State Water Control Board is convinced that a
long-term solution rests with an adoption of a sound financial
management program by sewer utilities.  Waste utilities are public works,
the same utilities as electric, water and telephone.  The service charge
reflects the true costs of provided services.  Such an approach, which
would ultimately lead to the termination of the construction grant
program and place the ultimate responsibility for adequate treatment
in the hands of the local community.

          The Board believes, EPA and Congress should make detailed
investigation of all measures which could be taken to assure adoption
of sound financial management practices by municipal sewage operations.

          Item number two, paper number two, passed practices by the
Board in the administration of the construction grant program has not
resulted in reserve capacity of Virginia's municipal sewage treatment
plant.

          In the paper there is a graph which shows the combined total
flow of the 37 largest plants in Virginia which constitutes 80 percent
of all sewer flow discharge in the State.  Applied against the total
flow approved by the Board by EPA permits.  This shows there will be
an average 15 percent reserve capacity in these plants, but during
peak flows, this reserve capacity reduces to only a few percent.

          We believe that the careful scrutinization and evaluation of
each construction grant to assure needs to be filled should be correctly
identified, and that the treatment plant will meet the needs.

-------
                                                                  16

          The Virginia Water Control Board has concluded this provides
the technical flexibility needed to determine the amount of reserve capa-
city to be considered eligible for construction purposes.

          Paper number three, restricting the type of projects eligible
for grant assistance.  The Virginia State Water Control Boards' program
clearly demonstrates the ability of the States to judicially and
beneficially exercise the administrative flexibility provided by the
existing board eligibility structure.

          The Virginia State Water Control Board's discriminating
approach to the approval of construction grants for publically owned
works is illustrated in a table within the paper that was submitted.
This paper shows that over $469 million that was awarded in three
grants from 1973, FY'73 to '76, that 85 percent of this amount of
$400 million was awarded for the construction of secondary sewage treat-
ment plants or tertiary plants.  A number, 13 percent, was awarded
for new interceptors which takes us up to 98 percent of the amount awarded
before construction of projects, step three grants.

          Of the remaining two to three percent, one percent was awarded
for combined sewer overflow problems and less than one percent for
collection sewage, and less than one percent for infiltration inflow.

          The State Board has limited the participation to financial
hardship cases and solving of health hazards.

          Another area that we consider, is imparted for consideration,
is the combined sewers.

          We have 13 municipalities in Virginia which have sewer over-
flow problems, and in the future money will have to be allocated to solve
these problems if the water quality standards are to be met consistently.

          However, we do not believe in except one or two cases that
this should be done.

          It is the State Water Control Boards' position to oppose any
amendment that will eliminate the eligibility of any project with
exception of small water treatment or control.  The Water Control Board
believes it should have the option for recommending grant funds for
meeting quality standards.

          Paper number four, the Virginia Water Control Board asserts
it will  be impossible for each publicly owned sewer stream or plant
within the Commonwealth to be put in compliance with Section 301-B-l
of the Act by 1977.  Accordingly, action is required.

          The Water Control Board has filed with the approval of the
Government, a suit against EPA in the U. S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, which seeks injunctive relief.  The Board
seeks judicial declaration that each publicly owned sewage treatment
plant that cannot be put into compliance with the July 1, 1977

-------
                                                                  17

deadline under Section B-l of the Act, shall be required to comply
with the applicable limitations under the Act — shall not be required
to comply with applicable limitations of the Act, until such time as
Federal Grant Funds are available in an amount sufficient to under-
write 75 percent of the eligible amount of construction and a
reasonable time has been allowed to meet the necessary construction.

          The Water Control Board further has asked for a Court Order
enjoining.

          None of the five alternatives contained in EPA's issue paper
is adequate to remedy this crisis situation.  Some safety valve must
be provided.

          The Virginia State Water Control Board supports and urges
your favorable consideration of its suggested amendment to Section 301
of the Act, which is attached as a statement in Appendix A.

          This amendment is consistent with the intent of Congress to
provide grant funds to every project that must comply with the Act, and
in offering this amendment the Board in no way waives any part of its
claim referred to the above.

          Paper number five, the Water Control Board wholeheartedly
supports the concepts of the Cleveland-Wright Bill to administer as
smooth transition of the process and responsibilities as possible.

          The Water Control Board feels that a phasing process should
be employed to insure the State will adequately assume each responsibi-
lity assigned to it.  Each state should be evaluated with respect to
its capabilities for adequately assuming the responsibility.

          Thank you.

          CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  Thank you very much.  Any questions?

          All right, Mr. Davis.  Did Virginia have —  They had a
25-55 percent match?

          MR. DAVIS:  When the law was changed, the General Assembly
authorized a ten percent state match which was reduced to five percent
state match in the current Body for FY -  '75 and FY -  '76.

          In addition, in FY - '75, they appropriated $1 million and one
half to supplement the across-the-board five percent state grant,
and the 75 percent Federal grant which would give to the less affluent
communities, a maximum grant of another 15 percent so that the smaller
communities which would largely qualify under the criteria, could
receive a combination of Federal and State grants up to 95 percent.
                                               &
          MR. ALM:  Is it likely Virginia could support a full 25
percent grant level across-the-board?

-------
                                                                  18

          MR. DAVIS:  In my opinion at the present time, no.  The five
percent Federal grant, the five percent State grant, right now is in
limbo.  The last General Assembly amended the appropriation for FY -
'76 and made a conditional appropriation subject to the approval of the
Governor, should the funds be available.

          So, with a tight budget, I do not believe so.

          MR. ALM:  One last question.  Do you have any comment to the
proposals for a sliding scale of Federal support for various types of
eligibility for 75 percent treatment plants to 35 percent for storm
water?

          MR. DAVIS:  This is the first time that I have heard that
concept advanced.  I do not think it is a bad concept.  The position
we took was that we have been using all the eligibility for collection
sewers and others only where we had to fund a project and in that
situation.

          The concept that was advanced would still give us that option.

          MR. ALM:  I think it is important --

          CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  I think in regard to that, following up to
a comment by the speaker, in view of the fact that we are now at a point
of having obligated only about one-third of the $18 billion, and ob-
viously obligation is only the beginning step, so that the $12 billion
that remains is all in the future, and what we are talking about might
be an amendment to the law that would follow after that. ,

          The question here really is one of relating to what is the basis
on which the program can run most effectively.  Let's say for a decade
or so into the future after this has been completed, and presumably
therefore, the projects that are currently developed and have the
municipal support and have been through planning and so forth, we are
not talking about those.  For the most part they would be covered in
the first $18 billion.

          The need is to try to recognize this is the program that
has been running for 20 years, and this program is going to run for 20
years, and can we get it on to a basis that is the most effective,
intelligent basis for the long haul.

          I think it is in that sense that that particular proposal  was
advanced, or others, for consideration.

          MR. DAVIS:  I can only speak for Virginia.  We have been
trying to halt our applications to municipalities.  We have been meeting
monthly with the Regional Office.  We have been having meetings with
owners and consultants and we will end up the FY - '75 fiscal year with
only about $35 million obligated.

          This amount of money remaining will, FY - '75, we feel will

-------
                                                                  19
be obligated in the first couple of months of the fiscal year, so
I think we will get rid of our money very quickly.
          CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  However, that still leaves your share of
the FY - '76, which is $9 billion out of the $18 billion.

          MR. DAVIS:  The FY - '76 allocation, our recommendation for
grants were for FY - '  74 and '75 projects that were already in the
pipeline, so we think they will be obligated pretty quickly.

          MR. RHETT:  I was really quite interested in your phase-in
statement on the Cleveland-Wright Bill and I am curious, how long do
you think it would take for Virginia to take over the total program arid
how do you visualize this phasing?

          Is it a staffing problem, what?

          MR. DAVIS:  Staffing, training as well as pinning down the
procedures that ought to be used.  We would like the delegation.  We
don't want to bite off more than we can chew.  We are short right now
in our Grant Section and we think it is going to be a staffing problem,
but we do not believe that there will be too much trouble in attracting
the people in order to do the job.  Not engineers, but other technically
trained people.

          But, I would say, probably I think the job could be done
within six to eight months.

          CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  Mr. Hansler, let me suggest you speak into
the mike.  I know it is not very well placed.

          MR. HANSLER:  Two questions.  The first relates to the fairness
in handling the Title II of 92-500, if a city uses half of its total
revenues in operating a sewer system they run for the city government's
fire, police, so forth, do you think it is fair for the Federal taxpayer
to pay 75 percent of replacing collection systems, handling the combined
sewer problem, handling the storm water problem?

          MR. DAVIS:  In my opinion, it is not fair and I think part of
my statement was that this is one of the things that you face now because
the operation of sewage facilities is not on a utility basis, and this
is the type of thing that is going to have to be stopped and put on a
paying basis.

          That is why our Board feels strongly about this.  Some
mechanism or scheme could be developed in order to get these things on
a paying basis, to stop using these general funds.

          MR. HANSLER:  The second question.  In Virginia, did the
legislature authorize bonds for municipalities to fund their share of
sewage for the projects?

          MR. DAVIS:  That has not been done in Virginia.

-------
                                                                  20

          MR. HANSLER:  Thank you.

          CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  Thank you, Mr. Davis.

          Mr. Dougherty.

          MR. DOUGHERTY:  I am Richard Dougherty, the Chief Administrator
for the Metropolitan Waste Control Commission of the Twin Cities,
Minnesota.

          We wish to summarize our experience under the implementation
of Public Law 92-500 and to leave with you certain recommendations.

          The Commission's first experience statement which we wish to
insert into the record, is a summary of the statement made to the
Subcommittee on Investigations and Review of the Public Works Committee,
U. S. House of Representatives on April 2, 1974.

          I don't intend to read my entire statement or that reference
statement.

          The Commission feels compelled to speak out in support of
PL 92-500 as is and against any major change.  PL 92-500 for us has been
a catalyst between our Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the
Metropolitan Waste Control Commission and the people of the metropolitan
community.

          Simply, what has been done by the Commission, we feel can
reasonably be done by every local government.  Change this catalyst
of PL 92-500, and the whole reaction may stop.

          For more than four score years under State control and
implementation of sewage treatment and water quality standards, the
nation failed to achieve uniform and effective abatement of pollution.
PL 92-500 has provided for, if nothing else, uniformity of standards and
requirements that really have put a stop to the whipsawing of one region
to another, one community to another and preferential location of
industries.

          Change PL 92-500 to permit grants and review of specifica-
tions and environmental assessments would certainly be one of our
recommendations.

          Now, that the EPA, the States, the agencies and local
governments and consultants have been educated in the process of develo-
ping guidelines and regulations through the grant process, any further
changes will substantially delay and reduce the effectiveness of the
program.

          When I sit here and listen that less than two-thirds of the
money that has been already allocated, you better not tamper with what
is going on, because you are only going to cause more delay and more
confusion.

-------
                                                                  21

          With respect to issue number one, reduction of the Federal
share, the Commission recommends that the 75 percent Federal share be
maintained.  One needs only to refer to Section 206, subsections A
through E, and PL 92-500, which provides for reimbursement to project
grants as far back as 1956, to see what could eventually happen if
the present contribution of the Federal Government is reduced.

          Should we now reduce reimbursement for all projects back to
1956?  Or should EPA make reductions on projects which have been funded
at the 75 percent level?  Of course not,  You should not.

          The critical element in the program, frankly, is continuity
for a long-term committment from the Congress and EPA for a grant program,'
beyond the present funds available for the fiscal years of '73 and '75.

          Any change in the Federal share will cause this proportionate
relationship between local governments and industries with respect
to the industrial payback.  It would be the Commission's judgement
that any change in the Federal share will require adjustment to the
industrial payback for all grants issued for  '73 through '75,  or in
the alternative, the total elimination of industrial payback.

          Frankly, we would rather see total elimination of payback.
It is the Commission's judgement that the decision to finance the water
finance policy plan was made in August in 1972 with the passage of the
Act, and no changes should be now made in midstream.  The maintenance
of the present levels of financing will continue to provide a res-
traint on unemployment and recession.

          This is something we all are forgetting about.  We are being
told the recession is over, but I don't think many people have seen
it yet.  The present level of financing under PL 92-500 has not been
inflationary since 1972, and it won't be inflationary in the future.

          What the country needs is full employment and PL 92-500 is
one of the better alternatives to the acceleration of public works,
and unemployment assistance.

          In addition, the Commission recommends reinstitution of the
Federal requirement for State matching grant funds at the 15 percent
level.  We believe this will strengthen the confidence of local
governments to timely proceed with the needed improvements in
cooperation with the State governments and Federal government.

          With respect to issue two, most of the abuses that have been
pointed out in your study papers about the over-design of facilities,
these were projects that were undertaken prior to the PL 92-500 due
to the earlier limitation date.

          If agencies and the States comply with the requirements of
Section 201, Facilities Planning and Section 208, Area-Wide Planning and
Cost-Effective Guidelines, these abuses will not be repeated.  .

-------
                                                                  22

          The real danger in limiting Federal financing to existing
population is that unless the grant program covers adequately designed
facilities, we will never meet the water quality goals, and then only
at higher cost.  Without proper design for future growth, we will never
have facilities so that we can adequately operate for extended periods
of time.

          Our own experience in this, we have been building one of our
plants for the last 15 years, and we never catch up.  Never catch up.

          If you don't think this causes disruption in the operation of
a plant, you are mistaken, or you do not know what it is all  about.
                                        c

          Now, the justification for maintaining not less than present
design standards, for example, are as follows:

          A:  How many treatment plants designed for secondary treatment
are meeting or capable of meeting today's NPDES secondary treatment
standards every day?  Few, if any.  And, I would like anyone to go look
at the record when I say "every day".

          Bear in mind that State and Federal standards and/or permits
must be reviewed every five years.  The Commission's experience has been
that State and Federal requirements have become more stringent with
each revision of standards.  As a matter of fact, if we had any complaint,
it would be that before we complete an improvement or expansion, the
standards are revised requiring additional treatment capacity.  Where
then lies the over-design conclusion?

          With respect to pipeline capacity, the over-design concept,
frankly, is a planner's or auditor's pipedream, when the real  economic
facts of life are considered.

          As an example, in a recent consideration placed before the
Commission, the difference in cost between a 15 year design flow versus
an ultimate population design, approximately 45 years, the cost differen-
tial was found to be an increase of seven percent.  The inflationary
cost increase, based on past records of at least eight to ten  percent
per year, takes no wisdom or mentality to analyze the advantage of a
larger pipe.  They are trying to fill two pipes in a:ten year  period,
the second at an inflated cost of almost 100 percent.

          C:  Is a plant overdesigned if it must meet the design
standard on the average of 15 days out of 30, or the effluent  may exceed
a higher value, not more frequently than seven days.

          These are the basis of the NPDES permits.  On this basis, if
we are going to have these kinds of standards, how do you have over-de-
sign and how do you expect to achieve no pollution discharges  or non-
degredation of streams.  The abuse of over-design, we believe, is
exaggerated.  But, it is more theory than fact.

          We feel that with 25 percent participation by local  governments

-------
                                                                  23

and States, would be a restraint upon the over-design itself.

          With respect to the next issue, I heard the bell.  I want to
know if I have the liberty to proceed a little bit more?

          CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  Yes,  I don't want to cut you off.  If you
can be as brief as possible?

          MR. DOUGHERTY:  I will try to do that.

          To clarify another issue, the following conclusions and
recommendations with respect to restricting the types of grants which
are made, the most effective use of EPA funds between 1975 and 1983 would
be to achieve secondary treatment.

          There never has been established the value or the capability
of trading most cost effectively, or otherwise, non-point discharges.
The $35 billion identified in the need survey represents the Federal
level of financing of approximately $5 billion per year,tor the present
level of funding.

          During the ensueing period of 1975 to 1983, EPA should
undertake in our judgement, at least two demonstration projects in
each of the ten regions to determine the real effect of non-point source
treatment.  The rehabilitation of collection system and advanced waste-
water treatment upon river water quality, aquatic life, and nutrient
degredation of navigable streams.

          It should undertake mass development of stream data
management to support the demonstration projects recommended.  Further,
this data should be used to implement the load allocation system for
water quality limited rivers and to set forth a system of priorities,
if justified, for the collection and treatment of non-point sources
rehabilitation collection system and wastewater treatment.

          This program, in the Commission's opinion, is mandatory
and it is a methodical and a logical approach as a prerequisite to the
expenditure of the $235 billion for the treatment of all non-point source
categories.

          Item four, Extending the 1977 date, the Commission on several
occasions made a recommendation to maintain, not the 1977 schedule, but
to go to the 1983 schedule for secondary treatment.

          With regard to item five, and this seems to be everybody's
pet peeve, I guess, I thought we ought to clarify the issues a little
bit first.

          What are those issues?  First of all, it is the lack of
progress in the construction grant program.  That is the basic problem.

          Consulting engineers and local government complain about
extended delays required to go from Step I, II and III, and thirdly,

-------
                                                                  24

the need for dealing with both state and Federal  agencies causing
redundant activity, duplication of expense and excessive time losses.

          The Commission has given considerable thought to this problem
despite the fact that this is not one of our problems.

          As a result, the Commission has a recommendation and a
plan of action for you.  I think we can speak a little  bit more freely
because we don't have this problem.

          What we are suggesting is that you make effective use of the
NPDES Permit system in the 201 planning process.   And,  this may only
require some very minor changes to the Act.

          The conditions of the plan are essentially these, and these
are brief, and I frankly would like an opportunity sometime in the
future to discuss it in detail.

          CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  I think one of the things  that is of
benefit in a hearing of this sort, is perhaps to surface points and
then to make the point following through.

          We are available.

          MR. DOUGHERTY:  Fine.  I will even cut some of these out, but
let me give them to you anyway, so some people will  be  able to chew on
them.

          Item A, as a condition of a grant offer, the  local  government,
the state and EPA must first enter into an NPDES Permit or'agreement.
Get the significant difference.

          We are not talking about just a permit, we are talking about
a contractual, legal agreement between the parties  which you are going
to obligate and bind all three.  I think this is necessary, because
when I sit here and listen to you guys with the kind of questions you
are raising here today about should we change the Federal share,
should we change the design basis, you make me nervous.'  You really make
me nervous, and I will tell you what I would really like to have, an
agreement in writing where you agree to fund us when we go ahead with
the project.

          We are talking about reimbursement when we do this.  The
NPDES Permit established an agreement by the parties to provide
reimbursement in the grants.

          I can think of one thing the Act missed, which was the
reimbursement provisions.  As a matter of fact, I think we would have
been better off if we had forgotten about the reimbursement and gone
back to '56 and put in reimbursement for the new projects to include,
frankly, in this agreement, the permit conditions and the 201 project
planning.

-------
                                                                  25

          One additional thing we think is necessary, that is a key to
unlocking EPA from reviewing and plans and specs.  And, that is the
submission, and to be part of the agreement is a design criteria
section which, frankly, can be prepared.

          Our suggestion would be that EPA retain authority on design
and then you can establish just one more guideline, fellers, just one,
which would be the design criteria.
                                    i •
          This would then eliminate the need for EPA to review the
detailed plans and specs and allow this to be done by the States.  Now,
the states have to do this anyway, because every public works project
water, sewage or public building, or what have you, must be reviewed by
the city or state governments.

          So, we think this is a good way to allow EPA to still  retain
its responsibility as to the design requirements of any project, but get
rid of the nitty-gritty work of detailing plan review and spec review.

          CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  I think out of fairness to the other
speakers, you ought to stop now.

          MR. DOUGHERTY:  I am almost finished.  I have one more important
point to make.

          As a condition of this agreement, the local government would
be required to guarantee to the Government to produce an effluent to
conform to the NPDES Permit for the time period that the permit is
issued.  That I think is an important factor.

          The implementation of the Commission's proposals will  provide,
first, that the facility will be designed and is directly related to the
NPDES Permit and requirements.
                                                         i
          Secondly, the project planning reimbursement, financing and
construction will be initiated and carried out without delay.
              i
          Thirdly, EPA will retain its authority for design criteria and
water quality standards, and this places the responsibility for perform-
ance on local governments through NPDES Permit, and I can't be too
strong in emphasizing the use of NPDES Permits, which is already in the
Act.

          Thank you.

          CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  There is a lot of agreement in EPA that
regulatory conditions are required.

          Are there any questions?  Thank you very much.

          Mr. Sam Warrington.

          MR. WARRINGTON:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

-------
                                                                  26

          CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  Before you begin, let me say this,
following your presentation we expect to hear from Mr. Inzero and
Mr. Sumner and then from Mr. Peloquin and then from Mr. Speth.

          Please proceed.

          MR. WARRINGTON:  I am Sam Warrington, Chief Engineer, of the
Texas State Department of Health.  It is a pleasure to be here today in
my capacity as President of the Water Pollution Control Federation to
present the views of the Federation on possible Administration amend-
ments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act relating to the
municipal waste treatment construction grants program.

          Present with me today is Robert A. Canham and other members
of the staff.

          For the discussion of the issues at hand, I would like to
point out that our members have expressed dissatisfaction with the way
this Act has been administered since October 1972.

          To better grasp the nature and extent of their dissatisfaction,
the Federation sponsored a series of ten regional workshops during 1972
and 1973 to provide them with an opportunity to publicly air their
grievances and recommend ways to improve the administration of the law.
The culmination of this effort was the publication of the attached
report entitled:  "PL 92-500:  Certain Recommendations of the Water
Pollution Control Federation for Improving the Law and Its Administration".

          Thereport is a digest of recommendations made at the workshops
and stresses the need, one, to provide adequate federal funding for
both construction grants and state programs; two, to establish realisttic
deadlines and goals, particularly for issuing and complying with
permits; three, to avoid administrative confusion occasioned by
changing guidelines and regulations; and four, to eliminate onerous
layers of red tape and paperwork.
                                                            {
          More concisely, the report underscores the need for both
stability and flexibility in the implementation of the law. ^We
believe, and I am sure you would agree, that this makes sense.  For over
two years, the people directly involved in water pollution control
activities at the state and local levels have witnessed vacillations
in the Federal obligation rate; the development of a voluminous and
every-changing regulatory mechanism; and the formulation and
implementation of stringent nationwide policies, guidelines and regula-
tions which fail more often than not to take into account local
differences.

          Clearly, we cannot allow this situation to continue.  We
appreciate the recent efforts of the Environmental Protection Agency in
addressing these problems, but believe that much more needs to be
done to achieve stability and flexibility in program administration.

          Quite frankly, we do not believe that these hearing on possible

-------
                                                                  27

administration amendments "to the Clean Water Act will assist us in
our efforts to achieve this objective, but rather will serve only to
install even more disillusionment and dissatisfaction at the grassroots
than currently exists.  This is not to suggest, however, that we are
unalterably opposed to the enactment of all of the possible
amendments under discussion.  We do support two of the five.

          We strongly support an extension of the 1977 deadline by
which publicly owned treatment works are to achieve compliance with
the secondary treatment requirements of the Act.  At the same time, we
believe that such obviously needed relief is necessary and appropriate
not only for municipal dischargers but industrial dischargers as well,
and not only with respect to the 1977 compliance deadline, but also
with respect to the December 31, 1974 deadline for the issuance of
Section 402 permits.

          We, therefore, favor the enactment of amendments designed,
one, to provide protective relief to both municipal and industrial
dischargers unable to meet the July, 1977 effluent limitations deadlines
provided, of course, such dischargers demonstrate good faith efforts
to the satisfaction of the EPA administrator; and two, to extend the
permit issuance deadline to allow for the orderly issuance of meaningful
municipal and industrial permits, based on a compatability with local
conditions, as well as to remove potential legal liabilities for good
faith permit applicants who have not yet been issued permits.

          With regard to the compliance deadline issue, we would like
to suggest the consideration of certain approaches that can, we fell,
serve to ease the administrative burden that would no doubt be
occasioned by an extension of the deadline.  The Federation recommends,
for example, that EPA reevaluate the definition of secondary treatment
with a view toward relating post-treatment disinfection to public
health purposes.

          Such an approach would not only place more municipal dis-
chargers in compliance with the 1977 requirements without undercutting
environmental goals, but also would save valuable Federal, State and
local resources.         ..-•.•?»
                                       r
          The Federation also recommends, as a means to encourage
program continuity and the achievement of statutory compliance
deadlines, the reinstitution of reimbursement authority and the
utilization of existing prefinancing authority,

          This approach would go a long way toward salvaging available
state and local funds, which have been hit hard by inflation and debt
service, and encouraging the utilization of these funds as a balancing
wheel to smooth out the peaks and valleys inherent in federal funding.
                               r
          In addition .to recognizing the need to extend certain
compliance deadlines, the Federation also recognizes the historical and
continuing state experience in controlling water pollution control.
As a result, the Federation supports the increased delegation of

-------
                                                                  28

authority and responsibility to,the states so that they may, subject
to federal audit, assume primary responsibility for implementing
appropriate provisions of the Act relating to the construction grant
as well as the permit programs.  The certification program envisioned
by HR 2175 represents an effective mechanism for achieving this
objective.

          This is not meant to suggest, however, that we view HR 2175
as a panacea for all of the problems that have and continue to a certain
degree to beset the implementation of the construction grants program.
We believe, for example, that legislation such as this can have a
positive impact on the future course of the program only to the
extent that it is implemented in
-------
                                                                  29

municipal and industrial discharges.
                 • ' i
          Congress recognized the increased burden it was placing on
all governmental levels, particularly the State and local levels,
and raised the Federal share to 75 percent.  Under these circumstances,
it would be most inappropriate to reduce the level of Federal
participation in the program unless, of course, there was a concommitant
relaxation of the requirements of the Act.
    t
          This, however, is not the thrust of this particular
proposal.  The thrust of this proposal is to ease the Federal financial
burden with respect to the achievement of the goals of the Act, thus
increasing the financial burden of the States and local communities.

          We appreciate all too well the magnitude of the price tag
associated with accomplishing the clean water objective and believe
that alternative courses of action must be considered, but to assume
that the States and local communities can afford a larger share of the
burden, particularly at this time when we are all facing a severe
economic situation, strikes us a sheer folly.

          Many communities, for example, are finding it hard to
raise 25 percent of the cost of a project, including some located in
States with matching loan or grant programs.  Increasing this local
share for federally associated grant projects increases the competition
for dollars available in the money market for municipal projects.

          As a result, either a change in local priorities or increasing
interest rates attracting additional capital would be required if
local communities were required to assume a greater financial committment.
Inasmuch as these are not realistic possibilities, an increased local     *
share would serve only to retard the already lagging program effort
as well as the eventual achievement of the goals of the Act.

          The states face the same budget problems the Federal
Government faces.  While some states may have the ability to assume a
larger share of the grant program, providing there is a corresponding
increase in state control over the program, they must consider the
priority given to the construction of wastewater pollution abatement
facilities in relation to other priorities requiring the expenditure
of state monies.

          Funding the program up to 75 percent and thus allowing the
states to allocate money at a lesser amount, however, would be to give
the prerogative of satisfying greater needs based on their priorities.

          This proposal, moreover, fails to take into account a problem
which has not received the attention it deserves, but which relates to
the increasing burden that local communities will have to shoulder in
the not too distant future.  I am referring to the rapidly rising
operation and maintenance costs that have begun and will no doubt
continue to accompany the new requirements of the law.

-------
                                                                  30

          In effect, the manpower and energy costs associated with
properly operating and maintaining the sewerage treatment facilities
we are planning for the future may increase the current average cost
of sewer service of $30 to $70 per year to $300 to $500 within a few
years.  Since there is no Federal subsidy to blunt the impact of such
an anticipated increase, it will fall entirely on local taxpayers.

          This additional cost, coupled with added expense that would
be imposed by a reduction in the Federal share, would certainly be too
much to expect those communities to bear.

          The complex and far reaching clean water program envisioned
by Public Law 92-500 mandates-the continuation of the status quo with
regard to the funding of waste water treatment facilities.  This
approach would guarantee a modicum of program stability and ensure
equitable treatment of local governments which have not yet received a
Federal grant award.                                                   w

          Considering the slowness with which the program was implemented,
we do not need consideration of a proposal to reduce the Federal share,
but rather consideration of a proposal, if the goals of the Act are to
be met, designed to provide long-term funding through 1983 to meet
documented and anticipated needs.

          We also oppose the possible administration amendment to
limit Federal grant assistance under Title II of the Act of design
capacity for treatment works and interceptors sewers.

          I do not wish to dwell on this issue at length because the
Federation's position is adequately reflected in the attached January 2
letter to the Administrator of EPA.

          This letter lists the Federation's comments on the CEQ study
entitled "Interceptor Sewers and Suburban Sprawl" and expresses our
views on the issue under discussion, which the study ostensibly triggered.
It points out that, stripped of its control of land use guise, such a
proposal would represent a retrenchment in the degree of Federal
assistance available to communities for the construction of treatment
facilities and involve, in practice, the disruption of the design,
construction and bonding of sewage treatment facilities.

          Such a reevaluation of the Federal funding role may be
appropriate considering the results of the latest needs survey, but
such a reassessment should address the financial limitations of not only
the Federal government, but the States and localities as well.

          Furthermore, an approach which envisions a more realistic
Federal funding level must also account for the integral relationship
between Federal financing and the Act's deadlines and goals.  By
disregarding these ramifications, a proposed amendment in this area
would constitute a piecemeal solution to an essentially multi-faceted
problem.

-------
                                                                  31


          As such, it would wreck additional havoc on a construction
grants program that is just currently coming into its own, hamper
current planning efforts, and ensure the continued pollution of our
waters.

          Finally, we oppose the restriction of the types of projects
eligible for construction grants funding.  If we are sincere in our
desire to achieve the ambitious goals of the act, we need flexibility
at the State and local levels of Government to tailor the requirements
of the Act to local conditions.

          The Congress recognized this when it expanded the scope of
eligible projects in October,.1972 in order to provide an increased
incentive for the development of economically efficient projects.  Any
modification of this approach, especially limiting Federal financial
participation to treatment plants and interceptor sewers, would
discourage broad options, impact cost efficiency and impede our efforts
to attain our clean water objective.

          We believe that it is necessary to give Federally dictated
priority planning ample opportunity to accomplish an end result.
Placing restrictions on projects eligible for Federal financial
assistance at this time would interfere with the accomplishment of
this objective inasmuch as it would encourage states to reshuffle their
priorities and lead to inevitable delays.
                        » i •
          While communities have adequate incentives to invest in
certain types of facilities without Federal assistance, such as in
cases where local health related matters dictate the construction of
collection systems, in cases where a complete facility is needed, a
relatively large investment would be required, an investment that the
community could not afford .to make.
                    i
          While each of these proposals has the potential for throwing
hurdles in the path of our clean=water?efforts, one can only appreciate
the entire picture if they are considered as a package, a possibility
that is not discounted by the EPA discussion papers.  Viewed as a
package, these proposals,would lower the Federal share of project
costs from 75 percent, not to 55 or 50 percent, but to approximately
five percent based on total needs of $350 billion associated with
meeting the goals of the Act.
                         i
          Discounting the $235 billion in estimated storm-water control
needs and limiting our analysis to a consideration of categories I
through V of the needs survey, communities would receive a Federal
share of 17 percent of eligible project costs.

          A Federal share of 39 percent would result if we considered
only the costs associated with the construction of treatment works and
interceptor sewers.  Compared to the existing local share of 25
percent, these proposals would require a local share ranging from a little
over 60 to 95 percent.  And, this does not take into account that,

-------
                                                                32
in reality many communities do not receive 75 percent because that
amount is tied to eligible projects costs or the anticipated
increase in operation and maintenance costs which I alluded to
earlier.

        These proposals, in the final analysis are moneysaving
measures for the Federal Government which failwto address the
requirements of the Act.  We believe that there are alternatives
which would serve not only to save valuable resources over the
longer-term, but also enable us to continue our efforts to clean the
nation's waters.

        In this regard, we recommend an agressive national research
program and a pool of skilled personnel to conduct research, to
install pollution control equipment and to operate such equipment
properly.

        We are spending today one-third of what we were spending
in 1967 on municipal research and development.  This represents
an abandonment of a real national research effort and is indefensible
in view of the obvious needs and potential savings involved.

        The attached Federal position paper entitled, "Research and
the Quest for Clean Water" highlights representative areas where
important questions remain unanswered, areas that must be addressed
if we are to meet our clean water goals.  As this position paper points
out, it is the Federation's position that the limited present
Federal research effort in water pollution control represents little
more than a surrender with regard to the nation's goal of clean.water.

        During the past three years, moreover, the Federation has
pointed to a decline in EPA's efforts in the manpower training
field as heralding future shortages of trained personnel, both
professionals and operators.  Federal support of academic training
is slated for elimination, operator training is pegged at a meager
level and the specialized training program, the sole mechanism by
which the results of Federal research efforts are disseminated to
States and localities, has been put on a fee basis, with the result
that fewer persons will be sent to reap the benefits of this
training program.

        We believe that a higher level of committment to this aspect
of water pollution control would ensure the proper maintenance of
facilities once they are constructed.  We cannot accept the spectable
of a nation embarking on a massive program to clean its waters
while systematically reducing its efforts to provide skilled manpower
to manage and operate the program.

        These are the types of alternatives we believe EPA and the
Administration should be considering here today because they represent
positive approaches to the problems inherent in providing the nation

-------
                                                                33


with clean waters.  Proposals to reduce the Federal share, restrict
eligibilities and limit Federal funding of reserve capacity represent
negative approaches to these problems, approaches that will serve to
interfere with the achievement of our water pollution abatement
goals.

        We have offered what we think are a few alternatives here,
that we hope will be of some use as you consider these requirements.

        Thank you very much.

        CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  Thank you, and I want to make a comment in
response to what you have said.

        First, I would like to acknowledge the extremely constructive
role that the Water Pollution Control Federation has made from the
beginning when we implemented this complex%istatute.

        I think the seminars that you have sponsored have helped
and been extremely helpful, and certained, you are not one of the
ones that have caused the thing to go slowly.

        I would point out that the rate of implementing the program
has significantly improved and I am sure you are aware that obligations
for the month of May were $658 million, and we- have already obligated
over $600 million in the month of June, and we expect to obligate the
remainder of $1 billion, or over that.

        The program is moving more rapidly now.

        Now, the point, I think, we are concerned about and this is
simply something we are trying to communicate back and forth with you
and the others, is to look ahead and be realistic in facing the
$350 billion needs, recognizing that there is some limit on the
Federal funding.  And, rather that that level is at any particular
level of so many billions of dollars a year, there is some limit.

        If the program continues on the basis which it is now on, that
will be the limit that holds back proper progress.

        The question is, whether by expanding the portion of the
burden carried by state and local levels the totality of effort can
be expanded so that the program can move forward more rapidly?

        I do think we need to look at it from that point of view.
         ,    <<        .         .'"'•'.
        MR. WARRINGTON:  Certainly.  We can appreciate the tremendous
chore that you have and we do appreciate the fact that recently there
has been better flexibility and things we have suggested have taken
place.
                                                             •
        CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  Are there any questions or comments from

-------
                                                                34
the panel:

        MR. AGEE:  You recommended consideration be given to
funding for 1975, laboratory funding.  Would you suggest there be
any limitation on the eligibility of that funding?

        MR. WARRINGTON:  No, we are actually speaking of stability.
But, we want some stability not a grant that stops in 1977.   We
want long-term planning, that is what we are trying for.

        MR. AGEE:  Thank you.

        MR. HANSLER:  You mentioned the reimbursable position.  Are
you talking over the long-term.  I was not clear on that?

        MR. WARRINGTON:  I have someone here who could give  you a
better answer than I can.  Robert A. Canham.

        MR. CANHAM:  This was contained in the statement of  last
fall.  It is utilizing the existing authority in 9500 for the pre-
financing and the reimbursement.  It would be long-term.  Of course,
as it goes along, I don't think we would be opposed to considering
adjustments in the way this functions.

        So, I don't believe the intent ought to be that we would
propose this forever.  If another equitable arrangement could be worked
out.

        MR. HANSLER:  I have one comment following John Quarles
comment.

        We have, obviously, been striving for some way to define the
program in terms of getting universal needs, and then looking at a
fund level to achieve that.
                              s
                                             i
        Do you feel the totality of eligibility should be continuing?

        I am not going to expect an answer now, but I think  we need
some explanation of what a program like that is aiming toward, to
explain the program to the Congress and to OMB.  I think that is one
of the things we are grappling with.

        MR. WARRINGTON:  We don't have a census on that, but I can
try to get one, if you would want it.

        CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  Well, Mr. Warrington, thank you very much.

        Bob Canham, would you please state your name for the record?

        MR. CANHAM:  Robert Canham.

        CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  Are you the Director of the Water Pollution

-------
                                                                35
Control Federation:

        MR. CANHAM:  Yes.

        CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  Thank you.

        Peter Inzero.

        MR. INZERO:  Good morning.  I am Peter Inzero of the
National Utility Contractors Association.  With me is David Shevock,
of EPA.

        I would like to make an opening statement, plus a report on
EPA Number one.

        The National Utility Contractors Association, representing
the nation's sewer and water facilities construction contractors,
appreciates this opportunity to comment on the five possible proposals
for amending the Water Pollution Control Act.

        However, we would be remiss if we did not express our concern
over EPA's apparent emphasis on writing regulations rather than
building water clean-up facilities.

        In the month of May, one of the agency's best months in the
history of the program, EPA funded 59 construction projects but
issued 42 pages of proposed regulation revisions and changes in the
Federal Register totalling about 60,000 words, and issued 24 news
releases.                    >

        Our members want work.  Not words.  The American people want
and need clean water.  We respectfully urge EPA to get on with the
job of cleaning up the Nation's water.  The benefits to the environ-
ment, the economy and the employment situation are obvious.

        The National Utility Contractor's Association are in favor
of any proposals that will increase the rate at which our Nation
builds the necessary environmental control facilities to assure the
integrity of the Nation's lakes and rivers.  However, we do not
believe that simply reducing the 75 percent Federal share to 55
percent will accelerate the program.  A reduction in the Federal share:

        One, does not address the basic question concerning the
willingness of the nation to pay the price for water pollution
cleanup estimated by the Needs Survey, or an interpretation of the
survey.

        Two, will not increase the rate of treatment plant
construction because the principal problem is not funding, but EPA
generated red tape;

-------
                                                                36
generated red tape;

        Three, will not increase the probability of producing more
cost-effective designs;

        Four, will probably not be accompanied by a comparable
increase in state and local funds to fill the gap;

        Five discriminates against economically depressed areas; and

        Six, would be unfair to those communities which failed to
receive 75 percent Federal funding due to circumstances beyond
their control.

        Regardless of the accuracy of the Needs Survey, the Federal
cost of building the necessary municipal treatment facilities is
generally acknowledged as being much higher than the original
$18 billion estimate.  If the costs are $300 billion plus, then
Congress must reconsider the desirability of committing that large
a portion of national resources through the existing program to
construction of municipal facilities.

        This implies a reconsideration of the goals of the Act.
The nation's price sensitivity at a 55 percent or 75 percent Federal
share is likely to be low.  If the costs are in the $30 to $50
billion range, then the savings which accrue from a reduction in the
Federal share, $6 to $10 billion, must be weighed against the
remaining problems arising from a change in Federal policy.  A larger
local share implies more local control which would apply to both
setting water pollution cleanup goals and deciding what pollution
control equipment is required.               «*

        NUCA is keenly aware and greatly disturbed that only
$5 billion of the authorized Federal funds have been obligated by
EPA with only a few days left in FY '75, which is the last fiscal year
of authorized funds.

        If EPA cannot obligate the funds available at 75 percent
Federal funding, there is no reason to believe that projects will be
reviewed and funded at a faster pace with a lower Federal  share.

        At EPA's average funding pace, the original $18 billion
will not be obligated until January, 1982, seven years.,too late.
This reduction in the Federal share will not result in an increased
rate of funded projects unless the red tape created by EPA regulations
and program guidance is reduced to permit more projects to be
funded.

        Another stated objective of the reduced Federal funding
is to encourage greater state and local accountability for cost-
effective design and project management.

-------
                                                                37
        This appears to NUCA to be an admission of EPA's failure to
effectively implement its cost-effectiveness guidelines developed
pursuant to Section 212 (2) (c) of the Act.

        The implication that local and state governments will
produce more cost-effective designs at 55 percent Federal funding
than they did at 75 percent funding, has little basis in reality.
The kinds of legal and regulatory controls which EPA has developed,
but admittedly not succeeded in implementing, are not even in
existence at the state and local levels in most areas.

        NUCA believes that continuing substantial Federal assistance
even at 55 percent will provide pressure for over-design.  Simply
changing the Federal share will not create the incentive for cost-
effectiveness which is implied.

        The history of Federal funding of municipal treatment plants
predicts the effect of changing the Federal share on state and local
governments.  Prior to 1956, Federal funds were not provided for
the construction of treatment works.  Between 1956 and 1966, 30 percent
and 55 percent was made available, with the higher percentage made
available to states which also provided funds.

        The Federal percent increased about 30 percent on a
matching basis for each percent, up to 25 percent, that the state
provided.  This law clearly has an incentive for state aid.
However, 13 or 26 percent of the states did not provide matching
funds.  Even those states which did provide matching funds, often
did not use the full matching provision.

        NUCA believes that shifting the burden back to state and
local communities will result in a delay in communities' ability
to clean up the nation's waters.  As a result, economically de-
pressed areas will be further handicapped and are less likely to
benefit from the jobs created by the construction of collection and
treatment systems.

        Those communities which did not receive 75 percent Federal
funding would be forced to pay a higher share of the clean up costs.
While some transition provisions would be necessary, there is an
obvious inequity when a community or state which was willing to pay
a 25 percent share is suddenly forced to pay 45 percent of the costs.

        I will now turn the mike over to EPA Chairman, Mr. Dave
Shevock.

        MR. SHEVOCK:  One EPA paper number two, consideration of
EPA's proposed ten year - twenty year design requirements reveals
four basic problems.

        One, it is arbitrary and conflicts with EPA's cost-
effectiveness guidelines; two, it is a poor way of handling the

-------
                                                                38
broader issue of growth; three, the design life allowed is too
short, given the current delays in funding procedures; and four, the
restriction is prejudiced against the taxpayer moving into growing
areas.

        Limiting Federal funds-to a ten year reserve capacity for treat-
ment plans and 20 years for collection systems is an arbitrary and
harmful method of saving Federal funds.  The policy is an over-
reaction to a recent CEQ study which found that sewers funded by
EPA were often used to their fullest extent.  This study, though,
did not show whether or not the full utilization was due solely to
induced or accurate predictions.

        Here, EPA is suggesting that an arbitrary design life of
ten years preempts cost-effective design.  The EPA regulations
for cost-effectiveness already required phased construction if this
is cheaper.  But, EPA has almost totally exluded cost-effectiveness
from their decision making process by limiting communities' options
to a decade of growth.

        Another related issue is how to control or predict growth.
The proposed amendment assumes that growth is solely induced by sewer
construction and that growth is undesirable.  But, highway locations,
school locations, job availability and other factors also create
conditions for growth.  Sewers are a limit on, not a cause of, the
pressure generated by these factors.  ,
                            *"    , J '*       *
        A ten year limit on reserve capacity does not control  growth
any better than the present cost-effectiveness guidelines.  This
point becomes even clearer when one considers that the minimum
time from conception to start-up of a sewage treatment plant is eight
years under the current review procedures.  Consequently, if plants
are built for only ten years of growth, communities will have to
start planning their replacement two years after they come on line.
This two year period is not likely to enable communities to make
significantly more accurate growth predictions.

        Restricting Federal funds for reserve capacity is also less
equitable than the present program.  Taxpayers in high-growth areas
would have to pay higher taxes, because of the increased local expendi-
tures required, and these taxes are likely to be much more regressive
than the ones which fund Federal grants.

        The EPA's stated concern about current practices leading to
over-design is contradicted by the existence of numerous over-loaded
plants.  In fact, recent surveys show that a majority of secondary
plants cannot meet secondary requirements.  NUCA feels that the
harms of an overloaded system are greater and more likely to occur
than the disadvantages of excess capacity.

        Thank you.

-------
                                                                39


        CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  I want to very clearly point out and
emphasize a point that I think is misunderstood in your presentation,
where you refer to EPA proposals.

        The papers are not intended as proposals.  They are indicated
as discussion papers, and we suggest, these for consideration.

        Also along this line, insofar as the idea of reducing the
Federal share is concerned, that might be a reduction to 55 percent,
that might be a reduction to some other level.  What we have felt is
a reduction below 55 percent, does not warrant consideration.

        Some reduction, perhaps part way down, or as low as 55
percent, would warrant consideration.

        Any other questions or comments?
                                   •*7 •' "> (
        Thank you very much.       ,

        MR. SHEVOCK:  Thank you.

        CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  Mr. Sumner, please.

        MR. SUMNER:  Thank you.  I am Bill Sumner from Nashville.   I
am the current President of the American Consulting Engineers Council.
We have filed a 20 page statement which I will not read.

        In fact, we marked up a copy to cut it to ten minutes.   I
am not even going to read that.

        I am flattered to be included among the many experts here
commenting on the discussion papers.   I want to compliment the EPA
for the thoroughness of the papers, the importance of the questions
addressed and, I will just briefly state our general position.

        I am afraid that being engineers we probably are almost as
broke as people say we are and basically, we are against any change
in PL 92-500.

        The reasons have already been given.  I would comment on the
changing of the level of grants.  I have heard from the dias up here
that there is a limitation on the federal government's ability to
spend.  I am .glad to hear that.

        I hope we take that message all over town, but I would add
there is a limitation of the ability of other public agencies to
spend and all the money comes from one place.  The people who are
going to spend -- If we are going to spend $350 billion, the American
people are going to spend the money.

        If the.Federal Government reduces their participation,
they have to give local agencies someplace to raise the money themselves.

-------
                                                                40
As usual, I am talking about something I don't know anything about,
so I will go to item number two and discuss the paper number two
regarding growth.

          I think that cost-effectiveness always has been and always
will be the answer to how much capacity we provide, whatever public
facility we are talking about, and I think it would be a disaster
to artibrarily impose artificial growth numbers on engineering design,
or public financing, either one.

          Discussing paper number three, project eligibility, that
is a complex thing.  A suggestion about relation.  All of this more
steady, but I think the priority system itself, which makes the type
of eligible projects based on analysis, a good management philosophy
rather than arbitrary rules.

          Discussion of paper number four, I think it should be
based on availability of Federal funds.

          Paper number five, I think we have always said that the
maximum delegation practicable should be made by the states.

          I want to apologize for the engineer's, perhaps, lack of
participation in this program, although we have had people up here
at most of the meetings, but we have been distracted by the paper
that has been coming out during the past month that has been referred
to previously.  And, when something has EPA's name on it, our hackles
begin to rise and perhaps we have not been as objective and careful
in some of our considerations as we should have been.

          I would suggest to EPA several things that are not in the
discussion papers, although the discussion papers prompt me to make
these comments.

          First, that they maintain maximum options and try to move
away from more and more restrictive language having to do with all
parts of their programs.

          Also, that they try to, in some way, engender the confidence
in thein the confidence in the other members of the team who are
going about solving serious national problems.
                                          7
          There is a definite air of distrust.  Even in the discussion
papers there is repeatedly a choice of words that implies that some-
how they have got to bribe grantees and bribe state agencies to be
objective, and intelligent, and responsible, in the handling of
public funds.

          I think this is a mistake.

          We are-going to keep looking at these discussion papers.
I don't think that July 7th should be a time to stop thinking about

-------
                                                                41


them.

          We think the EPA does need to save money.  We do have some
suggestions.  We go along with some of the reimbursement things.  We
go along with the currency of some of the steps.

          We think that EPA's failure to combine steps one and three,
and the rehabilitation work and eliminate step one in many cases it
borders on malfeasance.
plugging.
          We think it is a tremendous waste of money.

          I thank you for your time, and we are going to keep
          CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  Thank you, Mr. Sumner, very much.  Any
comments or questions?

          Mr. Peloquin.

          MR. PELOQUIN:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the panel

          I am Alfred E. Peloquin, Executive Secretary of the New
England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission.

          The Commission wishes to express its appreciation for the
opportunity of offering comments on the five issues noted in-the
Federal Register on May 2, 1975.

          The Commission's comments have been limited to the Issues  .
to be Discussed, portion of each paper as published.

          EPA's issue papers were discussed at the Commission's Annual
Meeting held June 19 and 20, 1975 and with the Directors of the Water
Pollution Control Agency of each Compact-member state in a telephone
conference call on June 24th, 1975.

          I would also like to include some other comments if the
record can be kept open.  The comments are presented in the same
numerical sequence as set forth in the Issue Papers.  However, in the
interests of time, I will only hit certain points on some of the
issues, but would ask that the full statement be entered into the re-
cord.

          CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  As with everyone, the full statement will
be entered into the record.

          MR. PELOQUIN:  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

          Paper Number one, Reduction of the Federal Share.  One,
would a reduced Federal share inhibit or delay the construction of
needed; facilities?

-------
                                                                42
          Yes, in the New England Interstate Water Pollution
Control Commission Compact area, communities are geared to bonding
for approximately ten percent of the eligible project cost.  Re-
sistance to the funding of treatment works is already developing
because the impact of operation and maintenance costs is beginning
to hit home.

          A reduction in the Federal share could cause a surge in
project applications to beat a dealine in reduced level of funding;
could cause a community to have its plans redrawn to a reduced scope
consistent with available dollars, or it could completely kill
credibility in Federal programs with all pollution control activity
coming to a halt.

          Initially, many states opposed the increase in grant level.
However, subsequent to enactment of PL 92-500, states with grant
authority to as much as 40 percent were forced to seek legislative
amendments to provide for at least some local contribution.  States
feel that the situation has stabilized and a change at this point would
be extremely disruptive.

          Two, would the states have the interest and capacity to
assume, through state grant or loan programs a larger portion of
the financial burden of the grant program?

          State Water Pollution Control Agencies do have the interest
to assume a larger portion of the financial burden.  Realistically,
many states are facing severe fiscal problems.  States also realigned
their grant structure in 1973-74 to conform with requirements of
PL 92-500.  Consequently, it is the concensus of the states that
the State Legislatures would not look favorably on authorizing addi-
tional bond issues at this time.  It should be stressed that all
NEIWPC Compact member states make state grants to communities in
addition to the Federal grant.

          Three, would communities have difficulty in raising
additional funds in capital markets for a larger portion of the
program?

          Many communities particularly large cities are in severe
financial difficulty.  The larger cities are those needing the larger,
costlier projects.

          Considering recent developments relative to New York
City's fiscal dilemma, we would expect communities to have sub-
stantial difficulties in raising additional funds.

          Four, would the reduced Federal share lead to greater
accountability on the part of the grantee for cost effective design,
project management and post-construction operation and maintenance?

          Most states feel that the state water pollution control

-------
                                                                43


agency has a good overall control over projects in their respective
states.  Reduction in the Federal share will not change local impact
nor grantee accountability.

          In most cases, the grantee lacks the expertise to perform
the functions necessary to preclude development of the problems
noted in this item.  A reduction in local share could lead to greater
operational problems as local communities in attempts to reduce the
total project cost, thereby reducing the local share, accept unproven
designs promoted as cheaper, more efficient systems.

          Five, what impact would a reduced Federal share have On
water quality and on meeting the goals of PL 92-500?

          The goals of the Act will not now be met within the
framework of the law.

          Reducing the grant percentage would probably stretch out
even further the achievement of the goals.

          Paper Number Two.  Does current practice lead to over-
design of treatment works?

          We question the validity of the statements under this
item.  Drawing on the Commonwealth of Virginia's analysis of this
issue and recognizing that many overloaded works exist, it is the
concensus of the professionals in the field that growth was there
before the grant system was instituted.  The study on which these
statements are based is considered grossly inadequate.  Before any
policy change is directed relative to reserve capacity, a broader
more in-depth impartial study should be made by professionals in the
field having the necessary expertise to adequately assess the problem,
particularly on overloaded systems, to ascertain whether growth was
definitely related to reserve capacity or to such other economics
oriented inducements as improved highway and transportation systems,
available labor force and availability of existing facilities left
vacant by changes in the industrial/manufacturing complex of an
areas, or other related conditions.

          Two, what could be done to eliminate problems with the
current program, short of a legislative change?

          States are unanimous in the view that there are no problems
at the present time.  What is being espoused as problems is, in
reality, the problems which will develop by cutting back on reserve
capacity.

         States consider growth to be a local zoning issue, not within
Federal regulatory control.  Growth can also be controlled by appro-
priate management of the NPDES program.  There is agreement on a need
for greater refinement of population/industrial growth analyses.  New
technology and new discoveries, such as the pill, are changing many

-------
                                                                44
socioeconomic structures.

          Planners, designers and government agencies must be attuned
to ever-changing situations and, using computer and other technology,
apply the best possible judgements to the issue under consideration.

          Three, what are the merits and demerits of prohibiting
eligibility of growth related reserve capacity?                       -»

          Prohibiting growth reserve capacity may stretch available
dollars among more projects.  However, the end result could be
disasterous.  Reserve capacity provides a safety valve for water
pollution control.  It accommodates a degree of storm flow and develo-
ping infiltration as the collection system ages.

          Communities can also be expected to require design of
facilities consistent with available grant funds.  If this occurs, we
will soon have gone full-circle and will face the problem of the 1956
1960 era.  We will question the implication that monetary ineffeciencies
exist relative to over-design.

          Granted, there could be situations considered to represent
monetary inefficiencies, but the resultant problem is probably
related to factors other than over-design.

          We also feel that there may currently exist over-designed
systems, but the extent of this current over-design may be due to
socio-economic-industrial realignments within an areas rather than
over-design per se.  At the time of initial design, such systems were
most likely consistent with the needs of the time.

          Four, what are the merits and demerits of limiting
eligibility for growth-related reserve capacity to ten  years for
treatment plants and 20 or 25 years for sewers?

          Limiting reserve capacity would have the same impact as
prohibiting reserve capacity.

          Five are there other alternatives?

          In addition to comments under Item Two above, modular
construction of treatment facilities should be considered; a better
analysis of the need for reserve capacity; consideration of a reduced
Federal share for reserve capacity as opposed to a reduced Federal
share across-the-board and growth control through the NPDES program.

          On paper three we feel that impact of different eligibility
structures vary on a case by case basis.  A nation'al standard priority
system is unrealistic and unworkable.

          The Commonwealth of Virginia has very eloquently illustrated
the impact of reduced eligibilities.  We strongly endorse Virginia's

-------
                                                                45


Statement of Position, that states should have the option of
recommending grant funds for projects that are necessary to meet
water quality standards. .Virginia's position on this issue is
included in its presentation at this hearing and is, therefore, avai-
lable to you.

          Two, is there adequate local incentive to undertake needed
investment in certain types of facilities, even in the absence of
Federal financial assistance?
    - t      .•)"•• *
          In the early sixties, local incentive for water pollution
control was high.  Such efforts were considered local efforts and
when spearheaded by a few local enthusiasts, great strides were made
in developing and funding projects.  These were considered local
projects.  Many large local bond issues were voted which water
pollution control officials felt would fail.

         •The advent of PL 92-500 imposed a Federal, highly complex
program on the grassroots level.  This was no longer a local issue
to be addressed with pride.  It was a dictated Federal program.
This action combined with other priorities such as schools, highways,
inflation and unemployment to mention a few, effectively killed local
incentive to undertake the investments now needed to satisfy the
requirements of the Act.

          Three, is there adequate local financial capacility to
undertake,investment in different types of facilities?
       *
          Comments made under Item Three, Paper Number One, apply.
        f
          On paper number four, many states feel prefinancing of
POTW's should be reinstituted.  Our compact member states, however,
feel that the Federal government has defaulted on its committment as
set forth in the 1965 Act, and with 31 percent of the prefinanced
amount still remaining unapid, it is unlikely that the New England and
New York State Legislatures would again authorize prefinancing.
                                      r
          The question of whether or not it is fair to require
industry to meet the 1977 deadline while extending it for municipa-
lities?              .  •      ,
       "               v •       •> „     *
          The Act, by virtue of its grants provisions and administra-
tion has generated conditions which have resulted in delays in the
construction of municipal facilities.  Most states feel that industry,
other than those tying in to municipal systems are not bound by
precedent setting grant conditions and, consequently, should move
ahead with their respective treatment works.

          For those industries scheduled to tie in to municipal systems
at a later date, we concur with the House Public Works Committee
staff philosophy that some legislative language be considered to assure

-------
                                                                46
that such industries will, in fact, tie in at the appropriate time.
                                                                 i
          Is it fair to make industrial requirements more stringent
pending municipal compliance, as is the case with joint systems?
                                                                     - '<»j
          Requirements, whether industrial or municipal, should be
made as stringent as necessary to meet water quality standards.

          Four, should an outside limit be provided to the
Administrator granting extensions, for example, five years from date
of amendment, or should the possible compliance deadlines be open-ended?

          Extensions should be based on a realistic appraisal of the
situation and on a case by case basis at the regional level.

          Five, will EPA lose credibility supporting an across-the-
board extension for municipal compliance, especially in cases where
it is unnecessary?  Or, are the current economic priorities such that
such an extension is only reasonable?

          A case by case analysis on extensions would provide
flexibility and a realistic approach to a critical  field problem.
This type of approach should enhance EPA's credibility.               »

          It is also the concensus of the states that the NPSES
program provides the vehicle for granting extensions on a case by
case basis.  The NEIWPCC Compact member states are unanimous in
their opposition to across-the-board extensions.  It is felt that
such action would delay achievement of the goals in that communities
who would otherwise meet the 1977 date would tend to lag anticipating
relief under the extension.

          Six, how big a difference would these alternatives
make on local funding or state financing?

          The NEIWPC compact member states are of the opinion that
these alternatives would make no difference on local funding and state
financing.
                                                           i
          Seven, should EPA consider changing the definition of
secondary treatment to allow for classifications according to size,
age, equipment and process employed?

          States have consistently recommended a change in definition
of secondary treatment.  On June 4th, the Committee of ten was told
this could "only be done on the Hill".  We disagree since this defi-
nition is regulatory as opposed to statutory.

          Again, flexibility is needed to assure achievement of water
quality standards.  The states concur in the philosophy of secondary
treatment, but feel that the controlling factor should be the quality

-------
                                                                47


of the receiving water.  It has been suggested that treatment works
be designed to achieve secondary level treatment but that allowances
be made for seasonal variations with threat of enforcement for tempo-
rary deviations from the stated definitions.

          Eight, would a two year extension for compliance be
preferrable to the six year extension promoted under Alternative
Five?  Is this alternative unnecessarily lenient?

          Comments under Item Four above reply.
                     «.
       ,   Nine, until such a time when a solution to current com-
pliance delays is adopted, should EPA issue letters of authorization
to those POTM's that cannot achieve compliance with the 1977 deadline
instead of issuing short-term permits?

          Most states feel that the permit program provides a
vehicle for extending hte 1977 deadline.  Essentially, the simplest
and most effective method of coping with compliance delays is
recommended.
                                                                  t
          Whatever method is used, consideration should be given to
the procedures used by states having permitting authority so as
not to override state actions.
          i c
          Paper number five, delegating a greater portion of the
management of the construction grants program to the states.
       4 •>•«
          One, what functions should be delegated?

          The Act should provide for the delegation of all functions
identified in the EPA Title II regulations, including environmental
impact statements.

          Two, should all parts be delegated?

          Provisions should be made for delegation of all parts
subject to negotiations between the State WPG agency and the
appropriate Regional Administrator.

          Three, what difficulty may be encountered?
      .'-• '$t- •
          Provisions for-use of up to two percent of a state s
allocation should preclude the need for additional financial
committment on the part of the state.  For those states where receipt
of Federal funds must be approved by the state legislature, some de-
lays may be incurred.

          Several of the compact member states are performing various
functions now and feel that additional staffing problems will be
minimal provided guarantees of continued funding are available.

-------
                                                                48
          Four, will suggested funding be adequate?

          Suggesting funding in HR 2175 should prove adequate
providing regulatory requirements are kept to a reasonable real world
achievement level.  Every effort should be made to preclude the
development of bureaucracies at state level for implementation of
the amendment.

          Section 213 (e) of HR 2175, states that the two percent
allotment will be made each year after the date of enactment.  It is
anticipated that the allotment will not apply to the presently
available $18 billion.  Since the next appropriation may not be until
FY - 1977, implementation of the provisions of HR 2175 may not occur
until 1977 or 1978.  The language of the proposed legislation should
be adjusted to allow for implementation of the HR 2175 immediately
upon enactment.

          Five, will program efficiency increase?

          Delegation of program responsibility to states will improve
program efficiency unless the rules and regulations adopted for
administration of HR 2175 generate the types of problems created
in the past by rules and regulations issued under PL 92-500.

          Six, time required for state assumption of responsibility.

          Time required will be dependent upon the implementary regu-
lations developed by EPA and whether such regulations will require
state legislative approval.

          Seven, alternative funding schemes.

          States recommend that funds be made available by special
appropriation rather than utilizing funds allocated for construction
of treatment works.  There should also be a reasonable guarantee of
funding for a long enough period to provide program stability.

          If I might just wrap up, Mr. Chairman, the states do
support the concept.  The big issue here is what will be required as
far as the regulations.

          Since February, the states have been asking EPA to initiate
the reulations for implementing this Act.  I am glad in the last
Committee we attended, it was established to address this issue.
This is going to govern the amount of time necessary to implement
the program.  The states feel they can do this.

          Thank you very much.

          CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  Let me ask you, before the 1972 Act
was passed, how many of the New England states had grant programs?

-------
                                                                49


          MR. PELOQUIN:  Five, all but Rhode Island.

          CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  All but Rhode Island.  What hasbeen
the experience since the Act was passed?  How many of those have been
abandoned?

          MR. PELOQUIN:  None have been abandoned, but they have
reduced the level of their contribution.

          CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  So, the municipality would put up ten
percent and the state would put up 15 percent?

          MR. PELOQUIN:  Yes, sir.

          CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  I tell you, I am just troubled a little
bit as I consider the implications of the Cleveland-Wright Bill in
turning substantially the entire responsibility of the program over
to the state agencies, ultimately.  That is the goal we all. want
to get to.

          In reference to states that dp not have any matching grant
program at the state level, and I was interested in the comments you
made to the effect, arid I think others have said this also, that there
is a feeling that states are doing an effective job to monitor the
construction projects.  But, it is my impression that in a great many
cases, the states do not have the staffing sufficient to do this job,
just as EPA does not have staffing to do this job.  And, I wondered
if there is not a better prospect for attaining adequate staffing at
the state level where some of the state money is actually going into
the project?  I wonder what your attitude is on that?

          MR. PELOQUIN:  I think the financial situation in the states
is critical.  We have just had a go-around in Massachusetts this week,
where they are contemplating releasing 1,000 state employees.  The
Division of Water Pollution Control in Massachusetts recognizes it
has to increase its staff.

          I think there have been committments made that they can
increase their staff, but other departments have to cut theirs further.

          It is going to be a problem, and it is something that
has to be resolved and addressed immediately.  It is going to be
very difficult to rely entirely on state money to fund the program,
particularly with potential of the system in the Cleveland-Wright
bill.

          CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  Perhaps, of course, in New England, where
five of the states already have a state grant program, we are not
necessarily talking about any change, and I suppose I am just asking
you for your opinion on the basis of your experience with reference
to Rhode Island or with reference to other states.  But, is it

-------
                                                                50
realistic to think that you can develop and maintain as much concern
within a state budgetary process to preserve an adequate staffing,
if there is not state money going into the projects?

          My point is, and many states, state monies go into the
projects and in some states there is not state money going into the
projects?

          MR. PELOQUIN:  I think, Mr. Chairman, the interest of the
personnel within state agencies, the integrity of individuals conc-
cerned with cleaning up the environment and waters of our areas, I
thin —

          CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  You say the people who are there are going
to have that concern and they will do the best job they can do, can
be effective within the state budgeting process as these competing
demands develop and as the squeeze gets tighter, in fighting for
an adequate number of staff to do the job?

          They will do the best they can do, but it is a question
of whether they can obtain the staff they need?

          MR. PELOQUIN:  I think you are as familiar with the politi-
cal ramifications of budget as we are, and I think we will  face the
same problems you will at the Washington level.  All we can do is
do battle.  The big factor on our side will be, if we can develop
some flexibility within the program, and at least some reasonable
assurance for continued funding for a period of time, if we can get>
these assurances, it will be a heck of a lot easier to achieve
those goals.

          CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  No doubt about that.

          Mr. Hansler.

          MR. HANSLER:  Mr. Peloquin, do you think that the EPA
delegates Title II functions to the states would be under regulations
that went out last October, or the regulations that the Cleveland-
Wright passed, issued again on a step by step basis, and the state
has the ability to pick up each function, or should it be all at
once?

          MR. PELOQUIN:  We discussed this issue yesterday morning.
The states feel the authority for the transfer should provide for
transfer of the full Title II authority*  But, the provision be made
for transfer on a negotiation basis with a regional administrator.

          CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  Phasing, in other words?

          MR. PELOQUIN:  If it is necessary to do it, yes.

          CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  Any further questions?

-------
                                                                 51


           Thank you very much, Mr. Peloquin.

           Mr. Speth, please.

           As he is coming up — Following his presentation I will
call uponiMr. McCredie, Mr. Roznoy, Mr. Lubetkin and Mr. Marks.

           I am going to apologize.  I may not pronounce some of these
names adequately.

           Mr. Speth.

           MR. SPETH:  Thank you members of the panel.

           We appreciate this opportunity to state what we believe  should
be done to correct some of the suggestions put forth.

           By way of introduction, I am an attorney with the Natural
Resources Defense Council.  We have been involved over the past few
years in many aspects of the water pollution act.

           CHAIRMAN QUARLES: You certainly have been.

           MR. SPETH:  Many factors contribute to the current state
of affairs.  The original authorization of $18 billion was too low.

           EPA's failure to enforce the mandatory, regulatory re-
quirements of Section 301, or even to use those requirements
constructively aided in the pressures, the lack of acceptance of
certain of the Act's provisions by Government officials, the inadequate
manpower in both grant and regulatory programs and, lastly, the
resulting unreasonableness of the 1977 deadline.

           As a result of these difficulties, the Act no longer
addresses the municipal pollution problem with any authority.

           Accordingly, we believe a special overhaul of the Act is
required.  That it should be undertaken immediately, and EPA should
sponsor the amendments required.

           Our basic problem with the issues presented in the Federal
Register, they seem motivated by desires, not to spend money and not
to put together a workable program responsive to the problems  which
have arisen.

           Briefly, the principal elements of the new approach we
would recommend are as follows:

           First, the Act's regulatory deadlines both in 1977  and
1983 deadlines should be retained, and they should apply as they do now
at least under the statute if not in practice.  Quite apart of whether

-------
                                                                 52
Federal funding is available.

           However, the Act should be amended to grant EPA the authority
to extend 1977 deadlines on a case by case basis, based upon, as the
Federal Register noted, proposals to actual time required by the
expenditure of good faith efforts to build necessary facilities.

           In no case, however, should the 1977 deadline be extended
to 1983.

           Second, the Act should be amended to eliminate the 75
percent requirement and to substitute instead a scheme in which every
eligible facility receives a full right or share of Federal funding
that is made available by Congress.

          For example, if it should eventuate that Congress after
studying national needs only funds 65 percent of the total  need, each
eligible facility would be entitled to 65 percent of the Federal funds.
                                                                    j
           Third, Congress should authorize major, new financial
support for facilities construction and for the personnel needed to
insure that these vast sums are spent in an environmentally and
fiscally responsible manner.

           We fully support the idea that a construction program
should be Federally funded.  We would hold this caveat however.

           Federal funding should be available only to support those
population and discharges population, the discharge projects for 1983.

           Every purpose of the act, the purpose of Federal funding
under the Act is to assist in achieving the goals of the Act.
Funding future growth and long-term growth should be the responsibility
of states and localities.

           To implement this overall approach, Congress should
determine soon how much construction grant funding it is willing to
offer us for the period from now to 1983, being of course,  additional
authorization on top of the $18 billion, and it should authorize
this amount quickly.

           When this amount is compared with the assessment of national
need, the determination can be made indicating the amount of financial
assistance each project can expect.

          From the beginning, each municipality would know it would
be receiving Federal support timely and how much. The determination,
the discrimination between some localities would be eliminated.

           All Federal funds would have the maximum impact in terms of
first, stimulating local, state funding and justifying positions of  f
Federal requirements.

-------
                                                                 53


Federal requirements.  -

           These requirements should be enforced vigorously by the
EPA with 1983 serving as the dealine.

           From this vantage point we can comment briefly on certain
of the issues raised in the issue papers.

           First, should the Government's Federal share be reduced?
Generally we are concerned about the effect of predetermining.the
Federal share and prefer a scheme in which funding is made available
by Congress, and is divided up-equitably amongst eligible facilities.

           Secondly, should Federal funding of reserve capacity be
limited, as stated above we believe it should be strictly limited.
No capacity should be Federally funded beyond the needs projected
for 1983.

           Thirdly, should categories of eligibility be eliminated?
Our answer is no.  We note that the proposed stimulus for all eli-
minations appears to be largely the $235 billion estimated for storm
water control.  We seriously question this figure.  In fact, we are
not absolutely sure how that figure was arrived at, but, it is our
understanding that in part it was arrived at by estimating the cost of
what it would take to separate out combined sewers that presently exist.

           Is that right or wrong gentlemen?

           MR. RHETT:  There was another category for separating
combined sewers, but I think we would agree with you that that figure
is not a hard figure, but that was something new that was brought out
in the survey..

           MR. SPETH:  That raises the general problem.  It seems to
us it would be extremely hard to base all these discussions on only
the most accurate kind of data, and that the $235 billion was cited
repeatedly in the whole needs survey, I think without sufficient
qualification.  And, it is treated in the Federal Register Notice as
if that was a hard figure.

           To apply the secondary treatment concepts to the storm
water problem, we have not seen enough to convince ourselves that
that is a reasonable figure.

           That is really all I can say about it.

           Should the 1977 deadline be extended?  As outlined above,
yes, it must be since the 1977 date lacks credibility.  Such extensions
should be made on a case by case basis after justification by the
dischargers involved, and finally, the question of the Cleveland Bill.
              '                                              m
           It is our feeling that that proposed legislation is

-------
                                                                 54
unlikely to achieve the objectives of speeding up the actual expenditure
of funds.

           In any scheme like that which is going to be acceptable
to the United States public, there is going to have to be EPA
supervision of what is going on.  Certainly initially, EPA determi-
nations of whether the states are qualified to assume responsibilities.
That process is going to take a lot of time to work out.

           If the program is going to be a responsible one, the same
kind of decisions which EPA is grappling with now, will have to
be made by the states.  They are going to take a lot of time to make
them.

           We have grave doubts that this whole --  That this bill
is really responsive at all to the needs to speed up spending money
and the needs to buck the red tape in the program.

           Thank you.

           MR. AGEE:  Mr. Speth, I need/a little,qualification.  You
mentioned you would recommend that the capacity, that the funded
capacity, be up to the population reflected to 1983 and then the
locals would fund the capacity under that, designed under the system.

           MR. SPETH:  Yes, that is precisely the recommendation.
There is a little confusion.  Not a lot, there is a little bit.  That
the plan should only be ultimately designed to serve the 1983 needs.
We are not suggesting that.  We are suggesting that —  We are not
suggesting Federal funds be eliminated.

           MR. AGEE:  Thank you.

           MR. HANSLER:  Would you apply that same principle to sewers,
trunk sewers?

           MR. SPETH:  Absolutely.

           CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  All right, thank you very much.

           Mr. McCredie.

           I am going to put a little bit more emphasis as we are
going along here on completing statements within the time limit.  I
think that is important.

           I gather Mr. McCredie is not here at this time.  Is
Mr. Roznoy here?

           Mr. Lubetkin.

           MR. LUBETKIN:  Of course, I could take 30 minutes,

-------
                                                                 55


           CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  No, sir, let me just also say why you
are coming up. .So that the people can know where we are headed and
you can make your own plans accordingly.

           As you can see, we are going through the morning without a
break.  I realize that is a burden for all, but I think that is useful
to get as many speakers as we can.  Our thought would be to continue
without interruption until the luncheon break, and to recess for
lunch sometime in the range of 12:30 to 1:00.

           If we do break for lunch at that time, then the majority of
employees will have had a chance to go through the cafeteria and we
will be able to get somewhat quicker service there.

           That is probably where most of you are going to want to
eat in view of lack of alternatives.

           Mr. Lubetkin.

           MR. LUBETKIN:  My name is Seymour A. Lubetkin, a licensed
Professional Engineer and Chief Engineer of the Passaic Valley
Sewerage Commissioners, the largest Authority in the State of New
Jersey and a Director-Elect of the Water Pollution Control Federation.
                                                                   s,
           This paper, commenting on the five papers, as published
in the May 28, 1975 Federal^Register, is presented on behalf of both
the New Jersey Water Pollution Control Association and the Passaic
Valley Sewerage Commissioners.  As Chairman of the Committee, which
was asked to review the five papers, we offer the following comments
and recommendations:

           Paper number one, reduction of the Federal share.  The
proposal is a reduction of the Federal share of Project Costs from the
present 75 percent to a level as low as 55 percent.  One of the stated
purposes is to let the limited available funding go further.  This
purpose, we believe, is an illusion and, rather than aid, will
adversely affect the individual taxpayer.

           There is no question that, whether the state or Federal
Government pays, it is still the taxpayer who ultimately foots the
bill.  But in all areas where the major expenditures are needed, the
cities are finding it harder and harder to raise the cash.  Bonded
indebtedness of our big cities is one of the things that is shaking ;•
our country.

           The municipal bond market interest rates are going higher
and higher, despite the fact that they are tax free.  The public is
losing confidence in the municipality's and authority's ability to
keep on paying.  Thus, if $100 million must be spent, it is cheaper on
the taxpayers if the Federal Government spends it.

           Maybe Treasury Bills and Bonds may not be much lower in

-------
                                                                 56
interest, but at least the Government gets back income tax on the
interest made on its borrowing, while the cities are being forced to
pay eight percent and nine percent of Tax free income to its lenders.

           In addition, the forced load on the Municipal Bond market
will hurt all other municipal and state bonds we issue, that might be
needed for proper operation of our local governments.  Remember,
even though the United States now pays 75 percent of construction cost
and local costs are 25 percent, the municipalities also pay operation,
maintenance and ineligible costs, which, we believe, are not only
higher than the construction cost, but many of these costs will  continue
to increase with our inflationary spiral long after our bonded debt
service is stabilized.

           As far as the specific issues raised in the paper, it is
our opinion that:

           One, a reduced Federal share will inhibit or delay construc-
tion of needed facilities because of the financial difficulties  of
local Governments.

           Two, although state aid would be better than no aid,  we
feel that the difficulty of getting state aid and getting the necessary
referendums passed by the taxpayers in the present climate of austerity
would doom such a program andwould certainly make it inequitable if
some states would give aid and others would not.  We think greater
state aid as a substitution for Federal aid is not in the cards.

           Three, there is no question in our minds that many
communities, including those that need it most, would have
difficulty in raising additional funds in the capital market for
the reasons expressed before.

           Four, we do not believe that reduced, Federal share would lead
to a greater accountability on the part of the grantee for best  cost
effective design, project management, and post-construction operation
and maintenance.

           In fact, all those items, with the possible exception of
design, are completely independent of grantee share.«  If the grantee
is negligent with a smaller share, it will be equally negligent  with
a larger share.  Its negligence affects its operation and maintenance
cost more than the cost of construction.  As far as effective design
is concerned, we feel there may be a tendency to the opposite, namely,
that design in many cases may be adversely affected by the grantee
bearing a larger share of the cost.

           The inability to fund sufficient monies may force a
reduction in construction costs by making an inferior or inadequate
design in order that any work be done.  Existing office holders  may
feel they can be re-elected because of lower immediate capital costs,
and the fact that reckoning on inadequacies may not have to be

-------
                                                                 57


answered until later by their successors.

           Five, we believe a reduced Federal share would be detri-
mental to water quality because some of the necessary projects would
not be able to be funded.  There are some cases where sufficient local
bonds would not be able toi be sold economically, even if the city
fathers were willing to take on the large debt.

           In summary, we believe it would be a mistake to reduce the
Federal share.  It would be much better to review and change the
many questionable environmental standards and save money in that
manner.

           Paper number two, limiting federal funding of reserve capa-
city to serve projected growth.

           We think this is also an areas where we must be judicious
in our thinking.  We think the principle is proper, but the number
of years upon which to put a growth limitation.requires careful
analysis.  Certainly, the idea of zero growth is not equitable as we
will find the population paying a bond debt service for facilities
that are no longer adequate.

           However, the principle of taking care of our immediate needs
without sacrificing our economical ability to adjust to the future may
be accomplished by breaking down the size of any project into hydraulic
or physical size and size necessary for the degree of treament mandated.

           We believe it is absolutely essential for a plant to be
able to hydraulically handle future expansion to at least 20 years
from completion of construction, even if we limit the treatment
facilities' sizes to much lesser amounts.  This is important because
if a plant is not hydraulically able to accept or receive a given
flow, wash outs, flooding or by-passing must occur, whereby a limita-
tion on treatment equipment will just cause a gradual reduction in
degree of treatment which, in many cases, can be easily tolerated.
However, if this is done, I believe it is important to incorporate
into the law some protection from requirements on a municipality or
authority, by the USEPA in the near future, to force expansion
shortly after completion of expensive facilities.

           We also point out that larger pipes to allow for proper
hydraulic growth is a small percentage of cost, but would be very
expensive to add to later particularly in;high density areas.  We
might use the following principles:

          .A, structures, pipes, et cetera to be built will be sized
hydraulically for reasonable future expansion of growth.

           B, room for future additional facilities to be allowed.

           C, construction to be modular so that future facilities can

-------
                                                                 58
be added in a practical and reasonable manner.

           And Dj the municipality or authority not to be required to
add facilities to improve treatment until the treatment level, due
to increased load, falls a significant or specific figure below the
design or required criteria.

           If, in the opinion of the Administrator, Item D is intolerable
due to the critical nature of the receiving stream, then he must
allow the facility to be built with greater reserve capacity.  This
is a judgement factor and must be decided before limiting plant size.

           As far as the specific issues raised in the paper, it
is our opinion that:                          CH ,   :
                                                    »'
           One, although current practices, in some cases, may lead
to overdesign, we do not believe changing the 75 percent Federal share
to 50 percent would eliminate this.  The proper place to eliminate
overdesign is at the state or Federal review level.  Certainly the
State Certifying Agency should know how to properly distribute the
available funds, so as to get maximum water quality benefit for the
present and near future for its particular state.

           We believe there is no substitute for good judgement on
a case by case basis.  We believe there should be less legislative
restrictions and more leeway given to the Regional Administrators,
State Certifying Agency and local authority.

           Two, we agree with the principle as stated before of
allowing full hydraulic growth but limit-Ing treatment growth.

           Three, four and five, we believe the answers to these
issues were covered in the discussions.

           Paper number three, restricting the types of projects
eligible for grant assistance.          .
                                             i
           We believe on evaluation-the projects eligible for grant
assistance, but not for the reasons cited, nor do we belieae it should
be by legislative decree.  We think we have the necessary restrictions
now with the priority system and limited money.

           Proper state evaluation of projects to determine the best
water quality improvement for the dollar can be used as a basis for
priority so that those projects needed most get funded first.  Those
projects not immediately funded, lower priority projects, would have
to wait until they could be afforded.

           We think it improper to declare ineligible any type of pro-
ject by class.  Although we think treatment plants generally should
have high priority and correction of combined sewer overflows and

-------
                                                                 59


treatment, or control of storm water should have low priority, possibly
under certain circumstances there may be exceptions, and we should leave
it to the State Certifying Agency to determine what is most needed
to accomplish the goals of water quality standards.

          , Another point which we feel is extremely important is
to reinstate the reimbursable provision in the Grant Sections.  We
had discussed this in detail and felt the following would be not only
equitable, but would aid in accelerating construction of needed work.

           One, every municipality or authority submitting a project
by means of a feasibility report would be placed on a priority list in
accordance with the need of the project to accomplish the goals of
the Act.
     *
           Two, as applicants-complete approved plans and specifications,
if they are high enough on the priority list, they may have their
project approved for construction with available grants.

           Three, applicants with approved plans and specifications
may, if they desire, proceed with construction if they are not high
enough on the priority list; however, they must proceed without Federal
financing, but they will be eligible for reimbursement if and when
they become high enough on the priority list.

           Four, at the end of each fiscal year the priority list is
revised to remove projects already funded, add new projects, and
reevaluate the need for old projects, with the
understanding that if a project was funded locally, its priority status
cannot drop; that is, no new projects or old lower priority projects
may be put on the list ahead of :the locally.funded project.

           Thus, if a municipality decides its project is important
enough, or if it is near enough tol:the top to be  funded in a following
year, it might elect to proceed, saving the inflation costs of waiting
and knowing it.will-not lose out because it was acting for the good
of the environment.  Any project on the priority list would move to
the top eventually,, if it proceeded with construction, as other projects
were funded and removed. ,

           As to the specific issues raised, we feel:

           One, that we should evaluate the priorities and, therefore,
the environmental impact on the cost effective imporvement to water
quality; that is, the greatest benefit per dollar spent.

           Then, when this is done, we must finance the high priority
type items first on both Federal and local levels.  Also, we must not
mandate local completion of lower priority items that do not get Federal
support.  The important thing is to realize that we must not require
municipalities to fund these lower priority items alone, but we must
recognize they are postponable.

-------
                                                                 60
           Two, the administration and assignemtn of priorities,
and therefore construction programs, will be a state function.

           Three, the progress and construction of both priority
items and non-priority items would proceed more rapidly because of
the reimbursement provisions proposed by us.  This would increase
employment, and if taken in conjunction with other recommendations made
in the latter part of this paper, would improve the overall economy
compared with the present situation.

           Paper number four, Extending the 1977 date for the publicly
owned treatment works to meet water quality standards.

           This is a self-evident must.  The date was never realistic
and made non-compliance practically mandatory.  This may not mean much,
except we lose confidence in a difficult law with an impossible goal.

           We are forced to look for invisible loop holes to enable
us to make grants when we know the date cannot be met, and yet if the
grant is not made, either we financially penalize an earnest attempt
to clean up or nothing gets done.  Of the five alternatives, we think
the most practical is a combination of alternate three and four,
slightly modified as follows:                                          :
                                     .'   *
           Seek statuatory amendments that would maintain the 1977
date but would require the Administrator to grant compliance schedule
extensions on an ad hoc basis based upon the availability of Federal
funds and upon actual time required with the expenditure of good faith
efforts to build the necessary facilities.    <

           Me also believe that industrial deadlines should be
capable of Administrator extension based upon physical impossibility
of compliance and when good faith performance n's shown.

           As far as the specific issues raised in the paper, we feel
we have given our opinion concerning issues one through six.  As
to the remaining issues were believe:

           Seven, EPA should definitely change the definition of
secondary treatment to cover a large range of degrees'of treatment,
and abolish BOD as a standard, and apply the necessary treatment,
including the necessity of disinfection on a case by case basis,
giving the Regional Administrator wide latitude as to application,
considering all environmental and socio-economic factors.
                                                                       *
           We feel extensions of the dealine would still be necessary
because of the time lag due to construction and funding.

           Eight, we feel any specific extension in the legislation is
proper.

-------
                                                                 61


           Nine, yes, letters of authorization would be much better •
than the complex paper consuming short-term permits.

           Paper number five, delegating a greater portion of the
management of the construction grants program to the states.

           We feel this should be done when the state demonstrates
it is capable of handling such a complex proposition.  If, however,
a state does demonstrate its ability and has a desire to do so, we
believe it should be compensated by the Federal Government to offset
the additional expenditure it makes compared with states that do not
take over this management.

           We do not, however, believe the compensation should come
from the State's allotment of Federal money as proposed.  This would
penalize states that did this work.  We feel payment should be either
from a general fund or a fund set up by taking up to two percent of the
total allotment to all states, before allocation.  At the end of the
year any unexpended  money in this fund would be distributed amongst
all states in the same ratio as originally to be used for grants.
Thus, no individual state would be rewarded or penalized for not doing
this work by affecting its grant allocation for projects.

           Besides, the five specific items, we believe there are many
more important items that could have been addressed, and since the
notice stated that the hearing was not meant to confine the discussions,
we are mentioning a few with a very brief discussion.

           Item A.  Have the federal government guarantee the payment
of environmental municipal bonds.

           This would allow the government to move against a defaulting
municipality for repayment if need be, but the real asset to the
taxpayer would be to make all environmental bonds, so certified by
EPA, Class AAA bonds and the interest rate in many cases would drop
from eight percent or nine percent to four percent or five percent.
What a savings to our taxpayers for a very little Federal cost.

           For example, for each $15 billion dollars a year of
Federal expenditure, there must be $5 billion of state or local monies
spent, based on the present 75 percent - 25 per cent share.  Five
billion dollars on a 30 year bond issue of nine percent and five percent
gives debt services of $486,680,000 and $325,257,000 respectively.
Thus, you can see that such Federal support could save municipalities
$161,432,000 per year for 30 years for each $15 billion put up in
Federal aid.  This is a reduction of 33 percent of the municipal
share without increasing the Federal share.

           This would also make the municipality put its priorities in
environmental work, since other municipal bonds that were not.
guaranteed by the Government would be paying the high rate of interest,

-------
                                                                 62
depending upon the rating and stability of the local government,
called for by the local status.  It is important to note that we are
not recommending Federal backing of all municipal bonds, just those
issues certified by EPA as environmental issues for work required by
PL 92-500.

           Item B.  Review and adjust our requirements on a case by
case discharge basis.  Reduce our expenditure by not requiring the
same minimum discharge by everyone.

           To require the high standards that we have defined for
secondary treatment for discharges into the ocean, or even our large
rivers, at all times is the height of folly and a waste of money.
Mandatory year round chlorination of all discharges is not only
economically wasteful, but harmful to our environment.  All discharges
should be individually evaluated as to the effect on the environment  «
and each Regional Administrator should be able to prescribe the
required treatment and schedule for operations.  We could save
much money and at the same time aid the environment.

           Item C.  Do not mandate some of the theoretical details
presently in the law.

           Make the -law more general and allow the Regional Administra-
tor more latitude on details.  As stated before, there is no sub-
stitute for good judgement, but make the law permissive enough so
that judgement of the Administrator is not overruled by an adverse
ruling from OMB or another watch dog agency.

           Generally speaking, we should go over the Act paragraph by
paragraph and delete those parts of the Act which legilatively are
in too much detail, particularly where we feel the item does not
contribute to water quality, but is an administrative type of ruling
which does not leave us much discretion.  Things like equitable and
user charges sound good, but in practice are defined too strictly to
permit a cost benefit type of operation.  If you have a law that states
that costs shall be eqaitable, leave it to the municipality to
determine what is equitable.  If they are wrong some taxpayer will
take them to task.  The present regulations are so complex that the cost
of administrating, in many cases outweighs our financial return
at a net loss to the taxpayer.

           We don't believe the Federal Government should get into
the rate structure aspects of the operation.  It is just another
expensive area for them to monitor with no direct affect on the
environment.

           Procurement is another area where we should be careful.
The mandating of two name brands or equal could, in many cases, cause
the purchase of inferior equipment that can lead to very high
maintenance or replacement costs.

-------
                                                                 63


           Item D.  Improve the cash flow to grantee after a grant
offer is accepted.

           At present it is not until a portion of the construction
is completed that we may apply for a partial payment of the grant money
to cover the cost of that particular construction phase.

           Even when all delays of processing are reduced to a bare
minimum, there is a one month lag period from the check.  To this
must be added the time from construction in the ground until the time
the engineer can certify this to the Grantee, and EPA, of approximately
one month.  Thus, if a contractor must wait for the grant funds to
be available, he has a minimum of two months; and, in practice,
three or four months, until he gets paid.

           If, on the other hand, the grantee pays the contractor when
the money is due, as many do, it finds it is prefinancing a portion
of the grant, to its financial detriment.

           We suggest that the legislation or regulations be modi-
fied so that the funds be given to the grantee in accordance with the
cash flow schedule that is submitted with the application for the
grant.

           Reports and inspections can be requireddso that if
construction is seriously lagging, a rescheduling of the cash flow can
be made.  In other words, let the grantee have the money about two
weeks before it needs it, so that when calculating its cash needs the
grantee does not have to do some very expensive overfinaneing.

           Thus, the realization that we have limited funds must be
extended to municipal participation.  We must not just consider
reducing Federal share, we must reduce total share to highest
priority items with greatest cost benefit ratio.  The thing to bear
in mind is that the reduction in the Federal share, without .correspon-
ding reduction in local share, will contribute to Federal responsibili-
ty for bankrupting many of our communities which are presently in
trouble.

           Now, we realize a problem, when you said a cash flow
schedule, that you could have a lag and you might be getting the
money too far in advance.  This you can do by having your people
check progress things.  All we want is the money two weeks before we
need it.

           Thank you.

           CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  Excellent presentation.

           Mr. Aim.

           MR. ALM:  If I understood you, your proposal -- you are

-------
                                                                 64
proposing that EPA provide a tax exempt local bond?

           MR. LUBETKIN:  Yes, on bonds certified by the EPA as
work under the grant program.  They will guarantee payment by the
municipality, so when New York City goes out for a bond on a
particular treatment plant, instead of paying nine percent they will
five percent.

           MR. ALM:  I was going to ask you to what extent financing
problems occur in New Jersey, and whether or not they are an
impediment to the program.

           MR. LUBETKIN:  Tremendous.  We had in New Jersey a 15
percent matching grant.  In a few months we ran out of money from a
bond issue that went before.  Legislation has been introduced for a
bond referendum to add money, another $180 million or something like
that.  I am not sure of the exact figure.  In the present climate it
has to go before a referendum and I am willing to bet, unless there
was some stipulation made to the public that if we do not get this
we don't get so much Federal money, it is just going to be killed.

           The voters are, up to here.  In fact, you may have read
recently, we have just passed an unbalanced budget, which means that
the Governor has told the Senate, if the Senate does not give them
additional taxing powers he is going to fire something like 30,000
state employees, so that will give you an idea of our problems.

           CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  Let me ask along that line.  Suppose we
went back in some form to the old system in which there was a higher
level of Federal grant, where there was a state matching grant program
and a lower Federal grant, would that provide the leverage?
                                                             »
           MR. LUBETKIN:  There is no question that particular gun would
force the state to pass its bonding act.   But, the state is paying
more than the Federal Government to get its money, so really the
taxpayer would still be paying more, although the state can finance
cheaper than a municipality, the Federal Government can finance cheaper
than a state, and I do feel under today's climate, it is cheaper
for the taxpayers, for the Federal Government to pick up the maximum.

           Now, the other thing is that it is unfair where some people
have already had the 75 percent, and now you are asking --

           CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  I understand that.  And, there is an
element of unfairness that would obviously result, and that is
undoubetedly going to be one of the concerns.

           Under the old system, most states were moving toward an
establishment of a matching grant program.  Let me just throw out an
idea.

           Suppose the Federal share were kept at 75 percent provided

-------
                                                                 65


that there was a straight state matching grant  program  for  ten or
fifteen percent, but that in the absence of  such  a  program, or perhaps
at some date in the absence of such a program,  the  Federal  share was
65 percent or 70 percent, 60 percent, something of  that sort.  Then,
I would assume that the reasonable follow-on from that  would be that
very quickly all the states, indeed, would have state matching grant
programs.

           MR. LUBETKIN:  I would assume that also.  It would be
rather silly not to, and every organization  would get behind the bond
and that is the way you will get it passed.

           CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  If that is the result of  playing this
out, you may have substantially all of the constructions that would be
built over the next couple of decades, the Federal  share might be 75
percent that you have now.  So, there would  be  no change there.

           It would be injecting a new element, namely, that there
would be more assurance that for a substantial  part of  the balance,
you would be getting state borrowing rather  than  municipal borrowing
with the interest benefits there.

           In addition, it would be providing the other aspect of
providing assurance that the state agency which had the increasing
responsibility for administration of the program  has got a stake
financially in the construction, and therefore, increased incentive to
provide the staff to do a good job of handling  the applications and
monitoring the construction.

           MR. LUBETKIN:  We agree with that.   In fact, we sent the
resolution to the state endorsing the 15 percent.   It is just that
without the club of the Federal Act, we just did  not believe it would
pass a referendum.

           MR. HANSLER:  If a Federal Treasury  guarantee of the 25
percent local bonding became a reality, do you  think there should be
a  Federal  requirement that the city whose bonds are guaranteed, that
city must not allow a tap-off of sewer system revenues  to run general
government?

           MR. LUBETKIN:  Yes, I do.

           MR. HANSLER:  Would you like to see  revenue  bonding and
the authority for a political subdivision to cover the  25 percent
state local share in New Jersey?

           MR. LUBETSKIN:  What do you mean  by  revenue  bonding
authority?

           MR • HANSLER:  Where they would sell  their bonds based on
a  revenue schedule to pay for the local share of  the trunks of-the
interceptors, whatever, rather than rely on  capital bonding which

-------
                                                                 66
goes to capital tax.

           MR. LUBETKIN:  In our area, revenue bonds pay a heck of a
higher rate than the others, because where we classify something
revenue, if you don't get the money in you are stuck.  But, as soon
as they get somewhere, they can go on other taxable —  There is a
difference.

           MR. HANSLER:  What if you had the Federal guarantee though?

           MR. LUBETKIN:  I think if you had the Federal  guarantee, you
do not --  It doesn't matter where your source of revenue is.  It
becomes moot.  You make it revenue or anything else, because the rate
of interest is a function of risk, and if the Federal Government is
going to eliminate or minimize the risk, because as soon  as the
Federal Government goes, so does the dollar bill go, and  you have the
lowest possible interest rate.

           MR. HANSLER:  I am looking at the equity within a state,
trying to finance the 25 percent state-local share with a state bond
issue, versus the people, who are responsible for requiring these
improvements, paying the share themselves at the local  level.
                                                              "\ '
           MR. LUBETKIN:  I understand what you are saying.  Of
course, when Mr. Quarles asked the question, the reason he felt that
there should be state participation, is because he felt there might
be more state interest, and, therefore, more control over the thing.

           Your position, as I hear it is just the opposite, that
once we get the Federal guarantee, now there is no reason for us to
reduce costs, because we have minimum costs and shouldn't those
people who are getting the benefit pay for it?

           Of course, theoretically the answer is yes.   I can only go
back to a statement made that Mr. Quarles asked.  If many of them
already had 15 percent, is it now fair to switch horses,  and of course
your answer is, there is always unfairness.

           From an individual-municipal point of view,  that has not
funded its work, they want the 15 percent.  For someone who has his
money already and has to pay for someone else, they would like it cut
off.  So, from the average taxpayer, once we have Government guarantee,
it doesn't make any difference.

           MR. ALM:  I have one question.

           Do you have any interest rates in New Jersey?

           MR. LUBETKIN:  Yes, there was a six percent, but then they
passed legislation removing the ten percent on the year by year basis.
The last I heard there is no particular difference.

-------
                                                                 67


           They get around that, by selling an eight percent bond
and selling it at a discount.

           MR. HANSLER:  Do you think there would be more influence on
the part of a state government in land use if you had state grant
programs versus a local program only.

           MR. LUBETKIN:  There would be if the state grant is tied
up with approvals on the management program.

           In other, words, if you have a state management program and
you say the grant is subject to -- you are fitting in with that
management program, you have the dollar club, there is no question about
that.

           If it is not a mandatory item, you are going to have
individual.communities, local rights within a state.  The problem of
local rights versus state rights, just as you have state versus
Federal.

           I know there are many cases where we try to use the club,
unless the carrot is big enough, you always have fights.  I definitely
think, if a state is given money, they will have a more significant
impact on land management.

       -   CHAIRMAN QUARLES: , All right.  My bias is obvious.   I
think if we are aiming toward the goal that I feel most of us  are
aiming towards, which in increasing state management over the  system,
at least in regard to the Federal, that it is very important that the
state have a financial committment involvement in funding the  facilities.

           That is my bias.

           Mr. Marks, please.

           MR. MARKS:  Mr. Chairman, gentlemen of the Committee, I  thank
you for the opportunity to comment on possible legislative changes
governing the Agency's grant program for the construction of municipal
sewage treatment facilities.  My name is BiJly Marks and I am  an
environmental analyst for the City of Newark.

           To begin, we would like to say that the city of Newark is
addressing the needs of our country's development and is aligning our
city's needs to complement those of the,country.

           It is with deep sincerity that we>comment on the possible
legislative changes before us today.  In presenting our comments, we
feel that they key issue to be considered in these legislative changes
is the establishment of priorities on a national  basis.

           Is the Congress going to accelerate the demise of this
nation's cities by providing water monies to fuel  suburban and exurban

-------
                                                                 68
projects and that the 75 percent figure be retained for funding of
urban projects.

           These minimum allocations will place the emphasis on support
of the needs of existing densely populated urban centers.  These
centers are now experiencing strained environmental conditions that
are instrumental in the negative patterns of growth presently being
suffered, as evidenced in New York City, Newark and other northeast
areas.  By incorporating this type of discretionary Federal funding
policy, we will experience a built-in growth control regulator that
should help to curtail present suburban and exurban sprawl, while
providing for an urban refurbishment and renaissance.

           The second area of proposed legislative change is the
limiting of Federal financing to serve only the needs of existing
populations.  As it has been well documented that the United States
Environmental Protection Agency is presently financing rural development
and growth through its water funding programs, the City of Newark whole-
heartedly agrees with the limiting of Federal financing to serve  -
only the needs of existing populations.

           Our only request is that priority be given to urban
areas that support dense existing populations.  Since urban areas
have a relatively stable growth projected for the near future,
there will be little or no need to plan a reserve capacity in these
areas.  But, we also recognize that the Federal financing of only
existing populations will not prohibit grantees from providing cost
effective reserve capacity beyond that fundable by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency with that reserve capacity being 100
percent financed by the grantee.  This issue should be addressed.

           The third area of proposed legislative change is the
restricting of the types of projects that are eligible for grant
assistance.  Public Law 92-500 authorizes funding of the following
types of projects:

           One, secondary treatment plants.

           Two, tertiary treatment plants as needed to meet water
quality standards.

           Three-A, correction of sewer infiltration/inflow.

           Three-B, major sewer rehabilitation.

           Four-A, collector sewers.

           Four-B, interceptor sewers.
                                                                  ?.
           Five, correction of combined sewer overflows.

           Six, treatment or control of stormwaters.

-------
                                                                 69


           This classification above  is  the  same used to identify water
pollution control needs in the 1974 Needs Survey.  The City of
Newark's reaction to the narrowing of project eligibility by
eliminating some of those categories, where  clearly identified needs
have been,established is that it may  jeopardize the basic PL 92-500
objective to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biologi-
cal integrity of the nation's waters.
        v -^ ^       l                              +
       >£i 
-------
                                                                 70


Newark agrees that a tightening of the fiscal accountability systems
should be required of states carrying out their construction projects.

           Statutory authority should be retained by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency to develop criteria for independent
audits and evaluation of construction grants.  Even though the
United States Environmental Protection Agency may delegate the
management of grant programs to the states, Newark believes that
the United States Environmental Protection Agency should establish
a list of national project priorities and supervise the development
of priority lists of each state.  The Federal control over the priority
arrangement of the projects will help to insure the incorporation of
national objectives, especially those of curtailing suburban and
exurban sprawl.

           In closing, the City of Newark would like to reemphasize
that the establishment of well defined national priorities should
be adopted as part of the legislative changes that are being discussed
here today.  Through this process, the Congress will  insure that
national goals are.met in preserving our urban centers and decreasing
the momentum of suburban and exurban sprawl.

           Thank you.

           CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  Any questions?

           Thank you very much.

           Is Ms. Rastatter here, do you know?

           Next, I would call on Warren Gregory and Tom Walker.

           MS. RASTATTER:  I am Clem L. Rastatter, Senior Associate
of the Conservation Foundation, a non-profit  operating foundation
which has devoted a considerable portion of its pro-ram activities
and resources to research and public education in Federal  water
quality issues.  I am pleased to appear here  today before such a
distinguished group to present the testimony  of the Conservation
Foundation.

           Given the preceding testimony that I have heard, I am
afraid I am going to raise some question, given everybody elses1
testimony and make someone mad at me.

           It seems very unpopular to question whether or not the
Federal Government should pay 75 percent almost ad infinitum toward
the country's water quality improvement needs.  There is no area of
the 1972 amendments that have been subjected  to more controversy than
those elements of PL 92-500 that constitute what I call the municipal
waste treatment facilities program.  And, from an environmentalist
perspective, there is no other area of the Act where the political

-------
                                                                  71


and financial issues of  implementing  new environmental  requirements
seems less resolvable.

           With.that discouraging  remark I  would  like  to  point out
what I feel has'become a central issue  in the  way we address any  one
of the issues presented  here  in  the papers  here in the Federal Register.

           The central question  is the  debate  that centers around the
kind of requirements that municipalities must  meet, by date and
financing.  It  is whether or  not the  municipal  program established
by Public Law 92-500 is  meant to be primarily  a public works program,
or is that program meant to be primarily a  regulatory  program?

           The answer to that question,  we  feel must be that Congress
established a regulatory program and  provided  Federal  financial
assistance for the construction  of publicly owned treatment works.
Governmental point source dischargers as well  as  industrial point
source dischargers were  required to meet specific effluent standards
by 1977 and 1983, and substantial  penalities were authorized to be
imposed by Congress for  noncompliers.

           With that as  background, I will  just try to summarize our
reaction to the issue papers  and I will  start  with the issue paper
which we feel is logically the first  issue  in  all  of these papers
which is that of extending the 1977 date for publicly  owned treatment
works to meet water quality standards.

           In order to meet with that issue, it is necessary to
address the issue raised in that paper  about what has  caused the
situation that we are in whereby most municipalities will not meet the
1977 deadline, and we feel there are  several reasons,  in  addition to
those listed in paper number  four, which explain  why 9,000 municipali-
ties will not be able to comply  with  1977 requirements.

           These range from the  impoundment of half of the $18 billion
worth of construction grant funds  authorized to be obligated;
delays in construction grant  obligations caused by the  slowness
in development of EPA regulations  as  well as lack of understanding on
the part of municipalities, states and  consulting engineers as to
what must be done to comply with new  Federal requirements.

           Delays in construction  grant  obligations caused by
inadequate numberssof EPA personnel,  and/or inflexibility and confusion
of EPA personnel in response  to  problems.

           Inadequate instruction  from  Congress on how to deal with
those grant applications already in the  pipeline  which  would suddenly
have to meet new grant requirements.

           Delays in construction  grant  obligations caused by
recalcitrant municipalities and  construction engineers  in dealing
with new Federal requirements with which they  do  not agree.

-------
                                                                 72
           All of the above listed problems Indicate that central to '
the problems of meeting 1977 deadlines for municipalities has been
-requent delays in making available or obligating available Federal
funds.  And, a primary cause of these delays has been what might have
been foreseen as problems in getting large Federal and state
bureaucracies to change course and adjust to new requirements.

           One further problem, however, which was probably more
responsible than any other for municipalities' failure to meet 1977
deadlines was the decision by EPA in 1973 to tie the regulatory and
funding requirements of the Act together.  While the other problem
areas listed above have gradually sorted themselves out with time,
causing temporary delays in the program and in meeting statutory
deadlines, the ramifications of the decision to tie regulatory and
funding requirements together, are likely to continue to haunt us
for some time.

           This decision, enunciated in a policy statement entitled
"Municipal Permits and Planning:  Compliance with the 1977-78 Deadlines"
stated that when a municipality failed to receive federal funding
sufficient to begin construction in time to meet the 1977 secondary
treatment deadline, this municipality would be issued a National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit that would be based on
optimum operation and maintenance, and would not require a new
significant construction.  EPA rewrote the law.  Instead of saying,
that all municipalities had to achieve secondary treatment by 1977,
EPA was now saying that only those municipalities that received Federal
funds would have to so.comply.
                                                          •\
           There has been significant debate over the various dollar
figures that have arisen in three separate needs surveys.  Whatever
the current need is, and it seems to be pretty clear that the bulk of
the $346 billion need identified in the past survey includes the whole
spectrum of eligible construction activities, not just the secondary
treatment goal, it is clear that Congress has not authorized an
amount sufficient to meet the nationwide secondary treatment goal.
Nor, we submit, is Congress likely to ever authorize such an amount
if figures that are currently being bandied about are in any order of
magnitude correct.

           We also would submit that while significant Federal fi-
nancial assistance is a desirable objective, an equally desirable ob-
jective is that municipalities and -states treat the provision of
sewage treatment as a community responsibility in the same manner that
the school system is a community responsibility.

           Where does this leave us now concerning the 1977 date for
municipal compliance with effluent standards?

           It is clear that the date for municipal compliance must be
extended.  I know of no one who is responsibly suggesting otherwise.

-------
                                                                 73


We have created a situation where at  least  half,  if  not most, municipal
dischargers will not meet statutory deadlines, making a farce of
the law, and of enforcement,  if this  is  allowed to stand.   It is
equally clear to us however,  that an  unlimited extension dependent upon
the availability of Federal funding means we will be spending money
to essentially stand still, to play catch up with some of our worst
problems, while areas which do not yet have problems and have not
yet received Federal funds wait until their problem  has become
sufficiently bad that they can make the  state priority list for the
limited amount of Federal financial assistance available.

           Nineteen eighty-three is eight years away.  This is more than
enough time for communities to plan,  design and construct whatever the
necessary facilities are to meet a uniform  effluent  standard.

           We suggest that the deadline  for municipal compliance be
extended to 1983.  We also suggest that  municipalities be put on
notice right now that non-compliance  with the 1983 standard will
mean enforcement action.

           We feel quite firmly that  a policy alternative which allows
the Administrator of EOA to give a case  by  case extension with no
deadline to municipalities means that the existing policy of hands-off
unless there are Federal funds available will continue.

           The above mentioned extension should only be given to
those who are not now on a permit schedule  requiring them to meet a
secondary treatment effluent  standard.   Since all of those now on a
secondary treatment compliance schedule  have received significant
amounts of Federal funds, this should pose  no problems.
                 £b -
           All of those communities who  now have permits based on
optimum operation and maintenance, should be required to be on a new
permit with a new compliance  schedule by July 1, 1977.  The
Environmental Protection Agency should make it very  clear that each
phase of that compliance schedule is  enforceable, whether or not
Federal funds are available,  and regardless of the amount of Federal
funding available.

           In issue paper number four, EPA  discussed the alternative
we have suggested and gives two reasons  why this alternative does not
appear to be a good one.  EPA suggests than an across-the-board
extension, regardless of the  problems of the given POTW might jeopar-
dize the NPDES program, and that industrial facilities might insist
on similar extensions, also jeopardizing the NPDES program.

           We feel that both  of these arguments are  specious, given
that EPA is already treating  municipalities differently from
industrial facilities by not  requiring municipalities who do not
receive Federal funds to meet 1977 deadlines, and there is no reason
why the extension until 1983  has to be an across-the-board extension

-------
                                                                 74
for all POTW's.

           There are a number of POTW's who are on a 1977 compliance
schedule because they have received sufficient Federal funds to meet
that schedule.  There is no reason for that schedule to be changed.

           Having stated that we believe municipalities should have
to meet a uniform national standard regardless of the availability
or nonavailability of Federal funds, we can now address the remaining
questions raised by the EPA issue papers.

           First, however, we must ask another question:  What standard
should municipalities have to meet in 1983?

           This is a difficult question, and one that the Congress
wrestled with for the two and one-half years that they debated the
FWPCA Amendments.  Congress determined that enforcements and
administrative efficiency required that municipalities as well as
industries meet a uniform national effluent standard.  We do not
feel this concept should be changed.

           The one area where this concept has been seriously
debated during the last several years, has been in the area of deep
water ocean dischargers.  We have seen no convincing evidence that ,
these dischargers should be excused from meeting secondary treatment
deadlines.  It is our understanding that while dissolved oxygen
demand may not be a problem in the deep ocean, secondary treatment
remains the most cost effective treatment for toxic substances, heavy
metals and pathogens.

           In fact, an EPA Task Force investigating the deep water
ocean discharge issue concluded:

           "One, there are pollutants whose input to both open ocean  ^
and near-shore waters should be limited because of their toxic and
persistent characteristics and because their efforts cannot be
minimized by dilution.  These include lead, cadmimum, mercury and
persistent organics.

           Two, Pollutants which cause or have the potential to cause
adverse environmental effects in near-shore waters include moderately
toxic and persistent metals and organic compounds; nutrients;
oxygen-demanding materials; settleable solids, floatables; and pathogens.

           Three, pollutants which cause or have the potential to
cause adverse environmental effects in the open ocean include
moderately toxic and persistent metals and organic compounds;
settleable solids; and pathogens.  Not included are nutrients and oxygen
demanding materials.  However, these materials can cause harm
adjacent to the outfall site if the waste is not rapidly diluated and
dispersed.

-------
                                                                 75


           Four, of the treatment technologies considered, primary
chemical primary and secondary, secondary  treatment achieves the best
effluent quality for the pollutants of concern in  both near-shore and
open ocean waters.  Other more effective,  but more costly technologies
were not considered.

           Five, disinfection must follow  primary, chemical primary
and secondary treatment processes to achieve destruction of pathogens.
However, the opportunity for disinfection  following primary treatment
is precluded because it is ineffective and very costly.

           Six, based on preliminary investigations, primary treatment
is the best technology of those considered for open ocean waters if the
selection is based solely on costs relative to pollutant removals,
sludge production, land requirements, and  on-site  energy demand and
assuming no reduction of pathogens is necessary.   If pathogen reduction
and more effective removal of other pollutants is  necessary,
secondary treatment is the best technology."

          , We would suggest the 1983 goal  should remain Best Practicable
Waste Treatment Technology, and that at a  minimum  BPWTT be defined
as a secondary treatment effluent standard.

           In essence what I am saying, was when it was recommended
on a-case by case basis, that if you gave  an automatic extension to all
of those who did not have permits, that would eliminate some of the
administrative burden of having to deal with those who really have
no good reason to be extended beyond the 1977 deadline.

           Although we feel that municipalities should comply with
a uniform standard regardless of availability of Federal funds, it is
in everyone's interest to see that existing federal funds are maximized
and are --

           Nine papers in ten minutes that is just not fair.  I will
make it as short as I can.

           -•-  In the interest of equity,  stretched.  We believe that
we now have the evidence before us that requiring  75 percent Federal
funding for every municipal facility has been a mistake.

           Consulting engineers designing  such facilities have had
every incentive to design very costly capital intensive facilities
knowing full well that 75 percent Federal  money would be available
to pay for them.  Regardless of the existence of cost effectiveness
guidelines, in many cases the facilities designed  have been larger, and
more complex, than they need be. <

           There is no evidence to support our understanding that many
municipalities which receive Federal construction  funds are designing
facilities that they are unable to afford  to operate properly.

-------
                                                                 76
           There are other reasons for these phenomena mentioned, but
it does seem to us that the combination of 75 percent funding for
all projects and the policy of no enforcement to meet the 1977
standard if there is no Federal funding available, has exacerbated
this phenomenon of large capital intensive secondary treatment
facilities.

           For communities know that not only is there a good chance
they will get 75 percent funding eventually, but they also know that
if they sit back and wait to see if they are going to get the money,
no one is going to complain.
                . i
           We suggest that the money that Congress authorizes each
year for contractual obligation be divided among the states on a per
capita basis.  The state in turn would establish a floating percentage
Federal share depending on the amount authorized for obligation that
year, these funds to be distributed within the state on the basis of
an EPA approved priority list.  This must be done with a clear
understanding that regardless of the availability of Federal
financial assistance, every municipal point source discharger must
be in compliance with the Federal law; by 1983.  With that in  mind,
the state should be fiscally responsible along with the municipality
for seeing that 1983 standards are met.

           We also suggest that Congress now authorize the appropriation
levels from the present until 1983.  States should have in place an
EPA approved priority system for distributing these -- funds  by
July 1, 1976.

           The combination of the state priority system and the long
range authorizations for meeting the"1983 standard will allow
communities to make their plans realistically with full knowledge of
the Federal funds likely, or not likely, to be available.

           If this step is not taken, there is some danger that a num-
ber of communities will move forward very slowly, waiting to  see whether
and what kinds of Federal funding is likely to be available.   This
will in turn create an enormous enforcement and political problem.

           A certain proportion of each year's authorization  should
be reserved to be distributed on the basis of EPA established national
priorities.  These funds should be used to increase the Federal share
of a grant that is innovatively moving toward the national goal of no
discharge of pollutants.

           In order to assist small communities in reaching 1983
goals we suggest that EPA immediately fund a research project aimed
at providing guidance to small communities on what sewage treatment
technologies might be most cost effective for their communities.

           It is our feeling that the secondary treatment effluent
standard that is currently being met in small communities by large

-------
                                                                 77


capital intensive secondary treatment  plants could be met in many cases
by lagooning systems, land treatment systems and  septic fields.

           Although we have recognized a  floating federal share to meet
the 1983 goal, we recognize that  this  change in committment will cause
problems for those communities with facilities currently under
construction.  Many of these communities  will not have the fiscal
mechanisms in place for coming up with the  extra money to make up the
difference and still meet permit  deadlines.

           We suggest that all communities  with facilities currently
under construction continue to receive the  full 75 percent Federal
share.  All communities in the midst of Step II planning should be
given 75 percent Federal funds to complete  Step II planning, and be
given an up to two year extension, on  a case by case basis in order to
plan for raising extra local funds.  Those  communities currently in
receipt of Step I funds should be treated similarly.

           When the suggestion is made to reduce the Federal share
of construction grant funds, a question of  equity is often raised by
opponents.  For this reduction will mean  that some facilities will
be funded with 75 percent Federal money,  and others will receive a lesser
percent or no Federal funds.  We  submit that the answer to a mistake,
is never to continue that mistake.
                       >
           Paper number two, limiting  Federal funding of reserve
capacity to serve projected growth.

           We at the Conservation Foundation support,the concept of
limiting the eligibility of a growth related reserve capacity.  We
would like to suggest, however, that once again, unless this limitation
on growth reserve capacity is accompanied by strong enforcement of
effluent standards, it is likely  to lyad  to water quality degradation
instead of improvement.

           The Government must be able to exercise a credible threat
to a local community when it says we will not pay for your next 20
years' growth projection, but if  you are  planning that projected
growth, you had better be prepared to  deal  with it.  Otherwise, the
situation will be such that many  communities building Federally funded
sewage treatment facilities, will build for existing capacity and wait
until they have overflowed that capacity  and thereby gotten themselves
on the priority list to get new Federal funding.

           One of the questions at stake  here is:  Is the purpose
of the large scale existing Federal construction grants program to
deal with an existing problem that has gotten to be of such magnitude
that communities cannot realistically  be  expected to deal with it
themselves, and therefore, requires a  significant Federal committment?
Or is the purpose of the existing Federal construction grants program
to fund a permanent public works  program  that, incidentally,-improves
water quality?

-------
                                                                 78
           We do not think that the Congress ever intended that the
construction of sewage treatment works would proceed at the rate of
$5 to $6 billion a year indefinitely.  It appears to us that the
purpose of the construction grant program is to deal with an existing
problem of enormous magnitude, getting communities onto an even keel
where they can cope with the problems themselves.

           As part of a program to reduce the amount of community
growth that EPA will fund through sewage treatment grants, we suggest
that EPA write growth related conditions into all permits for
municipal facilities to insure that such facilities are not so
designed that they are overloaded before they are built, and that the
community must realistically plan for growth in the design of its
sewage treatment facility instead of waiting until the plant is
overloaded.

           Since January, 1974, EPA has adopted the position that it
has the authority through Section 402 (h) to include special
growth related conditions in municipal permits where growth is or is
likely to be a factor in the facility's performance.

           In a guidance memorandum to Regional Administrators, then
Assistant Administrator for Air and Water Programs, Robert Sansom,
suggested "that all municipal facilities selected for growth related
conditions ... be alerted to the authority of the regional administra-
tor, or the state if NPDES approval has been given, under Section 402
(h) of Public Law 92-500, to seek a court order imposing a ban or
restriction upon sewer connections in the event of a violation of
permit conditions and requirements."

           Mr. Sansom went on to suggest that where facilities had
an unused capacity, but with overload being imminent, and this was
defined as the facility operating in excess of 85 percent of designed
capacity, or where a high growth rate of three percent or more per
annum is anticipated, concrete management and planning action should
be required within the permit itself.

           As all compliance milestones within NPDES permit are
themselves enforceable, the memo concluded that in this manner high
growth areas could be forced to plan adequately for their growth.
This same kind of technique could be used if EPA determines to limit
the growth related reserve capacity of municipal facilities to insure
that such facilities are not under-planned and quickly overloaded
due to a lessening of the Federal share.

           Given the approach that Federal funds should only be
used to pay for existing problems, we believe that there is some merit
in planning a five year reserve capacity for treatment facilities and
a similar reserve capacity for sewers.  If the average lead-time for
the planning, design and construction of a sewage treatment facility
is around five years, this s-tould give more than ample time for the
community to make its own growth related decisions.

-------
                                                                79


           As was pointed out in EPA's position paper and has been
effectively point out in many other  sources,  including the CEQ
study on interceptor sewers and suburban  sprawl, restricting the amount
of growth encouraged by sewage treatment  funding will force local
communities to confront the real costs of growth, making rational
decisions and planning for these decisions well before these growth
problems hit them.

           One of the questions raised in the papers presented is
whether or not a recommended change  requires administrative or
legislative action.  The law requires that sewage treatment facilities
be planned with an adequate reserve  capacity.  The adequacy of the re-
serve capacity is left to be established  by the Administrator of
EPA.  It does appear to us that this particular set of decisions
does not require Congressional action.

           Issue paper number three.  Restricting the types of
projects eligible for grant assistance.

           Paper number three discussed restricting the types of
projects that are eligible for grant assistance from the Federal
government.  As the papers concerning eligibility rightly point out,
changes in eligibility for sewage  treatment grants can have the
effect of channeling construction  in one  direction or another.
This problem would be particularly exacerbated by a continuation of a
policy that syas none of the standards of the Act have to be met
unless Federal funding is available.
          • A
           In many, if not most cases, communities would take no
action'without Federal funds, and  only those projects eligible for
federal funds would get built.
      -M'Ci:
           We suggest that funding eligibility not be restricted.  The
price of the enforceable regulatory  goal  that communities must meet,
that of secondary treatment effluent standards, will not be
affected by a reduction in the eligibility for federal funds.
Reducing eligibility does not, in  fact, reduce needs, but merely those
needs that the Federal Government  is willing to pay for.

           There is no reason why  directing the expenditure of
federal funds cannot be handled through administrative action,
prioritizing the expenditure of funds within each state.  If EPA has
made it clear that effluent standards will be enforced, and that states
will be considered equally culpable with  communities for meeting those
standards, it is likely that the states will establish the funding of
the enforceable effluent standards as its first priority.

           Issue paper number five, delegating a greater portion of
the management oflthe construction grants program to the states.

           We now come to the final question raised in the issue pa-
pers to which our discussion is directed  today.  Should a greater

-------
                                                                 80
portion of the management of the Construction Grants Program be
delegated to the states?

           It should be pointed out that the phrasing of that question
is somewhat misleading, as almost all of the proposals currently under
discussion would delegate virtually all of the important decisions in
the grant giving process to the states.

           At the center of:the question of delegation to the states,
is once again the question of what is the purpose of the construction
grant program?  Is the program a public works program, or is the
purpose of the program to provide financial assistance to meet certain
national environmental goals?  Since we feel the answer must be the
latter, we oppose the delegation of major elements of the construction
grant program, specifically Step I planning to the states.

           It is interesting  to note that most of the focus of
whether to delegate the construction grant program to the states
has centered around delays in obligating construction grant funds.

           In fact, a careful examination of the hearings done by
EPA that have resulted in the recommendation that the construction
grant program be delegated to the states, shows that the central focus
of concern with this recommendation is how to get the construction
grant money out as fast as possible with as few strings attached as
possible.

           Unfortunately, much of the rhetoric by state agencies
concerning the fast obligation of construction grant funds has focused
on the red tape the Federal Government imposes on grant funds, such
as user charges, industrial cost recovery requirements, careful .
consideration of alternatives, environmental assessments and public
participation requirements.

           It is interesting  to note that the EPA Construction Grants
Review Group pointed out that one of the major problems that affected
both the quality of the construction grant program, and the rate of
obligations of the program, is lack of EPA field staff to handle and
evaluate grant application.  The report noted that in 1968, the
construction grant program obligated $2 billion with 320 program
personnel.  This same report  pointed out the lack of state manpower,
administrative and technical  capability to perform greater delegated
functions.

           "The two principal factors affecting the expansion of
state delegation area:

           "One, the states'  capability to perform these functions and,
two, the need to financially  support the states' assumptions of
delegations.  On the first point, EPA's Regional officials believe that
the states, with some exceptions, would require time to develop
capability to implement additional delegated functions.

-------
                                                                 81


           "The overall success, both current and prospective of
delegating the review of plans and specifications and operation and
maintenance manuals is the result of the fact that states have
performed these functions for a long'time.
                                   f

           As a general rule, however,  the  states have traditionally
been less involved in most of the other program  functions, particu-
larly facilities planning, the most manpower demanding function, and,
in all but a few cases do not possess the technical and/or adminis-
trative experience and manpower to effectively perform these other
functions.             ;

           Accordingly, except for the  above projected delegation of
plans and specifications and operations and maintenance manuals, and
except for a few other opportunities for readily delegating other
functions, future delegations will have to  be based on the states'
ability to develop the administrative machinery, the technical
competence and the expanded staff necessary to implement new delega-
tions.

           At:best, this requires time.  At worst, it is inhibited or
even made impossible by a number of constraints, including^ one,
state personnel ceilings, two, state inabilities, in some cases, to
attract qualified personnel because of  low  pay scales and other reasons,
and three, in some cases, lack of state interest or incentive to assume
new responsibilities.

           In short, constraints militate against significant
immediate expansion of delegations, and necessarily impose time
delays, one to three years, on any concerted attempt by EPA to
encourage expanded delegations."

           How the agency and the construction,-  grants review group
report can then conclude that delegation of the  Construction Grants
Program to the states is the answer to  all  problems is beyond us.

           It is an important fact of political  life that once EPA has
the authority to delegate the construction grant program, it will  be
under an enormous amount of pressure from the states, and from
certain elements in Congress to do so.  EPA will be under this pressure
regardless of the capabilities of the state agencies, and there is no
way politically that EPA will be able to take back the delegated
authority.  So in those five or six states which have for many years
had an innovative sewage treatment program, the delegation of authority
may improve the rate of obligations of  Federal funds.  In the other
44 to 45 states, the delegation may mean the rapid building of large
scale traditional, concrete public works projects, with_little
consideration for the secondary environmental impacts that are
required by Federal Law.
                                              '' i '•       »•'
           Lest you begin to question that the rapid obiigati-on of
sewage treatment grant funds is not a goal of an environmental orgam-

-------
                                                                 82
zation such as ours, let me set the record straight.

           It is indeed a goal which we place high on our list of
priorities.  Equally high on our list of priorities, however, is
the planning of sewage treatment facilities in such a manner that the
secondary environmental impacts of such facilities will not outweigh
direct environmental benefits.

           The case has not been made convincingly that qualitative
problems with the construction grant program will be solved by
delegating that program to the states.  Certainly EPA's manpower
problems will be somewhat alleviated by this delegation.  But it
appears that such alleviation will be at the cost of meeting Federal
environmental goals.

           I would like to note here that the retention of Federal
responsibility for environmental impact statements might help
alleviate some of the problems mentioned before, if it were not for
three things:

           EPA has traditionally written very few full  EIS's and,
in fact, has the funding in this fiscal year to write EIS's on
approximately five percent of the construction grant applications;

           Normally, the environmental impact assessment conducted
in the Step I planning process, proposed for state delegation,
determines whether a full EIS is necessary; and

           The EIS has never been treated by EPA as a decision making
instrument, even where it concerned an EPA program such as sewage
treatment grants.

           We suggest that EPA be given the additional  manpower it
needs to maintain effective quality control while expeditiously
obligating funds.  The manpower increase can be supplemented by
continued delegation of certain discrete program elements in Step II
and Step III Planning to state agencies.

           To leave you with some final thoughts on state program
delegation, while several states have been quite innovative in their
approach to planning sewage treatment facilities, many states have not.
In fact, most state agencies have been among those resistent to new
and important federal requirements that were imposed as a condition
of receiving federal sewage treatment construction grant funds under
PL 92-500.

           The attitude of many state agencies has been, give us the
money and let us spend it our way.  Arid, our response should properly
be, that PL 92-500 is a national environmental law with specific
goals, and that the funds available to help communities fund sewage
treatment are meant to be an incentive to meeting those goals.

-------
                                                                 83


If a state does not want to meet the conditions of construction grant
funds, it should not use federal money.

           It is an important fact of political life, we feel, once
EPA gets the authorization to delegate authorization to the state,
in no way are you going to be able to keep them from doing it, and in
no way are you going to be able to take it back from the state if
they are operating it poorly.

           I think the evidence of the last couple of years and the
debate over the last couple of years makes that clear.

           I had some other thoughts on state delegation, but I think
my time is more than up.

           CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  Thank you.  I felt it was worthwhile
to let you proceed, particularly because there are not many, very many,
representatives from groups such as yours today, and I think it is a
good statement of viewpoints, that I suspect are fairly well shared.

           You are putting your finger on one of — several of the
hard gut questions we have to face.  As a whole group here of people
concerned with the "future of the program; clearly one of the hardest
issues is, is this a regulatory program or a public works program.
           '-" -                     '*
           Or, to put it another way.  Should .the rate of funding by
the Federal Government be decisive over the rate of progress, or
shouTd it be expected that the regulatory controls to be established,
whatever the Federal Government provides, is that much help down the
road, but the entire distance has to be traveled, and the burden
falls on the states and localities to make up the difference.

           Let me just.ask you to comment on the point you made
before that what is not fundable must be deferrable.  I guess you are
simply in direct conflict with that approach.

           On the other hand, do you fee,! that is it realistic and
likely that the entire amount of work called for by the standards,
as we look towards 1983, is fundable, whether it be by locdl or state
or Federal, within that time frame?  I guess there has been some
question raised as to the validity of the estimates, and I am not
clear if all are those are needed to meet water quality standards,
but if we are talking about extremely,high levels of funds required,
do you recognize a possibility, that really, the amount of work
required to meet the standards is out of any reasonable relationship
to the amount you can expect to be funded?

           MS. RASTATTER:  I think you have to look at two different
sets of approaches to effluent quality standards and water quality
standards.  If you are saying to me, do we have-enough money available
at the Federal state and local levels, to meet a fishable, swimmable
water quality standard by 1983, I guess I would have to be pretty

-------
                                                                 84
discouraging.

           It is not just a question of the money available, it is a
question of how fast we move.  I think one of the biggest problems
with 92-500, is it is assumed you could move thousands of bureau-
crats in an instant. That is unrealistic.

           On the other hand, if you look at the effluent standards re-
quirements, legal requirements that are directly enforceable through
the permit program, I think there might be some question that the
money will be available.

           You have to look at several things.

           CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  By the effluent requirements, the law
requires us to meet the water quality standards as well.

           MS. RASTATTER:  Yes, Whatever the municipal facilities
standards becomes.

           CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  Yes.

           MS. RASTATTER:  I think you have to look at two things, the
one in which 75 percent Federal funding has encouraged the building
of more expensive facilities in many rural areas than might have
otherwise have been necessary to meet water quality standards and
effluent standards, and the manner in which the funding of reserve
capacity has also increased the, or diminished, the way in which the
money can be stretched.

           I think there are also other areas of the Act to help the
local Governments come up with their share that has to my knowledge,
have never been used.  Like the Environmental Financing Authority.

           I was struck by the gentleman's suggestion earlier that
the Federal Government guarantee bonds for local communities.  By
my understanding, that is exactly what the Federal Environmental
Funding Authority was suppose to do.

           CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  Similar.  I think the point I am trying
to bring us to is that, as I said earlier, there is a lot of room for
blame to be spread all around.  Why funds were not obligated more
rapidly than they have been; I tnink even apart from that, there was
an original flaw in this statute based on a fairly --  To understand-
the scope of the job, however, the standards call for an amount of
work to be done, that was tremendously out of phase.with the expectations
of how much money would be required to do the job.  People did not
expect that the levels of funding would be required, and if the next
round of statutory requirements are going to succeed any better than
the last one, doesn't there have to be the concensus on, really/ what
are we talking about as the goal to get done?  How much is tt going

-------
                                                                 85


to cost?  Where is that money going to come from?  And, only after
those questions are answered is it possible to establish regulatory
requirements that are going to have a chance of succeeding.

           MS. RASTATTER:  Well, because the Needs Surveys have been
so contradictory and confusing, it is very hard for me to respond to
questions of what will be the total cost of meeting regulatory
requirements of the Act.

           I do agree with you that there is insufficient direction in
many areas provided by the Act.  However, I do think that there is
evidence in the legislative history of the passage of the Act, that
nobody expected or very few expected, that $18 billion was going to
be sufficient.

           I believe the Senate Committee passed an appropriation of
$14 billion, they were lookin at estimates of the League of Cities
in the range of $34 or $35 billion.

           CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  I don't think there was very much
expectation —

           MS. RASTATTER:  Which is not to say that Congress knew
what they were doing.

           I am not making that statement.

           CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  You wouldn't be that extreme.

           MS. RASTATTER:  No, no, but at least the people writing
the Act had some knowledge.  If you took a vote on that right now
on that direct question —

           CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  Probably it is true that few people
really faced up to the prospect and took it seriously, that some
municipalities would get 75 percent grant and others none.  Both
groups would have to get the job done by the 1977 deadline. >

           MS. RASTATTER:  I am convinced it was passed —  that when
Congress read it — there was hardly anyone in Congress that read it.
It is 89 pages long.

           CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  That may be one of the reasons why it
did not work, and if we are going to come up with a law in the future
that will work, isn't there a need to address these questions and really
have them understood before the law is passed?

           MS. RASTATTER:  I would agree that there is certainly a
need to address these questions.  Unfortunately, 1977 is two years
away, and we have to wrestle with these questions before then.

-------
                                                                 86
           In the course of addressing these questions --

           CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  You are taking a broader view, you are
looking at 1983?

           MS. RASTATTER:  Right.  I am also saying that regardless of
the cost, regardless of the Federal share of that cost, someone is
going to have to meet it because if your estimates of cost are in any
order of magnitude correct, then we are just wasting our money right
now.  We are meeting some of the worst problems, some of the communi-
ties that we are pouring millions of dollars into now, for instance
Blue Plains, Cincinnati, have had some of our worst problems and are
receiving some of the largest funds --  The Potomac is not going to
be clean by the time the Blue Plans is finished, and I don't think
anyone expects it.
                                   ?•
           We cannot look at how much Federal money can go into an
individual project as the basis for the way in which we approach
the whole program.  We have to look at the whole, entire program's needs
and distribute responsibility for that program at a variety of govern-
mental levels.

           CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  What we are trying to drive to is, does
serious reflection occur, rightnow, recognizing that any legislative
action is year or two off, but to begin the process of coming to
grips with these questions so it may be possible to achieve a con-
census, or at least a consistent point of view, on what are we going
to get done?  When are we going to get it done?  Who is going to pay
for it?

           And, then establish some regulatory requirements that,
in fact, can be enforced against our Mayors and Governors and others,
because they are reasonable.

           We have a way to go.

           Le me ask another --  Let me bring up another element.  That
is the delegation of program responsibility to the state agencies.  It
is entirely clear to me that we are not going to do the job of achieving
water quality until we enforce permit requirements, which we have not
been doing, and it is an immediate challenge to the EPA and state
agencies to really begin rigid enforcement actions against
municipalities where they are failing to maintain and operate the
facilities.

           Let me start off with the hope that we will make some
significant progress in that direction.  We certainly are going to
put an emphasis on it.

           I ask you, if there is a sound and effective enforcement
of the regulatory requirements, then would your concern be alleviated
as to transfer of responsibility to the state agencies or responsibility

-------
                                                                 87

for handling the grant assistance part of  the  program?

           MS. RASTATTER:  No.  Primarily  because the regulatory —
my understanding is anyway, of the  law is  that the regulatory,
enforceable regulatory requirements that are outside of the grant
program are what comes out of a pipe.  The variety of other require-
ments, conditions, that are found in Title II, are imposed through
the availability of Federal funds.
                              , (
           I think it is entirely possible you would just lose
control completely of the way in which those Federal funds are
used, with reference to citing the  cost effective alternative that
is selected, the whole variety of environmental consequences that
have to be evaluated.                     •      3
                                                y
           I-am not persuaded that  the Environmental Impact Statement
within the agency is going to make  that much difference, given that
the agency does not regard the EIS  as a decision making statement,;and
the Environmental Impact Assessment, is usually the basis upon
which the determination of whether  an EIS, or  theoretically it is
supposed to be the-basis, of the determination of whether or not an EIS
will be written.                        ,    <   j  < *    „  ..
                                                                   • * »,,
           MR. HANSLER:  You kind of opened the door relative to  i
control technology available to municipalities, and extending that
from 1977 to 1983, do you think EPA should require municipalities
which have secondary treatment plants under the old law, operating now,
and the receding waters on meeting the swimmable, fishable requirements
in 1973, with the factor of safety, do you think those should be
upgraded to meet our present secondary treatment standards?

           MS. RASTATTER:  Yes.  I though you were going to ask me
should they be required to go something beyond secondary treatment,
and in that case I was going to beg off.

           MR. HANSLER:  I ask this because we are looking at Federal,
state and local funds, and the big dollar bill out there, should we
ask somebody who has secondary treatment under the old law where the
water quality standards are being met now, with the big safety factor
to tag on some more?                                  -

           MS. RASTATTER:  Clearly, that is going to be your big
concern in the spending of Federal money.
        i
           Let me back off here a little and say to not require that
is to make the assumption there is not going to be any other
effluent discharges into the particular body of water that are going
to degrade it.

           I don't know if that is an assumption that you are prepared
to make.

           CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  Again, saying it should be the lowest

-------
priority, that type of thing, that is the way we have handled this
problem.

           MS. RASTATTER:  But it is inconsistent with my saying they
have to meet regulatory requirements.

           CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  I would like to see us get to the
point where we have some regulatory requirements that are reasonable,
and are in harmony with realistic expectations as to the level  of
unfds that might be available so that we can bang away on them and
insist they be applied.

           I know you disagree with the 1973 decision, but I submit,
whether I was r4ght or wrong, that would be the decision -- that
would be the outcome in our system.  Again, and again, and again,
what I would like is to get us to a situation where we would not be
replaying that, but we would have another set of requirements,  more
realistic.

           MS. RASTATTER:  If you make a continued assumption that
communities will not have to do anything without Federal money, which
means that you can continue on the top — or the permit enforcement
program is flexible, then clearly, you can more administratively make
the decision that that particular community that Mr. Hansler has
described would not have to put any equipment into operate efficiently,
or to decrease its overload, but, if you make the assumption that
there are regulatory requirements that have to be met, and these re-
gulatory requirements have a basis in administration and efficiency
in terms of being able to project whether that water quality that is
currently being met is going to ccontinue to be met, then I think
you will have to look towards requiring that community to meet  a more
efficient secondary treatment effluent requirement.

           CHAIRMAN QUARLES:  Thank you very much.

           I think we should now break for lunch.  Hold on a moment
before you go.

           Let us assume, at least the panel will eat in the cafeteria,
and hopefully many of you will, and then we can get through there in
45 minutes, and plan to reassemble at 1:30.

           I have another engagement myself at 1:30 and will not be
back, the others will be.

           I will leave it to Mr. Agee to convene the group and we will
continue at that time.

           (Whereupon, at 12:45 a luncheon recess was held the
hearing to reconvene at 1:30 p.m.)

-------
                                                                 89
                      AFTERNOON SESSION
           MR. AGEE:  First this afternoon will  be Mr. Warren Gr.eqorv
and Mr. Tom Walker.

           Following them will be Paul Gleason or Sheldon London.
Following them will be Robert Sugarman.

           Before we start, I would  like  to ask  all of the speakers
this afternoon to please stay within ten  minutes if they possibly
can, and do what you can to summarize statements.  We would like to
have the total written statements, but we have roughly 30 people that
wish to testify this afternoon.

           We do have the auditorium for  as long as we want it today,
so I think everyone will have a chance to testify,                    .;
                             j
           Mr. Gregory.

           MR. GREGORY:  Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the panel
and ladies and gentlemen.

           In the interests of keeping within the prescribed ten
minutes, I would summarize my statement which I  have given to the
reporter.
     ...               t                     .

           My name is Warren Gregory.  I  am the  Director of Legislative
Affairs of the National Solid Wastes  Management  Association.  It
is a professional trade association  which represents private firms
engaged in the collection and disposal of solid wastes as well  as the
recovery of energy and resources from the waste  streams.

           What we are interested in  commenting  on today is perhaps
not as germane to those issues that you,  as professionals in the
water quality industry are interested in, what we are interested in
commenting on is the enclosed inclusion of Section 208, Planning, as
outlined in the Staff Working Paper  of the Senate Committee of Solid
Waste Planning to all agencies.

           Our association very strongly  feels this is not a direction
which will in any way enhance the overall goals  of the Water Act, nor
is it something that will contribute  to any great economies.

           The programs of the EPA to foster and develop planning
for both water and solid waste, as well as other areas of environmental
concern have always been supported by NSWMA.  We are,however, concerned
that a proposed amendment to the Federal  Water Pollution Act, as
outlined in the April "Solid Waste Utilization Act of 1975  staff
Working Paper, would invite an additional area of responsibility to be
added to regional planning efforts.

           Specifically we are concerned with the inclusion of solid

-------
                                                                 90
waste planning as a responsibility of a regional planning agency
established under Section 208 of PL 92-500.  We feel that this amend-
ment is inappropriate and inconsistent with the goals and objectives
of the Federal Water Quality Program.

           We call your attention to the working paper which was
recently submitted to the Transportation and Commerce Committee.  The
comment made by the Professional Staff who put together that paper,
is that the greatest thing needed in a Water Act right now is not
additional amendments, but more stabilizations and stream!inings, and
I can only sit here and reflect on all the comments I have heard this
morning, and I must agree that the ladies and gentlemen who have
commented this morning are representing the people who are acting
in water management, and if the comments as,expressed by them are
reflective of any of the inputs you gentlemen must consider, I ask you
to consider the appropriateness of, adding an additional area into
your approrpiations and that is solid waste management.

           Solid waste management is predominantly provided by
private industry in the United States.  According to a recent EPA
survey more than 75 percent of the daily collection and disposal
services are provided by private industry, unlike water quality which
has obviously been a charge of public administration.

           I think the mixing of these two disciplines, aside from
the duplication of existing management plans, which might result in
the inclusion of solid waste management, the additional planning of
a 208 agency will cause not any economies to be fostered in the
program, nor will it do anything to enhance the very admirable, but
very difficulty, overall goals of 92-500.

           Thank you.

           MR. AGEE:  Thank you very much.

           We have another gentleman, Mr. Walker, is he going to
testify also?

           MR. WALKER:  Yes.  The testimony is not the same, but I
will testify, ye$.

           Good morning it says here, and it is the afternoon.  And,
I will try to stay under the ten minutes, and try to keep it brief.

           Mr. name is Thomas C. Walker.  I appear before you today on
behalf of Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc., the largest waste systems
company with subsidiaries having substantial  operations in all
aspects of the waste systems and resource recovery business throughout
the United States.

           By way of background information, Browning-Ferris operates
in 130 locations in the United States, Puerto Rico and Canada.

-------
                                                                 91


           In 1974 BFI handled over  10.5 million tons of our nation's
solid waste and our Resource Recovery Division supplied in excess of
1,400,000 tons of secondary papermaking fibre to the paper manufac-
turing industry throughout the world.

          .Although the primary thrust of our operations involve solid
waste systems, a small but increasing portion of our energies and
resources are being devoted to the collection, disposal and recovery
of liquid wastes.

           We have had the opportunity recently of reviewing the Senate
Public Works Committee draft of the  Solid Waste Utilization Act of 1975,
and have taken particular note of the provisions of the committee
draft to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

           The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Section 208,
provides for creation of plans for the management of water quality on
a regional basis throughout the country, including either directly or
by contract, the design, construction, operation and maintenance of
such water management facilities as  may be required by any plan
developed pursuant to that section of the act.

           We recognize and fully support achieving solid waste
management and resource recovery goals through regional planning.
However, we must seriously question  the appropriateness of mandating
that a specific planning agency established under dther environmental
programs such as waste water treatment should also be charged with
the additional responsibilities for  solid waste management and
planning.  Through our experience working at the state level, we
recognize that numerous states have  taken meaningful steps toward the
establishment of regional solid waste planning programs within the
state often under the auspices of state EPA like agencies.

           The early results of these programs have been commendable,
and based on their success many additional states are now seriously
considering legislation in the current or for the next legislative
session that would provide for a regional planning program to meet
the solid waste planning needs of the state.
     •^
           Notably, the State of Michigan in January of 1975 enacted
landmark legislation providing for the planning, administration arid
operation needs of that state while  utilizing, to the maximum extent
possible, existing and planned private solid waste operations and
facilities.
                        ,                   T
       ••>;   Legislators in other states have drafted legislation for
consideration which parallels the, progressive legislation such as
exists in California, Connecticut, or other states that have made
meaningful progress toward solving this critical problem.
           This planning process within the state,
activities through a state EPA like organization, provides the basis

-------
                                                                 92
for a broad national plan which can then be administered through a
legislative mandate to the Federal EPA.  Sudden transfer of these
responsibilities to an agency established to meet the other diverse
and frequently conflicting needs associated with water quality,
particularly at a time when these water agencies are at best em-
bryonic, could be catastrophic to both the water quality and solid
waste management needs of our country.

           By their very nature, the regional planning and management
agency for waste water treatment, water quality management and planning
is most reasonably structured around river basins, sub-basins, or
aquifer regions.  Solid waste planning and management, particularly
that associated with the broad resource recovery programs, which are '
held by many to be the ultimate solution to the solid waste problem,
must be structured around population centers and availability of
waste resources in manageable quantities that can be processed,
recovered, and disposed of in the most efficient manner. The starting
point, therefore, must by definition be difference because the needs
to be served by these two types of agencies are clearly diverse.

           Historically, water quality programs have been the
responsibility of public agencies with utility-like structures.
Waste collection and disposal services, however, have historically been
provided by the private sector.
                                       f
           It is the private operator who handles 73 percent of the
nation's solid waste with only 34 percent of the nation's solid
waste employees.  It is the private operator, who supported and
financed by private capital within the framework of the free enter-
prise system and utilizing the profit motive as a stimulus for his
activity, has developed the most significant technical solutions for   .
these critical problems while maintaining favorable economic for the -ct
consumer of his services.

           Interjection at the national level of a utility type
planning operational and administrative organization, bureaucratic
in nature by its basic structure, can only negate the dramatic advances
of recent decades by the private sector and result in a quantum jump
in costs to the individual who must ultimately pay the bill for these
services, the taxpayer.

           This same taxpayer has invested enormous amounts of his
funds through the water quality programs initiated and proposed by the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act in an effort to meet ambitious
and desirable water quality standards.  The presently existing
organization established for this purpose is struggling admittedly to
achieve these optimistic and laudible standards.  To dilute these -br
efforts at this most critical juncture through the assignment of
additional, unfamiliar and inconsistent responsibilities could be
disastrous to the future of both our water quality and our solid waste
management programs.                r

-------
                                                                 93


           By the very nature of the waste water treatment agencies
their inclination would be to own and operate facilities and their '
motivation might well be to reporduce, at taxpayer expense, existing
solid waste and resource recovery facilities, consistent with their
historical way of doing business.

           As indicated earlier, many states have recognized the
importance of mandating that facilities created by the public sector
do not needlessly duplicate or displace existing or planned private
facilities.  Both Michigan and Florida resource recovery Acts assure
a non-duplication of services.  The Michigan Act Number 336 states:

           "The department's action shall not displace a licensed
resource recovery, waste facility, or other waste management project
in existence or under construction."

           The Florida Chapter 74-342 states:

           "To the maximum extent possible, include provisions for
continuation of existing regional resource recovery, recycling, and
management facilities and programs."

           It is our understanding that, to date, approximately 40
regional areas in 17 states have been designated as waste water
management regions and only 14 agencies have actually received grants
under the Act.

           We further understand that a total of approximately $9 billion
has been allocated for these purposes for 1975, indicating the
enormous magnitude of the waste water program.

           If similar resources are brought to bear on a solid waste
program, certainly the incentive for private capital to expand its
investments in these areas will be thwarted and it can become, we
believe, a public utility-type function requiring large amounts of
capital to sustain itself on a national basis operating outside the
constrictive parameters of the free enterprise system.

           In summary, we believe that there is a clearly evidenced
need for an extensive regional planning program to identify facilities
and needs throughout the country on a region by region basis to
achieve the solid waste management and resource recovery goals so
vital to the sustenance of our environment.

           The program that is proposed, utilization of authorities,
created under Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
to accomplish this task, would be a serious misdirection of our
national resources and result in the diluting of already ambitious
water quality programs while concurrently disrupting the established
efforts in many states to attack this problem, through what we believe
to be the most effective vehicle, a state controlled agency far this
purpose.

-------
                                                                 94
           We believe that by the very nature of the water quality
authorities, granting them this new responsibility will result in
substantially higher costs for waste management.  In the event that
these authorities are given responsibility for this added task, we
believe that full utilization of the existing private enterprise sys-
tem will not be achieved.  We strongly recommend to you that the EPA
act in every possible way to bring the full power of this agency to
bear on Congress to remove this well intended but counterproductive
section of the current draft of the Solid Waste Utilization Act of
1975.

           The future well being of the citizens of the United States
will surely depend in part on the manner in which the waste of this
country is managed in the years to come.  We look forward to continuing
to play a vital role in developing progressive and practical solutions
to this challenge and appreciate this opportunity to express our
view on this very important aspect of that challenge.

           We would be pleased to provide such additional information
as the Environmental Protection Agency feels would be useful in
evaluation positions we support.

           Thank you.

           MR. AGEE:  Thank you very much.  Both you and Mr. Gregory
have the same observation.  We will take your views into consideration,
and we will pass your views on to other people.
                  t

           MR. WALKER:  Thank you very much.

           There is a tremendous limitation for funds, and I think it
will be evident, Mr. Chairman, if solid waste were added to the
existing two-way water authority, it is very likely the same funds
would be further diluted and spread.  This can be also very disruptive
to many of the programs of the folks in the room today.

           MR. AGEE:  I would like to call at this time Mr. Paul
Gleason, representing the Burrough of Lincoln Park, New Jersey, and
following Mr. Gleason I will call on Robert Sugarman.

           Mr. Gleason does not seem to be here, so I will ask
Mr. Robert Sugarma-n to come forward at this time.

           Peter lannatta?

           Richard Rosen, representing Energy Resources Company,
Incorporated.  Mr. Rosen.

           Following Mr. Rosen I will call on James Romano.

           MR. ROSEN:  My name is Richard Rosen.  I am the Chief
Scientist at Energy Resources, a large environmental and research

-------
                                                                95


engineering firm.  For the past  ten years  I  have  studied  the problems
of municipal waste treatment  for EPA  and  its predecessor  agencies.

           Additionally,  I have  worked  extensively on  this problem in
my own research.  For the past two years our firm has  been under
contract to EPA to perform a  cost-effectiveness analysis  of the
municipal waste treatment program.

           We are here to report on a number of observations that
result from a series of studies  which we have undertaken  during the
past two years.

           The first problem  that I want to  direct attention to is the
basic difficulty in understanding whether  or not  waste treatment
facilities performed in accordance with-their original design.

           We have undertaken an evaluation  of over 200 waste
treatment facilities nationwide, derived from a random sample of
these facilities, and of  all  of  the waste  treatment facilities
operating in the State of Connecticut,  the results of  this evaluation
have been disturbing with respect to  the quality  and availability of
the data which represents some judgements  on whether these systems
actually meet their design or performance  standard.
                                                „-            •<
           Initially, when we made our  analysis,  we believed that the
distribution of removal efficiencies represented by BOD and suspended
solids, which tend to be  parallel to  each  other,  last least in this
sample, suggested this distribution of  efficiencies with  two-thirds of
the plants deriving treatment levels  in excess of 80 percent.

           When we subjected  this data  to  further analysis, we found
that, indeed, a different distribution  provided which helped to
partially explain some of the problems  we  had in  trying to equate
treatment and removal efficiency with either capital cost or by O&M
investment.

           (Slide)

           In this particular slide,  what  you see is a very large
scattering of dots over the range of  treatment efficiencies or
removal of BOD, and a similar one would be suspended solids.  If I
were to display it.  With a general distribution  of the entire range
of costs, probably reflecting some different site differences.

           But, the major point  to be generated from this is the  -
enormous variance in the  treatment facilities themselves.

           When some additional  analysis is  undertaken Jo relate the
level of removal to that  involving actual, design  flow, this dstribu-
tion becomes even more bizarre.   It suggests there "little in a
direct concern for the overall performance measurement on the part of
a number of facilities.

-------
                                                                 96
           All of this is somewhat important, as we,all know,
because of the enormous amount of the nation's resources that are being
directed to waste treatment plant investments.  Because we were
concerned with the validity of the data that we generated in the
national survey, because when we subsequently checked on plants that
were doing chemical analysis, we found they had no laboratories
and no analysis in many cases.

           We attempted to get data generated by an impartial outside
source, namely the State of Connecticut's EPA, which as been indepen-
dently monitoring the performance of treatment facilities in the State
of Connecticut for a number of years.

           The result of this analysis suggests the same kinds of
problems we observed in the National Study were also exhibited in the
State of Connecticut, but that one piece of information was materially
different, and that is, the average removal rates were less than those
being reported to EPA.

           The same kinds^of observations are available in the data
which we generated when we viewed O&M as an explanatory variable,
because we, like many other people have been concerned about possible
incentives for improvements in O&M and wondered as O&M cost increased
did performance increase?

           What we did find was that the variance in terms of poor
performance decreased somewhat as O&M expenditures increased.
                                                       "~             '»'
           I think the real question a lot of us have is, are we
accomplishing anything by spending all of this money?

           In the work that we have been doing for the Council on
Environmental Quality, we have been testing the overall performance of
waste treatment investments in terms of meaninful changes in water
quality, measured by the extent to which we see changes in the number
and percentage of violations over time in a variety of water quality
measures.  Because it is important to consider water quality standards
from a variety of perspectives, we have separated them in terms of the
requirements of drinking water standards and recreation and other,
and I will explain two of recent interest, namely water standards
and aquatic life.

           What we see exhibited here is a relatively steady decrease
in the percentage of violations.  This indicates some substantial
improvement, some relative improvement, since 1966 in the incidence of
serious water pollution represented by the standards exhibited in
the water quality criteria for drinking water.

           We similarly see the same kinds of improvement in the
standards when looked at from the perspective of acquatic life.

           However, upon more careful analysis of the data, we

-------
                                                                 97


discovered that most of the  improvement is  generated  not  from the
improvements and variables,  which  would reflect  performances by
municipal systems, but by performance  to abate industrial discharges.
                                         • i  i
           •In this respect one  can see some of the  decrease in the
violation of trace metal standards that we  were  able  to generate.  Again,
relatively steady decline in trace metal violations,-for  both of the
standards which we investigated.
                                                 \

           Now, when one examines  BOD  for example for roughly the
same population set, one sees no obvious time trend regardless of how
the data happends to be analyzed.   Similarly, when  one examines
phosphate, one sees again no significant trerid.

           As all of us know phosphates are a substantial contributor
to obvious declines in water quality on number of occasions.

           We are deeply-concerned about the basic  direction of the
municipal treatment program, because of a variety of  externalities
which are associated with particular treatment strategies.  As one
can see from this particular table, the relative performance charac-
teristics of different options  changes significantly  the  level of
sludge produced with which one  has to  deal  as a.result of the system,
and also the requirements for discharging chlorinated effluent into
the system.

           There are also variations in performance.  We  have found
as a result of a variety of  studies undertaken on a number of
rivers in the State of Connecticut, again,  for which  there was good
data, that the level of chlorination was substantially mitigating one
of the objectives in the treatment facilities in a  number of areas.
Namely, improving the fish populations for  recreation and sports
fishing.

           With all of that, we have a number of specific recommenda-,
tions, one of which conforms directly  to one of  the provisions that
appears in the proposed legislation.
       a
           The present investment  pattern with 20 year design is
characterized by an investment  of  the  sort  that  is  exhibited in
Figure 14.  By adjusting the period to 12 years, one  can
generate the kind that is exhibited in Figure 15, and this is a
recommendation of the proposed  regulation which we  highly endorse.

           The other recommendations which  we have, which we feel
deeply important to the overall success of  the program are as follows:

           The first relates to vigorous and honest monitoring and
evaluation of the performance of the systems themselves.  We feel it is
only by having a time dimension, random sample of performance done
independently on particular  facilities, that any of us will really

-------
                                                                 98
know the extent to which particular designs are effective and to what
circumstances.

           The second relates to exhibiting greater sensitivity to the
differences in eco-systems.  In particular, recognize the rules
under which treatment facilities —  There is a difference between a
river and estuary, there is a difference between those and takes, and
there are differences between large and fresh water bodies.

           I assume you would like to —  Is that a signal to end?

           MR. AGEE:  Yes.  Just sum up.

           MR. ROSEN:  The last point we would like to make, is we
feel that whatever subsidies are generated should be performance
oriented.  They shouldn't be all front end subsidies geared to the
successful completion of the facility, but it should be also related
to the management and operation of that very facility.

           Thank you.

           MR. AGEE:  I have one question I would like to ask.  Your
observations, in your observations, have you noted anything in the
design — What are your observations of designs as to operabiltty
after they are designed?

           MR. ROSEN:  We have observed that many systems are built
bigger than they have to be, and this adversely affects the system.

           We observed one very large and perfectly functioning
facility in Hartford, Connecticut, built to handle 40 million gallons
a day which:-we considered to be an excellent plant in every respect.
It ran well and looke'd like it would run well and actually performed.

           One of the things that we observed, there were several
aspects of that plant which were dramatically designed, but the
engineer of the plan had taken this into account and had diverted
the waste into another treatment facility, not using a significant por-
tion of the sludge tanks available under the original design.

           MR. AGEE.  Do you have any questions?

           MR. HANSLER:  I have read a lot of arguments on the chlo-
rination and the utility.  There has been a lot of talk within the
agency that we ought to look at the requirement for chlorination for
a secondary treatment on a case by case basis, and such reliability,
where it is necessary, not automatically.

           MR. ROSEN:  I concur with that.  I would suggest that it
is not necessary to chlorinate waste treatment effluent, except in
areas where population is going to become exposed.  Or contact with

-------
                                                                 99


the effluent with the effluent  contaminated water  for unreasonably lonq
periods of time and in large numbers.
                    *
           MR. A6EE:  Thank you very much.

           I would like to call  at  this  time Mr. James Romano of the
National Society of Professional  Engineers.

           Following him  I will  be  calling upon Martin Lang, New York
City Environmental Protection Administration.

           MR. ROMANO:  Thank you Jim.

           I am Jim Romano, and as  was stated, Vice President of the
National Society of Professional  Engineers and also the Chairman for
the Engineers in private  practice,  a division of the National Society.

           At ^he outset, it should be absolutely  clear that the
70,000 some members of the National Society of Professional Engineers
does not favor making a substantial change in Public Law 92-500, so
this young lady who characterized these  engineers  as recalcitrant
will have to drop out all 70,000 of us.

           But, in spite  of the deficiencies in the Act, and the
frustrations which arise  from those deficiencies,  the construction
grants program is beginning to  function  and, therefore, we do not
wish to see it crippled at this time.

           We are concerned, however, that any change however modest
will adversely affect the progress.  Under these circumstances, we
look^at only two of the five propositions which were written up so
well in the Federal Register as being worthy of immediate considera-
tion.

           These are the  extension  of the July, 1977 deadlines and
secondly, the delegation  of a greater portion of the management of
the program to the states.

           Let me discuss the others briefly with you.  I will not
take up my full ten minutes.  We have already filed a full statement
with the secretary.

           With regard to reduction of the Federal share, NSPE
recommends that the Federal share funds  for the construction grants
program remain at its present 75 percent level.

           Our primary reason for adopting this position, and it is a
major factor as you know  in subsequent discussions throughout this
presentation and also in  all the other ones that have been made, is
that the program from start to  finish is essentially a Federal program.

           Goals and objectives  were established by the United States

-------
                                                                 100

Congress and those goals were, although laudable, are well  beyond the
economic reach of most municipalities, therefore, it simply has to
remain a Federal program.  And one way for it to remain a Federal
program is to put enough Federal money into it to make it work.

           Most states and municipalities are now in a financial  bind.
Any reduction of the Federal share obviously would require increase
in the local and state share, and in all but a few instances, this
would translate immediately into increased taxes or a reduction in
other types of services.  Something that is not palatable at the  local
level.

           Given these alternatives, it is unlikely that most
communities would look with favor on the construction of a  treatment
facility, particularly where there is a pervasive opinion in the
United States that the principal beneficiaries of such efforts are
the residents of down stream communities.

           So, under these circumstances it is a virtual certainty
that a reduction in the Federal share will stall, or tend to stall,
the construction grants program.  So, as we see it, we have a zealous
Congress, and perhaps an over-zealous one, who with the best of
intentions and idealistic approach, got us started down this road
and now they have a responsibility to keep us on this road.

           To withdraw Federal funding, even partially, will endanger
this program.

           The second proposition which was examined in the Federal ..
Register was the limiting of Federal financing to service needs of
existing populations.  NSPE opposes any legislation which will be
designed to restrict Federal support to include only those  facilities
needed to serve the existing community needs, and, further, we would
oppose similar efforts directed toward reducing the Federal support
by linking it to, let's say, to the 10 and 20 year rule of  estimated
growth.

           The basis for our position is cost effectiveness.  We  won't
get into that, but it is obvious to all of us after hearing discussions
throughout this morning and this afternoon, that there are  times
when it is better to put in a little additional capacity so at a  later
date when we need that capacity, you will not spend nearly  as many
dollars as you would have if you had left it out in the first place.

           So, without belaboring that, I will simply state that
NSPE sees our position as based on cost effectiveness.  We  think  it
is more realistic to continue the current practice in which an
applicant is judged on the basis of data related specifically to  its
current situation than anticipated future development.

           NSPE opposes the imposition of an arbitrary limit on
Federal support tied to a finite time period.

-------
                                                                 101


           Let's look to restricting  the  types  of projects eliqible
for grant assistance.

           NSPE opposes any restrictions  on  the types of projects
which should be eligible for grant assistance.
             - - ,"t •
               J ': •                        .:<
           It isnecessary to give full  consideration to all alterna-
tives for resolving local pollution problems.   This implies that
Federal support will be forthcoming,  regardless of the alternatives
selected, and that denying Federal grant  aid for one or more elements
of a system is a negative incentive.

           We think it will simply encourage grantees to propose
perhaps less effective alternates, simply to be assured of full funding
participation by the Federal Government.
                                 '?
                                                     f,
           Obviously, if the grantee  is encouraged to do anything else
but what is most cost effective  to achieve an objective, it will be
to no one's best interest.

           So, NSPE opposes the  concept which would restrict the
projects eligible for Federal assistance, because it would offer a
negative incentive.

           With regard to the time frame  in  which we are supposed
to achieve certain goals, NSPE joins  in what seems to be almost
universal support for this suggestion.

           The only question, of course,  is  the nature and the length
of the extension.  There are complicating factors in any extension, of
course, and they include such things  as the  level  of funding to be
provided by Congress in the coming years; whether Federal funding
will be made available over an extended period  of time permitting Ion g
range program planning, will other aspects of the program be altered,
legislatively or administratively, will additional requirements be
imposed wnich will have the effect of slowing down the program and so
forth.

           It has been suggested that the deadline be extended on a
case by case basis.  This implies a lot of things, bat one thing it
does imply is evenhandedness and consistently fair judgements by
states and Federal officials.

           But, beyond that, if  we assume that  enforcement would also
be on a case by case basis, this aspect along would attain nightmare!sh
proportions, and I wouTd not want to  be an agency that would have
to enforce them.

           One of the primary difficulties with  PL 92-500 has been
its tight deadlines.  Some of which are unrealistic to the point where
they evoke the term ridiculous.

-------
                                                                 102
           It does seem appropriate to establish a rational time
span in which to achieve the Act's objectives.  And, to this end
NSPE recommends that serious consideration be given to extending the
July 1, 1975 deadline.

           At the same time, we think attention should continue to be
focused on meeting the July 1, 1983 deadline which would require
application of the best possible treatment technology over the life
of the works, and that, again, can be examined as we approach that
deadline, to see if we are making any progress in that direction.

           With regard to delegating the greater portion of the
management program to the states, this is, of course,
included in legislation already introduced in the House of Representa-
tives, and I understand it is receiving a considerable amount of
support, and the NSPE adds its own endorsement to that.

           At the same time we call for caution.  There are certain
responsibilities such as those imposed by the National Environmental
Policy Act which cannot be delegated to the states.

           It is inherent in such delegation, that the process of
developing technical and personnel capabilities by the states, and
the transfer of management responsibilities will cause disruptions and
certain delays in the program.

           It is also possible that not all the states will be willing
or will be able to exercise this authority if delegated.

           In those circumstances, EPA will simply have to retain  a
complete management^responsibility, at the same time will  have to  have
some sort of Federal-State accommodation so that they can work within
the states.

           It is implicit in this proposal, if we are to assure the
viability and integrity of the program, that certification of the
states go from the criteria established and in their application be
of the highest order.

           So, despite these negative comments, NSPE gives its
recommendation and support.  We urge, however, that certain realities
be recognized so the recommendation can achieve a positive impact.

           In conclusion, I would like to make this remark for us
all.  Most of what has been spoken here today and in all of the
Federal Registers I have been reading, relate to money matters.  So,
we do have to recognize that no matter how laudable the ideals of
PL 92-500 might be, if we cannot afford them or will not afford them,
we ought to take another hard look at the law itself, so I think we
should continue to have forums where we can discuss trying to make
a present law work, and the National Society will indeed work with you
in trying to make it work.  But, I think we should discuss at some

-------
                                                                 103


time whether some real changes in basic concepts may not be needed.

           MR. AGEE:  Thank you.

           We certainly recognize the engineering profession as a
chief part in making the Water Pollution Control Act work.  One of
the questions I would like to ask you is, do you feel that the cities
take sufficient interest in the design and construction and operation
of waste treatment facilities?  Do  they take sufficient interest in it,
or do they just like the engineering profession and the EPA to do
it for them?

           MR. ROMANO:  It is not a question of letting us do it for
them.  It is a question of whether  they have the capability, and it
varies.

           Larger cities, well funded cities, do have adequate staffs.
They do participate in the concepts and designs very strongly.  Other
communities, which have the problem, but do not have the staff or the
money, do rely on their consultants and EPA to do the work for them.

           MR. AGEE:  One other question.  You mentioned your society
did not support the elimination of  any of the eligible features that
are presently contained in the Act.  Would you include collector sewers
in that observation, or do you feel that a collector sewer should be
funded at the lower level?

           MR. ROMANO:  We don't want to cripple the program, but at
the same time, we don't want to cripple a local program which may have
in its development plan such an item as you mentioned, the collector
sewers.  If that is something that  is really good and necessary for
the program, I don't believe we should write it out simply by fiat,
andisay it has to be the same across the country.

           I think we have to leave them all in.  All have to be
considered.

           MR. AGEE:  Thank you.

           Gerry, you have a question?

           MR. HANSLER:  Do you think there ought to be a cut-off
date on the age of housing that doesn't have collection systems now?
Could they receive Federal funds?

           In other words, should we pay for subdivisions five, ten
or 15 years old?

           MR. ROMANO:  One of ..the big problems with Federal programs
is someone has to start playing God.  It is not just your program, but
every Federal program.

-------
                                                                 104
           When are you going to make a judgement like that as to
whether someone who has been living in a community such as you describe
for ten years, is or is not eligible for certain Federal monies?  That
is a difficult one to answer.  Again, I don't think that is one that
will lend itself to a categorical answer.

           MR. HANSLER:  Do you think there is some point in time when
we should not have collection systems for subdivisions and developers?

           MR. ROMANO:  I suppose you could find a time for one par-
ticular one.  I don't think we can sit here and say you can take
five years to ten years, and make it uniformly equitable across the
country.

           I think you as a Regional Director are..going to get
involved in that sort of judgement, and I think it will even come
closer to that in the state levels where you will have to rely on their
judgements as well.

           MR. HANSLER:  The states will have it first, because they
have to certify.

           MR. ROMANO:  So, they will have to make the case locally
first.

           MR. HANSLER:  Thank you.

           MR. AGEE:  Thank you, Mr. Romano.

           I would like to call at this time Mr. Martin Land, then
I will call on Charles Samowitz from the City of New York, and the
Mr. Peter Gadd.

           MR. LANG:  Gentlemen, I really think there is nothing
drearier than to read a prepared statement, but most uncharacteristically
I am going to do just that.

           But, before I do, listening to the preceding speakers,
I would like to point out that while all of these prophets and prophe-
tess of doom are saying the sky is falling, the program is working.
Maybe it is limping along, maybe it should be corrected.

           We are here to talk about suggested changes, but it is
working.  I think it is very significant that tomorrow morning, the
Mayor of the City of New York is going to forma-lly dedicate the
upgraded and expanded 85 million gallon a day sewer in the Borough of
Brooklyn, which is an outgrowth of Federal and State funding.

           So, something is coming down the pike.

           I would also like to take tnis opportunity to give a
completely unsolicited testimonial to our opposite numbers, the solid

-------
                                                                 105


career professionals, both in the  Federal  Region and the state offices
in Albany who have tried to make this  program work.

           We must stop viewing each other as adversaries, and view
ourselves as partners.  After all, with  this program, with the bulk   ;
of the money coming from the Federal Government, whoever pays the piper
calls the tune.  And, you are very much  in the position of calling
that tune.

           I am Martin Lang^ Deputy Administrator of EPA and former
Commissioner of the Department of Water  Resources.  This is submitted
on behalf of Robert A. Low, Administrator  of New York City Environ-
mental Protection Administration.

           I am very pleaded to have this  opportunity of commenting
on the Administration's proposals to amend Public Law 92-500,
and to suggest some additional actions for which we in New York see an
urgent need.

           I have to depart from the strict text again, because when
I use the words "we in New York", it is  kind of a code word.   That is ••'
New York's attitude.

           I think that the problems of  abating pollution are common
to all mature metropolises in the country,  so let us just talk
about the needs of the cities' problems  and not just with the Government.

           At the outset, I would like to  declare in the strongest
possible terms New York City's opposition  to any amendments that
would dilute the historic purpose of the present law to improve the
marine environment of our nation for the rest of this century and
beyond.

           The intent of the law was to  make possible an intensive
effort, in one decade, to atone for all  the errors of the past and
upgrade our waters by creating new works to last into the 21st century.

           The timing of the law was fortuitous.  In a faltering
economy, it provided construction and manufacturing employment not
for make-work projects, but directed to  a  high national  purpose.   In
New York State alone, the water pollution control program is  estimated
to account for 150,000 jobs over the next  five years.

           The law's timing also coincided  with the now obvious
inability of municipalities themselves to generate such a massive pro-
gram.

           Therefore, any reduction in the  Federal  75 percent share,
any statutory limitation on Federal participation in long-term Panning
and building, any restriction on Federal funding for necessary collec-
tion systems would all have a crippling  effect on the goals Of the
Act, on construction and manufacturing employment and on the nation s

-------
                                                                 106
effort to combat municipal decay.

           As for reduced Federal sharing, I think that I can speak for
all the nationa's municipalities in declaring that it has been the
prospect of substantial Federal funding that has spurred water po-
llution control programs around the country even at a time when
local budgets are hard-pressed.

           If this prospect were to be allowed to dwindle, there
is no quiestion but that municipal managers would find it only
prudent once again to hold clean water programs in abeyance, as
they have in the past, until such time as the Federal Government
renewed its funding committment at a higher level.

           The facts speak for themselves.  From 1965 on, when the
previous Federal act promised 55 percent reimbursement and then
failed to deliver the funds, construction was virtua-ly frozen in
most of the country.  What would be the sense, Mayors asked, in
committing substantial local funds now ehn additional Federal funds
might be forthcoming later?

           In other words, curiously, the 1965 Act resulted in an
anaomoly.  It delayed water pollution control projects around the
country.

           In New York, the State government had the vision to advance
to the City a portion of the Federal share and gamble on the cre-
dibility of the Federal government, thus triggering substantial
construction.  Where actual appropriations follow authorizations,
construction to achieve the goals of the Act accelerates.  Without
this incentive, PL 92-500 will become an empty promise.

           Asking each community now to accept less than the 75
percent funding level, as the result of an abstract feeling that
nationwide Federal funding will thus go further is patently unrealistic.
What each community will understand is that a neighboring town that
was a bit faster with its planning got more Federal reimbursement
for its pollution control program. The natural reaction would be to
delay the second plant in the hope that a higher level of Federal
funding would be restored.

           I would make the same point in relation to the Administrations
proposal to limit Federal participation to programs designed
to serve only current needs, and to the proposal to eliminate Federal
funding for collection systems, both of which I will discuss in more
detail in a moment.

           Both of these proposals would inhibit development and
funding of local programs.  Requiring localities to pay alone for
that part of a wastewater treatment program designed to serve future
growth would only encourage them to delay the entire program.  And
elimination of sewer upgrading and collection costs from the Federal

-------
                                                                 107


program, since in many cases  sewer  work is  required  by  the  Federal
regulations as part of pollution  control, would  present the same
inhibition.

           In other words, experience  shows that if  funding for a
whole job is not available, it  is unlikely  that  the  job will ever be
done at all.

           With regard to the management impact  of a reduction in
Federal participation, the working  papers.raise  the  issue and imply
that municipalities are now profligate with Federal  funds and would
be inspired to be more careful  if their own investment  was  increased.

           I assure you that  this issue is  specious.  No matter how
small the local investment, the respect of  municipalities for all
public monies insures prompt  and  professional  handling  of pollution
control programs.  I am not talking theory.  In  New  York City, for
example, we have adopted a procedure under  which State  and  Federal
engineers participate with us along every step of a  program from
conception to completion.

           In other words, the  state and Federal  Government have
regulatory powers they have the powers giving  money,  withdrawing
money.  They have the power of  approval  and disapproval, and they can
utilize that power very effectively to assure  cost effective design
and prudent husbanding of all funds.

           An increase in local expenditures for these  programs would
not have any affect on the care with which  they  are  produced.  I
believe that issue is irrelevant.

           The role of states,  I  would mention here,  in  fact, our
strong support for the Administration's proposal  to  delegate to
states even more authority in managing these programs than  exists
under present law.  Not only  are  states more intimately  familiar
with the problems and needs,of  their municipalities,  but, at least  in
New York, they have demonstrated  their professional  capacity to
monitor implementation of the law.   Giving  the states more  authority
would substantially reduce duplication of effort and would  speed
the process of planning, design and construction.

           Limitation of scope  of projects  for Federal funding.
In contemplating the possibility  of reduced Federal  sharing, of course
the basic issue is the availability of real  Federal  dollars for
the enormous job that must be done. But let us  consider the need
realistically.

           The fact is that more  than  two-thirds, or  $235 billion,  of
the $342 billion estimated in the 1974 survey  of state needs to be
required for facilities eligible  for funding under the Act  is for
a high degree of treatment of storm waters.

-------
                                                                 108
           As to the role of the states, I would mention here, in
fact, we feel strong support for the Administration proposal.
However, there can be no argument that the real needs are for
collection systems, interceptor sewers and treatment plants for
dry-weather flow.  The resulting total is, therefore, seriously
misleading.  To try to frighten Congress away from 75 percent
funding, because of an unnecessarily inflated nation needs figure
is absurd.

           In the allocation of priorities for pollution abatement
programs, certainly treatment and control of storm waters should be
low on the list.  As it is, in fact, last on the list of eight types
of projects eligible for Federal funding under PL 92-500.

           But to suggest, as does the third Federal proposal that all
collection systems discharging into intercepting sewers and then to
treatment plants be eliminated from the Federal program would
seriously hamper our progress.

           The law requires the recipient of a grant to agree to
certain conditions.  Often one of them is that the municipality
commit itself to build or rehabilitate the collection system for a
new plant.

           Again I refer to the prudent requirement of the I&I
provisions.  In some cities, the cost of such construction equals
that of the treatment plant itself.  To remove Federal participation
from such necessary work would inevitably motivate the municipality to
abandon the entire project.'

           To suggest that cities already have enough motivation to do
sewer work and, therefore, do not require Federal  aid is a non sequitur.
Motivation is not the question.  Money is.   New York City, for example,
has a $6 billion investment in its existing collection system, an
investment that is made virtually Unaided.,  Much of that system is now
old and in need of rehabilitation and extension.  It makes little
sense for the Federal government to invest heavily in wastewater
treatment without concomitant investment in the system for delivering
the wastewater for treatment.

           Eliminating funding for sewers would also reward the laggard
states which have not yet progressed in developing treatment programs.
They will continue to receive full Federal  reimbursement for the
treating plants that cities like New York have already underway, and
many of them at the old 55 percent rate, by the way, while cities
now ready for collection system work will be out in the cold.

           Turning to the proposed limitation of Federal funding for
that portion of systems designed to serve future needs, I again find
the working paper to be a bit cavalier.  As with the proposals to
reduce the Federal share and .to limit the projects covered, the papers
say, in effect, go ahead with what you need anyway, we just won't share

-------
                                                                 109


the bill.

           Obviously, there can be  no  realistic explanation that
 that municipalities in the foreseeable  future will be able without
Federal assistance, to do what is right.  We will be doing only
what is absolutely necessary, if we are  lucky.

           The Federal proposal seems  to acknowledge the prudence
of planning for the future and encourages municipalities to do so,
but without Federal participation.   It makes no sense to specify
such limitations nationwide.  The nature of problems around the country
are too diverse.
          *-

           For example, in a sparesely populated rural area,
increasing the size of a pipe laid  through open fields as population
increases in future years is relatively  a simple matter.  Such a
change cannot be compared with changes that might be necessary in an
interceptor sewer laid in a deep rock  tunnel under a congested
metropolitan area mined with complex utility lines.  Such an installa-
tion can be made only once in a lifetime, with an eye on future
generations.

           The proposal is clearly  a sincere effort to prevent
windfalls for irresponsible developers in undeveloped areas of the
country.  But the effort misses by  adeopting a technique that would
also deter the construction of logically-designed facilities for
major, mature metropolises, certainly  the environment can be better
protected by continuing prudent review of project proposals than by
arbitrary limitations on a program  that was intended to serve future
generations.

           If the intent of a limitation on reserve capacity is to
devote presently available funds exclusively to current needs, I
predict it will backfire.  The results will be that funds will not
be psent at all.  Municipalities are unlikely to approve their
share of an investment in a plant that will be obsolete even before
it is completed.

           On the final proposal, extension of the 1977 date for
compliance with effluent limitations,  there is no question that
extension is required.

           I recall vividly Administrator Agee addressing a Commission
in Denver and getting a spontaneous round of hearty applause from all
the assembled managers and engineers in  the country when he pointed
out in all probability there would  be  an extension at that time on an
ad hoc basis until 1977, becuase it was  needed.  That is a fact.

           Even New York City, with what we believe is the most
advanced wastewater treatment construction program in the nation, WIN
not be able to achieve compliance earlier than 1981, if no impediments
arise.  •

-------
                                                                 no
           I think then, it will come as no surprise that we support
the fifth alternative proposed in the working paper, extension of the
deadlines to 1983, with a crucial modification.

           Again, the proposal is unrealistic in suggesting the
compliance in 1983 be required, "regardless of Federal funding".  I
have addressed this point often in this testimony so will merely
restate that compliance will not be possible without continued Federal
support as provided in the present law.
                          t
           I would like to suggest, however, that PL 92-500 be
amended to authorize prefinancing, as was possible under the previous
law.  As I reported earlier, it was the possibility of prefinancing
that triggered the development of New York's massive program.
However, the amendment must provide for strict guarantees and  time
schedules for reimbursement, which did not exist in previous law.

           I am going to borrow from Commissioner Samowitz's time.

           MR. A6EE:  His time and yours both.

           MR. LANG:  At this moment I would like to conclude.  New
York City is eligible for an additional $200 million in Federal
reimbursement of eligible work that we prefinanced, for which  there
is not adequate funds.  The $1.9 million spread over the country
was not sufficient to meet the real needs, so I would like to  conclude
then with a plea for adequate prefinancing.

           Thank you for your patience.

           MR. AGEE:  Mr. Lang, thank you very much.  Gerry, do you
have any questions?

           MR. HANSLER:  One question.  What approximate percent of,
your water and sewer system's revenues are tapped off and returned to
run for the general city government?

           MR. LANG:  Do you want to refer to that, Cy?

           MR. SAMOWITZ:  None at all.

           MR. LANG:  In fact, we ran a deficit.

           MR. SAMOWITZ: .They retired short-term notes, initially
revenue anticipation notes.

           MR. HANSLER:  Those revenue anticipation notes were for
water sewer system expenses, the city-wide expenses?

           MR. SAMOWITZ:  It eventually gets sorted out.

           MR. LANG:  Obviously, some of these notes are in anticipation

-------
                                                                 Ill


of this $200 million which was  never  forthcoming,  issues ten years ago.

      •  »-  MR. HANSLER:  The ability  of  local  communities to come up
with the 25 percent share, many towns around the country and one of
the constraints is historically water and  sewer revenues have been
tapped off to a system running  general purpose government.

           MR. LANG:  The operation of our water supply and the opera-
tion of a sewage treatment facility are  supported  by, both the
capital expense budget of the city, the  return on  sewer wastes,
industrial wastes, sur-charges  and sale  of water goes to the general
fund of the city.

           MR. AGEE:  Jack, do  you have  any questions.

           MR. RHETT:  No.

           MR. AGEE:   Mr. Samowitz.   Would you identify yourself?

           MR. SAMOWITZ:  I am  Commissioner Charles Samowitz, Commission-
er of Water Resources, New York City.
        • •**' :
          -SMR. AGEE:  Mr. Samowitz, do you have a  statement to make,
or has Mr. Lang covered your points?
               "V
               J>
           MR. SAMOWITZ:  Mr. Lang has covered most of my points.

           MR. AGEE:  I would like, to call Mr. Neal Troy, and it is
my understanding that Mr. Troy  would  like  to share his time with
Ken Watson.

           MR. TROY:  Mr. Chairman, I am Neal  Troy, Manager of
Environmental Control, Owens-Illinois, Incorporated, Toledo, Ohio;
and as such am responsible for  the environmental protection programs
for 137 manufacturing plants in the United States and a number of other
countries.

           I also serve as a member of the Steering Group of the
Environmental Quality Committee of the National Association of Manu-
facturers.

           Accompanying me are  Kenneth S.  Watson, Director of
Environmental Control, Kraftco  Corporation, Glenview, "I™0". wh°
has like responsibilities and is also a  past president of the Water
Pollution Control Federation, representing water pollution control
experts in the United States and many other countries.

           We are appearing on  behalf of the NAM, many members of
which have coope?at?5e arrangements with publicly owned treatment works
for the treatment of industrial  wastewater.

           We would first like  to make the point that we are strongly

-------
                                                                 112
dedicated to this joint approach.  Several years ago the NAM Board
of Directors adopted a formal statement that "Such regional solutions
may achieve cost and technical advantages and are being accomplished
in many parts of this country."

           The NAM Environmental Quality Committee has consistently
worked for laws and regulations which would facilitate and encourage
sound regional solutions.  Unfortunately, some laws and regulations
have had the opposite effect.

           We are, therefore, greatly appreciative for this
opportunity to participate in hearings held to explore possible ways
to achieve more efficient construction of publicly owned treatment works
with least cost approaches.

           Our attention is first caught by the proposal to limit
Federal funding of reserve capacity to serve projected population
and industry growth.  We believe this would be a short-sighted
approach.

           We note that Review Paper Number Two cites, "a study on
interceptor sewers conducted for the Council on Environmental  Quality.
This study was critical of EPA's present practice of approving eligible
reserve capacities of up to 20 years for treatment plants and  30 to
50 years for interceptor sewers, in that it occasionally permits
excessive reserve capacity for interceptors, which facilitates
growth and its attendant secondary environmental impacts."
                                                             *
           We believe that there are adequate means to control the
secondary environmental impacts of growth, and that this is the
preferable approach rather than to impose a no-growth policy through
limitations on the construction grants program.  Arbitrary limitations
wholly unrelated to cost effectiveness analysis would be a false
economy and could lead to unnecessarily high expenditures in the
future.

           In the light of the sharp upward trend in construction
costs, this would appear to be inevitable.

           Review Paper Number Two itself points out that "large
economies-of-scale are realized in interceptor construction.  For
example, a ten percent increase in capacity represents only a  three
to five percent increase in cost.  Second, traditional design  periods
are very long usually about 50 years."

           We believe that it is important not to create a backlog of
future problems by encouraging "no reserve capacity" design, and that
allowing no reserve capacity for future industrial discharges  would
stifle economic growth and be illogically discriminatory.

           Review Paper Number four, discusses extremely important
issues related to the proposal to extend the July 1, 1977 deadline for

-------
                                                                 113


publicly owned treatment works  to  achieve  effluent limitations based
upon secondary treatment, or a  more  stringent  level of  treatment if
necessary to meet state water quality standards,  in light of the
estimate that 50 percent or 9,000  municipalities  servicing 60 percent
of the 1977 population will not be able  to comply with  these
requirements.

           Among the questions  raised by Review Paper Number Four are-
Is it fair to require industry  to,  meet the 1977 deadline while extending
it for municipalities?

           Is it fair to make industrial requirements more stringent
pending municipal compliance, as is  the  case with joint systems?

           We believe that the  situation under the  Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of  1972 is such  that a mid-course
reassessment and correction is  needed as a matter of overall riational
policy.  The Act should be amended to prove that, after July 1, 1977,
an assessment should be made of all  of the nation's waters to ascertain
what progress and what results  have  been attained under Phase I of the
Act.

           Dischargers into waters which meet  state water quality
standards by that date would not be  subjected  to  any more stringent
effluent limitations.  Dischargers into  waters which still did not
meet state water quality standards would be required to comply with
more stringent effluent limitations  equitably  designed to help
achieve receiving water standards  for desired  uses, which themselves,
should.receive a 1977 review.   This  would  be a program that would
make sense from both the economic  and environmental standpoints
without raising any questions of fairness  as between municipalities
and industries.

           Review Paper Number  five  discusses  the proposal to delegate
a greater portion of the management  of the construction grants program
to-the states.  We concur that, if the states  were able to assume a
greater degree of program management, it might be possible to ex-
pedite the flow of funds into necessary  construction projects,
thereby obtaining both environmental  and economic benefits,   we
note that H. R. 2175 is designed with such an  objective in mind.

           Mr. Watson would now like to  make a few supplemental
comments, particularly from the standpoint of  the food processing
industry.

           Thank you.

           MR. WATSON:  My name is Kenneth S.  Watson.  I am Director
of Environmental Control for the Kraftco Corporation, directing this
area of activity for the Corporation's four divisions and roughly
150 plants in the Unites States and  Canada.

-------
                                                                 114
           My total professional experience has been in the field of
environmental control.  This experience has encompasses serving as
Executive Secretary of the West Virginia Water Commission, the pollution
control agency for that state;  Assistant Secretary of the Ohio River
Valley Water Sanitation Commission; Director of the General Electric
Pollution Control Program for many years; and my present assignment
in which I have served for a period of more than five years.

           I am a registered professional engineer in a number of
states and a Diplomat of the American Academy of Environmental Engineers.
In an effort to help that environmental field evolve to cope with the
tightening climate, I have served as President of the Water Pollution
Control Federation and Chairman of the National Technical Task
Committee on Industrial Wastes.

           With reference to the public hearings scheduled by EPA
concerning Changes in the Sewage Treatment Grant Program as detailed
in the May 2, 1975 Federal Register, the Food and Dairy Industry has
a general interest in all five areas outlined and would briefly like
to address this fact prior to commenting specifically on point four
being considered in the hearings.

           It is hoped that, as a result of these hearings, EPA can
move its program in the direction of more flexible deadlines which will '
permit tailoring a program more nearly encompassing the many special  i
considerations which apply to any particular community.

           Since most food and dairy plants are properly connected into
municipal sewer systems because their wastes are completely compatible
and this approach thus represents the most equitable one for the
total community, this industry feels that the use of the joint approach
should be preserved and encouraged in any changes made in the EPA
grants program.

           It appears that the specification that treatment require-
ments be fully cost effective will not necessarily be followed by
EPA in many cases, particularly insofar as the best available, 1983
treatment is concerned.  Since this is true, it is requested that
any changes made in the EPA program thrust in the direction that
expenditures necessary to meet EPA requirements be tested against the
cost effectiveness principle before being enforced by that agency.

           Now, with reference to extending on a case by case basis
the 1977 deadline for municipalities to achieve secondary treatment,
it appears obvious that something must be done about this deadline
because it simply cannot be met by all municipalities.

           Flexibilities on a case by case basis should be available
for extending the 1977 deadline for municipalities.  Obviously, the
extension should also extend to industrial plants discharging compa-
tible wastes into any municipal system receiving an extension, even
though the joint load of the homeowners and the industrial plants

-------
                                                                  115


may overload the municipal  treatment plant until  it can be  upgraded.

           Further, where contractural  agreement  has been reached
that an industrial plant with or without pretreatment will  be
connected into a municipal  sewer system when it is upgraded, it  is
not in the financial  interest of the industry or  the nation to require
such a plant to provide some  type of interim treatment pending the
completion of municipal facilities if an extension of time  has been
granted to the municipality.   ••

           The only exception to this position might be that of  an
industrial plant discharging  incompatible wastes  creating critical
stream conditions, which had  agreed to provide pretreatment prior to
connection into the municipal system.  If an extension were granted to
the municipality during the period when planning  and construction
of the city project was being moved forward, it would be reasonable to
expect the industrial  plant to provide the pretreatment facilities
agreed upon on a time schedule with the construction time required.

           Although*the,cost  of.industrial treatment facilities  is
not generally financed by public funds, case by case extensions  of the
1977 deadline should  also be  granted for industry.

           An area by area  approach on a sound judgement basis should
be used and comparable extensions granted to industrial  plants in an
area if a municipality, which is a large contributor, has been granted
an extension.

           Since the  points just outlined bear on the fact  that
citizens of an area and industrial plants discharging compatible
wastes will most soundly and  equitably be served  in the fewest number
of professionally operated  treatment plants, it is desired  to again
appeal to EPA to encourage  the joint approach.

           There appears to be many locations today, as the pollution
control program is being moved forward, where the joint approach is
not receiving great encouragement.  This appears  to result  from the
nation's consulting firms,  perhaps somewhat encouraged by EPA,
to attempt to connect together such large regions and plan  so far into
the future that excessively costly usable and expandable treatment
facilities are being  abandoned and this, along with the excellent new
facilities.proposed,  is increasing costs to the point that, with tne
EPA cost recovery formula in  effect for the industry, which Probably
deserves some review  thought  also, the economic burden on the industrial
plants is not consistent with the services to be  provided.

    •  .   ' In light of the  basic soundness of handling private citizen
and compatible industrial wastes in common plants, one ot tne Key
objectives of the present national program should be to continue to
make full use of this  joint approach concept.

           We appreciate your time and patience gentlemen.

-------
                                                                116
           MR. AGEE:  Thank you.

           Mr. Watson, do you find that the industry generally
participates with the community in the planning process, during the
step one planning process, to really determine the geographic scope
of a project.

           MR. WATSON:  It depends on the community.  In some communi-
ties, industry is offered the opportunity to do this, and in other
communities, there is not that much opportunities present, and I think
this depends, somewhat as has been indicated earlier, on how well
the community is staffed with people in this field.

           MR. TROY:  May I address that?

           MR. AGEE:  Go ahead.

           MR. TROY:  There are situations where municipalities, in
development of their facilities for handling our industrial, both
sanitary and industrial waste waters, where the industries are being
pushed to go forward with their programs.

           In the case of where the municipalities don't have the
ability, desire or pressure to do so, we find this to be the case.
We are trying to plan for it.
                                                    v
           MR. AGEE:  Gerry, do you have a question?

           MR. HANSLER:  No.

           MR. AGEE:  Jack?

           MR. RHETT:  No.

           MR. AGEE:  At this time I call on Judith Barnett.

Judith Barnett is not here?

           Bart Lynam, please?

           Mr. Lynam will be sharing his time with Mr. Lee White.
Mr. Lynam is President of the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage
Agencies.

           MR. LYNAM:  I am here today in my capacity as President of
the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, an organization
representing most of the large sewerage agencies throughout the United
States.   I am also General Superintendent of the Metropolitan Sanitary
District of Greater Chicago.  The membership of our organization
includes over 50 agencies from the nation's largest cities repre-
senting over 60 million people.

           Accompanying me today is Mr. Charles B. Kaiser, Jr., the

-------
                                                                 117


Director and Legislative Chairman of AMSA,  and General Counsel of the
St. Louis Metropolitan Sewer District,  and  Mr. Lee C. White,
Washington Counsel for our organization.

           We appreciate the opportunity  to present our views and to
answer these fundamental issues  that have been set for public hearing
by the EPA.

           Since last July, AMSA has been holding a series of regional
meetings to assess the attitude  of  its  member organization toward the
provisions of PL 92-500, and particularly the manner in which it has
been implemented.

           Before discussing the specific questions, we would like
to comment generally on PL 92-500.  I played an active role when
the Act was being considered by  the Congress and in a large measure we
supported the provisions of the  Act.

           Some seemed then beyond  practical be achievement and two and
a half years of experience have  borne that  out, becuase of the
magnitude, complexity and incredible detail  of the statute, it has
been frustrating as we have waited  for  implementing regulations, to
see them revised, and yet regulations criteria and interpretations,
program guidance memos and virtually every  form of control ever
devised by government agencies become a part of the painful process.

           We, too, are government  employees and have an appreciation
for the need to carry out statutory directions, monitor, oversee and
supervise a program with such nationally  important goals and involving
billions of dollars of public funds.

           And yet, there are times when  the frustrations involved have
almost led some of our members to consider  trying to get along without
the Federal share so that they can  get  on with their jobs and thereby
meet local needs.

           If there is one major principle  that we would urge, for
those who would like to amend the law,  it is to put some discretion
into the law for EPA and its Administrator.

           There would be many of our members who would find
themselves in disagreement with  EPA on  a  range of issues, but we are
prepared to have faith in the Administrator to believe he or she,
it may not be a him, may not be  hamstrung by a statute which attempts
to achieve absolute uniformity for  all  situations, regardless of
the tremendous diversity of circumstances that exist in the thousands
of cities and towns in this large country.

           I would also agree with  what Marty Lang said, we also have
to recognize the thing is working and we  also are building large
treatment plants and we are also accepting  very large 9^' ™d we
probably have come to the end of the time where all of the rules and

-------
                                                                 118
regulations have been promulgated and we seem to be getting on with
the job.

           Getting back to the five papers that were presented and
appeared formally in the Federal Register, I will speak to the
first issue, the amount of federal contribution to assist waste
treatment facilities.

           Although there may well have been a number of different
points at which the Federal share could have been fixed when PL 92-500
was working its way through Congress, we believe it would be a mistake
at this point to change the Federal share either upward or downward.
One of the most frustrating experiences that many of the nation's
large metropolitan areas have experiences is the confusion, disappoint-
ment, and heavy financial penalties resulting from the frequent '
changing of the Federal share from 30 percent in 1948 to 75 percent in
1972.

           If Congress were to reduce the 75 percent Federal share,
undoubtedly hundreds of communities across the country would be penalized
not because of any failure on their part to move expeditiously or
to file applications on a timely basis.
                                                         4r        •
           Those who had not received approvals or an allocation of
funds, either because of burdensome EPA regulations implementing the
Act, or because of the impoundment of funds by President Nixon, or
because adequate funds were not made available in the first place,
would find themselves at a considerable disadvantage.  This is a
serious concern and we would urge that yet another divisive and
disruptive factor not be added to solving the water problems of this
nation.

           States and local communities are not immune from budgetary
anemia, and we would urge that the program continue to be a Federal,
state, local cooperating arrangement, and that the formula not be
changed again.

           Undertaking to respond to the questions set forth in the
Federal Register notice in connection with these hearing, we would add
the following:

           A reduced Federal share would undoubtedly inhibit or delay
the construction of needed facilities, not only because of the need
for the local community to scramble for more funds, but also because
of the disruption referred to above.

           Our experience with the financial difficulties of the
states with whom out members deal leads us to believe that there is
mighty little interest and even less ability on their part to pick
up any slack occasioned by reduced Federal contributions.  Without
doubt, most communities throughout the country would experience
enormous difficulty in raising additional funds to replace any that would

-------
                                                                  119
otherwise come from the Federal  Government.
           We do not believe  that  any greater accountability or concern
for expenditures would result from a  reduced Federal  share  or  from an
increased local share; local  funds are really very difficult to come
by and our experience has been that communities do not  undertake
foolist projects be-ause the  Federal  Government is paying 75 percent
A reduced Federal share would certainly delay achieving the qoals of
PL 92-500.

           The comments on  the second paper is as follows:  It is
very nearly impossible to have zero growth and to build on  that basis
without running the risk of terribly  expensive subsequent construction.
In general, the large metropolitan agencies that comprise AMSA have
had considerable experience in design and are opposed to the establish-
ment of arbitrary time periods for which waste water  handling  and
treatment facilities should be designed.

           To the extent that the  so-called California  10/20 Plan
is offered as a standard, we  would have less difficulty with the 10
year growth pattern for waste treatment plants, assuming of course
that the design is on a modular basis that will permit  the  most
efficient and cost effective  add-ons  when required and  further assuming,
that the 10 year period begins to  run at the end of the construction
of the facilities.

           I think our comments are quite similar regarding sewers
in large metropolitan areas.   It is obvious we want to  design  for a
long period of time, and a  20 year period is entirely too short, and
we will echo, I think, the  same comments and I will abbreviate our
statement now to save some  time.

           The question of  who should pay for the extra year's
requirements built into the system, we believe it would be  tantamount
to changing rules in the middle of the game, if the local communities
were to have to pay for everything above today's population and needs.
No major construction program operates on that basis.

           The only realistic consequence would be to impose a larger
burden on the local communities than  was contemplated by PL 92-500.
If PL 92-500 is to be scrapped, revised or modified to  impose  a larger
burden on the local communities,  Congress ought to do it directly
rather than through subterfuge.

           Undertaking to respond  to  the questions set  forth in the
Federal Register, we would  add the following:

           Overdesign is basically a  subjective judgement and  there may
well be some instances in which this  has been the consequences ot
somebody else paying 90 percent of the bill.  We believe, however, that
the major metropolitan areas  have  not overdesigned, in  part because
of the heavy funding required for  the local  share, and  in part because

-------
                                                                120
of the political implications of doing so.

           As indicated above, more rigid supporting data for pro-
jected growth could be required, although it would be sheer folly
to make that retroactive and further delay projects that are already
well into the pipeline.

           Underdesign is, of course, the other horn of the dilemma
and must be guarded against.  There must be adequate flexibility to
meet different growth patterns.

           The third paper, restricting the types of projects eligible
for grant assistance.

           MASA takes a very dim view of attempting to restrict the
facilities that can be the subject of Federal grants.  What is clear
and sensible in Seattle may have no rational basis in Chicago or
Miami.  In our view, the test ought to be the achievement of water
pollution control objectives and there should be flexibility to take
into account the diverse character of the country.  If our experience
under PL 92-500 in the past two and one half years has taught us
anything, it is that it is very nearly impossible to legislate in
great detail in a national statute without creating specific situations
in various areas of the country where unreasonable or even foolish
requirements result.  We believe that a rigorous case ought to
be required of any applicant for Federal grants, but that it would
be a mistake^to limit the facilities for grants.

           The inherent weakness in setting forth a priority list of
facilities which do not take into account local situations, conditions
and factors is best illustrated by the secondary treatment requirement.

           Strong and compelling cases can be made by some municipal
systems that are very costly  secondary treatment facilities in the    ,
conventional sense of that term provide very little or in some
cases absolutely no environmental benefits and produce considerable
environmental detriments, aside from using up scarce public funds.
To require Anchorage, Alaska, for example, to build secondary treatment
facilities for Cook Inlet is almost ridiculous.  The same is  true of
other communities, and yet under the rigid interpretations of PL
92-500, this is currently the situation.  We would argue strongly for
introducing flexibility into the program, not additional rigidity
that would result from limiting the type of facilities eligible for
grants.

           On the subject of the 1977 deadline, it is crystal clear
that hundreds, if not thousands of communities are simply not going to
be able to meet the July 1977 deadline.  The reasons are well known.

           Attempting to respond to the formal questions, pre-financing
is a very tricky business in light of the great reluctance of the
Federal government as shown in the past to redeem its committments.

-------
                                                                 121


           The question of of industry compliance  —   I will be
finished in a flash, in a second.  The question of industry compliance
is really separate and distinct from  that of  the cities.  Industry
failures, when not associated with municipalities,  to  comply are not
likely to be the result of the same factors that have  impeded
municipal agencies.

           As to the fairness of disparate requirements for municipal
and industrial participants in joint  systems, we believe that where
a persuasive case for postponement can be made by  the  industrial
participant, it too should be permitted  to go along with its
municipal partner on any new dealine.  The Administrator's discretion
to extent the deadline should not be  circumscribed, since undoubtedly
he would insist that a case be made and  that  the extension not be
longer than warranted by the facts; but  who can know in advance what
maximum extension those facts might support.

           The attitude of  ASA members  on the point of delegation
of greater management of the program  to  the states is, one, we would
urge on an overall basis «  We are concerned about the Federal
funds that would be appropriated for  that purpose,  since one of the
rationales for the proposal is to take care of the fact that there
is inadequate Federal personnel to perform those functions.

           One particular point that  a number of metropolitan agencies
have found to be troublesome is the manner in which some states have
allocated funds to municipalities within the  individual state.

           It is grossly unfair for the  state to receive a large
allocation because of the state's heavily populated areas and then find
that the state in distributing funds  within the state  ignores the
problems of its major cities.

           We urge, therefore, that if the Cleveland   Amendment is
adopted, there be a required that the states  follow through on the
formula basis upon which —  Federal  funds were allocated to it from
the national pool.

           Thank you very much.

           MR. AGEE:  Thank you very  much.  I have one question.

           You represent the largest  treatment agency  in the country.
Does your association generally feel  that the use  of the state
priority list gives us the best control  of the use of  the dollars,
as to say, for example, large systems versus  smaller systems?

           MR. LYMAN:  Yes.  I think  it  would be generally true   I
think our concern is in the development  of the priority list that the
factors are appropriate and that population be a consideration, because
I think the magnitude of the pollution caused by the large metropolitan

-------
                                                                 122
areas is due just to the size, and I think rather than use these
formulas to develop priorities in a state, the population has to be
adequately and properly looked to.

           So, I think we do not have any argument with the priority
system as such.  Our only concern is that we not get short-changed
when the allocation is made to the metropolitan areas.

           This is a concern to us, because in many cases, the formulas
are based on the law of arithmetic functions, and if a city of
100,000 gets four points and a city of a million gets five and a city
of ten million six, that doesn't seem, really, to be appropriate, in
terms of the magnitudes of the pounds of pollution that are being
generated.  So, I think we really come back to just being fair and
equitable in the distribution of the funds from the state.

           We are quite concerned that the state would take this,
would take the funds that are sent to the state, that they would not
be allocated appropriately.

           MR. AGEE:  I asked the question basically, if we don't
change what we have under discussion today, this is not a proposal
from our agency, that we eliminate any of the features, or some of
them, but something that we did want to discuss with you people.

           We are not going to fund the lower priority projects
nationally.  We will have a priority list with more deserving projects
on the top of the list.

           I think you answered my question.

           Thank you.  Jack, do you have any questions?

           MR. RHETT:  No.

           MR. AGEE:  Gerry?

           MR. HANSLER:  No.

           MR. AGEE:  At this time I would like to call on Mr. Jay Lehr
of the National Water Well Association.

           Following Mr. Lehr will be Mr. Eugene DeStefano, and
following him will be Mr. Eugene Seebold.

           MR. LEHR:  Mr. Agee, I appreciate the opportunity to speak
briefly before this group on public law 92-500.

           I am Executive Director of the National Water Well
Association which represents more than 100,000 men and women involved
in the ground water supply industry in this country.  This includes

-------
                                                                 123
most of the ground water  geologists and hydrologists  involved  in
locating and developing our  underground water supplies,  the water
well drilling contractors who  construct our water wells  as well as the
manufacturers and suppliers  of water well  construction equipment.

           We are primarily  an education and research oriented
organization which is  concerned with the broad hydrologic picture
of the nation's water  supply problems.   Whis includes, of course, both
surface and ground water  which are inexorably linked  in  the earth's
hydrologic cycle.

           While the Water Pollution Control Act, Public Law 92-500
deals primarily with surface waters rather than underground waters,
the pollution of either source of water affects the other and  thus
our science and industry  are vitally interested in all aspects of
this legislation.  We  had hoped years ago that the Water Pollution
Control Act, when it was  being written, would include a  strong focus
on the protection of ground  waters but that was not,  and is not the
case.

           Now, at last in the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974,
PL 93-523, attention is being  paid to protection of our  ground waters.
At this time, however, when  the Government is considering amending
PL 92-500, we feel that many improvements can be made which will
specifically aid in the development of ground water protection programs
by the states and generally  improve the operation and implementation
of the Act with regard to surface water protection which ultimately
affects our ground waters.

           To begin with, I  would like to comment the Congress and
EPA for establishing these public hearings and for its desire  to
consider  recommendations  for amendments to Public Law 92-500.  It
took many years of extensive effort to write this law with all its
good intentions and now after  more than three years of operation it
clearly is time to rectify many of the problems which have developed,
which had not been previously  predicted.

           I further wish to commend EPA for the production of the
five position papers which focus attention on the more obvious
problems  in the legislation, the subjects of these papers being:  One,
potential reduction of the Federal share of grants; Two, possibility
of limiting Federal funding  of reserve capacity to serve projected
growth; Three, consideration of restricting the types of Projects
eligible  for grant assistance; Four, consideration of extending the
1977 date for the publicly owned pre-treatment works  to  meet water
quality standards; and Five, which deals with the delegation of a
greater portion of the management of construction grant  programs to the
states.

           I will comment briefly on each of these and then close
with a discussion of general problems in the overall  implementation of

-------
                                                                 124
of this Act with regard to the states.

           Reduction of the Federal share of construction grants.
We believe that the reduction of the Federal share from 75 percent
down to something in the range of 50 or 60 percent would be a wise
change in the law.  While such a move would not be without negative
effects, it would spread limited Federal Funds through more communi-
ties and lead to greater accountability on the part of grantees in
establishing cost effective designs, management, operation and
maintenance.

           While such a reduction in the Federal share might slow
movement toward the ultimate water quality standards in some areas4 it
would expedite such movement in other areas.  This is particularly
true in rural low income areas where studies by the Commission on
rural water have proven the problems to be most critical while the
priority on the EPA schedule leaves them without any hope of Federal
aid.

           Limiting Federal funding of reserve capacity to serve
projected growth.  We are truly pleased with the comprehensive
consideration EPA has given toward limiting reserve for future growth.
It is said that mathematicians and others can make figures and
statistics lie.  Thus, large sums of money made available for future
potential growth allow also flexibility for shading the facts with
figures.  A much greater control of this activity should definitely
be required.  It should also be recognized that the growth of the
country is fortunately slowing and we should no longer be promoting
growth by overbuilding facilities that effectively attract growth.
                            -(*?*'-
           Thus, we*feel greater limits on grants programs should be
implemented.

           Restricting the types of projects eligible for grants
assistance.  In the way of restricting eligibility, we would strongly
oppose any restrictions that would reduce the flexibility of the
Environmental Protection Agency to help finance a project which would
contribute clearly to the well being of our nation's waters.
                                *
           Here again, such limitations of flexibility would totally
eliminate any hope of attention being paid the problems of low
density, low income rural areas.  If only the squeakiest wheel can
get oiled, heaven can only help the poor voiceless minority away from
the teaming cities.

           Extending 1977 date for the publicly owned pre-treatment
works to meet water quality standards.

           We feel very strongly that the 1977 date which has been
set for meeting water quality standards by publicly owned pre-treatment
works is totally unrealistic and must be extended.  At the same time,
requirements on industrial treatment should, in all fairness, also

-------
                                                                 125


be extended.

           We believe that compliance deadlines  should be open-ended
and that the determining factors  be  that  everything within reason is
being done to move in the direction  of  ultimate  meeting the standards
set out in the law whether in the direction  of ultimately meeting
the standards set out in the law  whether  it  is an  industry or a
publicly owned operation.  We do  not believe that  EPA will lose
credibility in supporting such across the board  extension for both
municipal compliance and industrial  compliance;  rather its credibility
will be enhanced when it is recognized  that  such a move is being
made not due to failure to achieve previously set  goals, but rather
due to a newly found understanding of the problems that inhibit the
achievement of these goals in the previously designed time framework.

           Even with an open-ended compliance schedule, industrial
compliance should still be achieved  well  in  advance of public utility
compliance.  The tools at the hands  of  our industrial organization
as well as their ability to mobilize their efforts and finances far
exceed those of the public sector whose interests, desires and
mobility are far more diverse.

           Delegating a greater portion of the management of the
construction programs to the States.

           Here our industry has  perhaps  the greatest feeling and in-
terest in regard to moving the center of effort  from the Federal
Government to the state government.  The  time has  past in which the
Federal government could afford to look down at  the states as a big
brother telling them what to do and  how to do it as though they did
not have the native intelligence  to  carry on for themselves.  The
Federal government was never established  to  usurp  any of the power
of the states.

           It was established to  allow  a  consistent form of
government to allow a central authority to rule  where diverse
seats of power couldn't hope to be as efficient.  These concepts
have long ago gone astray.

           The power has unwisely flowed  from the  states to the Federal
center and this flow must be reversed.   This is  so even if a
temporary loss in efficiency results although it is difficult for
one to conceive of any operation  less efficient  than that of our
own Federal government.

           I wish now to address  my  final remarks, and indeed, those
which I will receive the most attention,  to  the  problems that Public
Law 92-500 has had with regard to relationships  between the Federal
government, specifically the Environmental  Protection Agency, and
the state agencies who would have the responsibility of carrying out
the requirements of this Federal  program.

-------
                                                                 126
           It is no secret to anyone that this legislation has
strained these Federal-State relationships to the point where very real
hostility exists.  Not only has this hostility impeded progress in
carrying out the very good intentions of this law, but additionally
it has obstructed other similar programs because of a latent mistrust
which has developed on the part of the states toward the Federal
government.

           Much of this unfortunate situation is the result of a
lack of pure and practical understanding on the part of the Federal
government with the very real problems that face the states in their
attempt to obtain and maintain high quality water within the state
boundaries.

           It is one thing to order the waters of our land to meet
certain quality standards at certain dates.  It is another thing to
achieve this condition.

           Sometimes such achievement within required time frames is
much akin to attempting to gain blood from a stone.  It simply cannot
be done.

           The establishment of unreal goals and then the attempt to
force compliance where such compliance is virtually impossible,
makes folly of the law and loses the respect of those who must get
the job done for those who are prompously requiring that it be done.

           There is no need to labor this point further, because by
now it has been clearly chisled in stone and is well understood by
everyone involved.  The problem is how can we begin a remedial program.

           To my mind, the development of a remedial program could be
carried out by heeding the apparent success of the new Safe Drinking
Water Act.  This Act is being implemented by EPA with a concerted
effort to walk hand in hand with state officials in recognizing what
needs to be done, what can be done, and when tasks can reasonably
be expected to be accomplished.

           The National Study Commission developed in the Water
Pollution Control Act was an attempt at getting more input into the
establishment of standards for our surface waters, but it did not truly
integrate all of the feelings of the states.  Nor did it go far
enough in continuing as an overseer as new evidence and new problems
developed in the implementation of the Act.

           The Safe Drinking Water Act is doing two things to overcome
this.  First, EPA through its own desires, has utilized state
officials at every turn to study the direction the implementation
program should take.

           Second, and of equal significance, the Act itself
established a National Drinking Water Advisory Council, made up of

-------
                                                                 127


15 individuals with close ties to water  supply problems   The Council
has the continuing task of advising  EPA  on the implementation of
the Safe Drinking Water Act.  In a very  real sense, the Council
having been chosen from all walks of American life, is the represen-
tative of the people in the continuing effort to carry out the
mandates of the Safe Drinking Water  Act.

           The reason for the recurring  disasters often produced by
well intentioned legislation is that once a bill becomes law, , the
public loses its representation.  The Congress goes on to other matters"
and except for infrequent oversight  hearings in the House and Senate,
the Federal Administration, made up  of career bureaucrats and
tenured civil servants, takes over.

           Were it possible to write laws with true precisions, there
would be little problem as its reading and subsequent implementation
would be straight forward requiring  little or no question of inter-
pretation of the language of the law or  the intent of the Congress.

           But, alas, this is earth  peopled with fallible men, not
heaven inhabited by perfect angels.  And, so while advanced mathematic
and theoretical physics may achieve  precise solutions to problems,
man's written language still leaves  much to be desired as an exact
form of communication.

           Herein lies the problem,  namely, that while the administrative
agencies of the Federal Government were  designed to implement the   .
decisions of the people acting through the Congress, these agencies
were not designed for, but frequently end up making the most important
decisions of all, long after Congress is out of the picture and the
people out of a voice in self-government.

           But such will likely not  be the case with Public Law
93-523, the Safe Drinking Water Act  of 1974.  The mandate from the
Congress states clearly that the 15  member National Drinking Water
Advisory Council not be a group of interested citizens merely placing
a  ceremonial rubber stamp on the activities of our non-elected
administration officials, but rather that these 15 knowledgeable
and involved representatives of all  segments of the public guide the
EPA in its interpretation and implementation of a law passed for
the benefit not for the detriment of the people.

           True, the idea of a citizens' advisory council is not new,
but the way in which it is working this  time is quite unique.
First, the Congress specified that the Council be composed of persons
with direct knowledge of the nation's water supply problems and that
five be chosen from representatives  of state and local government,
five from private organizations directly involved in water supply and
that five be public citizens with an independent interest in tne
subject.

           Second, the U. S. EPA, after  selecting the 15 Council

-------
                                                                 128
members according to the wishes of the Congress, pledged its
sincerest cooperation in working with and for the Council toward
the attainment of an implementation program which would advance
the belief of the public in the workability of the American Federalist
system.

           That is to say, EPA recognized that this time their program
for implementation of an environmental law must satisfy the
needs and desires of the states, localities and individual citizens
if there was to be hope for success.

           In the Clear Air Act of 1970 and the Water Pollution
Control Act of 1972, the United States EPA tried unwisely to play
big brother to the whole country in deciding that by some power vested
in it, it knew what was best for the helpless unwitting public whose
environment was being fowled by some evil arch enemies.  What they
never came to grips with was Pogo's early revelation that environ-
mentally speaking, "We have met the enemy and it is us."  Thus,
in protecting us from ourselves, EPA was manhandling our lives and
our ability to govern ourselves at the local and state level.

           Admitting to little or no good sense on the part of
those lower echelons of government it, U. S. EPA, called all the shots
in a dictatorial manner which created hostility, ill will and an
unfortunate backlash which prevented the development of the
necessary spirit of cooperation required for the ultimate achievement
of these environmental improvements.

           This time around, the U. S. EPA, from its administrator,
Russell Train, on down to each assistant and deputy administrator as
well as its division and branch chiefs, and their staffs, has pledged
and already partially fulfilled its intention to depend heavily on
the feeling of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council as the
voice of the people in the experiment of self-determination and
self-government.

           As Rome was not built in a day, the protection of our
waters will not be achieved tomorrow or even next year, but
as a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step, the
path of the Water Pollution Control Act can be marked by small but
determined steps all in the right direction.  Success will come in a
time frame determined by the practical ability of the state and local
government to achieve necessary change with adequate Federal support
in the form of money, research capability and training programs.

           Examples of a new look in the operation of EPA are many.
At the philosophical level one can cite the comprehensive strategy
paper produced by EPA's Office of Planning and Management which
describes the intended guidelines to be followed in the implementation
of PL 93-523.  It says brilliantly perceptive things about Federal -
State relationships of which the following four paragraphs stand out

-------
                                                                 129
a shining example of a new awareness.
           "The importance of involving  the states to the maximum
extent possible in the development and implementation of the Safe
Drinking Water Program cannot be over-emphasized.  The successful
accomplishment of the majority of the program objectives will, in large
part, be dependent on the enthusiastic acceptance of program respon-
sibility by a majority of the states. "

           "EPA's past experiences in programs  similar to that required
by the Safe Drinking Water Act have  shown  that  neither the willing-
ness nor the ability of states to assume their  share of responsibilities
can be taken for granted.  To foster that  ability and willingness,
EPA must structure a system of both  tangible and intangible incentives.
These incentives must be directed at reducing obstacles which states
will likely face in developing a capacity  for implementing the
program.  Thes obstacles include but are not limited to: "

           "Lack of funds; lack of trained personnel; distrust of
Federal programs; misunderstanding of the  program including the
need for a national safe drinking water  program, the objectives
of the program, and the role states  are  expected to play. "

           "The degree to which EPA  is able to  overcome these obstacles
will in a large part determine the success it achieves in accomplishing
the important goal of fostering an effective Federal-State partner-
ship for the implementation of the major programs under the SDWA."

           The strategy later concludes  with eleven basic principles
for implementation of the Safe Drinking  Water Act which should become
a Federal Bill of Common Sense in implementing  all legislation.
They too bode well for the future of Federal-State relations:

           One, public health considerations deserve highest priority.

           Two, the worst problems will  be given first attention.

           Three, take cost into consideration  in all decisions
made in the Safe Drinking Water Program.

           Four, encourage state and local participation in decision-
making.

           Five, reduce need for massive changes in current state
operations.

           Six, place maximum financial  burden  for implementation
of regulations on the ultimate users of  drinking water^except as
provided by State law.

           Seven, encourage public participation in all delibera-tions
and decisions.

-------
                                                                 130
           Eight, require adequate attention to the environmental
impact of decisions made under the Act.

           Nine, decenteralize decision making and operational
responsibility for the Act to the EPA Regional Offices and to the
State and local governments to the extent practicable.

           Ten, keep paperwork and red tape to the absolute minimum.

           Eleven, utilize existing Federal and state resources.

           I strongly believe that the people of America whom EPA
serves will relate positively to these principles and begin to
acquiesce in their latent hostility toward this new Federal program.

           Thus, in conclusion, I wish to strongly urge that an amend-
ment be made to the Water Pollution Control Act calling for a similar
15 member advisory council to be established on a continuing basis
along the lines of the council in the Safe Drinking Water Act.
This body would bridge the gap Between the Federal implementation of
PL 92-500 and the people and the state officials who must comply with
that implementation.

           In this way, I believe a new and more realistic path will
be laid toward the ultimate objective of every one of us in this
room, in this city, and in the country; namely, the waters of our
great nation be made safe from pollution and degradation so that man
will ultimately reap the optimum benefits of nature's greatest of
all gifts, our water.

           Thank you so much for your time.

           MR. AGEE:  Thank you.  Gerry, do you have any questions?

           MR. HANSLER:  No.

           MR. AGEE:  Do you, Mr. Rhett?

           MR. AGEE:  I would call at this time Eugene DeStefano,
representing the Township of Woodbridge, New Jersey.  He is
apparently not here.

           Eugene Seebold, representing the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation.

           Following Mr. Seebold will be Lynn Goldthwate and then
Morris Wiley.

           MR. SEEBOLD:  My name is Eugene Seebold.  I am the
Director of Clearwater in the State of New York, Environmental
Conservation Department.  I am here today representing Commissioner
Ogden Reid, who very much would have liked to attend today, but

-------
                                                                 131
because of pending legislation,  he could  not.
           However, the remakrs that  have  been  put  together are his
sentiments, and reflect the sentiments  of  the Division of Clearwater,
and therefore, lest there be any doubt  of  our position,  I wish to
state at the outset that I am convinced that not  one of  the five
topics of the position papers are  really essential  or necessary.

           The first three, reduction of the Federal share limiting
Federal financing to existing population,  and restricting eligibility
for construction grants, will make a  mockery of the goals established
in the Act through failure to provide the  Federal assistance to
communities promised by the 92nd Congress.

           The motivation behind these  three topics is the evident
dismay of the Executive Department over the magnitude of the 1974
Needs Survey estimate of 342 billion  dollars to meet 1983 goals.  This
situation was foreseen precisely by the House Committee  on Public
Works in House Report No. 92-911,  dated March 11, 1972,  wherein on
page 119 it states:

           "The Committee received extensive testimony on the cost of
the elimination of discharge of pollutants.  While  there is controversy
as to the validity of the estimated costs  to both the Federal, state
and local governments and to industry that were received, there is no
question on the part of the committee that the  costs would be
enormous.  Faced with the wide variation in estimates, the Committee
feels that it would be irresponsible  at this time to impose this
requirement in the Nation without  gathering additional facts and
without making a detailed and competent review  by a multi-disciplined
team which can review all facets of the social, seconomic, technological
and environmental effects of this  requirement."

           It was for this reason  that  the House  Bill H. R. 11896 pro-
vided a study group, later to become  known as the National Commission
on Water Quality.

           Any pr-posal contemplating amendment of  the Act for these
three topics is premature until the Commission  report is completed
and submitted to the Congress as stipulated by  the  Act.  Rather than
seek to reduce needs by curtailment of  Federal  grant participation,
the efforts of EPA and OMB should  be  directed toward reexamination
of rules, regulations and procedures  that  impose  ever changing
criteria and standards at a cost that far  exceeds the resulting benefits
in water quality improvement.

           I do agree that these topics can be  discussed and I am
prepared to do so.

           In considering Paper number  one, reduction of the Federal
share, as published in the Federal Register, for May 28, 1975, I find
that the background material is grossly understated.  The first

-------
                                                                 132
paragraph indicates that from 1966 to 1972, the Federal share ranged
from 30 to 55 percent.  The paper, however, neglects to state that
in order to qualify for the 55 percent Federal grant, there had to
be a state matching grant of not less than 25 percent.
                                     *
               **                                              ?
           The maximum grant available to a municipality was the sum
of the two, or 80 percent.  Therefore, the grant available during
that period exceeded the present 75 percent Federal grant.

           From 1956 to 1966, the Federal share was 30 percent or
a maximum of $250,000.  In the case of multi-municipal projects this
was increased to $1,200,000 as a maximum, to the full 30 percent.  If
paper number one is intended to provide comparison with the'past, it   •
represents an inaccurate starting base.

           The logic to support the assumption that the Federal
government must provide 75 percent of $342 billion under the Act is
unclear.  I find no committment to do so and I again refer to the
task assigned the National Commission on Water Quality to determine the
economic, social and environmental effects of achieving or not
achieving the 1983 goals.

           States and local municipal bodies will  find it difficult
to raise funds to pick up the difference between the guaranteed
75 percent grant and a lesser amount.  Over $5 billion in Federal
assistance has been obligated at a flat 75 percent of eligible project
cost.  It is unreasonable to expect that any significant number of
states or communities will accept less.

           For one intimately involved in the state and local
budgetary process, the answers to the questions posed by paper number
one are painfully apparent.

           One, yes, a reduced Federal share will  inhibit construction
of needed facilities.

           Two, no, the states or a majority of them cannot assume a
larger financial burden.

           Three, yes, communities will have difficulty raising
additional funds, not only in the capital market but from their voting
public who must assume the costs of debt service.

           Four, accountability is not an issue as this is accomplished
by state review and surveillance regardless of the proportion of
local funding.

           Five, the goals of PL 92-500 may have to be abandoned.

           With respect to paper number two, limiting Federal funding
of reserve capacity to serve projected growth, is reduction of Federal
grant assistance in another guise.  The proposition is fundamentally

-------
                                                                 133
the same as paper number one.
           The Environmental Protection Agency  has already determined
that reconstructing a sewage treatment plant  every ten years and
tearing up a city's streets for new  sewers  every  20 years are not cost
effective.  They have conceded that  plants  should be constructed for
a 30 year life, but OMB is arbitarily imposing  a  condition that
Federal assistance will be granted only for present population, with
the state and municipality responsible for  the  added costs of planned
growth.

           OMB infers that constructing for growth results in over
design.  It should be easy for EPA to refute  this from their own
records by determining how many plants in existence constructed in
accordance with the growth policy under criticism have actually proven
to be overdesigned.

           There must be  few, if any, becuase if  threatment plants
had been overdesigned in  the past, there would  have been no need for
Public Law 92-500 in the  first place.

           Had our founding fathers, 200 years  ago, established a
national no-growth policy such as this, we  would  today still be
13 original states huddled along tidewater.

           What would be  the effect  of Federal  assistance if pro-
jects were designed only  for present population?  Disastrous.

           States and cities unable  to increase their participation in
sewage treatment works costs, would  redesign  their plants for
existing population only.  Afer completion  the  plants would be already
overloaded.  The condition which PL  92-500  was  designed to correct
would worsen instead of improving.

           I urge the prompt abandonment of the concept of paper
number two which seeks to limit Federal funding to serving present
populations.

           With respect to paper number three,  restricting the types
of projects eligible for  grant assistance,  is unacceptable.  The
United States Congress, after one and one half  years of deliberation
from May, 1971 to October 1972, decided that  the  eligibilities for
Title  II Construction grants were essential for attainment of the
goals of the Act.  Therefore, they should not be  restricted irres-
ponsibly in a misguided effort to reduce needs  by sweeping certain
categories of requirements under the rug.

           The same panic created by the results  of the 1974
Needs Survey discussed in the opening of my statement is responsible
for this issue.  The fear seems to be that  States will be presenting
blank checks for all of the eligible projects making up the $342 billion
of needs.

-------
                                                                 134
           The Act makes the States responsible for a list of sewage
treatment works projects in order of priority according to the severity
of pollution.  This severity of pollution may require action in
any of the categories for which eligibility was established by the
Act.  It would be control of urban runoff, correction of combined
sewer overflows, collection sewers or any of the others.

           Therefore, for improvement of water quality, the goal  we
strive for, a state should be able to exercise the option of
choosing a proper means for abatement of each specific pollution
problem.

           There is a growing need for the construction of new, or
the rehabilitation of existing, collection sewer systems.   Due to the
costs of such works, the pressures of unemployment and inflation, more
of our communities have a low tax base to begin with are finding
themselves unable to provide the wherewithall to construct or repair
such collection systems without the assistance of a Federal grant.
The programs of the Farmers Home Administration and the Department of
Housing and Urban Development cannot cope with this situation.

           The elimination of eligibility for collection sewers would
set back the attainment of PL 92-500 goals indefinitely.

           As I peruse the elaborate discussion, questions, suggestions
and considerations devoted to paper number three, I recall the words
of Hamlet in Act III:

           "Thus conscience does make cowards of us all
            And thus the native hue of resolution
            Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought
            And enterprises of great pith and moment
            With this regard their currents turn awry
            And lose the name of action".

           With respect to paper number four, extending the 1977
date for  a publicly owned pretreatment works to meet water quality
standards is not a matter of great moment.  With the early impoundment
of fiscal 1973 and 1974 allotments, the momentum of the previous  Act
was lost and has never been recovered.  Failure to meet 1977 standards
was predestined on December 8, 1972 when the impoundment was ordered.

           I do not subscribe to any of the five alternatives
discussed in the paper.  I do not agree that the decision on publicly
owned treatment plants meeting secondary treatment standards by 1977,
should influence the attainment of 1977 standards by industry with
the sole exception when they discharge into a municipal  system.

           I do not agree that the 1977 standard should be extended to
1983 as this would give cause to delay on the part of those plants
that can comply with 1977 standards.

-------
                                                                 135


           I do not agree that there  should  be  any enforcement pro-
ceedings against municipalities to obtain compliance with 1977
standards except in the most flagrant violation of water quality
standards.

           My approach is that the Agency should reexamine their
secondary treatment standards.  An effort has already been accomplished
by the proposal to eliminate coliform standards from the definition
of secondary treatment.  There are many  receiving water bodies where
maintenance of water quality does not require 85 percent removals.
The 1977 date should remain but application  of  the standards should be
reasonable.

           As far as paper number five,  I am a  zealous advocate for
delegating a greater portion of the management  of the construction
grants program to the states.  It was intended  by the Act and it is
the stated policy of the Administrator of EPA.  But is H. R. 2175
really necessary?

           It is difficult to rationalize the desire of EPA to
delegate more responsibility to the States while at the same time a
regulation effective during the nine  months  since October 31, 1974,
and which accomplishes even more than H. R.  2175, lies dormant.  I
refer to Section 35.912 40 CFR Part 35 as published in the Federal
Register October 1, 1974.  I also find it rather odd that the background
in paper number five does not mention the existence of this regulation.

           H. R. 2175 as presently worded is defective.
                         -• (-
           H. R. 2175 provides for state certification of only three
elements of the Section 201 facilities plan, whereas the regulation
delegates to the state, certification of all the facilities plan
including the twelve elements of the  plan described in 40 CFR Part
35, Section,35.917-1.

           H. R. 2175 authorizes the  Administrator of EPA to reserve
two percent of the state's allotment, in contravention of the Supreme
Court decision that the entire amount authorized should be allotted to
the states.

           H. R. 2175 provides up to  two percent only for those
allotments made after the date of enactment  of  that bill.

           As the $18 billion dollars authorized by PL 92-500 have
been fully allotted, there may not be further allotments until after
September 30, 1977.  Consequently, H. R. 2175 cannot be effective
until too late for any benefit.

           H. R. 2175 provides contract  authority as a source of
funding, whereas other state costs for administration of PL 9^-bUU are
reimbursed from appropriated funds under Section 106 of the Act.

-------
                                                                136
           Delegation of authority to the States should be consumated
through the currently effective regulations.  New York applied for
this delegation on October 31, 1974, and it has not yet been granted.

           Funding should come from appropriated funds for liquidation
of contract authority provided for Title II construction grants.

           As I said in the beginning, I cannot support any of the
five proposals for amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972, Public Law 92-500.

           I have given you my reasons in detail with suggestions for
alternatives that seem viable to me.
              »
           I reiterate, no amendments should be made to the Act at
this late date nor until the National Commission on Water Quality
report is evaluated by the Congress.

           Thank you gentlemen.

           MR. AGEE:  You mention H. R. 2175, and you have some
problems with it.  You have provided your testimony, I am sure to
the Congress on the deficiencies in that Bill?

           MR. SEEBOLD:  Yes, we have.

           MR. AGEE:  Good.

           I would like to ask a question.  If that Bill  passes, how
long would it take the State of New York to get to the position
where, in your assessment, you feel you would be ready for full
delegation to EPA?

           MR. SEEBOLD:  We are ready right now.  Right now we have
requested for delegation, and actually, there is an administrative
conference scheduled in Region II to work out some details.

           Actually, we have increased state purposes programming
requesting a supplementary budget which is being enacted today,
hopefully.  That will further staff us up to be able to accommodate
and absorb the construction grants aspect of the delegation.

           MR. AGEE:  Thank you.  Gerry, do you have a question on
that?                                             ^

           MR. HANSLER:  I was going to ask that question.  Do you
think it would be a good idea, whether we went under our regulations
of last October for delegation or the Cleveland-Wright Bill, to
delegate on a function by function basis when the state is able to
handle the delegation, rather than all at once, and then possibly    *"•
suffer the consequences of another delay while they are gearing up?

-------
                                                                 137


           MR. SEEBOLD:  As you know, Gerry, we  have delegation of part
of the program running now.   I believe  it  is a more sensible and more
workmanlike thing to do, is to delegate a  piece  at a time, commen-
surate with the staff you have on  hand, on board, with the state
level and the training required for  the proper absorption.

           But, I think in two years we have had an opportunity to
acquaint ourselves with where we are going and how to handle the
program.

           MR. AGEE:  Jack do you  have  any questions?

           MR. RHETT:  Do you have authority, or does the state
legally have authority to charge fees that would come under the 31
October?

           MR. SEEBOLD:  Yes, we do.

           MR. AGEE:  You have the authority to, Gene, have you done
it?

           MR. SEEBOLD:  No,  we have not.

           MR. AGEE:  For those of you  in  the audience who are not
familiar with what we call -- We  have  endorsed  this concept by
regulation, and is a concept  whereby the states, if they legally can,
may charge a city a certain sum about one  percent to review the
plans and specifications, and that also becomes  a grant eligible
feature from the EPA.  To my  knowledge, only one state, California,
is using that now, but it has been quite a success, and it is one
way of providing the necessary funds for that state.  It could be a
substitute for the Cleveland  Bill.

           We will call on, at this  time,  Ms. Lynn Goldthwaite,
representing the Tourne Valley Coalition.

           Next, I will be calling on Morris Wiley representing the
American Petroleum Institute, and  then  James Huffcut, New York State
Water Pollution Control Association.

           MS. GOLDTHWAITE:   I am  Lynn  Goldthwaite.  The objective of
this Act, of course, is to clean up  American's waters.  This goal,
unfortunately has been pushed aside  by  many in the scramble to get a
share of $18 billion, not available  in  the construction grants.

           While the ground rules  for today's discussion, as has been
said this morning, is that none of the  proposals would retroactively
apply to the $18 billion presently authorized and allotted, we must
look at the case histories to understand the need for the change.

           I speak for the Tourne  Valley Coalition.  This is a- water-
shed organization for the upper Rockaway River in Morris County,

-------
                                                                 138
New Jersey.  We have had practical experience in the confrontation
between the objectives of the Act and the harsh realities of the grant
program.  I am here today because our Coalition hopes our experience
will reinforce the need for some of the proposed modifications in
Title II, specifically those arease addressed in the second paper.

           The upper Rockaway watershed is not at present part of
any areawide or basinwide 303 or 208 plan.  The watershed has been
presented with a regional sewering plan developed by an engineering.-
consulting firm hired by a newly formed regional sewerage authority.
The plan proposed is an ambitious one with a first stage construction
price tag of $83 million.  The plan is based on growth demands to
the year 2020.

           The growth demands were determined by the engineering
consultant --  Originally at the Public Hearing, we were told that
growth was provided by the County Planning for Growth, and we found
that the County Planning for Growth was actually from the same
consulting firm that was building the treatment plant, and they have
no relation to the carrying capacity of the land and its function as
a portable watershed.  The environmental assessment of the project
justified the growth demands and the need to meet the growth demands.
The plan was approved by the State of New Jersey.

           Informed and knowledgeable members of the public became
alarmed at the environmental assessment's justification of the
taking of parkland, the depletion of ground water resources, the
loss of open space, swamps, agricultural lands and historical sites,
as being necessary for the greater good.  The greater good for whom,
we asked?

           It was perfectly evident that a great deal of money was
to be made by the land speculators and commercial developers who
already were appearing before zoning and planning boards in the water-
shed with proposals based on tying into the proposed new facilities.

           The magnitude of this growth was projected as an increase
from 90,000 people now to 220,000 in the year 2020.  The proposed
plant was designed to service 160,000 people.  So, that would be
70,000 more people than are there right now.

           We had no doubt that the engineer's growth projections
would become a reality once the sewering facilities were in.
Unfortunately, this was taking place in a county where the reserve
water capacity will be depleted within ten years given the current
growth rate.

           Regional sewering at bargain basement prices is what we
have now.  The Federal Government pays 75 percent, the state pays
15 percent, the sewer users pay the rest.  The more new development
that is spurred by the project, the less the average user charges

-------
                                                                 139


will be.

           In the upper Rockaway,  the  regional  authority has not
committment to sewer areas of existing need.  This  is  a function and
an option of the local municipalities.   Many  areas  of  existing need
may not be sewered under the present proposals  because the  local
municipalities may find it far more attractive  economically to allow
new development to gobble up available capacities.

           The public concerned with the environment asked  questions
at the public hearing, questions that  were  not  answered until months
later, leaving no opportunity for  rebuttal  or further  questions on
the same points.  Some questions were  never answered.  But, fortunately,
the EPA apparently recognized the  validity  of our concerns  and a
further environmental assessment of the project has been requested.

           Our difficult search for answers and our analysis of the
watershed's needs have led us to believe that the Federal Government's
subsidy of growth projections has  led  to inflation  of  these pro-
jections.  We know the sewering of undeveloped  areas will result in
the further decline of our older marketing  centers, areas which already
have municipal sewers, public water, public transportation, and vacant
factories and empty stores as in Dover, New Jersey.

           None of us on the Commission come  from Dover, but we are
very concerned about them.

           The proliferation of urban  sprawl  into the  countryside,
will result in more pollutants entering surface waters, which are the
portable water supply to Jersey City,  and will  result  in other
environmental problems of significant  magnitude.  The  environmental
assessment of«• the project recognized these  problems too, but proposed
engineering solutions for them, such as water treatment plants,
pump storage reservoirs, and water importation  from the Delaware and
other far off places.

           In the area of cost comparisons  of the alternatives, no
attempt was made to consider the cost  benefit of the externalities
involved, to show the real quantifiable costs,  as well as the costs in
terms of destruction of non-renewable  resources.

           Thus, our feeling on paper  number  two, we favor  the
limiting of Federal funding of facilities and interceptors  to the
capacity needed to service existing population  in service areas.
The grantee should be required to  fund 100  percent  of  reserve
capacity desired for future growth.

           Communities desirous of new growth and new  ratables
must be willing to plan for them with  both  their environment and their
pocketbooks in mind.  It is certainly  wrong for the Federal Government
to  subsidize new growth for one area which  will  cause  the decline
of  an adjacent area, as in the case in many areas of New Jersey.

-------
                                                                 140
           A demerit in limiting Government funding is the difficulty
in determination of what portion of the costs are actually applicable
to present population.  Interceptors that need to go through undeveloped
lands offer the opportunity for development of new areas.  There
must be an equitable method of allocating costs of the interceptors
so that the Federal Government does not subsidize growth of these
undeveloped lands.  There should be a committment on the part of the
grantee to service areas of existing need upon which the Federal
funding is based.  Especially, there should be a committment on the
part of a grantee to service areas of existing need, on which
Federal funding is based.

           I am going to restrict my comments to just two of the
other papers, the third one, restricting types of eligible projects.

           We believe that the cost efficient proposals will continue
to be made in terms of only those alternatives that are eligible
for funding.  Since the solutions to some problems may be indirect
and unsolvable via sewering, eligible projects should not be restricted
as they were prior to PL 92-500.

           For example, storm water control problems  should be
alleviated before the fact by land management solutions, such as
acquisition of wetlands, and uplands with extreme slope.  In some
urban areas water quality goals may be met only by infiltration
correction or separation of combined sewer overflows.

           We must keep a broad range of options available for
solutions and funding levels should also be sensitive to the situation.
Urban areas should be given preferential Federal priorities for
those projects which would best improve and restore water quality
such as, tertiary treatment, correction of sewer infiltration inflow
and the separation of storm and waste water treatment by major sewer
rehabilitation.  Communities in water recharge areas should be
discouraged via lower Federal priorities from encouraging added
growth through projects designed to increase capacity such as
collector and interceptor sewers.

           We are dealing with extremely complex systems.  Simple
solutions do not work.

           Regarding paper number five, delegating more management
to the states, we have some general feelings.

           This amendment could allow EPA to foster stronger state
environmental agencies.  Not all states are ready to accept enlarged
responsibilities.  A superior amendment could allow EPA to delegate
more functions to states which have proven their ability to properly
oversee present functions.

           And, I- know that Mr. Hansel is well aware of the situation

-------
                                                                 141


in New Jersey, where our engineers get much less salary than in other
states, so that even if more money were put in, unless something can
be done to raise the salaries in New Jersey, we will have a difficult
problem.

           I wanted to say something about the problems that we are
having with public participation, and I am very glad that Mr. Lehr
so ably told you about that.  I have quite a bit of that in my
written testimony, and I want to just close by saying that the
Tourne Coalition is pleased that you are making this timely and
careful review and we would like to commend you for the high quality
of the issue papers that you gave to us.  We hope that the changes
will help focus the entire grants program on the goal of the Federal
Water Pollution Act, clean water.

           Thank you.

           MR. AGEE:  Thank you very much.

           Jack, Gerry, any questions?

           Gerry Hansler?

           MR. HANSLER:  Do you think the county level of government
in New Jersey, or the state level of government should decide the
amount and location of increased sewer system capacity?

           MS. GOLDTHWAITE:  Right now both these levels of
government to not have the expertise, I don't feel, to be able to do
that.  They might be able to be built up somewhat.

           MR. HANSLER:  On this whole issue of increased capacity,
in drilling for the future, it is basically a land use decision.
Should we rely upon the 565 home rule political subdivisions in
Jersey to make these decisions, or should we rely upon the county
government, or should we rely upon the state government?

           Often you will have up to 29 in the case of the --  Twenty-
fine different communities going in under one system.

           MS. GOLDTHWAITE:  Offhand, as far as land use goes, we
have to have a lot of land use decisions being made at the state
level.  I don't think at the municipal level, or the county level,
you are not going to get the broad kind of solutions that are des-
perately needed.

           MR. HANSLER:  So, why should the Federal Government make the
decision as to how much increased capacity and where is good or
bad, or should it be funded?  Logically, this is a state land
responsibility.

           MS. GOLDTHWAITE:  Yes, I would like to see, as was

-------
                                                                 142
mentioned this morning, the funds that the Federal Government gives
be tied to certain percentages of state money, ten or 15 percent,
and slowly build up the state level through the suggestions made in
the paper, so that they can assume some of this.

           But, right now we need to have the EPA in there helping
to make the right decisions.

           MR. AGEE:  Thank you very much.

           I will call at this time Mr. Morris Wiley, representing the
American Petroleum Institute.

           Following Mr. Wiley, we call upon Mr. James Huffcut.

           MR. WILEY:  I will try not to take more than ten minutes,
but I won't promise.

           MR. AGEE:  We will help you.

           MR. WILEY:  Thank you.

           My name is Morris A. Wiley of Texaco, Incorporated, where
my professional responsibilities involve design of oil and water
pollution control systems for petroleum marketing facilities,
refineries, and other installations which utilize municipal waste
treatment facilities.

           I am also a member of the Committee on Water Quality  of
the American Petroleum Institute, and it is on behalf of API that
I am presenting this paper.

           We appreciate this opportunity to comment upon the subject
currently before the United States Environmental Protection Agency,
namely, the need for mid-course amendments to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.  In particular, we wish to „.-
address the proposals to extend the 1977 date for compliance with
water quality standards and EPA policy on pretreatment,standards.
                                                                 ',   3;!' '
           The United States petroleum industry operates more than
200,000 service stations, 35,000 terminals and bulk plants, 250
refineries and innumerable other facilities.  Many of these installa-
tions discharge sanitary or other waste to municipal sewer systems.
Consequently, we support the need for amendments which would
accelerate the flow of grant monies to municipalities, since to  date,
there has been inadequate construction of municipal treatment plants
under the Act.
                                                       -0
           As a result of inadequate funding, many municipal
treatment plants will not be on line as scheduled.  Yet, it simply
is not feasible for all residential, commercial, and industrial

-------
                                                                 143


dischargers to municipal sewers to  provide  pretreatment by 1977
which would be equivalent to municipal  secondary  treatment technology
EPA has proposed to extend the deadline from  1977 to  1983 for mu-
nicipalities, but not for other sources.  Such  an extension of the
compliance date for one class of dischargers  without  considering the
equally compelling problems facing  the  remaining  classes of point
source discharges would be inequitable  in the extreme.

           Concerning compliance with the treatment technology and
water quality standards, many industrial plants which treat their
own wastes will be able to install  best practicable control
technology by July 1, 1977.

           But, some will not.  Indeed, we  understand that EPA has
already written some National Pollutant Discharge Elimination systems
permit for major industrials dischargers which extend  deadlines for
implementation of BPCTCA beyond July 1, 1977, where earlier compliance
is clearly not possible.

           Extensions are, in fact, necessary.  American commerce   -
and industry operate numerous other large and small facilities which
discharge sanitary and industrial wastes to municipal waste treatment
plants.  Insufficient time has been allowed by  the'Act for municipa-
lities to construct the treatment plants required for application of
secondary treatment technology for  compatible wastes, and it is
clearly impracticable for those businesses, commercial establishments,
and industries which discharge to municipal sewer systems to provide
temporary pretreatment which would  be the equivalent  of municipal se-
condary treatment. .

           Such a program would constitute  an unreasonable burden
and would result in a waste of natural  resources  with no appreciable
benefit.  Indeed, many of these sources are located in urban areas,
including building lofts, where neither land  areas nor zoning
regulations, nor space, would permit installation of  sewage treatment
works.  -

           Furthermore,, the Act does not allow  sufficient time for
EPA to complete the following tasks which are essential for complete
installation of all of the required treatment technologies and for
full  compliance with the water quality  standards  by July 1, 1977.

           One, processing of municipal waste treatment grants.

           Two,*Federal funding of  municipal  waste treatment grants.

           Three, promulgation of the information and guidelines
required under Section 304 of the Act.

           Four, remand contested information and guidelines to the
agency for revision in accordance with  the  administrative procedures

-------
                                                                 144
and judicial review provisions of Section 509 of the Act.

           Five, Issuance of all individual National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination Systems, (NPDES) permits prior to December 31,
1974.  Many remain unissued.
                                                                   (
           Six, revision of contested individual NPDES permits in
accordance with the provisions of Section 509.

           Seven, promulgation of pretreatment standards for all
commercial discharges from all sources to municipal sewer systems.

           These seven items remain incomplete at this time.

           EPA is currently involved in more than 250 lawsuits, some
of them involving very fundamental questions about the law's intent. -
Hundreds of adjudicatory hearings have been docketed to deal with
contested discharge permits.  As a consequence, many municipal
and industrial discharges do not know what their final effluent
limitations will be on July 1, 1977 and are unable to design and
install treatment works which would assure compliance by that date.

           Since many municipalities and industries cannot comply with
the 1977 treatment technology requirements, the compliance dates
for installation of both secondary treatment technology and BPCTCA
should be extended beyond 1977, perhaps to 1983 as suggested by EPA.

           Considerations of environmental equity also support the
above recommendations.  Protection of the quality of the nation's
waters is a commonly shared objective.  The ultimate costs for both
municipal and industrial sewage collection, treatment and disposal
must, however, be borne by the same set of citizens, either as
taxpayers or as consumers.

           Socio-economic and environmental equity should, therefore,
be accorded to all citizens through adoption of equitable effluent
limitations for all classes and categories of dischargers to like
waters, whether by municipalities, industry, commerce, or small
businesses.

           Municipal sanitary sewage and petroleum refinery
wastewaters are comparable in concentrations of organic pollutants
and responses to conventional primary and secondary treatment tech-
nology.  Many refineries treat both sanitary and process waste-
waters in their API-type gravity separators and secondary biological
treatment units.  Many refineries discharge their wastewaters after
separation of excess oil to municipal treatment plants.  Many
marketing facilities are connected to municipal sewers, principally
for sanitary wastes but also for smaller volumes of wash waters and
the like.

           The 1983 goal for petroleum industry discharges should

-------
                                                                 145


be the same as for municipalities for discharge to like quality
receiving waters.

           Realistically, municipalities can  be expected'to provide
secondary treatment by that date, to improve  control of overflows
from combined sewers, and to undertake control of urban runoff.
Additional treatment technology should be  required only for water
quality limited segments, as provided by Sections 302 and 303 of
the Act.

           It is patent that the Act needs to be amended to afford
environmental equity to all dischargers.   The 1983 goal for major
industrial categories should,  in fact, be  defined as secondary treat-
ment for wastewaters containing organic pollutants which are compatible
with municipal secondary treatment  technology except where treatment
is needed to meet water quality standards. Also there may be certain
locations where discharge is made to deep  ocean waters and only
primary treatment should be required.

           Nevertheless, the Environmental Protection Agency has
in effect, defined BPCTCA as secondary treatment for the Organic
Chemicals Point Source Category and tertiary  treatment for the
Petroleum Refining Point Source Category.   There is no reasonable expla-
nation for this inequity.

           A report for the Council on Environmental Quality has
taken exception to this type of reasoning  in  its findings that, "Until
the storm water situation is analyzed and  efficient corrective
measures have been taken, there is  little  or  no sense in seeking higher
levels of treatment efficiency in existing secondary treatment plants."

           In Roanoke, Virginia, for example, removal was upgraded
from 86 percent to 93 percent, yet  there was  no dramatic reduction in
the BOD load, 3.2 million pounds in 1969 compared to 3.06 million
pounds in 1972."

           Similarly, there is little or no sense in seeking higher
levels of treatment by business, commerce  and industry in advance
of application of comparable levels of treatment technology by
municipal sources.

           If a municipality is unable to  provide secondary treatment
for its discharges to a particular  receiving  water, it would be
environmentally inequitable, of questionable  value for meeting water-
quality standards, and ineffective  for the commercial and industrial
discharges to that sewer system to  provide temporary pretreatment
equivalent to municipal secondary treatment technology.

           In brief, we strongly recommend that the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 be amended to extend  to
July  1, 1983 the July 1, 1977  deadline for mandatory application for

-------
                                                                 146
both municipal and industrial treatment technologies and compliance
with the interim water quality standards.

           If I may have one more minute?

           Other relevant amendments to the FWPCA which should be
seriously considered, and which are dealt with in detail in the attached
API statement to the National Commission on Water Quality, are:

           One, it should be the national goal that the discharge of
harmful quantities of pollutants into navigable waters be eliminated.

           Two, the scope of the definition of pollutants should
encompass both natural and anthropogenic sources of potential
pollutants and the Act should require control  only for discharges
of harmful quantities of pollutants generated  by the source subject
to control.

           Three, comparable degrees of control for all municipal,
industrial and agricultural sources of pollution in order to distribute
costs more equitably.

           Four, clarify that effluent limitations shall be derived
from effluent guidelines and that guidelines themselves shall  not be
construed as limitations or absolute standards, which addresses
this question that you raised earlier relating to the water quality
standards that had to be achieved, Mr. Hansler.
                                                                        «i
           Five, change the compliance with Phase I limits for all
discharges from July 1, 1977 to about July 1,  1983, and compliance
with Phase II should be deferred at least until July 1, 1986,  pending
evaluation of the need for meeting standards more stringent than
Phase I limits.

           Require effluent limitations and other controls beyond
Phase I only to the extent necessary to achieve receiving water quality.

           Seven, provide the contested NPDES  permits shall be subject
to simpler,  more efficient and more expeditious administrative or
judicial reviews with commensurate time tables for compliance.

           Eight, provide for the Administrator to exempt small and
environmentally insignificant discharges from the NPDES permit program
and pretreatment requirements.

           Thank you.

           MR. AGEE:  Mr. Wiley, thank you very much.

           Do you gentlemen have any questions?

           MR. HANSLER:  Yes, I do.  Do you think there should be a

-------
                                                                 147


minimum level applied nationally,  whether it is  pretreatment or direct
discharge insofar as the category, discharge from oil  terminals is
concerned?  Should it be uniform across  the country?

           MR. WILEY:  We  have  a 100 page text book draft document
which has been prepared in consultation  with the EPA  permits division
in Washington.  Although it does not have their  comments back to us yet
which addresses this question,  and what  it says  is, that we believe
that most terminals can achieve a  logorithmic annual  average of 20
milligrams per liter of oil  and grease.   We do not know how to sub-
categorize these on the basis so that you, the EPA, could sort out
those terminals which could possibly achieve better.

           The only way you can get that information  is by checking
their long-term results, because we can't sort them out ourselves.

           There may be a  few terminals  which would be higher than
that.   In some cases, a permit  based on  that may be justified.  In
others, additional treatment technology  might be possibly required.

           MR. AGEE:  Thank you, Mr. Wiley.

           I would call James Huffcut, representing the New York State
Water Pollution Control Association.

           MR. HUFFCUT:  I am Jim  Huffcut, President-elect of the
New York State Water Pollution  Control Association, and I am
presenting this paper on behalf of Robert MacCrea.

           This is a position paper of the Association. The Executive
Committee of the New York  State Water Pollution  Control Association
has directed the preparation and presentation of this position
statement on the five published papers of proposals to amend the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972.

           The statement was developed after careful  examination of
Notice  of the Public Hearings and  proposal papers printed in the
Federal Register.  The statement is predicated on the basic ground
rule  stated  in the notice, that is, "None of the proposals would
retroactively apply to the $18  billion presently authorized and
allocated."

           The New York State Water Pollution Control  Association
recognizes that the total  price tag of $350 billion in municipal
facilities construction resulting  from the 1974  Need  Survey has
 staggered the imagination  of the Administration  and the Congress
of the  United States and raised a  question of whether the Federal
budget  could support or underwrite such  a program. Regardless of
 this  staggering estimate program cost developed  from  the Need Survey,
 the Association strongly supports  Public Law 92-500 and its objectives
 to obtain a satisfactory water  quality throughout this nation.

-------
                                                                 148
           The monies required for these municipal facilities must
come from the taxpayers, whether on a Federal, state or local
level.  With this in mind, we wish to present the Association's
position on the five papers under consideration at this time.

           Paper number one, reduction of the Federal share.

           Even as Public Law 92-500 has been applied to date, the
75 percent of the eligible costs being borne by the Federal'Government,
the objectives of the Act have not been fully met.  In most of the
projects presently funded the grantee must invest more funds, often
in excess of the grant monies to achieve the satisfactory water
quality.

           The Association, therefore, feels that a reduction in
the percentage of the grant monies of the eligible portions of a
project will not necessarily inhibit construction or slow down the
abatement pollution program.  In place of the higher percentage of
grant monies, legislation which would aid local communities in
financing their committments to meet the requirements of the Act might
be considered.

           Income tax relief to the taxpayers of communities that
are moving to achieve the satisfactory water quality would ease the
load and might very well expedite lagging projects.  A reduced
percentage of grant monies if coupled with the reduced involvement of
Federal review, might probably advance many projects.

           Paper number two, limiting Federal funding to reserve
capacity to serve projected growth.

           It is the position of this Association that considerations
of this proposed legislation is unnecessary, and we, therefore oppose
the proposal.

           We feel that the proposal would be extremely difficult,
if not impossible, to administer, and that the reduction of the Federal
share is an adequate restraint.  Application of the 201 planning
provisions of the Act and the proposed earlier fundings of this portion
of the program, the questions of reserve capacities will resolve
itself.  With the commencing next month of the 208 planning provision
of the Act and the legislated requirement to complete this management
plan in two year's time, any major changes in reserve capacities should
be a result of this planning activity rather than a constraint to it. •

           The local share of any project must be funded over an
extended period of time and the facilities should serve the community
at least for the duration of this debt redemption period.

           Paper Number three, restricting types of projects eligible
for grant assistance.

-------
                                                                 149


           This Association is opposed  to  this  proposal  primarily
because there are different problems  in different  areas.  The range
of treatment requirements to meet water quality standards in New York
State is very broad and is vastly broader  across the  nation.

           The Association feels that proper  planning through the
201 and 208 activities and properly considered  water  quality standards
is more important than limiting the eligibilities  of  projects.  The
completion of the 208 Planning activities  and a resultant needs
projection from this activity might better define  any required limits
of eligibility.

           Paper Number Four, extending the 1977 date for the publicly
owned pretreatment work to meet water quality standards.

           This Association strongly  recommends that  this proposal
for the extension of the date for compliance  be approved.  A more
realistic date should result from the planned funding of known project
needs under the 201 provision and the about to  begin  208 Planning
provision.

           Public Law 92-500 necessarily had  to run before it walked
on many major pollution problems that were existing,  but coupling
this fast start with total overall compliance without the benefit of
indepth study and planning was a weakness  of  the Act.

           Paper Number Five, delegating a greater portion of the
management of the construction grants program to the  states.

           This Association strongly  supports this proposal.  New
York State has for years developed and  supported an exceptionally fine
regulatory health agency.

           We feel the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation has the experience, capabilities and  administrative
staff to competently and efficiently  manage the construction grants
program.  We are confident that their broad range  of  activities and
their long standing knowledge of the  needs of the  State  will result
in the most orderly application of the  Construction Grants Program.

           If the Federal monies for  this  program  came from a
source other than Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, then maybe the  Federal Agency
would necessarily want and need the positive  control  of  the program.
Since it is the taxpayer's money being  returned in large amounts
to the areas that will benefit all the  taxpayers,  and since each
additional review consumes time and money, the  delegation of the
management to the states should be cost effective.

           One other point that we wanted  to  bring out is to have
EPA give strong considerations to the fact that as each  project
goes through to completion, the locality must undertake  not only the
strong or the heavy debt reduction cost of the  capital improvements,

-------
                                                                 150
but a much increased operation and maintenance cost.

           Thank you.

           MR. AGEE:  Mr. Huffcut, thank you very much.

           In regard to your last point, is your Association --
Does your Association, have you done any surveys to find out how
well these things are being met?  Do you have sufficient personnel?

           MR. HUFFCUT:  We have undertaken some studies.   I don't
have the total results myself, but we are endeavoring to get better
manning of treatment facilities-in New York State.

           This, we think, might be a point of emphasis.

           MR. AGEE:  Thank you very much.

           Mr. Wesley Gilbertson from Pennsylvania. ,

           MR. GILBERTSON:  Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
Mr. Rhett.

           I appreciate the opportunity to be here.  I am speaking here,
of course, as an environmental administrator at the state level with
responsibility for water, air, solid waste and mining regulation and
administration grants on behalf of our Department.  Also,  as a member
of a group of ten which advises-EPA.        <

           We have been active for two and one half years  in trying to
get 92-500, to make it a real, workable piece of legislation.  Of
course, we applaud very much the Administrator's train's move in
recent months along with you gentlemen and other members of the
staff, to give priority to the construction grant program.

           You really make the thing go.

           I also want to commend EPA for holding these hearings to
obtain public input, and I think you are getting it.

           I will just skip over pretty fast some of my main points,
but I would like to interpolate a few comments that relate to some
of the discussion that has taken place earlier.

           First, we are strongly opposed to any changes in the
Federal construction grant share at this time.  What the municipal
construction program needs, I believe, and our staff believes, is
funding stability for at least five years, and this, I think, goes
for most of the rules and regulations too.
                                       ;                       ' "'"
           Such stability, I think, will produce economies in the  -,
entire range of the program, the consulting, the contracting, the

-------
                                                                 151
suppliers, and the administration.
           A second point that is important  is  the status of municipal
financing.  Our experience is that even with the 75 percent grant
in many of the particularly small communities,  sewer rates are really
excessive and we are running into some real  problems here.

           Incidentally, to correct  some misunderstanding, I don't
find, at least in Pennsylvania,  that water and  sewer revenue funds
are being tapped for general revenue purposes.  Practically 90
percent of ours are special authorities, and the revenues go right
back into the operation.

           Because of present economic conditions, I do not believe
states are going to be moving, or would be able to move, very rapidly
to make up the difference on reduced federal share.

           I say this coming from a  state that  has already put
$100 million into the capital grant, and we  are putting in $10 million
a year into operation and maintenance grants and this  is going up
about $500,000 a year.

           Now, if you don't know we mean business, we are perhaps --
I don't know whether the only state, but one of the few states where
there has ever been a Federal enforcement action where a municipal
official was brought up in front of  a judge. There were six of them.
Municipal officials for contempt for not properly proceeding with
construction of municipal waste  treatment facilities.

           Now, the judge gave him a suspended  sentence, and they have
proceeded —  The only reason I  am mentioning this is  that I think
in  the present situation that we would be able  to get  any judge to
do  the same thing if a municipality  did not  proceed to make application
for the grant.

           But, I do not think you are going to be able to get any
judge to  sentence a municipal official to a  jail sentence or any other
kind of penalty, for not building if the Federal funds are not
available.  I think that is just the way the judicial  temperment would
run.

           As to the cost effectiveness question, I have asked the
staff to  look at the cost effectiveness section, comparing the
present situation under the 75 percentage ratio and the previous
50  and 35 percents difference.   We couldn't  see any differences in
the cost  effectiveness situation.

           With regard to the funding on reserve capacity, this, I
 think, we have a tough problem here. But,  I doubt that the way to
 handle this is through changing  the  Law.

           I think in the first  place it is  a bad thing to try to

-------
                                                                 152
legislate this kind of an issue, and secondly, I think there are other
things that are going on such as the planning programs which, I think,
are a better way to get this kind of a question resolved, and
including, of course, the use of modern up-to-date cost analysis
techniques.

           To show our committment in this field, we are putting
$17 million of state funds into our 303-201 type planning programs.
It is for 30 months, involving much public participation, and then,
of course, the 208 is coming in on top of that in the highly urbanized
industrial areas.

           So, I see, perhaps, something like $22 or $23 million worth
of planning going on, which I think is a way to look at this reserve
question, and get a better handle on it.

           As to the idea of limiting the present population, being  on
the firing line, I can testify exactly what this means.  We had about,
actually, about 45 sewer bans on, that is banning for the connections.

           What has this resulted in?

           It results not in stopping open sprawl.  It actually
causes open sprawl, because what happens is the builders leapfrog out
and put the pressure on the land further out.  So, that is no answer
at all in my opinion.

           I believe also that changing the eligibility, the types of
eligibility would be an unsettling and disruptive step.  I concur that
with the program, we need to look at the stormwater issues and these
are the issues, and I believe that the state priorities systems are
designed and operated so that the funds are channelled into the most
urgent projects.
                                         "* -' •
           I would like to comment on two points made earlier.  I
think in most of the states, I know it is in ours, population is a
factor in priority systems, and secondly, the priority system does
not operate with respect to deciding how much money goes into the
project.  It decides on what priority that project has.  If it is a
big project, it gets the amount of money it takes to do the project.
The priority system, besides whether that project comes ahead of
another one or behind it, and I think that some of the earlier
testimony indicated some confusion on that point.

           On the question of collector sewers, I would like to point
out very clearly that in 1972, many of us testified strongly favoring
shifting the hard collector sewer program over to EPA.  We did it for
two basic reasons.

           First, we felt it was an environmentally related subject
and that this deserved an environmental approach, and secondary in
importance, we found that the administration in two different Federal

-------
                                                                 153
Agencies caused confusion and conflict.
           We saw on the one hand a sewer system being planned, and
on the other hand a treatment plant being planned, and the financing
of them had to be related and it turned out not to be in terms of
Federal administration despite this supposed coordination.

           We argued for having this EPA.  I would hate to have EPA
abandon this program because I think it is part of the water pollution
situation.

           If we go with this on-lot business, we are just perpetruating
more pollution.  We held our hearings on February 27th on our priority
list.  We had 110 witnesses, and I am worrying about you guys with
60 or whatever you got here.  We had 110.  And, about 75 percent of
them, there were people with on-lot systems that came in there and
they gave us chapter and verse on how they were polluting the streams
and they used some four letter words in describing it.  So, you
really have to look at this whole picture.

           I think that the priority system is a way to get this
money channelled into the right place.  We obviously would support
a mechanism to provide for breaking the 1977 deadline, and I think
in most people's minds it has already been broken, but it has to be
done in the legislative form, and I think, probably, a case by case
basis would be the way to do it.

           We, of course, would look forward to a delegation of the
program.  We have been rather concerned, just as EPA has been
concerned, that whatever mechanism is set up has to be done in such
a way that there is adequate financing of the staffing.  Otherwise, it
does not mean anything.

           So, I would close by saying I think the number one goal
should be to stabilize and facilitate the construction grants program,
and  I think many good ideas are floating around.  Some of them are
practical, some not so.  But, I do not think any of them is as good
as the idea of stabilizing this program for the foreseeable period
ahead.

           I am closing.  I would like to ask whether EPA will accept
additional statements and if so, for how long?

           MR. A6EE:  We will accept testimony, written testimony
from anyone up to July 7th.  We would be pleased to have it.

           I would like to ask you ~  You mentioned as you get more
 particular planning done, I assume Step One Planning also, we would
 be in a much better position to view this excess capacity.  I
certainly hope you are right.  That is what we are looking forward to.
 But, at that time, or even now, do you think the states can or should

-------
                                                                 154
play a greater role in taking a look, and evaluating the amount of
excess capacity rather than the EPA?

           MR. GILBERTSON:  I do, and we are doing it.  Now, we
have not always done as well as I think we are doing right now.
I would have to say that everyone learns by experience.

           We had a couple of bad situations at which we didn't catch
it, three or four years ago, but we are taking a hard look at
everyone of these now.  We are doing it, not only because of the
Federal Act, but because we have a constitutional amendment that, in
effect, has been interpreted to require us to look at the secondary
effects of such things as sewers.

           MR. AGEE:  Jack?

           MR. RHETT:  With the Cleveland-Wright Bill, how long do
you think it would take Pennsylvania to take over the program, and
also, do you have the legal authority to  charge fees?

           MR. GILBERTSON:  On the latter point, the charging of
fees, I think there is some question as to whether we do.  I guess
you could probably do it by a straight contractural arrangement
without any particular authority.  A contract is as good as a law if
everybody agrees to it.  But, if you have a municipality that does not
agree to it, you are nowhere, of course.

           Now, on the other point.  I think we could probably do
this over a period of say three months or three to six months,
perhaps, on a phased in basis with some warning, for example, in the
normal legislative process if we see this is going to move and it is
going to go through both House and Senate, I suppose we could gear up
sort of in advance, perhaps.  And, maybe shorten that time. We are
very interested in knowing exactly what the groundrules are going to
be for administering it to find out whether we really want to do it.

           MR. AGEE:  Thank you very much.  I call at this time
Mr. Karl. K. Rathermund of the Ohio Contractors Association.

           Frank R. Smith, County Executive for Baltimore County.

           Peter Gadd, Kings River Water Association, from the
State of California.

           MR. GADD:  Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, my name
is Peter R. Gadd, Chairman representing the Kings River Water Associa-
tion, whose service area boundaries comprise approximately one million
acres in the San Joaquin Valley in central California.  This area
covers parts of Fresno, Tulare and Kings Counties, three of the most
agriculturally productive counties in the United States.

           Although my remarks today are being made relative to the

-------
                                                                 155


subject matter suggested to be discussed  before  this hearing group,
my statement is especially directed,  and  will  be delivered to the
United States Congress.

           Public Law 92-500, the  Federal  Water  Quality Control Act
Amendments of 1972, should not be  amended, it  should be rewritten.
It is too broad in scope.  As it attempts to cover water  and water
pollution in all of its aspects in the  United  States,  the differences
in problems and solutions between  municipal, industrial,  agricultural,
mining, lakes, waste treatment, basin planning,  oil pollution as it
relates to water, marine sanitation,  and  ocean discharge  are too
broad a coverage for any one law even if  certain above named problems
were identical for different areas in this country.  They are not.

           In my humble opinion the question before this  hearing
group today should not take the form  of possible amendments to  try
to alleviate the inadequacy of funding  and unfundable  law.  It
should recommend to Congress that  the law be rewritten.   In light of
the experience gained in the last  several years  concerning the  basic
problems of the present law this should not be too difficult a  job.

           It is obvious that when Congress passed this law and the
President signed it that the actual costs, impossible  time constraints
and overbearing monitoring of the  local agencies and private citizens
were not contemplated.

           Now, three years after  the signing  of this  Act into  Law,
all of these unbearable factors are emerging for public scrutiny.
The public, and particularly the taxpayers, do not like what they see.
They especially do not approve of  the half measures, through amendment,
that are offered to remedy the fatal  weaknesses  of this law.
Amendment can only worsen an already  impossible  situation.

           The Office of Management and Budget stated  in  part,
 "This requirement is made even more pressing by  the results of  the most
 recent EPA State survey which indicates a need under current law
 to fund eligible projects in excess of  $350 billion."

           I should say the figure will be in  excess of $350
 billion.  It does not include any  of  the  cost  to agriculture.   Naturally,
 nobody knows what this cost will be but it will  also be astronomical.
 For this reason alone, this law when  rewritten,  should exclude
 agriculture.

           One of the solutions offered by the five papers printed
 in the Federal Register of May 28, 1975 and being discussed here
 today proposes as a solution a greater  monetary  input  by  states and
 local agencies and lesser federal  funding than called  for by theJaw
 "without negating the major water  quality objectives of the Act.

           Does it really matter at what  level of taxation the
 taxpayer's back is broken?

-------
                                                                 156


           The $250 to $260 billion refers to the 75 percent of the
$350 billion.  But, the rest of it the state portion, the county
portion, it adds up to $350 billion, and the real seat of the situation
is that it is not Federal money, it is your money and my money.

           I give the Congress and the President that passed and   '
signed this law into effect in 1972, the benefit of any doubt.  At
the time they passed this law they undoubtedly thought they were
doing what was best for the country.  Time has proved them wrong.

           Give them a chance to rewrite the law in light of the
mistakes that were made.  One of the mistakes of course was their
failure to contemplate that the cost of this law, according to the
Office of Management and Budget could come closer, if not exceed the
present National Debt.
                                             i
           I trust the Congress will now realize that agriculture is
a subject of its own and cannot be incorporated in the rewriting of
this law.

           Agriculture faces a number of problems to survive that
may be present, but to a far lesser extent, in other;spheres of
enterprise.  When a crop is planted the weather factor may produce
disaster.  When the crop is sold, the price may prove disastrous.
When the total cost of 92-500 to the farmer is finally determined, the
first two problems mentioned may be found to be of secondary importance.

           I recognize the fact that the national debt is now approaching
$500 billion.  Also the fact that the Office of Budget is objective to
a $350 billion expenditure to this program.

           However, the $350 billion figure mentioned in the background
refers only to the municipal facility construction expenditure as
mentioned in the background points of introduction to the five papers.

           The actual statement made in this introduction was "These
papers discuss possible modification to the present provisions of
Title II of the Act which authorizes the construction grants programmed.
They were developed after the 1974 survey of State needs indicated that
approximately $350 billion in municipal facility construction is
needed to meet the requirements of the Act."

           If $350 billion is needed to fund only the municipal portion
of the Act, how much additional expenditures will be required for the
industrial, agricultural, mining, lakes, marine sanitation, oil
pollution, and ocean discharge requirements to bring them into compliance
with this law.  When the cost of this law, administered by an inefficient
bureaucracy, it might have been an overlapping bureaucracy that
made it inefficient, is contemplated, the prospect of the final cost
boggles the imagination.

           I do not believe anybody here has a greater interest.in the

-------
                                                                 157


welfare of this country and a greater desire to clean up the waters
of this nation than the people  I represent.  They are agriculturists,
they need good water, they work at it.  However, the damage that has
been done over a 200 year period cannot be erradicated in a short
period of time by any plan that refuses to accept fiscal responsibility.

           As I see it, the Congress and the President have one of
three options.

           One, rewrite this law.

           Two, double the tax  rate to all taxpayers, or

           Three, accept inflation at double its present level.

           I thank you folks for your attention.

           MR. AGEE:  Mr. Gadd, thank you very much.

           Do you have any questions?            »

           Thank you, sir.

           MR. GADD:  Thank you, sir.

           MR. AGEE:  Mr. William Markus, representing the McCandless
Township Pennsylvania Sanitary Authority.

           Following that, we will call on Larry Snowhite, from the
New Jersey Governor's Office.

           MR. MARKUS:  I represent the McCandless Township Sanitary
Authority.  There is also with me today, Chairman Philip A. Bretton,
Jr., of that Authority, also John T. Kane of Chester Engineers, consul-
ting engineers, to the Authority, in the event you have any technical
questions you want to put to us.

           You will notice, I said this is an Authority.  It is not
a municipality.  I bring this question to your attention, because it
is one of some over 600 authorities in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
which was mentioned by Wes Gilbertson in his testimony, as installing
approximately 90 percent of the current sewer projects.   They are
being taken care of at this time in the Commonwealth.

           This is an unusual situation.  We have over some 1900
authorities in the state.  They are unusual because they have no
power to pledge the taxing credit of the Commonwealth or the municipa-
lity or municipalities which create them, and this ability to finance
any project, it is economically sound and they have the greatest person
looking over their shoulder to determine this that we ever could have
thought of, and that is a hard-nosed banker and a bond buyer.

-------
                                                                 158
           If they do not meet the rating requirements, if they
cannot assure the ability to repay the bonds, they have no way of
getting the monies to handle the projects.

           Now, this, of course, is true of McCandless Township
Sanitary Authority.  It operates in the northern area of Allegany
County which is in the Western section of Pennsylvania.  I would like
to just give you a few details of that operation as a prelude so
that you will understand the position that they take with reference
to some of these position papers number one through five that you so
kindly printed.

           First, they have been in existence for 20 years.  They
have purchased the system, they have built systems, they have operated
systems, they have had grants prior to this project, and prior to
92-500.  And, they are presently engaged in building a project de-
signated as the Pine Creek project under a grant of $7,235,000 under
this present grant they have.

           Now, this project is an interesting one because it meets
the requirements or the designated goals that Congress has in the Act,
when Congress set forth in there that we should try to make these on
an areawide basis.

           This study was made at the Pine Creek Drainage Basin and
ordered in 1963 and received in 1964.  Five municipalities are in
the 28 square miles of drainage area.  The Pine Creek enters into
the Allegany River, the Allegany into the Ohio and the Ohio into
the Mississippi.  So this is part, eventually of a large inter-state
wide network of roads.

           There is a critical condition in the Pine Creek area.  It
would have been of no purpose in the opinion of this Authority to
clean up, let's say, McCandless Township and leave open the other
four municipalities which could be serviced; by the grant which became
possible and which we knew in advance was being considered by Congress,
we had negotiations made and conducted with all the five municipalities,
and in 1971 entered into agreements with each of these municipalities.
But, watch, and this now leads on to the reason why I say stability
and assurance of financial assistance is necessary.

           Everyone of those agreements require that if construction
had not started within five years, then the agreement was null and
void.  Now, that becomes important when we consider what actually
happened after that time.

           We expect to finish this first phase of the project for which
we have the $7,235,000 grant in the latter part of this year, 1975.
We havepending an application for Phase II, the collector system for
$5 and one half million.                             >

           Now, with this background, let's get on and see how that

-------
                                                                 159


fixed the thinking of this Authority with reference to these various
position papers.

           First, a possible reduction of the 75 percent to
something not less than 55 percent.  In the opinion of the McCandless
Township Sanitary Authority, this would wreak havoc with the program.
It would have been absolutely impossible to accomplish the purpose
of the Act with reference to the Pine Creek Project if there had
not been a 75 percent grant.

           As a matter of fact, even with the 75 percent grant, it
was not economically feasible for two purposes.  One, the rates
would have had to be raised to a point where the people were not  -
in the economic position that they could have afforded them because
the rates now are going to be 100 to 150 dollars on an average household
consumer area.

           Secondly, we couldn't have sold sufficient bonds to fund
the project, because we could not have shown the income.

           How did we breach the difference, even with the 72-35 which
we got from EPA?  That difference was breached by a loan of a $1,700,000
by the County of Allegany, which saw such an interest, that for the
first time I knew them to do this in this project, because it took
out a large area of the county and made sewage possible, sewage
treatment possible, on a local basis, that they put sufficient funds
by way of a loan repayable by capping fees, special assessments and
so forth which we hope will be realized from this.

           So, we say, as to reduce rate, we think it will defeat
the purposes of the Act because here is a very critical case going
down as far as Mississippi, and there must be hundreds of those and
I happen to be counsel and have been for over 25 years in the county,
so I am on a daily basis answering questions for them and am somewhat
familiar with similar problems as this in the Commonwealth of Penn-
sylvania.

           Let's get on to number two.  Whether we should be allowed
to plan for excess capacity?  If so, on what basis?  And, thirdly,
to what extent and to what amount?

           I stated in the beginning that McCandless had acquired
systems by purchase.  A fairly large system by purchase, also, they
had built systems of their own.  Even in the 15 years that they
have been actively operating their sewer systems, they have had cases
where the lines have become inadequate.  Nothing will tell you more
strongly than to sit in a meeting and have the property owners
come in where sewage is backed up in their homes because of in-
adequacy of lines and various other factors, and you know there must
be some way of taking care of this.

         - I want to point out one other thing.  I said when I

-------
                                                                 160
started on the municipal authorities, that the bonds we issued were
non-revenue bonds, and I have to take exception to the comment my
colleague from New Jersey, who wants the Federal Government to
guarantee those bonds.  In Pennsylvania this has not been a problem
to us to my knowledge, and I am certainly a local government man
looking for everything we can get from a national source and so     s
forth to help us locally.

           But, I see two objections to that because I see an un-
liquidated obligation for X number of years and we can issue
bonds up to 40 years as authorities, and I wonder if the American tax-
payer should be subjected to an unliquidated debt, an amount unknown,
due date not certain.  When will default occur?

           I don't think this is adequate and I think also that a
well-planned, well-thought out system will not make this necessary.

           I want to address myself to one other comment in regard to
this overbuilding.  Let's take this in two phases.

           Let's take it in the phase of the treatment plant and the
interceptors and let's take it on the basis of the laterals and the
collecting system.  The way McCandless solved the problem on the sewage
treatment plant is to build a modular system which I heard an engineer
describe today, which I think will take care of it for an indefinite
number of years in the future.
                                                            n
           But, you always have something that is different from some-
body else, and that is the reason you cannot a talk ten or 20 years
or anything else.  Let me tell you what McCandless had.

           They have to go through North Park their lines.  Now North
Park is a county park with some 3300 acres.  There is a huge lake in
it.  The idea of the size would be to show you that we haveput ten
thousand feet of sub-aquatic line under that lake in order to install
them, and that is just being finished now.  The whole lake had to be
drained.  Can you imagine what all the sportsmen did when they saw
thousands of fish come tumbling out over the end of the reservoir
and they all had to be collected or disposed of, transplanted to other
places?

           Can you imagine what would happen if ten years from now
or five years, we had to say, let's drain that lake again and let's
put another line up alongside that?

           We would never be able to have the public with us.  As a
result, what we did in connection with that, we put in a 42 inch line
when maybe 30 would have been able to handle it.

           Insofar as three is concerned, we think the proper planning
will probably move,-and new systems demanding proper quality of
installation will delete the requirements for improvement of the

-------
                                                                 161
system at a later date.
           With regard to five, we are very much in favor of state
taking it over.  We say it from the standpoint of the knowledge which
the local state men have of the particular area.  We think it will be
cheaper and we think it will be beneficial to all of the taxpayers.

           Thank you very much.

           MR. AGEE:  Thank you, Mr. Markus.

           MR. RHETT:  Let me ask you a question.  Two questions here.
They are both tied together.

           Do you get a grant from the state too?

           MR. MARKUS.  No, we do not.

           MR. RHETT:  In other words, it is 25 percent that you have?

           MR. MARKUS:  We have to handle.  Except in this one project
we got assistance from the county.
                                                 "» *
           MR. RHETT:  How much did you get in combination from the
state?

           MR. MARKUS:  We got a combination of about sixty, sixty-
two or sixty-six.  Somewhere in that neighborhood.  I don't want to
be pinned down about it.

           MR. RHETT:  So you got around 65 percent.from the Federal
Government?

           MR. MARKUS:  Plus an additional amount, yes.

           MR. AGEE:  We are going to take a brief recess now.

           (Short recess taken)

           MR. AGEE:  We will next hear from Larry Snowhite, from the
New Jersey Governor's Office.

           MR. SNOWHITE:  My name is Larry Snowhite and I am here
to deliver a statement on behalf of Governor Brendan T. Byrne of
New Jersey, and I am in the State of New Jersey, Washington Office.

           New Jersey has taken significant steps over the past year
to assume its proper role in administering the provisions of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.  We are
beginning to see the fruits of our efforts in an accelerated rate of
approval  of waste treatment facilities.  These projects are significant

-------
                                                                 162
job creators today and will soon begin to improve water quality.

           The potential changes in the program outlined in the
May 28, 1975 Federal Register could once again disrupt the orderly
development of projects in our State.  We cannot afford such
disruption to our water pollution control program.

           We urge a comprehensive and positive program over the next
ten years, fiscal years 1977 through 1986, for municipal waste water.
The most significant features of our proposal include:

           One, a five year national program for fiscal years 1977
through 1981, should be established including:

           A, firm committment of Federal construction grant money
for each fiscal year.

           B, fixed allotment formula for distribution of funds to the
states.

           C, seventy-five percent federal grants.

           D, continued eligibility of collection systems and of
projects for the correction of the combined wastes overflow problem.

           E, reimbursement to municipalities which proceed with
construction even if money is not immediately available from the
current year's allotment to the state.  Reimbursement should be
possible from the remaining funds of the five year program.

           Two, greater delegation to the states of the management of
the grants program should be accomplished.  We support the provisions
of the proposed legislation to compensate the states for this added
responsibility.

           Three, the rigid 1977 deadline for achievement of secondary
treatment by municipal type plants, or higher, if required by water
quality standards, should be modified.  Schedules of compliance should
be established to reflect the availability of funding under the five
year program, realistic project development and construction periods,
and construction of the advanced waste treatment phase where required
after the first five year program.

           Four, the first five year program should include the planning
of projects to correct the combined waste overflow problem, selective
construction of combined waste corrective projects and the planning
of the advanced waste treatment phases where required to comply with
water quality standards.

           Finally, a second five year program, for fiscal years 1982
through 1986 should provide for the implementation of the plans to
correct the combined sewage problem and to construct the advanced

-------
                                                                 163
waste treatment phases where needed.
           We urge your careful consideration of our proposal and
of its detailed presentation  in the attached letter, submitted for
the record, from the Commissioner of Environmental Protection David 0.
Bardin, since it provides for the orderly and expeditious development
and construction of the required waste  treatment facilities.

           We appreciate the  opportunity to present this statement
of Governor Byrne, and attempt to answer any questions you have.

           MR. A6EE:  Does the state of New Jersey have a grant
program?

           MR. SNOWHITE:  Yes, it does.

           MR. AGEE:  What percentage is that, do you recall?

           MR. SNOWHITE:  My  understanding is, we are basically provi-
ding the full amount of the non-Federal share.

           MR. AGEE:  The full non-Federal share?

           MR. SNOWHITE:  At  this time.

           MR. AGEE:  The locals do not have to come up with any
money?

           MR. SNOWHITE:  At  this time.

           MR. AGEE:  At this time?

           MR. SNOWHITE:  At  this time.

           MR. AGEE:  We heard some testimony today that in some
 states they might not be able to accept the delegation because of
manpower restrictions.  The inability to recruit staff.  Do you feel
 that New Jersey would be in a position  within a year or two to assume
 the program, that is, recruit a staff and get them trained?

           MR. SNOWHITE:  I am not sure, specifically, how long it
would take.  I think that the state has geared up and substantially
 accelerated its program, the  Department of Environmental Protection's
water program was given a significant increase in staffing at a
 time when the state has a virtual zero  growth budget, and in fact,
 has a deficit in its budget.

           The state is supportive of this delegation and would be
 about to gear up.

           MR. AGEE:  Thank you.

-------
                                                                 164
           MR. RHETT:  There was earlier testimony, I believe it
was Ms. Goldthwaite, who mentioned that the engineer's salary level
in New Jersey; that you are having difficulties hiring engineers.

           MR. SNOWHITE:  I personally am not familiar with that.
I could, if you desire, supply it for the record.

           MR. RHETT:  It just came in an earlier part of the
testimony that you may have difficulty in picking up the program.

           MR. AGEE:  Do you feel the State of New Jersey pays more
attention, because they have a grant program, than they would if they
did not have a grant program?

           MR. SNOWHITE:  Certainly.  One, because of New Jersey's
limited financial resources, the fact that it is making the substantial
committment to water pollution control, shows the priority that it
has within its total state program, and also part of the Department
of Environmental Protection — because of its limited land and
natural resources, water and open spaces, has been using the water
program as a means of implementing general land use programs, so
that in the current priority list, the state is giving priority to
those projects that are in open areas, rather than to projects that
would facilitate continued sprawl.

           MR. AGEE:  Do you feel that whether or not a state has a
grant program should be a consideration to EPA in delegating part
or all to the state?

           MR. SNOWHITE:  I would think that it would not be the
determining factor, basically because of the financial situations bet-
ween states and between states and local governments will vary from
state to state.

           It would be very, very difficult to generalize along
those lines.

           MR. AGEE:  Very good, thank you very much.

           MR. SNOWHITE:  Thank you.

           MR. AGEE:  Is there anyone else that would like to testify
today?

           Very good, I would like to thank you all for staying to the
bitter end.

           This is the fourth and last hearing that we have ehld and
we have had some expert testimony in all four hearings.  We will be
summarizing the hearings and-evaluating them.  We will see the fruits
of our labors at some future time.

-------
                                                      165

Thank you all very much.
(Whereupon, at 5:00 o'clock p.m. the hearing was concluded)

-------
                                                                 166
                 STATEMENT SUBMITTED FOR RECORD
           The Erie County Department of Environmental Quality,
(DEQ), speaking on behalf of itself, Mr. Edward V. Regan, County
Executive and the various communities within the County, wish to go
on record regarding the proposed amendments to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Amendment Act of 1972.  Our comments are subdivided
in accordance with the five papers prepared by the Environmental
Protection Agency as published in the Federal Register on May 28, 1975.

           PAPER NO. 1 - REDUCTION OF THE FEDERAL SHARE ERIE
           COUNTY POSITION.

           The county does not support reduction of the Federal share
for construction grants from the current level of 75 percent to any
lower amount.  State of New York Department of Environmental Conserva-
tion policies have caused Erie County residents, and others around
the State, to in effect, receive less than 75 percent funding under the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

           DISCUSSION

           A reduction in the Federal share of funding wastewater
handling facilities will, in effect, cause an increase in the local
tax burden.  This will likely be paid out of a static property tax
base.  These local taxes are too high already, and reimbursement
should be based on an elastic income tax such as is formulated through
Federal revenue sharing.

           In the State of New York, Federal funds have been utilized
for the construction of treatment plants, outfalls, major interceptors,
major pumping stations and facilities related to the treatment of
non-excessive infiltration/inflow.  No Erie County project, however,
has yet been certified by the state for the full Federal share of 75
percent; because of State policy, Erie County has received grants of
only 52 and 65 percent of eligible costs.

           The apparent reason for this unwillingness to certify
certain necessary portions of treatment works, such as collector
sewers, for example, is the state's recognition of the fact that the
$18 billion provided under PL 92-500 is insufficient to pay for 75
percent of all sewerage projects needed in the State.  If the
administration proposals are adopted, the projects in the State of
New York may well receive far less than the proposed 55 percent
reimbursement.

           In all likelihood, New York State will be unable to assume
the increased non-Federal burden which would result from a decrease
in the Federal share.  Moreover, even in states which can afford such
an increased burden, certain communities will find themselves unable
to meet the increased local cost.  It appears that in either case,
a reduction in the Federal share of these costs could prevent the

-------
                                                                 167


more urgent water pollution control needs from being met.  Any
reduction in assistance  is considered catastrophic.

           It is our opinion that a reduction of the Federal share
would not, as is supposed, lead to an increased probability of cost
effective designs being  presented.  A better way of ensuring accounta-
bility for cost effective design is to fund operation and maintenance
costs at the same effective level as construction costs.

           New York State, for example, up to 87 and one half percent
of certain portions of construction costs are eligible for funding, but
portions of operation and maintenance costs are funded only up to
33 and one third percent.  This practice has been known to cause an
emphasis during the design stage on plants which have low maintenance
costs, with less attention given to the monitoring of construction
costs.  We feel that an  overall reduction in the Federal share of
total project cost would not remedy this situation.  It could be
remedied only by funding operation and maintenance at the same
effective level as construction.

           PAPER NO. 2 - LIMITING FEDERAL FUNDING OF RESERVE
           CAPACITY TO SERVE PROJECTED GROWTH.

           ERIE COUNTY POSITION

           Reserve capacity in plants should be limited to that
which will serve ten years of estimated growth, with funding limited
to this level.  Reserve  capacity, in interceptors should reflect
current engineering practice; namely, that which will serve 50 years
of projected growth, including reasonable estimates of future industrial
flow.  Funding of interceptors should occur at this level.

           DISCUSSION

           It is our opinion that funding of reserve capacity in
sewage treatment plants  could be limited to a ten year design period.
Limitations on reserve capacity to serve a ten year estimated popu-
lation increment would not hinder future capacity of wastewater
-andling facilities.' Treatment plants are modular in construction,
and  can therefore be easily expanded.  We do not recommend less
than a ten year design period, however, as many projects would then
be under almost perpetual redesign and/or construction.

           Our expressed position with respect to funding of reserve
capacity is based on the assumption that Federal assistance will
likely be forthcoming whenever projected population growth figures
show the need for providing additional capacity.

           With respect  to the funding of interceptor sewers, the
County agrees with the Environmental Protection Agency analysis,
which indicates that the incremental cost of providing reserve capacity

-------
                                                                 168
is relatively small in comparison to the cost of providing capacity
for the population .existing at the time of construction.  The County,
therefore, feels that interceptor sewers as well as collection
systems, force mains and trunk sewers should be funded in such size
as will serve 50 years of estimated growth.

           We feel that elimination of funding of reserve capacity
would not pose a serious financial hardship to a community's ability
to finance needed projects.  We do not, however, see how the elimination
of reserve capacity funding will materially aid the nation's efforts
in funding a greater number of projects.  The monies which would be
made available by this mechanism would probably not approach the
amounts necessary to abate pollution as required by Public Law 92-500.

           PAPER NO. 3 - RESTRICTING THE TYPES OF PROJECTS ELIGIBLE
           FOR GRANT ASSISTANCE

           ERIE COUNTY POSITION

           Sewerage treatment plants, interceptors, pumping stations,
collection systems, new construction and rehabilitation, and treatment
of combined overflows and non-excessive infiltration/inflow should
continue to be eligible for assistance.

           The costs associated with the separation of combined sewers,
massive reconstruction of separate systems, and treatment or control
of storm waters should not be considered eligible at the present time.
                                                                   ,'  .  o
           Funding priorities should reflect benefits expected.  That
is, money should be placed in areas where the maximum benefit will be
achieved.  Treatment plants and interceptors should receive first
consideration; new collection systems, second; treatment of combined
overflows, third, rehabilitation, last.

           DISCUSSION

           We attach to this statement a paper presented by the Erie
County Department of Environmental^Quality to the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation in March of this year which
indicates quite clearly that the financial burden of providing collec-
tion systems in some areas ranges between 200 percent and 1,000
percent of the cost of providing the necessary treatment plants and
interceptors, and of operation and maintaining these facilities.

           The paper goes on the predict that pollution will not be
abated in areas which presently require collection systems because
the formation of new sewer districts necessary to the construction
of wuch systems is subject to referenda; we feel that such referenda
will usually have a negative result due to the extremely high initial
burden of providing collection systems.

-------
                                                                 169


           We strongly object to the elimination of collection systems
from eligibility.  To do so would not only increase the taxpayer's
burden, but would seriously weaken current enforcement and corrective
programs aimed at pollution abatement.

           The County would support the elimination of the
eligibility of the treatment of storm waters or separation of combined
systems from funding, provided that the law was amended to delete and
statutory requirements for such treatment facilities or separation
of systems.

           We feel that this is the only practical approach.  There
is not enough money available to provide the necessary treatment plants,
interceptor sewers, collection systems and major sewer rehabilitation.
Treatment of storm flows and separation of combined sewers is even
of lesser priority.  Storm flows and combined sewer overflows occur
infrequently, and usually at times when the streams and rivers are
best able to assimilate such loading.  Moreover, primary treatment and
disinfection is a potentially better solution to combined overflows
than is separation of combined systems.

           It is our feeling that combined sewer overflows should
take a secondary position to the elimination of the more frequent
sources of sanitary wastes.  When the construction of treatment plants,
interceptor sewers, collection systems, the treatment of combined
sewer overflows, and the rehabilitation of existing collection systems
has been fully accomplished, the nation might justifiably consider
embarking upon the more lofty goals of treating storm water or
separating combined sewers.

           PAPER NO. 4 - EXTENDING THE 1977 DATE FOR PUBLICLY OWNED
           TREATMENT WORKS TO MEET WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

           ERIE COUNTY POSITION

           The compliance date should be extended to 1983 for
municipalities and should be contingent on Federal funding availabili-
ty.

           Industry should work to the same schedule as municipalities
even though their budgetary constraints are different.

           DISCUSSION

           We feel that the target dates for compliance as presently
contained in Public Law 92-500 are unrealistic.  Since it is our further
opinion that pollution abatement efforts cannot be financed by states
and local communities alone, it appears to us that a modified
combination of alternatives four and five listed in the Federal Register
would presents reasonable answer to this question.
                                                             *
           A combination of alternatives four and five would extend

-------
                                                                 170
the compliance date to 1983 and would allow the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency to grant compliance schedule
extensions based upon the availability of Federal funds.  We do not
feel that any of the other three alternatives or alternatives four
and five independently present realistic choices to the communities,
states or Federal Government whether from funding or enforcement
points of view.

           Industry's cost of eliminating water pollution is financed
totally out of the private sector and it is not dependent upon the
Federal, state or local budgets.  Therefore, it is our opinion that
industry could meet a compliance schedule differing from that required
of municipalities.  However, despite industry's relatively independent
economic base, we feel that other factors should be taken into
consideration.

           It seems to us unjust that industry should be required
to comply with abatement schedules considerably more restrictive than
those required of the municipalities into which they discharge.

           PAPER NO. 5 - DELEGATING A GREATER PORTION OF THE
           MANAGEMENT OF THE CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAMS TO THE
          - STATES.

           ERIE COUNTY POSITION

           Environmental Protection Agency should terminate duplicate
reviews of work already done by individual states.  Environmental
Protection should review and approve plans of study, environmental
impact and facilities plans.  Each1state administer its own construction
programs.

           DISCUSSION

           We feel that the Environmental Protection Agency should
be involved in the technical review and approval of plans of study,
facility plants, infiltration/inflow studies and sewer system evaluation
surveys.  However, once such plans are approved, the state agencies
should assume complete control of these projects.  We do not feel
that it is necessary or desirable for the Environmental Protection
Agency to perform a double review of construction plans or for the
Environmental Protection Agency to approve payments except as a
final audit process.

           Since the State of New York presently reviews all reports,
plans of study, construction plans and certifies as to their
acceptability, and since the State of New York presently approves
payments of the state portion of the project cost, it would seem that
there would be advantages if the Environmental Protection Agency dives-
ted itself of these functions.  If the Environmental Protection Agency

-------
                                                                 171


were not providing these duplicate services, we would expect that
many more projects could be reviewed and approved in a given year.

           GENERAL COMMENTS:

           While the five papers specifically address various areas
of concern, we would like to point out to the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency that there are other significant areas of concern to
the residents of Erie County.

           NEW STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS:

           Many provisions of Public Law 92-500 are now becoming
effective.  Some of these provisions require Federal approval of
Step 1 and Step 2 grants.  This presents an unnecessary delay to some
communities which may not need or desire Step 1 or Step 2 assistance,
and this should be modified.

           DELETION OF  INDUSTRIAL COST RECOVERY

           Industrial cost recovery provisions should be deleted
entirely from the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.  If  these
regulations remain unchanged, they will stimulate the construction
of many industrial treatment plants.  Some of these will further
degrade the nation's watercourses and some will undoubtedly be
maintained improperly.

           Many industries which are marginal at the present will be
unable to afford either to construct their own treatment facilities
or to repay a significant portion of the proposed federal grants.
Therefore, many may be  forced to cease operations.  In this day of an
unstable  economy, we do not feel it is reasonable to place industries
in a position where they may have to cease or restrict operations.

           ALLOW ADVALOREM TAXATION FOR USER CHARGES

           Advalorem taxation should be allowed, when justified as
a means of collecting equitable user charges.

           This completes the presentation of the Department of
Environmental Quality and the Erie County Executive.

           If there are any questions pertaining to this material please
feel free to contact us.

           PRESENTED BY

           ROBERT A. FLUEGGE, P. E., Acting Commissioner of the
Department of Environmental Quality.

-------

-------
                               Contents
                                                                 *

Person/Organization                                                 Page

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation	     9
Allgeier, Martin & Associates	;	    37
Robert Allison	    16
American Consulting Engineers Council	    41
American Petroleum Institute	    26
James R. Anderson	    14
Association of California Water Agencies	     6
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies	    18,  51
Associated General Contractors of Massachusetts,  Inc	    11

B.P. Barber Associates, Inc	".	    69 •
Barnwell, South Carolina	.....    70
Harland Bartholomew & Associates	    62
Arthur Berger	  615
Bethlehem Township Municipal Authority	    53
Black, Crow & Eidsness, Inc.	    77
Black & Veatch	;	    72
Bouquard Engineering Co., Inc	    78
Lawrence Brennan	    64
Butler Area Sewer Authority	    65
Governor Brendan Byrne, New Jersey	  543
                                             x
California Association of Sanitation Agencies	  165
California Manufacturers Association	•  172
California Water Resources Association	  152
Camarillo Sanitary District	'.  176
Carlsbad, California	  120,  714
Carolina's Branch, Associated Senegal Contractors.*	  105,  150
Cedar Rapids, Iowa	»..  129
Central Midlands Regional Planning Commission	  137
Charleston, West Virginia	.,  123
Chattanooga, Tennessee	  117,  132,  156
Chillicothe, Ohio	  141
Chilton, Wisconsin	  145
Coachella Valley County Water District	  171
Cobb County	  139
Conservation Foundation	    83
Consulting Engineers Association of California		  114
Consulting Engineers Council of Georgia	    96
Consulting Engineers Council of Iowa	  167
Consulting Engineers Council of Oklahoma	  100,  111
Contra Costa County	  147
Corpus Christi, Texas	  143
County Sanitation District of Los Angeles	  162
County Sanitation Di stricts of Orange County	  178
Michael Curry	  134

-------
Dallas Water Utilities	   188
John B. Daly	   506
DeKalb County, Georgia	   193
Detroit Metro Water Department	   181

East Bay Discharger Authority	    207, 212
El Reno, Oklahoma	    229 .
Energy Resources, Inc	    202
ENVIREX	    197
Eri e County Dept. of Envi ronmental Qua! i ty	    217
Penelope Evans	    205

Florida Institute of Consulting Engineers	    626
Ford Motor Company.	    235
Fort Worth, Texas	    231
Friends of the Earth (Ca.)	    249
Fulton County, Georgia		    245

Georgia Conservancy, Inc	     256
Georgia Department of Natural Resources	     261
Georgia Water and Pollution Control Association	     267
Gilroy, California	     253
GM Assembly Division	     271
Grand Rapids, Michigan	     251

Howard Hoffman	     292
Honolulu, Hawaii	     273
Houstin, Texas	     279
Humbol dt Bay Was tewater Author i ty	     289, 294

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency	     297
Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board	     307
Industrial Association of the San Fernando Valley....     14, 674

Jacksonville Department of Public Works	     310

Kansas Engineering Society	     636
Kern County Water Agency	     313
Kings River Water Association	     315

Lake View, South Carolina	     351
Las Virgenes Water Districh	     341
Finley Laverty	.'."..	     334
League of Kansas Municipalities	     344
League of Women Voters of Missouri	     347
League of Women Voters - St.  Louis & St. Louis Co	     321
Stephen Leeds	     326
Lexington - Fayette Urban County Government	     317
Borough of Lincoln Park, N.J	     329
                                    ii

-------
Little Blue Valley Sewer District	   342
Livermore, California	   338
Livermore - Amadore Valley Water Management Agency	   335
Los Angeles, California	   349
Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan
  Sewer District	   353

Maine Department of Environmental Protection	.......   380
Commonweal th of Massachusetts	   392
Massachusetts Construction Industry Council		   425
McCandless Township Sanitary Authority	   358
William Meadows	   411
Metropolitan Denver Sewage Disposal District #ls	   186
Metropolitan Gov't. of Nashville and Davidson County...   483
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District	   399
Metropolitan Sewer Board of the Twin Cities Area..	   367
Michaels - Stiggins, Inc	   374
Michigan Department of Natural Resources	   427
Midwest City, Oklahoma	   417
Congressman George Mi 11 er	   375
Milwaukee River Restoration Council, Inc	   503
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency	   382
Missouri Division of Environmental Qua!ity	   419
Missouri Society of Professional Engineers	   388
Monterey Peninsula Water Pollution Control Agency	   415
Howard 6, Moore, Co., Inc	   390
Municipal and Utility Contractors of Mississippi	     1
Myerstown Borough	   365

National Association of Home Builders....	   469
National Association of Manufacturers.	   520
National Canners Association	   537
National Independent Meat Packers Association	   465
National Society of Professional Engineers	   453
National Solid Wastes Management Association	   440, 443
National Utility Contractors  Association	   486
National Water Wei 1 Association	   558
National Wildlife Federation...	   494
Nebraska Consulting Engineers Association	   555
Nebraska Natural Resources Commission	   531
Nebraska Water Pollution Control Association	   475
Newark, New Jersey	   437
New Bedford Industrial Wastewater Committee	   479
Newberry, South Carolina	   481
New England Interstate Water Pollution Control
  Commission		...........   548
New Jersey Al 1 iance for Action	   478
New Jersey Builders  Association	   533
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection	   544
                                 111

-------
City of New York	   447
New York State	   225
New York State Dept. of Environmental Conservation	   525
New York State Water Pollution Control Association	   566
North Bay Water Advisory Council	   509
Norfolk, Virginia	   492
North Central Texas Council of Governments	   460
North Carolina Dept. of Natural and Economic Resources.   462
Northern California Regional Conservation Commission...   644
North Syracuse, New York	   583

Oakland County Department of Public Works	   577
Ohio Contractors Association	 —	   571
Ohi o Envi ronmental Protect! on Agency	.	.......   569
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma	   586
Oklahoma State Department of Health	.	   588
01 in Brass	   590
Orangeburg, South Carolina	.	   581
Orange County Water District.	   575
Congressman Richard Ottinger.	   584
Oregon Department of Envi ronmental Qua! i ty	   579

Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners	   511
Peninsula Manufacturing Association..	   592
Sanford  Paris			   630
Pennsylvania Department of Natural Resources	   623
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania	   594
Phoenix, Arizona	   598
Presnel 1 Associates	   632

Region VII Pollution Control Conference	   405
Rockford Sanitary District	   639
Rocky Mountain Water Pollution Control Association	   642

City of San Diego	   670
County of San Diego	   666
San Francisco, California	   654
Salinas, California	   659
San Leandro, California	   664
San Mateo County* California.	   160
County of San Joaquin	   646
Santee-Wateree Regional Planning Council	   673
County of Sonoma	   652
Charles Schimpeler	   657
Sierra Club	   676
South Carolina Department of Health & Environmental
  Control	,	   678
Spartanburg Sam*tary Sewer District	   663
Spaulding Fibre Company, Inc	   658
Springfield, Missouri	   649

Tourne Val 1 ey Coal i tion	   694
Tri-Tac	   702
                                 iv

-------
Union Sanitary District	   705
U.S. Conference of Mayors	   507
University of North Carolina	..,.   429
Utility Contractors  Association of Connecticut, Inc...   700

Ventura Regional County Sanitation District	   708
Vi rginia State Water Control Board	   717
Vista Sanitation District	   713

Lincoln Ward	   772
Washington Department of Ecology	   768
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission		   773
Water Pollution Control Association of Pennsylvania....   724
Water Pollution Control Federation......	   726
Waterloo, Iowa	   785
Waymart Municipal Authority,	   291
West Sacramento Sanitary District	   782
Western Oil and Gas Association	   762
Wheatfield, New York	   760
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources	   786
Woodbridge, New Jersey	   780
Township of Woodbridge, New Jersey	   778

-------
                        WRITTEN TESTIMONY

By:   Municipal  and Utility Contractors of Mississippi.  A chapter
      of Associated General Contractors of America, Inc.
Re:   Public Hearings on Potential Legislative Amendments to the
      Federal  Water Pollution Control  Act (Federal Register, May
      2, and May 28, (1975).

      I am Farris C. Gibbs, President and part owner of Associated
Constructors,  Inc., a construction firm in Jackson, Mississippi  and
director and two time past president of our Mississippi chapter  of
Associated General  Contractors of America, Inc.
      We appreciate the opportunity to submit this written testimony
on the various proposals outlined in the Federal  Register and dis-
cussed at the hearing.   We make specific comments on these pro-
positions in the same numerical sequence as they appeared in the
Federal Register and as Item VI offer our Summary and Recommenda-
tions.

I.    REDUCTION OF FEDERAL SHARE:

      1.  This proposal is absolutely ridiculous at this time.
      2.  Federal funding now far exceeds implementation.
      3.  Cities and States have their own financial troubles and
          limitations.   Many small cities and towns in Mississippi
          are obligated for virtually their total bonded capacity
          and many are so obligated with thirty to forty year pay-
          outs on sewer facilities from three to ten years old.
          President Ford has just recognized the inability of the
        .  states to match funds by establishing a federal loan
          program for the 10% matching highway funds.   Are we less
          serious about pollution?
      4.  This program is of federal origin and one of the other
          items for discussion and amendment is extension of com-
          pliance dates.  If these dates are not being met with  75%
          funding then more federal funding, not less, will have to
          come or the requirements under the act must be seriously
          modified.  This program should be on a 90% federal, 10%
          state and local share with present requirements.
      5.  It.Is our firm opinion that if the federal share is re-
          duced the water quality goals of P.L. 92-500 will not  be
          met in this century.

-------
II.    LIMITING FEDERAL FUNDING OF RESERVE CAPACITY TO SERVE PROJECTED
      GROWTH

      1.   Zero Federal growth funding will  make the projects obsolete
          before they begin and should not be considered.   Munici-
          palities and communities cannot fund sufficient  growth.
          The inevitable consequence will be ever increasing future
          problems.
      2.   Current design practice is sound.   However, reasonable
          limitation on growth funding based on 10 years of growth
          for treatment plants after completion and 25 years of
          growth for sewers after completion could prove helpful both
          in reducing costs and meeting the need, but only if the
          federal share is maintained or increased and only if
          federal funds can reasonably be expected to be available
          for additions in high growth areas.
      3.   The Council on Environmental Quality notwithstanding, it
          is a most dangerous policy to try to prevent growth of
          communities unless there is no population growth.   In
          addition, this tampers with property rights and  history
          proved conclusively that when property rights are lost
          individual and human rights quickly follow.
      4.   EPA needs to be removed from the field of "land  use"
          entirely by legislative action.

Ill-  RESTRICTING THE TYPES OF PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR GRANT ASSISTANCE

      1.   235 billion of a total of 356 billion in needs is estimated
          for storm water facilities.  In other words 58%  of the
          total need shown is for storm water and it is our firm
          opinion that storm water should not be considered in
          this program.  We already have major agencies handling
          flood control.  In that this one action eliminates such
          a major part of funds needed, it should be possible to
          retain most of the rest of the program without bankrupting
          the federal budget.
      2.   Secondary Treatment should be defined in a more  conventional
          manner so that an oxidation pond with post chlorination
          becomes adequate for domestic sewage and "dry ditch"
          discharge standards should be eliminated until such re-
          defined secondary treatment is in use nationwide.
      3.   Tertiary plants should be eliminated until  (2) above is
          accomplished.
      4.   Plant costs are impossible without correction of sewer
          infiltration and major sewer rehabilitation.

-------
      5.   None of these serve any purpose without collector sewer.
          Therefore,  collector sewers should be funded especially
          where none  now exist.

IV.    EXTENDING 1977  DATE FOR PUBLICLY OWNED PRETREATMENT WORKS TO
      MEET WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

      1.   It is obvious that some modification and extension of
          requirement is necessary.
      2.   A solution  similar to alternate (2) or (4)  as proposed by
          EPA position papers appears the most viable and most
          practical with eligibility redefined to prevent the Federal
          share from  being used for  any facility more sophisticated
          than secondary treatment as defined in response No.  2 to
          paper No.  Ill or than necessary to meet original  1977
          requirements, whichever is least costly. This move
          together with the elimination of storm water from the
          program should make Federal Budgeting possible and
          realistic.

V.    DELEGATING A GREATER PORTION OF THE MANAGEMENT  OF THE
      CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM TO THE STATES

      1.   AGC has long publicly supported HR 2175 to  accomplish
          this purpose.
      2.   AGC's primary reasons for  supporting this delegation of
          authority are:
          1.  The federal agency is  not getting the job done and
              cites as a major reason shortage of personnel.  Also,
              if EPA  is relieved of  a lot of detail work, they
              should  then be able to apply some management to the
              construction grants program.
          2.  A matter which should  receive highest priority and
              a task  force approach  immediately is the consolida-
              tion and condensation  of regulations into a practical
              and usable form without changing them.   We recommend
              a 5 year moratorium on regulation changes.

VI.    SUMMARY

      Neither OMB or  EPA have demonstrated the will or the ability
to manage .the implementation of this law.  We certainly hope the
situation is not as dismal as it appears for it would- be very easy
to believe that rather than implementing the law, the agencies
charged with implementation are engaged in a deliberate slowdown at

-------
the highest levels with the blessing of or possibly at the direction
of the executive branch.  With unemployment in the construction
industry, which is the nation's largest industry, already in the
excess of 20% and in consideration of the resultant loss of tax
revenue to our staggering economy; this makes very little sense
to our industry.  The proper and expeditious implementation of
this one program which is already passed and funded and therefore
less inflationary than any program not yet funded, will provide
more jobs than all the "service job" legislation in congress and
these jobs will produce taxes and requirements for service-at an
approximate ratio of 7 to 1 according to U.S. Chamber of Commerce
figures.  J                                  ,»•-

      RECOMMENDATIONS

      We therefore recommend that the following  legislative amend-
ments be made at the earliest possible date*
      1.  That all reference or inference concerning land use be
          removed from PL 92-500 and that EPA be prohibited from such
          area of acitvity entirely.
      2.  Storm Sewer and flood control should be specifically
          removed from PL 92-500 and EPA should  be prohibited from
          my consideration of this area of work.
      3.  That objectives be redefined to obtain a minimum of such
          treatment for sanitary waste as is provided by an oxidation
          pond with post chlorination nation wide before vast sums
          are spent on more exotic and in some cases impractical
          treatment facilities.
      4.  That HR 2175 or similar legislation be passed providing
          funds for state agencies and that only those,states with
          fully responsible state agencies receive funds.  States
          which will not get qualified would lose funds in any given
          fiscal year to states which do get qualified.
      5.  Engineering procurement as outlined by EPA in the Federal
          Register should not be initiated as this will only result
          in slowing down the program.  Engineers can and will  per-
          form if EPA will stop changing the regulations.  Engineers
          can give firm prices if the scope of their work can be
          adequately defined.  An excess of confusion exists at
          present.  If (3) above can be made law it should include
          a five year moratorium on regulation writing.  We elect the
          congress to write our laws and this writer can find little
          or no constitutional basis for government by bureaucratic
          edict.
      I, for one, refuse to believe that a nation which has conquered

-------
space cannot conquer sewage.  We must get on with it and DO IT NOW!
      Thank you.
                                Signed F.C. Gibbs

-------
                            July 3, 1975
Mr. Paul DeFalco
Regional Director
Environmental Protection Agency
100 California Street
San Francisco, California  94111

Dear Mr. DeFaloo:
                                 Re:  Public Law 92-800

The purpose of this letter is to offer comments of the Association
of California Water Agencies on potential amendments to Public Law
92-500.  Basically, this Association believes that the goals of
P.L. 92-500 are both unrealistic and economically impractical.

One of the fundamental problems of P.L. 92-500 is that it attempts
to set goals on a nationwide basis without considering the vagaries
of regions and subregions.  Requirements are being established
without taking into consideration local conditions, such as the quality
of the basic water supply and without considering what quality
of water is necessary to protect all beneficial uses.  As an example,
here in California approximately $1 billion in public funds will  be
expended to upgrade to secondary treatment ocean discharges to
comply with P.L. 92-500.  This will be accomplished even though
virtually all experts agree that secondary treatment is not necessary
for ocean discharges and that primary treatment is in fact beneficial
to our ocean resources.  Such expenditures are not only illogical
and unnecessary but, more importantly are wasteful of the public's
money.

We would now like to specifically comment upon the issues which were
the subject of your hearing in San Francisco, on June 19, 1975.

1.    The progress in the area of achieving better treatment of
waste discharges and thus improving the quality of our surface
waters has probably been due more to the financial assistance being
provided by the United States Government and the State of California
than to any mandate from state or federal regulatory agencies.  The
existing funding program has enabled the construction of many
essential projects which, very simply, would not and could not
have been built without the present assistance to local agencies.
This Association is very much opposed to any reduction in the present
level  of federal funding for waste treatment facilities.

2.    The question of reserve capacity is one with which it is quite


                                 6

-------
difficult to deal.  We do not believe that artificial limits without
a comprehensive land-use planning process can or should be established
even though we do recognize the necessity of reducing over-design
in order to attain the most efficient use of available funds.  It
appears to us that a single standard could pose a severe hardship
in certain instances while at the same time being too liberal in
others.  Basically, we believe that this judgement should be left
to the state administrative agency acting in concert with the
regional Environmental Protection Agency office.  This would pro-
vide necessary flexibility which would allow these agencies to take
into consideration local conditions in making their determinations.

3.    This Association would also be opposed to federal  restrictions
on the type of project that is eligible for federal assistance
under P.L. 92-500.  Basically, we believe that both federal and state
laws are directed at obtaining the correction of existing water
quality problems at the earliest possible time including the sepa-
ration of combined sewage-storm water systems.  To restrict
eligibility for grant funds would simply serve to frustrate the
achievement of this goal.  Again, we believe that it is essential
that flexibility be maintained in the program and that any restric-
tions should be developed through coordinated state-federal activity ':
with input by affected agencies and individuals.  Any regulation
in this area must necessarily recognize that there is a need that
must be met and that certain improvements will require aid if they
are to be accomplished.

4.    Lastly, we believe that the 1977 data for achievement of
best practicable technology and 1983 for best available technology
are impractical, wasteful, unrealistic, and unnecessary.  The level
of treatment in any given instance should be that level  which is
necessary to protect all beneficial uses of the receiving waters.
To arbitrarily require the highest degree of treatment when such
treatment is not necessary to protect beneficial uses simply
wastes money which could be better expended on projects which are
necessary to correct water quality degradation problems  and detracts
from our ability to attain necessary solutions to those problems.
Additionally, we would point out that it is simply impossible to
meet the 1977 and 1983 requirements of P.L. 92-500 because of the
large expenditures that are required.

While we recognize that the National Commission on Water Quality is
charged with responsibility for a comprehensive review of P.L. 92-500
we believe that the Environmental Protection Agency must also take an
in-depth look at the myriad of problems contained in this legislation.

-------
We are particularly concerned with potential  impacts upon irrigated
agriculture and feel that sufficient attention is simply not being
given to problems in this area. Today we are  sure, in the Lake
Tahoe instance at least, that more local control  would only make
the T-TSA system worse; as it is, the facility will, in all like-
lihood, contribute measurably to the environmental decay of the lake
and its air basin.

In conclusion, the Sierra Club is alarmed by  the  strange fact that
suddenly labor and industry have joined conservationists and EPA
in our quest for a cleaner, healthier environment but we weren't
prepared for the four of us in one frail canoe.   Maybe our Christmas
wish to EPA will be for a sturdier one plus  two  additional  paddles,
if you please.

In enacting P.L. 92-500, Congress has attempted to treat agricul-
tural return flows on the same basis as municipal  and industrial
discharges.  This is simply impractical as the problems, if indeed
there are any, are not the same and therefore, the solutions,  if
needed, must be different.                 !
                                              (.
In conclusion, it is our judgement that P.L.  92"500 needs to be
completely rewritten so as to take a more realistic and practical
approach to resolving our water quality problems.

                                 Sincerely,

                                 Louis B. Allen,  Jr.
                                 Assistant Executive Director
LBA/rs
                                 8

-------
                           June 6, 1975

Mr. James L. Agee
Assistant Administrator
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials  ''
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency    "f
Washington, D. C.  20460

Dear Jim:                            -
                    Proposed Amendments to the
                Federal Water Pollution Control Act

Thank you for providing us with a notice of the public hearings to
be held on the proposed Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act.  The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
welcomes this opportunity to submit written comments regarding
these important proposed revisions.  Our comments, in the order
presented, are as follows:
                             i   ,'
      1.  We are strongly opposed to a reduction in the Federal
share of project costs.  It has been our experience that the present
local share based on 75 percent Federal participation is often
difficult to acquire.  There is also the possibility that State
grant program would be called upon to provide the difference be-
tween any Federal percentage cutbacks and the 75 percent level of
funding.  This would remove any incentive for states (like Alaska)
to continue their grant programs knowing that states without grant
programs would still received the full 75 percent.

      2.  We have serious questions regarding the advisability of
limiting Federal financing to serving the needs of the existing
population.  This could develop into a "no growth policy" for the
entire United States or it may well result in strong pressures being
brought at the local level to provide development with inadequate
sewage collection/treatment, thus creating an "existing need" at
twice the cost to public health and the environment.

We do agree that the present design periods for sewage treatment
plants (20 years) and sewer systems (50 years) leave a lot to be
desired and should be revised downward considerably.  Our suggested
approach is to make it incumbent upon the state and local project
personnel to require complete substantiation of engineering design
criteria and provide critical reviews to assume, to the maximum
extent possible, that systems are not overbuilt.

-------
      3.  We support any effort to limit eligibility for types of
projects by eliminating storm water control  and combined sewers
unless there is a demonstrable water quality problem.   Until  the
Federal funding level is such that proper treatment of sanitary
wastewater is achieved before it enters the  nation's waterways,
it would be prudent and advisable to encourage local and state funds
for expansion of collector sewer systems.  State aid and other
Federal programs, such as HUD, EDA, and FHA, presently can provide
assistance when it is needed without having  to depend upon EPA
funds.
                            •,,    j.           ,

      4.  The Department concurs with the proposal  to extend the
1977 date for meeting water quality standards.  With the present
dependency upon Federal funding, this deadline cannot be met
realistically by many communities.

      5.  We also concur with the proposal  to delegate a greater
portion of the management of the construction grants program to
the states.  The states are generally in the best position to be
most responsive to the needs of their communities.   When the regu-
latory agency has demonstrated competency in an area of grants
administration, they should be delegated that authority.  Funding
for an expanded state role must be assumed.   We suggest that this
be accomplished through the Section 106 program grants rather than
the construction grants program.

Your favorable consideration of our comments would  be appreciated
very much.

                                 Sincerely,

                                 Ernst W. Mueller
                                 Commissioner

cc:  Dr. Clifford V. Smith, Jr.
     Dr. O.E. Dickason
                                     10

-------
                           July 1, 1975

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency  ,
Office of Mater and Hazardous Materials (WH-556)
Room 1033 - West Tower            !
Waterside Mall
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D. C.  20460

Gentlemen:

      Re:  Proposed Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution
            Control Act, Contained in Federal Register of
                            May 2, 1975
                              ',     i        t      '  • .   • *      "
These comments are submitted by the Associated General Contractors
(AGC) of Massachusetts.  Member firms of AGC of Massachusetts have
been doing EPA-funded construction,projects for the past several
years, and AGC representatives have participated in various regional
seminars held by EPA to develop recommendations for facilitating
the construction grants program.  ..,,,...  ,           T

We assume that the purpose of the proposed amendments is to facili-
tate the construction grants program so as to achieve in the most
feasible manner the major objective of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (PL 92-500), namely,, to clean up America's water.  We
further assume that the primary purpose of the construction grants
program is the construction of waste water treatment facilities.
                                                                  ' ?
Our primary comment is not directed at the five proposals in the
Federal Registers of May 2, 1975 and May 28, 1975; rather, it is
directed at the memorandum, PGM #50, "Consideration of Secondary
Environmental Effects in the Construction Grants Process."  This
memorandum authorizes the stopping of construction because of alleged
adverse secondary effects; this is incredible, since the secondary
effects have already been thoroughly considered in Step I Facility
Planning and Step II Design.   The EPA construction process in the
past has been stalled by the complexity of the regulations and pro-
      See pamphlet, "The Federal Waste Water Treatment Facilities
      Construction Grant Process from A(bilene) to Z(anesville)" by
      John T. Rhett, Office of Water Program Operation, Deputy
      Assistant Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
      March, 1975, U.S. Government Printing Office: 1975, 628-113/150
      1-3; pp. 7-8.
                                11

-------
cedures; now it is to be stopped.   We submit that the continuing
proliferation of guidelines and regulations will  not clean up
America's water.

Tp_ comment or± the fi ve proposed amendments:

      Amendment No. 1 - Reduction  of the federal  share.   We are
      totally opposed.  The states do not have the additional funds
      that would be required.   Massachusetts is facing a deficit of
      $687 million in the coming fiscal  year and  is incapable of
      taking on an increased share of the funding of waste water
      treatment facilities.

      Amendment No. 2 - Limiting Federal funding  of reserve capacity
      to serve projected growth:  We are opposed.  A "no growth"
      policy is too absolute.   The decision on need and  reserve capa-
      city should be left to each  state  and each  state's priority
      list.

      Amendment No. 3 - Restricting the  type of projects eligible
      for grant assistance:  We are opposed.  The decision on the
      type project to receive grant assistance should be left to
      the state's priority list.  That pollution  source  should be
      corrected which give the most benefits for  the dollar spent
      without regard to the type of project involved.

      Amendment No. 4 - Extending  1977 date for the publicly owned
      treatment works:  Since the  1977 deadline will  not be met -
      because of delay in getting  the construction grants program
      operational - a realistic deadline should be set.   However,
      this must not be an excuse for further delays and  foot-
      dragging - either through further  federal  regulations and
      instructions or by inaction  on the part of  local government
      or private industry.  Extension of deadline must be fair and
      reasonable for both local government and for private industry.

      Amendment No. 5 - Delegating a greater portion of  the management
      of the construction grants program to the states:   We strongly
      favor.  The Cleveland-Wright bill  (HR 2175) should be passed.
      It is essential to eliminate the grossly wasteful  state-EPA
      duplication of reviews and approvals, from  the conception of
      planning through the bidding process.

      In conclusion, we would stress that the multiplication of
instructions, regulations, plannings, reviews and approvals will not


                                  12

-------
clean up America's water.   Only the construction of waste water
treatment plants and related facilities will  accomplish this  goal.
Accordingly, EPA's focus should be on speeding up and implementing
the construction grants process.

We thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed regu-
lations.

                                 Respectfully submitted,
                                 WILLIAM D.  KANE
                                 Executive Assistant
wdk/hh
                               13

-------
                           June 26, 1975

Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials
(W.H. 556) Room 1033 West Tower,
Waterside Mall
491 "M" Street, S.W.
Washington, D. C.  20460

Gentlemen:

We concur with the testimony of John L. Maloney given at the public
hearing, San Francisco, California, June 19, 1975.  Copy of his
address attached.

                                 Very truly yours,

                                 JAMES R. ANDERSON
                                 Certified Public Accountant
HRA/vlb

Enclosure

CC:  Mr. John L. Maloney, President
     Industrial Assn. San Fernando Valley
     P.O. Box 3563
     Van Nuys, CA.  91407

                           June 17, 1975

Industrial Association of the San Fernando Valley
P.L. Box 3563
Van Nuys, California  91407

E.P.A. Public Hearing. S.F. Cal.
Re:  Proposed congressional legislation to be introduced circa July
31, 1975.  Potential legislation amendments to the Federal  Water
Pollution Control Act.

Gentlemen:

Our remarks are addressed to parenthesis four (4) as one of the pro-
posed amendments setforth, namely extending the 1977 date of meeting
water quality control  standards.

-------
We believe this Is the only proposition that should be enacted, and
it should provide for indefinite extension of the date to meet water
quality control standards.

E.P.A. has developed an embryo body of knowledge and experience in
this water quality control field during its brief existence.   It
does not appear that it has as yet learned of the economic impact of
its program on the communities affected when said program is  too
hastely applied.
                                       w'
Herewith is our assessment of the adverse economic impact in  the
San Fernando Valley community.

Jobs

Our 13 high schools, 3 colleges, and 1 university have enrollment of
over 100,000.  Almost all these students are preparing to enter the
labor market.  The workers now in the Valley labor market (approx)
300,000 will not be retiring when these students seek jobs.   What
do we do without growth?

Housing

The students, now seeking work, will nevertheless be forming  family
units.  Where do we house them without growth?

Capital Investment

Our Valley industrial plant investment is $3 billion and the  figure
for commercial business is much more.  What do we do if these
sources of jobs, taxes and general properties are atrophied by
"no growth?"

In our opinion this is pretty much the predicament of established
communities throughout the nation;

Give us time to adjust economically while a workable clean water
program is soundly developed.  By 1985 we should be able to embrace
such a program.

                                 Respectfully,
    „   \  .=''*•                   '   -
                                 John L. Maloney
                                 President
JLM/bm

                                  15

-------
                           June 23, 1975

Environmental Protection Agency    ^
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials
(W.H. 556)Room 1033, West Tower
Waterside Mall
401 "M" Street, S.W.
Washington, D. C.  20460

Reference:  Proposed congressional legislation to be introduced
            circa July 31, 1975.  Potential  legislation amendments
            to the Federal Water Pollution Control  Act.
                       ' ' '         ,."•!••

Gentlemen:

On behalf of the Warner Center, I wish to express concern  regarding
the referenced proposed legislation.   I completely concur  with  the
testimony of John L. Maloney, president of the Industrial  Association
of the San Fernando Valley, at the public hearing in San Francisco
June 19, 1975.  A copy of his remarks are attached herewith.

The economic impact of any proposed new regulations must be care-
fully weighed.  Legislation to enact new requirements should only
be undertaken when there exists a strong body of technical  data to
support the objectives of such legislation.

                                 Sincerely,

                                 Robert A. Allison

RAA:am
Attachment
cc:   John L. Maloney, President
      Industrial Association of the
      San Fernando Valley

                           June 17, 1975

Industrial Association of the San Fernando Valley
P.L. Box 3563
Van Nuys, Calif.  91407

E.P.A. Public Hearing. S.F. Cal.
Re:  Proposed congressional legislation to be introduced circa  July
31, 1975.  Potential legislation amendments to the Federal  Water
Pollution Control Act.


                              16

-------
Gentlemen:

Our remarks are addressed to parenthesis four (4) as  one of the pro-
posed amendments setforth, namely extending the 1977 date of meeting
water quality control standards.

We believe this is the only proposition that should be enacted, and
it should provide for indefinite extension of the date to meet water
quality control standards.

E.P.A. has developed an embryo body of knowledge and experience
in this water quality control field during its brief existence.
It does not appear that it has as yet learned of the economic impact
of its program on the communities affected when said program is too
hastely applied.

Herewith is our assessment of the adverse economic impact in the
San Fernando Valley community.

Jobs

Our 13 high schools, 3 colleges, and 1 university have enrollment
of over 100,000.  Almost all these students are preparing to enter
the labor market.  The workers now in the Valley labor market
(approx) 300,000 will not be retiring when these students seek
jobs.  What do we do without growth?

Housing
The students, now seeking work, will nevertheless be forming family
units.   Where do we house them without growth?

Capital Investment

Our Valley industrial plant investment is $3 billion and the figure
for commercial business is much more.  What do we db if these sources
of jobs, taxes and general properties are atrophied by "no growth?"
                                   fi"                 * i
In our .opinion this is pretty much the predicament Qfi^established
communities throughout the nation.                  '.;'<•

Give us time to adjust economically while a workable clean water
program is soundly developed.  By 1985 we should be a^le to embrace
such a program.

                                 Respectfully,
                                 Jjoh'n L., Maloney
JLM/bm                           President

                                 17

-------
    STATEMENT OF ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE AGENCIES
    AT PUBLIC HEARINGS BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
              ON POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO PL 92-500
                         Washington,  D.  C.
                          June 25, 1975

Mr. Chairman:

      My name is Bart T. Lynam, and I am here today in my capacity
as President of the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies,
an organization representing most of  the large sewerage agencies
throughout the United States.  I am also General  Superintendent of
the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago.   The member-
ship of our organization includes over 50 agencies from the nation's
largest cities representing over 60 million people.   (Appendix A
is a list of our members.)  Accompanying me is Mr. Charles B. Kaiser,
Jr., Director and Legislative Chairman of AMSA, and General Counsel
of the St. Louis Metropolitan Sewer District, and Mr. Lee C.  White,
Washington Counsel for our organization.
      We appreciate the opportunity to present the views of AMSA  on
these fundamental issues that have been  set for public hearing by
the Environmental Protection Agency.   Since last July,  AMSA has held
a series of regional meetings to assess  the attitude of its member
organizations toward the various provisions of PL 92-500, and parti-
cularly the manner in which it has been  implemented.   In a sense,
AMSA members are in the front line trenches of the battle against
water pollution, and we believe that  the views, attitudes, and
recommendations of our members should be of considerable interest
to policy-makers in both the Executive Branch of the Federal  Govern-
ment and the Congress.  There are some specific items that in our
judgment require immediate Congressional attention and action, but
at the same time we are pleased to be able to focus on  some of the
more long-range items that are included  in the list of questions  that
are to be the subject of this particular hearing  and the companion
hearings held elsewhere, in the country.
      Before discussing the specific  questions, we would like to
comment generally on PL 92-500.  AMSA played an active role when  the
Act was being considered by Congress  and in large measure we  supported
the goals of the Act, although some seemed then beyond practical
achievement, and 2-1/2 years of experience has borne this out.
Because of the magnitude, the complexity and the  incredible detail
in the statute, it has been frustrating  as we have waited for imple-
menting regulations and seen them revised and yet new regulations,
criteria interpretations, program guidance memos  and virtually every
form of control ever devised by government agencies become a  part
                              18

-------
of the painful process.  We, too, are government employees and have
an appreciation for the need to carry out statutory directions,
monitor, oversee and supervise a program with such nationally important
goals and involving billions of dollars of public funds.  And yet,
there are times when the frustrations involved have almost led
some of our members to consider trying to get along without the
Federal share so that they can get on with their jobs and thereby
meet local needs.
      Nobody can be opposed to review, revision and adjustment of
a program, but a moratorium on fine-tuning changes might provide
the most effective stimulus to getting on with what we though PL
92-500 was all about:  constructing the facilities required to meet
water pollution control objectives.
      We understand, appreciate and accept the purposes of the nearly
incredible detail that was incorporated into PL 92-500.  But the
rigidity created by this approach has been one of the major reasons
for the delays and frustrations that have characterized the program
for nearly three years.  If there is one major principle we urge
upon those who would amend PL 92-500, it is to build in some dis-
cretion and flexibility for EPA and its Administrator.  Undoubtedly
there would be many of our members who would find themselves in
disagreement with EPA on a range of issues, but we are prepared to
have faith in the Administrator and to believe he or she must not be
hamstrung by a statute which attempts to achieve Absolute uniformity
for all situations, regardless of the tremendous diversity of circum-
stances that exist in the thousands of cities and towns in this large
country.
      I would Tike now to discuss briefly each of the potential
questions in the order in which they appear in the formal Federal    «-
Register notice.

      The Amount of Federal Contribution to Assist Waste Treatment
      Facilities

      Although there may well have been a number of different points
at which the Federal share could have been fixed when PL 92-500 was
working its way through the Congress, we believe it would be a mistake
at this point to change the Federal share either upward or downward.
One of the most frustrating experiences that many of the nation's    ;
large metropolitan areas have experienced is the confusion, disappoin-
ment, and heavy financial penalties resulting from the frequent
changing of the Federal share from 30% in 1948 to 75% in 1972.  In
the 1972  Act (PL 92-500), the Congress in Section 206 (b) undertook
to reimburse those communities which used their bonding authority to
get on with cleaning up the nation's rivers and streams, but through
                                19

-------
no fault of their own did not receive the full 30% Federal  contri-
bution which was then national policy.  Thus far, no funds  have been
appropriated for this purpose, although we are hopeful  that in the
EPA budget for fiscal 1976 such funds will be included.  In fact, the
failure to make this money available has penalized those cities which
went forward in response to Congressional urging; conversely, those
communities which did not respond have been rewarded.
      If the Congress were to reduce the 75% Federal share, undoubt-
edly hundreds of communities across the country would be penalized,
not because of any failure on their part to move expeditiously or
to file applications^on a timely basis.  Those who had  not  received
approvals or an allocation of funds, either because of  burdensome
EPA regulations implementing the Act,,or because of the impoundment
of funds by President Nixon, or because adequate funds  were not made
available in the first place, would find themselves at  a considerable
disadvantage.  This is a serious concern and we would urge  that yet
another divisive and disruptive factor not be added to  solving the
water problems of this nation.  To the extent that the  notion of
reducing the Federali share rests on the premise that there  will never
be adequate funds from Congress to do all the work required, we
oppose changing the rules in mid-stream.  If the work is to be
accomplished to meet the criteria and standards set forth in PL 92-
500, that money is going to have to come from somewhere. States and
local communities are not immune from budgetary anemia, and we would
recommend that the program continue to be a Federal, state, local
cooperating arrangement, and that the formula not be changed again.
      One very real and practical obstacle to such a change would
be the manner of implementation.  Would the new percentage  be applied
to applications made after a certain date, or to those  already in
the process but which had not been completed?  Would appearance
before a certain date on priority lists developed by state  agencies
qualify a project for a 75 percent grant? And if not, would there be
a fraction of such listed projects that would get the 75% amount, and
what criteria would be used for making the cut?  In short,  there were
great problems of unfairness as the Federal  percentage  increased,
but there would be even greater inequities and difficulties if the
Federal  share were decreased.
      Undertaking to respond to the questions set forth in  the
Federal  Register notice in connection with these hearings,  we
would add the following:  A reduced Federal  share would undoubtedly
inhibit or delay the construction of needed facilities, not only
because of the need for the local community to scramble for more
funds, but also because of the disruption referred to above.  Our
experience with the financial difficulties of the states with whom
our members must deal leads us to believe that there is mightly little
                                 20

-------
interest and even less ability on their part to pick up any slack
occasioned by reduced Federal contributions.  Without doubt, most
communities throughout the country would experience enormous diffi-
culty in raising additional funds to replace any that would other-
wise come from the Federal government.  We do not believe that any
greater accountability or concern for expenditures would result from
a reduced Federal share or from an increased local share; local funds
are really very difficult to come by and our experience has been that
communities do not undertake foolish projects because the Federal
government is paying 75%.  A reduced Federal share would certainly
delay achieving the goals of PL 92-500.

      Limiting the Federal Contribution to Facilities Needed to Serve
      Existing Population

      It is very nearly impossible to have zero growth and to build
on that basis without running the risk of terribly expensive subse-
quent construction.  In general, the large metropolitan agencies that
comprise AMSA have had considerable experience in design and are
opposed to the establishment of arbitrary time periods for which
waste water handling and treatment facilities should be designed.
To the extent that the so-called California 10/20 Plan is offered
as a standard, we would have less difficulty with the 10-year growth
pattern for waste treatment plants, assuming of course that the
deisgn is on a modular basis that will permit the most efficient
and cost effective add-ons when required, and further assuming that
the 10-year period begins to run at the end of the construction of
the facilities.  When, however, we come to the question of sewer
interceptors, 20 years seems to be entirely too short a period for
most of the metropolitan situations with which we are familiar.  The
trememdous expense in tearing up city streets, together with the
inconvenience and the environmental prices that have to be paid for
such efforts, argue strongly for a period of time that will avoid
these disadvantages of underdesigning of sewer facilities.  Unlike
waste treatment facilities, they cannot be easily stretched.
      The only logical basis of design is a cost-effective analysis
using present worth.  Overdesign will occur only if a design other
than the most cost-effective is selected.  EPA should fund on this
basis.
      On the question of who should pay for the extra year's require-
ments built into the system, we believe it would be tantamount to
"changing rules in the middle of the game" if the local communities
were to have to pay for everything above today's population and needs.
No major construction program operates on that basis, and the only
realistic consequence would be to impose a greater burden on the
local communities than was contemplated by PL 92-500.  If PL 92-500


                              21

-------
is to be scrapped, revised, or modified to impose a larger burden on
the local communities, Congress ought to do it directly rather than
through an indirect subterfuge.
      Undertaking to respond to the questions set forth in the
Federal Register, we would add the following:  "Overdesign" is
basically a subjective judgment and there may well  be some in-
stancesin which this has teen the consequence of somebody else paying
90% of the bill.  We believe, however, that the major metropolitan
areas have not overdesigned, in part because of the heavy funding
required for the local share, and in part because of the political
implications of doing so.  As indicated above, more rigid supporting
data for projected growth could be required, although it would be sheer
folly to make that retroactive and further delay projects that are
already well into the pipeline.  "Underdesign" is,  of course,  the
other horn of the dilemma and must be guarded against.   There  must
be adequate flexibility to meet different growth patterns.

      Restricting the Types of Projects Eligible for Grant Assistance

      Representing as it does a wide range of cities across the
country, AMSA takes a very dim view of attempting to restrict  the
facilities that can be the subject of Federal grants.  What is
clear and sensible in Seattle may have no rational  basis in Chicago
or Miami.  In our view, the test ought to be the achievement of water
pollution control objectives, and there should be flexibility  to
take into account the diverse character of the country.   If-our
experience under PL 92-500, in the past 2-1/2 years, has taught us
anything, it is that it is very nearly impossible to legislate in
great detail in a national statute without creating specific situa-
tions in various areas of the country where unreasonable or even
foolish requirements result.  We believe that a rigorous case  ought
to be required of any applicant for Federal  grants, but that it would
be a mistake to limit the facilities for grants.
      The inherent weakness in setting forth a priority list of
facilities which do not take into account local situations, condi-
tions, and factors is best illustrated by the secondary treatment
requirement.  Strong and compelling cases can be made by some  munici-
pal systems that very costly secondary treatment facilities in the
conventional sense of that term provide very little or  in some cases
absolutely no environmental benefits and produce considerable  environ-
mental detriments, aside from using up scarce public funds. To
require Anchorage, Alaska, for example, to build secondary treatment
facilities for Cook Inlet is almost ridiculous.  The same is true
of other communities, and yet under the rigid interpretation of PL
92-500, this is currently the situation.  We would argue strongly
for introducing flexibility into the program, not additional rigidity
that would result from limiting the type of facilities  eligible for
grants.
                               22

-------
      Extending 1977 Deadline for Secondary Treatment

      It is crystal clear that hundreds, if not thousands, of com-
munities are simply not going to be able to meet the July 1977 dead-
line.  The reasons for this are well known:  impoundment of PL 92-
500 funds, gross under-estimation of the magnitude of the job, the
enormous difficulties EPA has had in promulgating regulations, and
the slowdown those regulations have had on the program.  Inasmuch
as criminal penalties are involved in failure to meet the statutory
deadlines, the need is even greater to extend the deadlines, or at
a minimum provide discretion in the Administrator of EPA to do so
upon application by municipalities.
      Attempting to respond to the formal questions, pre-financing
is a very tricky business in light of the great reluctance the
Federal government has shown in the past to redeem its cornnitments.
The question if industry compliance is really separate and distinct
from that of the cities; industry failures (when not associated with
municipalities to comply are not likely to be the result of the
same factors that have impeded municipal agencies.  As to the fairness
of disparate requirements for municipal and industrial participants
in joint systems, we believe that where a persuasive case for post-
ponement can be made by the industrial participant, it too should
be permitted to go along with its municipal partner on any new deadline.
The Administrator's discretion to extend the deadline should not be
circumscribed, since undoubtedly he would insist that a case be
made and that the extension not be longer than warranted by the facts;
but who can know in advance what maximum extension those facts might
support.  EPA's credibility is difficult for us to assess and, in
any event, does not seem like a proper factor to take into account
in considering whether to extend the deadline or to adhere to it.
As suggested in the preceding section, there should be flexibility in
determining how objectives of secondary treatment facilities can be
accomplished.  A two-year extension, once again, seems to make less
sense than whatever the individual community can convince EPA is
appropriate.  It may be desirable, however, to establish a standard
delay that would be more readily granted, with those seeking a
greater period having the burden of making the case.  We would hope
that this problem of deadlines could be resolved before either the
short-term permits or "letters of authorization" alternatives had
to be adopted.
      In our view, this is not a matter that can be put off until
a review of the entire program can be completed; Congress should act
on this before the end of this year.

      Delegating Greater Management of the Program to the States

      The attitude of AMSA members on this point is, for obvious

                               23

-------
reasons, keyed to the relationships between the metropolitan areas
and their state capitals.  By and large, the approach makes sense,
but we do not support the principle of using grant funds for the
transfer of administration to the states.  We urge that the funding
come from Federal funds appropriated especially for that purpose,
since on of the rationales for the proposal is to take care of the
fact that there is inadequate Federal  personnel to perform these
functions.
      One particular point that a number of metropolitan agencies
have found to be troublesome is the manner in which some states have
allocated funds to municipalities within the individual state.   Where
the total Federal funds allocated to a state is keyed to a formula
based  on 50% on a population basis and 50% on a needs basis,  there
should be a requirement that states allocate to communities within
the state on a similar basis.  It is grossly unfair for the state
to receive a large allocation because of the state's heavily popula-
ted areasand then find that the state in distributing "funds within
the state ignores the problems of its major cities.  We urge,  therefore,
that if the Cleveland Amendment is adopted, there be a requirement
that the states follow through on the formula basis upon which  Federal
funds were allocated to it from the national pool.
      We appreciate the opportunity to present the views of the
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies on these basic issues
and will be pleased to try to answer any questions  or to provide
any data that may be desired.
      Thank you.

                            APPENDIX A

          ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE AGENCIES
                    Member Agencies, May 1975
Greater Anchorage Area Borough Ak.
City of Phoenix, Az.
City of Tucson, Az.
City of Los Angeles, Ca.
County Sanitation Districts of
Los Angeles County,  Ca.
East Bay Municipal Utility District
      Oakland, Ca.
County Sanitation Districts of
      Orange County, Ca.
City of Sacramento,  Ca.
County of Sacramento, Ca.
City of San Diego, Ca.
Metropolitan District Commission
  (Boston), Ma.
Detroit Metro Water Dept., Mi.
County of Wayne, Mi.
Metropolitan Sewer Board
     Minneapolis-St.  Paul), Mn.
City of Kansas City,  Mo.
Metropolitan St. Louis
     Sewer District,  Mo.
City of Omaha, NE
Bergen County Sewer Authority
     NJ
Middlesex County Sewerage
     Authority, NJ

-------
City and County of San Francisco,  Ca.
City of San Jose,  Ca.
Metropolitan Denver Sewage
      Disposal  District No.  1,  Co.
The Metropolitan District
      (Hartford County), Ct.
Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Authority,  Fl.
City of Atlanta, Ga.
City and County of Honolulu,  Hi.
Metropolitan Sanitary District  of
      Greater Chicago, II.
City of Indianapolis,  In.
City of Wichita, Ks.
Louisville and Jefferson County
      Metropolitan Sewer District,  Ky.
City of Baltimore, Md.
Washington (D.C.)  Suburban
      Sanitary Commission, Md.
City of Forth Worth, Tx.
City of Houston, Tx.
Hampton Roads Sanitation District,  Va.
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle,  Wa.
Passaic Valley Sewerage
    Commissioners, NJ
City of New York, NY
City of Greensboro, NC
Metropolitan Sewer District
    of Greater Cincinnati, Oh.
Cleveland Regional Sewer Dist.,
    Oh.
City of Columbus, Oh.
City of Dayton, Oh.
City of Portland, Or.
Allegheny County Sanitary
    Authority, Pa.
City of Philadelphia, Pa.
City of Providence, RI
City of Memphis, Tn.
Metropolitan Government ofi
    Nashville & Davidson
    Cnty., Tn.
City of Dallas Tx.
City of Charleston, WV
Metropolitan Sewer District
    of the County of Mil-
    waukee, Wi.
                                   25

-------
                            STATEMENT
                   PRESENTED BY MORRIS A.  WILEY
                         ON BEHALF OF THE
                   AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE
                            BEFORE THE
                U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                          WASHINGTON, D.C.
                            JUNE 25,1 1975

      My name is Morris A. Wiley of Texaco,  Inc.,  where my profes-
sional responsibilities involve design of  oil and  water pollution
control systems for petroleum marketing facilities,  refineries,
and other installations which utilize municipal waste treatment
facilities.  I am also a member of the Committee on  Water Quality
of the American Petroleum Institute, and it  is on  behalf of API
that I am presenting this paper.
      We appreciate this opportunity to comment upon the subject '
currently before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency'-- namely,
the need for mid-course amendments to the  Federal  Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972.  In particular, we wish to address
the proposals to extend the 1977 date for  compliance with water
quality standards and EPA policy on pretreatment standards.
      The U.S. petroleum industry operates more than two hundred
thousand service stations, thirty-five thousand terminals and bulk
plants, two hundred and fifty refineries,  and innumerable other
facilities.  Many of these installations discharge sanitary or other
waste to municipal sewer systems.  Consequently, we  support the  need
for amendments which would accelerate the  flow of  grant monies to
municipalities, since to date there has been inadequate construc-
tion of municipal treatment plants under the Act.
      As a result of inadequate funding many municipal  treatment plants
will not be on line as scheduled.  Yet, it simply  is not feasible  for
all residential, commercial, and industrial  dischargers to municipal
sewers to provide pretreatment by 1977 which would be equivalent
to municipal secondary treatment technology.  EPA  has proposed to  extend
the deadline from 1977 to 1983 for municipalities, but not for other
sources.  Such an extension of the compliance date for one class of
dischargers without considering the equally  compelling problems  facing
the remaining classes of point source discharges would be inequitable
in the extreme.
      Concerning compliance with the treatment technology and
water quality standards, many industrial plants which treat their own
wastes will be able to install Best Practicable Control Technology
Currently Available (BPCTCA) by July 1, 1977.  But,  some will not.
Indeed, we understand that EPA has already written some National Pollutant


                              26   ;

-------
Discharge Elimination Systems permits for major industrial dischargers
which extend deadlines for implementation of BPCTCA beyond July 1, 1977,
where earlier compliance is clearly not possible.
      Extensions are, in fact, necessary.  American commerce and
industry operate numerous other large and small facilities which
discharge sanitary and industrial wastes to municipal waste treatment
plants.  Insufficient time has been allowed by the Act for munici-
palities to construct the treatment plants required for application of
secondary treatment technology for compatible wastes, and it is clearly
impracticable for those businesses, commercial establishments, and
industries which discharge to municipal sewer systems to provide
temporary pretreatment which would be the equivalent of municipal
secondary treatment.  Such a program would constitute an unreason-
able burden and would result in a waste of natural resources with no
appreciable benefit.  Indeed, many of these sources are located in
urban areas, including building lofts, where neither land areas nor
zoning regulations would permit installation of sewage treatment
works.
      Furthermore, the Act does not allow sufficient time for EPA
to complete the following tasks which are essential for complete
installation of all of the required treatment technologies and for
full compliance with the water quality standards by July 1, 1977:

      1.  Processing of municipal waste treatment grants.
      2.  Federal funding of municipal waste treatment grants.
      3.  Promulgation of the Information and Guidelines required
          under Section 304.
      4.  Remand contested information and Guidelines to the
          Agency for revision in accordance with the administrative
          procedures and judicial review provisions of Section 509
          of the Act.
      5.  Issuance of all individual National Pollutant Discharge
          Elimination Systems (NPDES) permits prior to December
          31, 1974.  Many remain unissued.
      6.  Revision  of contested  individual NPDES permits in accor-
          dance with the provisions of Section 509.
      7.  Promulgation of pretreatment standards for all commercial
          discharges from all sources to municipal sewer systems.

      EPA is currently involved in more than 250 lawsuits, some
of them involving very fundamental questions about the law's intent.
Hundreds of adjudicatory hearings have been docketed to deal with
contested discharge permits.  As a consequence, many municipal and
industrial dischargers do not know what their final effluent limita-
tions will be on July 1, 1977 and are unable to design and install
treatment works which would assure compliance by that date.

                              27

-------
      Since many municipalities and industries cannot comply with
the 1977 treatment technology requirements, the compliance dates
for installation of both secondary treatment technology and BPCTCA
should be extended beyond 1977, perhaps to 1983 as suggested by
EPA.
      Considerations of environmental  equity also support the
above recommendations.  Protection of the quality of the nation's    ^'
waters is a commonly shared objective.  The ultimate costs for both
municipal and industrial sewage collection, treatment,  and disposal
must, hoever, be borne by the same set if citizens,  either as tax-
payers or as consumers.  Socio-economic and environmental  equity should,
therefore, be accorded to all citizens through adoption of equitable '
effluent limitations for all classes and categories  of  discharges to
like waters, whether by municipalities, industry, commerce, or small
businesses.
      Municipal sanitary sewage and petroleum refinery  wastewaters
are comparable in concentrations of organic pollutants  and responses
to conventional primary and secondary treatment technology.  Many
refineries treat both sanitary and process wastewaters  in their API-
type gravity separators and secondary biological  treatment units.
Many refineries discharge process wastewaters after  separation of
excess oil to municipal treatment plants.  Many marketing facilities
are connected to municipal sewers, princiaplly for sanitary wastes but
also for smaller volumes of wash-waters and the like.
      The 1983 goal for petroleum industry discharges should thus
be the same as for municipalities for discharge to liek receiving
waters.  Realistically, municipalities can be expected  to provide
secondary treatment by that date, to improve control  of overflows
from combined sewers, and to undertake control of urban runoff.
Additional treatment technology should be required oqjy for water
quality limited segments, as provided by Sections 302.and 303 of
the Act.
      It is patent that the Act needs to be amended  to  afford environ-
mental equity to all dischargers.  The 1983 goal  for major industrial
categories should, in fact, be defined as secondary  treatment for
wastewaters containing organic pollutants which are  compatible with
municipal secondary treatment technology except where additional control
is needed to meet water quality standards.
      Nevertheless, the Environmental  Protection Agency has, in
effect, defined BPCTCA as secondary treatment for the Organic Chemicals
Point Source Category and tertiary treatment for the Petroleum Re-
fining Point Source Category.  There is not reasonable  explanation
for this inequity.
      A report for the Council on Environmental Quality has taken
exception to this type of reasoning in its finding that, "Until the
storm water situation is analyzed and efficient corrective measures
taken, there is little or no sense in seeking higher levels of treat-
ment efficiency in existing secondary treatment plants.  In Roanoke,

                               28

-------
for example, removal was upgraded from 86 percent to 93 percent, yet
there was no dramatic reduction in the BOD load (3.2 million pounds
in 1969 compared to 3.06 million pounds in 1972)."
      Similarly, there is little or no sense in seeking higher levels
of treatment by business, commerce, and industry in advance of appli-
cation of comparable levels of technology by municipal  sources.
      If a municipality is unable to provide secondary treatment
for its discharges to a particular receiving water, it would be
environmentally inequitable, of questionable value for meeting
water quality standards, and ineffective for Hie commercial  and
industrial dischargers to that sewer system to provide temporary
pretreatment equivalent to municipal secondary treatment technology.
      In brief, we strongly recommend that the Federal  Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972 be amended to extend to July 1, 1983
the July 1, 1977 deadline for mandatory application for both munici-
al and industrial treatment technologies and compliance with the
interim water quality standards.
      Other relevant amendments to the FWPCA which should be seriously
considered -- and which are dealt with in detail in the attached
API statement to the National Commission on Water Quality — are:
         p             ,
     '1.  It should be the national goal that the discharge £f
          harmful quantities of pollutants into the navigable waters
          be eliminated.
      2.  The scope of the definition of pollutants should encompass
          Both natural and anthropogenic sources of potential pollu-
          tants and the Act should require control only for discharges
          of'Harmful quantities of pollutants generated by the source
          subject to control.                          '
      3. * Require comparable degrees of control for all municipal,   ;
          industrial, and agricultural sources of pollution in order
          to distribute costs more equitably.
      4.  Clarify that effluent limitations shall be derived from
          effluent guidelines and that guidelines themselves shall
          not be construed as limitations or absolute standards.
      5.  Change the compliance with Phase I limits for all dis-
          charges from July 1, 1977 to about July 1, 1984,  and com-
          pliance with Phase II should be deferred at least until
          July 1, 1986, pending evaluation of the need for meeting
          standards more stringent than Phase I limits.
      6.  Require effluent limitations and other controls beyond
          Phase I only to the extent necessary to achieve receiving
          water quality.  -
      7.  Provide that contested NPDES permits shall be subject to
          simpler, more efficient, and more expeditious administra-
          tive or judicial reviews with commensurate time-tables
          for compliance.


                                   29

-------
      8.  Provide for the Administrator to exempt small  and enrivon-
          mentally insignificant discharges from the HPDES permit
          program and pretreatment requirements.

                            ATTACHMENT

                            STATEMENT
                   PRESENTED BY MORRIS A.  WILEY
                             FOR THE
                   AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE
                            BEFORE THE
               NATIONAL COMMISSION ON WATER QUALITY
                      NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
                          APRIL 25, 1975

      My name is Morris A. Wiley and I am employed by Texaco Inc.,
where my professional responsibilities involve design of oil and water
pollution control facilities for refineries and petro-chemical   plants,
including refineries at Convent, Louisiana and Port Arthur, Texas on
the Gulf Coast.  I am also a member of the Committee on  Water Quality
of the American Petroleum Institute, and it is on behalf of the API
that I am submitting this paper.
      I would like to express appreciation for this opportunity to
comment on the subject currently before the National Water Quality
Commission -- namely, the technological aspects of achieving the
effluent limitation goals set forth for 1983 in Section  301 (b) (2)  )
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.   There
has been much commendable progress under the Act, but there have
been problems as well.
      In this paper, I  will be dealing only with problems which
confront refinery operations.  It should be noted, however, that
other phases of the petroleum industry, too, fall under  the scope of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
      Among the areas of concern in regard to the nation's ability
to comply with Section  304(b) (2) of the Act are:

      1.  Feasibility of the national goal of elimination of dis-
          charge of pollutants (Section 101).
      2.  Definition of a-pollutant (Section 502).
      3.  Effluent guidelines for Best Practicable Control Techno-
          logy Currently Available and for Best Control  Measures and
          Practices Achievable as published pursuant to  Section 304.
      4.  Issuance of NPDES permits under Section 402.
      5.  Effluent limitations to implement Best Practicable Control
          Technology Currently Available by July 1, 1977, and Best


                                 30

-------
          Available Technology Economically Achievable by July 1,
          1983, for those discharges permitted under Section 301.
      6.  Technology based vs water quality based effluent limita-
          tions.
      7.  Application of technology to small or insignificant dis-
          charges of pollutants.

      The F.W.P.C.A. sets as a national goal the elimination by 1985
of pollutant discharges into navigable waters.  Despite this nation's
affluence and advanced technology, we remain — and will remain —
unable to eliminate aj]_ discharges of pollutants into navigable
waters.  Minimum discharges of pollutants have always been the norm
for primitive, developing, and developed societies.  For these
reasons, the goal of the Act would be far more achievable if amended
to read, "It is the national goal that the discharge of harmful
quantities of pollutants into navigable waters be eliminated —"
      A second major area of concern is the Act's definition of
"pollutant" in Section 502(b).  This definition ignores natural
pollutants such as salinity in arid regions.  Natural pollutants
can be chemically, physically, and biologically as objectionable
under some circumstances as the same pollutants when discharged by
man.
      Moreover, the Act's definition implies that insignificant dis-
charges of pollutants should be controlled simply because practicable
control technology is available.  Instead, it would be far more cost-
effective to direct control measures only at harmful pollutant dis-
charges.
      For example, the Mississippi River annually carries about
600,000,000 tons of sediment into the Gulf of Mexico.  If this sedi-
ment is typical of surficial materials in the United States,  it should
contain one million tons of iron and twenty thousand tons of chromium
as heavy metals.  Despite  this natural discharge, the Mississippi
delta is known for its great biological productivity because of the
nutrients transported to the sea by land runoff.
      Many petroleum refiners and other industries along the Mississippi
withdraw water from the river and then return the solids to the river.
Under the F.W.P.C.A., the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is
attempting to categorize such return of natural  materials to the  river
as a pollutant discharge and also to compel  disposal of these materials
on land.  Storage of this material would require use of land needed
for industrial, agricultural, and other purposes.  The issue has  become
a subject for adjiidicatory hearings for individual NPDES permits.
      To avoid such problems, Section 502 of the Act should be
amended to encompass both natural and anthropogenic sources of
potential pollutants and to require control  only for discharges of
harmful quantities of pollutants.

                             31

-------
      Another set of problems in regard to the Act arises with its
implementation.  The intent of Congress, as expressed in the legis-
lative history of the Act, is that Information and Guidelines
published under Section 304 should be used as guidelines to establish
individual effluent limitations in NPDES permits issued under Sec-
tion 402 for those discharges which are permitted under Section 301.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency sought to simplify administra-
tion of the Act by contending that guidelines published under Section
304 are also effluent limitations under Section 301  to be incorpor-
ated in permits issued under Section 402.  Numerous  industrial
point source categories are litigating this issue, but there is  no
present indication as to when industry can obtain a  decision from
EPA and the courts.
      Industry has been impeded in implementing the  Act because  of
delays by EPA in publishing effluent .guidelines, issuance of N&DES
permits, holding of adjudicatory hearings in accordance with Section
509, and resolution of petitions for judicial  review of guidelines.
At this late date some refiners may be unable to complete the faci-
lities required to comply with NPDES permit limitations by July  1,
1977.  Furthermore, it is doubtful that municipalities will  be able   ,"'
to complete installation of secondary treatment for  all  sanitary
wastes by July 1, 1977.
      Delays arise also in that the terms "Best Practicable Control
Technology Currently Available" and "Best Control  Measures and
Practices Achievable," which arise from Section 304,   and "Best
Available Technology Economically Achievable",  which arises in
Section 301, are new philosophical regulatory concepts without
accepted definitions.  The processes for definition  of these terms
are delaying implementation of the Act, and means are needed to  avoid
such delays.                         *"      **       »
      Several amendments to the Act are needed to resolve these
problems:
      1.  Provide that effluent limitations shall  be derived from
          effluent guidelines and that guidelines themselves shall
          not be construed as limitations or absolute standards.  (Sec.
          301, 304, 306, 402)
      2.  Change the compliance with Phase I limits  for all  dis-
          chargers from July 1, 1977, to July 1, 1980, and compliance
          with Phase II should be deferred at least  until July 1,
          1986, pending evaluation of the need for meeting guide-
          lines more stringent than Phase I limits (Sec. 101, 201,
          301, 302, 304, 306, 307, 402).
      3.  Provide that every NPDES permit or guideline issued
          pursuant to this Act shall be subject to an administra-
          tive and judicial process whereby a permit holder or dis-
          charger affected by a federal or state action can promptly
          and fully adjudicate all permit or guideline conditions
          and limitations in a single hearing and have adequate

                                32

-------
          court appeal. (Sec 509).
      4.  Provide that where a permit has been appealed, com-
          pliance dates shall be extended a reasonable length
          of time after final adjudication.  (Sec. 301, 304,
          509)
      5.  Provide that the Administrator may grant an application
          from a discharger to extend the date of achieving final
          compliance with Phase I and Phase II as may be justified
          where causes beyond the discharger's control are shown
          to make it unreasonable to require earlier completion.
          (Sec. 301, 304, 402)

      Still another point is that the ultimate costs of municipal and
industrial sewage collection, treatment, and disposal are borne by
citizens, consumers, and taxpayers.  Therefore, social, economic,
and environmental equity should be accorded to all citizens by
equitable effluent limitations for all classes and categories of
dischargers, whether by municipalities, industry, commerce, or small
businesses for comparable discharges.
      It must be recognized in this regard that defining Best
Practicable Control Technology Currently Available and Best Control
Measures and Practices Achievable for petroleum refining under
Section 304(b) (1) and 304(b)(2) should be  technically easier than
for certain other industries because municipal  and refinery waste-
waters possess similar concentrations of organic pollutants and
response curves to conventional treatment technology.  The established
primary and secondary wastewater treatment processes generally
achieve results fully comparable to those same technologies when
applied to municipal sewage.  In other words,  sanitary sewage can
be readily handled in refinery wastewater treatment systems installed
to meet the 1977 and 1983 goals of the Act.  Further, many refineries
discharge wastewaters after separation of any  free oil  to municipal
treatment plants.
      The 1983 goal for petroleum refinery discharges should be the
same as for municipalities.  Municipalities can be expected to in-
stall and upgrade primary and secondary treatment by that date,
and to provide some controls for overflows from combined sanitary
and storm water sewers, and undertake control  of urban runoff.
Additional treatment technology will be required for some water quality
limited segments where more stringent effluent limitations are re-
quired under Sections 302 and 303 of the Act.
      Furthermore, effluent limitations should not be applied
universally to all sources within a point source category.  Instead,
specific effluent limitations for a given source should be developed
only after careful review of that source.

-------
      The concept of basing municipal  water pollution control  strategy
upon application of secondary treatment technology as identified pur-
suant to Section 304(d)(l) has merit because primary treatment is
inadequate for significant discharges   of sanitary wastes to many
inland and estuarine waters and secondary treatment represents the
next logical step forward.
      The fundamental problem with the treatment technology concept
in Sections 304(b)(l) and 304(b)(2) is that mere practicality  or
availability of technology is not sufficient justification for appli-
cation, even though  such technology might  be •economically' ""'"
achievable by commensurate sacrifices  of other economic  goals.
      The Act already provides that more stringent effluent limita-
tions shall be applied where water quality considerations so require.
Further administrative means for implementation  are already provided
in the Act.  Consequently, it would make sense to not go beyond con-
ventional primary and secondary treatment technologies for munici-
palities and appropriate industries, such as petroleum refineries,
unless required to restore and maintain the integrity of the nation's
waters.
      Accordingly, it is recommended that the National  Water Quality
Commission and Congress consider the need to amend the Act along
the following lines:
      1.  Require limitations and other controls imposed by the
          Act in Phase II only to the  extent necessary to achieve
          receiving water quality, thereby eliminating Phase II
          BATEA technology based on limitations  irrespective of
          water quality needs.  (Sec.  301, 302,  306,  402)
      2.  Require equivalent controls  for all pollution  sources
          (municipal, industrial, and  feedlot)during Phase II,
       :   which should be deferred at  least until  July 1, 1986,
          pending evaluation of the'need for meeting guidelines more
          stringently than Phase I limits, so as to distribute the
          national economic costs of pollutant removal more equitably.
          (Sec. 300, 302, 304, 306, 402)
      It also should be noted that the largest and most  costly
unresolved water pollution control problem facing the nation is
control of discharge of pollutants in  urban storm water  runoff.
As a national water pollution control  strategy it would  not make
sense to overexpend in the industrial  sector by going further  beyond
Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available  than is
required to meet water quality objectives while underexpending in
regard to needed urban water pollution control.
      Finally, the NPDES permit program and effluent standards
which are based upon application of sophisticated technology are not
appropriate for certain categories of small businesses which are small
                                 3**

-------
or insignificant sources of pollutants.  If the term "point source
discharge of pollutants" is broadly defined, there are literally
hundreds of thousands if not millions of discharges, yet only tens
of thousands of permit applications have been received.  The number
of NPDES permit applications filed nationally suggests that many
point sources of discharges of pollutants will not have permits.
Small businesses, which are important to the nation, have limited
capabilities for comprehending the complex requirements of the Act.
Despite good intentions, they lack the technological and economic
resources required for application of sophisticated and costly
treatment technology, either for direct discharge or for pretreat-
ment and connection to a municipal sewer.
      It is recommended that the Act be amended to provide that the
Administrator may exempt small and environmentally insignificant
discharges from the NPDES permit program and pretreatment require-
ments and to require the Administrator to identify such sources
within one year.  (Sec. 101, 301, 304, 306, 307, 402)
      In conclusion, we believe that the Act is fundamentally sound,
but it needs mid-course correction to implement the intent of Con-
gress in Section 304 (b)(2).  Our experience supports the following
recommended amendments;
      1.  It should be the national goal that the discharge of harmful
          quantities of pollutants into the navigable waters be
          eliminated.
      2.  The scope of the definition of pollutants should encompass
          both natural and anthropogenic sources of potential  pollu-
          tants and the Act should require control  only for dis-
          charges of harmful quantities of pollutants generated by
          the source subject to control.
      3.  Require comparable degrees of control  for all  municipal,
          industrial, and agricultural sources of pollution,  so as
          to distribute costs more equitably.
      4.  It should be clarified that effluent limitations shall
          be derived from effluent guidelines  and that guidelines
          themselves shall not be construed as limitations or  abso-
          lute standards.
      5.  Change the compliance with Phase I limits for all  discharges
          from July 1, 1977 to July 1, 1980, and compliance with
          Phase II should be deferred at least until  July 1,  1986,
          pending evaluation of the need for meeting standards  more
          stringent than Phase I limits.
      6.  Require effluent limitations and other controls beyond
          Phase I only to the extent necessary to achieve receiving
          water quality.
      7.  Provide that contested NPDES permits shall  be subject to
          simpler, more efficient, and more expeditious administra-


                                    35

-------
          tive or judicial  reviews  with  commensurate  time-tables  for
          compliance.
      8.   Provide for  the Administrator  to  exempt  small and
          environmentally insignificant  discharges from the  NPDES
          permit program and pretreatment requirements.

      We thank the National  Water Quality Commission  for  this oppor-
tunity to present our  views.
                                 36

-------
                           June 16, 1975

Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, .D.C.

Attention:  Mr. Edwin L. Johnson,
            Acting Assistant Administrator
            Water and Hazardous Materials.Section

Gentlemen:

This letter is to convey our statements on Potential Legislative
Amendment to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.  Our firm
provides consulting engineering services to communities and cities of
small to moderate size with a population generally of less than
50,000 people.
                                                        ->>
Our comments are presented as follows:

REDUCTION OF THE FEDERAL SHARE

Acceptance of any proposed reduction would cepend in part on the per-
centage contributed by the State involved.   In Missouri where the
State adds fifteen percent to the Federal  share, the proposed fifty-
five percent would certainly be more acceptable than in Kansas or
Oklahoma where there is no state contribution.  Whether or not the
states will be financially able to continue participating  is another
major consideration.  Generally, small cities which receive at best
very small grants from other Federal programs such as the  Community
Development Block Grant would not be able to provide forty-five
percent of the funds from bonds or l>oans.   Low assessed valuation
and statutory limitations on bonded indebtedness would, along with
establishment of reasonable user charges,  prohibit the small  city
from proceeding with construction of required and needed facilities.

Legislation reducing the percentage of grants offered should also
be considered in light of proposed elimination of consideration of
grants for collections systems.   The cost  of the collection systems
already exceeds the cost of treatment and  pumping facilities  in many
cases.  The total  grantee share including  all  of the collection con-
struction costs and either forty-five or .thirty percent of the pumping
and treatment cost plus the additional operating and maintenance
expenses incurred will virtually eliminate  the possibility of constructing
sewage systems in  small towns with no existing systems.
                                37

-------
LIMITING FEDERAL FUNDING OF RESERVE CAPACITY TO SERVE PROJECTED
GROWTH

Review of plans and specifications by the State review agencies and
by the Environmental Protection Agency should eliminate any tendency
to "over design" facilities.  Apparently according to the two studies
cited in Paper No. 2 the "occasionally" over design does occur.

The present 10/20 or "California System" would in our opinion be
partially acceptable to the grantees.  A ten year growth projection
would appear reasonable if all  treatment facilities were designed
with future expansion in mind.   It would seem logical to assume that
additional units or items of equipment might be added to expand the
facilities as needed to accomodate actual growth.

The use of twenty years as a design period for sewers appears to be
totally illogical and ridiculous.  The realization of large economies-
of-scale alone should be sufficient to deter any attempt to reduce
the design period below fifty years.  The added cost of duplicating
or replacing sewers which become inadequate because of sizing while
still useful and adequate in other regards should also be a deciding
factor.  Along with the actual  cost of materials and labor to con-
struct the line, the cost of replacing pavement (many trunk sewers
are built in streets), borings  for new or additional  stream crossings
and railroad crossings must be considered.

Although the grantees would be encouraged to provide cost effective
reserve capacity, he would be required to provide all funds necessary,
the citys1 already unsurmountable share increases once again.

A policy of limiting the design period for sewers to twenty years
with regard to funding seems to be totally inconsistent with the
Environmental Protection Agency's loudly proclaimed "Cost Effective"
appraoch to pollution control.

RESTRICTING THE TYPES OF PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR GRANT ASSISTANCE

Is it obvious that the financial burden on the Federal  Government
is beyond reason under the existing legislation.   The logical approach
is to eliminate from grant eligibility some of the types of projects
presently authorized.  Again, logically, it would seem that secondary
treatment, tertiary treatment,  trunk sewer construction and rehabili-
tation will accomplish more in  the direction of the stated purpose of
Public Law 92-500 than will construction of collection systems and
storm water control facilities.  Again, the recognized financial
                                 38

-------
burden will be transferred to the cities.  Again, the small cities
do not have the financial prowess to absorb this burden.  The result
then is obviously, no sewage systems for small towns."  If the Environ-
mental Pr-otection Agency and the Congress of the United States is
prepared to accept this fact then by all means collection systems
and storm water control systems should be removed from the list of
authorized projects.  Because of the cost factors, however, a
review of the definition of "interceptor sewers" is suggested.
Trunk sewers or interceptor sewers serving several collector sewers
and generally constructed along natural drainage ways should be
defined as "interceptors" and such should be eligible for construc-
tion-.'grants.  This alternative would transfer to the grantees the
considerable cost of constructing collection lines and yet allow
financial assistance for those lines considered by many-cities to
be public sewers and constructed with general funds.  Due to inter-
mittent effect on the quality of natural surface waters perhaps
storm water control measures may be deferred at this time.

EXTENDING 1977 DATE FOR THE PUBLICLY OWNED PRETREATMENT WORKS TO
MEET HATER QUALITY STANDARDS
      ?      *
The facts seem quite clear in this proposal.  The'1977 deadline is
obviously not within reach of a sizeable portion of the cities of
our nation, regardless of funds available.  This coupled with the
limitation of available funds virtually "neutralizes the existing
deadline structure.

Of the five alternatives proposed by Paper No. 4, the last or fifth
proposal would seem to be most satisfactory and logical.   This proposal
involves seeking a statutory extension of the 1977 deadline to 1983
and would require compliance regardless of Federal funding.   This
proposal would be clear in that cities could not wait for funds but
must seize the initiative themselves.  The success of this proposal
would depend almost entirely on the attitude of the Environmental
Protection Agency and the State regulatory agencies toward enforcement.
Penalties for lack of compliance must be set forth and preferably
be made a part of the statutes.

Along with this provision, the concept of "zero discharge" should
be reviewed and hopefully abandoned.  The cost of "zero discharge"
when related to the benefits received would appear to eliminate the
concept from further consideration by any responsible observer.

DELEGATING A GREATER PORTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF THE CONSTRUCTION
GRANTS PROGRAM TO THE STATES


                                   39

-------
It is obvious that elimination of one or more agencies currently
reviewing applications, plans and specifications,  contracts,  cost
effectiveness, cost recovery plans and etc.,  would in fact speed up
the total process.  In the case of Missouri  duplication of efforts
is rampant and the efforts are often inconsistent.  Assuming  the State
regulatory agency is adequately staffed and  capable, there is not
question as to their being more able to identify local problems and
more able to review proposed solutions.  The  State's grasp of the
financial capability of the grantee would also lend itself to solving
the problems given priority.  The only deterring factor in making H.R.
2175 more successful than the present method  would be an unwilling-
ness on the part of the Environmental  Protection Agency to relinquish
a part of its power and authority.  Along with the return of  authority
to the states must come control of the funds.  It would appear to
be obvious that this particular function of  the Federal  government
can be more economically and more effectively administered on the
State level.  This concept includes, however, the .basic assumption
that the State agencies are well  staffed with competent people
receptive to all the needs of the State and aware  of their responsi-
bility.  Over views and audits of specific projects and certifica-
tion of the State agency should properly rest with the Environmental
Protection Agency.  Through certification Federal  control  would still
exist yet duplication and delays would be at  least partially  eliminated.
The present system or procedure seems to infer that only the  Environ-
mental Protection Agency is aware of the environmental  needs and is
supremely aware of the appropriate solution.   With the exception of.
establishment of priorities this attitude seems to prevail  in the
State of Missouri.

                                 Very truly yours,

                                 ALLGEIER, MARTIN  & ASSOCIATES

                                 By E.M.  ALLGEIER

EMA/MCT/J

-------
                           STATEMENT BY        ,       -       •
                         BILLY T. SUMMER
                            President
              AMERICAN CONSULTING ENGINEERS COUNCIL
                            regarding
                 POTENTIAL LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS
                                to
               FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL'ACT
                          June 25, 1975
                         Washington, D.C.
                              t.
      The American Consulting Engineers Council  appreciates the oppor-
tunity to join with other professionals, and with our own state
associations of consulting engineers, in expressing to you our views
which we believe are representative of the approximately 3000 private
practice engineering firms which comprise our membership.  A large
segment of these firms, ranging in size from one to one thousand
employees, are responsible for the planning, design, and construc-
tion inspection for a wide range of public works facilities, including
waste water treatment plants, interceptors and collections systems.
      Many consulting engineers have become intimately acquainted
with the contents of Public Law 92-500 as they have sought to provide
services to municipalities desperately in need of waste treatment
facilities.  They regard this law as an ambitious and commendable
attempt to solve our nation's pollution problems.  They also have
found it to be exrremely complex, 'particularly when viewed in contest
with the hundreds of pages of EPA rules, regulations, guidelines,
manuals, and court orders which it has spawned.2
      Like the municipal officials whom they serve, consulting
engineers have been frustrated by delays in publishing these direc-
tives and by subsequent changes thereto.  Regulations going back to
November, 1971, (which predates PL 92-500) are only now being revised
and updated;  it took three months to publish, and another six months
to begin implementing, the Title II construction grant regulations;
guidance explaining the extent to which facility planning is to be
carried out on Step 1 projects was made available just last month,
at a time when nearly 2000 such projects were already in progress;
and only a couple weeks ago EPA issued a program guidance memo ad-
vising its Regional Offices of what was desired in the way of evaluating
"secondary environmental impacts" on funded projects (a subject which
may not, apparently, require legislation though it is one of the five
slated for discussion at this hearing).  Despite all this, there have
been strong indications in recent months that projects are finally
beginning to be processed at a pace which is necessary for successful
accomplishment of EPA programs.

-------
      Our purp6se in mentioning the volume of regulations,  legal
decisions, guidelines, etc. which have been promulgated  in  an  unsuc-
cessful effort to simplify and expedite the program,  is  to  point
out that there exists a natural reluctance by consulting engineers
to advocate any changes in PL 92-500 at a time when this important
program is finally beginning to gain some momentum.
      In our opinion, the building of wastewater treatment  facilities
is a goal which cannot wait.  The importance of cleaning our nation's
waterways is clearly spelled out by the 1974 "Needs Survey" which
identified the fact that we face an obligation of approximately $342
billion in planning, designing and building collection and  treatment
systems required for our  citizenry (two-thirds of this  cost is for
treatment and/or control of stormwaters).
      The magnitude of the job before us,  as identified  by  the
"Needs Study", appears to us to dictate that time not be wasted in
getting on with the program.  While this in no way is intended to
suggest that EPA, or the Congress, should not initiate changes in
goals or procedures when same are essential, we strongly urge opposi-
tion to changes made out of feanof problems which are of a minor
or preventative nature, or as a means of avoiding problems which may
never arise.

1.    REDUCTION OF FEDERAL SHARE:

      It is our widespread concern over potential  additional delays
resulting from virtually any change in either the law or the regu-
lations that prompts our opposition to the suggested  reduction of
the 75 percent share of federal funding for construction grants.
This is directly opposite of the position taken by our organization
in testimony presented to the House when this legislation was going
through Congress.  At that time it was (and still  is) our feeling
that maintenance of the PL-660 assistance levels of 50-55 percent would
result in more projects being initiated and a more equitable distri-
bution of funds to state and local governments.   Obviously, Congress
did not agree.
      While we have not changed our basic opinion, we now believe that
any revision in the federal share of treatment facility  assistance would
create more problems that it would solve.   The construction grants
program must be stabilized.  Many projects—perhaps as many as
2500--are already in progress on the 75% assistance basis.  Obviously,
these would continue even if the percentage of federal aid were to be
reduced on subsequent projects, but the complication  of  administering
a program of 55% assistance (with payback) on certain project elements,
75% assistance on almost all project elements, and a  still-to-be-
named percentage on something else, would add unnecessary confusion
and unconscionable delays, protests and costs.

-------
      For the local communities, cities and counties, such a change
would be regarded as a breach of faith.  Virtually all face major
fiscal problems.  Many have banked on the 75  percent assistance
and included it as a part of their long range public works' plan-
ning.   To reduce the grant amount and still require compliance
with the goals of the Act would throw some communities into a
financial abyss.
      Perhaps, part of the problem on "spreading the funds" could be   ,
resolved by modification of the allocation formula based on the
needs study.  A formula based 50 percent on population and 50 percent
on a combination of Categories I, II and IVB of the "Needs Survey",
has been suggested for allocation of future funds.  This particular
approach is supported by several state water pollution control
authorities and has already been suggested in legislation submitted
to Congress.
      One other approach, suggested by EPA's "Committee of Ten,"
might be to make Steps I and II (facility planning and preparation
of designs and specifications) on project grants ineligible.  This
would offer several potential benefits: (1) it would vastly reduce
the pages of EPA regulations, guidelines, and program memos issued
to date relative to those initial steps in the constructions pro-
cess; (2) it would reduce manpower demands on EPA staff by permitting
reassignment of personnel to construction aspects of the program, and
(3) it would reduce the amount of federal share in projects, thereby
accomplishing one of the goals which prompted the suggested revision--
wider disbursement of funds to more projects.
      However, we are not advocating the above approach.   As stated  ••-•!
earlier, we oppose any change in the federal share, the initiation
of which, might tend to slow the program.  We only offer this  as
a preferable alternative for your consideration if our concern over
delays is disregarded.
      We should also like to add that we disagree with the suggestions—
in EPA Paper #l~that reduction of federal share would encourage
greater accountability for cost effective design and project manage-
ment on the part of grantees by virtue of their increased financial
involvement.  This is an insult to dedicated municipal  officials and
their agents for whom the 25% share of a project represents a  far
greater percentage of their budget than it does EPA's.   Such broad
statements impugn the integrity of other members of the construction
grants' team and tend to add to the feeling of alienation which has
been growing between local communities and EPA.

2.    LIMITING FEDERAL FUNDING OF RESERVE CAPACITY TO SERVE PROJECTED
      GROWTH

      Just as EPA has suggested, in Item L, that communities are not


                                   1*3

-------
cost conscious because of their having only a 25 percent commitment
to a project, this proposal appears to contend that engineers and
local public officials tend to unnecessarily overdesign treatment
works.  We reject completely the suggestion that the 75 percent
federal grant rate introduces an incentive for overdesign.  Further,
we view legislation dealing with secondary environmental impacts,
related to future population and industrial and commercial growth,
as having great potential for disrupting design, construction and
bonding of sewage treatment facilities.
      In its paper #2 on this subject, EPA makes reference to two
reports on this issue.  One has been widely challenged and the other
is, as yet, unpublished.  It is difficult in the extreme to respond
to excerpts from an unpublished report and we will  not attempt to
do so.  Nor will we add to the arguments and rebuttal  which have
been presented in response to the CEQ report on "Interceptor Sewers
and Suburban Sprawl".  That document has been strongly criticized
by a number of experts and particularly by the Water Pollution Control
Federation in its letter of January 2, 1975 to EPA  Administrator
Russell Train.  In general, the American Consulting Engineers Council
supports the views of WPCF on this matter.
      If it is EPA's goal to seek cost effectiveness on projects
which it funds, we find it hard to rationalize the  arbitrary es-
tablishment of a specific limitation on reserve capacity.   The cost
of adding additional capacity in ten, twenty or thirty years could
be 4 to 5 times what such facilities might cost today.   The major
expenses in an interceptor project, as an example,  are labor, land,
equipment and administrative costs in breaking ground.   The price
of the pipe is but a fraction of the total project  cost.  While six--
foot diameter pipe may cost only 18 to 20 percent more than four-
foot diameter pipe,, the construction cost involved in laying that  .
pipe may be 400 percent higher if delayed 10 to 15  years.   The land-
costs, design costs (particularly if they involve rerouting of
expensive electric, gas and water lines), and environmental dis-
ruption once an area is built up, are not even estimable on a per-
centage basis.
      There is little to indicate that municipalities  will  be any
stronger financially in 20 years than they are today,  hence the major
cost of added capacity will, in all likelihood, continue to be borne
by the federal government.  Thus the savings reflected in this pro-
posal may cost EPA several times that figure when the  work must be
redone or additional capacity is needed.
      It should not be inferred from the preceding  that consulting
engineers are unconcerned or "looking for a free ticket" relative to
the matter of design life of projects.  Our members are well aware of
treatment plants or communities where the emphasis  has been on
                                   <*<*

-------
attracting people and industry.  A number of our members have strongly
opposed efforts by their municipal clients to plan and build systems
capable of handling two to three times present load when the intent
of such capacity is primarily speculative.  By the same token, engi-
neers have had to push for plants and collection systems two or
three times existing size when population and industrial growth
figures have mandated predictable need for such facilities.
      It was the impression of our members that the 201 facility plans
and 208 areawide plans were intended, among other things, to take a
very careful look at possibly secondary environmental impacts and
monetary inefficiencies.  These both encompass elements of what is,
or is not, appropriate plant size and projected future load.  If
these studies don't develop such data, certainly Mr. Train's recent
Program Guidance Memo #50 will assure that proper attention is given
to this element.
      It is interesting to note that even EPA's comments on this
subject in the May 28 Federal Register, acknowledged that one result
of California's implementing its so-called'"10/20" program was "an
increase in the administrative task of determining the eligible
portion of the total project cost."  Our Council respectfully
suggests that the administrative task faced by EPA, if legislative
mandates are enacted on this subject, will be enormous.  Establish-
ment of an arbitrary "useful life" (a term used in the CEQ report)
raises problems of definition.  Certai-nly EPA does not envision
."planned obsolescence," but what kind of a "life span" would be as
applicable to Fairbanks, Alaska, as it is to Mobile, Alabama?  And
when does the "clock on a 10 or 20-year life span start ticking; at
the time of the grant, or upon completion of construction?  And
even if these and dozens of other questions are answered, will  this
appVoach be successful in effectively limiting growth?  Even the CEQ
report admits that "absence of federally financed interceptors is
unlikely to prevent low-density housing construction."
      In our opinion, this problem, if it is a problem,is interre-
lated with the present goals of PL 92-500 regarding the 1977 water
quality standards and the proposed (in Item #5) delegation of greater
administrative responsibilities to the states.  Our recommendation
is that no legislation be enacted on this subject pending further
public stlidy by a joint committee including representatives of local
public officials, manufacturers, engineer, environmentalists, realtors,
etc.
      For the present, we believe that'a certain amount of flexibility
is required to permit proper sizing of pollution control  systems.
Further, EPA has to delegate some degree of responsibility and place
some faith in consulting engineers and their clients (and state water
pollution control agencies) to determine what is, or is not, a
proper future growth capacity.  This will not prevent a few grantees

-------
and their engineers from submitting an occasional  oversized system,
but the safeguards of state and EPA review will, hopefully catch
most.
      As for alternatives, it may be possible to tighten up the
economic analyses of projects to include the ability of local
governments to provide their 25 percent financing; support operation
and maintenance requirements of an elaborate system; and show
evidence of being able to meet future effluent goals when the  system
is working to projected capacity.  In making this  statement, we are
not suggesting additional regulations; only added  vigilence.

3.    RESTRICTING TYPES OF PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR GRANT ASSISTANCE

      For the same reasons as those set forth in Item I—further     ,
delays in the program resulting from revisions in  the law designed
to reduce the federal share—we see few material benefits to be
gained by EPA through elimination of certain types of grant eligi-
bilities.  As pointed out in EPA's own statement on this item,  a
principal reason for the government expending financial  assistance for
planning, infiltration/in-)flow, collection systems, combined system
overflows, etc. was to "increase the incentive for local  governments
to develop projects economically efficient with respect to all  con-
struction-oriented approaches."  This makes good sense if funds
sufficient to cover all these demandsare available.
      Frankly, reasonable arguments can be made for EPA not funding
planning, preparation of drawings, cost of collection systems  or
combined stormwater overflows, even though all these are essential
parts of a wastewater treatment system.  The problem is funding and
it can only be answered by Congress and the President.  If additional
money is not available then EPA will need to cut something. Our
Council does not regard itself as qualified to make a specific
recommendation on this point.
      We do, however, feel that the types of projects currently
being funded by grants are proper.  If EPA foresees no increase in
appropriations to cover this type of work then EPA will  either  need
to restrict what is or is not eligible, or find other approaches
for cutting costs and thereby allowaing money to continue to cover
all project elements.
      One possibility advanced by some consultants is redefinition of
"secondary treatment" to reflect a more conventional secondary
treatment concept.  This approach would ostensibly permit establish-
ment of reasonable funding goals to meet a more flexible and
realistic secondary treatment definition.  Individual cases may require
higher degrees of treatment and hence higher funding, but these
could be handled through an exceptions procedure.

-------
      Another approach might be to delay (rather than abandon) en-
forcement of requirements dealing with collection systems or treat-
ment and control of stormwaters.  The separation of combined systems
and handling of stormwater runoff represents a massive portion of
the 1974 "Needs Study".  Arguments could be made for temporarily
delaying such projects while treatment of sewage gets primary atten-
tion.  This may not be possible, of course, in all  cases, but even
delaying half the projects could be helpful.
      Finally, while it may be inappropriate for this hearing it
occurs to us that there are other ways in which  EPA might generate
some savings through relaxation of certain requirements.   Some con-
sulting engineers, for example, complain that they are being forced
to design facilities which consume inordinate amounts of chemicals,
energy and/or manpower.  Others advise that they are required to
design mechanical plants where oxidation ponds would do.   Require-
ments for year-round chlorination, phosphorus removal and other
treatment are reported as having created excessive demands on materials
and supplies.  If these statements are correct, some savings may
be realized by relaxing standards to permit lagoons or,  at least,
seasonal adjustment on treatment.
      By the same token we have long held that substantial savings
could be realized on infiltration/inflow projects,  if a  system could
be developed to permit repairs and corrections at the time an I and
I study is being made.  We strongly believe that infiltration/inflow
correction should continue to be grant eligible, subject to cost
effectiveness, but we would like to see a system developed for immediate
repairs.  Perhaps, there are other savings which could be made if
EPA would be willing to modify its regulations and/or procedures.
If implemented, these might very well reduce the federal  burden in
financing construction grants.

4.    EXTEND 1977 DATE FOR COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTORY. STANDARDS

      There seems to be little doubt that Congress, with  its present
funding levels, has set what now appears to be an impossible goal  in
directing that publicly owned treatment works must, by 1977, achieve
effluent limitations based upon secondary, or more  stringent,  levels
of treatment i;n order to meet prescribed water quality standards.
EPA has not helped the problem by repeatedly issuing regulations
and/or guidance memos which have sought to interpret or clarify
this goal.
      The American Consulting Engineers Council believe  it would
be inequitable for the government to arbitrarily extend  the deadline
for compliance from 1977 to 1983.  After all, many  communities have
sought, in good faith, to comply with this date.  By the  same token,
we recognize that delays in getting the program started  have tended
to make achievement of the 1977 goal a virtual impossibility for
other communities whose projects have not yet been  funded.  Accord-

-------
ingly, we favor alternative number 4 from EPA's May 28 Federal
Register statement.
      Alternative 4 provides authority for the Administrator to grant
compliance schedule extensions on an ad hoc basis,  based upon the
availability of grant funds.  This can be done while retaining  some
firm goals and attainable objectives.
      A small part of the problem, under the current system is  that
many communities expect to be exempted and lack incentive to get
their projects under construction and on  line.  We see a relation-
ship with EPA's administration and enforcement of discharge require-
ments under the permit system.  Communities low on  a state priority
list are given exceptions from the law, while others, with new
plants and operations, are directed to comply.   Numerous industries
on the other hand, have been sued, fined or closed  down for lack of
compliance with effluent standards, though similar  violations by
communities, subject to the same Act, have been apparently, over-
looked.  We regard this as an inequity.  We also believe that there
is a lesson to be learned.
      Many industries, realizing the EPA is serious, have moved to
correct discharge quality problems.  This is indicative of the
value of having a fixed deadline for compliance.  Perhaps a similar
stance in pushing for municipal adherence to the discharge require-
ments would stimulate faster action in carrying out local responsi-
bilities attendent to wastewater treatment projects.
      The 1977 deadline is, and has been, such  a stimulus.   If  it
is to be changed, we would suggest that some system be estalished
whereby the new deadlinewould both reflect and  encourage continued
progress.  In other words, instead of establishing  a new goal for
everyone, set July 1, 1977, as a target for those well  along in
their project; July 1, 1978 for those who are close, but probably
can't make 1977; July 1, 1979 for those who need a  little more  time;
and July 1, 1980 for all others.
      Admittedly, this would be difficult to administer,  but it
offers an (achievable goal, particularly if the  Congress authorizes
additional funds at the time it approves the extension.  As it  now
stands, there is serious doubt whether a significant percentage of
communities can meet any deadlines, unless additional  federal assistance
is forthcoming.
      While we are on the subject of deadlines, we  might also add
that we regard the Congressional goal of zero discharge by 1985 as
patently unachievable  and this totally unrealistic statutory re-
quirement should be eliminated.

5.    DELEGATING ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY TO THE STATES

      The American Consulting Engineers Council has long supported

-------
decentralization of federal administrative authority in the conduct
of grants assistance programs.  Accordingly, we are on record as
favoring the maximum delegation, by EPA, of review and approval respon-
sibility to state and local public officials.  We believe such dele-
gation will help expedite processing of construction grants applica-
tions.  Certainly states which qualify for, and accept, this delegated
authority should also be assigned legal responsibility for the proper
conduct of projects under this program.  The EPA Administrator should
not be held liable for performance by states.
      Further, we agree with the philosophy that states should be    .
compensated for their additional responsibility.  The 2 percent,
proposed by Congressmen Cleveland and Wright in their bill, appears
to be an equitable amount.
      In voicing support of HR 2175, we would be remiss if we did not
also express some reservations relative to 100% staterun programs.
Based upon conversations with consultatnts from a large number of
states, it is our impression  that as many as 25 states may presently
be unable either qualitatively or quantitatively to assume responsi-
bility for carrying out all the reviews and certifications required
by the Congress and EPA.  Hopefully, these states can upgrade their
staffs to assume this responsibility.    This should begin as soon
as possible so as to avoid any "blip" in overall program progress
or continuity.
      Furthermore, consulting engineers from several of our member
associations have suggested that the red tape they have encountered
in dealing with EPA offices at th-e regional and Washington levels
is miniscule compared to what they might expect to fact if their
state water pollution control agency should assume direction of this,
program under present administrators.and staffs.
      Nevertheless, it is ACEC's believe that many states are well
qualified to assume this function  and, as such, should be given
the opportunity.  EPA, at both the regional and federal levels, is
badly understaffed and assignment of certain time-consuming reviews
and approvals to even a few states will free some federal  employees
for other equally important tasks.  This presumes, of course, that
state agencies, so designated by EPA, will not have the federal agency
"looking over their shoulder" at everything that's being done; nor
does it presume that the delegated states will be expanding their
technical staffs at the expense of EPA or consulting profession;
employees.
      Basically, our members believe that those handling a program
should be as close to the people and projects being administered
as possible.  It is in this light, and with the firm conviction that
this will not involve time-consuming, new or complex regulations to
slow down or delay the program, that we indicate, our endorsement.
Frankly, w.e envision increased involvement by states as a means of

-------
speeding the construction grant process through elimination of dupli-
cative reviews.

CONCLUSION

      The Water Pollution Control  Act was passed in 1972.   It is not
yet three years old.  The impact of this Act upon the nation and the
construction industry has been formidable.   It is currently one of
the biggest public works programs  being conducted by the federal
government.
      Like officials of the Environmental Protection agency, American
consulting engineers are anxious to "assure design and construction
of the most cost-effective alternatives for meeting applicable water
quality goals while appropriately reflecting environmental, social
and economic considerations".  In  short, we would hope that the products
of our labors are the best designed plants  that existing technology
allows.
      To permit us to do this requires not  so much amendment of
existing Public Law 92-500, as it does stablization of rules and
regulations under which this program is being administered.  We
feel a reduction in the proliferation of EPA-generated rules,  regu-
lations and program guidance memos may well accomplish more in the
way of cost reduction, improved quality, and achievement of 1977
effluent standards than all the legislative amendments discussed
here today.
      Regardless of our biases on  this point, we do appreciate the
opportunity of appearing at this hearing and expressing to  you the
views of the American Consulting Engineers  Council  regarding the
five issues under consideration by EPA.  As always, our profession
stands ready to work with the Environmental Protection Agency on
matters of mutual concern and interest.
      Thank you.
                                  50

-------
            REMARKS OF FRED A. HARPER, VICE PRESIDENT
       ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE AGENCIES (AMSA)

Re:  EPA Municipal Waste Treatment Grants, Public Hearings on Poten-
     tial Legislative Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution
     Control Act, June 19, 1975, San Francisco, Ca.

      The Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA), was
formed about five years ago, for the purpose of bringing together
was.tewater treatment entities serving populations exceeding 250,000.,
to jointly work for the reduction and elimination of water pollution
in the United States and to do everything reasonably necessary to
achieve such purpose, as follows:

      (1) Consideration of administrative and legislative reform in,;,
the determination and disbursement of water pollution control grant
funds.

      (2) The advancement of management of metropolitan sewerage
agencies through the exchange of scientific and technical  information.

      (3) To promote better understanding on the part of the public
the need for the responsibilities of sewer utilities management, and

      (4) The coordination of the activities of other individuals,  ;
groups, and associations which tend to further and implement the
policies and purposes of this association.

      Earlier this year, AMSA conducted meetings for their 53
member agencies, in each of the EPA regions, for the purpose of
discussing and determining possible desired amendments  to  the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act. W were fortunate tpr Region IX to have a
two-day meeting, in which the regional administrator, Paul  DeFalco,
his immediate staff, and state representatives discussed at length
with us the current status of PL 92-500, with reference to construc-
tion grants, state programs, areawide planning, effluent standards,
and other matters of local agency concern.
      Without making direct reference to the subjects listed for
today's hearing, I would like to briefly cite the results  of our
February,meeting, relative to proposed legislative amendments.

      Secondary Treatment - We urge that the Act be amended to
introduce administrative flexibility and to specifically allow for
standards other than "secondary treatment" where the character of
receiving waters does not require a disproportionate expenditure of
public funds.

                                  51

-------
      Compliance Dates - The inadequacy of construction financing,
coupled with delays in the construction grant program, have made
the nationwide compliance dates impossible.  We recommend that the
Act be amended to harmonize the compliance deadlines with the flow
of State and Federal funds.

      Funding - With regard to funding, we recommend that Congress
authorize appropriations through fiscal year 1983 to meet documented
needs for upgrading treatment to meet State and Federal effluent
requirements.

      Ad Valorem Taxes - The Act should be revised to permit local
agencies to use any combination of revenue sources available to
them provided that (1) the goal of proportionality among classes
of recipients will be substantially achieved and that (2) additional
surcharges will assure that each industrial user will pay its pro-
portionate share on the basis of vcblume, strength, and other
factons.

      Industrial Cost Recovery - Revise the Act to delete the
industrial cost-recovery requirement as being too complex to
administer.

      Treatment Plant Sites - That the grant provisions be amended
to provide Federal funding of treatment plant site acquisition.

      Research - That the Congress insist that the EPA Administrator
dramatically increase the demonstration grant funds available for
construction of innovative treatment works using new technology.

      Carryover Paper Work - Either change the law or EPA regula-
lations to restrict additional requirements, reports, studies,
etc., as of the date a project has received concept approval.

      Federal Delegation to States - Amendments to authorize EPA
to delegate major portions of its administrative responsibility under
the construction grants program to states and to reimburse them out
of construction grant allotments.

      Our members represent the final administrative level for the
implementation'of PL 92-500 by constructing and operating the major
municipal treatment facilities through out the country, as in the
past, we will continue to offer our assistance and advice to expedite
all efforts to convert the Act and EPA regulations in regulations
into hardware.
      On behalf of the AMSA's Board of Directors and membership, I
wish to thank you for this opportunity to comment.

                                  52

-------
                           June 30, 1975

United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C.  20460
Attention:  Mr. David Sabock          ,,
                                      fA
                                 Re: Potential legislative amendments
                                     to Federal Water Pollution Control
                                  •   Act.
Dear Sir;
The Bethlehem Township Municipal Authority has been reviewing a copy
of the Federal Register, Volume 40, No. 103, dated Wednesday, May 28,
1975.  In that issue, potential legislative amendments to the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (PL 92-500) are discussed in the form of
five papers.

After discussing these papers with our technical and legal  advisors,
we feel compelled to respond to the wide variation from and utter
disregard for the Law (PL 92-500) as originally intended.  We will
restrict out comments to the first three (3) papers, since  these
are the ones which could have the most significant effect on our
Township.

We shall  deal with Paper No. 1, Reduction of the Federal  Share and
Paper No. 3, Restricting Projects Eligible collectively,  since it is
the combination of these two proposals which would cripple  our project.
In fact,  reduction of the grant share to 55% and the elimination of
collection sewers as an eligible cost item will effectively triple the
total cost to the sewer users, thereby sending the project  out of
the range of feasibility.

The statement that "none of the proposals would retroactively apply
to the $18 billion presently authorized and allotted" may be accept-
able for those projects which have received high state priorities
and are assured of funding with, current monies; however,  we, with a
lower priority, have been told by the State that money is not currently
available, but that a very minimum of delay is expected in  funding
our Step 3 application when adequate additional Federal funds are
allocated to Pennsylvania.  It is our understanding that these "addi-
tional Federal funds" would be subject to the proposed amendments.
The Bethlehem Township Authority cannot see the equity in allowing
projects  submitted at the same time as ours or, in many cases, a year

                                 53

-------
later than ours, to receive a 75% grant while we will  be restricted
to a 55% grant.  We strongly feel that projects prepared and sub-
mitted under a certain set of regulations should all  be treated
equally.  We therefore suggest that if these amendments must be
introduced, their applicability be limited to those projects sub-
mitted to the respective State agency after a certain date (e.g.
date on which amendments are passed).

Paper No. 2, Limiting Federal Funding of Reserve Capacity, is a
complete contradiction to what our State agency has been advocating
over the last several years.  During the implementation of our design,
the regional State office and our bi-county planning commission required
that our interceptor lines be sized to accommodate future flows from
municipalities to our north.  We cannot see the monetary advantage
of designing pipelines for a 20-year useful period when the actual
life, if installed properly, is at least 40-50 years.   It should
also be considered that the time lag between initial  facilities plan-
ning (Step 1 work) and completion of construction could easily be
6-7 years.

This time "lost" during the design period would bring  the effective
useful life down to 13 years for sewers and 3 years for treatment
plants.                      r

We believe that this particular legislative amendment  is a short-
sighted attempt to conserve current funds with complete disregard    '
for the obvious future problems which will result.

                                 Very truly yours,

                                 BETHLEHEM TOWNSHIP MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY

                                 RONALD GORI

RG/j                             Cha1rman

                                 BETHELEHEM TOWNSHIP BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
                                 Constance H.  Schubert, President
ccl:   Senator Scott
      Senator Schweiker
      Congressman Rooney
      Department of Environmental Resources
      Mr. Keiser, Joint Planning Commission

-------
                           July 1, 1975

The Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.  20460

Dear Sir:

Pursuant to the notice in the Federal Register of May 28, 1975, we
hereby submit comments on the five issues contained in the Register.
These written comments are being forwarded inasmuch as it was not
possible to attend the meeting held June 17, 1975 in Kansas City,
Missouri.  Our comments are as follows:

Paper No. 1 - Reduction of the Federal Share

1.  "Would a reduced Federal share inhibit or delay the construc-
tion of these facilities?"

Reducing the Federal share to that authorized under the old Public
Law P.L. 660 would definitely delay and inhibit the construction
of these facilities.  Under the old law funds were available to cities
to build wastewater treatment facilities as an inducement to clean
up streams and were not forced to do so by Federal requirements.
Relatively speaking, plants built under the old law were cheap in
comparison with those being built today.  The becomes quite apparent
when the EPA cost index for sewage treatment plant construction for
1965 is compared with that for 1975.  Of course, some of this cost
increase can be attributed to inflation; however, EPA, through the new
law (P.L. 92-500), has added the requirements of the Facilities
Plan, Infiltration/Inflow Studies, User Service Charge Analysis,
Industrial Cost Recovery System, Operation and Maintenance Manuals,
Staffing Plans, Cost Effective Analysis, Reliability Studies,
Alternate Sources of Power, and similar matters that affect both the
cost of design and the cost of construction of the facility.

Thus, reduction of the funding level to the old percentage would place
a burden of the cost of all the new EPA requirements, plus the
burden of inflation directly upon the cities.  In our judgment, this
woilildslow projects down appreciably from the three to five-year
period that is now required 'under the present Step I, II and II
procedures now in effect.

Also, the amounts of man power, money and efforts to be expended

                                  55

-------
toward enforcement proceedings would dramatically increase as the
State or the EPA would have to prove to the various cities that new
facilities would have to be constructed.

2.  "Would the States have the interest and the capacity to assume,
through State grant or loan programs, a larger portion of the
financial burden of the program?"

The States may have the interest, but we seriously doubt if any of
them have the capacity to assume a larger portion of the financial
burden of the program.   Inflation has hurt everybody, especially
the State Governments.

3.  "Will communities have difficulty in raising additional funds
and capital markets for a larger portion of the program?"

With increased borrowing by Federal and State Governments, small
communities are having a difficult time of selling revenue and
general obligation bonds for all projects.  The reduction of the
Federal share of the treatment plant would cause a large influx of
municipal, general obligation and revenue bonds on the bond market
that is already overloaded with tax exempt bonds.

4.  "Would the reduced Federal share lead to greater accountability
on the part of the grantee for cost effective design, project manage-
ment, and post construction operations and maintenance?"

Under the reduced percentage as funded by the old law, the local
effort towards cost effective design, project management and post
construction operation and maintenance was minimal;  reduction of
the share from the present 75 percent to the 50-55 percent could hot
be expected to improve anything.                               "'   ;:

5.  "What impact would a reduced Federal share have on water quality
and on meeting the goals of Public Law 92-500?"

Reduction of the Federal share would guarantee more delay in meeting
the Federal secondary level of the treatment requirement by 1977
and would guarantee the fact that best practical wastewater technology
would not be met by 1983.  Our estimate is that these target dates
will each have to be moved back probably 10 years.

Paper No. 2 - Limiting Federal Funding of Reserve Capacity to Serve ••<.
              Projected Growth

1.  "This  current practice leads  to overdeisgn of treatment works?"

                                 56

-------
 The current practice of using 20-year design period attempts to
 create a  workable balance between  (1) available bonding capacity,
 (2) expected inflationary pressures,  (3)  population projections as
 provided  by the local  regional  planning agencies,  (.4)  the actual
 service life of mechanical  equipment, (5)  the service  life of concrete
 and steel  structures,  and (6) the  wishes  of the local  population and
 City Councils to be served by the  proposed sewage  treatment plant
 works. We do not feel  that this leads to  overdesign but reflects
 the best  possible compromise among the above listed six considerations.

 2.   "What can be done to eliminate problems  with the current program
 short of  a legislative change?"

 The basis for treatment plant design  is largely based  upon projected
 population growth within an area.   As these  population projections
 are frequently determined by regional  planning agencies, probably
 the best  place to attempt to control  overdesign would  be to control
 the amount of population projec'ted by a regional agency.   There have
 been some indications that where metropolitan areas are divided
 between two different regional  planning agencies,  the  regional  agency
 that can  show the greatest population growth winds up  with the  lion's
 share of  the Federal  funding.  Therefore,  it would appear that  if  the
 Federal Government changed some of its methods of  allotting planning
 and staffing monies to regional agencies,  the competition between
.regional  agencies to show large population growth  might be eliminated,
 thereby removing a possible cause  of  overdesign in a sewage treatment
 plant.

 3.   "What are the merits and demerits of prohibiting eligibility of
 growth related reserve capacity?"

 If the Federal  Government should decide to fund treatment plants only
 for the existing population or for  a 10-year  growth,  that is  all that
 will  be built.   Most communities cannot afford to  100  percent fund
 a large expected population increase.   This  would  effectively destroy
 any attempts at regionalization, whereas several small  communities
 would go  together to build one  large  plant.   Each  community  would be
 tempted to take care of exactly its own needs.   Therefore,  as time
 went on,  you would have more and more plants being overhauled and
 expanded,  thereby increasing the workload  at State and EPA levels while
 increasing the workload at State and  EPA levels while  increasing
 greatly the amount of money tied up in engineering design and paper
 shuffling, thereby tending to cancel  any economic  benefits the  re-
 duced plant size may have achieved.  In short,  this would lead  to
 the proliferation of small  underdesigned plants and create a horrendous
 backlog of plant expansions required  for the future.
                                    57

-------
4. "What are the merits and demerits of limiting eligibility for
growth related reserve capacity to 10 years for a treatment plant  ••
and 20-30 for sewers?"

With regard to this, we would note the difficulties  associated with
it as follows:  First, it does not account for a design-fund-con-
struct period of approximately five years.  Second,  it does not pro-
vide for normal growth as the design period is too short.   Third, it
forfeits any advantages of obtaining economy of scale by building
a larger plant to meet expected growth conditions.  Fourth, it doubles
or triples voter resistance to bond issues for funding.   Fifth, it
provides no reserve for economic development inasmuch  as  there is
no reserve designed into the plant.  Sixth, the service lift of
materials far exceed the design period.   Seventh, the usual
bonding period of 20 years far exceeds the design period.

A 20-year growth period, on the other hand, can eliminate  many of
these difficulties.  First, 
-------
in funding Items that they are seeking to control, i.e., or at least
affect.  This then appears to indicate that Categories 1, 2, 3a, 3b,
4a, 4b, and 5 should, at the very minimum, be included in funding
eligibility.  With regard to Item 6, Treatment or Control of Storm
Waters* there is some possibility of excluding this if the storm
water did not have any direct affect on the treatment facilities,
I.e., a separate storm system discharging to a stream.  If, on the
other hand, there is some interconnection however that affects the
treatment facility, then it would be appropriate to include that in
the correction of sewer system infiltration/inflow.

Paper No. 4 - Extending 1977 Date for the Public Owned Pretreatment
Works to Meet Water Quality Standards

Public Law 92-500 which was enacted in 1972, was not realistic in
its provisions of time to provide for going through Step I, II and
III procedures.  If the public law could have been implemented
immediately, it is questionable as to whether communities could
have gone through the I, II and III procedure in as short a period
of time as five years, even if funding was available to meet the
1977 deadline.  Quite obviously a great number of communities are
not going to meet the '77 deadline and it should be moved forward.
At this time, it appears that 1983 would be a reasonable target date
if conditions and requirements remain as they are now.  If, on the
other hand, new laws or new requirements are instituted, namely
going back to the start of the application-design procedure, then
the 1983 deadline may not be sufficient.
                                     • e'' . ;
1.  "Should Public Law 92-500 be amended to permit prefinancing of
public-owned treatment works subject to Federal  reimbursement?"

The Public law should probably be so amended to cover the rare case
of a town deciding to build a treatment works with their own funds
and later being reimbursed by Federal funding.

2.  "Is it fair to require industry to meet the '77 deadline while
extending it for municipalities?"

It is fair as industries and municipalities are two separate entities.
In addition, if industries are required to meet the '77 deadline,
there are many publicly-owned treatment plants in the United States
that would, upon redu'cticnof the industrial load, meet the secondary
treatment requirements, thereby eliminating the need for immediate
expansion and consequently decreasing the urgency of Federal funding.

3.  "Is it fair to make industrial requirements more stringent

                                   59

-------
pending municipal compliance, as in the case of joint systems?"

It is not a question of being fair.  The nature of industrial  dis-
charges are such that they have a much greater impact on the environ-
ment due to volume and strength than strictly domestic sewage and,
therefore, the requirements for industrial  effluents have to be more
stringent than municipalities.

4.  "Should an outside limit be provided to the administrator granting
extensions for example five years from date of amendment, or should
the possible compliance deadlines be open ended?"
                                                                    i
If the compliance dates as written in the law would take into      ••./•
account the time problems of the submission-review procedure meeting
these compliance dates, then they probably should not have an outside
limit for  granting extensions.

5.  "Will EPA lose credibility supporting an across the board
extension for municipal compliance, especially in cases where it    r?
is necessary.  Or are the current economic priorities such that an
extension is only reasonable?"

a.  EPA will lose no more credibility than they have already lost
with the unrealistic compliance dates in P.L. 92-5QO.

b.  Due to the current economic situation,  holding to ironclad com-
pliance dates indicates that EPA is not in touch with the realities
of the time to apply-design-fund and construct a wastewater treat-
ment-facility.
                                                            t>'
6.  "How big a difference would these alternatives make on local
funding for State financing?"
a.  Prefinancing would probably help.

b.  Changes in the industrial requirement would probably hurt.

c.  Lessening industrial treatment would probably hurt.

d.  The time extension would help by spreading the time period.

7.  'Should EPA consider changing the definition of secondary treat-
ment to allow for classifications according to size, age, equipment,
and process employed?"

Extensions to the 1977 deadline might therefore be unnecessary since


                                   60

-------
the amended secondary treatment requirements could be responsive
to many of the construction problems causing current compliance delays,
        .. 'J  " .:   , ';

a.  Construction problems are not in themselves causing the com-
pliance delays.  The delays in compliance are caused in the extreme
difficulty involved in getting through the Step I-Step II pro-
cedures of P.L. 92-500.  The delays occurring in Step III, the con-
struction phase,  are due strictly to the availability of material
necessary to construct a plant and other problems due to the
economy over which EPA has absolutely no control.

b.  Changing the secondary treatment requirements to allow for
classifications according to size, age, equipment and process em-
ployed will effectively limit the engineer to the design of a plant
utilizing the process that has the easiest effluent requirements
applied to it.  In our experience the problems of meeting an effluent
requirement, as defined by secondary, are minor.  The requirement
of the 30-30 discharge from the engineer's design standpoint is
attainable.  We would question secondary standards for some streams,
such as the Mississippi River at St. Louis, that have so much
natural pollution and sediment that the effects of moving from primary
to secondary cannot be measured in the stream.

8.  "Would a two-year extension for compliance be preferable to the
six-year extension promoted under Alternative 5?  Is this alter-
native unnecessarily lenient?"

A two-year extension would probably only affect a few cities.   Most
will still  need the six-year extension which is more practical.

9.  "Until  such a time when a solution to current compliance delays
is adopted, should EPA issue letters of authorization to those public-
owned treatment works that cannot achieve compliance with the 1977
deadline instead of issue the short-term permits?"

Whichever is the simplest and most efficient to administer.

Paper No. 5 -  Delegating a Greater Portion of the Management of
              the Construction Grant Program to the State

At the present time, at least in Missouri, Step I, II and III  pro-
cedures are administered wholly or in part by one or both agencies.
This is particularly true in Steps I and III.  Such dual  reviews and
management in  Steps I and III adds appreciable workloads for the two
agencies and the consultants, and materially slows the approval


                                  61

-------
process.  It's quite common to obtain  approval  of a  Step  I submittal
from one agency and be delayed waiting for a  Step I  approval  from the
second agency.  Most consultants  feel  that either one or  the  other,
but not both, should manage the program.

We appreciate the opportunity to  comment  on the proposed  changes.
Me would suggest that EPA quit making  major changes  and instead
confine its activities to minor changes within  the present law
rather than trying to change the  present  law.

                                 Yours very truly.

                                 HARLAND  BARTHOLOMEW AND  ASSOCIATES
                                 Stanley  Dolecki, P.E,
                                 Associate  Partner
SD/kw

cc:  Jerome Svore,  Region VII
                              62

-------
                           June 19, 1975

Mr. Jerome Svore, Regional Administrator
Region VII
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Kansas City, Missouri

Dear Sir:

I would like to comment on the five papers presented by the E.P.A.
to the public on June 17, 1975 at Kansas City, Missouri.

The papers were excellent.  I have never before seen as an intelli-
gent and comprehensive discussion of matters relating to the state
and federal water pollution control program.

It is apparent that the funding provisions of the federal regula-
tions are the root of most of the discussions in the five papers.
Changes in legislation relating to funding and priorities will  not
change this basic root problem, but will only change the character
of the problems.  With the federal mandate, and its already committed
funding provisions, I would be very reluctant to make changes.
Communities are only now getting a feeling for the implications of
the present law.  Great changes can only create another time lag in
the aims' of the legislation.  I would favor, because of funding
problems due  to Bunder-assessment of needs, the depressed economy,
and inflation, an across-the-board reduction in funding, which  of course
would set projects back a period of time.  This position would  be
consistent with what should be the national effort to reduce federal
budget defi ci ts.

The federal legislation is here.  Its aims are good, but the time
schedules imposed are not possible to meet, and not necessary to
meet.

The following comments are based upon a philosophical approach  and
thus baised - which have to do with what the federal government should
and should not do.

If moves can be made to get the responsible administration of laws
and funding back to the states, the entire climate would change.
This, in due course, would involve more political  implications  and
probably a slow down in meeting current federal deadlines.  But all
in all, this result is better than the results currently being  sought.

There is no valid reason why states cannot achieve federally-mandated


                               63

-------
water quality standards, as long as federally-mandated standards
are not tied to federal funding.  Federal funding is the dilemma.
I am talking about federal funding on a project basis.  The best
solution, in my opinion, is to have federally-mandated water quality
standards without federal funding.  States and cities have re-
sources to accomplish the job, but such capability may need reinforce-
ment with changes in taxing laws.

What is currently lacking is a clear-cut"priority estalishment by
Congress.  Perhaps this is too much to expect in a Republic such as
ours.  But the difficulty should not deter efforts to perform such
a task.

With all due respect, the E.P.A. has a monster on its hands, as
evidenced by the five papers.  There is no escape unless the philo-
sophical approach is changed.

There is neither morally, technically, or otherwise, any reason why
states rights and pdlitics should be eliminated from the problem of
administration and funding of water pollution control.  Involved
are the environment, the economy, jobs, competition for funds,
and a whole range of ideas and wishes of the American people.

The legislative approach to control of industrial water pollution
is a reflection of the times.  But the current approach is short-
si ghtedand self-defeating.

Different standards for enforcement and funding is not warranted on
any rational basis.

Realistically, I don't expect changes in the law except as they might
relate to the level of funding.  The character of Congress is  such
that the political process, with all its faults, and the economic
system, with all its faults, are not regarded with favor and this
attitude will not be changed until the new Congress matures in judg-
ment and until the federal process and the economic system are again
appreciated.
                                                                      t
I appreciate the opportunity to be able to comment on the five papers.
Again, it was a good job.

                                 Very truly yours,

                                 Lawrence J. Brennan


                                6**

-------
                           June 24, 1975

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
James L. Agee, Assistant Administrator
for Water and Hazardous Materials
WH 556
4th and M Street Southwest
Washington, D.C.  20460

Dear Mr. Agee:

I am enclosing a short comment for your June 25, 1975 hearing on
the proposed amendments to PL 92-500, the Federal  Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1251  et seq.

These comments are directed to you to point out how these proposed
amendments would affect this operating Authority at this time.

Thank you for listening.

                                 Very truly yours,

                                 BUTLER AREA SEWER AUTHORITY

                                 David A. Kirk, Manager
DAK/jd
Enclosure

                           June 24, 1975

               "MUNICIPAL WASTE TREATMENT GRANTS"

     FEDERAL REGISTER VOL. 40, NO. 103-WEDNESDAY MAY 28, 1975

The Butler Area Sewer Authority has formed a "Water Quality Management
Plan" with ten local  Municipal Bodies to provide an enlarged  sewage
treatment plant (now 5 M.G.D.  with secondary treatment to 10  M.G.D.
with advanced wastewater treatment) and an expanded sewerage  system
interconnected to serve all  ten Municipal Bodies.

This was formed after Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources orders and NPDES Permit No. Pa0026697 criteria requiring
advanced wastewater treatment by July 1, 1977.

Engineers were hired, plans  formulated, and submitted to the-State
DER on March 1, 1974.

                                  65

-------
Since that time, this Authority and its  Engineers  have been faith-
fully traveling the paperwork maze of the Regulations  and Require-
ments of Public Law 92-500.

We are now nearly completed  and are included in Fiscal  1976 Grant
Allocations as number seven  on Pennsylvania's Grant list.

This project shows a total of $38,031,100 in costs of  which $34,897,024
are considered Eligible for  Grant Participation or $26,172,768 in
Federal Funding.
                                                                       i
Now addressing the specific  papers as listed in the Federal  Register:

1.    Would a reduced Federal share inhibit or delay the construction
      of needed facilities?   Answer:   Any reduction of Federal  Share
      will inhibit and delay our construction.   In fact, it may
      stop the project completely and place this Authority in
      violation of State and NPDES Standards.

With 75% Grant Participation of Eligible cost,  average single  family
home unit costs:

      Sewer Assessment           - $ 15.20 per month/38 years
      Debt Service               -    2.85 per month/38 years
      Operation and Maintenance  -    4.07 per month/38 years
      Average Total per Month      $ 22.12
      Average Total per Year       $265.44

Should Grant Participation of Eligible costs be reduced to 55%:

      Sewer Assessment           - $ 23.42 per month/38 years
      Debt Service               -    4.76 per month/38 years
      Operation and Maintenance  -    4.07 per month/38 years
      Average Total per Month      $ 32.25
      Average Total per Year       $387.00

The figures show that a 20%  reduction in Federal Grant Participatio'n
will increase the monthly charges by 46%.

In this area, with nearly 10% unemployed, the project  will not be
fundable locally.
                                                                 t
We have been informed by our Investment Bankers that a reduction in
Grant Participation will increase the Bond Percentage  by 0.5%  and
probably make them unsalable.  Some sewer bonds issues are unsold at
this time and being held, due to economic considerations.

                                  66

-------
At the present time, there are no State Grants available  in PennsyN
vania; therefore, all funding must be local.

Paper No. 2 - "Limiting Federal Funding of Reserve Capacity"

This Authority is opposed to a reduction or a limit on Reserve
Capacity.  Our Sewers and Sewage Plants are designed by State Standards
which Pennsylvania has experienced as the proper standard for growth
and economics of design within the period of financial pay out.

Any limiting of this will increase the local share which has reached
its limit.

Paper No. 3 H "Restricting the Types of Projects Eligible for Grant
Assistance"

Public Law 92-500 was enacted to provide the goal of zero discharge.
Any reductions in the types of projects from which Municipal dis-
charges occur will only increase the local burden and extend the
period before zero discharge can be achieved.

As it is written now, there appears to be administrative flexibility
for the Local Regulatory people and, as a result, better cooperation
with Municipal Government.

Paper No. 4 - 'Extending the 1977 Date for the Publicly Owned Pretreat-
ment Works to Meet Mater Quality Standards"

This Authority would advise an extension of the 1977 deadline  to 1983.
There is no way this Authority and many others will  meet that  dead-
line, even with 75% Federal Funding.  Therefore,  we  and many other
Municipal Groups will be in non-compliance and I  don't see any way
you can improve upon it.

Monetary fines will  only prolong the issue, not meet the goal.   It's
very unrealistic.

Paper No. 5 - "Delegate a Greater Portion of the Management of the
Construction Grants  Program to the States"

We are highly in favor of this.  They are in closer  touch with  us
and know our needs and can help us meet the goals of Public Law
92-500.
                                 67

-------
                           June 6, 1975

Mr. Russell E. Train, Administrator
Environmental  Protection Agency
Washington, O.C.
                                 Re:   Water Pollution Control
                                      Act Amendments  of 1972
                                      Proposed Changes
Dear Mr. Train:
We have reviewed the proposed amendments to P.L.  92-500 and offer
the following comments:

I.   Reduction of Federal Share -
     Public Law 92-500 has been the basis for the National  water
     pollution control and Abatement program.  In the passage of
     this legislation, Congress recognized that most municipali-
     ties and special service sewer districts would be hard pressed
     to finance the necessary improvements to comply with the Law
     and therefore authorized 75 percent assistance for certain
     phases of the compliance activities.  There has been a con-
     siderable amount of planning -- both the 201 facilities planning
     program and long range municipal fiscal  programs -- developed
     on the basis of 75 percent EPA assistance in wastewater treatment
     works projects.  A reduction of the Federal  share could signi-
     ficantly delay or possibly cancel  other planned municipal  pro-
     jects which have a higher local priority.  Even in view of
     NPDES compliance requirements, wastewater treatment works pro-
     jects may be delayed.

II.  Limiting Federal Funding of Reserve Capacity -
     Proper planning for future pollution control facilities requires
     that adequate consideration be given to reserve capacity.  The
     amount of reserve capacity should not be based on some arbitrary
     time period but, instead, should be determined by cost effective-
     ness analysis which takes into account useful life, long term
     growth (both population and indsutrial growth), and replacement
     costs.  Limiting of reserve capacity to that sufficient to serve
     some arbitrary time period may only transfer a present problem
     to a future date.

     If there is no Federal funding of reserve capacity, most treat-
     ment works projects could not be constructed in as much as it is
     ridiculous to construct such a project to serve only the present

                                 68

-------
     need (provided that there is a projected increase in needed
     capacity).  If local governments are required to finance 100
     percent of any reserve capacity, substantial underdesign would
     be likely to result.

III. Restricting Types of Projects Eligible^for Grants -
     At a minimum, wastewarter treatment plants and interceptor
     sewer lines should remain eligible for EPA funding.  Also, in
     view of other amendments proposed in P.L. 92-500, such as reduc-
     tion of the Federal share and only limited funding of reserve
     capacity, the correction of infiltration/inflow should remain
     grant eligible.  In many instances, the cost of infiltration/
     inflow correction is very high and may reduce >the capability
     of the grantee to finance other phases of the treatment works
     project.  The construction'of collector sewers to eliminate a
     proven health hazard should be grant eligible.

IV.  Extension of 1977 Deadline for Compliance -             >
     The 1977 deadline for compliance with required treatment levels
     called for in P.L. 92-500 should definitely be extended.   The
     extension should be of sufficient length to allow for Federal
     assistance.  Once again, the financial strain placed on most
     municipal budgets by forced construction of wastewater treat-
     ment works would not be compatible with overall  community needs.

V.   Administration of Construction Grants Program by States -
     Under the present system of administering P.L. 92-500, there
     are significant duplications of effort at the State and
     Federal level -- for example, dual review of 201  facilities plans,
     and dual review of NPDES monitoring reports.  By transferring
     to the States the authority to administer the construction grants
     program, a considerable amount of time, manpower and money could
     be saved.

     We appreciate the opportunity to present our views  of the  proposed
amendments of P.L. 92-500.

                                 Very truly yours.

                                 B.P. BARBER ASSOCIATES, INC.

                                 James M.  Longshore
JML:lm
                                      69

-------
                           June 4, 1975

Mr. Russell E. Train, Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.   20460
                           Re:  Proposed Amendments to P.L. 92-500

Dear Mr. Train:

We have reviewed the proposed amendments to P.L. 92-500 and offer
the following comments:

     I.  Reducing the Federal share of construction grants would
         make it difficult if not impossible for many communi-
         ties, especially those which are small  or those that are
         near their bonding limit, to raise the  additional funds
         to finance the local share.  If the grant eligible per-
         centage of the construction costs were  reduced and atj
         the same time the grant eligible reserve capacity was
         reduced, this would lead to undersized  treatment works and
         to future problems.  In essence, the present "crisis"
         would only be postponed, not solved.
                                                f
                                              ." •-•«
    II.  Limiting of Federal funding of reserve  capacity would en-
         courage underdesign of treatment works  - especially where
         financial capabilities of the grantee were limited.  In
         many cases it is more cost effective to provide capacity
         in interceptor sewers for time periods  in excess of 20
         years when such things as replacing or  paralleling the
         line and incremented costs of additional capacity are con-
         sidered.
                                                              f i  \.j
   III.  It has been EPA policy for some time not to fund collector
         sewers unless a health hazard from the  use of existing
         septic tanks can be documented.  Funding under these con-
         ditions should be maintained.  Inasmuch as the correction
         of infiltration/inflow and sewer system rehabilitation may
         represent  substantial capital investments by the grantee
         in addition to the financial requirements resulting from
         construction of treatment works, it is  felt that these two
         items should remain as grant eligible.

    IV.  The requirement of best practicable treatment by July 1,
         1977, should not be enforced on dischargers which cannot
         reasonably meet the deadline due to financial limitations,
         grant availability, or planning status.

                                 70

-------
June 4, 1975
Page 2
    V.   The present system of grants administration is extremely
         awkward and time consuming in that all paperwork, approvals,
         and correspondence must pass through both State and EPA
         regional offices.  Transfer of final approval authority to
         State agencies would greatly expedite all phases of the
         construction grants program.

   IV.   In the discussion of the five proposed amendments presented
         in the Federal Register, there was no consideration given
         to the interrelated effects of the changes.  For example,
         decreasing the Federal share, restricting the type of pro-
         jects eligible for grant assistance and requiring that
         publicly owned treatment works meet secondary treatment re-
         quirements regardless of the availability of funds, would
         place a tremendous financial burden on many municipalities.
         The proposed changes, in some cases, would prohibit many
         municipalities from complying with the law due to unrealis-
         tic per capita cost.

Me appreciate the opportunity to present our comments concerning the
proposed amendments to P.L. 92-500.

                                 Yours very truly,
                                 A.P. Black
                                 City Administrator
B:pm
                                   71

-------
                      BLACK &  VEATCH  RESPONSE3
                TO POTENTIAL LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS
            TO THE FEDERAL  WATER  POLLUTION CONTROL ACT0

                     EPA  Hearing  -  Oune 17,  1975
                  Muehlebach Hotel, Kansas City, Mo.

 Paper No.  1  - Reduction  of the Federal Share
   Q
 1.     A  reduced Federal  share would  further delay the construction of
 needed facilities that have already  been delayed by the administra-
 tive inflexibility of the  act and  the procedures adopted by  the  EPA.
                i                     "i

 2.     While it may be possible for some states to assume a larger por-
•tion of  the financing of the  program, any change in the financing
 structure  should rely more heavily on local financing rather than
 either Federal  or State  grants or  loans.  Any shift to increased
 State or local  financing will have to be accompanied by extended time
 schedules  to gain public acceptance  of the  change.

 3.     We have not researched  the availability of capital funds, but
 we would not anticipate  any difficulty in raising funds by munici-
 palities provided there  was a sound  source  of funds to retire the
 bonds, such as increased ad valoren  taxes or sewer service charges.
 The volatility of interest rates during the past few years has
 placed a cloud over financing methods which have been traditionally
 available   to local  authorities; but barring a return to very high
 interest rates, local financing  of a greater portion may be  possible.
 The availability of additional capital to states, on the other hand,
 is highly  variable and will depend upon other demands for State
 funds as well as sources of tax  revenues.   We are not optimistic
 about increased municipal  or  State financing.

 4.     A  reduced Federal  share might  lead to better cost control and
 management in the water  pollution  control program.  Local leaders
 are in a better position to evaluate local  priorities than are Fed-
 eral  officials in Washington.  Our basis for this is as follows:
 a   Presented  by Paul  D.  Haney,  Partner, Black & Veatch, Consulting
    Engineers,  P.O.  Box 8405,  Kansas City, Mo.   64114.
 b   Federal  Register,  Vol.  40, No.  103,  (May 28, 1975), page 23107.
 c   Numbers  refer to "issues to  be  discussed" as set forth in the var-
 ious  papers.
                                   12.

-------
Throughout the development of the program, local governments have
accepted standards and criteria that are more stringent than neces-
sary in anticipation of a high degree of Federal funding.  It might
be possible to couple a reduced Federal share with a change in re-
quirements so that a local government unit could be induced to assume
a larger portion of the capital cost by the prospect of reduced
operating costs for a less sophisticated facility.  However, a reduc-
tion in the Federal share will be interpreted by most local governments
as a failure to fulfill a promise.

5.    A reduced Federal share would delay even further the time  sche-
dule for meeting the goals of PL 92-500, but it appears to be im-
possible to meet that schedule anyway.

6.    Eliminating legal, administrative, and engineering expenses from
the portion eligible for Federal participation would accelerate the
program.  These are activities which are difficult to define and
have been subject to the threat of an inordinate amount of red tape
by the EPA.

Paper No. 2 - Limiting Federal Funding of Reserve Capacity to Serve
              Projected Growth

1.    Rather than providing an incentive for overdesign, the current
practices exert almost unreasonable pressure toward underdesign.  A
waste treatment system is quite complex, is developed over a long
period of time and must have considerable versatility.  Complicated
chemical and biochemical processes are involved.  Yet, only minimal
control can be exercised over the raw material delivered to the plant
for processing.   Raw sewage quantity and quality varies hourly.  A
reasonable allowance for future growth is essential.  A high per-
centage of the spills that occur are a result of underdesign in some
portion of the system.

2.    The "problems" with the current program appear to be more finan-
cial and administrative than technical.  Consequently, changes in
technical requirements will not eliminate the "problems".   There
are many changes that could be made to expedite the program.   For
example, elimination of the requirement for a detailed infiltration/
inflow analysis would expedite the program.  This item has been
administered ineptly and has become an unnecessary barrier to achiev-
ing the objectives of PL 92-500.

3.    If all funding for reserve capacity were eliminated, there would
be a strong temptation to build only for today with the hope that
Federal funding relief would be available in the future for expensive

                                   73

-------
parallel  or additional  facilities.   The current 20-year cost-
effectiveness analysis  period is generally reasonable and it might
be reasonable to use that same period as the maximum design period
for which Federal funding would be  available.  However, there should
be enough flexibility to permit the application of sound engineering
judgment.  With inflation continuing at high rates, future construc-
tion promises to be ever more costly.  The EPA cost-effectiveness guide-
lines already introduce a bias toward future expenditure.  Additional
pressure toward delaying construction is not what the program needs.

4.    Any reduction in  design periods will be counterproductive.   Cur-
rently, there is at least a 5-year lag from initiation of engineering
work to operation.  Facilities designed for less than 20 years of
growth are hardly operational before they become too small.   The  cur-
rent cost-effectiveness guidelines  of EPA provide a reasonable basis
for design.  Shortening the design  period would certainly sink a  pro-
gram that is already mired in legislative and bureaucratic "sludge",
commonly termed "red tape".
                         •

5.    An alternative would be to permit local communities to prefinance
facilities and recover  the Federal  share as Federal funds become
available.

Paper No. 3 - Restricting the Types of Projects Eligible for Grant
Assistance

1.    The eligibility structure has a significant effect on  the priori-
ties assigned by local  officials.  Those elements eligible for Fed-
eral participation frequently receive higher priority for expenditure
of local  funds.  The present priority system appears to adequately
distribute the available funds to the most important projects with-
out arbitrary restrictions.

2.    In the past, enforcement actions have not been particularly ef-
fective or popular as a method of obtaining compliance.  The available
sanctions that can be applied to publicly owned systems are  distinctly
limited.   The "carrot"  certainly works better than the "stick" in
solving water pollution problems.  Publicity may be even more effec-
tive in dealing with local officials than sanctions.

3.    Local financing capability is seldom a problem if there is  ade-
quate time allowed for  a complete public information program.  There
may be special circumstances in some severely impacted communities
making local funding impossible.  Consequently, it is important to
retain within the program the ability to allocate at least a portion
of the available Federal funds to communities having severe financial
problems.

-------
Paper NO. 4 - Extending 1977 Date for the Publicly Owned Pretreatment
              Works to Meet Water Quality Standards

1.    Prefinancing with reimbursement from Federal funds should be
permitted.  An incentive for prefinancing should be provided such as
adjusting the amount of reimbursement by the change in the EPA construc-
tion cost index plus the average interest rate on Federal government
bonds.

2.    It is basically unfair to require industry to meet the 1977 dead-
line while extending it for municipalities.

3.    Since municipal compliance has been dependent upon the availability
of Federal funding, perhaps, in spite of the obvious inequity, a case
can be made for less stringent requirements than for industry.  To avoid
grossly unfair treatment, considerable discretion must be allowed in
determining requirements for joint municipal-industry systems.

4.    Unless Federal funding can be assured, there is little reason to
establish an outside limit for extensions.

5.    The 1977 deadline is unrealistic.  Credibility loss or not, it
will have to be extended.

6.    Anything that extends the mandatory compliance dates probably
will cause some delay in local funding.

7.    A revised definition of secondary treatment to take into account
the process employed seems desirable.  It is doubtful whether this alone
would eliminate the need for extension of the 1977 deadline.

8.    A two year extension is not enough if Federal  funding is not in-
creased.  Only with a massive release of impounded and additional
funds would it be possible to meet a 1979 deadline.   If the Federal
share is significantly reduced, an extension to 1983 would be bare
minimum time for compliance with the stated 1977 deadline.

9.    Letters of authorization would appear to be preferable to short
term permits.  Until the permit process can be made more expeditious,
short term permits should not be given any consideration.

10.   We favor Alternative No. 4.  (page 23111)

Paper No. 5 - Delegating a Greater Portion of the Management of the
              Construction Grants Program to the States

                                   75

-------
We favor delegation of all  parts  of the  construction  grants process
to the states.  As demonstrated by the effectiveness  of revenue shar-
ing, State and local officials are quite capable of administering
Federal funds and are more  responsive to local  interests and priori-
ties.
                                     76

-------
                        June 6, 1975

Mr. Joseph R. Franzmathes, P.E.
Director, Office of Water Programs
Environmental Protection Agency
1421 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia   30309

Dear Joe:

Although the delay in response to your question regarding inter-
ceptor sewers and their design has been delayed by the inability
to receive comments from some of the engineers in Region IV, this
delay may be a blessing in view of the Public Hearing on potential
Legislative Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, specifically in the case of Paper No. 2 relating to limiting
federal funding of reserve capacities to serve projected growth.

Although several consultants agree with a standardized design
criteria to be promulgated by your office, there is fear that
these will result in mandatory guidelines, and that no deviation
would be made in cases where there would be an outright justifi-
cation.

If guidelines can be developed as a general procedure with the
precise stipulation that the final results will relate to cost-
effective and alternate analyses of such facilities, it would be
my opinion that the profession in your Region IV might be satis-
fied.

You may also use this letter as a response of our Group to
Amendment No. 2 which relates to this matter of reserve capacity.
It would be my opinion that the engineers are opposed to this
amendment in that existing procedures relating to cost-effective
and alternate analyses is a more efficient means of administer-
ing the program.

                                    Yours very truly,

                                    BLACK, CROW & EIDSNESS, INC.
                                    F.A.  Eidsness

FAE:ae

cc:  Region IV Consulting Engineers Committee
     and Alternates              '  »

-------
                              June 17, 1975
Mr. Joseph R. Franzmathes
Director, Office of Water Programs
Region IV
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1421 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia   30309
                              Subject:   PL 92-500
                                        Proposed Amendments
Dear Mr. Franzmathes:
I was unable to attend your public hearing on June 9, 1975 in
Atlanta regarding proposed amendments to PL 92-500 (FWPCA) on
rules for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency so I'm submit-
ting these written comments:

1.  Reduction in the Federal Share of the Grants

The present law provides for grants of 75% of the cost of an eli-
gible project for water pollution control.  The proposed change
to reduce these grants to 55% of the eligible cost does not
seem desirable at this time of high cost and greater need to the
cities.  '

Most cities are having a very difficult time to meet their present
cost of operation and since the U.S. Government has set the
standards to be met, it should assist the cities as much as possi-
ble with the cost of the facilities to provide the necessary
water quality.  The 75% grant should be retained rather than
going backwards to a previously established level of a 55% grant.

We have recently completed a project for a small town that re-
ceived a 55% grant on the treatment plant and intercepting
sewer.  They also had to construct the whole collection system
for the entire town for which they received no grant.  So, they
are now in a difficult financial condition, with the cost of
operating the system and with the repayment of such a large loan.

A 75% grant on their project would have placed them in much better
condition to provide the necessary operating funds as well as


                                70

-------
Mr. Joseph R. Franzmathes
June 17, 1975
Page 2
having to make smaller payments since less money would have been
borrowed.

At the present time adequate funds are available for the 75%
grants on the projects that are being approved.

With this backlog of funds available, EPA should be able to provide
75% grants without delaying approved projects because of a lack
of money available.

2.  Limit Federal Aid to Serve Only the Needs of the Existing Popu-
lation

The possible provision that EPA aid be limited to the needs of the
existing population appears to be a very short-sighted plan.

Intercepting sewers should be designed for the expected growth
during the next 50 years and any shorter period of 10 to 20
years is very unrealistic.

We were involved in the design and construction of the Chattanooga
Intercepting Sewer System in 1950 and used projected flows
thru year 2000.  Now 25 years later it is still handling the
wastewater very well and has capacity for additional growth.

There may be times and places where the projected growth and de-
velopment might turn out differently than was determined when the
intercepting sewer was designed and built.

However, the difficulties of installing a parallel sewer at a
later date with all the increased costs, the difficulty of getting
additional easements and the inconvenience and expenses to all
the property owners that had developed the property adjacent to
the intercepting sewer is so great by comparison with the small
increase in pipe size required to provide for a 50 year growth
instead of 20 years.  In most cases we would be considering only
the cost of the pipe as a 42-inch pipe or a 48-inch pipe as an
example.  The cost of digging the trench and laying the pipe
would remain very nearly the same.


                              79

-------
Mr. Joseph R. Franzmathes
June 17, 1975
Page 3
3.  Restricting the Types of Projects Eligible for EPA Grants

Under this provision the availability of money does this very well
as long as the treatment plants, intercepting sewers, pumping
station get all the priority.

If collection systems are eligible, but given no priority, then
no funds are spent on collection system grants.

Therefore, there is no need to limit the type of project eligible
as long as priorities remain as they have in the past.
                         f
4.  Extend the 1977 Deadline for Meeting Water Quality Standards

It appears that it will be a physical and financial impossibility
to meet the deadline so it should be extended to provide a reason-
able time for compliance.

5.  Delegation of More Grant Operations to the State

The overall operation of the past 30 years has been very good and
it does not seem desirable to have the States provide any addition-
al grant operations.

6.  Procurement of Personal and Professional Services

We believe that the plan of services over the past 30 years has been
very effective.

Yet EPA considered the possible use of the turnkey approach to pro-
jects.  They upset the whole system of relationship with clients,
engineers, and contractors under that plan.

Now some new plan is being proposed and it appears that EPA is
trying everyway to make life difficult for consulting engineers.
                                                   •       •*
EPA should view its mission in the country as a cooperative effort
and not try to put everyone out of business.

We don't want the country to revert to a wilderness.

-------
Mr. Franzmathes
June 17, 1975
Page 4
Many industries have had to close down and many others have had such
a high cost for pollution control that it has increased the cost
of their products to the point where they are having difficulty com-
peting with foreign imports.

The advertising for proposals is about the same as competitive bid-
ding which we as professionals have objected to in providing the
best service for our clients.

The U.S. Congress passed the Brooks Bill providing for negotiated con-
tracts on U.S. Government work and yet EPA and some other agencies
keep trying to get competitive bidding on their projects.

The type of contract that has used a fee as a percent of construc-
tion cost has been very satisfactory.

Now the proposed rules will not permit this type and yet it is the
best method that is understood by all parties to the contract.

The overall handling of projects continues to delay the real accomplish-
ment of pollution control.  Step 1, Step 2 and Step 3 division of
projects have delayed almost all construction for the past two years.

Now these latest proposed rules on obtaining engineering services
will delay the projects further.

The public notice, evaluation, ranking, selecting and negotiation
and then approval by EPA before any work can be started may delay pro-
jects as much as a year.

We suggest that this section 35.937 "Contracts for personal and pro-
fessional services" be rewritten in accordance with present practice
that has been in use  on water pollution control projects for the
past 30 years.

We believe that water quality should be controlled and we do believe
that the environment should be protected but we also believe that
the economics of any project should be reviewed as the prime criterion.

As an example on strip mining, there is no point in reclaiming'land
by spending $1500 per acre to end up with $50 per acre grazing land.

-------
Mr. Joseph R. Franzmathes
June 17, 1975
Page 5
The same is true with water pollution.   If the rains and the floods
are washing all sorts of waste and debris into the streams, what is
gained by spending large sums on tertiary treatment on the waste-
water from human and industrial uses.

We have enjoyed working with the excellent personnel of your office
and we believe in the excellent purpose of the agency but we hope
that some reasonable regulations can be established and retained so
there won't be this constant revision in the method of performing
work under EPA grant program.

                                       Very truly yours,

                                       BOUQUARD ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
                                       Joseph P. Bouquard
JPB:LF
cc:  Senator Howard Baker
cc:  Senator William Brock
cc:  Representative Marilyn Lloyd
cc:  ACEC
cc:  NSPE
cc:  CET

-------
                            Testimony
                                of
                        Clem L. Rastatter
                        Senior Associate

                   THE CONSERVATION FOUNDATION
                          June 25, 1975

                  Municipal Waste Treatment Grants
      I am Clem L. Rastatter, Senior Associate of The Conservation
Foundation, a non-profit, operating foundation which has devoted a
considerable portion of Its program activities and resources to
research and public education in federal water quality issues.   I
am pleased to appear today to present the testimony of The Conserva-
tion Foundation.

      There is no area of the 1972 FWPCA Amendments that has been sub-
jected to more controversy than those elements of PL 92-500 that con-
stitute what I will call the Municipal Waste Treatment Facilities
Program.  And from an environmentalist perspective, there is no
other area of the Act where the political and financial issues of
implementing new environmental requirements seem less resolvable.
      And with that rather discouraging remark, I would like to point
out what I feel has become the central question in the debates that
center around the kind of requirements that municipalities must meet,
by what date, and with what kind of financing.  That question is es-
sentially — is the Municipal Program established by PL 92-500 meant.
to be primarily a public works program, or is that program meant to
be primarily a regulatory program.  The answer to that question must
be that Congress established a regulatory program and provided fed-
eral financial assistance for the construction of publicly owned
treatment works.  Governmental point source dischargers as well as in-
dustrial point source dischargers were required to meet specific ef-
fluent standards by 1977 and 1983, and substantial penalities were
authorized to be imposed for noncompliers.
      The regulatory requirements of the 1972 FWPCA Amendments are
to be found in Title III of the Act.  These regulatory provisions
require all point source dischargers, municipal and industrial, to
meet enforceable effluent standards.  The regulatory requirements are
the so-called stick of the federal "carrot and stick" incentive pro-
gram.  The terms of federal financial assistance are found in Title
II of the Act.  And these terms — the specifications of what a
municipality must do in order to obtain federal financial assistance •

                                  83

-------
are only for communities receiving federal funds.   In fact, it appears
that many of the "requirements" of Title II -- such as user charges,
recycling, reclaiming, facilities consideration of cost effective al-
ternatives, and infiltration/inflow analyses are only enforceable where
federal funds are available.  A municipal facility without federal
funding could presumably get a permit based on whether it met applicable
effluent standards, with the only broader requirements coming into play
with the requirement for permit consistency with Section 208 planning.
      In addition, a careful reading of the enforcement section of the
Act (Section 309) shows that Congress recognized that enforcement on
small communities might have inherent political and fiscal problems.
So Congress provided that "whenever a municipality is a party to a
civil action brought by the United States under this section, the State
in which such municipality is located shall be joined as a party.  Such
a State shall be liable for payment of any judgment, of any expenses
incurred as a result of complying with any judgment, entered against
the municipality in such action to the extent that the laws of such
State prevent the municipality from raising revenues needed to comply
with such judgment."  (Section 309(e))  Not only were municipalities
without adequate taxing authority protected from court judgments,
but states were put on notice that they might not only be held respon-
sible for enforcement of nori-compliers, but they might also be held
responsible for seeing that municipalities had adequate funding be-
yond the available federal responsibility.

ISSUE PAPER #4 - Extending 1977 Date for the Publicly Owned Treatment
Works to Meet Water Quality Standards
                                                              • * •(
      Before addressing the questions raised in the first EPA papers
which concern making federal funds go farther by limiting eligible
items, it is first necessary to address the issues covered in the paper
concerning the extension of the 1977 deadline for municipal compliance
with secondary treatment effluent standards.  For in order to under-
stand the impact of changes in eligibility on meeting the goals of
the Act, we must first understand why an estimated 50% of the municipal
dischargers will not meet 1977 requirements.
      There are several reasons in addition to those listed in Paper
#4 that explain why 9,000 municipalities will not be able to comply
with 1977 requirements.

      —the impoundment of half of the $18 billion construction grant
      funds authorized to be obligated;
      --delays in construction grant obligations caused by the slowness
      in development of EPA regulations as well as lack of under-
      standing on the part of municipalities, states and consulting
      engineers as to what must be done to comply with new federal re-
      quirements;                    pi

-------
      --delays in construction grant obligations caused by inadequate
      numbers of EPA personnel, and/or inflexibility and confusion of
      EPA personnel in response to problems;
      —inadequate instruction from Congress on how to deal with those
      grant applications already in the pipeline which would suddenly
      have to meet new'grant requirements; and
      --delays in construction grant obligations caused by recalcitrant
      municipalities and construction engineers in dealing with new
      federal requirements with which they don't agree (i.e., environ-
      mental impact statements).

      All of the above listed problems indicate that central  to the
problems of meeting 1977 deadlines for municipalities has been fre-
quent delays In making available or obligating available federal  funds.
And a primary cause of these delays has been what might have been fore-
seen problems in getting large federal and state bureaucracies to
change course and adjust to new requirements.
      One further problem, however, which was probably more responsi-
ble than any other for municipalities' failures to meet 1977 dead-
lines was the decision by EPA in 1973 to tie the regulatory and funding
requirements of the Act together.  While the other problem areas
listed above have gradually sorted themselves out with time -- causing
temporary delays in the program and in meeting statutory deadlines —
the ramifications of the decision to tie regulatory and funding re-
quirements together are likely to continue to haunt us for some time.
This decision, enunciated in a policy statement entitled "Municipal
Permits and Planning:  Compliance with the 1977-78 Deadlines,"
stated that when a municipality failed to receive federal funding
sufficient to begin construction in time to meet the 1977 secondary
treatment deadline, this municipality would be issued a National
Pollutant Discharge Eliniation System permit that would be based  on
optimum operation and maintenance, and would not require a new signifi-
cant construction.  EPA rewrote the law -- instead of saying that all
municipalities had to achieve secondary treatment by 1977, EPA was now
saying that only those municipalities that received federal funds
would have to so comply.
      There has been significant debate over the various dollar figures
that have arisen in three separate needs surveys.  Whatever the cur-
rent need is (and it seems to be pretty clear that the bulk of the
$346 billion need identified in the past survey includes the whole
spectrum of eligible construction activities, not just the secondary
treatment goal), it js. clear that Congress has not authorized an
amount sufficient to meet the nationwide secondary treatment goal.
Nor, we submit, is Congress likely to ever  authorize such an amount
if figures that are currently being bandied about are in any order of
magnitude correct.  We would also submit that while significant fed-
eral financial assistance is a desirable objective, an equally

                                   85

-------
desirable objective is that municipalities and states treat the pro-
vision of sewage treatment as a community responsibility in the same
manner that the school system is a community responsibility.
      Where does this leave us now concerning the 1977 date for muni-
cipal compliance with effluent standards?  It is clear that the date
for municipal compliance must be extended.  I know no one who is re-
sponsibly suggesting otherwise.  We have created a situation where at
least half, if not most, municipal dischargers will  not meet statutory
deadlines, making a farce of the law, and of enforcement, if this is
allowed to stand.  It is equally clear to us, however, that an un-
limited  extension dependent upon the availability of federal funding
means we will be spending money to essentially stand still, to play
catch up with some of our worst problems, while areas which do not
yet have problems and have not yet received federal  funds wait until
their problem has become sufficiently bad that they can make the state
priority list for the limited amount of federal financial assistance
available.
      Nineteen eighty-three is eight years away.  This is more than
enough time for communities to plan, design and construct whatever the
necessary facilities are to meet a uniform effluent standard.  We sug-
gest that the deadline for municipal compliance be extended to 1983.
We also suggest that municipalities be put on notice right now that
non-compliance with the 1983 standard will mean enforcement action.
We feel quite firmly that a policy alternative which allows the Admin-
istrator of EPA to give a case-by-case extension with no deadline to
municipalities means that the existing policy of hands-off unless there
are federal funds available will continue.
      The above mentioned extension should only be given to those who
are not now on a permit schedule requiring them to meet a secondary
treatment effluent standard.  Since all of those now on a secondary
treatment compliance schedule have received significant amounts of
federal funds, this should pose no problems.
      All of those communities who now have permits  based on optimum
operation and maintenance, should be required to be on a new permit
with a new compliance schedule by July 1, 1977.  The Environmental Pro-
tection Agency should make it very clear that each phase of that com-
pliance schedule is enforceable, whether or not federal funds are
available, and regardless of the amount of federal funding available.
      In Issue Paper #4, EPA discussed the alternative we have suggested
and gives two reasons why this alternative does not appear to be a
good one.  EPA suggests that an across-the-board extension regardless
of the problems of the given POTW might jeopardize the NPDES program,'
and that industrial facilities might insist on similar extensions, also
jeopardizing the NPDES program.  We feel that both of these arguments
are specious, given that EPA is already treating municipalities dif-
ferently from industrial facilities by not requiring municipalities
                                    86

-------
who do not receive federal funds to meet 1977 deadlines.  And there
is no reason why the extension until 1983 has to be an across-the-
board extension for all POTW's.  There are a number of POTW's who are
on a 1977 compliance schedule because they have received sufficient
federal funds to meet that schedule.  There is no reason for that
schedule to be changed.
      Having stated that we believe municipalities should have to meet
a uniform national standard regardless of the availability or non-
availability of federal funds, we can now address the remaining questions
raised by the EPA Issue Papers.  First, however, we must ask another
question:  What standard should municipalities have to meet in 1983?

Concerning A New 1983 Standard

      This is a difficult question, and one that the Congress wrestled
with for the two and one^half years that they debated the FWPCA Amend-
ments.  Congress determined that enforcement and administrative ef-
ficiency required that municipalities as well as industries meet a
uniform national effluent standard.  We do not feel this concept should
be changed.
      The one area where this concept has been seriously debated during
the last several years, has been in the area of deep water ocean dis-
chargers.  We have seen no convincing evidence that these dischargers
should be excused from meeting secondary treatment deadlines.  It is
our understanding that while dissolved oxygen demand may be a problem
in the deep ocean, secondary treatment remains the most cost/effective
treatment for toxic substances, heavy metals, and pathogens.
      In fact, an EPA Task Force investigating the deep water ocean
discharge issue concluded:

       1)  There are pollutants whose input to both open ocean and near-
      shore waters should be limited because of their toxic and per-
      sistent characteristics and because their effects cannot be
      minimized by dilution.  These include lead, cadmium, mercury and
      persistent organics.

      2)  Pollutants which cause or have, the potential to cause ad-
      verse environmental effects in near-shore waters include moder-
      ately toxic and persistent metals and organic compounds;
      nutrients; oxygen-demanding materials; settleable solids; float-
      ables; and pathogens.

      3)  Pollutants which cause or have the potential to cause adverse
      environmental effects in the open ocean include moderately toxic
      and persistent metals and organic compounds; settleable solids;
      and pathogens.  Not included are nutrients and oxygen demanding


                                  87

-------
      materials.  However, these materials can cause harm adjacent to
      the outfall site if the waste is not rapidly diluted and dis-
      persed.

      4)  Of the treatment technologies considered (primary, chemical
      primary, and secondary), secondary treatment achieves the best
      effluent quality for the pollutants of concern in both near-
      shore and open ocean waters.   Other more effective, but more
      costly technologies were not considered.

      5)  Disinfection must follow primary, chemical  primary and secon-
      dary treatment processes to achieve destruction of pathogens.
      However, the opportunity for disinfection following primary treat-
      ment is precluded because it is ineffective and very costly.

      6)  Based on preliminary investigations, primary treatment is
      the best technology of those considered for open ocean waters if
      the selection is based solely on costs relative to pollutant re-
      movals, sludgeproduction, land requirements, and on-site energy"
      demand and assuming no reduction of pathogens is necessary.  If
      pathogen reduction and more effective removal of other pollutants
      is necessary, secondary treatment is the best technology."

      We would suggest  the  1983 goal should remain Best Practicable
Waste Treatment Technology, and that at a minimum BPWTT be defined as
a secondary treatment effluent standard.

Issue Paper #1 - Reduction of the Federal Share

      Although we feel that municipalities should comply with a uniform
standard regardless of availability of federal funds, it is in every-
one's interest to see that existing federal funds are maximized and
are, in the interest of equity, stretched.  We believe that we now have
the evidence before us that requiring 75% federal funding for every
municipal facility has been a mistake.  Consulting engineers designing
such facilities have had every incentive to design very costly capital
intensive facilities knowing full well that 75% federal  money would be
available to pay for them.  Regardless of the existence of cost-
effectiveness guidelines, in many cases the facilities designed have
been larger, and more complex, than they need be.  And there is evidence
to support our understanding that many municipalities which receive
federal construction funds are designing facilities that they are unable
to afford to operate properly.  There are other reasons for these
phenomena mentioned, but it does seem to us that the combination of 75%
funding for all projects and the policy of no enforcement to meet the
1977 standard if there is no federal funding available, has exacer-
bated this phenomenon of large capital intensive secondary treatment

                                  83

-------
facilities.  For communities know that not only is there a good chance
they will get 75% federal money eventually, but they also know that
if they sit back and wait to see if they are going to get the money,
no one is going to complain.
      We suggest that the money that Congress authorizes each year for
contractual obligation be divided among the states on a per capita
basis.  The state in turn would establish a floating percentage federal
share depending on the amount authorized for obligation that year,
these funds to be distributed within the state on the basis of an EPA
approved priority list.  This all must be done with a clear under-
standing that regardless of the availability of federal financial as-
sistance, every municipal point source discharger must be in compliance
with the federal law by 1983.  With that in mind, the state should be
fiscally responsible along with the municipality for seeing  that 1983
standards are met.
      We also suggest that Congress now authorize the appropriation
levels from the present until 1983.  States should have in place an EPA
approved priority system for distributing these funds by July 1, 1976.
The combination of the state priority system and the long range authori-
zations for meeting the 1983 standard will allow communities to make
their plans realistically with full knowledge of the federal funds
likely (or not likely) to be available.  If this step is not taken,
there is some danger that a number of communities will move forward
very slowly, waiting to see whether and what kinds of federal  funding is
likely to be available.  This will in turn create an enormous enforce-
ment and political problem.
      A certain proportion of each year's authorization should be re-
served to be distributed on the basis of EPA established national priori-
ties.  These funds should be used to increase the federal share of a
grant that is innovatively moving toward the national goal of no dis-
charge of pollutants.
      In order to assist small communities in reaching 1983 goals we
suggest that EPA immediately fund a research project aimed at pro-
viding guidance to small communities on what sewage treatment tech-
nologies might be most cost-effective for their communities.  It is our
feeling that the secondary treatment effluent standard that is current-
ly being met in small communities by large capital intensive secondary
treatment plants could be met in many cases by lagooning systems, land
treatment systems, and septic fields.
      Although we have recognized a floating federal  share to meet
the 1983 goal, we recognize that this change in commitment will cause
problems for those communities with facilities currently under construc-
tion.  Many of these communities will not have the fiscal mechanisms
in place for coming up with the extra money to make up the difference
and still meet permit deadlines.  We suggest that all communities with
facilities currently under construction continue to receive the full
75% federal share.  All communities in the midst of Step II planning

                                  83

-------
and be given an up to two-year extension -- on a case by case basis —
in order to plan for raising extra local funds.  Those communities
currently in receipt of Step I funds should be treated similarly.
      When the suggestion is made to reduce the federal share of con-
struction grant funds, a question of equity is often raised by oppo-
nents.  For this reduction will mean that some facilities will be
funded with 75% federal money, and others will receive a lesser percent
or no federal funds.  We submit that the answer to a mistake, is never
continue that mistake.
                                                     ;
Issue Paper #2 - Limiting Federal Funding of Reserve Capacity     ,'   :
to Serve Projected Growth

      We at The Conservation Foundation support the concept of limiting
the eligibility of a growth related reserve capacity.  We would like
to suggest, however, that once again, unless this limitation on growth
reserve capacity is accompanied by strong enforcement of effluent stan-
dards, it is likely to lead to water quality degradation instead of im-
provement.  The government must be able to exercise a credible threat
to a local community when it says we will not pay for your next 20
years' projected growth, but if you're planning that project growth you
had better be prepared to deal with it.  Otherwise, the situation will
be such that many communities building federally funded sewage treatment
facilities will build for existing capacity and wait until  they have
overflowed that capacity and thereby gotten themselves on the priority
list to get new federal funding.
      One of the questions at stake here is:  Is the purpose of the
large scale existing federal construction grants program to deal  with
an existing problem that has gotten to be of such magnitude that com-
munities cannot realistically be expected to deal with it themselves
and therefore requires a significant federal commitment?  Or is the
purpose of the existing federal construction grants program to fund ,,v
a permanent public works program that, incidentally, improves water H
quality.  We do not think that the Congress ever intended that the
construction of sewage treatment works would proceed at the rate of $5
to $6 billion a year indefinitely.  It appears to us that the purpose
of the construction grant program is to deal with an existing problem
of enormous magnitude, getting communities onto an even keel where
they can cope with the problems themselves.
      As part of a program to reduce the amount of community growth that
EPA will fund through sewage treatment grants, we suggest that EPA
write growth related conditions into all permits for municipal facili-
ties to insure that such facilities are not so designed that they are
overloaded before they are built, and that the community must realis-
tically plan for growth in the design of its sewage treatment facility
instead of waiting until the plant is overloaded.

                                 90

-------
      Since January, 1974, EPA has adopted the position that it has
the authority through Section 402(h) to include special growth re-
lated conditions in municipal permits where growth is or is likely to
be a factor in the facility's performance.  In a guidance memorandum
to Regional Administrators, then Assistant Administrator for Air and
Water Programs, Robert Sansom, suggested "that all municipal facili-
ties selected for growth related conditions ... be alerted to the
authority of the regional administrator (or the state if NPDES appro-
val has been given), under Section 402(h) of Public Law 92-500, to
seek a court order imposing a ban or restriction upon sewer connections
in the event of a violation of permit conditions and requirements."
Mr. Sansom went on to suggest that where facilities had an unused cap-
acity but with overload being imminent (and this was defined as the
facility operating in access of 85% of designed capacity or where a
high growth rate of 3% or more per annum is anticipated) concrete
management and planning action should be required within the permit it-
self.  As all compliance milestones within an NPDES permit are them-
selves enforceable, the memo concluded that in this manner high growth
areas could be forced to plan adequately for their growth.  This same
kind of technique could be used if EPA determines to limit the growth
related reserve capacity of municipal facilities to insure that such
facilities are not under-planned and quickly overloaded due to a lessen-
ing of the federal share.
      Given the approach that federal funds should only be used to pay
for existing problems, we believe that there is some merit in planning
a five-year reserve capacity for treatment facilities and a similar
reserve capacity for sewers.  If the average lead-time for the plan-
ning, design and construction of a sewage treatment facility is around
five years, this should give more than ample time for the community
to make its own growth related decisions.
      As was pointed out in EPA's position paper and has been effective-
ly pointed out in many other sources including the CEQ study on inter-
ceptor sewers and suburban sprawl, restricting the amount of growth
encouraged by sewage treatment funding will force local communities
to confront the real costs of growth, making rational decisions and
planning for these decisions well before these growth problems hit them.
      One of the questions raised in the papers presented is whether
or not a recommended change requires administrative or legislative
action.  The law requires that sewage treatment facilities be planned
with an adequate reserve capacity.  The adequacy of the reserve capa-
city is left to be established by the Administrator of EPA.  It does
appear to us that this particular set of decisions does not require
Congressional action.
                                   91

-------
Issue Paper #3 - Restricting the Types of Projects Eligible for Grant
Assistance

      Paper #3 discussed restricting the types of projects that are
eligible for grant assistance from the federal government.  As the
papers concerning eligibility rightly point out, changes in eligibility
for sewage treatment grants can have the affect of channeling construc-
tion in one direction or another.  This problem would be particularly
exacerbated by a continuation of a policy that says none of the stan-
dards of the Act have to be met unless federal funding is available.
In many, if not most, cases, communities would take no action without
the federal funds, and only those projects eligible for federal funds
would get built.
      We suggest that funding eligibility notrbe^restricted.  The price
of the enforceable regulatory goal that communities must meet -- that
of secondary treatment effluent standards — will  not be affected by
a reduction in the eligibility for federal funds.   Reducing eligibili- ,
ty does not in fact reduce needs, but merely those needs that the fed-
eral government is willing to pay for.                              ,,
      There is no reason why directing the expenditure of federal funds
cannot be handled through administrative action -- prioritizing the
expenditure of funds within each state.  -If EPA has made it clear that
effluent standards-will be enforced, and that states will be considered
equally culpable with communities for meeting these standards, it is
likely that the states will establish the funding  of the enforceable
effluent standards as its first priority.

Issue Paper #5 - Delegating a Greater Portion of the Management of the
Construction Grants Program to the States

      We now come to the final question raised in  the Issue Papers to
which our discussion is directed today.  Should a  greater portion of
the management of the Construction Grants Program  be delegated to
the states?  It should be pointed out that the phasing of that question
is somewhat misleading, as almost all of the proposals currently under
discussion would delegate virtually all of the important decisions in
the grant giving process to the states.
      At the center of the question of delegation to the states, is once
again the question of what is the purpose of the construction grant
program?  Is the program a public works program, or is the purpose of
the program to provide financial assistance to meet certain national
environmental goals?  Since we feel the answer must be the latter, we
oppose the delegation of major elements of the construction grant pro-
gram -- specifically Step I planning - to the states.
      It is interesting to note that most of the focus of whether to
delegate the construction grant program to the states has centered

-------
around delays in obligating construction grant funds.  In fact, a
careful examination of the hearings held by the House of Representa-
tives and of the various reports done by EPA that have resulted in the
recommendation that the construction grant program be delegated to
the states, shows that the central focus of concern with this recommen-
dation is how to get the construction grant money out as fast as possi-
ble with as few "strings" attached as possible.  Unfortunately, much
of the rhetoric by state agencies concerning the fast obligation of
construction grant funds has focused on the "red tape" the federal
government imposes on grant funds, such as user charges, industrial
cost recovery requirements, careful consideration of alternatives, en-
vironmental assessments, and public participation requirements.
      It is interesting to note that the EPA Construction Grants Review
Group pointed out that one of the major problems that affected both
the quality of the construction grant program, and the rate of obliga-
tions of the program, is lack of EPA field staff to handle and evaluate
grant applications.  The report noted that in 1968, the construction
grant program obligated $2 billion with 320 program personnel.  This
same report pointed out the lack of state manpower, administrative and
technical capability to perform greater delegated functions.

      "The two principal factors affecting the expansion of (State)
      delegation are:  (1) the States' capability to perform these
      functions, and (2) the need to financially support the States'
      assumptions of delegations.  On the first point, EPA's Regional
      officials believe that the States, with some exceptions, would
      require time to develop capability to implement additional dele-
      gated functions.  The overall success, both current and pros-
      pective, of delegating the review of plans and specifications
      and operation and maintenance manuals is the result of the fact
      that States have performed these functions for a long time.  As
      a general rule, however, the States have traditionally been
      less involved in most of the other program functions - parti-
      cularly facilities planning, the most manpower-demanding function -
      and, in all but a few cases, do not possess the technical and/
      or administrative experience and manpower to effectively perform
      these other functions.  Accordingly, except for the above projected
      delegation of plans and specifications and operation and mainte-
      nance manuals - and except for a few other opportunities for
      readily delegating other functions - future delegations will
      have to be based on the States' ability to develop the adminis-
      trative machinery, the technical competence and the expanded
      staff necessary to implement new delegations.  At best, this re-
      quires time.  At worst, it is inhibited or even made impossible
      by a number of constraints including (1) State personnel .ceil-
     ings, (2) State inabilities, in some cases, to attract qualified
      personnel because of low pay scales and other reasons, and (3)
      in some cases, lack of Stale, interest or incentive to assume

-------
      new responsibilities.  In short, constraints militate against
      significant immediate expansion of delegations, and necessarily
      impose time delays (1 to 3 years) on any concerted attempt
      by EPA to encourage expanded delegations."

      How the Agency and the Construction Grants Review Group Report
can then conclude that delegation of the Construction Grants Program
to the States is the answer to all problems is beyond us.
      It is an important fact of political life that once EPA has the
authority to delegate the construction grant program, it will be under
an enormous amount of pressure from the-States, and from certain ele-
ments in Congress to do so.  EPA will be under this pressure regard-
less of the capabilities of the state agencies.  And there is no way
politically that EPA will be able to take back the delegated authority.
So in those five or six states which have for many years had an inno-
vative sewage treatment program, the delegation of authority may im-
prove the rate of obligations of federal  funds.  In the other 44-45
states, the delegation may mean the rapid building of large scale tra-
ditional, concrete public works projects, with little consideration
for the secondary environmental impacts that are required by federal
law.
      Lest you begin to question that the rapid obligation of sewage
treatment grant funds is not a goal of an environmental  organization
such as ours, let me set the record straight.  It is indeed a goal
which we place high on our list of priorities.  Equally high on our
list of priorities, however, is the planning of sewage treatment
facilities in such a manner that the secondary environmental  impacts
of such facilities will not outweigh direct environmental benefits.
      The case has not been made convincingly that qualitative problems
with the construction grant program will  be solved by delegating that
program to the states.  Certainly EPA's manpower problems will  be some-
what alleviated by this delegation.  But it appears that such allevia-
tion will be at the cost of meeting federal environmental goals.
      (I would like to note here that the retention of federal  respon-
sibility for environmental impact statements might help alleviate some
of the problems mentioned before, if it were not for three things:

      -- EPA has traditionally written very few full EIS's and in fact
      has the funding in this fiscal year to write EIS's on approximate-
      ly 5% of the construction grant applications;
      -- Normally, the environmental impact assessment conducted in
      the Step I planning process (proposed for state delegation) de-
      termines whether a full EIS is necessary; and
      — The EIS has never been treated by EPA as a decision-making
      instrument, even where it concerned an EPA program such as sew-
      age treatment grants.)

                                  9H

-------
      We suggest that EPA be given the additional manpower it needs to
maintain effective quality control while expeditiously obligating funds,
The manpower increase can be supplemented by continued delegation of
certain discrete program elements in Step II and Step III planning
to state agencies.
      To leave you with some final thoughts on state program delegation
while several states have been quite innovative in their approach to
planning sewage treatment facilities, many states have not.  In fact,
most state agencies have been among those resistent to new and impor-
tant federal requirements that were imposed as a condition of receiv-
ing federal sewage treatment construction grant funds under PL 92-500.
The attitude of many state agencies has been, give us the money and
let us spend it our way.  And our response should properly be:  that
PL 92-500 is a national environmental law, with specified goaU —
and that the funds available to help communities fund sewage treatment
are meant to be an incentive to meeting those goals.  If a state
doesn't want to meet the conditions of construction grant funds, it
shouldn't use federal money.
      We do not mean to say here that we are of an opinion that the
federal government can better manage a state program than a state agen-
cy.  But this is not really a state program, but is a federal program
of funding to provide incentives for States and municipalities to
meet some rather innovative federal goals.
      We do not wish EPA to retain  the program because we feel that
EPA has done such a stupendous qualitative job with the Construction
Grant Program.  We, upon occasion, have been among EPA's most
vociferous critics in regard to this program.  We do feel, however,
that the tension that exists between EPA and the States over this pro-
gram is a creative tension; that the very existence of a federally
run sewage treatment construction program has had some affect on the
manner in which sewage treatment facilities are built; and that the
potential for even greater innovation is there as long as the federal
government is pushing, pulling, and cajoling the states and municipali-
ties to meet new environmental goals.
      Finally, we are keenly aware that in many communities across the
nation, citizen leaders have regarded the federal leverage provided
by strong EPA control over the Grants process as key to their affect-
ing community environmental goals through the construction grants
process.  In Ocean County, New Jersey, in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania,
and in many other communities, citizens concerned about secondary en-
vironmental impacts of sewage treatment facilities have been able to
utilize EPA oversight in changing a specific project.
      In short, for a variety of reasons, we urge you to retain feder-
al control of this important national program.

-------
           STATEMENT ON MUNICIPAL WASTE TREATMENT GRANTS

                         Public Hearing

                 Atlanta, Georgia - June 9, 1975
      The CONSULTING ENGINEERS COUNCIL OF GEORGIA (CEC/Ga.) submits
for consideration the following comments related to this public hearing
on "POTENTIAL LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL ACT".  CEC/Ga. has membership of over one hundred firms prac-
ticing consulting engineering in the State of Georgia.

BACKGROUND

      The passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972 (P.L. 92-500) has brought many changes to municipal waste-
water management programs.  The major aspect is the requirement for
publicly owned treatment works to be the most cost-effective alterna-
tive for meeting applicable water quality goals while recognizing
environmental, social and economic considerations.  National objec-
tives have been established for abatement levels corresponding to
specific schedules for both private and publicly owned waste treat-
ment facilities.  In addition, a comprehensive national permit system
(National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) is in effect to
provide enforcement of the objectives of P.L. 92-500.  Extensive plan-
ning is provided in accordance with provisions of Sections 201, 208
and 303 (e).
      It will soon be three years, since passage of P.L. 92-500,and
during this time, there has been much confusion related to the require-
ments for implementation of P.L. 92-500.  Some of the key requirements
affecting the construction grants process have been the publication
of interim grant regulations in February, 1973; a more stringent de-
finition of secondary treatment in August, 1973; final construction
grant regulations in February, 1974; and proposed procurement regula-
tions in May, 1975.  Furthermore, there have been additional regula-
tions for implementation of other aspects of P.L. 92-500 as well  as
nearly fifty policy guidance memoranda establishing, altering and/or
modifying the construction grants program.
      The needs for a national cleanup effort have been approximated
by a needs survey approach required by Sections 205 and 516 of P.L.
92-500, as amended by P.L. 92-343.  The 1974 Needs Survey identified
needs of approximately 342 billion dollars of which 235 billion were
identified for treatment and/or control of stormwaters.  The 1974
Needs Survey also identified some 28 billion dollars for construction
of secondary or more stringent treatment facilities to protect water

                                    96

-------
qua1ity=  The magnitude of expenditures identified by the 1974 Needs
Survey should not place the national cleanup effort in a state of
panic, but should identify the need for a straightforward, long term
commitment to enhance the quality of the Nation's waters.

METHODICAL PROGRAM

      The water pollution control program for publicly owned treatment
works requires a long term, methodical abatement program.  Reason-
able schedules and compliance goals should be established through the
cooperative efforts of EPA, state authorities and local governments
to obtain cleanup objectives.
      A necessary part of such an objective would be to stabilize the
rules and regulations under which the program is being administered.
An amendment (H.R. 3658) has been proposed to provide that all  rules
proposed by EPA must be reviewed by Congress.  In addition, measures
should be taken to limit the"frequency and impact of policy guidance
memoranda on the construction grants program.
      With adequate funding and cooperative efforts toward a long
term, methodical construction grants program, it is felt that objec-
tives may be established for conventional secondary treatment by 1980,
fishing quality waters by 1985, and that zero discharge may be elimina-
ted in lieu of local water quality determinations.  This requires the
definition of secondary treatment be re-established as conventional
practice prior to EPA's definition in August, 1973.
      The foregoing comments are relevant to the general objectives
desired by the papers prepared for discussion at this public hearing.

PAPER NO. 1 - REDUCTION OF THE FEDERAL SHARE

      A reduction of the federal share is not supported.  The construc-
tion grants program must be stabilized which requires the support of
a long term funding commitment at the seventy-five percent level.
      An effort should be made by Congress to stabilize the rationale
behind allocation of construction grants funds.  It is suggested that
an allocation formula based on fifty percent population and fifty
percent of Category I, II, and IV B of the Needs Survey be utilized for
allocation of future funds, including the nine billion dollars of
impounded funds.  This approach has been supported by state water pol-
lution control authorities and is the substance of S.B. 1216 and H.R.
4161.  With exception of the provision to include the nine billion dol-
lars of impounded funds, this same position was presented by EPA in
their transmittal of the 1974 Needs Survey to Congress.

PAPER NO. 2 - LIMITING FEDERAL FUNDING OF RESERVE CAPACITY    -


                                  3f

-------
      Federal funding should not be limited on reserve capacity to
serve projected growth.  In certain cases, individual determinations
may be necessary to determine the relation of long term flows to land
use stability.
      An additional aspect to be considered on this position are the
needs to strive for a level of secondary treatment by perhaps the
year 1980 provided that Congress would intervene and re-establish the
conventional definition of secondary treatment prior to that promul-
gated by EPA in August, 1973.  Such action should be directed toward
local determination,of acceptability of such treatment systems as waste
stabilization ponds,  trickling filters and certain activated sludge
processes.  For example, in Georgia there are some two hundred public-
ly owned waste stabilization ponds which are expected to be abandoned
as a result of EPA's  definition of secondary treatment.  Naturally,
this will have a major impact upon the funding requirements of the
State.                                                                 -j
      It is further suggested that an economic analysis be required to
define a reasonable funding level for construction grant activities.,
The analysis of the actual authorization rate should include the abili-
ty of local governments to provide twenty-five percent financing;
support operation and maintenance requirements of increasingly elabor-
ate systems; and prepare and provide engineering services for comple- •
tion of facilities plans as well as engineering plans and specifications.
In addition, a sudden increase and continual rising of construction   ?
costs could be avoided by a systematic allocation formula rather than
an allocation based on immediate funding to meet all eligible needs.
It is anticipated an  annual authorization in the neighborhood of four
to six billion dollars would be reasonable.

PAPER NO. 3 - RESTRICTING THE TYPES OF ELIGIBLE PROJECTS

      The types of projects eligible for grant assistance under P.L.
92-500 are reasonable and necessary to provide facilities to meet
water quality objectives.  The results of the 1974 Needs Survey should
not be an indicator of a need to restrict eligibility but as an indi-
cator of the funds required for eligible projects and how they should
receive priority for funds.  By the modification of the EPA definition
of secondary treatment to the conventional secondary treatment concept,
reasonable goals could be established for funding to provide secondary
treatment by 1980 with fishing quality waters as an objective for the
years 1980 to 1985.  Individual determinations may be necessary in re-
gard to funding an even more stringent level of treatment to protect
local water quality.
      The significant needs identified for Category VI show that the
treatment and/or control of stormwater is a massive project and should
certainly be part of long term objectives of P.L. 92-500.

                                    94

-------
PAPER NO. 4 - EXTENDING 1977 DEADLINE

      The 1977 objectives for private and industrial dischargers appear
as an achieveable goal; however, it is suggested that modifications
be made in the date to allow for reasonable compliance of publicly
owned treatment works.  Firm goals and attainable objectives should
remain a part of P.L. 92-500.
      Since almost three years have been devoted to start-up and develop-
ment of programs for implementation of P.L. 92-500, it is suggested
that a three year extension be provided for the objectives and dead-
lines on publicly owned treatment works.  In particular, it is sug-
gested that a 1980 goal for achieving conventional secondary treatment
and a 1985 goal for obtaining fish and quality waters be established.
It is further suggested that across the board application of zero
discharge be eliminated.  Sufficient flexibility should be provided
to allow for individual exceptions which would be governed by avail-
ability of funds and enforceable through permit compliance schedules.

PAPER NUMBER 5 - DELEGATING CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM

      In accordance with the objectives established in Section 101 of
P.L. 92-500, it is felt that a greater delegation of the authority for
management and administration of the construction grants program should
be made to the states as proposed in H.R. 2175.  An essential element
of implementation of such a program would be that duplicate reviews
and project holdups as a result of EPA participation be eliminated or
minimized to the maximum extent possible.  The construction grants
program cannot be subject to duplication and second-guessing efforts if
it is to be effectively administered through a delegation process.

SUMMARY
      The concepts and objectives of P.L. 92-500 are supported and
should represent realistic and attainable goals for improved water
quality throughout the nation.  Strong support must be developed and
maintained for a long term commitment, with federal funding, to provide
the needed support to the construction grant programs for publicly
owned treatment works.
      Other than those amendments presented in this paper, it is recom-
mended that additional amendments to P.L. 92-500 be withheld until
the final report of the National Commission on Water Quality is com-
pleted.

-------
                            July 3,  1975
Mr. David Sabock
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.   20460
                                        Re:   Comments  -  Municipal
                                             Waste  Treatment  Grants
Dear Mr. Sabock:
In response to notices in the Federal  Register concerning your  hold-
ing of public hearings on potential  legislative amendments  to the
Federal Water Pollution Control  Act,  the Consulting  Engineers Council
of Oklahoma requests that that attached comments be  received by you
and considered a part of the record  of the hearings.
                                 Very truly yours,

                                 CONSULTING ENGINEERS  COUNCIL OF
                                 OKLAHOMA
                                 Bob Bruton*  President
                                  100

-------
             CONSULTING ENGINEERS COUNCIL OF OKLAHOMA

                       EXPRESSION OF VIEWS
                  CONCERNING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
                           TO PL 92-500
             THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
      These comments are in response to the notices in the Federal
Register of Friday, May 2, 1975 and Wednesday, May 28, 1975 under
the heading

                 MUNICIPAL WASTE TREATMENT GRANTS

              Public Hearings on Potential Legislative
                  Amendments to the Federal Water1
                       Pollution Control Act.

      Although the CONSULTING ENGINEERS COUNCIL OF OKLAHOMA did not
elect to be represented in person at one of the hearings, these comments
are being sent to Mr. David Sabock at EPA Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
with the understanding that the comments will be considered as part
of the records of the hearing.
      CONSULTING ENGINEERS COUNCIL OF OKLAHOMA is part of the AMERICAN
CONSULTING ENGINEERS COUNCIL, Headquarters in Washington, D.C.  All
of its members are Consulting Engineers in private professional practice
dealing exclusively in performing of engineering services in the tradi-
tional, personal client-advisor method.  Although not all of the mem-
bers of CEC/0 work directly in the water pollution field, those not
directly involved are indirectly affected, and are well qualified pro-
fessionally to make expressions which are of value in the solving
of the water pollution problems.  Therefore, it can be stated that  the
expressions and comments listed herein are the consensus of the views
of the members of the CONSULTING ENGINEERS COUNCIL OF OKLAHOMA.
      Page 184 of the June 19, 1975 Engineering News Record carries an
editorial entitled "Clean Air Act Needs Rethinking".  The following,
which are the last two sentences in the editorial, although they speak
concerning clean air, apply equally word for word to the water quality
problems being discussed in connection with the necessity of revising
PL 92-500.
         "The Act should be reworked.  And next time it should be
         less a 'wish' list and a more soberly thought-out set
         of goals compatible with the economics of life here in the
         real world of jobs and unemployment, profits and losses,
         and limits to the good things we can afford."
                                    101

-------
      Consulting Engineers of Oklahoma support fully the intent of the
law.  These intentions are obviously beneficial  and desirable.   But
the facts and realities of modern life demonstrate that not all things
which are desirable are attainable.   Amendments  must be made to the
Act to bring the matter of pollution control  into proper balance with
all other aspects of modern life, that is, economics, energy, material
resources, human resources.
      In order to know what to do; what specific amendments to  the
Act should be made, one needs to cut through  the maze of regulations,
the high volume of discussion, much of which  has been emotional rather
than objective, and face up to what has gone  wrong under a program
whose basic objectives are so noble.  We see  the following three broad
basics as covering the problem.

      1.   The Act and regulations have established goals (both
           dates and performance standards) which are impracticable,
           some cases impossible, and unworkable.

      2.   Available resources are limited and finite.   Thus recog-
           nizing this, priorities must be established  which will  do
           the most good where the need is greatest,  all  within
           reasonable and practical   time frames.  Economic Impact
           must be considered equally with Environmental  Impact.

      3.   It must be recognized that a program  of this order and
           magnitude must be decentralized.   Centering  everything  in
           Washington is not working and cannot  work.  Authority must
           be granted to the State Agencies,  and Regional  and Washing-
           ton offices of EPA must limit themselves to  review,  audit-
           ing and monitoring or the job never will be  done.

      The following comments are made concerning the 5  papers.

PAPER NO. 1 - REDUCTION OF THE FEDERAL SHARE

      It is our opiniop that the current grant ratio of 75/25 is self-
defeating.  Communities, in the past, demonstrated their willingness
and ability to solve their water pollution problems when the ratio was
30% Federal, 70% Local.   However, to succeed at any ratio of federal-
to-local share, practicable and workable time goals and effluent
standards must be established.  Priorities must  be established  on  the
basis of where is the greatest need; where can we get the most  for our
money?

PAPER NO. 2 - LIMITING FEDERAL FUNDING OF RESERVE CAPACITY TO SERVE
              PROJECTIVE GROWTH.

                                      102

-------
      The matter of whether a project should be funded to serve for 10
years or 20 years or 30 years should not be set forth in Law, nor in
Regulations except in Guidelines.  Policies should be stated which guide
to clean-up of our streams by treating our sewage and industrial waste
to reasonable levels under a system of priorities.  When such policies
are established there will be no serious difficulty in working out the
most cost effective solution to each individual problem, including
determination of project life for which the treatment plant should be
designed.  Same applies to collector sewers, tertiary treatment or
whatever.
      Arbitrary time frames of any length should not be written into
the Law or in Regulation.  Guidelines of an advisory nature should be
promulgated.  Determination of method of treatment should be proposed
by the municipality and its consultant, and concurred or varied by
joint review and conference with the State agency involved, and EPA.
In actuality this is the procedure now being followed under Step I.
      Speaking of the Step I, II, III procedures, some drastic changes
should be made.  The idea is sound, but uniform, universal, unvarying
application of the procedure causes undue expense, unreasonable de-
lays, unneeded paper work.  In our opinion the great majority of pro-
jects could be handled by return to the conventional preliminary report
in lieu of the voluminous Step I Report.

PAPER NO. 3 - RESTRICTING THE TYPES OF PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR GRANT
              ASSISTANCE

      In our opinion the Act need not be amended to restrict certain
types of projects eligible for construction grant funding.   Anything
that complies with the intent of the Act, that is, cleaning up our
streams, should be eligible.  However, a proper system of priorities as
already mentioned above would answer the matter as to which projects
to fund first.
      For example, tertiary treatment plants would probably be of low
priority in most cases until the majority of locations in the U.S. had
produced the level of effluent to secondary standards.  Correction of
combined sewer overflows surely would have lower priority than second-
ary treatment.  And, as of this date, control of storm waters should
be of lowest priority.
      The important thing is to place in proper perspective the prin-
ciple of getting the most out of our limited resources.  And our re-
sources are limited, may we emphasize.
      Perhaps this-is a good time to propose, along the line of getting
the most out of our resources, that effluent requirements for small
communities so located as to do little or no harm to the environment
should, and must be treated differently from those of high population
densities.  Let's not spend money at a small city doing something which,

                                   103

-------
when complete, will have little or no effect on the overall  condition,
when the major pollution problems remain to be solved.

PAPER NO. 4 - EXTENDING 1977 DATE FOR THE PUBLICLY OWNED PRE-TREATMENT
              WORKS TO MEET WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

      Current dates must be extended.  It is our opinion that "hard
and fast" dates should be removed from the Act.  For example, the 1985
goal of elimination of discharge of pollutants is clearly an impossible
goal.  This goal, expressed at the very beginning of Title 1, Section
101 of the Act, prepares to discredit the entire Law in the  eyes of
the knowledgeable reader.
      The 1983 goal to provide water quality for recreation  is equally
unrealistic, because non-point source discharges render even a clear
stream unsuitable or unsafe for body contact.
      Both time goals and quality goals should be established by the
Administrator to fulfill the intent of the people as expressed in the
Act.  These regulations should be broad, flexible, should be developed
with high input by the States, and should provide for easy and quick
variance upon proper showing by the Local or State Agency.

PAPER NO. 5 - DELEGATING A GREATER PORTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF THE
              CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM TO THE STATE

      HR-2175 should be enacted.  As already expressed,  EPA's role
should be more of an "overview".  It should be largely consigned to
overall policy making, and auditing and monitoring grant activities.
The functions and responsibilities of the States should be increased.
      Only if this is done will the program ever get off the ground.
                                 CONSULTING  ENGINEERS  COUNCIL  OF  OKLAHOMA

                                 Robert 0. Bruton
                                 President

-------
                           July 3, 1975
Mr. James L. Agee
Assistant Administrator for
Water and Hazardous Materials
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.   20460

RE:  Public Hearings on Potential Legislative Amendments to the
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Federal  Register, May 2
     and May 28, 1975)

Dear Mr. Agee:

Carolinas Branch, AGC hereby submits written testimony,  relative to
the referenced hearings, in extension of that presented  orally on
June 9, 1975 in Atlanta, Georgia, by our Senior Vice President
Harold A. Pickens, Jr.  Our membership now exceeds 2400  firms  en-
gaged in the construction industry, in North and South Carolina, and
elsewhere in the Southeast.

We urge a restudy of Mr. Pickens1 remarks, a copy of which is  en-
closed.
                                         A
While we shall comment on all five amendments subject to the hearings,
we reiterate our pleas that EPA and OMB direct their priority  efforts
toward those amendments which have a realistic chance of early en-
actment to help unblock this huge program which has been stalled for
nearly three years.

The public is becoming increasingly aware that very little of  the
$18 billion authorized has bought them anything tangible to see and
use.  Of course, we contractors know this because we have no work
for our firms or our employees.

At first glance, one tends to be impressed by the statistics in
EPA's June 1975 "Construction Grants Fact Sheets";  however, we find
the statistics misleading.  There are no figures on expenditures,
which is the factor that actually produces projects and  employment.
Further, the recent acceleration in obligations reminds  us that the
deadline for obligating FY74 funds was June 30, 1975. We also
note that this deadline was met by the late release of funds for a
very few large projects in particular states.  The total funds committed,

                                    105

-------
Mr. James L. Agee
July 3, 1975
Page 2

$5,268 billion, only slightly exceed the $5 billion allowed for FY73
and FY74; 55% of this $5 billion went to seven states.  Thus
another "peak" in construction has been created, however, only spot-
tily in a few states and hardly noticeably in most states.

The Fact Sheet shows that grants have been made for nearly 1800
Step 1 "projects".  Yet, since the enactment of PL 92-500 in 1972 only
two Step 1 plans have been approved by EPA for the Carolines;  we also
understand that only about 50 such plans have been approved nation-
wide.  Thus another "valley" in construction appears inevitable until
another "peak" is created in a rush to obligate the $4 billion in
FY75 funds by the end of FY76.  The possibility that many states will
not be able to meet this deadline is very real and could create
widespread political difficulties, in a Presidential election season.

To complicate and delay the Step 1 process further, a new set of
guidelines for facilities planning and P6-50 were issued only last
month.  These will require yet another redirection of Step 1  plan-
ning by engineers, municipalities and states.

PG-50 requirements to evaluate "secondary environmental  effects"
reinforces EPA's efforts to control local land use toward a "no growth"
goal as desired by CEQ, even in the face of the nonexistence of a Fed-
eral land use law.  It is not likely that our future generations will
accept being condemned to living in apartments.  They will provide
the facilities they need for their aspirations at far greater costs
which we would be creating for them, now.

As for the impact of PG-50 on the contractor and the public,  one won-
ders if the author in EPA fully appreciated the costs and wastes
involved in withholding payments and in suspending or terminating
construction  projects.

Again, we ask that EPA stem the flood of its ever changing regula-
tions and guidelines, to provide some semblance of stability to the
program.

Before commenting on the specific amendments under consideration, we,
again, ask EPA to search out means within the current provisions of
the law to try to correct the nationally tragic situation briefly
outlined above, which is so counterproductive to the nation's efforts


                                   106

-------
Mr. James L. Agee
July 3, 1975
Page 3
to extricate itself from the ravages of recession, inflation and un-
employment.  The possibility of  Executive Orders or Congressional
Resolutions should not be overlooked.

             Amendment No.  5 - Delegations to the States

Delegation of maximum authority  and flexibility to the states is ab-
solutely essential.

Even by the most primary principles of management, it is obvious
that such a large and complex program cannot effectively be managed
in detail from  the Washington or Regional levels, as EPA is doing now.
The Congressional staff report mentioned by Mr. Pickens bluntly
states, "Communities are being told in intricate, interrelated detail
exactly what they must do and how they must do it."  We might add that
such instructions are constantly changing to the confusion and dis-
illusionment of all concerned.   We cannot accept EPA's allegations
of apathy and incompetence  on the part of states, municipalities and
engineers.  The repeated question to EPA is, "What do you want us to
do?"   This situation is the epitomy of Federal bureaucracy, imprac-
ticability, and waste of Federal and local manpower and money.

It is at the state and local levels that the varied local conditions,
needs, priorities, and the  will  and aspirations of the people are
best known.  Therefore, under the unobstructive and helpful  monitor-
snip of EPA, the states should be given the flexibility and  authority
to plan and build the projects they choose, while striving toward
the goals and requirements  of the law.  In essence, such an  arrange-
ment is intended and legislated  as national policy in Sections  101 (b)
and 101 (f) of the Act.

Since EPA feels that it cannot now comply with these Sections of the
Act, then it should seek the further enabling support from the  Con-
gress.   Such support has been offered even during the previous  Con-
gress in the form of the "Cleveland Bill", presently introduced as
H.R. 2175.  The Bill also provides for additional  financial  assis-
tance to the states for the planning process.

Therefore, we urge that EPA actively support the enactment of H.R.
2175 and undertake full good faith implementation of the intent of the
Bill.   It appears that the Congress is willing to consider the early
enactment of such a bill.

                                   107

-------
Mr. James L. Agee
July 3, 1975
Page 4

           Amendment No. 4 - Extending the 1977 Deadline

Such an amendment is obviously necessary.

It will be impossible for many municipalities to meet the 1977 dead-
line.  Therefore, the law should provide relief for and protection
against court action for those municipalities which for good reason,
financial or administrative, will be unable to meet this deadline.
Consideration should also be given to relief from the deadline for
industry where there is a real dependence  by the industry on a muni-
cipal treatment facility.

             Amendment No. 1 - Reduction of Federal  Share

Under the current and now-unforeseeable nature of economic conditions,
states and municipalities simply could not sell  enough bonds to pro-
vide for a greater local share; in fact, many municipalities cannot
provide even the current 25% share.  Further, there is a limit to
what the national citizen-customer will pay for a service.  There  is
hardly a municipality now whose citizens are not complaining about
rising sewerage rates.  Such an amendment  simply is not feasible with-
out abandoning the goals of the Act.-

We shall comment later on your letter of July 1, 1975 on the subject
of variable rates of Federal funding for the different types of pro-
jects.

             Amendment No. 2 - Limiting Reserve Capacity

We strongly oppose any such limitations by edict of-Federal  law.   Fur-
ther, we oppose Federal regulation of local  land use and growth,
which EPA is even now doing to a large degree, as explained  by our re-
marks above relating to PG-50 and the Step 1 process.   Given the
"Cleveland Bill", within the funds available and within the  law, the
states should be allowed the flexibility of determining the  future
of their communities and local citizens.

          Amendment No. 3 - Restricting Types of Projects

We strongly oppose any such restrictions by Federal  law, except that
EPA should be legally relieved of any jurisdiction over Category
IV, "the treatment or control of stormwaters".  There is no  known


                                   108

-------
Mr. James L. Agee
July 3, 1975
Page 5

feasible way of treating stormwaters.  Flood control is a major
responsibility of several other Federal agencies.  Floodplain zoning
is the business of local and state authorities, as is sedimentation
control.  We doubt that any knowledgeable person, including EPA
officials, will assign any real validity to the $235 billion figure
for this nebulous category, in EPA's $350 billion "needs study".

As for the other categories, the relative needs vary widely among
the communities of the nation.  Again, as applies to Amendment No.  2,
flexibility should be allowed the states to choose the types of pro-
jects most needed locally.

We note that EPA is already exercising such restrictions, by estab-
lishing priorities at the national level.  For example, in the Caro-
linas it is virtually impossible for a small town to be approved  on
the state priority lists, because EPA has declared - by regulation,
not by law  - that no grants would be allowed for collection systems.
Prior to the enactment of the Act, some of these small towns were
near the top of the state priority lists.

                         Other Amendments

Mr. Pickens has already mentioned the need for an amendment to revise
the user charges requirements.

Further, we strongly support the enactment of H.R 4161 to provide
for a more equitable distribution of grant funds among the states.
Under the FY73 and 74 "needs study" and formula, 55% of $11 billion,
of the $18 billion total, went to seven states.  Under this formula
the Carolines received about the same amount, for FY73 and FY74,  of
a total of $5 billion, as they did for FY72, under PL84-660, of a
total of $2 billion.  H.R. 4161 would adopt the FY75 formula, based
on 50% "needs" and 50% population, a far more equitable formula.
This matter needs immediate attention, to apply to future funds and
even the $9 billion recently unimpounded.

Any future "needs surveys" should be managed most carefully to ensure
validity.  No one, even EPA, seems to know exactly what should be
done with the 1974 $350 billion study.  Obviously, the survey was,
at least in part, a contest among the states for a greater share of
Federal funds.
                                      103

-------
Mr. James L. Agee
July 3, 1975
Page 6
We appreciate the opportunity  of  presenting these comments and hope
that they will  be helpful  to EPA, OMB and all others concerned.

                                 Very truly yours,
                                Henry J. Pierce
                                Executive Vice President

HJP/kob
Enclosure
                                   110

-------
                                            June 9, 1975
                                            Atlanta, Georgia
                            TESTIMONY
By:  Carolinas Branch, Associated General Contractors
     of America,  Inc.

Re:  Public Hearings on Potential Legislative Amendments to the
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Federal Register, May 2
     and May 28,  1975)      -
I am Harold A. Pickens, Jr., President of my own construction firm,
in Anderson, S.C., and Senior Vice President of the Carolines Branch,
Associated General Contractors of America, Inc.  Our organization
has a membership of over 2300 firms engaged in the construction in-
dustry in North and South Carolina, as well as elsewhere throughout
the Southeast.  We appreciate this opportunity to testify on these
complex matters which are of the utmost importance to the public,
to the construction industry and to others.

My brief remarks will be supplemented by written testimony, which we
will submit within a few days.

We believe that, first, we all should move ahead, as rapidly as pos-
sible, with what can be done now to unblock the progress of this
vital program.

The crucial issue is that of the 18 billion dollars allocated to the
states less than one billion has actually been expended for construc-
tion to date.  It is urgent that this money be put to work for the
public, as soon as possible, and at a time when it is most needed -
from our standpoint, to provide work for our firms and for the people
we employ.

As background for our recommendations on legislation, I shall briefly
recount the plight of our contractors in the Carolinas.  It must be
appreciated that our difficulties mirror the problems and frustra-
tions being experienced by our municipalities.(  As these difficulties
persist and grow, there is a rapidly growing understanding by our
municipalities and the public of what has actually been happening
to their program - one of the largest construction programs ever en-
acted by the Congress.  Unless there is clear evidence of positive

                                     111

-------
Testimony
June 9, 1975
Page 2
and early improvements in the administration of the program, strong
public reaction appears inevitable.

Our Carolinas contractors, and municipalities, have suffered a virtual
moratorium on municipal sewerage projects for almost three years.   We
see a further extension of this gap until the closing months of FY76,
when crash action will probably take place to try to obligate, before
July 1, 1976, about 120 million dollars allocated to the Carolinas in
FY75 grants.  A similar gap and peak could occur in efforts to obli-
gate another 180 million dollars in FY76 funds by September 30, 1977.
These gaps and peaks will result in the extinction of many of our
smaller firms, and in a costly readjustment by the construction and
supporting industries to meet program needs.  They aggravate uncertain-
ties and frustrations for municipalities.  Should these obligation
deadlines not be met, funds would be reallocated to other states.   Es-
pecially in a Presidential election year, such an event in any state
would bring about political repercussions upon elected and salaried
public officials involved, at all levels of government; we need no
further erosion of public confidence in our governmental  structure.

Therefore, we urge that EPA, OMB and the Administration undertake  full,
priority support for the immediate enactment of the amendments which
I shall now outline.

The enactment of H.R. 2175 (or identical bill H.R.  6991)  would provide
the powerful support of the Congress, and hopefully the incentive,
for EPA to eliminate the grossly wasteful state-EPA duplication of re-
views and approvals, from the conception of planning through the bid-
ding process.  We are discouraged to note, even in the Federal Register
announcements relating to this hearing, that EPA now only "generally"
endorses these bills.

To ensure that another solid roadblock to the construction of projects
is not overlooked, I must emphasize the need for an amendment to pro-
vide for changes in user charges system.  .We are aware that EPA has
introduced a bill for such an amendment.

Similarly needed is relief for municipalities which for good reason,
financial or administrative, will be unable to comply with the July 1,
1977 effluent limitations.
                                     112

-------
Testimony
June 9, 1975
Page 3
Further, municipalities need the protection of law against court
cases, especially "citizens suits", while acting in good faith during
the administrative process regarding their permit applications.

We contend that the above amendments are needed and can be enacted,
now.  Our contentions are supported by the March, 1975 Interim Staff
Report of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Review, House Committee
on Public Works and (Transportation,' on, PL 92-500.  Incidentally, we
commend this Report'for your thorough consideration.

The first three amendments subject to today's hearings appear to fall
into the category of major amendments.  The matter of relaxing the
1977 standards for private industry probably falls in the same cate-
gory.  Such major amendments are unlikely to be acted upon by the Con-
gress until after the National Commission on Water Quality submits its
report and probably not during a Presidential election year.   Mr.
Gordon Wood, minority counsel for the House Public Works Committee
confirmed this publically on April 23, 1975.  Nevertheless, we will
address these in our written testimony.

In closing, I repeat our major plea, which we have repeatedly made to
EPA - that EPA intensify its efforts to make maximum delegations of
authority to the states within the current provisions of the Act.
                         • .j

Thank you.
Note:  Further written testimony to follow.
                                     113

-------
July 2, 1975
Mr. James L. Agee
Assistant Administrator for Water
  and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Protection Agency
Waterside Mall Building - WSMW
Room 1037
4th and M Streets, S.W.
Washington, D.C.   20460

Dear Mr. Agee:

On behalf of the Consulting Engineers Association of California (CEAC),
its President, Jack Going; its Executive Director, John Beebe;  and
its members, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to present
our ideas and comments on the five papers that discuss possible revi-
sions to the Federal Water Pollution Control  Act Amendments of 1972,
PL 92-500.  Our suggestions are contained in  the following paragraphs.
                                    f- _,
Paper No. 1 - Reduction of the Federal Share

CEAC recommends that the Federal share of construction grants required
to meet the goals of PL 92-500 be maintained  at the current level  of
75 percent.  The budgetary impact of funding  the entire $342 billion
worth of eligible construction ,is of concern  to everyone dealing with
water pollution problems.  Increasing the burden of state and local
agencies does not solve the problem; it transfers it to other govern-
mental agencies.  In California, Senate Bill  90 limits the ability
of many special districts involved in water pollution activities to
raise revenues through increased property taxes.

Many local agencies may not be able to meet increased financial respon-
sibilities as a result of Senate Bill 90.  This situation is particu-
larly critical for many small, special districts.  Likewise, Califor-
nia State bond funds most likely are not adequate to absorb increases
in the State's share.  The net result of reducing the Federal share
would probably be delays in construction and  in meeting the goals  of
PL 92-500.

Paper No. 2 - Limiting Federal Funding of Reserve Capacity to Serve
Projected Growth

CEAC supports the concept of limiting the amount of reserve capacity
eligible for federal funding.  The limitations adopted by the California

                                  Ilk

-------
State Water Resources Control Board of ten years for waste treatment
plants and twenty years for interceptors, outfalls and sewer lines
are reasonable guidelines.  It also allows local agencies to pay the
incremental cost of additional capacity if they elect to construct
facilities in excess of the reserve capacity.  However, any regula-
tions that are proposed should allow for flexibility in applying the
limits.  For example, state-wide or even county-wide growth trends may
not be applicable to all wastewater agencies,  A large county may have
one area where growth is expected while other areas are not antici-
pated to grow.  Flexibility is needed to deal with this type of prob-
lem at the county or regional level of government.  Also, provisions
should be made to permit exceptions where substantial cost efficien-
cies can be demonstrated.

Paper No. 3 - Restricting the Types of Projects Eligible for Grant
Assistance

CEAC believes it is not desirable to restrict the types of projects
eligible for grant assistance; as an alternative, CEAC suggests a
priority system be established whereby the importance of the project
is related to its contribution to the solution of a water quality
problem and to the achievement of the goals of P.L. 92-500.  The
priority system used by the California State Water Resources Control
Board is a positive step in this direction and should be reviewed
and considered by the EPA.

Paper No. 4 - Extending 1977 Date for the Publicly Owned Pretreatment
Works to Meet Water Quality Standards

CEAC recognizes that it is impossible to meet the 1977 deadline to
achieve effluent  limitations based upon secondary treatment or a more
stringent level of treatment for all publicly owned treatment plants.
CEAC recommends that extensions be granted based upon the availability
of Federal and State funds and upon the actual time required to build
the necessary facilities.

Paper No. 5 - Delegating a Greater Portion of the Management of the
Construction Grants Program to the States

CEAC supports the concept of deletating more responsibility to the
states for managing the construction grants program where the State
has demonstrated a willingness and capability to administer the pro-
gram.  Where the State has not demonstrated this capability,  respon-
sibility should be retained within the EPA.  The California State
Water Resources Control Board is developing an effective program to
                                    115

-------
to manage construction grants and the EPA should actively support
continued development and improvement of their management program.

Nationally, the most difficult problem CEAC anticipates in effective-
ly implementing PL 92-500 is finding qualified engineers to review
and approve plans and specifications.  With an expanded construction
grants program, qualified professional engineers will  become a limited
resource.  Along this line, EPA should give careful  consideration to
the conditions of state certification.  For example, professional
registration should be mandatory for personnel  making  decisions on the
review and approval of plans and specifications.

CEAC looks forward to working with EPA to improve the  effectiveness
of the construction grants program and to solve our  nation's water
quality problems.  CEAC thanks you for the opportunity to make this
brief statement.

                                 Cordially,
                                 Donald E.  Evenson
                                 Chairman,  Special  Committee  on
                                 Water Pollution

DEE:krs
                                  116

-------
June 19, 1975

Mr. Alvin L. Aim
Assistant Administrator for Planning
   and Management
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.   20460

Dear Mr. Aim:

The Federal Register, on May 28, 1975, outlined certain proposals for
amending Public Law 92-500, the Federal Water Pollution Control  Act,
Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq.  Boiled  down to their
simplest terms the proposals set out in 40 Federal Register 19236 are:

      1.   The reduction of the federal share of grants from 75%
           to 55%,
      2.   The limitation of federal aid to serve only the needs of
           the existing population,
      3.   The restriction of the types of projects eligible for
           EPA grants,
      4.   Extending the 1977 deadline for meeting water quality
           standards, and
      5.   Delegation of more authority and responsibility to the
           state level regarding grant approval and operation.

The first three proposals appear to be based upon the budgetary  prob-
lems of the Federal Government due to the current inflationary condi-
tion and the general economic recession that is ongoing.  At the outset
we would like to state that not only is the Federal Government having
problems due to the inflationary conditions, but state and local
governments are having the same problems due to the same conditions.
In fact, on the state and local level, the problem is even more criti-
cal as there are less funds available totally to these governmental
bodies than to the Federal Government.  It is inconceivable to see
how a reduction of federal funding will encourage, help, or in any
way assist the local governments in meeting their obligations.   The one
thing that must be kept uppermost in everyone's mind is that the funds
that run the Federal Government come from the individual citizens and
businesses of this country.  If the Federal Government does not  have
the funding capacity, then this shortage is due to the lack of funds
from the individuals and not some mysterious deficit unknown to  man.

The question which plagues the cities and the states is simply,  where
will the funds come from?  If the Federal Government does not have the

                                   117

-------
capacity, surely the states and the cities do not have the capacity
as the funds for all three -- city, state and federal  levels — come
from the same sources.  When a governmental  unit's source of revenue
is limited, it can but spend and utilize that which is available to
it.  In so doing, it can only accomplish those goals and objectives
that fall within its funding effort and ability.   It is totally unrea-
listic to reduce the funding and maintain the same standards and ex-
pect that these standards can be met in the same  time frame.

The reasoning espoused in the article in the Federal Register falls
far short of being conclusive and justifiable. The idea of limiting
federal funds available to encourage local participation when the funds
are not available locally is without merit.   The  proposal  to maintain
the same standards as set out in Public Law 92-500, while drastically
reducing the funds available to meet these deadlines,  is completely un-
realistic and evades the issue of compliance.   Further, the proposal
to limit the size and scope of that which is eligible for federal
funding to the existing population, not allowing  for any growth, is an
exercise in futility which creates additional  costs and expenditures
at a later date which, judging by any standard that we have to use,
will be much greater than the current expenditures to properly do the
job.  The idea of designing a system for 10 years' use when the system
has a 40 to 50 useful life, is simply wasteful expenditure of both
federal and local funds.

The City of Chattanooga, as well as other cities  throughout the United
States, pursuant to the provisions of Public Law  92-500 and the stan-
dards set thereby, has entered into a program of  planning  and con-
struction, at a considerable expense to its  citizenry, to  meet the
standards set out by the Federal Law.  Now that considerable funds
have been expended, bonded indebtedness created,  and work  commenced,
the idea of changing the basic ground rules  yet maintaining the same
end result, appears to be totally untenable.  We  would request your
very careful consideration of this proposed legislation in light of the
financial burden it will create upon your constituents and further the
impossible task of complying with the federal  standards that it will
place upon the local government.  Surely, some method short of the
current proposal can be conceived and thereby achieve the  objectives  of
the existing legislation.

The fourth and fifth proposal set out in 40 Federal Register 19236 deal-
ing with extending the 1977 deadlines and delegating more authority
regarding grant operations to the states are two  proposals that address
themselves very directly to the problems that currently exist.  Obvious-
ly, if funds are not available, the projects cannot be completed.  If
they cannot be completed, then it is totally unreasonable for the   '!


                                  118

-------
the Federal Government to assume an enforcement role that it knows it
will be unable to fulfill.  The state programs, particularly the Ten-
nessee State Program, dealing with the federal grants under Public
Law 92-500, has operated very efficiently and effectively, and the City
of Chattanooga whole-heartedly supports the proposition that more
authority can be delegated to the states, thereby freeing the Environ-
mental Protection Agency to be an administrative agency and not an
operating agency on the state level.  As a municipal body that would
be directly affected by these proposals, the City of Chattanooga whole-
heartedly supports the proposal to in some manner extend the 1977 dead-
lines to a realistic position within the financial capabilities of the
governmental units involved and further, that the management duties
should be with the state, as proposed, leaving the Environmental
Protection Agency to act as an administrator and oversee the entire pro-
ject, thereby having more time to adequately do their job.

As a responsible municipality, we feel and know the needs of our citi-
zenry as we deal with them on a daily basis.  We feel certain that you
are aware of the needs and requirements of your constituents and would
respectfully request that these proposals be reviewed by your office
in depth so that the flaws in the fabric may be exposed and corrected
and the best overall solution be found and put forward so that the
goals established by Public Law 92-500 can be met.                    T

                                 Very truly yours,              *   a; :i
                                 CHARLES A. "PAT" ROSE
                                 Mayor

                                 GENE ROBERTS
                                 Commissioner of the Department
                                 of Fire and Police

                                 PAUL F. CLARK
                                 Commissioner of the Department
                                 of Public Works, Streets and Airports

                                 JOHN P. FRANKLIN
                                 Commissioner of the Department of
                                 Health and Education

                                 JAMES C. EBERLE
                                 Commissioner of the Department of
                                 Public Utilities, Grounds and Buildings
                                119

-------
July 3, 1975
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water & Hazardous Materials (WH-556)
Room 1033, West Tower, Waterside Mall
401 "M" Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.   20460

Attn:  James L. Agee, Assistant Administrator

Subject:  Municipal waste treatment grants
                                      ' '  '                   -''
Gentlemen:

The City Council of the City of Carlsbad,  at its  regular meeting  of
June 17, 1975 discussed the proposed amendments  to the Federal  Water
Pollution Control Act that are now before  your agency.  At that time,
they adopted by motion the position as outlined  in the Public Works
Director's memorandum (see attached copy of minutes).    ,u

Those recommendations are as follows: to  oppose  reduction in the
current level of Federal financing; to concur in  the  present compliance
date but encourage legislative changes to  allow  administrative  dis-
cretion to grant time extensions based on  availability of  funding;
to support delegation of project control to the  States; to resolve  the
questions concerning the necessity of secondary  treatment  for ocean
dischargers on the Pacific Coast; to oppose the  requirement to  re-
turn 50% of revenues from industrial users to the Federal  government
as being counter-productive to the professional  goal  of raising more
local funds for water pollution control.                        ,

Please consider this our writtern testimony to be included in the
hearing record.

                                 Very truly yours,
                                 Ronald A.  Beckman
                                 Public Works Administrator
                                 120

-------
                                                             COUNCILMEN

June 17,  1975

(92)  13.  AGENDA BILL #3392 *  MUNICIPAL  WASTE  TREAT-              3%$§\
           MENT GRANTS.                                           8 » # » =
                                                                  * -j      j
           A lengthy staff report was  given  by  the  Direc-                  "
           tor of Public Works with questions posed by the
           Council regarding this matter.  The Public  Works
           Director stated the Environmental Protection A-
           gency will hold a Public Hearing  on  this matter
           on June 19, 1975 in San Francisco and the County
           will be sending a representative  to  the  Public
           Hearing.  Comments were made by the  City Manager
           and after further discussion,a motion was made  Motion         X
           that the staff be authorized to submit in writ- Ayes   X X X X X
           ing to the Environmental Protection  Agency, the
           Council's position as outlined in the Public
           Works Director's memorandum dated June 11,  1975.

           CITY MANAGER REPORTS:

 (23)  14.  AGENDA BILL #3386 - EMERGENCY MEDICAL TRANS-
           PORTATION.

           The matter of Emergency Medical Transportation
           was discussed at length following a  report  given
           by the City Manager.

           By motion, it was recommended  that the Council
           accept all of the recommendations listed by the Motion     X
           City Manager, Items 1 thru  4.                    Ayes   X X X X X

           An amendment to the motion  was offered that Item
           #4, having to do with the service of a collec-
           tion agency, be deleted. The  Mayor  announced the
           amendment to the motion failed for lack  of  a
           majority.

 (92)  15.  AGENDA BILL #3393 -  ENCINA  WATER  POLLUTION  FA-
           CILITY ODOR PROBLEM.

           The City Clerk stated a petition  signed  by  207 resi-
           dents concerning the odor problem at the Encina Water
           Pollution Facility had been received.

           The matter having been discussed  at  length  at the  last
           Council  Meeting, a brief report was  given by the Pub-
           lic  Works Director  on the  current status of the prob-
           lem.

                                    121

-------
Mr. George Dickson,  6444  Camino del Parque, Carlsbad,
stated he had presented the  petition to the City
Manager and on behalf of  the residents would like
further enlightenment on  the
                         122

-------
June 25, 1975

Mr. James L. Agee
Assistant Administrator for Water and
  Hazardous Materials
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Room 1033, West Tower
Waterside Mall
401 "M" Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.  20460

Dear Mr. Agee:

Pursuant to the notice in the Federal Register, May 2, 1975, Pg.  19236,
I wish to submit the enclosed statement as my testimony relating  to
the potential legislative amendments to the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act.

My statement is directly responsive to the papers published in the
Federal Register, May 28, 1975, Pgs. 23107-23113, under the title, "Mun-
icipal Water Treatment Grants."

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on this matter of utmost  impor-
tance to the citizens of West Virginia.

                                 Sincerely,
                                 John 6. Hutchinson
                                      Mayor

JGH/ras
                                   123

-------
    PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

                  STATEMENT BY JOHN G.  HUTCHINSON
             Mayor, City of Charleston, West Virginia
                           July 3. 1975

INTRODUCTION

      The passage, despite a Presidential  veto, of the Federal  Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 signified the dawning  of a
new day in our effort to clean up the waters of our nation.  The
amendments set standards to be achieved by 1977 and authorized  $18
billion in assistance to local governments to enable them to construct
sewers and treatment plants to meet these standards.
      Three years later it is clear that,  for several reasons,  these
standards will not be achieved by the 1977'deadline.
      First, $18 billion is simply not sufficient to do the job. Most
reliable studies indicate that twice that amount is necessary to
achieve the 1977 standards.
      Second, the Federal government has been unwilling to spend even
the amount authorized.  Until ordered by the courts recently to allo-
cate all the funds, the President had impounded $9 billion, or  half
the authorization.
      Third, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which
administers the Act, has been slow in setting forth regulations and in
obligating money.  To date less than 1/3 of the money has been  obli-
gated to local governments.  Thus, any serious effort to meet feder-
ally-mandated standards has been frustrated.
      Now, EPA proposes new amendments  to the Act.  They propose to
reduce the federal share of construction grants from 75% to 55%.  They
propose to limit eligibility for federal assistance to facilities re-
quired for current needs, therefore, restricting communities in
planning for future growth.  And they propose to restrict the types
of projects eligible for federal funding,  thereby restricting the
ability of local communities to set their own priorities and devise
the most cost-effective solutions to water pollution problems.
      Thus, rather than biting the bullet, the federal government seeks
to shift to local governments the burden of meeting federally-imposed
standards with reduced federal assistance.  This seems inequitable and
self-defeating.
      Two other proposed amendments deal in a different manner  with
the problems encountered in attempting  to meet the 1977 standards.
One amendment proposes to extend the 1977 deadline to 1983 and  to
require compliance by that time regardless of the availability  of fed-
eral funding.


                                 12k

-------
                 -         -*
      The other amendment proposes to delegate a greater portion of
the management of the construction grant program to the states "to
expedite the flow of funds."

AMENDMENT #1 — REDUCTION OF THE FEDERAL SHARE

      EPA proposes to reduce the federal share for construction grants
from the current level of 75% to a level as low as 55%.
      The objectives are twofold.  The first is "to permit the limited
funding available to go further in assisting needed projects."  The
second "is to encourage greater accountability for cost effective de-
sign and project management on the part of the grantee."
      Neither of these objectives are likely to be achieved by this
amendment.  The first objective ignores the financial  plight of most
local governments in today's distorted economy.  Most local governments
are cutting routine services simply to balance their budgets.  There-
fore, they are incapable of assuming a larger share of the costs of
needed sewer and treatment plant construction.  Rather than making
the federal money go further, this amendment may make it impossible
for most local governments to achieve mandated water quality standards.
      The second objective implies a belief  on the part of EPA that
local governments are not efficiently designing and managing construc-
tion projects.  EPA can cite no evidence to substantiate this belief.
Quite the contrary, local governments have been continually frustrated
by unclear EPA regulations which delay projects while Inflation re-
sults in soaring costs.
      However, a decreased federal share of the costs  could make account-
ability a moot point anyway since it will discourage local  governments
from initiating projects due to a lack of resources.
      Therefore, this amendment would clearly run counter to its stated
objectives.

AMENDMENT #2 -- LIMITING FEDERAL FUNDING OF RESERVE CAPACITY TO SERVE
PROJECTED GROWTH
                         'T
      This amendment would eliminate the eligibility of reserve capacity
of facilities for federal financial assistance.  In other words only
that part of a facility designed to serve current needs would be eli-
gible.  Any portion of a facility designed to meet future population
growth and anticipated new industrial and commercial resources would
not be eligible for federal assistance.  Again, EPA's  objectives are
to permit limited federal dollars to go further and "to induce more
careful sizing and design of capacity to serve future growth."
      This proposal places local government on the horns of a dilemma.
If they design a realistic, efficient facility which provides for
anticipated growth, a portion of it will be ineligible for federal
1
I
                                     c

-------
assistance, thereby increasing the local  share perhaps beyond the
local financial capacity.  If they design a facility that is 100% eli-
gible for federal assistance, thereby making it financially feasible
for local government, they do so with the knowledge that it may be
unrealistic and will perhaps be obsolete before it is complete.
      This amendment is shortsighted.  It will simply put off the day
of reckoning for another few years when the costs will be higher and
the problems will be more acute.

AMENDMENT #3 — RESTRICTING THE TYPES OF PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR GRANT
ASSISTANCE
      This amendment would restrict eligibility for federal  financial
assistance to treatment plants and interceptor sewers and would make
ineligible such things as collector sewers and storm sewers.   Again,
the objective "is to reduce the federal  financial  burden," but again,
the solution is shortsighted.  Its effect would be to encourage local
governments to favor projects that are eligible for assistance,
irrespective of what may be the most efficient or  cost-effective solu-
tion to a local water pollution problem.  Thus, the Federal  government
could wind up spending a substantial amount of money on projects that
do not effectively address the actual goal of clean water.  Such
restrictions could, in some cases, actually lead to construction of
a more expensive project simply because it is eligible for assistance  '
rather than a less expensive one that is ineligible.
      Furthermore, this amendment runs counter to  the Administration's
stated goal of increasing local flexibility and decision-making respon-
sibility, which has been promoted through such programs as Revenue
Sharing and Community Development Block Grants.

AMENDMENT #4 — EXTENDING 1977 DATE FOR THE PUBLICLY OWNED PRETREAT-
MENT WORKS TO MEET WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

      This amendment proposes to extend by statute the 1977  deadline
to 1983 and to require compliance at the time regardless of  federal
funding.  This proposal recognizes that 50% of the nation's  munici-
palities will not achieve the required standards by 1977.  But it
fails to recognize that the problem is not a lack  of local initiative,
rather it is a lack of local resources and the inability to get
federal financial assistance in a timely fashion.
      Thus, extending the deadline without providing the resources to
achieve the standards will not alter the problem.   And requiring com-
pliance regardless of the availability of resources necessary to achieve
compliance is something akin to the concept of a debtors prison.

AMENDMENT #5 -- DELEGATING A GREATER PORTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF THE
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM TO THE STATES

                                    126

-------
      The stated purpose of this amendment  is  "to expedite  the flow of
funds into necessary construction projects."   This  is, in essence, an
admission by EPA that it has failed to do an effective job  of managing
the program, an interesting admission for an agency that seems to
concerned with local accountability.
      The danger of this proposal is that rather than the one bureau-
cracy with which we are now afflicted, we will be saddled with a two-
tier bureaucracy ~ one at the federal level and one at the state
level.  Rather  than expediting the process, this may well make it
even more confusing and time-consuming.

RECOMMENDATIONS

      The five amendments proposed by EPA will not, in my opinion,
hasten the achievement of our ultimate goal of waterways clean enough
for our children to swim and for fish to survive.   Rather, they are
likely to delay indefinitely achievement of this goal.
      These amendments avoid confronting the basic  problem — that
additional federal assistance is essential  to clean up the waterways
Df our nation.  Reducing the federal share, restricting eligibility,
extending deadlines are clearly not the answers.
      EPA must directly confront its mandate to clean up our waterways.
The following proposals are made in this light.

      1.   EPA should spend the money already authorized under the
           1972 Act and should request such additional monies as
           may be necessary to achieve the  1977 standards as rapidly
           as possible while preserving the local decision-making role
           as well as the eligibility of projects that take into ac-
           count projections of growth.  Such continued federal  as-
           sistance at the 75% level is the only realistic way to
           provide the necessary resources  to reach the mandated goal.
           It should be noted that sewer construction projects are
           labor-intensive projects and will provide many additional
           jobs.  Given the high national unemployment rate, such
           projects would not only clean up our environment but would
           also address another severe national problem by providing
           purposeful, productive jobs for currently unemployed
           persons.  Thus, the expenditure of the necessary funds
           would serve a dual national purpose; and therefore, be
           dollars -well spent.
      2.   The Administrator of EPA should  be given the authority to
           extend the 1977 deadline for individual  communities until
           such time as the federal funds are available to complete
           the projects necessary to meet the standards.  Rather than
           simply extending the deadline six years, this would put local

                                      127

-------
governments on notice that they must comply with  the  stan-
dards as soon as the funds are available.   At the same  time
it would place the burden of providing  the  resources  neces-
sary to comply with federally-imposed standards on the  fed-
eral government.
Serious consideration should be given to  the  concept  of an
Environmental Block Grant Program similar to  the  Community
Development Block Grant Program.   This  would  encourage
local government attention to environmental control,  encour-
age the setting of priorities based on  local  needs, allow
local governments to plan ahead,  and eliminate much of  the
red tape now involved in getting  federal  funds.
                        128

-------
June 11, 1975

David Sabock
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials
Room 1033, West Tower, Waterside Mall
401 M Street S.W.
Washi ng ton, D.C.   20460

Dear Mr. Sabock:

On behalf of Mayor Canney, I am submitting  the  attached statement to
be presented at the Public Hearing,  June 17,  1975,  in Kansas City,
Missouri.

We appreciate you taking the necessary steps  to see that this state-
ment is made part of the public record.

If we can provide any further assistance, please don't hesitate to
contact us.

                                 Sincerely,
                                 Thomas L.  Aller
                                 Executive  Assistant

TLA:sp
 Attachment
                                   129

-------
                   STATEMENT FOR PUBLIC HEARING
                           JUNE 17,  1975
                             9:00 A.M.
                       KANSAS CITY,  MISSOURI
      My name is Donald 0.  Canney (C-a-n-n-e-y),  Mayor of Cedar Rapids,
Iowa.  I want to take this  opportunity to apologize for not being in.
attendance, but an illness  prevents me from being in Kansas City to-
day.  I appreciate the opportunity to be able to  submit these written
remarks at this public hearing.
      Since 1966, Cedar Rapids,  in mutual cooperation with the Federal
Government and somewhat later, the State Government, has worked dili-
gently to meet certain mandated  requirements regarding the separation
of storm drainage and sanitary sewerage; in meeting our commitment to
clean up our local streams  and rivers and prevent future water pollu^
tion; and in meeting the sanitary sewer and treatment needs of our
city -- a city with a population of approximately 120,000 persons.
      We have been awarded  six construction grants, two design and
engineering grants, and recently, five reimbursement grants authoVized
under Section 206, of P.L.  92-500.  The Federal share on these projects
has ranged from 30% to 75%; State participation has ranged from 5%
to 30%.  Federal contributions have totaled nearly $6,000,000.00.
State contributions have totaled $2,500,000.00 during this period.
The Federal reimbursement grants, now being received total  an addition-
al $1,633,000.00.  The city will be submitting a  Step III, construction
grant this fall, with the total  project cost in excess of $50,000,000.00
for a new waste water treatment plant.  I offer these statistics only
to indicate our extensive history of participation with Federal  and
State agencies in the field of water pollution control.
      In order for local governments to meet Federally and State man-
dated water pollution control  requirements, it is absolutely essential
for the Federal and State Governments to be involved with needed
local projects in a financial  manner.  The current 75% Federal share
for eligible project costs  should be retained in  future legislation
and increased, if at all possible.  Inflationary  pressures and the
expanding state of technology have made needed local projects financial-
ly impossible without Federal  and State matching  grant programs.
      Just as Cedar Rapids  is presently designing a new waste-water
treatment facility to serve our needs for hopefully years to come; so
too, are other cities across this country planning to meet future
needs.  Any attempt to restrict the Federal financing of projects to
serve the existing population should be rejected  out-of-hand, as not
being in the best interest of the citizens of this country.  Ongoing
planning for meeting future needs, can only reduce out mutual financial
obligations over the long-term period.

                               130

-------
      Although many municipalities will have difficulty meeting current-
ly imposed water quality standards, any attempt to extend the dead-
line should be carefully reviewed.  One result of such an extension
could be an "Easing" ... if you will ... of the nation-wide effort to
clean up our streams and rivers.  On the other hand, the Environmental
Protection Agency should not be overly demanding, if local  communities
are in good faith, making every effort to meet these deadlines, yet
require an extension of time to complete local activities.   Further,
any attempt to limit the types of projects eligible for Federal assis-
tance should be rejected, as such a move would only compound an already
severe problem.
      I would be remiss if I did not comment at this time,  on what seems
to be an inexcusable amount of Federal regulation and procedure to
carry out before a local Government even begins work on a project.  I
would urge the E.P.A. to review its operating procedures to more ef-
ficiently and expeditiously process grant applications.  The current
criticism being leveled at local Governments for not utilizing the
the 18 billion dollars authorized in P.L. 92-500, is in large part
unfounded.  Under the present setup, it is an overly  long  procedure
to complete Phase I and Phase II Grant Requirements before  even
making application for Phase III construction funds and even a longer
period before construction work begins.
      Thank you again for the opportunity to submit these remarks.
      I personally believe we can build on our mutual experiences and
go forward to meet the problems that are before us so we can improve
the quality of life of our citizens,
                                   131

-------
June 6, 1975

Mr. Jack E. Ravan
Regional Administrator, Region IV
Environmental Protection Agency
1421 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia
                                    ,                              >
Dear Mr. Ravan:

With reference to the proposed amendments  to PL  92-500 outlined  in
the Federal Register on May 28th, these proposals  indicate  a  lack of
responsible action to obtain the basic goals of  the Act.  We,  in
Chattanooga, have committed ourselves  to plan our  services  to  our com-
munity and our citizens.  The implementation of  PL 92-500 played an
important part in that structure.  Although we believe that there are
some basic revisions necessary in the  law,  provisions  outlined in the
Federal Register on May 28th cannot be supported by the City.  "Indi-
cations of change in the Federal Funding ratio  reflects,..in my  opinion
a wavering of commitment  on the part  of the Federal Government.   A
20% reduction in the Federal Funding level  will  have a massive effect
on many local municipalities as it represents an 80% increase  in local
funding.  The item, with respect to funding of reserve capacity,
appears to be an attempt to limit costs on  the projects at  the expense
of sound engineering and judgment.  It is  not compatible  with  the best
judgment of our professional staff nor the  consultants who  advise us.
We therefore view this as an illogical step ending only in  reduction
in total expenditure over the short-range with massive long-range cost
involvement potential.

In Paper No. 3, which restricts the types of projects  eligible for
Federal Grants, again this appears to  be simply  restriction of Feder-
al expenditures.  Obviously, we cannot do  it all at once.  However,
we recommend very highly a balanced system  of plants,  interceptors,
and collectors be extended in a compatible  nature  so that the  revenue
base on both the local and Federal level tends to  place our systems  on
a self-supporting basis at the earliest possible time; thus,  allevia-
ting both Federal and local  bond indebtedness.

Regarding Paper No. 4, which relates to the extension  of  the  1977
date, we heartily recommend that the date be extended  across  the board
as long as an honest attempt is being made  as in many  cases where re-
sults and delays were a combination of all  our efforts.

We believe that any serious and conscientious municipality  should
be extended statutory relief from the 1977  date.

                                 132

-------
Paper No. 5, which would delegate a larger portion of the management
and construction grant program to the States, we heartily support.
We, in Tennessee, are quite proud of our State, the Department of Pub-
lic Health and its respective divisions, and the Sanitary Engineering
Division and Water Qaulity.  We heartily recommend that they be given
additional responsibility with respect to the delegation and adminis-
tration of the Construction Grant Program.  In listing these items,
we ask your diligence of the following:

      1.   Sound planning on a local basis and local circumstances
      dictate some latitude in the categories of the Federal Funding
      be applied to preserve financial stability of local treatment
      systems.  We therefore request extension of collection lines be
      given a higher priority and in all cases where interceptors are
      run into new urbanized areas that the adjacent collectors be in-
      stalled at the appropriate Federal Funding rate,

      2.   We respectfully submit some of the inflexibility in effluent
      standards to reconsidered and the natural resources of our
      rivers and streams be used where their ecological balance would
      not be disturbed.  It is an irresponsible positiokn to waste
      any natural resources including chemical, physical, and basic  ,
      resource of energy which appears to be limited in the areas of
      many of our treatment facilities and processes.

Serious consideration is requested on your part as you review these
items.  Please be cognus of the fact that we, as responsible local of-
ficials, are close to the general public and their demands.  The de-
mands that we face on a daily basis closely represent those paralleled
in every city in the United States.  We seek your counsel and advice
on numerous occasions and we request at this time that you listen ser-
iously to ours.

                                 Yours very truly,

                                 Paul F. Clark

PF:dm
                                  133

-------
May 12, 1975

Congressman Paul Simon
1724 Longworth Building
Washington, D.C.   20000
                                 RE:   Funding Levels,  Proposed FWPCA
                                      Amendments
Dear Congressman:
The May 2, 1975, Federal Register (Vol.  50,  No.  86),  indicates  that
OMB is planning to conduct public hearings to obtain  comments on a
proposal to reduce the level of federal  funding  for wastewater  pro-
jects.

Hearings are to be held in Kansas City,  Atlanta, San  Francisco,  and
Washington.  Due to the distance and cost involved, I will  not  be able
to attend the hearings.
            1 4  "
I work for a consulting engineer that represents several  communities  in
Southern Illinois, and we are actively engaged in engineering work
pertaining to wastewater projects.  Needless to  say,  the  communities
which we represent have filed applications for grant  funds  for  these
projects.

The present level of grant participation from the United  States  is 75%
of the total project cost.  Any reduction in the extent of  grant funds
available for these projects will place  a significant burden  on  the
local residents.  A large number of projects in  Illinois, as  well
as other states, have been partially funded  by the 75% grants from
USEPA.  It is my opinion that reducing the United States  grant  portion
would penalize the communities that are  still  awaiting grant  funds.

In particular, a community of 2400 persons in Franklin County has had
an application on file for grant funds for several  years.  To meet
Illinois pollution control standards (as well  as United States  stan-
dards), an expenditure of approximately  $2,000,000 is required.   As-
suming that 75% grant will be available  for  the  project,  the  local
share will be $500,000.  The average increase in the  monthly  sewer bill
for a residential customer is shown below for various levels  of grant
participation from the United States.
                                 131*

-------
           Grant                        Average Increase in Sewer Bill
                            '            to Finance Local Share (monthly)
           75%                                  $ 6.80
           50%                                  $ 8.80
           25%                                  $11.40
            0                                   $14.00

Public Law 92-500 implies that even more stringent pollution control
regulations will affect municipalities after 1977.  It seems to me
that reduction in funding levels is neither equitable nor wise in
view of past funding and the need for the United States to carry out
the program in good faith to local communities.

While I am indeed sensitive to OMB concerns, I feel that their sugges-
tions will not be conducive to attaining the pollution control goals
set forth by Congress.

It appears that OMB is basically saying that the overall pollution con-
trol program is too expensive to undertake.  If this is the case, I
feel that water pollution control regulations should be made less
stringent, under the premise that the nation should do what it can af-
ford.  Reductions in United States participation will only shift the
financial burden back to the local level where it will be equally dif-
ficult to pay for, if not more difficult.

USEPA has not published the "final" effluent and stream standards that
will be required to meet the 1983 and 1985 deadlines called for in cur-
rent legislation.  It is my opinion that requirements beyond secondary
treatment, which is now called for by 1977 by USEPA, are not warranted.
While water pollution is a problem, its severity in rural areas is
minor compared  to the major metropolitan areas.  The standards, in my
opinion,  should be addressed to  the actual problem in each specific
river basin and population center.

While USEPA standards are a concern in  Illionois, the Illinois Pollu-
tion Control Board regulations are very stringent for all areas of the
State.  To comply with  Illinois  law, communities in the area still
have to make significant expenditures beyond their capability unless
United States participation is received in fhr form of grant funds.

I  respectfully  request  that you  investigate the situation and consider
the following courses of action:

      1.   Submit comment,  on behalf of Southern  Illinois,  protesting
           reduction  in federal  funding under  this program.


                                 135

-------
2.   Submit these comments to your colleagues  on  the  appropriate
     Committees, and request that the water pollution control
     regulations be re-evaluated.  It is  my hope  that less  strin-
     gent regulations be established to meet actual regional
     needs and to bring the cost of pollution  control  in  line
     with what the taxpayers can afford.

                                  Very truly yours,

                                  Michael  D. Curry, P.E.
                                  3 Shady Lane
                                  Herrin,  Illinois    62948
                             136

-------
June 3, 1975

Mr. Edwin L. Johnson
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials
Room 1033, West Tower, Waterside Mall
401 "M" Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.  20460

Dear Mr. Johnson:

This letter responds to the proposed amendments to P.L. 92-500 dis-
cussed in the May 28 issue of the Federal Register (Vol. 40, No. 103).

The CMRPC is a council-of-governments serving four counties and its
31 municipalities.  The two-country Columbia SMSA has a 1975 population
of 368,000.  The two rural counties have about 51,000 people.  Our
annual growth rate is about 8% urban and 3% rural.

The specific recommendation and comments to each proposed amendment
by the CMRPC  staff are as follows:

1.  Reduction of Federal Share

Recommendation:  Opposed

Municipalities in South Carolina are financially poor.  Even providing
the 25% match is a financial crunch.  The federal government should
make a long-term commitment to water quality.

2.  Limiting Federal Spending of Reserve Capacity to Serve Projected
Growth

Recommendation:  Opposed

Reserve capacity should be funded for reasonable population growth.  No
funding for zero reserve capacity may be acceptable for fully developed
or declining areas, but not for urbanizing areas in South Carolina.
The Columbia SMSA will never catch-up to its needs unless reserve capa-
city is designed into the sewerage facilities and funded by P.L. 92-500.

3.  Restricting the Types of Projects Eligible for Grant Assistance

Recommendation:  Agree

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's program for Com-
munity Development permit expending these funds for the facilities

                                  137

-------
deleted from your list.  As long as EPA provides 75% money for a long-
term commitment to the three eligible items, the municipalities may
have a chance to solve the water quality problem.

4.  Extending the 1977 Date

Recommendation:  Agree

EPA lost two years just trying to get the regulations published.  The
President impounded construction money which caused further delays.
And the task of designing, constructing and funding all  the necessary
sewerage facilities will certainly take at least 5-10 years to catch-
up to present needs, let alone to solve the problems created during
that same period.

5.  Delegating a Greater Portion of Management to the States

Recommendation:  Agree

EPA is (1) not intimately knowledgeable of the local issues and prob-
lems, (2) too remote for day-to-day decisions, and (3) insensitive
to the essence of "time".  The State of South Caroline is presently
a red-tape middleman with minimal authority.  EPA should delegate
authority for planning and technical reviews for sewerage facilities
and permits.  EPA should have a very small staff to only process
grant funds.  EPA should increase the Section 106 funds  to states.
                                                      .!.(''.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

                                 Sincerely,
                                 Steve Cloues
                                 Associate Director
SLC/jry
                                    138

-------
                           June 9, 1975

                          STATEMENT OF
                        Ernest W. Barrett
                             CHAIRMAN
                COBB COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
                       Cobb County, Georgia
Gentlemen:
I am Ernest W. Barrett, Chairman, Cobb Country Board of Commissioners,
Cobb County, Georgia.  Cobb County is a dynamic county northwest of
the City of Atlanta and part of the Atlanta Metropolitan Region.  We
have undertaken a wastewater clean-up program that has been jointly
financed by Cobb County and PL-660 funds.  This program began as a 28%
funding level program through the old PL-660 and has been increased
by Section 206 of the present PL 92-500 Law.  All of this is to say
that we in Cobb County are not unfamiliar with the programs of EPA.

In order that we may conserve time I would like to comment directly
to the issues as outlined in your notes and will follow that format
first.

1).  Reduction of the Federal Share — Cobb County in her efforts to
clean up the streams found when the Environmental Protection Agency
was conceived and the effects of the Public Law 92-500 brought about
additional items of cost that caused the people of Cobb County to in-
vest more of their funds into the program than was anticipated with-
out receiving any direct benefit and without any cost effective evalua-
tion.  It is estimated that additional requirements placed on Cobb
County due to restrictions imposed by the Environmental Protection
Agency along the/Chattahoochee River Corridor and up Sope Creek are
in the range of 1.5 Million Dollars.  Under the present level of fund-
ing EPA as only about 42% of the cost.  This is not to say that some
of the requirements were not valid, but it is to say that if the Fed-
eral share had been more like 75% that it would have been an easy pill
to swallow.  Therefore, the reduction of the Federal share is not
a valid way to implement the program.

2).  Limiting Federal Funding of Reserve Capacity to Serve Projected
Growth — In regards to limiting the Federal funding of reserve capa-
city to serve projected growth, I very strongly object to this because
we find that as we cross property of citizens the first time through
they are pretty amenable to our coming across, but the second time
through the costs in right-of-way corrections and restoration double or
triple of what it would have cost originally.  Limiting the reserve
capacity in my opinion is a backdoor way to control land use through

                                139

-------
the size of sewers.  As Chairman of the National  Association of County
Officials, Land Use Planning Committee, I  strongly object to this
method.  Land use planning in an urban county is  a matter between the
public officials and the citizens of that  county  -- it is not a  Feder-
al matter; therefore, I object to the limiting of Federal funds for
reserve capacity.

3).  Restricting the Types of Projects Eligible for Grant Assistance --
It is my opinion that the Congress created the types of projects as out-
lined with a specific intent in mind which is to  clean up the streams
of our nation.  Based on this I think it behooves EPA to implement a
program of construction funding that would necessarily meet the intent
of Congress without damaging any phase of  the total program.  There
seems to be incorporated within your paper a concern that there would
be no local incentive to implement a phase that would require clean-up
of our streams.  I think our County would  demonstrate to EPA that-
there is a major concern and that we have  proceeded with project on
good faith and have been innovative in our development of these projects.
The citizens of Cobb County are totally concerned with the clean-up
of our streams and push me, as Chairman, to see that this is done.

4).  Extending 1977 Date for the Pub!ically Owned Pretreatment Works to
Meet Water Quality Standards -- As you can tell I am proud of the prog-
ress that Cobb County has made under the PL-660.   All  of our facilities
at this point in time have secondary treatment.  We feel  that if we
are allowed to make expansions based on secondary treatment and con-
tinue this program towards 1980, which would mean an extension of the
deadline and then allow us to reach advanced waste treatment by 1985,
would be a logical extension of the law.  Therefore, we recommend  ,
that the deadline of 1977 be extended to 1980 for secondary treatment,
and that the treatment of advanced waste treatment be extended to 1985.

5).  Delegating A Greater Portion of the Management of the Construction
Grants Program to the States -- I am of the opinion that the Environ-
mental Protection Division of the Georgia  Department of Natural Re-
sources has done an excellent job to date  in their efforts to clean
up the streams of the state of Georgia even though they have been ex-
tremely harsh with Cobb County on various  occasions.  I am saying this
to emphasize that I feel that the State of Georgia can handle the
management of the construction grants program well, but I also wish to
say that we would expect that EPA would totally turn over to the
State their responsibilities and not nitpick or introduce another level
of management.

I want to thank you for allowing me to present these statements to you.


                                  11*0

-------
June 25, 1975

Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.   20460

Attention:  Mr. James L. Agee
            Assistant Administrator for
            Water and Hazardous Materials

Gentlemen:

As a result of the Environmental Protection Agency public hearing on
potential legislative amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act held in Kansas City on June 17th, we feel we should submit
additional information and comments concerning Chillicothe and how
we feel about the suggested amendments.

Chillicothe is located in North Central Missouri near Grand River in
the Grand-Chariton River Basin.  Our population is approximately 10,000
persons.  We have an application for Step One funds now pending and
therefore are vitally interested in any changes proposed for Public Law
92-500.  Our comments on the five proposed changes are as follows:

REDUCTION OF THE FEDERAL SHARE

Reduction of the Federal share below the present level of seventy-five
percent would create a definite hardship on the City of Chillicothe.
The increased operating and maintenance costs anticipated for new
facilities coupled with increased share of the anticipated construction
costs would require service rates beyond the means of our citizens.
Statutory limitations and economic soundness would prohibit our rais-
ing sufficient capital through the issuance of bonds.  For these
reasons, we are opposed to any reduction in the grant funds provided
for the purpose of improving the quality of the nation's waterways.

LIMITING FEDERAL FUNDING OF RESERVE CAPACITY TO SERVE PROJECTED GROWTH

The City of Chillicothe along with assistance from Federal and State
agencies has recently completed a professionally conducted industrial
study.  The study proposes development of an industrial  complex to
provide jobs for our citizens and hopefully increase our population.
For this reason and because of normal growth it would appear economical
to design all facilities with the capability of serving normally pro-
jected demands.  As stated above, if this reserve capacity were to
be constructed at our expense, the cost would exceed our financial
resources.

-------
RESTRICTING THE TYPES OF PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR GRANT ASSISTANCE

One of our problems is the existence of combined sewers in our system.
Any attempt to reduce the percentage of the Federal share or remove
from eligibility projects of this nature and interceptor sewer con-
struction and rehabilitation could prove equally disastrous for our
proposed project.  We would urge Congress to make no changes in the
types of projects now eligible under the FWPCA.

EXTENDING 1977 DATE FOR THE PUBLICLY OWNED PRETREATMENT WORKS TO
MEET WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

In spite of the fact that our application for Step One funds is pend-
ing it would be virtually impossible to proceed with preparation of
plans and specifications, complete State and Regional  EPA reviews,
award contracts and complete construction in time to meet the existing
deadlines.  If our application is not funded, then the deadline will
not be met regardless of the time set.  We would urge extending the
deadlines to a more reasonable date in line with proposed funding or
appropriations.

DELEGATING A GREATER PORTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF THE CONSTRUCTION
GRANTS PROGRAM TO THE STATES

Any attempt to eliminate reviews and streamline the grant administra-
tion process would be most welcome.  The State of Missouri  is in all
probability more able to evaluate our needs and requirements than
the Environmental Protection Agency.-  The proposals of H.R. 2175
would seem to provide a means of streamlining the process and there-
fore decreasing the time span between filing the first application
and completing construction.  This would reduce final  costs in view
of the inflationary rise in construction costs.

                                 Very truly yours,

                                 Connie Smith
                                 Mayor

CS/dk
cc:  Senator Stuart Symington
     Senator Thomas Eagleton
     Congressman Jerry Litton
     Keith D, Beardmore, General Manager Utilities

-------
May 30, 1975

Mr. David Sabock
Grants Administration Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.  20460

Dear Mr. Sabock:

The May 16th edition of NIC Washington Report indicates that EPA will
soon hold hearings on five proposed amendments to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as that Act relates to municipal waste treat-
ment grants.  I do not know the details of the proposed amendments
but simply have available to me the summary which states that:

      "Amendments to be discussed are (1) a reduction of the fed-
      eral share,  (2) limiting federal financing to serving needs
      of existing population, (3) restricting types of projects
      eligible for grants, (4) extending the 1977 date for meeting
      water quality standards, and (5) delegating greater portion
      of management of construction grants to states."

The first four of these considerations are definitely steps in the
right direction.  If the thrust of number (5) is to give states great-
er responsibility and to encourage that responsibility to be passed
on to local communities, then I would commend it also.

The role of the federal government should be to help get the treatment
facilities that are needed built.  The decision to build those facili-
ties should be made locally.  Federal assistance should make possible
the improvement of the facilities beyond the quality which the com-
munity might be otherwise able to afford.

The process should be so designed that every applicant knows money is
available money will cover the projects.  A city should know that if
it gets its part of a project financed that the federal share will
be available within a very short period of time.  Local goals as well
as the national goal are thwarted when projects are delayed by red tape
at the state and federal level and by the lack of state and federal mon-
ey to match local resources.  Once the local community has financed
its part of a major project, the project should move forward.
                                   11*3

-------
May 30, 1975

I would be pleased to elaborate upon these comments or to address
them to the proper forum if you will advise to whom they should be
addressed and when.

                                 Sincerely,

                                 R.  Marvin Townsend
                                 City Manager

RMT:lv

cc:  Mr. Alan E. Pritchard, Jr.
     Executive Vice President
     National League of Cities
     1620 Eye Street, N.W.
     Washington, D.C.   20006

-------
                           June 4, 1975

Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials
Room 1033 Westtower,
Waterside Mall, 401 "M" Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.  20406
                                 Re:  PL 92-500

Gentlemen:                                    >

Please be advised that I am contacting you on behalf of the
Common Council of the City of Chilton, Calumet County, Wisconsin.
At their recent meeting they have gone on record opposing
portions of PL 92-500.  It is their understanding that hearings
are being held on this proposed legislation at various places
throughout the country during the month of June.  The hearings are
to deal on five topics for which proposed amendments to the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act are being considered for
submission to Congress.  The proposed amendments include:
reduction of the federal share of municipal waste water treatment
plant construction costs (now 75%), limiting federal financing to
serving the needs of existing populations only, restricting the
types of projects eligible for grant assistance, extending the
1977 deadline for meeting water quality standards, and delegating
a greater portion of the management of the construction grants
program to the States.

The Common Council is strongly opposed to the first three parts
of the proposed legislation dealing with funding, funding
participation and restrictions on types of projects.

The problems facing local municipalities and providing adequate
waste water treatment facilities are monumental.  The part of
the federal government in participating in up-dating these
facilities has been imperative in order to provide the necessary
funding that otherwise would have been placed upon the local  tax
payers.  Certainly the business of providing proper treatment
facilities in order to protect our environment, which is used by
all peoples of our country, is a proper role for the federal
government.  The limitations proposed in PL 92-500 would be a
severe blow towards preserving our environment in order that we
may have a clean and healthy place, for the people of our country.

Please enter this letter into the records showing the opposition
of the City of Chilton to the proposed legislation.

-------
Thank you kindly.
                                Yours very truly,
                                EN6LER & ONDRASEK
                                William D. Engler, Jr.
WDE/blr
                                    11*6

-------
                         PUBLIC HEARING
                            Before the
               U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                            Concerning
                POTENTIAL LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS
                              To the
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT-MUNICIPAL WASTE TREATMENT GRANTS
                                                                 i - • •  i
San Francisco, California                              June 19, 1975
************
      Rather than speaking today to the specific issues that are
the subject of this Hearing, I will make a few general comments and
submit a more detailed statement prior to July 7, 1975.
      We have been in close contact with Congressman George Miller
and he agrees with us that administration of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (Federal Act) should be more strongly directed
toward meeting its goal rather than concerning itself with
peripheral issues that have delayed construction of water pollu-
tion control facilities.  I understand that he will also be submit-
ting a prepared statement in support of this position before July 7,
1975.
      Contra Costa County's trip through the maze of bureaucratic red
tape in an effort towards obtaining Federal and State financing
of water pollution control facilities has resulted in much
frustration on the part of the people in our county.  More
importantly, progress has not been made towards meeting the goals
and policies of the Federal Act.  We find that emphasis at both
the Federal and State levels has been placed on reclamation and
consolidation at the expense of cleaning up our waters.  In Contra
Costa County, we have spent thousands of dollars on planning efforts
designed to consolidate, regionalize, subregionalize, and reclaim,
and all we have gotten in return is postponement, rising construc-
tion costs, and an almost total absence of knowing in what direction
to take in solving our water pollution control problems.
      Contra Costa County's amazing trip through the bureaucratic
jungle started in late 1966.  At that time, Kaiser Engineers were
retained by the State of California for the purpose of preparing
a comprehensive report on solving the water pollution problems of
the San Francisco Bay Area and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
Area.  As one of the nine Bay Area counties, our County was in-
cluded in the study.  Some $3,000,000 was spent in conducting the
study.  A final report on the study entitled The San Francisco Bay-
Delta Water Quality Control Program ("Kaiser Report") was submitted
to the California Legislature in June 1969.
      This is not the time nor the place to go into the details of
the findings of the study except to say that as far as Contra Costa
County is concerned the recommended construction of a regional

-------
facility located in the westerly portion of the County would
receive all sewage emanating from our county for treatment and
eventually discharged to Central San Francisco Bay.  I would also
add that the Bay Area was in almost complete unanimity in rejecting
the proposed water pollution control facilities.
      A special note:  The Kaiser Report includes a "Proposed Schedule
for Implementation of the Recommended Plan" indicating that by
July 1975, i.e., next month, construction bids would be received on
Phase One.  The first series of bonds would be sold and additional
bonds sold as required to meet land acquisition costs for progress
payments.  Needless to say, this optimistic projection has not
materialized.  Far from it.The only facility in Contra Costa County,
which could be construed as being at least a subregional  facility,
is the 40-50 million dollar plant being constructed in Pacheco, with
Federal and State Grant monies, under the jurisdiction of the Central
Costa Sanitary District.  The construction of this facility, as
far as we are concerned, almost completely obviates the planning
concepts for our county as set out in the "Kaiser Report."
      Since the issuance of the Kaiser Report, two other studies
have been undertaken in Contra Costa County at the cost of some
$165,000 of which $30,000 represented federal monies contributed
by the State of California.  At the present time, three separate   t
studies on subregional water pollution control systems are underway
in the county amounting to over $500,000.                  •.  ,
      What I want to point to here is the fact that wastewater
management planning in Contra Costa /County started as early as 1966
and might come to completion by 1976.  Yet, I want to say for the
record, past actions of the Federal and State governments give
rise to the uncomfortable feeling that we are not through yet.
The planning process has led to no real solutions to which we can
hang our hats on, either firom an engineering standpoint or from an
environmental standpoint.
      Nevertheless, with all this uncertainty hanging  in the air,
it is our experience that the Environmental Protection Agency is
using funds made available under the Federal Act for the construe-  -
tion of water control pollution facilities as a lever in obtaining
information, studies, and data on their concerns which are not
directly related to the elimination of water pollution.  For
example, the EPA is requiring, in both our West County Study and
our East County Study, an assessment of impact proposed projects
on air quality, transportation, land use planning, and growth induce-
ment.
      In closing, I would like to speak to just one issue which
is the subject of this Hearing, "Restricting the Types of Projects
Eligible for Grant Assistance."  In view of the fact that the
express purpose of the Federal Act is the cleaning up of the nation's
water, I would agree that new legislation should be concerned      r'
with the types of projects eligible for grant assistance.  It
would appear logical to me that as an initial step, municipal

-------
and industrial waste discharges be required to upgrade treatment to
the secondary level with the understanding that a higher degree of
future treatment is in the offing.  This would serve a dual purpose:
      1.  It would meet the specific objectives of the Federal Act.
      2.  Provide the "interim" period needed to arrive at intelli-
gent decisions, not only on water pollution control but also on
our overall environment.
      It also seems very important to me that we recognize that we
have spent millions of dollars on planning toward implementing an
ideal goal, and yet the answers are not forthcoming.  As I have
stated earlier, we in Contra Costa County have found that our
planning efforts, on which we have spent thousands of dollars,
have yet to come up with a clear cut solution.  It appears to us that
the best use of our monies (federal, state, etc.) would be almost total
investment in secondary facilities, which we will point out under
Issue No. 1 in our detailed statement.  This would reduce the
federal share and concomitantly the local share of, what are in
reality, interim facilities.
      Finally, progress towards the realization of water pollution
control facilities which are needed and construction of which is
the real purpose of the Federal Act is not occurring.  We would
agree that a master comprehensive plan, taking into account all the
environmental factors that the EPA wants to be examined, is an
exemplary concept.  But in so doing, it is our contention that the
intent of the Federal Act is being violated.  The planning process
on these concepts has gone on for a number of years without
producing definitive results.  This leads us to the conclusion that
we are not ready at the stage of the game to enter into consolida-
tion or reclamation in Califronia as optimistically hoped for.
We would therefore suggest that the Environmental Protection
Agency and the State of California take a more realistic approach
to the water pollution control problems.

-------
                                      June 9, 1975
                                      Atlanta, Georgia
                            TESTIMONY
By:  Carolinas Branch, Associated General  Contractors of America, Inc.

Re:  Public Hearings on Potential Legislative Amendments ot the
     Federal Water Pollution Control  Act (Federal  Register, May 2
     and May 28, 1975)

      I am Harold A. Pickens. Jr, President of my own construction
firm, in Anderson, S. C., and Senior Vice  President of the Carolinas
Branch, Associated General Contractors of  America, Inc.  Our organi-
zation has a membership of over 2300 firms engaged in the constrct-
tion industry in North and South Carolina, as well as elsewhere
throughout the Southeast.  We appreciate this opportunity to
testify on these complex matters which are of the utmost importance
to the public, to the construction industry and to others.
      My brief remarks will be supplemented by written testimony,
which we will submit within a few days.
      We believe that, first, we all  should move ahead, as rapidly
as possible, with what can be done now to  unblock the progress
of this vital program.
      The crucial issue is that of the 18  billion dollars allocated
to the states less than one billion has actually been expended for
construction to date.  It is urgent that this money be put to work
for the public, as soon as possible,  and at a time when it is most
needed - from our standpoint, to provide work for our firms and for
the people we employ.
      As background for our recommendations on legislation, I shall
briefly recount the plight of our contractors in the Carolinas.  It
must be appreciated that our difficulties  mirror the problems and
frustrations being experienced by our municipalities.  As these
difficulties persist and grow, there is a  rapidly growing understand-
ing by our municipalities amd the public of what has actually been
happening to their program - one of the largest construction pro-
grams ever enacted by the Congress.  Unless there is clear evidence
of positive and early improvement in the administration of the
program, strong public reaction appears inevitable.
      Our Carolinas contractors, and municipalities, have suffered
a virtual moratorium on municipal sewerage projects for almost
three years. We see a further extension of this gap until the closing
months of FY76, when crash action will probably take place to try
to obligate, before July 1, 1976, about 120 million dollars allocated
to the Carolinas in FY75 grants.  A similar gap and peak could occur
in efforts to obligate another 180 million dollars in FY76 funds by
September 30, 1977.  These gaps and peaks  will result in the
extinction of many of our smaller firms, and in a costly readjust-
ment by the construction and supporting industries to meet program
needs.  They aggravate uncertainties and frustrations for municipal-

-------
ities.  Should these obligation deadlines not be met, funds would
be reallocated to other states.  Especially in a Presidential
election year, such an event in any state would bring about political
repercussions upon elected and salaried public officials involved,
at all levels of government;  we need no further erosion of public
confidence in our governmental structure.
      Therefore, we urge that EPA, OMB and the Administration under-
take full, priority support 'for the immediate enactment of the
amendments which I shall now outline.
      The enactment of H.R. 2175 (of identical  bill H.R. 6991) would
provide the powerful support of the Congress, and hopefully the
incentive, for EPA to eliminate the grossly wasteful state-EPA
duplication of reviews and approvals, from the conception of planning
through the bidding process.  We are discouraged to note, even in the
Federal Register announcements relating to this hearing, that EPA
now only "generally" endorses these bills.
      To ensure that another solid roadblock to the construction of
projects is not overlooked, I must emphasize the need for an amend-
ment to provide for changes in user charges system.  We are aware that
EPA has introduced a bill for such an amendment.
      Similarly needed is relief for municipalities which for good
reason, financial or administrative, will be unable to comply with
the July 1, 1977 effluent limitations.
      Further, municipalities need the protection of law against court
cases, especially "citizen suits", while acting in good faith
during the administrative process regarding their permit applica-
tions.
      We contend that the above amendments are needed and can be
enacted, now.  Our contentions are supported by the March, 1975
Interim Staff Report of the Subcommittee on Investigations and
Review, House Committee on Public Works and Transportation, on
PL 92-500.  Incidently, we commend this Report for your thorough
consideration.
      The first three amendments subject to today's hearings
appear to fall into the category of major amendments.  The matter
of relaxing the 1977 standards for private industry probably falls
in the same category.  Such major amendments are unlikely to be
acted upon by the Congress until after the National Commission on
Water Quality submits its report and probably not during a
Presidential election year.  Mr. Gordon Wood,  minority counsel for
the House Public Works Committee confirmed this publically on
April 23, 1975.  Nevertheless, we will address these in our written
testimony.
      In closing, I repeat our major plea, which we have repeatedly
made to EPA - that EPA intensify its efforts to make maximum
delegations of authority to the states within the current provisions
of the Act.
      Thank you.

Note:  Further written testimony to follow.

                                151

-------
Statement of Ed Simmons, Public Relations Officer, California Water
Resources Association, before the Environmental Protection Agency's
public hearing on potential legislative amendments to the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act.  San Francisco. June 19, 1975.	

      My name is Ed Simmons, Public Relations Officer for the Cali-
fornia Water Resources Association, which is a statewide Association
of some 400 water agencies, counties, municipalities, industries
and individuals.  We appreciate the opportunity to appear before
you.  I will move directly to our comments on the proposed amendments
to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
      During the latter part of 1971 and most of 1972, the Congress
was considering testimony that the program envisioned by Public
Law 92-500 was going to cost in the hundreds of billions of dollars
rather than in the tens of billions originally envisioned by the
legislators.  When the Congress authorized $18 billion in Federal
grants to help upgrade waste water treatment and then put very
close time limits on it, a lot ofpeople at the hearing said, "Look,
this is going to cost way, way more that that and you don't realize
what you are doing."  The Congress went ahead and passed the law
anyway.  Now the Federal Government comes back acknowledging
a $350 billion price tag for the total program, and conceding that
this is beyond the ability of the Federal Government to cope with
but may still insist that the program remain intact and .that the
communities just go ahead and assume a greater portion of the finan-
cial burden.  Simply reducing the Federal share is presented as one
alternative action.  I doubt that anyone in  this room who has had
any experience at the local level would consider that single
alternative realistic.
      The grants were adopted in the first place because it was
assumed that the local communities could not comply with the Act with
their own financial resources.
      A reduction in the Federal share from  75% to 55% would
require the local share to jump 160%, assuming State participation
at the present level.  Now, aside from local municipalities' in-
ability to pay that share in the present time frame,  this creates
a situation that is politically unrealistic  at the local level.  All
of these projects take a long time to plan and get the finances
arranged to build, and these communities cannot be changing the
amount of financing in midstream because most of it comes from
bond issues which they have to put up to their people.  Many
communities would have to go back to the people all  over again
for a new bond issue.  That's the first problem of changing this in
midstream.  I would hate to be the man that  tried to sell the idea
to the local constituency that the treatment plant project that I
told them would be a good investment at a price of $100 million will
also be a whale of a bargain a $260 million.  That's a tough story
to sell, even if the local community could afford it.
      When you attach a price tag beyond the ability of a local
                                   152

-------
community to pay or to convince voters to pay within a reasonable
time frame, you build inefficiency into planned projects because many
communities, in a n effort to meet the requirements of the law and
unable to afford to build to accommodate long-range or even medium
growth needs, would find themselves forced to build minimal
plants and especially associated works underground.  It is so much
more expensive to enlarge underground facilities at a future date
to accommodate furure needs than to size the system adequately
now.  A treatment plant can be built in a modular form and is much
cheaper to enlarge—at least the way we're doing it in California—
so the problem there is less acute.
      Under a reduced Federal share, even California's 10/20
approach might become academic for some communities.  For the
Federal Govenment to determine that it would share only in facilities
needed for present populations would only further encourage such
an inefficient approach.
      As for extending the 1977 deadline, it would seem self-evident
that it's not going to be met by publicly-owned treatment works at
the present rate of progress by any stretch of the imagination and
will certainly have to be extended.
      CWRA believes that the cost of waste water treatment could be
substantially reduced .if the broadsided approach to the problem were
abandoned in favor of tailoring treatment needs more specifically to
the local problem.  I would like to cite one area in which this
might easily be accomplished.  We think it is becoming obvious that
uniform standards requiring secondary treatment of municipal  waste
water discharges to all receiving waters, including the ocean, are
unnecessary, unrealistic and uneconomical.  Municipal  waste water
treatment agencies in California contended that there is little
justification for secondary treatment of sewage discharge to the
ocean since technology is available to eliminate the principal
undesirable sewage elements acceptably by source control  and by
advanced primary treatment.  Western ocean waters are rich in
oxygen, and secondary treatment, which is primarily designed to
remove oxygen-demanding chemical substances from effluent discharged
to the ocean, is not necessary to protect marine water quality where
the effluent is well diffused into very deep water.
      A continuing study by the Southern Coastal Water Research
Project of the needs of the marine environment finds that present
waste water disposal practices are not causing any substantial
damage to the ocean environment.  Many authorities appear to
agree that pollutants, such as chlorinated hydrocarbons and heavy
metals, are best controlled at the source, and the technology is
already available to eliminate many of them acceptably through a
combination of source treatment and advanced primary treatment.  If
this approach were adopted as a Federal standard, Orange and Los

                                    153

-------
Angeles Counties alone could save some 500 millions of dollars over
the next 8-10 years, as compared to mandated secondary treatment.
      Willard Bascom, Director of the scientific group studying the
ecology fo California's coastal waters (3 former researcher at Scripps
Institute of Oceanography and now heading the government-funded
Southern California Coastal Water Research Project) claims that the
oceans have remarkable capacity for cleansing themselves.
      Apparently the law was written to apply to such enclosed
bodies as the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River and should not
be uniformly applied to deep, open ocean waters.
      In Paper No. 3, we learn that the control  and treatment of
storm waters runs the cost up $235 million.  It's quite obvious that
this function should have a lower priority than  correcting inadequate
treatment plants.  The law now requires that even a massive runoff
of waters from a storm would have to be controlled.  There'
is certainly no significant pollution contributed to the waterways
in times like that.  It would seem that storm water runoffs," if
anything, would be purifying on balance and would at least be a
very low priority item.
      In summary, we think this is an unnecessarily stringent act  >
for achieving clean water over a reasonable time frame.  We hope
that requirements can be tailored down to meet the specific problems
existing in each region or local community with  the most urgent
requirements getting first priority and secondary requirements
deferred on a more realistic schedule.  It might be that a 25-year
time frame would be more realistic for total  compliance than 10 years.
The present total costs are of such a magnitude  that they may
be counter-productive in the sense that few if any of the original
goals can ever be achieved.
      In this State we have some very urgent Federal funding needs
aside from Public Law 92-500's immediate area of concern.  One
that comes to mind is the need for funding of the San Joaquin
Valley Master Drain so that its construction can be completed
before large areas of the Central Valley go out  of agricultural
production because of salt buildup.  It is most  unfortunate that
under the Act, as amended in 1972, absolutely no provision is made
for Federal financial support for construction of facilities
needed for proper disposal or reuse of degraded  agricultural waste
water—not even if urban wastes constitutes a portion of such
degraded water.  With the existing trend toward  state control in this
field, including proposals now being made through California's basin
planning program and the potential development of a permit system
for disposal of agricultural waste water, it is  high time for Federal
acceptance of financial responsibility for related disposal  costs,
like those now accorded municipal and waste disposal facilities
construction programs	After all, the agricultural segment of
our economy generates considerable tax revenues, both for the
Federal and State governments which now assist in deferring urban

-------
costs in this field of action.
      I might close by reminding this panel  that waste water re-
clammation is always cheapest when the water initially supplied  is
of the highest quality.  The way to assure delivery of adequate
amounts of high-quality water to a given place at a given time is
through timely, farsighted development of available surface  water
resources and their delivery systems.  That is the objective of
the California Water Resources Association.
                                 ####
By Ed Simmons/aam
6/18/75
                                         155

-------
     PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO PL 92-500
                           June 9, 1975
                         Atlanta, Georgia
                                By:
                       Julian B. Bell,  P.E.
                     Director of Public Works
                       Chattanooga, Tennessee

         Public Hearing, June 9, 1975,  Atlanta, Ga.
              Proposed Amendments to PL 92-500
Gentlemen:                   %j
      Proposal 1 - Reduction of the Federal Share:
      In review of the proposal  reduction of the Federal  Grant   «
level from a 75% level to a 55% level,  we find little logic which,
is presented to support this amendment.
           a) If the Federal Funds are  limited because of the
current economic conditions of inflation and recession, so might
the funds of the local taxpayer and home owner who  supports both
the Federal and Local  Government.  You  indeed place a lower priority
on Federal Funding by this reduction.
           b) It is not practical to even suggest of serious
local officials that we are not diligently trying to obtain the most
cost effective design and management structure to guarantee our
citizens the lowest possible charges for sewer use.
           c) You have obviously side-stepped the issue of the
increasing local share of obtaining 1977 of 1983 goals or any
goal dates hereafter set.  The obvious  cost is an increase to cover
the bond indebtedness of the construction facilities.  We will see
this at the local level in the cost of  sewer service to our citizens.
      In response to the question noted on Page 23108 of the Federal
Register. May 28, 1975, the answers are as follows:   Yes, no,
yes, maybe, tragic.
      1)  Let's be reasonable-- if we have to raise more money
locally to meet future requirements, there will be  delays which are
directly proportionate to the funding capabilities  of each local
municipality.
      2)  I can only speak for Tennessee and then only as a
municipality citizen, but it appears that the State of Tennessee
is in an over-budget position, and is now experiencing a shortage
of revenue as well as reduction in activities.
      3)  All communities are experiencing difficulty in raising
additional capital in the open market,  as is the Federal  Government
During the coming months, the Federal  Reserve may further extend its
open market policy to finance the Federal Department and we can
expect to see even higher interest rates and more'restrictive
bond marketing.

                                    158

-------
      4)  You have already stated that we, in local government,
consider ourselves responsible citizens no matter what the Federal
Share is.  Our accountability comes up daily to our citizens.
      5)  The tragic impact resulting in the reduced Federal  share
not only brings about a financial burden unbearable by the
citizens of our local communities, its obvious impact is a delay
in meeting any of the goals established in PL 92-500.  Local
funds are also limited.
      Question presented by Paper #2:  It appears that you are
adopting legislative controls to replace sound engineering judgements,
I shudder at the thought of a bureaucratic dictatorship which sets
a 10 and 20 year growth limit on plant facilities and Interceptor
Sewer construction.  We have experienced on a local level  almost
continuous construction in our sewage treatment plant facilities.
However, we are more than reluctant to dig up business and commer-
cial areas, our city streets, and our urban areas every 20 years to
add new sewer capacity.
      In response to the questions to be discussed relative to Paper
#2 on Page 23109 of the Federal Register:
      1. Does current practice lead to overdesign of treatment
works?  Only if all facets of our present structures act irrespon-
sible.  We, as a responsible municipality, by hiring the best
available Professional Engineers to design both treatment facilities
and sewers applying the latest  technology available.  It is  reviewed
at both the State and Federal level with constant review by local
Engineers and Management personnel.  If there is overdesign,  it is
a result of the misapplication of what we all must interpret  as
the best available technology.
      2. Population projections in the installation of sewage
treatment facilities are most critical.  Again relying on the latest
technology and data available, projections made in the past have
been historically low in our specific urban area.
     -3.  In the installation of sewers in the most cost effective
manner, the limiting of Federal Funding to the actual population
with the local government picking up 100% of any growth potential  of
our reserve capacity.  This question could have two effects:
           1)  Decrease in the line size with the small decrease
      in present construction costs result in greatly expanding
      cost for paralleling their replacement.
           2)  Resulting funding structure would simply increase
further local shares based on the premise that we are all  prudent
businessmen and engineers.  I do not recommend overdesign of any
facility for cost reasons and no local municipality can afford
to be under design in its construction activities.
      4.  The California rule of 10 year treatment capability and 20
year sewer reserve capability on sewers seems unrealistic


                                   157

-------
resulting in the following:
          a)  Replacement of design facilities before their useful
life is expended.
          b)  Unparalleled cost in future years, continuous dis-
ruption of life within local municipalities resulting from a
shortening of the now 40-50 year life cycle for design capabilities
which approximates useful structural  life of sewers to a resulting
20 year life which has the obvious effect increasing the rate at
which we add new  ones to our existing facilities.
      Statement relative to Paper #3: Proposal to limit eligibility
to categories 1, 2, and 4B described  as secondary treatment plants,
tertiary treatment plants, and interceptor sewers respectively.
PL 92-500 that is limited to these three items would place local
municipalities in a most restrictive  position.  Many mucicipalities
are in the process of expanding their sewer systems and sewer
system rehabilitation in what formerly were ruled as suburban areas
of their city.  As all cities experience growth patterns from urban
to rural areas, we are faced with an  assortment of public health
problems stemming from the extensive  use of septic tanks on
marginal and non-acceptable soil.  The installation of sewer
collection systems, being now the only feasible means to control
this problem within the city limits.   As we expand our sewer
system to meet a basic health need of the community we define
what we call a balanced system.  As interceptors are extended into
new areas, we start the construction  of the adjacent collection
systems, thus bringing sanitary sewers into use with the treatment
facilities at the earliest possible date.  Tow basic needs are
accomplished by this:
      1.  The public health problems  are solved, and,
      2.  It increases the cash flow  for-local share of construction
funding a self supporting system.
      As do many towns,,  the City of  Chattanooga, Tenn., has a well
planned program to meet the needs of  its citizens.   In an unbal-
anced system as outlined by Paper #3  (example Chattanooga), Categor-
ies 1, 2, and 4B would result in cost for construction for approxi-
mately $121 million,  If these items  are the only funded items,
then the City of Chattanooga would be faced with a local share of
approximately $60 million for the collection facilities adjacent
to these major interceptors as well as 25% of the $121 million,  an
additional $31 million, bringing the  total share to $91 million  worth
of bond indebtedness in the City of Chattanooga, a city of
150,000 people.  Bond interest payments of $8.1 million per year
which must be totally sustanied by the sewer service revenue which
represents approximately 4 times the  existing bond indebtedness  of
                                 153

-------
our entire sewer system.  If this picture is not bad enough,
let's proceed to the proposal reducing the Federal Local ratio to a
55-45 ratio.  Again, I have $60 million noneligible funds in the
collection system and an additional $65 million to support the local
money, bringing the total to be bonded locally to $115 million.  The
approximate value of this debt represents a yearly payment of
$10,351,000.  An addition $207 per customer for interceptors and
collectors and plant installation without increase in user base.
This is approximately 3 times the existing sewer service charge in
the City of Chattanooga for debt service alone.
      With respect to the first three papers which I have addressed ,
the City of Chattanooga can only feel that the intent and purpose
of the law is being altered to allow the Federal Government to
side-step its basic responsibilities in accomplishment of the
established goals.  We, as in many other cities, have addressed
ourselves to this problem in a most serious manner.  We trust that
the Federal Govermnent will do likewise.  It is your demands and
your statutes that we are attempting to live up to.  It is
because of your guidelines, procedures, and rules that we gather
this day.  It is not a happy moment to see the structure on which
we base our daily work, altering its share of responsibilities.  The
stability of our programs is based on financial soundness.  The
task, is larger than first viewed.  If the logic was costly, let
us learn together and not by shifting responsibility.
                                   159

-------
                                REPLY TO:  Henry T. Eich
                                           San Mateo County
                                           Office of Environmental
                                                Health
                                           509 Hamilton Street
                                           Redwood City, CA 94063
                                           June 17, 1975
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.  20460
                               RE:  Public Hearing on Potential
                                    Legislative Amendments to the
                                    Federal Water Pollution
                                    Control Act.
Dear Sir:

The Conference of Local Environmental Health Administrators is
comprised of Engineers, Sanitarians, educators, and other profession-
als in local Environmental Health agencies throughout  the United
States.  We appreciate the opportunity to provide our comments on
the proposals under consideration of this hearing.

Our review, with the help of your staff, also extended to the Strategy
Paper and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.  In particular
we were scrutinizing the portions of these documents dealing with
priorities.  Our conclusion must necessarily be that public health
reasons are absent as a factor in the determination of priorities
throughout these documents except for a general statement in the
middle of page 40 of your Strategy Paper.  That publication is
merely a policy statement and not a legal document.  This
fact therefore prompts this Conference to recommend amendments
to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to accomplish this
purpose.

If less grant money is forthcoming should we not place higher
priority on people than on the general environment?  While our
members support constructive efforts to protect the environment
whether the ocean, estuaries, lakes, forests or streams are
involved, the health p_f_ the people of the nation must be considered
ofparamount importance.

The correction of sources of water pollution will not necessarily
eliminate all cases creating hazards to public health.  At this
critical time of establishing the manner of steerl/ng priorities for
the funding of future projects with some possible restrictions on
suchfunds, it is most important that we insert the fundamental
element of protection of the public's health as one of the
baseline yardsticks.  It should be applied to collector and
interceptor sewers as well as to treatment warks since in many
instances serious public health problems may never be corrected
                                  160

-------
without some funding assistance.

It is interesting that the approach to priorities was mentioned
in the section of the Strategy Paper on Treatment Works priorities,
while is is not specifically found in the legislation.  Mr. Russel
D. Train states in his introductory letter:   "The Strategy Paper also
functions as an exposition of policies that may be implemented in
the future."  It is our hope that this will prove true in the
recommended amendments that will be developed for the consideration
of Congress.

Recommendation
It is recommended that Public Law 92-500 be amended to incorporate
"the elimination or alleviation of threats to public health as a
key parameter for the establishment of priorities for the funding
of treatment works, collector sewers and interceptor sewers".

                                           Very truly yours,
                                           Henry R. Eich
                                           Chairman
HFE:bm
cc:  Executive Committee
     CSSE
     NEHA
     APHA
     CEHA
                                       161

-------
                                           June 18, 1975
Mr. Paul DeFalco
Regional Director
Region IX
Environmental Protection Agency
100 California Street
San Francisco, CA 94111
Dear Mr. DeFalco:
                Position on Amendments to Federal
                Water Pollution Control Act
The Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County are 27 in number
representing almost 4 million people residing in 72 cities and
adjacent County ares.  The Districts strongly advocate that the
Environmental Protection Agency actively pursue changes which will
strengthen the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

The notice regarding this public hearing itemized five proposed
changes in the current legislation, but inadvertently did not
include a most necessary change relating to the requirement that
only user fees could be used for funding the local share of
operation and maintenance costs.  The primary intent of the federal
law was to require all users of a sewerage system to pay their
fair share of the capital and operating costs.  This goal can be   ?-
achieved by imposition of a surcharge on all abnormal  users of a
sewerage system while maintaining an ad valorem tax for the residen-
tial and commercial users in a service area.  A local  agency can bet-
ter formulate a balanced financial program of charges, including both
user charges and ad valorem taxes, dependent upon the dictates of
maximum economy for the specific community area.  There appears
to be solid support from virtually every s'ewerage agency in
California and, for that matter, throughout most of the  United
States, for the relaxation of the requirement that only a user charge
is acceptable for accumulating local funds for operation and
maintenance.  Currently, legislation is being considered in the
Congress on this matter, but continual pressure should be exerted
until the change has been made.

Within recent months the Subcommittee on "Investigations and Review"
of the Committee on Public Works andTransportation of the U.S.
House of Representatives held ten days of hearings on proposed
amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.  The
Subcommittee has drafted an interim staff report recommending six
specific suggestions for amendment to existing legislation, all
of which the Sanitation Districts strongly endorse.  One of the
six items includes a recommendation that ad valorem taxation may
be used to pay operation and maintenance costs as discussed in
the previous paragraph.  Other changes are as follows:

      1.  Authorize the Administrator to extend the July 1, 1977
                                      162

-------
effluent limitations deadline for municipal dischargers who, for
good reason, will be unable to comply with the deadline.  A new
compliance deadline should be set on an individual basis.

      2.  Modify the requirement that, as a minimum, effluent limita-
tions based upon a uniform level of secondary treatment be imposed
upon all publicly owned treatment works.  This change would allow
community size and location, and other specific environmentally-
related circumstances, to be considered in the establishment of
less stringent effluent limitations in special cases.

      3.  Eliminate the December 31, 1974 date in Section 402-A so
that NPDES permit applicants, acting in good faith, could not be
taken to court while administrative action is being taken relative
to their applications.

      4.  Extend the 30-day deadline for hearings on toxic
standards.  Extend from one to a maximum of three years industry
compliance deadlines -- both as recommended by EPA.

      5.  Provide authority to the Administrator to discharge
certain of his responsibilities in connection with the construction
grants program by accepting certification of the State agency
under certain conditions (Cleveland-Wright Bill - H.R. 2175).

The notice on this public hearing suggested that comment would be
welcome regarding the possible reduction of the federal share
of grant funding available for capital improvements to sewerage
systems.  Any change in the current level of federal grant
funding feom the present 75% level would be grossly unfair to
those agencies who have not qualified for grant funding up to the
present time.  One of the basic premises for distribution of the
grant funds has been the hypothesis that those projects with the
greatest need were eligible for the highest priority.  A sewerage
agency with aggressive management and foresighted
planning would not have been eligible for grant funding in the
first few years and, consequently, a change at this time would
regard those agencies who had been most lax and would penalize
organizations who have done an acceptable job in past years.  It
is imperative that the federal government not only maintain the
current 75% level of grant funding, but that firm commitment be
made for long range continuation of the federal grant program so
that maximum efficiency can be obtained in the planning and
construction of urgently needed water pollution control facilities.

The Districts' management endorses the concept of public hearings

                                      163

-------
to provide a public forum for discussion  of needed  adjustments
in the legislation dealing with water  pollution  control  activities.

                                           Yours very truly
                                           John  D.  Parkhurst
                                           Chief Engineer and
                                           General  Manager
JDP:WEG:cam
                                 161*

-------
                                           June 16, 1975
Mr. Paul De Falco, Regional Director
Region IX
Environmental Protection Agency
100 California Street
San Francisco, CA  94111                     -
                                                        i

      Re:  Position on Amendments to Federal
           Water Pollution Control Act

Dear Mr. DeFalco:

The California Association of Sanitation Agencies (CASA) represents
managers and directors of agencies within California who have
responsibilities for the construction and .operation of sewerage
systems.  Virtually all of the special districts involved in this
work in California are members of the Association.  On May 24, 1975
the Executive Committee of CASA received the recommendation of the
Managers' Committee that testimony be presented by the Association
at the public hearing scheduled for June 19th related to possible
change in Public Law 92-500.  After considerable discussion by
the members present, a resolution was passed speaking to the issues
discussed in this letter.

The Executive Committee recommended that each member agency
present individual testimony on the five subjects which were defined
in the announcement of the public hearing.   In addition to the above
subjects, however, there appear to be two major topics relating
to Federal Law 92-500 which are considered to be of major
Importance to the members.  The first relates to requirements that
local funds needed for operation and maintenance be accumulated
solely from a user fee.  The Association feels that each local
agency should retain to itself the decision as to the manner
in which local funds for operation and maintenance are obtained,
provided that industries or other special class users of the sewerage
system pay theirfair share for the capital, and operation  and
maintenance costs for use of the system.  Many agencies in
Califorinia and throughout the United States already assess a
surcharge on industries to assure that this class of user pays
their fair share.  By unanimous vote  the Executive Committee
recommends this change for the following four reasons:

      (1)  Elimination Of the ad valorem tax by substitution of
a user fee would'be substantially more expensive to administer.
The higher overhead cost for a user fee does not guarantee any
greater equity in terms of distrubution of the costs of construct-
ing and operating a system.
                                  165

-------
      (2)  The user fee does not assess all  beneficiaries
equitably.  It is entirely conceivable that a piece of vacant
land will have substantially increased value if that property has
rights to use an existing sewerage system, even though no improve-
ments have been placed upon the property.

      (3)  A uniform charge to all users would represent a
regressive type of taxation and in no way  be proprotionate to the
ability of a landowner to pay for use of the system.

      (4)  Individual agencies, both large and small, would not
have the ability to enforce or encourage payment of the user fee
and, consequently, a high delinquency rate would probably result.
Collection of delinquent charges again would represent much higher
administrative and legal costs as compared to established procedures
for collecion of the ad valorem tax.

Another major omission in the public announcement relates to the
payment of reimbursement money as defined  in Public Law 92-500.
Again, it was the unanimous opinion of the CASA members that the
formula for disbursement of reimbursement  payments should be i:
rigidly followed by the Environmental Protection Agency.  Regard-
less of any argumentswhich might be presented as to the appropriate
cutoff date for eligible projects, it does seem proper that those
agencies eligible under the current law receive reimbursement
funding due them at the earliest possible  time.

The members of the California Association  of Sanitation Agencies
appreciate this opportunity to express their views at the public
heaeing.
                                                     it
                                           Very truly yours,
                                           Walter E. Garrison
                                           2nd Vice President,  CASA
WEGrd
cc:Michael F. Dillon
   Executive Director, CASA

   H. Wayne Sylvester
   President, CASA
                                   166

-------
June 17, 1975

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials
(WH-556) Room 1033, West Tower
Waterside Mall
401 "M" Street, S.W.
Washington, D. C.  20460              ""

Potential Legislative Amendments

Gentlemen:

The reactions of member firms to the Consulting Engineers Council
of Iowa to the five papers published in the Federal Register on
May 28, 1975 (40 FR 23107-23113) have been summarized by a special
committee of our member firms.  These reactions are as follows:

PAPER NO. 1 - REDUCTION OF THE FEDERAL SHARE

The Congress of the United States of America have, by their actions,
set a high priority for abatement of pollution of the nation's
waterways.  Our members are of the opinion that the federal govern-
ment should review the priority of the water pollution abatement
program in perspective with other federal spending.  If improvement
of the water quality of our rivers and streams is as high on the
priority program list as indicated by the actions of the federal
government, then federal assistance through construction grants
should be maintained at the present percentage level or increased
to a higher percentage level.

It is our suggestions that the present 75% level of federal con-
struction grant funding for construction of all water pollution
control related projects, be maintained for projects requiring
secondary treatment.  It is further recommenced that the construc-
tiongrant'funding be increased to 100% for all treatment facilities
required to meet water quality standards higher than can be achieved
by secondary treatment processed.  An alternative to the above
further recommendations would be that whatever regulatory body
(federal or state) dictates higher than secondary treatment require-
ments, should be responsible for providing the 100% construction
grant funds for the incremental treatment facilities required for
higher than secondary treatment standards.

Water pollution abatement requirements have largely been promoted
at the federal level.  Local governments cannot be expected to


                                  167

-------
raise the necessary money for financing programs which seemingly
provide little local benefits.   Many small  communities are at
their indebtedness limits as set by state statutes and are unable
to arrange reasonable revenue—type financing.   Perhaps,  a federal
loan insurance program similar to FHA mortgage  insurance  for home
loan  to guarantee municipal revenue-type financing would allow
communities to eliminate the bonding coverage provisions  set up
in most revenue bond sale proceedings to generate additional
revenue over the requieed principal and interest payments so as
to increase the sal ability of bonds.

No appreciable change in local  accountability for  cost-effective
design is anticipated inasmuch as past and  present design
methodologies and federal and state review  methodologies  require
a cost-effective analysis of project alternatives.  Further, it is
anticipated that water quality pollution abatement objectives
would not be enhanced by a decrease in the  amount of the  federal
and state construction grant funding program.  An increase in the
requirement for local financing of both capital  improvements and
operation of treatment facilities will have an  adverse impact on,
water quality pollution abatement objectives.

PAPER NO. 2 - LIMITING FEDERAL FUNDING OF RESERVE CAPACITY TO
              SERVE PROJECTED GROWTH        ,           '       ,    >  ,

It is the opinion of many of our'member consultants that  underdesign
of wastewater treatment facilities Gather than  overdesign has been
the predominant problem.  In many of these  cases, the limitation of
financial resources has been a major reason for the underdesign.

We agree in principle with the design and construction of treatment
facilities on a staged basis, provided that the planning  stages
are of a sufficient length of time (15-20 years) so as not to
create a continuous construction program which  interferes with the
operation of the treatment facilities.  However, our experience
has shown that a similar concept for sanitary sewer system design
and construction is not a reasonable, practical  or cost-effective.,
program for the owner.  It is our recommendation that sanitary
sewer systems be designed to handle flows based on 50-year popula-
tion growth projection plus an allowance for infiltration/inflow
based on local experienced conditions rather than an imposed
standard.

Other forms of legislation and land use control  should-be looked
to for controlling growth of an area where  there are environmental
concerns.
                                    168

-------
If federal grant monies are going to be allocated for certain
designated capacities for treatment works components, we suggest
the formulation and adoption by all EPA regions of a uniform system
of curves for sewers, treatment plants, pump stations and other
facilities for determination of the percentage of capacity
chargeable to EPA approved design capacity and to owner-desired
"excess" capacity.  Otherwise, inequities will develop between the
various regional EPA offices in the administration of the policy.

PAPER NO. 3 - RESTRICTING THE TYPES OF PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR GRANT
              ASSISTANCE

If the type of projects listed a "V Correction of Combined Sewer
Overflows" and "VI Treatment or Control of Storm Waters" were
eliminated as being eligible for construction grant funding, and
if, the further treatment of waters from these sources were delayed
until such time as a practical and feasible program can be developed
for abatement or reduction of all non-point pollution, a substantial
portion of the $225 Billion of the needs requirements set out in
the 1974 Survey would be removed from the construction grant
funding program.  This would reduce the remaining program for
pollution abatement to a reasonable level so that an increase in
the federal construction grant funding to a $35 Billion level
from the present $18 Billion would allow the nation to proceed
with an orderly program for elimination of most of the major
point source pollution.

Most urban communities'are not in favor of spending large sums of
money to abate non-point pollution unless it can be clearly proven
that the sources being abated are major sources in comparison with
other non-point pollution sources such as runoff from agricultural
lands.

PAPER NO. 4 - EXTENDING 1977 DATE FOR THE PUBLICLY OWNED PRETREATMENT
              WORKS TO MEET WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

It is recommended that a combination of Alternative 3 and 4 as
set out in the paper be implemented whereby the 1977 date would be
maintained but that the Adminsitrator of EPA be given the discretion
on the availability of federal construction grant funds and a
display of good faith by the grantee to build the necessary
facilities.

PAPER NO. 5 - DELEGATING A GREATER PORTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF
              THE CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM TO THE STATES
                                    169

-------
The concept of the state agencies administering the federal
construction grants program is endorsed.  It is recommended also
that the federal government monitor the state's administration of
the methodology and enforcement of the program to establish a
consistent program throughout the nation.  It is also recommended
that the Administrator of EPA develop standards for use by all
of the EPA regional offices in order to develop nationwide consist-
ency in the administration of the construction grant program.

Respectfully submitted,

      CONSULTING ENGINEERS COUNCIL OF IOWA

By R.W. Grant', President

This paper was prepared by the following CEC-Iowa Members:
H.R. Veenstra, Committee Chairman, Veenstra and Kimm,
      West Des Moines
Robert Frederick, Howard R. Green Co., Cedar Rapids
Kenneth Bright, Stanley Consultants, Muscatine
David Curtis, DeWild Grant Reckert and Associates Co,.  Rock Rapids
David Fox, Clapsaddle-Garber Associates, Marshall town
Lyle Tekippe, Bert B. Hanson snd Associates, West Union
Al Baker, Shive-Hattery and Associates, Iowa City
                                  170

-------
                                 May 30, 1975
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
100 California Street
San Francisco, California  94111

Attention Mr. David Sabock
                or
          Hearing Officer
Dear Sir:

In reference to the Public Hearing scheduled in San Francisco, Cali-
fornia, June 19, 1975, this District presents herewith two copies of
its comments on proposed amendments to the FWFCA:

Federal financing share should not be reduced since Federal require-
ments are being imposed on states and localities;

No project can meet local engineering and economy considerations if
projects are built merely to meet present population needs.without
consideration of future needs;  engineering cost considerations
would demand such projections;

EPA should allow the use of local ad valorem taxes on property
to meet cost obligations rather than user fees.  For example vacant
property along sewer collection lines are benefited and should
pay its share of the costs because of the benefits to the land
and future development;

EPA should realistically realize that standard requirements for waste-
water treatment projects cannot be uniformly applied nationwide
because of weather, topography and climatic differences in the
various regions in the country.  The imposition of these uniform
standards present impractical problems and increased costs that
fail to recognize local conditions.

Will you please enter these comments on your hearing records
since we will not attend the San Frnacisco hearing.

                                           Yours very truly,
                                           Lowell 0. Weeks
                                 General Manager-Chief Engineer
                                   171

-------
June 24, 1975
Mr. James L. Agee, EPA
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials, Rm. 1033
West Tower, Waterside Mall
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington D.C.  20460

Dear Mr. Agee:

In accord with comments made at your San Francisco hearing, hereith
are written comments on the subject of PL 92-500 which cover and
amplify our comments made at that meeting.  Before discussing the
specific proposed changes, we must simplify our discussion by
covering some conceptual points which would otherwise be repeated
in reference to several of the proposals.  For the sake of
brevity, we will over-simplify and indulge in a little hyperbole.

First we all realize that the money which the Federal government sends
out in grants is really our own money coming back to us.  However,
we also realize that Federal tax income could be spent in myriad
other ways, so the inevitable tendency is to consider Federal grants
as "found" money.  Second, it is one thing to direct expenditures
which others may find foolish if you also say that you will pay
75% of the bill.  It is an entirely different thing to continue
to direct the same expenditures when you do not want to pay.  If
you want to call the tune, pay the piper.  Third, the Federal
government prints the money and its taxes set the business climate
for the whole nation.  If, with this favorable actuation for
fund-raising, the Federal government feels that they can't fund
the proposed expenditures, how on earth are state and local govern-
ments (which lack these very substantial Federal advantages) going
to find an additional $70 plus billion over the next few years?

Fourth, PL 92-500 has a fundamental conceptual flaw:  discharge
control without relation to water quality.  The "best technology
available" is triple distillation.  To make a social-economic judg-
ment to do less, one must relate tp_ some target which judgment would
establish.  The water quality of the receiving waters is the only
rational basis for such judgment.  At the time PL 92-500 was passed,
it was asserted that the water quality approach had been tried
and found wanting.  We disagree,  To paraphrase G.K. Chesterton's
famous aphorism on Christianity;  water quality has not been found
wanting, it has been found difficult and not tried.  We suspect
that the reason it was not tried much (outside of California) was
                                    172

-------
that it was found that local knowledge and judgment had to be
an integral part of the process and that is is impossible to
make easy nationwide judgments if receiving water quality is to be
the fundamental criterion.  It is no more appropriate to place all
communities (and all plants) on the same footing with respect to
water discharges than to place them all equal with respect to
climate, access to navigable water, or any of the myriad other
factors which cause differently located communities (and plants)
to have different costs for other things.  Let me give a specific
 example  PL 92-500 requires secondary treatment of all discharges;
a process, essentially, for the removal of most nutriants.  The
ocean waters off California need such removal like a moose needs a
hatrack.  Treatment, over and above that now being provided, is
probably necessary but no rational case can be made for nutrient
removal.

Fifth, any logical program based upon receiving water quality will
establish priorities based upon the cost-effectiveness of the
investment made in treatment.  It should be obvious that, with
limited funds available the money should be spent first where a given
expenditure provides the greatest improvement.  On this basis,
many already developed programs deserve a second look.  As an
example, the controlling feature of the South San Francisco Bay
regional program seems to be establishment of shellfishing
for human consumption.  Note, this is not shellfish habitat
(to coin a phrase, the shellfish are happy as clams), it is just to
make them safe for us to eat.  A ball-park guess of the cost of
the program (present value)  would be about $1 billion.  If shell-
fishing represents even a sizeable fraction of this, it would
be cheaper to provide chauffered limousines to Pismo Beach (an
attractive ocean shellfishing spot an easy half day's ride away).
Sixth, population growth will occur.  Girls now alive will grow
up and have some children before=we older types die.  Failure
to provide facilities to accomodate grwthwi 11 not prevent
growth, it will simply mean that the growth is inadequately
serviced.

With respect to EPA proposal papers for PL 92-500 modifications,
the foregoing observations are generally pertinent.  Our specific
comments follow:  Paper 1 proposes that the Federal grant share
be reduced to as low as 55% (from the present 75%).  As indicated
above, pay the piper or call less of the tune.  We also note that
many projects already partway thru the planning process would
be delayed while new local bond authority is being sought.
Paper 2,  proposes that grant funds not be used to fund reserve
capacity to take care of excess growth.  The actual proposals
are slightly less restrictive than California now inposes and

                                173

-------
can be lived with.  However, we note that it takes about ten years
to finish the process of treatment plant construction (from
concept to operational status), so this policy results in virtually
continuous effort on a series of small add-on projects.  Considering
the very large overhead costs of processing (including impact
reports)  this procedure will have the effect of greatly increasing
the cost of the necessary facilities.  For large plants now
being processed, these costs (for all involved) must be about
20-30% of total project cost.  Since many of these costs do not go
down with size of plant, it is likely that considerably higher
overhead costs would be associated with the process of continuously-
building small added increments.  To mitigate this effect,
administrative leeway should be authorized.

Paper 3proposes that certain types of work no longer be eligible
for grant funding.  This is just a back-door way of reducing
the percentage of Federal support and should not be done.  It is,
of course, fully appropriate to indicate that different types
of work should have different priorities, while recognizing that
circumstances alter cases, so (again)  administrative leeway must,
be allowed.  Paper 4 proposes to extend the 1977 deadline for
meeting the requirement that all localities have secondary     •
treatment.  In view of the fact that 60% of the 1977 population
will be in localities which cannot meet this deadline, what are
they to do?  Self-destruct?  Many of the delays were caused by
the administrative problems of the Act (and associated environmental
laws).  It is obvious that the deadline should be lifted, simply to
avoid placing the law in contempt.  Further, as indicated above,
there are places where secondary treatment is not needed at all
(even though other complex treatment might be).  The paper notes
that industry also faces a 1977 deadline:  to meet NPDES industry
standards.  Many of these standards are not yet written.  All
will be difficult to meet.  An extension here is both appropriate
and just.  As indicated at the beginning, these discharges should
more properly be related to water quality.

Paper 5   suggests that additional authority for operation of
the program be delegated to the states.  We see no objection to this,
but suggest that nothing is gained if the delegation is accompanied
by closeover-the-shoulder supervision and an item veto.  The only
way any efficiency is gained is to make a real delegation with
oversight by audit-type action.

In summary:  if you want to call the tune, pay the piper;  receiving
water quality is the only rational basis for water regulatory control;

-------
priorities should be based upon analysis for cost-effectiveness.

Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions.  In
view of the expressed need for Congressional review, copies of
this letter are also being furnished to the members of California's
Congressional delegation.  In accord with their PL 92-500 review
duties, a copy of this statement is also being forwarded to the
NCWQ.

Sincerely yours,
Robert E. Burt, Director
Environmental .Quality

REBrjcw
                                   175

-------
                       RESOLUTION NO. 75-7

          A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
          CAMARILLO SANITARY DISTRICT, DECLARING ITS
          POSITION REGARDING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO          ,  ,
          PUBLIC LAW 92-500   -                     .,     "
                                                            &•
                                                          s       J-
WHEREAS, The Federal Office of Management and Budget has requested
hearings on proposed amendments to Public Law 92-500, regarding waste
treatment grants;  and

WHEREAS,The amendments propose a reduction in the Federal  share,
of such grants, limits the scope of grants to facilities to serve
the existing population, restricts eligible projects, extends  the
1977 date for meeting water quality standards, delegates the
greater portion of management ot the states, and does not  cover •--
the use of ad valorem taxes for operation and maintenance  of
treatment facilities;  and

Whereas, Several of the proposed amendments would not be in the
best interests of the Camarillo Sanitary District;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Directors of
the Camarillo Sanitary District hereby declares its position in
regard to proposed amendments to Public Law 92-500, as follows:

      Commends the Congress of the United States for the progress
that has been made toward improving water quality standards
through enactment of this law;

      Observes that it is important to make revisions in legislation
after it has been in operation for a time;

      To oppose reduction of the Federal share of waste treatment
grants, limiting the scope of the grants to facilities to  serve
the existing population and restricting the types of eligible
projects;

      To favor extending the 1977 date for meeting water quality
standards, delegating a greater portion of grant management to the
states, and allowing the use of ad valorem taxes for operation
and maintenance of treatment facilities.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED, This llth day of June, 1975.
                                           /s/ Mary R.  Gayle
                                           Chairman of the Board
                                176

-------
/s/ Robert V. Pena
Secretary

I HEREBY CERTIFY, That the foregoing Resolution No.  75-7 was  approved
and adopted at a'n adjourned meeting of the Board of  Directors of
the Camarillo Sanitary District, held on the llth day  of June,
1975, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:  Directors Daily, Meredith, Moore, Pena;   Chairman Gayle
NOES:  Directors None
ABSENT:  Directors None

                                 /s/ Larry L. Weavey
                                 Assistant Secretary
                                      177

-------
                                           June 19, 1975
REMARKS OF FRED A. HARPER, GENERAL MANAGER, ORANGE COUNTY SANITATION
DISTRICT

RE:  EPA MUNICIPAL WASTE TREATMENT GRANTS, PUBLIC HEARINGS ON    >   ,
     POTENTIAL LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER
     POLLUTION CONTROL ACT, JUNE 19, 1975, SAN FRANCISCO, CA.

      The County Sanitation Districts of Orange County are located
in Southern California serving 23 cities encompassing an area of
320 square miles, and a population of 1% million people.  We >
operate and maintain 450 miles of interceptor sewers and 2
wastewater treatment facilities,  The primary treated effluent
averaging 172 million gallons/day is discharged through an out fall
diffuser system 5 miles out in open ocean at a depth of approximately
200 feet.
      Currently, we are constructing a 50 mgd activated sludge
plant to meet EPA and State requirements at one facility.  We
have submitted to the State and EPA a Project Report which calls
for a total expenditure of $275 million to meet current State and
Federal Requirements.  We are financing our aggressive water
pollution construction program with ad valorem taxes (approximately
$18 million/yr.), sewer service connection charges, industrial
user fees, and state and federal construction grant funds.
      We welcome this opportunity to present our views on potential
legislative Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
PAPER NO. 1 - Reducion of the  Federal Share.
      The construction of needed treatment facilities has been
continuously inhibited and delayed for the lack of Federal
financial commitment.  Even when funds are available, the con-
struction program is still delayed because of the numerous
amounts of red tape at both the State and Federal levels.  A
reduction in the federal share of grant participation will
completely erode the program for clean water throughout the
United States.
      The people of California have authorized two State bond
issues to financially assist the local communities in solving
their water pollution problems,  These funds will run out in the
forseeable future.  Under these circumstances, it is doubtful
that the State would be anxious to pick up an additional portion
of the present Federal share.
      The local entities are having difficulty in maintaining the
various services they provide on a status; qou basis because of
inflationary pressures.  If additional funds for capital improve-
ments are necessary, the local electorate must authorize the
sale of bonds or other long-term commitments.  If the voter will
sustain additional taxes or charges by voting yes, he will vote

                                    178

-------
      Speaking for a large metropolitan agency that has been In-
volved with the design and operation of treatment facilities
for many years, we are and will continue to be cognizant of cost-
effective design.  On-going costs of management, operation and
maintenance of constructed facilities are the concern of
the applicant.
      What impact would a reduced Federal share have on water
quality and meeting the goals of PL 92-500?  With respect to
our agency, which is a deep water ocean discharger, this would
have little or no impact on water quality, based on our oceano-
graphic studies to date.  However, we would not meet the 1977
goal of secondary treatment as defined by EPA.

(For your information, I am enclosing a proposed definition of
best practicable waste treatment for publicly-owned treatment
works discharging into territorial seas which our agency submitted
to WPA's Task Force on Secondary Treatment of Municipal  Ocean
Discharges in June, 1974.  You will note that the definition does
not address itself to EPA's BOD requirements, as oxygen depletion
is not a concern for ocean discharges.  The emphasis is on potential
toxic substances, suspended solids, turbidity, grease, and oil.

I am also enclosing a report entitled "Alternatives for Improved
Treatment", which compares the costs of conventional secondary
treatment for our agency, $275.8 million vs. $113.8 million to meet
the criteria established in our porposed definition of best prac-
ticable waste treatment (BPT).  It is pur contention that discharges
through deep ocean outfalls meeting our definition  of BPT have no
serious adverse effects on the marine environment and, in many
instances, will have beneficial effects by increasing the nutrient
levels aroung the outfalls to a degree comparable to the naturally '
occurring levels achieved through upwelling.)
PAPER NO. 2 - Limiting Federal Funding Reserve Capacity  to
Serve Projected Growth.
      We will support limiting Federal funding of reserve capacity
if the applicant can have the discretion of utilizing the
economics-of-scale and pay for the increased capacity on an
incremental  basis.
PAPER NO. 3 - Restricting the Types of Projects Eligible for
Grant Assistance.
      We suggest that the authorization in PL 92-500 remain
unchanged.  The states should continuously update project priority
lists and approve only those projects which will  provide a measureable
improvement in water quality.
                                     179

-------
PAPER NO. 4 - Extending the 1977 Date for the Publicly Owned
Treatment Works to Meet Water Quality Standards.
      Our agency would support Alternate 4, which is to seek
statutory amendments that would maintain the 1977 date, but would
provide the Administrator with discretion to grant compliance
schedule extensions on an ad hoc basis, based on the availability
of Federal funds.  This represents the most workable alternate
based on a very basic premise in PL 92-500;  that is, the
responsibility of the Federal Government to financially assist in
the construction of municipally-owned*treatment works to meet the
objectives of the Act.  We believe that Alternate No. 4 would
accommodate the suggestion of an EPA Task Force to allow the
postponement of construction of secondary treatment facilities
for municipal treatment works with an ocean discharge, pending
environmental assessments of specific outfall sites to determine
the most effective techniques.  With regard to Alternate No. 5,
we believe this would not be acceptable to local communities.  If
funding is not available and the compliance dates are not met,
who goes to jail?
PAPER NO. 5 - Delegation of Greater Portion of Management of Grants
Program to the States.
      EPA and the states should be equally concerned that millions
of construction dollars are not wasted on studies and reports which
apply across-the-board to all applicants regardless of the type
of project undertaken.  Greater responsibility should be shouldered
by the individual states to avoid duplication of effort.  We support
the proposal of greater management delegation to the states.
      In conclusion, the 1.5 million people we represent are
willing to pay their proportionate share of the costs to improve
their environment, but we must be able to tell them what the
benefits will be.  If our proposals for water pollution control
are reasonable and worthwhile, they will be able to stand the kind
of public scrutiny they will generate.
      On behalf of our taxpayers, we hope the administration and
congress will consider meaningful changes in the Act which will
further facilitate the objectives and intent of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act.
                                      180

-------
                                 July 3, 1975
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials
Room 1033
West Tower Waterside Mall
401 "M" Street S. W.
Washington, D. C.  20460

Attention:  Mr. James L. Agee
            Asst. Administrator

Gentlemen:
      Subject:  PL 92-500 Revisions
We have reviewed the May 2, 1975 notice of public hearing and the
Background Papers as published in the Federal Register of May 28,
1975.  The following comments are offered.

                  REDUCTION OF THE FEDERAL SHARE

The Detroit Metro Water Department is opposed to any reduction in
the Federal share from the existing 75% level for construction grants.
If the Federal share is reduced, we would have extreme difficulty in
obtanining the required additional local financing.  The tight
monetary situation and the current recession could result in
unreasonable  interest rates on our revenue bonds if we had to
develop the additional financing.  This in turn would result
in a delay in the construction of the facilities under our
Pollution Control Program which in turn would result in a further
delay in meeting the water quality goals of PL 92-500.

DMWD has completed or placed under construction $346 million worth
of Pollution  Control Facilities since 1966.  It is anticipated that
an additional $144 million in construction will be funded and
started this year.  At least another $145 million in construction
must still be funded and built by 1980.  Federal funding at the
current 75% rate, should be concentrated on the top priority
projects as certified by the various state priority rating
systems.

The argument  that a decrease in Federal participation will result
in a greater  degree of accountability at the local level is at
best presumptive.   It assumes that the  local leaders, technicians,
etc.  care little about  their local dollars and care even less
about their Federal dollars.  We suggest that a decrease in the
Federal level of participation will have little, if any, affect
on accountability.

Construction  of facilities under our Pollution Control  Program

                                   181

-------
has been and will continue to be through a phased construction
program.  Although we (Southeast Michigan) probably have received
an equitable share of the available Federal money, the amount
has still been inadequate to keep the program on schedule.
Reduction of the Federal level will only serve to delay the
program as it now exists.

In summary, a reduced Federal share will delay the construction
of needed facilities in Southeast Michigan, will delay meeting
the goals of  PL 92-500, will create extreme financial hardship
to the Detroit Metro System in the event the goals remain the same
but the Federal share is reduced, and will have little, if any,
affect on local accountability.

We also recommend that Section 12 of PL 92-500 (Environmental
Financing Authority) be implemented and that reasonable and
realistic rules/regulations be promulgated.

               LIMITING FEDERAL FUNDING OF RESERVE
               CAPACITY TO SERVE PROJECTED GROWTH

We oppose the proposal to limit Federal funding of "reserve
capacity", to 10 years for treatment plants and 20 years for sewers.

Local decision making at the city, county and state level  and
their,responsibilities in pollution control will be usurped.
Section 101 b of PL 92-500 recognizes states rights but this proposal
gets very specific and detailed.  If a project is cost  effective
(and it must be) the total 75% Federal participation should be
made available regardless of the number of reserve capacity
years.  Sufficient and reasonable reserve capacity must be provided
for.

In our suburban service area there are several communities which
have developed extensively without the benefit of sewers or
local wastewater disposal facilities.  Septic tanks and small
inefficient overloaded treatment plants are the rule.  Our
program which is now in progress is correcting the above described
problems.  Specific numerical reserve growth capacity limitations
may reverse these efforts in Southeast Michigan.  The current
status of our phased Pollution Control Program calls for much
more construction to be performed before we get caught up with the
needs much less over-design for them.

Current EPA planning regulations, requirements and analysis
have greatly increased the time and manpower requirements for

-------
project development.  More and detailed regulations will lead to
project delays as previously experienced with each change and
addition to the regulations.  If other states see the need for a
"10/20" California Type program let them decide for themselves.
State agencies can better judge the local situation and needs.

Increased debt service cost would result from using a shorter
useful life over which to amortize the projects.  In a developed
urban city, utility relocation and reconstruction becomes a major
problem and cost.  Sufficient and reasonable reserve capacity
in wastewater plant and sewer construction should be provided in
the original installation.  This will avoid prohibitive additional
costs for utility relocation work in the future.

In summary therefore we suggest that "capacity limitations"
not be included in amendments to PL 92-500, nor embodied in
revised EPA rules/regulations.  We suggest that each state decide
for itself what capacity limitations should be imposed, if any,
and base their judgments on each specific situation.

                RESTRICTING THE TYPES OF PROJECTS
                  ELIGIBLE FOR GRANT ASSISTANCE
From the list of eight types of projects eligible for Grant
Assistance we believe none should be eliminated.  It is important to
allow all types of projects and various combinations thereof.   Cor-
rection of water pollution problems in the Southeast Michigan
can not be generalized into 1 or 2 solutions.  What may be an
appropriate solution in one area may not be the correct solution
in another area.  In Southeast Michigan, combined sewer overflows
remain a serious problem.  Under this proposal this type.of
corrective project would not be funded using Federal grants.   The
magnitude of the problem in Southeast Michigan prohibits the
total local financing $o a program to abate this serious source
of pollution.

It should be noted that the impact of large combined sewer
discharges on a small stream (in Southeastern Michigan) has a
greater impact upon water quality than a small treatment plant
discharge on a large stream.  The Rouge River pollution problems
are the specific, ones the DMWD regional plan is scheduled to
correct provided adequate Federal participation is available.

The EPA approved Michigan State Priority Point system used to
determine the order of projects funded in Michigan has worked
out well.  The weighted rating is based upon population served,
designated use of stream segment discharged to, drought flow
ratio of treatment plant discharges to stream low flow, treatment
                                   183

-------
greater than secondary treatment required, Great Lakes discharges
and other factors.   The State currently has full choice of the
types of projects it can place on the list and should continue
to make that choice.  If a project does not rank high it obviously
will not be funded.  Currently Michigan has approximately 567
projects on the list.  Less than 10% will  receive  aid thru
1976.  The priority point system is more equitable and flexible
than an out and out elimination of specific types of projects to
be funded.

                   EXTENDING 1977 DATE FOR THE
                   PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS
                   TO MEET WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

The DMWD fully endorses the extension of the July 1977 secondary
treatment deadline for publicly owned treatment works.

It has been noted that 61% of the U.S. population will not be
able to comply with the 1977 goal.  This implies that it is
now unreasonable and needs to be modified to a realistic level
or date.  Goals are important in obtaining water quality improve-
ment and pollution control but when they become unrealistic
they are useless and    ignored.  Financial problems, inadequate
Federal funding and difficulties in administrating PL 92-500
among other things are the basic reasons the established goals
have become unrealistic.

Implementation of the pollution control work must be tied in to
full 75% federal funding.  It is unrealistic to expect communities
to move ahead and finance their treatment works and lose possible
future Federal monitory support.  PL 92-500 should be
amended to allow reimbursement for any advancement of pollution
control work by local communities for development, design and
construction*

An across the board extension to 1983 does not seem practicable
as some foot dragging on the part of some states or communities
that are near the standards (and don't need an extension) may
result.  A case by case evalutation is advised.  Equality between
industry and local governmental requirements should be a Federal
policy as the health and welfare of all the people are at stake.

Of the five alternatives offered, we endorse seeking statutory
amendments that would maintain the 1977 date but would provide
the Administrator with discretion to grant compliance schedule
extensions on a case by case basis, based upon the availabilty
of funds and approval by the responsible state agency.

                                   18k

-------
We further recommend that the responsibility and authority
for the making case by case decisions be delegated to those states
which have responsibilities for issuing the NPDES permits.

                   DELEGATING A GREATER PORTION
                      OF THE MANAGEMENT OF THE
                    CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM
                          TO THE STATES	

The DMWD endorses the principle of delegating a greater portion
of the Construction Grants Management to the States.  It seems
that geographical closeness to the construction site and increased
understanding of local policies, problems and issues will
avoid needless red tape and paperwork.

This proposal is definitely in the spirit of Section 101B and F
of PL 92-500 which asserts that pollution control is basically a
state responsibility and that minimization of paperwork is a
specific goal.  To date the increased Federal regulations and
rulings have tended to add to the paperwork, reports, studies,
delays, etc. and duplication of effort between State and Federal re-
viewers is evident.

Bill H.R. 2175 should be supported as it would permit the
Administrator to delegate additional responsibilities to the
States.  This delegation of responsibility will only work if full
authority is also delegated,  "Second guessing" 4t the Federal
level must be avoided.

                                           Very truly yours,
                                           /s/ E. Cedroni
                                           Acting Director

cc:  Mayor Young - City of Detroit
     R. Purdy - Michigan Department of Natural Resources
     Water Pollution Contril Federation
     Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies
                                   185

-------
                                           July 3, 1975
Mr. Janes L. Agee
Assistant Administrator
Water and Hazardous Materials
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (WH-556)
Room 1033, West Tower
Waterside Mall
401 "M" Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.  20460

Dear Mr. Agee:

Enclosed are two copies each of a resolution adopted by the Metro
Denver District Board of Directors on June 19, 1975 and comments
from the Metro Denver Sewage Disposal District on the five pro-
posed amendments to PL 92-500.

We appreciate the opportunity to present these comments to EPA,
and respectfully request your thoughtful consideration of these
comments.

                                           Yours very truly,
                                           /s/ Mary B. O'Dell
                                           Chairman
MBO/gh
enc.
cc:  Robert C. McWhinnie
     Willian E. Korbitz, Manager
                            RESOLUTION
                        BOARD OF DIRECTORS
       METROPOLITAN DENVER SEWAGE DISPOSAL DISTRICT NO.l
                          June 19, 1975

      WHEREAS, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has
scheduled public hearings on June 9, 1975;  June 19, 1975
and June 25, 1975 for the purpose of receiving comments concerning
proposed amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(PL 92-500);  and

      WHEREAS, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will
hold the public hearing record open until July 7, 1975;  and

      WHEREAS,the Board of Directors of the Metropolitan Denver
Sewage Disposal District No. 1, hereinafter referred to as
"Metro District," wishes to submit recommendations to the
U. S.  Environmental Protection Agency concerning the five
proposed amendments.              1QC

-------
      NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Directors
of the Metro District hereby recommend the following:

      1.  That the federal share of construction costs under the
provisions of Title KK of PL 92-500 be reduced from 75% to 55%
of eligible construction costs to make it possible for available
federal construction grant funds to provide for more construction;

      2.  That the federal financing not be limited to serving
the needs of existing population because that would cause a
hardship in areas subject to immigration from other areas of the
country;

      3.  That federal financing be restricted to waste water
treatment facilities and interceptor sewer facilities and
appurtenances and replacement of collector sewer systems,
but not to include new collector sewer systems or storm sewers
of stormwater treatment;

      4.  That the 1977 date for meeting water quality standards be
extended to 1983 to provide for reasonable  time to finance and
construct the faiclities needed for compliance;

      5.  That the states be delegated the major portion of
management of the construction grants program;  and

      BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Manager of the  Metro
District be and hereby is instructed to prepare and send to the
I). S. Environmental Protection Agency a statement, approved
by the Executive Committee of the Metro District, together with
a certified copy of this resolution.

This is a
Certified and
True Copy of
Resolution
Adopted 6/19/75
                                    187

-------
June 23, 1975
Mr, David Sabock
United States Environmental Protection Agency
WSME - 809 B
WH 454
Washington, D. C. 20460

Reference:  Potential Legislative Amendments
            to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
            (40 FR 19236 and 40 FR 23107)

Dear Mr. Sabock:

On May 28, 1975, five papers were published in the Federal Register
for public review prior to public hearings to discuss potential
legislative amendments to the Federal Water .Pollution Control
Act.  In this publication interested individuals were asked to  v
review the five papers and were given the opportunity to submit
written comments.  We have reviewed these proposed amendments and
wish to comment on them by section.

In accordance with these conditions, attached for your review are
the City of Dallas Water Utilities comments.  Accordingly, we
respectfully request that these comments be made a part of the
hearing record.

We appreciate the opportunity to respond to these proposals and
voice our opinions.  Should you have any questions on this matter
please contact us.

Very truly yours,
/s/ Henry 0. Crasser
Director
Dallas Water Utilities

HJG:LNP:wls
Attachments (5)
cc:  Congressman Jim Wright
     Mr. Joe Moope, National Commission on Water Quality
     Water Pollution Control Federation
     Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies
                                     188

-------
                           PAPER NO. 1
                   Reduction of Federal Share

      Progress in construction of treatment plants and interceptors
under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
(PL 92-500) has been disappointingly less than under the programs
conducted under previous laws such as PL-660.  One of the reasons is
the many restrictions and requirements under PL 92-500, for example
the industrial cost recovery provision.  We would gladly accept a
55% grant if the industrial cost recovery provision were repealed.
Other restrictions and checks are aimed at making absolutely sure
that every contingency has been taken into account before proceeding
with design or construction.  These requirements are both expensive
and time consuming to both  the applicant and the state and
federal agencies.  When time is of the essence, as it must be
if the 1977 and 1983 dates set by Congress are to be met, it is
better to go ahead with a program, accepting the risk of some
mistakes than to delay until everything is letter perfect.  We
are informed that of the $18 billion appropriated by the Congress
for water pollution control in 1972, only $571 million has been
disbursed and $4.8 billion obligated by the Environmental Protec-
tion agency.  Meanwhile, construction costs have escalated about
30% since 1972 so the $18 billion of 1972 dollars will construct
only about $12 billion worth of projects in 1975.
      What does this mean?  It means some treatment plants that
should have been built have not been built because our efforts
have been expended on planning and revising plans, and submitting
additional justifications.  Delays have resulted from waiting on
approval of grants, waiting on approvals of plans, waiting on
authority to advertise for construction and waiting authority
to award.
      Universal application of secondary treatment to all sewage
treatment plans  throughtout the nation where the need for such
treatment has not been proved, is wasteful of both federal and local
funds.  The funding priority should first be the more critical
problems such as advanced wastewater treatment where stream
quality conditions warrant.  This preoccupation with universality
has caused delays and lack of progress in cleaning up the critical
rivers and lakes.
      If financing the water pollution control program has
outstripped the capabilities of the federal government, this is
even more true of the states and municipalities.  For example,
interest rates are-above 6% for AA rated bonds.  Energy costs
for advanced wastewater treatment in Dallas are projected to be
three times that of secondary treatment.  This projection
indicates an increase of 2.8 times the present energy demand,-while
at the same time unit energy costs have increased 50% primarily
due to increased fuel oil and natural gas costs to the power
                                  183

-------
companies.  Compounding our problem are the facts that personnel
costs have increased 16% since 1972, with chemical costs doubling
during the same period.  All of this leads us to an uncertain
future making the financing of the projects required to comply
with PL 92-500 questionable, either locally or at a state and
federal level.
      There is no doubt that reducing the federal percentage from
75% to 55% would allow the limited federal funding available to
cover a larger number of projects.  The real question is, however,
not how many more projects could recieve federal funding, but
whether the local communities could raise the additional matching
funds that would be required.  Under normal economic conditions, this
problem would probably be manageable.  However, with the current
downturn in the economy, it would probably be very difficult for
many local communities to secure the financing required.
      We further recommend that the EPA along with the Congress be
more interested in achieving viable goals by legislative changes
than in rejecting comprises in the present law.  If a realistic
perception of capabilities and requirements are developed and the
new emphasis is placed on the achievable portions of this act,
not only will the national economy benefit but our national
environment as a whole will be upgraded more effectively.

                           PAPER NO. 2
LIMITING FEDERAL FUNDING OF RESERVE CAPACITY TO SERVE PROJECTED
                            GROWTH
      This proposal if adopted would limit the amount of reserve
capacity that could be built into a treatment facility and/or
interceptor.  Consequently  only the capacity considered sufficient
by the Environmental Protection Agency to meet the needs of the,
existing population would be eligible for a Federal Government
construction grant.  It is obvious that this proposal is directed  ,
at the practice of over-designing of treatment plants and inter.r
ceptors.  However, we feel several factors both from an engineering
and economic standpoint should be considered.  Many of which will
justify construction of facilities with reserve capacity.
      In constructing interceptors where gravity flow is used
(almost universal) the mains are located where available space,
access, and favorable terrain conditions exist.  The concept of
installing parallel relief mains every 20 years or less is not
practicable in many communities.  Conversely, treatment plants
can be constructed in modular increments.  We should also take
into consideration the double impact of construction on the
environment if undersized interceptors are built initially
followed by additional relief interceptors.  This policy implies
that the EPA may be considering cost over the environment.  We
feel that interceptors should be designed using at least a

                                    190

-------
35 - 40 year design period and that the federal government
should continue to participate in 25% of the oversize cost as at
present with the minicipality bearing the cost of oversize
beyond 25%.
      As for treatment plants, we feel the EPA Administrator
should determine to his satisfaction the capability of treatment
works needed to adequately contain and process sewage generated
within the area to be served by the applicant's project under
current circumstances and should offer a grant based on costs
needed to achieve that capacity as a minimum.  It is our belief that
treatment plants should be designed and constructed in economical
and cost effective increments, and not based on some arbitraty
10 years.  Therefore we recommend the cost for greater capacity
than necessary for current conditions be considered and the incre-
mental size should be not limited but sized at what the municipality
feels necessary.
      The practice of limiting population projections used in
determining reserve capacity by using the lowest Census Bureau's
projected, fertility rates is not the answer.  The determination
of the amount of required reserve capacity should be left up
to local governments because they are much more knowledgeable
when it comes to local population trends.  These local governments
however should be required to substantiate that a growth potential
adequate to justify the conclusion that it is more cost effective
to provide extra capacity as part of the current project rather than
at some future time does exist.

                           PAPER NO. 3
RESTRICTING THE TYPES OF PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR GRANT ASSISTANCE
      While this proposal to restrict the types of projects
eligible for grant assistance would increase the available money,
it could, depending on category deleted, impose severe financial
burdens on the individual communities.  If this method is to
be used to reduce the federal burden, then we agree that first
priority should go to treatment plants and second to interceptor
sewers.
      This will likely take all the funds available, but if
additional funds are availabel we suggest the following priority
listing:
      Category IIIA - Correction of sewer infiltration/inflow
      Category IV   - Collection sewers
      Categories V&-  Stormwater collection and control
           VI "
      These recommendations stem from our belief that major
emphasis should be placed to clean up point sources first with
non-point sources having lowest priority.  The complete correction
of infiltration/inflow would involve house laterals (50% of the
problem) and it is impracticable to dig up every house lateral
                                 191

-------
in a city.

                           PAPER NO. 4
     FOR SECONDARY OR MORE STRINGENT TREATMENT LEVELS FOR POTW's
      Budget restrictions as well as administrative red-tape
have slowed down the nation!s water pollution abatement program to
the extent that it is not practical to meet the July 1, 1977
date.  Consequently, we agree that this provision of Section 301
should be amended.  However we are not in favor of the five
alternatives for consideration under this proposal.
      To retain or establish another nationwide target date such
as proposed in Alternative Nos. 1, 2, and 5 is impractical.  We
propose that a better target would be to set a date so many
years after the Step 3 grant is approved for a treatment facility.
The intent of this proposal is to modify the requirements of
PL 92-500 in order to allow the regional administrators to
establish compliance schedules based on local conditions and sound
engineering and economic judgement rather than some arbitrary
universal target date.

                           PAPER NO. 5
                  DELEGATING A GREATER PORTION
          OF THE MANAGEMENT OF THE CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
      This proposal is to delegate a great number of functions
and responsibilities directly to the states.  In our opinion
the states should be delegated all possible grant processing
functions, including those that go beyond the normal review and
approval process.  This delegation of responsibilities should
however be a true transfer not a paper turnover of administrative
duties.  The E.P.A. should restrict itself to policy making,
auditing, etc., and let the individual states implement the
grant program and the permit program.
      In order to facilitate the achievement of such a true
federal-state partnership and afford the states their proper
role and responsibility in protecting the quality of water within
their boundaries, we support the Cleveland Bill, H.R. 16505..  In
our opinion, the Texas Water Quality Board possesses the capability
from a management, administrative and control viewpoint to carry
out effectively the responsibilities to be delegated to it by
the administrator under the provisions of this proposed legislation.
                                  192

-------
                                 June 18, 1975
Mr. Alvin L. Aim, Assistant Administrator
Planning and Management
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water & Hazardous Materials
Room 1033, West Tower
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.  20460
                                 Re:  Public Hearings/Municipal Waste
                                      Treatment Grants-June 9, 1975
                                      Potential Legislative Amendments
                                      to the Federal Water Pollution
                                      Control Act
Dear Mr. Aim:

Reference our letter of June 11, 1975, the following additional
observations are furnished for your consideration.  The numbers
apply to the papers distributed at subject hearings.
      (1)   In the event the Federal share is reduced below 75
percent, we should be given latitude in establishing priorities
within the  County, concentrating first on decreasing I/I,
second on providing adequate secondary treatment County wide and
third on improving treatment beyond secondary.

      (2)  Local funding of reserved capacity for projected growth
beyond 10-20 years may be tolerable provided the plants were
designed with expansion in mind for the future growth.  The per-
centage cost increast of interceptors designed for growth beyond
the 10-20 years would be small and good design would include such
capacity regardless of source of funds.

      (3)   If types of projects eligible for grant assistance are
reduced, the above priorities should prevail.

      (4)  Any reduction of the 75 percent Federal participation
would result in delays due to increased problems in obtaining
local funds, therefore target dates would automatically slip
whether or not PL 92-500 is amended in this regard.

      (5)  Delegating more authority to the states should expedite
the program,provided adequate staffs are available and trained before
assignment of additional authority.

                                 Sincerely,
                                 /s/ G. Mac Daniel, for
                                 D. D. Brown, P.E.
                                 Di rector

                                   193

-------
DDB/ACM/jn
cc:  Mr. John T. Rhett, EPA, Washington, D. C.
     Mr. Jack E. Ravan, EPA, Region IV

                                 June 11, 1975
Mr. Alvin L. Aim, Assistant Administrator
Planning and Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Pffice of Water & Hazardous Materials
Room 1033, West Tower
401 M Street, S. W.
Washington D. C.  20460
      Re:  Public Hearings/Municipal Waste Treatment Grants
           June 7, 1975
           Potential Legislative Amendments to the Federal
           Water Pollution Control Act

Dear Mr. Aim:

The following comments were verbally presented on June 9, 1975
in Atlanta, Georgia in response to the public hearing announcement
in the Federal Register, Vol. 40, No. 86 - Friday, May 2, 1975.
These comments are on the five topics for which proposed amendments
to the FWPCA are being considered for submission to Congress.

      (1)  a reduction of the Federal share
           a.  Basic questions to be considered are:

               Would the State set as stringent effluent criteria
               if 75% Federal funding were not available?
               Would the State require local  governments to construct
               and operate the required high  capital investment
               and high operating cost advance wastewater treat-
               ment plants?
               or
               Would there be a re-evaluation of the necessity and
               also of the criteria for the effluent standards
               set?
               In other words, because of the availability of 75%
               Federal funding, has this not  unduly influenced
               and damaged the economic and environmental checks
               and balance process in the setting of reasonable
               effluent standards?
               These questions arise out of DeKalb County's initial
               experience with 75% Federal funding.

-------
               For example:  In 1972, the State of Georgia  Environ-
               mental Protection Division presented DeKalb  County
               with new effluent requirements for discharges to
               the South River and directed the engineering design
               and construction of the necessary treatment  facili-
               ties.  DeKalb County finds that even with a  75%
               Federal funding for construction of the required
               AWWT Facilities, estimated to cost $80,000,000
               and to be completed in four years, it is financially
               in trouble.  The $20,000,000
               DeKalb County share will place a severe financial
               burden in both dollar amount and from the accelerated
               short time shcedule to construct the facilities.

               Under the circumstances, DeKalb County cannot
               possibly do it alone and must be in favor of 75%
               or greater Federal funding.

          Obviously, consistency is necessary in the percentage of
Federal funding, as the achievement of consistent pollution
elimination efforts are clearly dependent thereto.

          b.  The 75% aid by EPA appears to inadvertently erode
               the State government's needed sense of economic
               concern.  Greater monetary concern might be shown
               the higher share of local funds.

      (2)  limiting Federal financing to serving the needs of
existing population.
          a.  A possible consequence of present 75% Federal
               funding and future limitation is:

               Were Federal funding limited to servinjijthe needs
               of existing population;  then any new facilities
               needed due to increases in population would cost
               the local government four times as much as those
               now 75% Federally funded.  This would require
               subsequent sharp increases in local water and sewer
               rates.  Rate increases are not locally populat and
               pollution elimination efforts would suffer.
               Limitations would unduly penalize growing communities.

      (3)  restricting the types of projects eligible for grant
assistance.
          a.  Guidelines are clearly needed to define the type
               of project which will be fully or partially funded
               by Federal grants.  Local governments need to know
               projected cut-off dates for Federal funding so that
                                   195

-------
               long range fiscal planning can be done.

          b.   Speakers have been asked by the panel to comment
               on a proposed system of federal funding, where each
               project type is assigned a different but fixed
               percentage of federal funding.

               Comment:  In any such system the highest percentage
               of funding should go to the local project from
               which the greatest overall pollution abatement
               can be gained.  This project might have a low
               assigned percentage federal funding.

               Such a system would probably create more inequities
               than it would cure and is not favored.

      (4)  extending the.1977 date for meeting watef quality
standards.
          a.   DeKalb County is in favor of such extensions on a
               case-by-case basis where the target date cannot
               be realistically and economically met.

      (5)  delegating a greater portion of the management of the
construction grant's program to the States.

          a.   DeKalb County is in favor of reducing the layers
               of governmental control.  Greater fiscal responsi-
               bility as well as environmental and planning respon-
               sibility should be given to the States  where it is
               shown the professional staff is available to
               administer the program cost effectively.  It is
               felt that only a fraction of the suggested 2%
               annual State allotment will be necessary to accom-
               plish this.

                                           Sincerely,
                                           /s/ D.D. Brown, P.E.
                                           Director
DDB/MW/sc
cc:  John T. Rhett, EPA, Washington, D. C.
     Jack E. Ranan, EPA, Region IV
                                 19S

-------
July 3, 1975

Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.  20460

Attention Mr. David Jabock

Gentlemen:

Subject:  Potential Legislative Amendments to the
          Federal Water Pollution Control Act
          (Public Law 92-500)

As a manufacturer and supplier of equipment utilized in publicly
owned treatment works, we appreciate the opportunity of offering
our comments on the five papers prepared by the EPA relative to
proposed amendment to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Furthermore, our company has been actively engaged in this field
for over half century, and we have had an opportunity to see the
results of pollution abatement effort before and after the advent
of Federal funding for POTW and offer our comments in light of the
benefits and trade offs which would be the most beneficial to the
American public for this and for future generations.

1.    Reduction of the Federal Share
      At first glance, the reduction from 75% to as low as 55%
      Federal share would facilitate the construction of more POTW
by virtue of spreading the money around.  However, is this in fact
true?  And, furthermore, is it the most cost effective?

      With the many socioeconomic requirements placed on cities
      today, local funding can only go so far.  The impact on local
      taxation we feel will be such that delays and not acceleration
      of construction will occur.  The larger cities which have the
      greatest need %re probably in the least able position to
impose additional taxes to carry the additional burden imposed
by a possible reduction in the Federal share.  We forsee the
inability of the cities to meet water pollution standards because
of their inability to finance plant construction.  Aside from
the pollutional effects, less treatment plant construction will
mean less jobs for those involved in the construction of treat-
ment facilities and manufacturers of equipment for thesefacilities.
The growth of companies in this field and, in turn, the availability
of more jobs by these companies can be tied to the increase in  .
the Federal share of construction, which alleviated the burden on


                                   197

-------
individual cities in getting treatment plants built.

It is recognized that there is a low incentive by communities
to construct treatment plants because the primary beneficiary
is not the community itself but instead downstream communities.
By reducing the Federal share, this incentive will further
decrease because the community will be paying more to benefit
others.  This will be a great motivator to do nothing!

Finally, the overall cost of treatment works will increase.
Municipalities have to pay more than the Federal  Government
in order to borrow money.  This is an add-on to the taxpayer
which means less construction for the dollar espended.

We recommend that the 75% as outlined in P.L. 92-500 be retained.

2.  Limiting Federal Funding of Reserve Capacity to Serve

                         Projected Growth
The apparent requirement to this limitation is the statement
that the 1974 Needs Survey appears to exceed any reasonable
capacity for funding within the Federal budgets for the next
several years.  The recommendations are for 10 years for plant
construction and 20 years for sewer construction.

Reducing plant construction expansions to 10 years is a short-
sighted approach.  Eliminating the political implications,
the requirement will cost the taxpayer more, whether it be by
local or federal funding.  If the requirement for 100% finding
for reserve capacity is required, it will meet with the same
local tax problems discussed previously with the outcome that
this capacity will not be built.

Secondly, requiring a community to expand its treatment plant
within 10 years will be met with resistance and will result in
construction being delayed the second time around, resulting in
a detfinent to our water resources.  In addition, plant construction
every 10 years poses a real cost problem.  Based on past experience
of rising costs, it is not unreasonable to state that building
plants for a 10 year growth instead of a 20 year growth will
at least double the cost of construction.

Eliminating anticipated reserve capacity should also be reviewed
with the loss of the benefit of better treatment and a cushion
for overloads.  It is recognized that many plants today are
providing acceptable results because of some added reserve
                                  198

-------
capacity.  Eliminate this capacity and you eliminate the buffer
due to unknowns in quantity and quality and the interaction
of industrial and domestic loads.

For sewer construction, we agree that construction for a 50 year
period is excessive.  However, a 30 to 40 year period does not
seem excessive when one considers the overall cost of the sewer.
The pipe itself is probably the lease costly portion of the job
when comparing increases in capacity.  The cost of construction,
therefore, would dictate an increase from the 20 year requirement
proposed.

As an example, if an 18" sewer is adequate for 20 years, a 24"
sewer would be satisfactory for 35% years, under the same design
parameters,  Putting in a 24" sewer initially woul-d be far less
costly than two 18" sewers 20 years apart.  In addition, this
would eliminate the traumatic experiences of a municipality during
periods of sewer construction, not mentioning the hazards of
construction such as explosions, COg poisioning, or reducing
of water tables where well points are required.  This latter
hazard is a real one in parts of Milwaukee County where lowering
the water table to conduct sewer construction left many homes
without a water supply.  A traumatic experience like this should
not be experienced every 20 years, not to mention the reduction
in property values in areas affected.

We do not feel the limits being recommended are realistic and
recommend Federal funding for 20 years growth for treatment plants
and 30 to 40 years growth for sewers.  We further recommend that
the response be for more accurate population and industrial
growth forecasting to obtain better cost benefit designs.

3.  Restricting the Types of Projects Eligible for Grant Assistance

Although consideration is being given to restricting the types of
projects eligible for construction grants, we question the
advisability of eliminating grants for storm generated flows
from this eligibility.

It has been shown that once you go to secondary treatment, the
bulk of pollution is from storm generated flows.  You have to
compare this load to that eliminated by "tertiary" or advanced
waste treatment.  We do not feel that there is a payoff in
                                   199

-------
advanced waste treatment until the storm generated flows are
taken care of.  We also feel that these flows do not necessarily
require the total degree of treatment required of the normal
domestic waste flow, but adequate enough to reduce the shop load
on receiving bodies of water.  Storm generated flows are high
volume and high intensity, and can wipe out our resources to the
point where they can't recover unless some treatment is given
to these flows.

We feel that urban areas must be looked at as a totality and
priority given to those sources of pollutants which must be
addressed to meet local needs.  Elimination storm generated
flows in favor of tertiary or advanced treatment can be a step
backward in the preservation of some of our water resources.

We also feel that additional time be allotted to establish
reasonable requirements for partial treatment and disinfection
of storm generated flows.  We think that, because of the unfamil-
iarity of solving this problem and the time required to report
on the requirements for treating storm generated flows, the figures
submitted to EPA could be very conservative.

We realize that Congress does not want partial treatment, but
an assessment of the overall problem may lead to this as being
a very viable solution to storm generated flows of which Congress
should be apprised.

4.  Extending 1977 Date for the Publicly Owned Pretreatment Works
to Meet Water Quality Standards

We agree that the requirement for meeting the water Duality
standards be extended.  The 1977 requirement is logistically
impossible.  We suggest a five year extension to 1983 with
Federal funding, but Congress should assure adequate funding
to meet this deadline.  (This is Alternate No. 6, not mentioned
in EPA's recommendations.)  Maintaining the 1977 date with
provisions for exceptions is a subterfuge.  Let's recognize
that the original time frame was not workable and get on with
the job.

Let's not extend the time requirements to 1983 without assurance
of the Federal financing.  This will create problems with cities
who could not get Federal funds due to no fault of theirs.  The
result will be no action and a multitude of court suits.  In
the end the Federal Government will finance these prefects at a
greater cost and "with an added delay.

                              200

-------
5.  Delegating a Greater Portion of the Management of the Construc-
tion Grants Program to the States

Since the result expected when delegating a greater portion
of the Management of Construction Grants Program to the States
is one of accelerating the program, we endorse the concept.
However, we do believe this must be done carefully.  A great
deal of caution must be exercised in this delegation and caliber
of manpower should be assessed.  There is a potential force for
reducing uniformity in requirements with 50 different interpreta-
tions of the regulations.  Therefore, even though the bulk of the
detail work will be assigned to the States, we endorse the
principle of project officers in the region to closely monitor the
States' efforts.

As to compensation to the States, we do not subscribe to the
concept that the administrative costs should come out of the
States'grant allotments.  Although on the surface the maximum
of 2% does not appear significant, 2% of $6 billion grant
program means a significant amount in plant and sewer construc-
tion.

Our company appreciated the opportunity to submit this statement.
We will be pleased to amplify our remarks and to work with
anyone in the Environmental Protection Agency to assist the Agency
in making recommendations to Congress on amendments to the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act.

Sincerely yours,
/s/ William N. Konrad
Director- Market Development
                                     201

-------
      My name is Richard Rosen.  I am the chief scientist at
Energy Resources, a large environmental and research and engineer-
ing firm.  For the past ten years, I have studied the problems
of municipal waste treatment for EPA and its predecessor agencies.
Additionally, I have worked extensively on this problem in my
own research.  For the past two years, our firm has been under
contract to EPA to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of the
municipal waste treatment program.
      I appear here today to present a summary of some of the
important findings of this work effort which has involved an
analysis of the performance of almost 200 waste treatment plants
throughout the United States and all of the water treatment plants
within the State of Connecticut which data have been collected
independently of the treatment plant operators.  Data on efficiency
of operation was collected on BOD and suspended solids removal',
capital costs versus treated flow, other costs versus treated
flow, capital costs versus design flow, and operation and mainten-
ance versus design flow.  The latter effort was required.because
it was found upon analysis of the performance data, the sample,
of 200 plants, that many of the plants were reporting performance
beyond that which was technologically achievable.  A careful   '
review of their data found that it was either improperly reported,
reported in a misleading fashion, the result of inintelligent
sampling procedures, or derived from the employment of incompetent
analysts.  The data from the State of Connecticut, collected
independently, was needed to provide some meaningful estimate
of real world treatmentplants operatiing chatacteristies so that
these could be compared to their designed objectives.
      The analysis of both the national data with the inflated
estimates of performance and the Connecticut data have many
things in common.  It is very hard to explain high quality
performance by any single major design or operating parameter;
plants for which capital costs per million gallons of treated
flow were very high frequently exhibited poor operating performance
while many plants with low capital costs displayed high level
of operation and performance.  (See Figures 3-2, 3-3, 3-11, 3-12,
4-4, 4-5, 4-12, and 4-13.)  Over sixty percent of the plants
report removal in excess of eithty percent, a figure in the national
survey, which is uncomformed by independent amalysis of the data.
Professor Joseph Harrington of Harvard University has noted that
many plants report on the quality of their effluent by means of
a sample taken at a time of day when the plant is likely to
be operating at its peak performance level rather than taking
random samples.  The latter methodology would be more likely
to reflect the real performance of a plant and would also
permit sensible estimation of average plant performance.

                                    202

-------
      A large sum of money both in and of itself, and relative
to all other environmental programs and relative to total
capital investments on the United States is required presently
to satisfy the needs of municipal waste treatment facilities
and will extend dramatically in the future to meet the  require-
ments already elucidated to the Environmental Protection Agency.
Investments of this magnitude must be carefully scrutinized so
that the public can be assured that these funds will be usefully
expended.  A variety of questions can be asked in this respect:
Do the plants we have work?  Are they the right technology?
And, ff they work, does their operation lead to improve water
quality?  At what locations?  And to whose benefit?
      It is fair to say that a large number of the plants that
are presently in operation do not work.  This is attributable
to poor operation, silly design, lack of control of industrial
effluents, overloading and underloading.  The question of design
choice is a very important one.  At the present time, two general
forms of technology, activated sludge and trickling filters
together with land intensive methods, are considered accepted
forms of secondary treatment which has been made mandatory for
municipal waste discharges.  A wide variety of other options
have been ignored.  EPA definitions of secondary treatment, which
emphasize end of pipe treatment preclude effective low-capital
cost alternatives.  Some of these, such as instream technologies,
and systems-wide management, have been especially evaluated as
optimal by waste treatment experts for many situations but have
been effectively excluded by the criteria which the EPA has
established for the supply of funds to municipalities.  As a
result, not only have potentially less expensive technologies
been sacrificed for more expensive ones, but technologies which
could produce direct improvements in water quality along several
dimensions have been eliminated for administrative reasons.
      A related question is whether or not, if the technology
selected is appropriate for a particular location, its total
design contributes to improve water quality.  Our analyses
have shown that in many places, the fundamental reason for the
construction of treatment facilities is the maintenance of
diversified, balanced, aquatic communities suitable for sports,
fishing.  The insistence by EPA on the chlorination of the treated
effluent frequently leads to the demise of the aquatic community
which the investment itself is designed to protect.  This was
seen rather clearly in the analysis which our firm undertook for
EPA for a number of specific rivers in the State of Connecticut.
      The present system fails to recognize that water quality
is a user dependent phenomenon, that is to say, the needs of
a swimmer are completely different from those of an industrial
user of water, and their needs may be materially different from
                                   203   '

-------
those of the fish.  Basic hydrologic regimes differ*measurably
from those of the fish.  Basic hydrologic regimes differ measurab-
ly from location to location in a variety of engineering and
chemical characteristics.  For administrative simplicity, EPA
has failed to take these many differences into account with
the result that a standardized set of procedures are employed
nation-wide to deal with a problem that is classically non-
uniform in its behavior.
      For the past year, ERGO has been under contract to the
EPA, CEQ, and USGS to analyze and evaluate the nation's water
quality.  Both the EPA's STORE! system and USGS's WATSTORE.system
have been employed to examine the water of rivers and lakes
nationally.
      We have concluded that there has been some improvement
in the nation's water quality over the last 15 years.3  This
improvement is attributable to control of industrial discharges.
Only a miminal component of the improvement can be attributed
to control of municipal discharges.  .
      There are three trends in water quality data which demon-
strate this point.  First, measurement of drinking water,
aquatic life, and recreation trends shows  significant improvement
between 1961 and 1974.  Third, there is the trend of sanitary
parameters contributed by municipal sources which shows little
improvement from 1961 to 1974 .                                   ,;
      What can be done to remedy this situation?  The first .
thing is to understand what we want where, to have a proper
evaluation of the various hydrologic types and uses and to
establish priorities and select appropriate technologies'to
achieve these goals.  The second issue which must be addressed
is the general question of resource allocations and an appropriate
level of investment decisions.  In this respect, the material
contained in the document which is attached here as an appendix
to my testimony contains considerable analysis which deals with  .
two fundamental issues, namely the specific characteristics of
the planning period and the extent to which the existing system
imposes in improper subsidy providing unfortunate incentives i
which mitigate the basic intent of the legislation.  The present
system may be reducing water^quality rather than improving it.
The third basic issue which can be dealt with is the question
of the proper supervision of treatment plant performance.  By
establishing appropriate performance standards for municipal
treatment plants and by regulating these with an intelligently
conceived monitoring program, massive improvements in treatment
plant performance can be achieved with a concomitant reduction in the
requirements for capital investment for the* construction of these
municipal treatment facilities.
                                    201*

-------
Mr. David Sabock
United States Environmental
 Protection Agency
401 M Street, S. W.
(WH556)
Waterside Mall
Washington, D. C.  20460
Dear Mr. Sabock:
                                           1262 Bordeau Drive
                                           Lexington, Kentucky
                                           June 19, 1975
40504
                                      RE:  Public Hearing on
                                           Proposed Amendments
                                           to PL 92-500 (FWPCA)
Enclosed are two (2) copies of my "comments addressed to Proposal
No. (4), Extending the 1977 Deadline for Meeting Water Quality
Standards, as outlined in your Notice of Public Hearing dated May
15, 1975.
                                           Very truly yours,
                                           /s/Penelope J. Evans
Enclosures (2)
cc:  Joseph R. Franzmathes, P.E.           v!   .
PROPOSAL NO. (4) - EXTENDING THE 1977 DEADLINE FOR MEETING
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

      Even though the achievement or 1977 Water Quality Goals is
virtually impossible, I strongly oppose the extension of this
deadline.  Such an extension can only prolong the implementation of
the water pollution abatement program, as well as undermine those
small advances which have been made in cleaning up the waters of
America.
      Perhaps the 1977 goals could have been achieved if municipal-
ities, industries and engineers responsible for complying with the
law had not become entangled in the mamoth administrative
bottlenecks existing both on the federal and state levels.
      Municipalities fortunate enough to have obtained approval  of
Step I Grant application have had to proceed in the ascence of
long-awaited EPA regulations addressed to such integral portions
of the work as effluent limitations, user charge regulations,
standards on toxic materials and the permit issuance program.
Additionally, the 208 and 303 (e) Areawide Waste Treatment Manage-
ment Programs, which serve as a base for 201 Facilities Plans,
are incomplete.

                                       205

-------
      I support the retention of the 1977 goals and offer the
following comments:

1.  The Environmental  Protection Agency should make a concerted
effort to alleviate the administrative delays on both federal
and state levels;
2.  Timely publication of guidelines should be accomplished by
EPA;
3.  Strict enforcement of the NDPES permit program, together with
an acceleration in the rate of issuance of permits should be
implemented.  The harshness of the penalties is not as severe a
deterrent to violations of the Act as is the certainty of enforce-
ment.  The provisions and penalties should apply to all permit
holders with no laxity afforded to any concern.  Extreme enforce-
ment provisions such as the application of Section 508 of the Act
should limit violations on the part of large industrial concerns,
coal mine operations, etc. to a minimum.
4.  A case-by-case review should be conducted for those permit
holders found to be in violation ot the Act.
      Investigations should determine if violators are engaged in an
active water pollution abatement program to comply with the
provisions of the Act, with the burden of proof falling upon the
violator to show cause why the penalties should not be imposed,
in the event suit is filed.
 5.  Immunity from citizens' suits should be granted in cases where
 the Regional Administrator determines a good gaity effort foward
 compliance with water quality goals.
       In summary, I oppose the extension of the 1977 deadline for the
 reasons that the water pollution abatement program will  be further
 delayed, the program costs will be escalated due to inflationary
 trends in the construction industry, and the only advantage of
 the proposed extension would be proof that the work will  expand to
 fill the time alloted.
                                      206

-------
      PRESENTATION TO.THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
           REGARDING PROPOSED CHANGES TO PL 92-500
                        June 19, 1975

Introduction:
      The East Bay Discharger Authority (EBDA) is a joint powers
agency, consisting of two cities and three sanitary districts,
established for the express purpose of constructing a $92 million
subregional wastewater management project along the southeast
side of San Francisco Bay.  Its service area encompasses a total
of five cities plus intervening unincorporated areas with a total
present population of about 1/2 million people.  The EBDA project
is quite a way down the "pipeline" in spite of several  grant
administration delays that will preclude the project's  completion
by the 1977 deadline.
      At the present time, we have a Step 1 grant to complete a
Federal EIS and preliminary engineering of $405,000.  That work
is now about 50% complete.  We have concept approval and a Step II
grant for about $5 million of treatment plant improvements.  One
small contract is now out to bid and final plans and specifications
for the remainder of the work are expected to be certified by the
State by June 20, 1975.  Final design of about $25 million of
outfall and interceptor pipeline will be completed within the 1975-
76 fiscal year and the remaining $60 million of a consolidated
treatment plant and interceptors to transport treated effluent to
the outfall should commence in 1976-77, subject to a satisfactory
EIS.
      This project has received outstanding public support largely
because of its reclamation and reuse potential and the  efficient
balance of upgraded treatment and strategic disposal that will
obviously enhance the San Francisco Bay environment.  The extent
of State and Federal grant funding has precluded emergence of  :-
the issue dependent upon multi-million dollar bond issues, however,
to finance their local shares of the program and the real test
of public support and willingness to pay even a 12-1/2% share of
such an ambitious and expensive program will be made at the polls
this fall and next spring.

1.  Reduction of Federal Share of Grants:
      To reduce the Federal share of construction grants under
P.L. 92-500 at this time would be an unconscionable act on the
part of legislators.  Communities have been coerced, through
the imposition of stringent regulations and the threat of heavy
penalties for non-compliance, to commit themselves to programs
not necessarily in accord with local priorities, and for which

                               207

-------
they are totally incapable of paying the costs.
      The staggering costs reported by the 1974 Needs Survey
balanced against the appropriations made by Congress under P.L.
92-500 point up the inconsistencies between the objectives of the
Act and the realization of the magnitude of the problems that
must be resolved to meet those objectives.  The Needs Survey
estimates are, no doubt, inflated because of the manner in which.
the survey was conducted.  We suggest that the survey estimates
may reflect the unrealistic requirements and time schedules     *'
mandated by the Act and the frustrations, uncertainties and red-tape
procedures experienced by local administrators in implementing
the Act.
      A reduction in the Federal share of financing would most
certainly widen the credibility gap between local administrators
and the Federal programs and would create significant delays    '
in attaining the objectives of P.L. 92-500 and meeting the require-
ments it now dictates.  Water quality projects now under way would
have to be severely curtailed for lack of funds and projects which
do not, as yet, have public approval would never materialize because
of the exhorbitant price tags attached to them.   Many local agencies
must depend upon the approval and sale of bonds in order to
obtain the resources necessary for implementation of the required
water quality programs and it is extremely difficult to justify
the programs to the voting public -in terms of the economic/environ-
mental tradeoffs and benefits received.  Some of the standards and
requirements have gone beyond reasonable limits and the benefits
are too intangible and too distant for the average taxpayer to
be able to weigh them against expenditures.
      If water quality objectives are to be mandated at the Federal
level, then the resources necessary for obtaining those objectives
should be substantially provided at the Federal  level also.  If
available resources are not sufficient to meet those objectives,
then the objectives should be re-evaluated and adjusted and
priorities and deadlines established which represent a cost-effective
tradeoff or compromise between the ideal and the attainable.
      The issue of cost-effective management of the grant funds
would probably not be greatly affected by a reduction in the Federal
share of participation by 20 or 25 percent.  While the local share
of construction funds may appear insignificant in relation to
the Federal share, it is usually a rather awesome figure in
relation to other local expenditures and attracts sufficient
public attention to encourage close scrutiny and prudence in
management activities.  The administrative costs of managing
grant funds and complying with the myriad red-tape procedures of


                                   208

-------
the grant program represent a significant additional local cost
that has been grossly underestimated by Federal legislators.
Perhaps the most effective way of insuring more adequate project
management would be to assist in relieving the financial burden of
that management, either by reducing red-tape, making administrative
costs grant-eligible or providing Federal personnel to assist and
monitor on-going projects.

2.    Limiting Fderal Financing to Serve the Needs of Present Population
      The proposal to limit Federal funding of reserve capacity
further points to the inconsistencies in the Federal approach to
water quality problems.  On the one hand, communities are being
required to make economic/environmental tradeoffs or sacrifices
with very little immediate or tangible benefit to insure the
environmental quality of future generations as defined by national
priorities.  On the other hand, the community which chooses to
insure future environmental quality by economically providing
facilities with adequate capacity to insure that same degree of
quality to future orderly growth are being penalized by limited funding.
      The only consistent and reasonable approach to this problem is
an all-out commitment to providing a quality environment for present
and future generations.  This must logically include provisions of
adequate sewage facilities at the most economical cost and, therefore,
funding of reasonable limited reserve capacity.  A reasonable design
period should be established (i.e., 10/20 years from completion of
construction) for which growth patterns can be determined with some
degree of aqeuracy.  The reasonable design period should be determined
on a project-by-project basis, taking into consideration the ability
and degree of accuracy of projecting reasonable growth patterns and
changes in land use policies in light of other environmental
concerns and the economics and relative risk of providing for
future capacity.  There is no substantial evidence that would justify
reducing sewage treatment and transport capacities to meet environ-
mental goals, i.e., air quality, and such an approach constitutes
irresponsible management and violation of the public trust.  Air
quality conditions or reserve capacity restrictions should not
be appended to water quality grants indiscriminately, such as was
done in California.  The California effort to limit and condition
grant funding has significantly delayed large projects and weakened
confidence and support of the overall program at the local level.
This nation has a responsibility to project to the future, plan
for and provide facilities for continued prosperity if it is to
maintain its high standard of living and leadership position in the
world.  Restriction of the flexibility to make determinations on
                                  209

-------
an individual basis is a detriment to water quality and to the
goals of national prosperity and a clean environment.

3.    Restricting Types of Projects Eligible for Grant Assistance
      The limited appropriations for implementation of P.L. 92-500
obviously dictate establishment of a priority system for funding.
Such a system would probably be necessary to meet objectives of
the law even assuming that a re-evaluation of requirements, time
constraints and cost effectiveness could reduce the necessary
amounts reported in the 1974 Needs Survey.
      Those projects providing the greatest water quality improve-
ment at the least overall cost should receive top priority.  Generally,
the funding of treatment plants (primary and secondary) and then
interceptor sewers with a 10/20 year design,capacity would satisfy
this criteria.  However, this decision is, again, one in which it is
necessary to retain the flexibility to make determinations on an
individual basis if the water quality objectives of the Act are to
be achieved.  Limiting of funding to specific categories of facilities
would tend to promote those types ,of facilities as the solution to
water quality problems in all situations when there might, in
fact, be a more appropriate and cost-effective solution.  No hard
and fast restrictions on types of facilities funded should be
written into the Act.

4.    State Administration of the Construction Grants Program
      The proposed amendment to delegate a greater portion of the
management of the construction grants program to the states is
a step toward providing the flexibility in implementing the Act to
allow interpretation and application of its standards to individual
situations.  Individual needs should be determined more effectively
and better understood with closer proximity to the problems.
Delegation to the State level would also retain the close control
and coordination necessary to insure the coherence of the national
program.  We applaud EPA's recent efforts to delegate more administra-
tive authority here in California and feel that they should be sup-
ported by amendment to P.L. 92-500.

5.    Extension of the 1977 Deadline
      Extension of the unreasonable 1977 deadline for achievement of
secondary treatment standards will serve to make the solution of
water quality problems and the Act more credible at the local level,
however, an across-the-board extension which does not consider the
reasons for non-compliance could jeopardize achievement of water
quality standards.  The only equitable extension is one which
                                 210

-------
considers on a case-by-case basis, the magnitude of the non-
compliance problem the resources available to correct it and allows
reasonable planning and construction time.  We strongly support
extension of the 1977 deadline to be applied on an individual
basis and to include the above considerations.

SUMMARY
      In order to meet the water quality objectives of P.L. 92-500,
the most important vehicle is consistent and reasonable Federal
policy with sufficient flexibility so that it may suitably be
applied to varying situations across the nation.  Any significant
changes to the intent or application of the Act at this time would
have a disruptive influence on the entire water quality program.
Local agencies are just beginning to develop viable programs con-
sistent with the elements of the Act.  Amending the basic procedures
of the Act at this time would render worthless the three years of ...
experience we have all had in its implementation and further delay
attainment of its objectives.  The only revisions that can now
expedite achievement of the objective of clean water is reduction  ,
of the bureaucratic red tape, scrutiny of the discharge requirements
and re-evaluation of the reasonableness and cost effectiveness of
these requirements.
                                      JACK D. MALTESTER
                                      Chairman

                                      By
                                        L. N. Landis
                                        Vice-Chairman
JC:mn

-------
                         STATEMENT BY
             EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
                     FOR PRESENTATION AT
    THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING ON
              POTENTIAL LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS
         TO THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

                   San Francisco, California
                         June 19, 1975
              By JOHN S. HARNETT, General Manager
Gentlemen:
      The East Bay Municipal Utility District appreciates this
opportunity to comment on the proposed amendments to the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, PL 92-500.
      The proposed amendments to the Act, which are the subject of
this hearing, appear to reflect a concern on the part of the Office
of Management and Budget as to ability of the Federal Government to
finance the present program which, as stated in the Public Hearing
Notice, is currently estimated to cost imexcess of $350 billion.
The effect of the proposed amendments to reduce the Federal share,
limit Federal financing to serving the needs of existing populations,
and restricting the types of projects eligible for grant assistance,
would be to shift a greater proportion of the financial burden for
this Federally mandated program from the Federal government to
the local taxpayer who is already overburdened by the costs of
Federal and State mandated environmental and social programs.
      The full financial impact of the present program has not
yet been felt at the local level.  When the facilities now under
construction are completed and placed in operation, the users,
already burdened by demands at the local level, will be faced with
substantial increases in use charges to defray the operating
maintenance and debt service costs of these facilities.  Reduction
of the Federal share, as proposed, would require still further
increases in the user charges to finance the additional long
term debt service costs of this Federally mandated program.
      Progress toward the achievement of the goals of PL 92-500
would undoubtedly be slowed if the Federal share was reduced.
Publicly elected officials of communities whose projects were funded
at the higher level due to priorities, delays caused by changing
Federal regulations, impoundment of funds, and other causes
beyond their control, would understandably be reluctant to ask
their electorates to pay a larger share of the costs of their projects.


                                  212

-------
      Progress would also be slowed, and some communities would
undoubtedly have difficulty raising the additional funds due to
statutory limitations on bonded indebtedness.
      A more realistic solution to the financing problem would
appear to be to scale-down or stretch-out the present program and
institute a system of funding priorities which would insure that
the projects most urgently needed and which would provide the
greatest benefits in terms of water quality improvement receive
the highest priority.
      Limiting Federal financing to that required to serve
existing populations, as proposed under the second amendment,
would also increase local costs by forcing the communities to
pay the full capital cost of any capacity that was provided for
future growth.  Some reserve capacity must be provided in all
wastewater treatment facilities to insure that they will not be
overloaded by the time they are completed and to provide the lead
time necessary to expand them before they are overloaded.  Facilities
provided under the proposed funding limitation would likely not
have adequate reserve capacity to insure that NPDES requirements
would be continuously met.  For the foregoing reasons it is recom-
mended that Federal funding be limited in the case of treatment
plants to that necessary to serve the projected industrial, com-
mercial and industrial flows within 10 years of the start of
construction.  In the case of interceptors, outfalls and sewer
lines, the cost of capacity for 20 years' growth should be allowed.  '
Population" projections should be coordinated statewide and based
on approved fertility rates and other criteria.  This would provide
greater assurance that the 1983 and 1985 goals would be achieved
than would be the case if Federal funding were to be limited to
that necessary to serve the needs of present populations.
      Restricting the types of projects eligible for grant
assistance (proposed amendment No. 3) would appear to be unneces-
sary and  undesirable.  Unnecessary because EPA and the States
through the authority they presently have to assign funding
priorities to projects, can effectively restrict the types of
projects that are grant funded.  It would be undesirable because
it would limit flexibility by prohibiting the funding of certain
types of projects which might in a given instance be more cost
effective in terms of pollution control than those eligible for
grant assistance.
      Extension of the 1977 date for meeting water quality stan-
dards (proposed amendment No. 4) is a practical necessity.  Public
Law 92-500 now requires municipalities to meet the secondary
treatment requirement by July 1, 1977.  In some cases secondary


                                  213

-------
treatment is already being provided; in others, there is still
sufficient time to comply before July 1, 1977.   However, in most
instances the July 1, 1977 date is no longer realistic.   The
inadequacy of construction financing and the Admini strati ons's;
impoundment of funds have made nation-wide compiance with this
date impossible.  It is therefore recommended that the 1977 com-
pliance date be extended and made contingent upon the availability
of Federal funding.
      The District supports proposed amendment No. 5 which would
delegate to the states a greater proportion of the responsibility
for managing the Construction Grants Program.  One of the most
frequently heard criticisms of PL 92-500 has been the paperwork
demands that it has imposed upon the local agencies.  The present
and ever increasing administrative burden on local agencies
seeking grants could be significantly reduced if the states were
delegated a greater role in its administration.  The State of
California which has successfully played a major role in the
administration of the Construction Grants and Permit Program for
several years, is in the process of assuming essentially full
responsibility for these programs.
      In addition to the foregoing, we would like to take the
opportunity to recommend several other amendments to PL  92-500.
First, we recommend amendment to provide for the exercise of
professional discretion in the application of the secondary
treatment requirement.  The Act presently requires municipal
waste treatment,works to achieve effluent limitations based on
secondary treatment.  This requirement is unrelated to the
quality of receiving waters and to the enormous costs of achieving
that objective, with the result that in some instances treatment
is being provided because it is required, not because it is needed.
For example, coastal municipalities have questioned the  wisdom
of this requirement for discharges into an ocean environment,
and other situations exist where the characteristics of  receiving
waters are such that secondary treatment will not achieve any
measurable benefit.
      The financial impact of the present secondary treatment
requirement is illustrated by the situation the District is facing
in complying with this requirement.  We presently have under con-
struction facilities which will provide biological secondary
treatment for 98.6 percent of the wastewater flow in its service
area.  The capital cost of these facilities is $70 million.  To
fully comply with PL 92-500 it will be necessary to provide
secondary treatment for the remaining 1.4 percent of the flow
which overflows untreated from the sewage system during  the three
                                 21k

-------
month winter season.  This will require the expenditure of an
additional $167 million.
      The benefit that will be derived from this additional invest-
ment in plant will be very small since these overflows occur only
10 to 12 times per year;  they occur only during the winter months;
and each episode averages 6 hours in duration.  In view of the
high cost and limited benefit, it would be difficult to convince
the taxpayers that they should approve this expenditure if they
were required to pay all or a major portion of the cost.
      The District's situation, which is probably not unique,
suggests that the $350 billion cost of the program could be sub-
stantially reduced without significantly compromising the goals
of the Act, if it were amended to provide flexibility in the
application of the secondary .treatment requirement that would
allow lesser degrees of treatment where circumstnaces warrant.
      It is therefore urged that PL 92-500 be amended to provide
administrative flexibility and to specifically allow for standards
Other than secondary treatment where the nature and frequency of
the discharge and the characteristics of receiving waters do not
reasonably require the disproportionate expenditure of public
funds.
      Secondly, we recommend that the Act be amended to permit the
use of ad valorem taxes or combinations of ad valorem taxes and
use charges to finance the operation and maintenance costs of
wastewater treatment facilities, provided it can be demonstrated
that the requirements of the Act are satisfied.  As interpreted
by the Counsel for the Solicitor General, Section 204 of the Act
presently prohibits the use of ad valorem taxes to finance the
operation of wastewater treatment facilities.  Unless it is
amended to permit their use, many municipalities will be required
to completely revise their financial programs.  The costs of
infiltration, stormwater, and the capacity that is provided for
future growth are properly chargeable to property and the commu-
nity as a whole, and should therefore be paid by the property
owner as part of his taxes wherever possible.
      Finally, the effect of NPDES permits issued for municipal
water treatment plant discharges prompts us to make the following
comments and recommendations:
      (1)  Federal grant funding should be broadened to cover the
design and constructions costs and facilities for disposal of
sludge from municipal water treatment plants.  Such plants are
now deemed to be in the industrial category but should more
properly be changed to the municipal facility category.  It is
inconsistent to consider sewage sludge projects eligible for
                                 215

-------
Federal grant funding on the one hand and on the other to consider
that sludge processing projects for municipal  water treatment
plant discharges are not eligible.   If, as has been determined,
both sludges contribute to water pollution then there is no
clear logic why Federal grant funding should not be provided
for both types of projects.
      (2)  Due to delays in interpretation of NPDES requirements
for some water plants, the July 1,  1977, compliance date should
be extended.
      (3)  In limited situations under very special circumstances
where the municipal jurisdiction concerned can demonstrate that
compliance with the NPDES is not required to achieve the objectives
of PL 92-500, discretion on the part of the regulatory authorities
should be permitted or the law itself should be amended to allow
such discretion.  For example, in the case of this District, the
Regional Water Quality Control Board presently is requiring an
NPDES permit for'the District's Orinda water treatment plant
discharges.  These discharges flow  a short distance down a creek
owned by the Utility District into  a reservoir also owned and !
operated by the District.  All water withdrawn from this reservoir
is completely treated at two filter plants.  Continued insistence
of an NPDES permit and complying with the present standards would
result in an expenditure of several million dollars for treatment
of these wastes before the backwash water is released into the
creek and the reservoir and then would be treated once again.
EPA has stated it is bound by the law to require an NPDES permit
and the Regional Board insists that it must require some type of
treatment of filter backwash water  from this plant.  A return to
standards based on receiving waters rather than on the discharge
itself would at least result in this instance of reduced cost of
compliance and provide a more rational solution.  Unless the law
is changed or some flexibility applied in its application, this
situation could result in an expenditure of funds totally un-
warranted and be a flagrant case of a waste of taxpayers money.
It is strongly recommended that flexibility on permits be provided
in cases such as this or standards  modified so as to preclude
the necessity of expenditure of public funds which are not justified
or warranted.
      In conclusion, I would again  like to state that the opportunity
to appear before you and discuss these extremely important
questions is greatly appreciated.
                             * * *
                                 216

-------
24 June 1975
Mr. Russell E. Train, Administrator
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C.
                                  Re:  Potential Amendments to the Federal
                                       Water Pollution Control Amendment
                                       Act of 1972
Dear Mr. Train:
The Erie County Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), speaking
on behalf of itself, Mr. Edward V. Regan, County Executive, and
the various communities within the County, wish to go on record
regarding the proposed amendments to the Federal Water Pollution
Control Amendment Act of 1972.  Our comments are subdivided in
accordance with the five papers prepared by the Environmental
Protection Agency as published in the Federal Register on 28 May
1975.

PAPER NO. 1 - REDUCTION OF THE FEDERAL SHARE

ERIE COUNTY POSITION
      The County does not support reduction of the Federal share
for construction grants from the current level of 75 percent to any
lower amount.  State of New York  Department of Environmental
Conservation policies have caused Erie County residents, and others
around the State, to, in effect, receive less than 75 percent funding
under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

DISCUSSION
      A reduction in the Federal share of funding wastewater
handling facilities will, in effect, cause an increase in the local
tax burden.  This will likely be paid out of a static property
tax base.  These local taxes are too high already, and reimburse-
ment should be based on an elastic income tax such as is formulated
through Federal revenue sharing.
      In the State of New York Federal funds have been utilized  for
the construction of treatment plants, outfalls, major interceptors,
major pumping stations, and facilities related to the treatment of
non-excessive infiltration/inflow.  No Erie County project, however,
has yet been certified by the State for the full Federal share of
                                 217

-------
Mr. Russell E. Train
Page 2
24 June 1975

75 percent; because of State policy, Erie County has received
grants of only 52 and 65 percent of eligible costs.  The apparent
reason for this unwillingness to certify certain necessary
portions of treatment works (such as collector sewers, for example)
is the State's recognition of the fact that the 18 billion dollars
provided under P.L. 92-500 is insufficient to pay for 75 percent of
all sewerage projects needed in the State.  If the administration
proposals are adopted, the projects in the State of New York may
well receive far less than the proposed 55 percent reimbursement.
      In all likelihood, New York State will be unable to assume
the increased non-Federal burden which would result from a decrease
in the Federal share.  Moreover, even in states which can afford
such an increased burden, certain communities will find themselves
unable to meet the increased local cost.  It appears that in
either case, a reduction in the Federal share of these costs
could prevent the more urgent water pollution control needs from
being met.  Any reduction in assistance is considered catastrophic.
      It is our opinion that a reduction of the Federal share would
not, as is supposed, lead to an increased probability of cost-
effective designs being presented.  A better way of ensuring
accountability for cost-effective design is to fund operation and
maintenance costs at the same effective level as construction
costs.  In New York State, for example, up to 87% percent of
certain portions of construction costs are eligible for funding,
but portions of operation and maintenance costs are funded only
up to 33 1/3 percent.  This practice has been known to cause an
emphasis during the design stage on plants which have low maintenance
costs, with less attention given to the monitoring of construction
costs.  We feel that an overall reduction in the Federal share of
total project cost would not remedy this situation.  It could be
remedied only by funding operation and maintenance at the same
effective level as construction.

PAPER NO. 2 - LIMITING FEDERAL FUNDING OF RESERVE CAPACITY TO
	SERVE PROJECTED GROWTH	

ERIE COUNTY POSITION
      Reserve capacity in plants should be limited to that which
will serve ten years of estimated growth, with funding limited to
this level.  Reserve capacity in interceptors should reflect
current engineering practice; namely, that which will serve 50 years


                                 218

-------
Mr. Russell Train
Page 3
24 June 1975

of projected growth, including reasonable estimates of future
industrial flow.  Funding of interceptors should occur at this level

DISCUSSION
      It is our opinion that funding of reserve capacity in sewage
treatment plants could be limited to a ten-year estimated population
increment would not hinder future capacity of wastewater handling
facilities.  Treatment plants are modular in construction,
and can therefore be easily expanded.  We do not recommend less
than a ten-year design period, however, as many projects would then
be under almost perpetual redesign and/or construction.
      Our expressed position with respect to funding of reserve
capacity is based on the assumption that Federal assistance will
likely be forthcoming whenever projected population growth figures
show the need for providing additional capacity.
      With respect to the funding of interceptor sewers, the County
agrees with tne-Environmental Protection Agency analysis, which
indicates that the incremental cost of providing reserve capacity
is relatively small in comparison to the cost of providing capacity
for the population existing at the time of construction.  The
County, therefore, feels that interceptor sewers as well as col-
lection systems, force mains, and trunk sewers should be funded
in such size as will serve 50 years of estimated growth.
      We feel that elimination of funding of reserve capacity would
not pose a serious financial hardship to a community's ability to
finance needed projects.  We do not, however, see how the elimina-
tion of reserve capacity funding will materially aid the nation's
efforts in funding a greater number of projects.  The monies
which would be made available by this mechanism would probably not
approach the amounts necessary to abate pollution as required by
Public Law 92-500.

PAPER NO. 3 - RESTRICTING THE TYPES OF PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR
	GRANT ASSISTANCE	

ERIE COUNTY POSITION
      Sewerage treatment plants, interceptors, pumping stations,
collection systems (new construction and rehabilitation), and
treatment of combined overflows and non-excessive infiltration/
inflow should continue to be eligible for assistance.
      The costs associated with the separation of combined sewers,


                                  219

-------
Mr. Russell E. Train
Page 4
24 June 1975

massive reconstruction of separate systems, and treatment or
control of storm waters should not be considered eligible at the
present time.
      Funding priorities should reflect benefits expected.  That is,
money should be placed in areas where the maximum benefit will
be achieved.  Treatment plants and interceptors should receive  first
consideration; new collection systems, second; treatment of combined
overflows, third, rehabilitation, last.
                                                             't-
DISCUSSION
      We attach to this statement a paper presented by the Erie
County Department of Environmental Quality to the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation in March of this year
which indicates quite clearly that the financial burden of providing
collection systems in some areas ranges between 200 percent and 1,000
percent of the cost of providing the necessary treatment plants and
interceptors, and of operating and maintaining these facilities.
The paper goes on to predict that pollution will not be abated  in
areas which presently require collection systems because the formation
of new sewer districts necessary to the construction of such systems
is subject to referenda; we feel that such referenda will usually
have a negative result due to the extremely high initial- burden
of providing collection systems.
      We strongly object to the elimination of collection systems
from eligibility.  To do so would not only increase the taxpayers'
burden, but would seriously weaken current enforcement and
corrective programs aimed at pollution abatement.
      The County could support the elimination of the eligibility
of the treatment of storm waters or separation of combined systems
from funding, provided that the law was amended to delete any,
statutory requirements for such treatment facilities or separation
of systems.  We feel that this is the only practical approach.
There is not enough money available to provide for necessary treat-
ment plants, interceptor sewers, collection systems, and major
sewer rehabilitation.  Treatment of storm flows and separation  of
combined sewers is even of lesser priority.  Storm flows and
combined sewer overflows occur infrequently, and usually at times
when the streams and rivers are best able to assimilate such loading.
Moreover, primary treatment and disinfection is a potentially better
solution to combined overflows than is separation of combined systems.
      It is our feeling that combined sewer overflows should take
                               220

-------
Mr. Russell E. Train
Page 5
24 June 1975

a secondary position to the elimination of the more frequent
sources of sanitary wastes.  When the construction of treatment
plants, interceptor sewers, collection systems, the treatment of
combined sewer overflows, and the rehabilitation of existing
collection systems has been fully accomplished, the nation might
justifiably consider embarking upon the more lofty goals of treating
storm water or separating combined sewers.

PAPER NO. 4 - EXTENDING THE 1977 DATE FOR PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT
	WORKS TO MEET WATER QUALITY STANDARDS	

ERIE COUNTY POSITION
      The compliance date should be extended to 1983 for municipalities
and should be contingent on Federal funding availability.
      Industry should work to the same schedule as municipalities
even though their budgetary constraints are different.

DISCUSSION
      We feel that the target dates for compliance, as presently
contained in Public Law 92-500, are unrealistic;  Since it is our
further opinion that pollution abatement efforts cannot be financed
by states and local communities alone, it appears to us that a
modified combination of alternatives 4 and 5, (listed in the Federal
Register) would present a reasonable answer to this question.
A combination of alternatives 4 and 5 would extend the compliance
date to 1983 and would allow the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency to grant compliance schedule extensions based upon
the availability of Federal funds.  We do not feel that any of the
other three alternatives or alternatives 4 and,5 independently
present realistic choices to the communities, States, or Federal
government whether from funding or enforcement points of view.
      Industry's cost of eliminating water pollution is financed
totally out of the private sector and is not dependent upon the
Federal, State, or local budgets.  Therefore, it is our opinion
that industry could meet a compliance schedule differing from that
required of municipalities.  However, despite industry's relatively
independent economic base, we feel that other factors should be
taken into consideration.  It seems to us unjust that industry
should be be required to comply with abatement schedules considerably
more restrictive than those required of the municipalities,into which
they discharge.

-------
Mr. Russell E. Train
Page 6
24 June 1975

PAPER NO. 5 - DELEGATING A GREATER PORTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF THE *
	CONSTRUCTION GRANT PROGRAMS TO THE STATES	

ERIE COUNTY POSITION
      Environmental Protection Agency should terminate duplicate
reviews of work already done by individual states.  Environmental
Protection Agency should review and approve plans of study, environ-
mental impact, and facilities plans.  Each state should administer
its own construction programs.

DISCUSSION
      We feel that the Environmental Protection Agency should be
involved in the technical review and approval of Plans of Study,
Facilities Plans, Infiltration/Inflow Studies, and Sewer System
Evaluation surveys.  However, once such plans are approved, the
State agencies should assume complete control of these projects.
We do not feel that it is necessary or desirable for the Environ-
mental Protection Agency to perform a double review of Construction
plans or for the Environmental Protection Agency to approve pay-
ments except as a final audit process.
      Since the State of New York presently reviews all  reports,
plans of study, construction plans, and certifies as to their accept-
ability, and since the State of New York presently approves pay-
ments of the State portion of the project cost, it would seem that
there would be advantages if the Environmental Protection Agency
were not providing these duplicate services, we would expect that
many more projects could be reviewed and approved in a given year. '

                       GENERAL COMMENTS

      While the five papers specifically address various areas
of concern, we would like to point out to the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency that there are other significant areas of concern to
the residents of Erie County.

NEW STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
      Many provisions of Public Law 92-500 are now becoming
effective.  Some of these provisions require Federal approval of
Step 1 and Step 2 Grants.  This presents an unnecessary delay to
some communities which may not need or desire Step 1 or Step 2
assistance, and this should be modified.


                                  222

-------
Mr. Russell E. Train
Page 7
24 June 1975

DELETION OF INDUSTRIAL COST RECOVERY
      Industrial cost recovery provisions should be deleted entirely
from the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.  If these regulations
remain unchanged, they will stimulate the construction of many
industrial treatment plants.  Some of these will further degrade
the nation's watercourses and some will undoubtedly be maintained
improperly.
      Many industries which are marginal at the present will be
unable to afford either to construct their own treatment facilities
or to repay a significant portion of the proposed Federal grants.
Therefore, many may be forced to cease operations.  In this day of
an unstable economy, we do not feel it is reasonable to place
industries in a position where they may have to cease or restrict
operations.

ALLOW ADVALOREM TAXATION FOR USER CHARGES
      Advalorem Taxation should be allowed, when justified as a
means of collecting equitable user charges.

This completes the presentation of the Department of Environmental
Quality and the Erie County Executive.  If there are any questions
pertaining to this material, please feel free to contact us.

Very truly yours,
Robert A. Fluegge, P.E.
Acting Commissioner of
Department of Environmental Quality

RAF/jh

cc:  Mr. Kemp
     Mr. Nowak
     Mr. LaFalce
     Mr. Regan
     Mr. MacClennan
     Mr. Friedman
     Mr. Martens
     Mr. Reid
     Erie County Legislature
                                   223

-------
Mr. Russell  E.  Train
Page 8
24 June 1975
cc:  Senator Buckley
     Senator Javits

Attachment
                                 22k

-------
27 March 1975
Mr. Ogden Reid, Commissioner
NYS Department of Environmental
Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York  12202
                                   Re:  Increasing Financial Burden
                                        of Constructing Lateral  Sewers
Dear Mr. Reid:
On Friday, March 14, Mr. Robert R. Martens, an Assistant Deputy
Commissioner of this Department, and I met with Mr. Larow of your
Department in relation to a number of projects.  After our scheduled
business was complete we suggested to Mr. Larow that DEC must,
in the immediate future, give very serious consideration to certify-
ing the eligibility of trunk, sub-trunk, and lateral sewers for
federal assistance.  This was suggested because of the very sub-
stantial tax burdens which are being placed upon many homeowners,
not through the need for new treatment plants, but through the need
for collection systems.

Although we are raising this issue for your evaluation and inter-
vention on behalf of our own County Sewer Districts, this problem
is undoubtedly of state-wide significance.

Briefly the situation may be described as follows:

      1)  The DEC has heretofore determined that most trunk sewers
          and all lateral sewers will not be certified for federal
          assistance even though they are eligible for that assis-
          tance under Federal Law.

      2)  The EPA, in making grant offers to projects (for example
          to Erie County Sewer Districts 2 and 4) has included
          special grant conditions which stipulate that lateral
          sewers must be_ constructed.

      3)  Article 5A of the County Law which governs County Sewer
          Districts requires that the full cost of a lateral sewer
          be charged to the abutting property.

      4)  Construction costs have escalated to the point where we


                                  225

-------
           now estimate the total  cost of 8" sewers at $35 per foot.

      5)   Municipal  bond rates have increased to the point where
           approximately 9% of the total  cost ($35 per foot) is
           the principal and interest payments in the first year.

This means that in areas which are developed except for the availa-?
bility of public sewers, homeowners can expect public collection
systems, exclusive of treatment or any operation and maintenance
cost, to cost the following annual amounts:

                         One Sewer Servicing      One Sewer On Each side
  House Lot Widths       Both Sides of Street          of Street

      60 feet                    $94                      $188
     100 feet                   $158                      $316
     150 feet                   $250                      $500

With treatment and interceptor construction  and operation costing
$60 to $80 annually,  which is our experience, the collection
system at best doubles that cost and at worst increases the cost
almost tenfold.

Based upon the above costs and the inflexibility of the County
Law, it becomes impossible for us, as responsible public officials,
to propose projects to the general public which will  increase their
tax burden by more than a maximum of $250 annually.   Roughly
speaking this means that if the homes are spaced more than 100 feet
apart, or if we must provide lateral sewers  on both sides of the
street we consider the financial burden too  great, and the project
should not be built.   Thus, in existing villages, cities, or sewer
districts which require the construction of  new collection systems,
pollution could and should be abated if the  cost does not exceed
the above amounts.

From a different but equally practical point of view, if the total
annual costs exceed $100 to $150 we would not expect the public
to vote "yes" on the question of abating pollution if a new district
is proposed and a permissive referendum is requested.

A decision by the DEC to certify trunk sewers and laterals as
eligible for state and federal aid would virtually guarantee that
water pollution will  be eliminated in the major remaining areas of
Erie County not now having, but badly needing, modern sewerage
facilities, namely the Armor-McKinley and Water Valley Section of

                                   226

-------
the Town of Hamburg, the Towns of Holland, Boston, AT den, Collins,
Elma, Lancaster, Eden, and Evans and the hamlet of Lawtons in the
Town of North Collins (and in similar other areas of the state).
Conversely a decision to maintain the currect state policies will
create a situation where new sewer districts will almost certainly
be defeated in referenda and pollution will not be abated for
many years to come.

Since it will be necessary for your office to evaluate the impact
of funding collection systems on the amount of aid available,
we have attempted to abstract pertinent data from two recently
funded Erie County projects (Erie County Sewer District 2, funded
1973, and the Erie County Sewer District 4, funded July 1974) and one
project for which we expect funding (Erie County Southtowns Sewage
Treatment Agency, grant expected July 1976).

                Total estimated cost of projects     $98 million

                Estimate of currently eligible costs $80 million

                Estimate of ineligible costs which
                have not yet been bid                $14.2 million

Thus, if the state were to certify for grant assistance the
ineligible trunks, sub-trunks, and laterals, the eligible project
costs would increase from 81% to 97%  of the total costs of the
projects.  State and federal assistance would increase by about 20%.

Three major factors exist why the state should certify collection
systems for funding;  abatement of pollution now, substantial
reduction in tax burden, and stimulation of the economy-  I have
discussed the first two above and would lastly like to comment on
stimulation of the economy.

Immediate stimulation of the economy will result because con-
struction of laterals can start within the next few months.
Sewer districts now being formed so that modern sewerage facilities
can be constructed within the next 3-5 years would also have their
lateral systems constructed over that time.  Thus, there would be
a continuous construction program proceeding over the next five
years, beginning now, to construct these necessary lateral sewers.
This will be an additional stimulation of the economy and provide
continued employment for the construction trades people.

One major issue not addressed in this letter, mainly for sake of


                                  227

-------
brevity, is the implication this proposal  for eligibility of lateral
sewers would have on land use and on the encouragement of urban
and suburban sprawl.  I believe with proper guidelines and review
of proposals it would be possible to insure that improper land
use and extensive, undesired sprawl  could be eliminated.   However,
that subject should be left to a more in-depth discussion among the
several of us who may be interested  in discussing this matter further.

I offer my assistance and that of my staff to meet with members
of your Department to discuss this matter.  I urge you and your
staff to consider this matter rapidly and to reach a  conclusion
within two months in order to have an effect on the two Erie
County projects which have already begun bidding sewers and
which are not yet eligible for aid and in order to provide jobs
here and throughout the state.

Very truly yours,
Theodore L. Hullar, Ph.D.
Commissioner

TLH/ch

xc:  E. Seebald
     E. Trad
     W. Larow
     R. Martens
     C. Spencer
     E. Regan
                                 228

-------
                         June 11, 1975
Mr. Davis Sabock
Environmental Protection Agency
401 "M" Street SW  (WH556)
Washington, D.C.  20460

                              Re:  Public Hearings on Potential
                                   Legislative Amendments to the
                                   Federal Water Pollution Control
                                   Act.
Dear Mr. Sabock:

We are unable to send a representative to the hearings, but as
an interested entity, we want to express the following comments
regarding the five items on the agenda:

      1.  The reduction of the Federal share:
          This could possibly be necessary due to the exceptionally
          large amount of the cost, although the grants for the
          cities that have voted bonds and have grants committed,
          that grants should remain at 75%, otherwise they might
          not be able to construct their projects.

      2.  Limiting Federal financing to serving the needs of
          existing population:

          This would certainly be the wrong approach.  If a
          project is limited to the present population, the project
          would have to be enlarged before it is completed.

      3.  Restricting the types of projects eligible for grant
          assistance:

          Our opinion is that the type of project should be decided
          by the City and their engineers to conform with local
          conditions.

      4.  This is a must as this date is too close now for the
          cities to meet.

      5.  Delegating a greater portion of the management of the
                                 229

-------
Page 2

          construction grants program to the states:

          We believe that this would be an  advantage  to  the  -
          program.   The state has a great deal  of knowledge  of the
          local  conditions,  the engineering personnel  and  the  needs
          of the people.

          Our past  experience on Federal  sewer  and water grants
          which  were processed and supervised by  the  state was
          very satisfactory, and we believe that  this  method would
          expedite  the projects and reduce  the  cost.

We are submitting these comments for your review  and  consideration.

Very truly yours,
Wesley A. Cox
Mayor
                                  230

-------
                         June 1, 1975
Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials
Washington, D. C.  20460

Dear Sir:

Enclosed is a copy of the comments of the City effort Worth
with respect to potential legislative amendments  to  the  Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, P.L. 92-500.  The comments  are in
response to the publication of the Federal  Register, May 2, 1975
(40-FR-19236)

Very truly yours,
R.N. Line
City Manager

RNL:ss
Enclosure
                                  231

-------
City of Fort Worth, Texas
1000 Throckmorton Street
Fort Worth, Texas  76102
COMMENTS

Potential Legislative Amendments to the Federal  Water Pollution
Control Act, P.L. 92-500

These comments are in response to the publication in the Federal
Register on May 2, 1975 (40-FR-19236) announcing public hearings
to discuss possible administration proposals to  amend the Federal
Water'Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.   The Federal
Register, dated May 28,"1975, presented five papers for public
review.                     "s   5                '
                          'J- -  ' ' '" f                     •
Paper No. 1 - Reduction of the Federal Share

We oppose the reduction in the Federal share for the construction
grants from 75 per cent to 50 or 55 per cent. The reduced Federal
share participation would probably delay construction of needed
facilities and it is almost certain that the State of Texas would
not absorb any of the larger portion of the financing by local agencies,
Texas cities would have more difficulty in raising the'additional
funding needed to absorb the greater percentage  of cost.  We do
not feel that a reduced Federal share of funding of projects
would result in greater accountability on the part of the Grantee
for effective design, project management and post construction
operation and maintenance.  The only real effect on the cost of the
program could be achieved by changing the requirements for plant
effluent quality and receiving stream quality.

The 1974 Needs Survey reflected that approximately $350 billion
would be needed for construction under eligible  projects of P.L.
92-500.  If the Federal share of the cost is reduced without any
other changes in the law, we feel confident that the  water quality
goals of the law would be adversely affected and that the goals
would not be attainable as now specified.

The people of the nation through their congressional representa-
tives have decided that the waters of the United States need to be
returned to virtually the quality of existence before communities
and cities developed.  It is felt that generally the same citizenry
pays the cost of improving the quality of the water, whether it is

                                 232

-------
 state  and  local  funding,  Federal  funding,  or a  combination  of each.
 Since  it is  a  Federal  law that requires such vast expenditures,  all
 of the citizens  should share the  cost of the water quality  enhancement
 through the  Federal  tax program.

 Paper  No.  2  -  Limiting Federal  Funding of Reserve Capacity  to
 Serve  Projected  Growth

 A reasonable growth  projection should be funded under the Federal
 grant  program.   Treatment plant projects should be funded for the
 anticipated  growth for at least a 10-15 year projection  of  population.
 Plants can be  designed and built  for some future expansion  without
 an appreciable increase in cost.   However, the  financing of large
'collector-sewers to  meet a longer period of projected growth is
 feasible and should  be continued.  The duplication of large sewer
 lines  usually  results  in economic waste.  An acceptable  amendment to
 the present  policy for interceptor sewers would be for the  Federal
 grant  to apply to the  cost of the facility to meet current  conditions
 plus a 20-year growth  projection  provided the local  entities
 would  be permitted to  increase the size of the  project at its own
 expense.  However, each project should be evaluated on its  merits
 and the engineering-design factors unique to that particular
 project.

 Paper  No.  3  -  Restricting the Types of Grants Eligible for
 Grant  Assistance

 The funding  under the  grant program should be limited to secondary
 and tertiary treatment plants, interceptor sewers, correction of
 sewer  infiltration/in-flow and major sewer rehabilitation.

 The Needs  Survey showed that $235 billion would be needed for
 stormwater treatment and/or control.  We feel that this  is  not
 economically feasible  and should  be the subject of review for the
 purpose of amending  P.L.  92-500 since it is extremely unlikely that
 Congress or local entities will be financially  able to stand this
 huge financial burden.

 Paper  No.  4  -  Extending the 1977  Date for the Publicly Owned
 Pretreatment Works to  Meet Water  Quality Standards

 It is  simply not possible for municipalities to meet the 1977
 deadline for secondary treatment  plants.  The administrative delays
 and inadequate Federal funding of $18 billion by Congress to
 provide grants on secondary and tertiary treatment plants and.

                                  233

-------
collector sewers make the 1977 deadline unattainable from a practical
standpoint.  The cost of these types of projects is estimated to
be $46 billion.  In the case of Fort Worth the construction of the
new plant cannot be completed by 1977.  In addition, a new plant will
usually not attain full efficiency until after some operating
experience.

A procedural change that should receive consideration would be
that the target date or the deadline for completion of a treatment
facility should be based on the date of approval of the Step
Three Grant by the EPA and a reasonable construction time allot-
ment thereafter.

Paper No. 5 - Delegating a Greater Portion of the Management of the
Construction Grants Program to the States

We urge that the management of the Construction Grants Program be
delegated to the states in a similar fashion to the delegation which
was used under P.L. 660, Grant Fundings.  At the present time,
there is an obvious duplication of effort which is costly to the
people of this nation by having the funding process to proceed
through the state governments to the EPA.  We feel that the states
can employ qualified staff and are just as responsible and
technically qualified to meet the requirements of the Water
Pollution Control Act as the Federal staff.
                                 23 it

-------
                         July 3, 1975

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials (WH 556)
401 M street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.  20460

Attention:  Mr. David Sabock

Subject:  Proposed FWPCA Amendments
          U.S. EPA Paper No. 4

Gent!emen:

Reference is made to the Notice published in the May 2, 1975
Federal Register (40 FR 19236) soliciting comments from the public
on five position papers prepared by the U.S. EPA discussing possible
amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA).
This letter is submitted in response to that request with respect
to EPA Paper No. 4 published on May 28, 1975 (40 FR 23107).

On November 26, 1974, Mr. Henry Ford II wrote to Mr. Russell
Train concerning inequities in the FWPCA.  In his letter, Mr.  Ford
requested that any delays or other relief, with respect to existing
statutory time constraints, given to discharges from publicly
owned wastewater treatment works be broadened to include industrial
discharges.  (A copy of that letter to Mr. Train and his response
is attached for your information as Exhibits I and II.)  Essentially
the points raised comprise the position of Ford Motor Company with
respect to the issue at hand; what follows will expand upon the
major issues by example, and will specifically address EPA
Paper No. 4.

Of the five alternatives cited by EPA with respect to Paper
No. 4 (Extending 1977 Date for Publicly Owned Treatment Works to
Meet Water Quality Standards), we believe that alternatives 3 and
5 are the most workable — provided that like consideration is
given to industry faced with similar problems in meeting "best
practicable control technology currently available" (BPCTCA),
by July 1, 1977.  We think that amending the FWPCA to provide the
EPA Administrator with the necessary discretion to grant compliance
schedule extensions, on an ad hoc basis based upon real-world
construction timing and good faith efforts to comply (alternative 3),
would give the law sufficient 1 attitude to allow for special cases
(both municipal and industrial).  Similarly, we believe that sufficient
relief would be provided under alternative 5 as long as industry is

                               235

-------
Page 2
Attn:  Mr. David Sabock
July 3, 1975

included in any such across-the-board extension of the 1977
deadlines to 1983.

The discussion surrounding these two alternatives included in
EPA Paper No. 4 (40 FR 23112) with respect to the "fairness" of
limiting application of the proposed FWPCA amendments to only
publicly owned treatment works, while continuing to enforce the 1977
deadline against industry regardless of practicability or other
site-specific problems, hits the nail on the head.  In fact, the
present situation facing Ford Motor Company at our Cleveland
Manufacturing Complex is the classic example dispussed by EPA in
the second paragraph appearing on page 23112 (see Exhibit III
for specific details).

Just as the FWPCA has not permitted consideration of the engineer-
ing and economic complexities of certain publicly owned treatment
works in meeting the 1977 secondary treatment standard, the in-
flexibility of the FWPCA has caused similar dilemmas in industry.
One such case is at the Ford Rouge Manufacturing Complex in Dearborn,
Michigan, where the complexity of the site coupled with uncertainties
relating to the thermal component of the discharge from the powerhouse
will make compliance by July 1, 1977 physically impossible.  Even
if the facility's NPDES permit were to be successfully adjudicated
today (the matter is now before the Michigan Water Resources Com-
mission), and a successful Section 316(a) thermal demonstration
performed, sufficient time would not be available to complete
necessary engineering and to construct needed facilities by July 1,
1977, regardless of available funding (see Exhibit IV for specific
details).

We believe that the FWPCA is based upon a too simplistic view
of the relationship between BPCTCA (industry deadline July 1, 1977)
and BACTEA (deadline July 1, 1983).  Most industrial plants cannot
divorce consideration of the 1977 degree of control from the 1983
standard.  Further, the no pollutant discharge goal by 1985,
which may be required by EPA before that time under the law, must
also be taken into account.  In other words, the engineer cannot
design only for 1977 and disregard 1983/85 without incurring
possible enormous cost penalties for what well may be redundant
or short-lived facilities.  Added to this major problem is the fact
that the engineer does not know yet (nor does EPA) what control

                                236

-------
parameters he has to design for in 1983/85.

As already noted above, consideration No. 2 on page 23112 is
most relevant and should be answered with a resounding No!

In conclusion, we urge that the FWPCA be amended to extend the
1977 deadline to 1983 or to allow the EPA administrator discretion
to grant compliance schedule extensions on a case-by-case basis --
provided that good faith efforts to construct .facilities for
known conditions are made.

Sincerely,
                          *'iJ '
Victor H. Sussman           'e
Enclosure
November 26, 1974

Mr. Russell Train
Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M street, SW
Washington, D. C.  20460

Dear Mr. Train:

I have been informed that the Environmental Protection Agency
is giving consideration to proposing amendments to the Water
Pollution Control Act and that there is a good likelihood that
Congress will take some action to revise the Act in its next session,

Accordingly, I wish to bring to your attention and comment upon
those portions of the Act that presently are of especially
serious concern to Ford Motor Company.

Some EPA officials have publicly noted the problems surrounding the
legislatively-mandated deadlines to bring municipal treatment
plants into compliance with requirements for "secondary treatment"
and "best practicable" treatment.  It has been reported that
consideration is being given to relaxing these deadlines, because
many municipalities do not have sufficient funds to construct
appropriate facilities to meet the requirements of the Act.

If deadlines for municipal treatment plants are revised, it

                                   237

-------
appears only equitable and proper that the July 1, 1977 and July 1,
1983 deadlines applicable to direct industrial  discharges into
streams also be correspondingly modified.  A delay in the con-
struction of municipal and area-wide waste treatment facilities
would suggest that the implementation of industrial  pretreatment
facilities similarly be delayed.  It is essential  that construction
of municipal systems and installation of industrial  pretreatment
facilities be coordinated in order to avoid unnecessary duplication
and possible obsolescence.

Moreover, any industry discharging into the Same body of water
as a municipal treatment plant should not be required to attain
high levels of control years before the municipal  plant.  Particu-
larly, in instances where such industrial discharges have relatively
little impact on receiving waters, compared to  that  of the municipal
discharges, such early compliance would not be  justifiable in
relation to benefits derived.
                                                    p
I therefore urge that you consider the need for and  appropriateness
of amending the Act to establish revised deadlines for industrial
sources that would parallel any recommendations you  may make with
respect to the dates by which municipal treatment plants must be
brought into compliance.

I cannot close this letter without speaking to  the issue of the
severe economic conditions presently facing the automotive in-
dustry which, in my opinion, underscore the urgent need for adopting
a more rational approach to the goals of the Water Pollution
Control Act and its amendments.

Beyond the highly visible problems of reduced sales, schedule
cutbacks, and massive layoffs, we face a serious shortage of
funds necessary to conduct our business.  In those areas where we
still have managerial discretion, we have reduced fixed and operating
costs and have cancelled many forward product programs -- a decision
we may well regret in the future but for which  there was no alterna-
tive.  Unreduced, however, are forward expenditure plans for pro-
grams to meet federally-mandated standards, including water pollu-
tion abatement.

Our present forecasts for water pollution control  for the four-
year period 1974-77 are budgeted at $134 million, an investment level
that we can ill afford to sustain at this time and one that will
generate no return for us and no contribution to the call-back
                              238

-------
of 1 aid-off employes.

The Water Pollution Control Act was enacted when industry was
profitable and the economy enjoyed relatively full employment.
Industry's ability to take costly abatement measures with accelerated
timing may have been financially containable at that time.  This is
no longer true.

I hope that you will give consideration to the serious economic
condition of this and other industries as you consider a stretch-out
of the financial and timing implications of the Act.

I would be pleased to arrange for members of our Environmental
and Safety Engineering Staff to discuss more specific aspects of
this important matter with you or members of your staff.

Best Regards,
Henry Ford
Dear Mr. Ford:

This letter is in response to your letter of November 26, 1974,
regarding your views on the need for an amendment to extend the
deadlines applicable to industrial discharges under the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA).  I would also like to comment
on the suggestions included in your November 27 letter to the Presi-
dent on the need for extensions of deadlines applicable.to air and
water pollution from stationary industrial sources.  I appreciate
your having a copy of that letter to the President delivered to me.
                    ii,
I believe that working towards our environmental goals during
this period of economic difficulty requires a delicate balancing
of sometimes conflicting objectives.  Hence, I am concerned about
the current troubled condition of the automotive industry and the
relationship between environmental standards and the economic
welfare of the industry.  Though I may not always agree with you
on where the balance should lie, I assure you that I intend to
give full consideration to economic and energy impacts in making
regulatory decisions to the extent allowed by our legislation and
in making legislative proposals.

I think it is important in balancing economic and environmental
                                  239

-------
factors that we not allow short-term economic concerns to alter our
long-term environmental goals.  Consequently, I am pleased that
your suggestions are focused on extending the timetables for compli-
ance with stationary air and water regulations rather than altering
the regulations themselves.

With regard to your suggestion in the November 26 letter, I do
not agree that industrial sources should receive delays in pre-
treatment compliance dates until municipal facilities are available.
Nor do I agree that equity considerations justify a delay in
attainment of BPT standards for sources which discharge directly
into streams.  However, in cases where an industrial source with
a firm commitment to discharge into a municipal system finds that
construction of the municipal facility will be delayed for a short
while, it would be reasonable to require the source to go to
pretreatment for removal of incompatible pollutants, which would
not be adequately removed by municipal secondary treatment facilities.

These distinctions are important because I think it would be
inappropriate to require specific sources to spend significant
additional resources for permanent improvements under the cir-
cumstances outlined above, but fiscal delays in constructing
certain municipal plants do not justify delaying construction
of pretreatment facilities to achieve much-needed reductions of
incompatible pollutants.  I would point out though that sources
have up to three years for compliance with pretreatment standards.
With most pretreatment standards scheduled for promulgation in
1975, many compliance dates may be extended into 1978.

With regard to your suggestion to President Ford that stationary
source air and water regulations be deferred, I am told that
Congressional oversight hearings will be held during the coming
session of Congress for both the Clean Air Act and the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act.  These hearings are likely to cover
proposals such as those you are making.

I think that Congressional consideration of amendments related
to the timing of FWPCA standards is likely to follow the report
of the National Water Quality Commission, which is scheduled
for publication this fall.  EPA will wait for the Commission to
finish its findings before reaching final conclusions on the
deferral issue.  It appears though that much of your problems
may stem from State (particularly Michigan and Ohio) water quality
standards, in which case you should direct your request for
relaxation to the States, not to EPA.  Section 302(b) of th FWPCA

-------
offers a means of easing water quality related effluent limitations,
but this relief is available only for the 1983 standards on best
available technology (BAT).

Although I do not agree with your suggestion that Clean Air Act
(CAA) compliance dates for stationary sources be delayed across
the board, I do share some of your concerns with the CAA.  The
emissions limits for sulfur oxides from fuel burning sources
set by the States in the State Implementation Plans (SIP's) are
in the aggregate impossible to meet due to limited supplies of
low sulfur fuels and control technology.  Consequently, EPA
has adopted a "Clean Fuels Policy" which attempts to get the States
to ease regulations more stringent than needed to meet Federal
primary ambient air-quality standards.  A number of states are
currently relaxing their sulfur oxide emissions regulations in
accordance with this policy, and the changes now in process in
Michigan and Ohio might possible give your company some relief.
Also, a review of the SIP fuel regulations for each State
required by Section 4 of the Energy Supply and Environmental
Coordination Act of 1974 should exert further pressure for easing
of these State regulations.

Because the overall macroeconomic impacts of the air and water
regulations are very small (as discussed in the enclosed testi-
mony I gave before the Joint Economic Committee), if relief from
environmental regulations is needed, it is needed primarily for
those industries that are particularly weakened.  This seems especially
true with today's unusual mixture of inflationary and recessionary
tendencies in which the performance of various sectors of the
economy is quite different.  By adopting an across-the-board delay
in the implementation of environmental regulations, rather than
a more narrow approach to specific problem areas, we would be
foregoing a great deal of important clean-up by industries which
may not be in need of relief.

Hence, I hope that you would focus your attention on specific
regulations that you feel are having undue economic impact at
this time, rather than suggest across-the-board delays of the
programs.  I realize that this may cause you some difficulty
because of the great diversity of your industrial operations,
but I think it would be a more constructive approach to seeking a
reasonable economic/environmental balance.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on these issues with me.  I
                                   2!  +
                                   41

-------
hope that my comments are helpful, and I would welcome further dis-
cussion of issues related to problems with specific regulations
which you think merit my attention.
Sincerely yours,

Russell E. Train

Mr. Henry Ford, II
Chairman of the Board
Ford Motor Company
The American Road
Dearborn, Michigan  48121
Exhibit III
July 3, 1975

Situation at the Ford Cleveland Manufacturing Complex With Respect
To Meeting July 1, 1977 Discharge Limitations (BPCTCA)	

Background
The Cleveland Manufacturing Complex consists of two (2) engine
manufacturing plants and one(l) casting plant situated on a common
site near Cleveland in Brook Park,Ohio.  Ohio EPA NPDES Permit No.
S 327 *AD authorizing the plants to discharge approximately 4.0
MGD to Big Creek (a tributary of the Cuyahoga River)  will take effect
on July 16, 1975.  An adjudication hearing concerning various
disputed permit conditions and compliance schedule requirements
has been granted by OEPA, but will probably not be held until
fall 1975 at the earliest.

Sanitary Sewer Availability
A major expansion and upgrading of the Cleveland Regional Sewer
District is now underway.  Completion of a new Southwest Inter-
ceptor Sewer serving CRSD's Southerly Treatment Plant is antici-
pated by 1980 (assuming federal funding).  The route of the pro-
posed interceptor is to run along the west side of railroad tracks
adjoining Ford property, and will have adequate hydraulic capacity
to meet the plants' needs.

The Dilemma
The NPDES permit as presently written allows for Ford to ultimately
comply with OEPA requirements by electing one of two options:

                                2U2

-------
  •   Option A
     Discharge to Big Creek and construct wastewater treatment
     facilities to meet specified discharge limitations based
     on Ohio stream quality standards by July 1, 1977.  (EPA
     effluent limitations guidelines for these industries have
     not yet been promulgated.)

  •   Option B
     Ultimately discharge to CRSD after modifying existing
     facilities to meet "interim" discharge limitations (secondary
     treatment standards) by July 1, 1977.

Although Company policy had been to generally favor discharging
to area-wide publicly owned treatment works, the NPDES permit
requirement stipulating an "interim" discharge standard for the
period July 1, 1977 - July 1, 1980 would create an enormous burden
on the plants-.  Not only would funds allocated to meet such a
requirement be "throw away" after diversion to CRSE, at a time
when such funds are so scarce, it is questionable whether such
"interim" discharge limitations would, in fact, result in attain-
ment of stream standards.  Considering that'the Ford discharge
is effectively the total flowjn Big Creek during dry weather, it
would appear that any "solutidn" tied to electing Option A
over Option B would only result in future difficulties in meeting
1983 discharge limitations as well as the 1985 national goal of
"no pollutant discharge."

Exhibit IV
July 3, 1975

Situation at the Ford Rouge Manufacturing Complex With Respect
To Meeting July 1, 1977 Discharge Limitations (BPCTCA)

Background
The Rouge Complex, initially built in 1918, is an old, diverse,
complicated and totally unique"manufacturing complex located in
Dearsborn, Michigan.  Manufacturing operations conducted at the
Complex include:

      "  Iron and steel making from raw materials to final products.
      '  Gray and nodular iron making and casting operations.
      •  Metal stamping and component assembly operations.
      •  Automotive frame manufacture.
      '  Motor vehicle engine manufacture and assembly.
      '  Radiator manufacture.

-------
      *   Body and final automotive assembly operations.

In addition to the above, electric power, process steam and compressed
air are generated in the Rouge Complex for internal use.  The
Rouge Complex also operates a mi 11water pumping, treatment and
distribution network, security service, fire station, hospital
and other support services.

On December 31, 1974 the Michigan Water Resources Commission (MWRC)
issued NPDES Permit No. MI 000361 authorizing discharges in excess
of 500 million gallons per day (MGD) from four outfalls to the
Rouge River, which flows southeast to the Detroit River approxi-
mately 3 miles downstream.  An adjudication hearing on the NPDES
permit will be held later this year in an .attempt to resolve
outstanding issues.

Thermal  Discharge

Approximately 180 MGD of the total Rouge Complex flow is discharged
via the powerhouse tailrace to the Rouge River.  Mill water is
withdrawn from the Detroit River and is pumped via tunnel  the
three miles to the complex.  Because the dry weather flow of the
Rouge River is very small in comparison with the 500+ MGD dis-
charged, dry weather flow consists almost entirely of the Ford
discharge.  A problem therefore exists in meeting existing MWRC stream
temperature standards (in addition to other stream standards)
several  months of the year, and a Section 316(a) thermal demon-
stration seeking relief from NPDES permit conditions is planned.

Pi 1emma

Any control program contemplated with respect to the thermal
component of the discharge will have a major bearing on our
control  program for the remaining wastewater constituents dis-
charged.  Recognizing that any 316(a) demonstration performed
will take at least one year, the existing NPDES permit requires
that the permittee present his successful 316(a) demonstration by
June 30, 1976.  Even if this compliance milestone date were to
be met (which is questionable), it would be physically impossible
within only one year to engineer, construct, and launch whatever
wastewater treatment facilities will be needed to comply with
permit requirements by July 1, 1977.

-------
                         June  10,  1975
 Environmental Protection Agency
 Office of Water and Hazardous
  Materials  (WH-556),  Room  1033
 West Tower,  Waterside  Mall
 401 "M" Street, SW
 Washington,  D. C.  20460

 Gentlemen:

 Submitted herewith for your record are two copies of a statement
 concerning proposed amendments to Public Law 92-500 which was pre-
 sented at a  public hearing  in Atlanta, Georgia on June 9» 1975.

 Fulton County officials appreciate this opportunity to express
 an opinion concerning  proposed changes to this vital legislation.

 Very truly yours,

 H. A. Frandsen
 Asst. Director & Chief Engineer

 shw

 cc-A.T. McDonald
   Jack Ravan
   J. Leonard Ledbetter
   John Langsfield
   Charles Jones
   Bob Sutton
   David Brown
                ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                  PUBLIC HEARING - PL 92-500
               STATEMENT - FULTON COUNTY. GEORGIA
                       1  JUNE 9. 1975

      My name is Howard Frandsen;  I am Chief Engineer for Fulton
County, Georgia.
      As the Fulton County representative, I respectfully submit
the following comments concerning five potential legislative
amendments to Public Law 92-500.

-------
      Amendment #1 provides for a reduction in the federal share
of construction grants from the current level of 75% to a level
as low as 55%.
      Since the inception of Public Law 92-500 in fiscal year
1972, Fulton County, the largest county in Georgia, has been
awarded only one construction grant;  that for a 3 MGD wastewater
treatment project which was originally submitted under Public
Law 660.  This means that Fulton County must depend heavily on
local funds.
      Currently, Fulton County has a $30 million backlog of sewerage
projects which are designed and ready for construction if the
funds were available.
      Fulton County has issued revenue bonds in an amount equal to
our financial capacity; however, we are unable to fund all of
the sewerage projects necessary to serve our developing
communities.  The covenants of the bond resolution do specify     •,
75% federal funding where construction grants are contemplated.
      Fulton County has historically assumed a responsible attitude
toward the treatment of wastewater; therefore, we are,victims of
our own good work and are not eligible for construction grants
under the priority system as established by the Department of
Natural Resources, Environmental Protection Division, and the
Environmental Protection Agency.  Further reduction in funding
for sewerage projects - from whatever source - can only result
in delay.
      I understand this situation is unique among southeastern
states, but the State of Georgia does not participate financially
in the sewerage program; therefore, an increase in required
local funding must be assumed by the individual county or
municipality.
      If the federal government cannot raise monies to fund
sewerage projects, I seriously doubt that local government -
with its multitude of problems in all areas of responsibility- can
raise the necessary funds.
      Amendment #2 proposes limiting federal funding of reserve
capacity to serve projected growth.  The 7-county metropolitan
Atlanta area has a current population of approximately 1,600,000
people.  According to the Atlanta Regional Commission, that
population is projected to increase by two million people to
3,500,000 during the 25 years between now and the year 2000.
      Local government cannot ignore these statistics.  We must
be prepared to handle our responsibility which is to provide those
services which the people cannot reasonably provide for themselves.
      Fulton County is designing wastewater treatment plants for
ultimate need; however, we construct in phases with each phase

-------
having the capacity to handle estimated wastewater flows for a
period.of approximately ten years.
      Fulton County is designing the underground interceptor and
outfall sewer systems to handle ultimate needs based on projected
population densities.
      Our experience is that an increase in pipe size will  add
a substantial- increase in flow capacity at modest cost.  For,
example, in a recent contract, the cost of installing a 36"
reinforced concrete pipe was only 6% more than the cost of
installing a 30" pipe; yet, the flow capacity was increased by 44%.
      Fulton County has found that paralleling or relieving
existing sewers can be very expensive.  When we must resort to
the right of eminent domain for property acquisition, the
courts have awarded judgments for permanent easements according
to the purchase value of the property; judgments for temporary
easements are approximately one-half the purchase value of
the property.  The courts also find that the county is
responsible for substantial consequential damages.
      By comparison, when we install sewer lines in developing
areas, the necessary easements are usually dedicated because
the property owners are anxious to gain the benefit of sewerage
service.
      During times when construction costs are annually          *
increasing at double digit rates, we question the wisdom of
deferring the construction of underground sewerage when modest
additional current investment will satisfy projected needs.
As a general statement, I have never seen a sewer line that is
too big.
      Amendment #3 restricts the type of project eligible for
construction grant assistance.
      The primary thrust in Fulton County is to provide inter-
ceptor sewers and wastewater treatment facilities; however,
we must recognize that the cost of drainage and treatment for
infiltration and inflow is approximately the same as the cost of
drainage and treatment for sanitary sewage.
      We firmly believe that the economics of correcting
problems at the source justify the cost of controlling infiltra-
tion and inflow.
      My opinion is that Fulton County would be receptive to
a sliding scale of construction grant percentages as propsed
by the moderator during the morning session.
      Amendment #4 extends the 1977 date for meeting water
quality standards.  I suspect that I could live in a $150,000
house and have an expensive automobile in the driveway if I
                                  21*7

-------
assigned my entire income to this objective.
      Similarly, local government could move more rapidly with
efforts to meet water quality standards if it assigned a
disproporionate share of its revenue to this one effort.
      We all recognize that our family has more needs than
simply a big house and a large automobile; likewise, local
government has needs other than a desire to satisfy the
water quality standards.
      We believe that the delays as proposed are realistic.
      Amendment #5 delegates a greater portion of the manage-
ment of the construction grants program to the state.
      We believe that the state environmental protection
organization is closer to local government and, therefore,
more cognizant of local government problems.  Therefore, we
support the proposed amendment.
      In summary, Fulton County submits that the success of
our mutual efforts to provide clean water is influenced
primarily by the availability of funding.  Good economic
judgment is necessary to use every available dollar as wisely
as practicable.
      With this consideration, we firmly believe that amendments
#1, #2 and #3 should be defeated and that amendments #4 and #5
should be adopted.

-------
June 19, 1975

Statement of Connie Parrish, California Representative of Friends
of the Earth, on proposed amendments to the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, Environmental Protection Agency Hearing, San Francisco.

      Thank you for this opportunity to comment on these proposed
revisions of the grant program for construction of municipal
sewage treatment facilities.  Friends of the Earth is in firm support
of EPA's efforts to maintain water quality.
      We belie/e the action that comes out of today's hearing should
reflect the agency's commitment to clean, unpolluted water.  Keeping
in mind the motivation behind consideration of new amendments —
the Office of Management and Budget -- we hope the goals of EPA
will take precedence over the money-minded concerns of a financially
troubled Administration.
      We have a few recommendations for each of the five areas of
discussion: 1) A reduction of the Federal share of grant money is
acceptable to Friends of the Earth, if it is truly necessary and
providing such a reduction of funds will not have a detrimental
impact on the construction program.  We feel that the option of
granting up to 75% of the cost, though, should remain open to
EPA administrators, for there surely will be areas of the contry
where the larger federal share will legitimately be required.
      2)  Federal funds should be limited in all cases to facilities
designed to meet present needs.  Projects that are built for expected
future population increases create an incentive for growth and urban
sprawl.  In the Seattle area, for example, sewers are planned to
handle 40 times the present need.  When EPA helps fund projects
like this, which are far beyond the need of the existing community,
the agency becomes an increment of growth (and its accompanying
environmental impacts).
      Economically, this limit makes sense, also.  The money not
granted can be used in other, more important Federal actions.  The
benefits accrued from using this money elsewhere should outweigh
the claimed savings due to economies of scale in larger plants.
The benefits of not promoting growth, though less tangible,
are none the less real.  Land acquisition and plant design, however,
should maintain an option for future expansion.
      EPA should under no circumstances fund sewage treatment
facilities in excess of present population needs in cities where
transportation control strategies are required for the area to
meet the standards of the Clean Air Act.  It is proving difficult
enough to implement these strategies aimed at coping with the air

-------
pollution generated by existing populations without providing further
impetus for growth the air basin cannot handle.
      3)  Restricting the types of eligible grants to secondary and
tertiary treatment plants sounds reasonable as it will  not impinge
upon the essential mandate of Public Law 92-500.   Although inter-
ceptor sewers are necessarily included also, we would urge more
careful consideration of small  treatment plants as an alternative.
      4)  Recognizing the problems EPA faces in enforcing the 1977
deadline, we support alternative "3" as a solution.   We believe the
1977 date should be complied with where possible, however EPA should
be able to exercise case-by-case administrative discretion in
granting extensions.
      5)  FOE has no objection  to allowing the states to assume a
greater role in managing the grants program, as  long as the intent 3t
of the act is not subverted.                 *                      -'
      In closing, a word of warning to EPA.   This grant program is
destined to become the biggest  public works project in  the world,
larger than even the Highway Program. We must be wary of a "sewer
lobby" forming, made up of trade unions, businessmen, and banks--
similar to the infamous Highway Lobby—that may push us into
building outsized facilities and plants in areas that have no
need for them.
      Thank you.
                                250

-------
                         July 9, 1975

Mr. D. Sabock
United States Environmental
  Protection Agency ,
Washington, D. C.  20460

Dear Mr. Sabock:

Our office would like to make the following recommendations on
five proposed amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, which will be discussed at four public hearings, relating
to municipal waste treatment grants.
      1.  In general, it would probably work a hardship on
    .<      many communities to have the Federal share reduced.
    \     However, if the authority for grants could be placed
          with the States so that it would be much easier to
          process the grants, there would probably be enough
          savings in project costs so that it would take most
          of the impact out of a reduction of Federal share.

      2.  Limiting Federal financing to serve needs of existing
          population is ridiculous.  Normally, it cost very little
          extra to oversize a facility.  Therefore, if it were
          built only for today's needs, as soon as another facility
          is needed, the cost would probably be  double or more
          than double.  Very likely, there will probably be a
          Federal program in the future that will participate  in
          the cost of duplicating the facilities.  The idea of
          trying to control population growth through control  of
          utility extensions sounds good but in actuality, it  is
          not practical.

      3.  Restricting types of projects eligible for grants
          would reduce the flexibility of local governments in
          implementing clean water goals.  However, if it is a
          restriction, the grants should at least cover wastewater
          treatment plant expansion, interceptor sewers, trunk
          sewers over 12 inches in diameter and separation.

          Generally speaking, if a project is to be borne 100%
          costs by a community without special benefits to selected
          property owners, we feel it should be grant eligible.

      4.  Because of delays in implementing the sewer facility

                                 251

-------
Page 2
Mr. D. Sabock
July 9, 1975

          projects due mainly to the problems in processing
          grants, the 1977 date is not practical and should be
          definitely extended.

      5.  This office by experience in processing Federal  grants
          feels that EPA Regional  Office has been very cooperative.
          However, it is our opinion that the main problems that
          we have had is the dual  role being played by the Federal
          and State Offices.  It is our suggestion that if the
          State could have absolute authority in processing the
          grant applications, there could be gained a considerable
          amount of efficiency.  If this arrangement could not be
          worked, it would be recommended the State be bypassed
          and processing be directly through the EPA Office and
          the only review by the State would be for the normal
          permits.

We appreciate this opportunity to  comment on proposed changes
to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

Very truly yours,
John L. Hornbach, P.E.
City Engineer
                                     252

-------
                         June 24, 1975

Mr. James L. Agee
Assistant Administrator For Water and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Protection Agency
Room 1033, West Tower Waterside Mall
401 "M" Street, SW
Washington, D. C.  20460

Dear Mr. Agee:

On 19 June, 1975, I attended the public hearing on Municipal Waste
Treatment Grants in San Francisco and although I was present from
the beginning until the 3:15 recess, I did not present my position
before the board because I felt that it was quite satisfactorily
expressed by many of those who spoke.

Most of the input from sewage agencies at the hearing came from
large metropolitan areas throughout the west.  Since the Gilroy
plant presently serves a much smaller area, about 26,000 people,
perhaps a summary of our concerns will be of benefit to the hearing
record.  The comments which follow speak to papers published in
the Federal Register of May 28, 1975:

Paper 1:  Reduction of Federal Share.  We strongly urge that the level
of Federal participation remain at 75%.  The concept of increasing
local share to improve the design economy (i.e. create a more cost
effective design) is erroneous.  Cities, large and_ small, are
experiencing serious economic problems.  Increasing their share
would not necessarily increase how responsibly they approach the
design of their plant, while it would create a financial burden
which could kill many worthwhile and needed projects.

Paper 2;  Limiting Reserve Capacity Pertaining to Growth.  California
has already implemented a program which limits capacity projections
in two ways: 1)  growth expected after 10 years will not qualify for
grant funding of treatment facilities (20 years for interceptor
sewers), and 2)  population projections for fundable capacity are
limited to growth rates established for the service area.  These rates
are related to the air basin characteristics of the service area.
Since most of the areas who testified are in critical air basins;
reference was often made to the E-zero growth rate.  Please note
that areas  of different air basin characteristics are permitted to
estimate future growth on the basis of somewhat less stringent

-------
Page 2
Mr. James Agee
June 24, 1975

parameters.

We believe that the California plan is an acceptable means of
spreading the benefits of this program so long as It only limits
fundable capacity and it does not prohibit the agency from pro-
viding additional capacity as it may feel necessary and independently
finance.  Active plant capacity should be realistic and not limited
to that fundable.  The local community should not be punished
for or prevented from providing the capacity that it feels that
it needs.

Paper 3:  Restricting Types of Eligible Grants.  We are opposed
to eliminating types of projects, but would support the prioritizing
of the types.  Using the reference numerals published in the paper,
I would favor the following in terms of decending priority:
I*, IVB, IIIA, V, IVA, II, IIIB, VI.  *Except that I agree with
the several agencies who opposed secondary treatment in cases where
no great benefit to the receiving water is expected to result
from the treatment.  Most of these situations occur along the
coastline.

Paper 4:  Extending 1977 Deadline.  I believe-that the 1977,
deadline is unrealistic and that none of the proposed alternatives
provide the solution.  I favor a modification of alternative 5
which would recognize a community which is diligently trying to
comply with the requirements of the program and which would not
punish them if Federal funding were not available.

Paper 5:  Delegation of Program Management to State.  We favor
the State taking lead role in the program management and the elimina-
tion of duplication by the Environmental Protection Agency.

We also encourage the provision for ad valorem taxes as a method
of local funding.

Thank you for the opportunity to have a voice in this most important
program.

Very truly yours,

David Hansen


                                  25/4

-------
Page 3
Mr. James Agee
June 24,  1975

Director  of Public Works
City Engineer

DWH:cw
cc:  Fred Wood
     Dick Foss
                                   255

-------
REMARKS FOR THE EPA HEARING ON JUNE 9, 1975, ATLANTA, GEORGIA

      My name is Linda Billingsley and I am representing the
Georgia Conservancy, Inc.
      When we were first advised of this hearing, we were not aware
that it would be for comments only on the proposed legislative
changes in Public Law 92-500.  By law, because of our tax-exempt
status, we are not permitted to comment on proposed legislation or
to try to sway public opinion on such legislation.  Therefore, I
must restrict my comments to the present law and its capabilities.
Also I would like to ask some questions about the proposed
amendments.
      First, I would like to say that there have been some
problems in implementing P.L. 92-500.  The blame can be spread to
a lot of different areas.  Some of the problems arer
      1.  Shortages and changes in both State and Federal personnel
handling the program cause the planning requirements to take a
long time.
      2.  Confusion over specifics of the regulations and lack of
education of public officials by EPA on the Law.
      3.  Most states and local political jurisdictions do not
have available the critical information--on land use, population
projections, and environmental information.  This should be
mandatory.  Overlapping drainage basins in different political
areas and controversies over growth projections have compounded
these problems.
      4.  Public participation is inadequately addressed.  This
requirement is being ignored in many states.
      5.  Little consideration is being given downstream water
users who have to increase their drinking-water treatment Costs
because of lack of enforcement upstream; i.e., removal  of sediment,
toxic pollutants, etc.

General comments I would like to make on P.L. 92-500:
      1.  Granting construction grants .for new sewage treatment
plants should be planned concurrently within update to the sewage
collection system, sometimes antiquated and leaky.
      2.  Engineers, preparing required considerations of alterna-
tives of waste water disposal systems, should be directed to include
not only cost, but also resource depletion and environmental
degradation in their analysis.
      3.  Much improvement is needed in the regulations for meeting
the toxic pollutant requirements of the law.
      4.  The NPDES notices are difficult to evaluate.   Therefore,
we do not have the expertise to monitor them.
                                r*.
                                  56

-------
       5.   The goals of 1983 and 1985 must and can be achieved by
 greater implementation and enforcement of the Law by EPA.   The
 elimination of the red tape would aid EPA in achieving this purpose.
       6.   Greater emphasis should be put on the use of Section
 208 by EPA.
       7.   We do not believe that non-point discharges are  being
 addressed adequately.   Even if the streams meet the 1983 standards,
 urban run-off will completely downgrade their water quality.
       8.   We hope the July 1977 deadline can be met by both
 municipal dischargers and industry, with a little speed-up in
 administrative details.

 Questions on the proposed amendments:
       1.   Without further legislation, can Step I and Step II
 grants be combined timewise to speed up the small construction
 programs?
       2.   Why are the Public Works Committees of Congress  not
 waiting for the National Commission on Water Quality's report due
 in October, 1975, before proposing changes in the law?
       3.   Has EPA investigated or proposed the intermedia  approach
 to multiple use of advanced wastewater treatment plants, such as
 burning solid waste to fuel the incineration process used  ex-
 tensively in AWT plants?  Would this require legislation also, in
 view of- the interagency agreement of coordination of the land-use
 related provisions of EPA's 208 and HUD's 701 comprehensive
 metropolitan planning grant program?
       4.   On the use of ad valorem taxes as a means of assessing
 user charges, would it be legal to use this for residents  and
 small businesses and yet collect a user charge from industry  on
 the basis of the quality and quantity of their wastes?
       5.   On the subject of transferring the construction  grants
 program to the states for administration, what is a realistic
 figure in years for accepting certification by state water pollution
 control agencies?  Is the 2% figure for administrative costs  too
 high or too low?  Since only two states, Georgia and Mississippi,
 are now handling NPDES permits, would this happen under the grant
 administering, .too?
       6.   What is the feeling on the transfer of construction grant
 money to  the states?  Would this speed up the processing or slow it
 down?
       7.   On limiting Federal aid to certain types of projects,
'would this possibly penalize the urban run-off research in the
 storm-water control program?
    . * 8.   Would a reduction in the Federal share of grants (1)
                                   257

-------
penalize small  municipalities further, which are presently our
biggest pollution problems in Georgia?
      9.  Does  the limiting of Federal aid to serve only the
needs of the existing population mean that only the present
systems that need up-dating would be financed, not the new systems
for projected growth in undeveloped territory?
     10.  Is the 1977 deadline unreachable, without further
legislation?  With the proposed amendments, will it then be
reachable?
     11.  Under the Law now, since half of the pollutants present
in streams is the result of urban run-off, can NPDES permits be
used to li;nit this as some of it comes from point sources—parking
lots, subdivisions, highways?  Would new amendments be needed to
control this?

                     Atlanta, June 9, 1975
         Hearings on Potential Legislative Amendments
          to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

      Panelists, ladies and gentlemen:
      I am Jim Morrison, Executive Director of the Georgia Wildlife
Federation, the state affiliate of the National  Wildlife Federation.
It is a pleasure to appear here today to present our views on the
five issues outlined in the Federal Register, Volume 40, Number 103,
pages 23107 to 23113, which are scheduled for discussion at
this public hearing.
                       Issue Number One
              Proposed Reduction of Federal Share

      We do not believe it would be any more practical  to reduce the
Federal share for construction grants under Public Law-92-500
than it would be to reduce the federal share on interstate highway
grants and still expect the roads to be built.  Local resources,
without the generous return of federal tax monies through
grants, are insufficient for the task of cleaning our nation's.
waters.
      While recognizing that the 1977 goal of secondary treatment or
better for all  municipal treatment works will not be met1, we do
not believe that the rate of federal funding should-slacken until
at least the 35 billion dollar share needed to construct the
secondary treatment, advanced treatment, and interceptor sewers
reported in the 1974 Needs Survey has been authorized and appropriated.
                       Issue Number Two
      Limiting Federal Funding of Reserve Capacity to Serve Pro-
jected Growth


                                    258

-------
      We believe that federal funding should be limited to that
capacity'of sewer plants or sewer lines needed to serve 20 years
of growth estimated using the OBERS projections with census
bureau input from their series E^ (or the lowest) growth calcula-
tions'.  However, communities should be allowed to fund 100 per cent
of the cost of additcional capacity calculated on a marginal cost,
or incremental cost analysis which allows  for economies-of-
scale in construction. <
                      Issue Number Three
Restricting the Types of Projects Eligible for Grant Assistance
      We feel that the six categories of projects presently eligible
for funding should remain.  In most cases in the Southeastern United
States, the state water pollution control agencies have effectively
restricted fundable projects to categories I, II, and IVB.  This
means that a much more equitable distribution of funding by Congress
would be obtained if funds were primarily allocated among states
according to a formula which placed heavy weight on these needs
expressed in categories I, II, and IVB.  This is especially
true because Congress is unlikely to ever appropriate a significant
portion of the 235 billion dollars that it is estimated is needed
for storm water treatment and/or control, yet this huge amount is
included in the need allocation formula.
                       Issue Number Four
           Extending the P. [_., 92-500 1977 Deadline
      Because the initial effect of the tremendous expansion in
the requirements necessary to qualify for grants under 92-500 has
had the effect of. slowing actual wastewater treatment plans con-
struction, a three year extension of the deadline should be granted.
This would eliminate the need for much complex and ineffective
legal action when the July 1, 1977 deadline approaches and 60%
of our nation's population is found to be served by a facility
that won't meet the mandated goals.
                       Issue Number Five
Delegating Greater Construction Grants Responsibilities to the States
      This would be a mistake as the program would be slowed even
more as the states attempted to staff up with adequate manpower to
meet greater responsibilities.  Procedures and customs are just now
beginning to be established regarding the handling of the Title II
regulation and if they are soon rewritten again we believe that
a year or more of momentum gained will be lost again.
      Finally, one issue not scheduled to be discussed today,
but one that the members of our organization who like to fish
frequently find to be a problem is the failure of treatment plants
to work after they are constructed.  In EPA's 1974 "Clean Water


                             -    259

-------
Report to Congress" 30 per cent of treatment plants adequately
sampled during routine project follow-up were found to be not
meeting the effluent quality criteria they were designed to meet.
Here in our area we believe the percentage to be even higher.
And unfortunately for both the fish and the fisherman the organisms
in the stream are killed by the extremes of pollution eminating
from these plants, not their average weekly or monthly project.
      An amendment should be added to the Water Pollution Control
Act to enforce much stricter controls on operation and maintenance
of federally funded plants.  Perhaps 0 and M grants should be
authorized and made in some cases.
      Thank you for this opportunity.  I am submitting two copies
of this statement today and reserving the right to submit an
expanded statement during the period the record is open.
                                   2GO

-------
                         June 20, 1975

Mr. Alvin Alms
Assistant Administrator for
   Planning & Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Waterside Mall
4th & M Street
Washington, D.C.  20460

Dear Mr. Alms:

We are enclosing a copy of the Georgia Statement presented at
the EPA Hearing in Atlanta on June 9, 1975.  We request that this
statement be made a part of the record of the Atlanta Hearing.   We
appreciate the opportunity to present Georgia's position during the
hearing.

As you know, the National Commission on Water Quality is conducting
a hearing in Atlanta on July 9-10, 1975.  It is my understanding
that Governor Busbee will attend that hearing and address these
same points in his statement to the Commission and in-discussions
with them.

Thank you again for conducting the hearing in Atlanta and we
trust that in the future, you will consider Atlanta for such type
hearings.  It seemed to me that you had a good turnout and partici-
pation in the hearing.

Sincerely,

J. Leonard Ledbetter
Director

JLL:seh
Enclosure
cc:  Mr. James L. Agee
     Mr. Jack E. Ravan
     Mr. John T. Rhett
     Mr. Joseph R. Franzmathes
     Mr. George F. Kopecky
                                    161

-------
         STATEMENT OF J. L. LEDBETTER, P.E., DIRECTOR
             ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION DIVISION
           GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
                             FOR
      PUBLIC HEARING ON POTENTIAL LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS
         TO THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
                       ATLANTA, GEORGIA
                         JUNE 9, 1975

      The Georgia Environmental Protection Division appreciates the
opportunity to make this statement of Georgia's position on potential
amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control  Act.   We have
recommended amendments to PL 92-500 as early as February 1974.
In the hearings conducted by the Investigations and Review Sub-
committee of the House Committee on Public Works and Transportation,
we urged significant amendments be made to PL 92-500.  Most of the
issues being discussed today have been reviewed during  those
hearings as well.
      With regard to the five critical amendments  mentioned in
the May 2, 1975 Public Notice for this hearing, we have the following
comments:
      1.  Reduction of the federal grant share:
      No change should be made in the federal grant share.  The
optimum share should be high enough  to reduce the financial strain
of capital costs for construction, and high enough to insure a strong
local interest.  The present 75% federal share is  appropriate to
accomplish these things.  The history of delays and grant withdrawals
on projects receiving P.L. 84-660 grants, due mostly to the inability
of local governments to finance their 67% or 70% local  share, should
be sufficient documentation that the federal share must remain
high.  In addition, skyrocketing construction and  equipment costs
will casue even greater hardships on grant recipients if the federal
share is reduced.
      A reduction of the federal share below 75% would  result in
gross inequities to communities adjacent or similar to  others which
receive a full 75% grant, thus greatly damaging the credibility
of EPA and State water pollution control programs.  In  addition,
local governments which presently have Step 1 or Step 2 work under-
way, or which will embark in the grants process in the  near future,
are proceeding on the assumption that they will be able to receive
a federal grant for 75% of eligible project costs.  Reduction of
the federal share could render severe hardships and inequities to
these communities.  It must be emphasized that many applicants do
not receive a 75% grant at the present.  The eligible portion of
the project can result in a significant amount of  the total portion


                                     262

-------
being funded 100% locally.
      In Georgia where we have approximately 486 municipalities of
which about 450 are under 10,000 population, we have a large per-
centage of the population with relatively low income.  Water and
sewer rates must be reasonable for these people to afford the
monthly user fees.  The recently enacted Federal Safe Drinking
Water Act will add additional costs to this same utility bill.
This factor, along with the escalating costs for the operation and
maintenance of water and sewerage systems, necessitates a continued
high percent Federal grant.
      The States cannot adequately plan and prioritize disburse-
ments of PL 92-500 construction grants without stability in the
source of the funds.  It is recommended that the Congress authorize
at least $5 billion per year to the construction grants program     :
for the next five years to provide this stability.
      Many municipalities across the country have wastewater
treatment facilities, some constructed only in the last few years,
which, as a result of EPA's arbitrary regulations and policies
regarding secondary treatment and stream standards will have to
upgrade those facilities or abandon them and construct new ones.
These municipalities are unwilling enough about making "improve-
ments" to their facilities to comply with arbitrary federal
dictates; a reduction of the federal grant share will virtually
make it impossible to bring about compliance in many cases.
      Considering the extremely long lead time between initial
planning and construction of wastewater treatment systems, it is
recommended that planning costs (Step 1 Grants) be funded 100%
by the federal government.  When facilities are constructed,
the federal share could then be adjusted so that the applicant
pays 25% of the total costs of Step 1, Step 2, and Step 3 work.
This would ease the financial burden on smaller communities
and would greatly simplify the solicitation of "intent to cooperate"
statements from municipalities lying within 201 planning
boundaries.
      State budgets across the Country are currently encountering
problems.  Many States are required to live within their income;
therefore, it is unlikely that significant increases in present
State grants or loan programs will occur.  Any amendment requiring
States to match a grant will greatly disrupt the program and destroy
the credibility of the EPA and States.
      Our evaluation of the consideration to reduce the 75% federal
grant is that'in Georgia we would have fewer projects capable of
moving forward.  Consequently, we must urge that the federal share
remain at the 75% level.
                                     263

-------
2.  Limiting federal financing to serve the needs of existing populations
      Grant eligibility should not be limited to serving the needs
of existing population only.  If local governments are not allowed
to construct adequate sewer and teratment plant capacity to provide
for normal growth and to attract some industry and other development,
there will be little incentive to build new facilities or expand
old ones until required to do so by enforcement action.  Limiting
federal financing to the needs of existing population will  have
the same effects as reducing the percentage of the federal  share
below 75%.
      Many of the same points emphasized regarding the 75%
federal share issue apply to the reserve capacity issue.
      Any over-design in Georgia to date has occurred in a few
small isolated communities.  Generally the consultants have been
too conservative and growth has been greater than estimated with
the result being overloaded sewerage systems.   In recent years,
we have prohibited additional sewer connections in communities
to control the overload; however, adequate protection of water
quality requires the development of a realistic plan and implemen-
tation of that plan.  For the reasons listed under Issue I, the
federal share at the 75% level is crucial  to provide the implemen-
tation.  This is another example demonstrating the importance of
EPA, and particularly the States, having the flexibility and authority
to approve through the 201 planning process a  design life that is
consistent with sound economic and engineering principles,  which
will not be a rigid period such as 10/20.
3.  Restricting the types of projects eligible
      The types of projects eligible for funding should not be
restricted.  Although nearly all of Georgia's  grant allocations
thus far have been assigned to Category I, II, and IVB projects,
there has been some legitimate need for funding projects in other
categories.  For example, some communities do  have areas where it
can be documented that runoff from failing septic tank systems
is violating water quality standards and creating public health
hazards.  If such communities have treatment and transport capacity
available but are financially incapable of funding collector
sewers, then collector sewers should be grant eligible.
      EPA has declared the Chattahoochee River as one of the ten
top priority rivers in the United States for upgrading to meet
water quality standards.  However, if treatment or control  of
combined sewer overflows and other urban stormwater is never to
be grant eligible, it will not be possible to  meet the water
quality standards all of the time.
      If the correction of sewer infiltration/inflow and major
sewer rehabilitation are declared ineligible for grants, there will
                                    26**

-------
conceivably be a number of communities which will not be able to
develop the most cost effective solutions shown in their 201
Facilities Plans.
      If the goals of PL 92-500 are to be met, the flexibility to
fund projects in all categories provided for in PL 92-500 must
be maintained.  The real issue here is whether we should change
the goals of the Act-not restrict the type project eligible.
4.  Extending the 1977 date for meeting water quality standards
      It is quite obvious that the July 1, 1977 date for achieving
secondary treatment at all municipal facilities on effluent limited
streams and higher effluent standards at all municipal facilities
will not be met.  The time consuming and duplicate procedures
required by the grant regulations, the impoundment of grant
funds during the Fiscal Years 1973, 1974, and 1975, and the lack
of realistic foresight on the part of the Congress have made the
treatment goals unattainable.
      We urge that the 1977 deadline for publicly owned treatment
facilities be rescinded and replaced with the requirement that the
NPDES permit establish a compliance schedule consistent with the
availability of the 75% federal grant.  The State's project funding
list could be coordinated with the permit to provide a realistic
schedule.  We oppose extending the date to just another arbitrary date.
We must have the authority and flexibility to use the permit
program and the available federal grant funds to abate pollution
effectively.  Our recommended approach would allow us to force
reluctant dischargers to move forward with their program.  We
have not encountered any court willing to be lenient on public
officials when a pollution problem exists and federal grant
funds are available to assist them in correcting the problem.
      We urge the Congress to retain the 1977 deadline for industries.
Georgia industries have already installed modern water pollution
control facilities and with some modifications will meet the 1977
deadline.  If the program is to maintain any credibility and equity,
it is imperative that these Georgia industries that installed
expensive water pollution control facilities in good faith be able
to approach the market place with competitors that are being
required to meet the same effluent limitations and deadlines.
      The 1983 and 1985 dates could be more realistic if the Congress
established wiser goals than presently proposed.
5.  Delegating a greater portion of the management of the construction
grants program to the States
      It is urgent and imperative that EPA comply with Section 101(b)
of PL 92-500 which states, "it is the policy of the Congress to
recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and
                                      265

-------
rights of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution	.-".
As presently written PL 92-500 is not consistent with Section 101(b)
and often requires the Administrator to conduct certain functions.
Title II should be amended to be consistent with Section 101(b)
and authorize the States to conduct the construction grants program.
      We are willing to accept more responsibilities in administering
the construction grant program provided that the conditions
under which those responsibilities go to the States are made
clear and are reasonable.  We desire to expedite the construction
of needed facilities without getting entangled in red tape.  We
recognize and would accept the responsibility of assuring the
wise use of these funds.
      In closing we urge EPA to review the records of hearings
conducted by Committees or Subcommittees of Congress which contain
additional information on several of these issues.  Also, the
Association of State and Interstate Water .Pollution Control
Administrators, the Water Pollution Control Federation, the
National Governor's Conference, and others have proposed language
regarding greatly needed amendments to PL 92-500.  We strongly urge
that you review and consider these recommendations.
                       June 23, 1975

Honorable Russell E. Train, Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Waterside Mall                             ^
401 M Street S.W.
Washington, D.C.  20460

Dear Mr. Train:

Attached please find the original and two (2) copies of our
comments which were mailed to you on June 20, 1975.   The original
of Page 4 was inadvertently left out of the original packet.

Thank you.

Yours truly,

JOHN B. FERNSTROM
Program Manager
Groundwater Program
Water Supply Section
                                    266

-------
JBL:cl
Enclosures

Page 4
SUBSECTION 35.615
      The State's annual program plan requirements must be formu-
lated on realistic and practical objectives and results.  The
required elements of the program plan should not require excessive
and voluminous paperwork.  Required elements should be directed
toward obtaining program results.
SUBSECTION 35.618
      The program elements requirements for carrying out a public
water system supervision program are generally satisfactory.
SUBSECTION 35.620
      As long as the Federal grant money is as low as projected,
eligible costs have limited significance.  The philosophy of
requiring all laboratory costs  to be borne by the small utilities
is unrealistic.  If the State does not assume this responsibility,
the monitoring will not be accomplished by the small water system
who cannot afford their own laboratory facilities or trained
personnel or commercial laboratory services.  There are few,
if any, private laboratories which can do the bacteriological,
chemical, organic, pesticide and radiological analyses.  Additional
commercial and water system laboratories will have to be established
and certified and this cannot reasonably be accomplished within
two years.  The cost, time and  effort to enforce this section
would be impossible, whereas the present system of the State's
monitoring program is at least  practical.
                                      267

-------
                         June 9, 1975
                         STATEMENT OF                              '
                          Stan Wei 11
                          President
                GEORGIA WATER AND POLLUTION CONTROL
                         ASSOCIATION

Gentlemen:
      I am Stan Weill, President of the Georgia Water and Pollu-
tion Control Association, an organization with approximately 2,000
members in Georgia.  Our membership is made up of a broad cross    !
section of people knowledgeable of local, statewide and national
aspects of water pollution control'and the^workings of PL 92-500.
      We have had the experience of being involved in the* •
"National Water Pollution Experience" from the early days of
the U.S. Public Health Service involvement to the present state of
affairs.  We look upon that alphabetic evolution with mixed
emotions.               "   /T
      Our organization supported the development of Public Law'-
92-500 and thought that the concept and intent of Congress was*
truly responsive to problems with which we had personal  experience?
We did however feel that the timetable allowed was overly ambitious
and questioned the final concept of "zero discharge" when the
current state-of-the-art was considered.  We recognized however
that little is accomplished without ambitious goals.
      Our membership has reviewed the basic language and postion
papers associated with proposed amendments to PL 92-500.  We have  -
carefully considered past and present experience with the existing
law.  We have assigned representatives to participate in numerous
forums which considered problems associated with implementation
of the Act.  This statement is intended to reflect our judgments
growing from this involvement.
      The Georgia Water and Pollution Control Association believes
that our present problems and those forecast for the future
derive from a number of causes.  We believe that the primary
problem, however, is the lack of stability in the basic implementa-
tion of an essentially good law.
      We feel that problems attributable to an overly ambitious
Congress, a maze of environmental constraints, a general lack of
understanding on the part of critical parties in the development
chain are paled in comparison by the problems attributable to
the continuing proliferation of guidelines, program guidance
memoranda and guidance from on-high.
      When such changing policy is coupled with misguided impound-
ment of funds,,there is little reason to look elsewhere for a


                                 268

-------
means to improve the program and accomplish the desirable objectives
of the act in our lifetime.
      The basic concept of our recommendations and comments is
that the program must have stability.  Stability of attainable
goals.  Stability of program procedures.  Stability of program
funding level.  Stability of administration and Stability of
commitment.
      With these thoughts in mind, our specific comments on the
five proposed amendments are as follows:
      Amendment No. 1.  Reduction of the Federal Share.
      We are unalterably opposed to such an action.
      We would suggest instead adoption of SB 1216 and HR 4161
      which will provide a more equitable allocation of present
      and future funds and place a badly developed "needs
      formula" in better perspective.
      Amendment No. 2.  Limiting Federal Funding of Reserve
      Capacity to Serve Projected Growth.
      We are opposed to the amendment.
      We feel that the concern indicated is not justified and
      that existing procedures relating to cost effective analysis
      and alternative analysis for such facilities is a more
      intelligent means of administering public funds.

      We offer the suggestion that HR 3658, which would require
      Congressional Review of guidelines and administrative
      rules, be incorporated into PL 92-500.  Such an amendment
      would be far more constructive  in providing needed stability
      rather than overreacting to a mythical needs number.
      Amendment No. 3.  Restricting the Types of Projects
      Eligible for Grant Assistance.
      We are opposed to the proposed amendment.
      We believe that each of the possible project types are
      related to sources of pollution that in a given instance
      can prevent attainment of the fundamental objectives of
      the act.

      We feel quite strongly that intelligent cost effective
      analysis,required by existing regulations provides a proper
      device for decision making to allow a businesslike approach
      to project eligibility.  We should attack the pollution
      sources that give us the most benefits for the dollar spent
      without regard to the type of project involved.
      Amendment No. 4.  Extending 1977 Date for the Publicly
      Owned Treatment Works to Meet Water Quality Standards.
      We concur with the concept of the proposed amendment.-


                                    263

-------
      We would propose however, that the lanquage of such an
      amendment would provide for attainment of a more conventionally
      accepted version of Secondary Treatment by 1980.  That the
      goal  of attainment of fish and wildlife quality be
      established for 1985 and that a decision on the issue of
      "zero discharge" be reserved until after 1980.

      The rationale for such a proposal  is that acceptance of
      a well operated trickling filter plant or waste stabiliza-
      tion pond effluent as, "secondary treatment", would markedly
      reduce wasteful early replacement of such economically
      operated treatment systems.
      Beyond 1980, the ultimate receiving water quality would
      control type of treatment required.
      Amendment No. 5.  Delegating a Greater Portion of the
      Management of the Construction Grants Program to the States.
      We concur.
      We believe that adoption of HR 2175 (Cleveland) coupled with
      recommendations outlined for Amendment 2 will deal with
      the fundamental program flaws.  The Levitas Bill will
      complement the proposed Cleveland Bill and greatly improve
   '   the chance for desired program stability.

      Gentlemen, we thank you for an opportunity to express
these views and would like to file a copy with you for the record.
      The Tennessee Municipal  League assembled in its 36th
Annual Conference, opposes the amendments to the Federal  Water
Pollution Control Act proposed by the Environmental  Protection
Agency for submission to Congress in July, 1975, including the
following specific proposals:
      1.  Reduction in the federal share from 75% to 55%  of project
          costs;
      2.  Limitation of federal aid to serve only the needs of existing
          population instead of aiding facilities to serve future growth;
      3.  Restricting the types of projects eligible for  EPA grants
          to tertiary and secondary treatment plants and  interceptor
           sewers only, eliminating certain collection system components.
                                     270

-------
                         June 27, 1975

Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials
(W.H. 556) Room 1033, West Tower
Waterside Mall
401 "M" Street S.W.
Washington, D.C.  20460
                                             ';.. •"  .!  • , i • '"
Dear .Sirs:

We concur with the testimony of Oohn L. Maloney given  at the
public hearing, San Francisco, California, June 19, 1975.  Copy
of his address is attached.

Sincerely,

A. B. Anderson

ABA/ag     ,V: ^>,j;v:. •   . .        >  ,^ '..*   '•',,,
Attach.

                         June 17, 19/5

Industrial Association of the San Fernando Valley
P.O. Box 3563
Van Nuys, Calif.  91407

E.P.A. Public Hearing. S.F. Cal.
Re:  Proposed congresssional legislation to be introduced circa
July 31, 1975.  Potential legislation amendments  to the Federal
Water Pollution Control  Act.

Gentlemen:

Our remarks are addressed to parenthesis four (4) as one of the
proposed amendments setforth, namely extending the  1977 date of
meeting water quality control standards.

We believe this is the only proposition that should be enacted,
and it should provide for indefinite extension of the  date to meet
water quality control standards.

E.P.A. has developed an embryo of knowledge and experience in this
water quality control field during its brief existence.  It does
                                    271

-------
not appear that it has as yet learned of the economic impact of
its program on the communities affected when said program is too
hastely applied.

Herewith is our assessment of the adverse economic impact in the
San Fernando Valley community.
Jobs
      Our 13 high schools, 3 colleges, and 1 university have en-
rollment of over 100,000.  Almost all these students are preparing
to enter the labor market.  The workers now in the Valley labor
market (approx) 300,000 will not be retiring when these students
seek jobs.  What do we do without growth?
Housing
      The students, now seeking work, will nevertheless be forming
family units.  Where do we house them without growth?
Capital Investment
      Our Valley industrial plant investment is $3 billion and
the figure for commercial business is much more.  What do we do if
these sources of jobs, taxes and general properties are atrophied by
"no growth?"
      In our opinion this is pretty much the predicament of established
communities throughout the nation.
      Give us time to adjust economically while a workable clean
water program is soundly developed.  By 1985 we should be able to
embrace such a program.

Respectfully,

John L. Maloney
President

JLM/bm
                                     272

-------
                         June 5, 1975

Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials
  (WH-556)
Room 1033, West Tower, Waterside Mall
401 "M" Street, SW
Washington, D. C.  20460

Attention:  Mr, David Sabock

Gentlemen:
         Subject:  Public Hearings on Potential Legislative
                   Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution
                   Control Act	

In response to the proposals enunciated by the Office of Management
and Budget to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendment of  1972, Public Law 92-500 (Act), we have the following
comments.  Inasmuch as we will not be able to attend the public
hearing on June 19, 1975, at San Francisco, California, we request
that these comments be considered as part of the record.

Proposal to Reduce the Federal Share

Section 201  (a) of the Act provides the rationale for the participa-
tion of the Federal Government in the construction grant program
for treatment works.  The purpose of Title II of the Act is "to
require (emphasis added) and assist the development of waste
management plans and practices which will achieve the goals of
this Act" as  stated in Section 101 (a).  In raising the Federal
grant participation from the maximum of 55 percent under PL-84-660
as amended, to 75 percent in the Act, Congress must have felt
obligated to  provide for a greater financial support because the
Act requires many stringent water quality goals.

There is a chronological trend of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act which implied that as Congress mandated more and
more requirements, it felt obligated to assume a larger proportion
of the construction cost of treatment works.  Section 202 of the
Senate bill would have provided a minimum Federal grant of 60
percent with  a maximum of 70 percent if a State contributed 10
percent of the cost.  The House amendment increased the Federal
share to 75 percent, provided the State contributed 15 percent of
the cost, otherwise, the basic Federal share will be 60 percent.
The final version of Section 202 provided a 75 per centum of the

                                     273

-------
construction cost without State participation.

If the Federal share is reduced, there should be a concomitant
reduction in water quality goals and commitments if the afore-
mentioned rationale is maintained.  Elimination of uniform
standard effluent limitaitons based on a minimum of secondary
treatment should be considered as a part of any reduction effort.
This requirement is wasteful because receiving waters from effluent
discharge in inland fresh water basin are different than coastal
and oceanic saline waters.

Effluent limitations as established by EPA and the NPDES permit
system for waste discharges are binding on State and local
governments.  Violation could result in civil and criminal
penalties as provided for in Section 309 and Section 505 of the
Act.  By establishing specified effluent limitations which are
binding on local municipalities and then withdrawing or reducing
Federal Financial support is unreasonable when the large majority of
the proposed treatment works in the State of Hawaii  have yet to
be built.  The City and County of Honolulu has received only two
grants under the Act to date.  Twenty-three projects cannot proceed
to the step 3 or construction stage pending certification by the
State Department of Health and/or the availability of matching
Federal funds.  The other counties in the State of Hawaii have
seventeen projects pending and have little or no prospect of
receiving grant offers from EPA because $81.9 million of the
$92,388 million Federal Allocation for Hawaii for Fiscal Year
1975 and 1976 will be earmarked for the Sand Island and Honouliuli
(both primary only) treatment and disposal systems.   Reducing the
Federal share now would be unfair to those municipalities whose
projects have a lower priority and have not received any Federal
allotment.

Insufficient Federal allocation for the State of Hawaii is the
principal factor for delays in implementing needed treatment works.
Out of the .twelve higher ranking projects of a total of 41 on the
State Priority List, eight projects cannot proceed to the con-
struction stage because of the lack of Federal funds.  State laws
provide funding of ten percent of the treatment and disposal costs
are no immediate funding problems for counties under this funding
arrangement.

With a reduced Federal share, and depending on the magnitude of
the reduction, the counties of the State of Hawaii could be placed
in an uncomfortable position of not being capable to finance

                                    27*4

-------
Environmental Protection Agency                  June 5, 1975

needed treatment works because of rising local government costs
and severe cash-flow problems.

Summarizing, the City and County of Honolulu is opposed to the
reduction of the Federal share under the Act without a general
de-emphasis of the entire water pollution program and a concomitant
reduction in standards, penalties, deadlines, and other conditions.
To extend the coverage of the Federal allocation to more projects,
unrealistic national requirements should be amended.  For example,
if secondary treatment was not necessary for the two deep oceanic
discharges for Sand Island and Honouliuli, $20 million of the
Federal share could be saved and utilized for other projects in
the State of Hawaii.  Cost effectiveness of treatment goals under
regional area conditions should be adopted to prevent unnecessary
expenditure of Federal funds.

Proposal to Limit Federal Financing to Serving the Needs of
Existing Population

Section 204 (a) (5) of the Act provides for sufficient reserve
capacity for treatment works on the basis of present and deferred
construction cost comparisons.  This provision should be retained
but its application should be judicially administered on an
individual project basis.  Some components of the treatment works
can be built in increments, others cannot because of spatial
restrictions and economic reasons.  Unit treatment facility and
equipment are amenable to phased construction provided basic
structures and sites are adequately sized.

Phased construction for treatment and pumping capacities are widely
practiced already.  Interceptor lines within existing urban areas,
particularly gravity mains and ocean disposal systems are not
amenable for phased construction.  Existing public right-of-ways
in highly urbanized centers are physically restrictive and are
already occupied by many utility lines and cannot accommodate
additional future pipelines.  For recent or less densely urban
areas, phased construction for pipelines is feasible provided
there are agreements and cooperation between utility companies
and local government agencies.  Usually, how.ever, space in the
public right-of-way cannot be reserved ad infinitum for any one
agency.
                                      275

-------
Environmental Protection Agency               June 5, 1975

Construction of ocean disposal system in increments is not
advisable.  Construction activities can result in the destruction
or alteration of (1) coral  reef which provides habitat for marine
organisms, (2) the benthic flora and fauna, and (3) other valuable
resources.  Other adverse effects could include the disturbance
and release of trace metals, nutrients, and chlorinated organics,
including hydrocarbons in the bottom sediment into the water column.

Another objection in limiting Federal financing to existing
population needs lies in the time needed to implement and
construct treatment and disposal facilities.  The time required
to plan and complete a sewer system locally has taken from 15
years or longer.  If the main interceptor and collection systems
were sized initially for the existing population, it would become
inadequate before the final component of the treatment works was
completed.  One local example of several cases will illustrate
the protracted time required to complete treatment works.   In
Windward Oahu, planning for the Kailua sewer system was started
in 1958.  In 1965, the plant and ocean outfall sewer were put
into operation after receiving a federal grant.  Today, in 1975,
the Olomana-Maunawili interceptor sewer, a main component of the
system, has not advanced beyond the design phase because of the
lack of Federal funds.  If Federal funds were available, construction
could have been initiated, since local funds were available and
four interim treatment plants discharging into inland waters would
have been eliminated.  Prospect of receiving a Federal grant for
this interceptor now is still not promising because of its ranking
on the State Priority List.  If the Kailua treatment works were
constructed for the then existing population, the system would be
inadequate today since the population of the drainage area has
increased by 35 percent during the 1960-1970 decadal period.

By limiting Federal financing to serve the needs of existing
population, the Federal government would be indirectly promoting
planned obsolescence of sewer systems throughout the country.  If
local government is forced to finance capacity beyond the needs
based on existing population, their financial resources will be
strained especially in rapid growing communities such as the City
and County of Honolulu.  As a result, maximum sized facility
consistent with economic considerations will not be built.

Proposal to Restrict the Types of Projects Eligible for Grant
Assistance


                                  276

-------
Environmental Protection Agency             June 5, 1975

Section 212 of the Act has broadened, by definition, the number of
projects eligible for the Federal grant by adding sewage collection
and storm water runoff systems.  Within the City and County of
Honolulu, the traditional method of financing a sewage collection
system for improved unsewered areas has been with City funds,
together with the benefited property owners' sewer assessments.
The City now pays about eighty percent of the total cost of the
projects and the property owners pay the balance.  This method
of financing had been working very well in the past when the
project cost was prorated on the basis of 1/3 City's share and
2/3 property owner's share.  Because the sewer assessment rates
have not kept pace with rising construction costs, the'City bears
a disproportional higher share of the construciton costs at the
present time.  This trend, however, can be.reversed by increasing
sewer assessment rates.

The municipal sewer system within the City and County is a separate
system.  As such, there is no eligible project requiring treatment
of combined storm water runoff and sanitary sewage.

We have no objection to the proposal to restrict the types of
project eligible for grant assistance as long as such restriction
does not eliminate funding for treatment works that are necessary
to meet Federal imposed pollution control mandate.  The elimination
of sewage collection and storm water runoff systems as eligible
projects will not adversely affect us.

Proposal to Extend the 1977 Date for Meeting Water Quality
Standards

Extending the 1977 date for meeting water quality standards would
be a desirable and constructive measure.  The date as originally
legislated was overly optimistic.  Experience from the time the
Act was passed in late 1972 to the present has shown that the
pace of progress toward the stated, deadlines of the Act has been
unavoidably slower than anticipated and that many areas would
find it extremely difficult to meet the deadline.  None of our
twenty-four projects will become operational and meet the 1977
date inspite of the fact that preliminary planning for those
projects began in 1970.

As an alternative to extending the 1977 date, or as an additional
measure to such extension, we suggest giving EPA Regional  •
                                       277

-------
Environmental Protection Agency                 June 5, 1975

Administrators discretionary power to grant individual exemptions
to legislated deadlines.

Proposal to Delegate a Greater Portion of the Management of the
Construction Grant Program to the State

We support delegating a greater portion of the management of the
construction grants program to the States.  The States ideally
should have full authority to expend the State's allocation of
PL 92-500 funds annually, and should have complete latitude to
approve all plans, specifications, grants, amendments, and other
documents.  The communication process would be speeded up.  Delays
which we are experiencing from six months and longer with EPA
Regional Office would be minimized.  Decisions would be reached
quicker.  Questions and requests could receive responses more
promptly because the State Water Pollution Control Agency is
familiar with local problems and conditions.  The entire grant
process could be shortened in time.

We urge that the Act be amended to authorize EPA to delegate major
portions of its administrative responsibility under the construction
grants program to States and to reimburse them out of the
construction grant allotments (wording similar to the "Cleveland
Bill", HR 16505.

We thank you for the opportunity to share our comments on the
proposed changes to the Act with you.

Very truly yours,

KAZU HAYASHIDA
Director and Chief Engineer
                                        278

-------
                         June 27, 1975

Mr. James L. Agee,  -
Assistant Administrator for
Water and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S. W.
Washington, D.C.  20460

Dear Mr. Agee:
            *

On June 17., 1975 Mr. Horace L. Smith, Assistant Director of
Public Works and Manager of the Wastewater Division of the City of
Houston, presented pur comments with respect to possible Administra-
tion proposals to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972.  Mr. Smith left two copies of the attached
position paper with you prior to his verbal presentation of most
of its contents.  He was unable to deliver all of it within the
time allocated.

The purpose'bf tKis transmittal is to formally transmit this
position paper and to emphasize our major concerns with the
proposed legislative change to PL 92-500.
      (1)  The Federal mandate established water quality standards
          f and level of treatment as a national goal and consequently
           caused the municipalities to embark upon massive construction
         '* programs in order to comply with the law.  We have raised
           our sewer service charges 400% in order to meet local
           obligations for our share of eligible projects and to
           meet increased operation, maintenance and management
           expenses and to totally finance ineligible construction
           projects.  We have informed our citizens that the federal
           involvement in terms of financing our projected 500
           million dollar construction program will be significant.
           We strongly urge that the 75% financing be retained.
      (2)  We recognize that priority for funding should be directed
           to the construction of facilities required to bring ,
           systems into compliance with the standards of the law
           although we do not agree with the arbitrary provisions
           of the law relating to the degree of treatment
           and the quality of effluent discharged.  We are also
           concerned that the federal financing of environmental
           control facilities not be used to control local growth
           policy.  We conclude that the so-called "10/20 program"
           adopted by California might be an equitable break
                                    279

-------
           point between federal  and local  responsibility but we
           object to state and federal  supervision of the projection
           of local  growth with respect to  the design of wastewater
           and water pollution control  facilities.
      (3)  Wastewater and water pollution control  efforts are
           accomplished by a system of facilities  which collect,
           contain,  intercept, treat, and finally  disposes of
           effluent  and separated wastes.  If there is not a balanced
           system, then wastewater tributary to that system will
           not be controlled.   We do not feel that the Federal  burden
           of wastewater and water pollution control is limited to
           the interception and treatment of wastewater.
      (4)  It is the opinion of the City of Houston that PL 92-500
           should be amended to extend the  date by which publicly
           owned treatment works  are to achieve compliance with
           section 301 of the statute.   We  would favor extending
           the deadline from 1977 to 1980 and further provide the
           Administration with discretion to grant compliance
           schedule  extensions through the  NPDES permit program based
           upon actual time required to construct  necessary facilities
           considering funding and construction constraints.
      (5)  Delegating administration of the construction grants
           program to the states  will avoid much duplication of
           effort and should expedite the process  and would be a
           proper step in more efficient management of the program.
           We do feel, however, that the funds necessary should
           not come  from the construction grants appropriations.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment upon these proposed
changes and in conclusion we urge that the  flow of federal funds
be accelerated to decrease the backlog of projects and to minimize
the inflationary impact.  We further urge that immediate steps be
taken to provide for federal funding to the extent necessary to
satisfy projects identified in the "Needs Survey,"

Sincerely,

Fred Hofheinz
General Observations to be made as a prelude to the discussion
of the EPA identified issues.

1.  Irrespective of the governmental level  of the source of
construction funding for wastewater and water pollution

                                       280

-------
control facilities, it is the people of the United States that
foot the bill.  Reducing the federal share will not have a material
impact upon the magnitude of construction required and consequently
will not significantly decrease the fiscal impact upon the people
as a whole.
2.  There has been a traditional concept that property within
local jurisdictions be assessed for capital improvement.  Generally,
these assessments have been related to benefits received by the
property and, also, benefits^ have been interpreted to be an
increase in the value of the property.  There is legal background
which says that property can't be assessed in excess of the benefit
received from an improvement.  In the absence of a legal requirement
to provide a level, degree or standard of treatment then it is
impossible to establish benefit to property being served by a
treatment facility.  Therefore, it is submitted that the backlog of
water pollution control facilities is directly related to the
previous lack of standards of water quality control and not to
benefit.
      It is conceded that some states, including the State of
Texas, have set standards for water quality control prior to the
federal concern in the matter, but the emphasis of the mandate
for the-construct!'on of water pollution control facilities to
a prescribed performance level was provided by federal legislation.

EPA Identified Issues:
      1.  Would a reduced Federal share inhibit or delay the construc-
tion of needed facilities?
      It is submitted that there is not a proper "yard stick" to
relate to in the response to this issue.  The administration of
the implementaion of PL 92-500, to date at least, has certainly
fallen short of expectations and for that matter has fallen short
of the congressional mandate.  Impoundment of authorized and
appropriated monies coupled with EPA's inability or lack of
enthusiasm to administratively implement the act is not much of
a track record to compete with.
      Realistically and appropriately the federal government can be
more expedient in the generation of money to accomplish national
goals established by the Congress.  What is needed is an equal
expediency and efficiency in the implementation of the goals.
      2.  Would the States have the interest and capacity to assume,
through State grants or loan programs, a larger portion of the
financial burden of the program?
      It is a matter fdr speculaiton, but not for projection.  State
legislatures would not be overjoyed with such an opportunity.
      3.  Would communities have difficulty in raising additional


                                    281

-------
funds in capital markets for a larger portion of the
program?
      Yes.  The major metropolitan cities have an abundance of
worthy programs, many of which are presently unfunded.
      4.  Would the reduced Federal share lead to greater accounta-
bility on the part of the grantee for cost effective design,
project management, and post-construction operation and maintenance?
      This is an issue begging question rather than as issue raising
question.  If Congress and the EPA really want cost effective
programs, then a major part of the analysis and evaluation
process must be to consider local conditions with respect to
discharge standards, limitations and degree of treatment required.
A cost effective analysis based upon secondary treatment as a
given parameter is an academi-c process when one considers that the
selection of the level of treatment was arbitrary.   A true, and
therefore realistic cost effective study must consider all factors,
that affect cost and certainly the ability of the environment to
absorb a pollutional load without adverse effects relates to the
level of treatment selected and is, therefore, germane  to the cost
effective analysis.
      Irrespective of the inconsistency of logic reflected upon
in this example, it is submitted here that for the most part the
professional engineers charged with the responsibility of perform-
ing these studies are capable, competent and honorable people,
and the source of funds will have no bearing whatsoever upon the
conclusions of their studies.
      5.  What impact would a reduced Federal share have on water
quality and on meeting the goals of Public Law 92-500?
      The 75% Federal.share is a justifiable level  based upon the
magnitude of the backlog of facilities required to "catch-up"
with the standards established by the Federal Government.  It
is submitted that the fact that the needs survey has projected
more construction requirements than first anticipated by the
Government is more of a justification than ever for the 75% share.
The demands are so great that local and state governments will
not be able to readjust their existing priorities for local
funds without unduly effecting their local goals.  The resulting
economic impact upon the people would certainly moderate their
desire for environmental quality.
Paper #2.  Regarding Limiting Federal Funding of Reserve Capacity
to Serve Projected Growth.
General:
      Proper planning and prudent financial management dictates
that reserve capacity be projected for growth which will be served
by wastewater and water pollution control facilities.
                                     282

-------
      It is tha City of Houston's position that the Federal
government is committed to financing the lion's share (75%) of
the construction of the facilities required to improve existing
wastewater and water pollution control system wherein they can
collect, contain, intercept, treat and otherwise control wastewater
sufficient to discharge an effluent which is in compliance with
the water quality and discharge standards of the law.  Additionally,
Houston's position is that the Federal government is equally
responsible for the financing of the facilities required to adequately
dispose of wastes removed in the treatment processes.
      With respect to the obligation of the Federal government to
finance reserve capacity for future growth, the City of Houston
recognizes that the priority for funding should be first directed
towards the construction of facilities required to bring systems
into compliance with the standards of the law.  We recognize the
argument that once the,standards have been set and the system has
been brought into compliance that then the financial burden for
the future might be that of the community.  We hasten to add, however,
that we do not agree with the arbitrary provisions of the law
relating to the degree of treatment and the quality of effluent
discharged.  Further, we are of the opinion that the Federal
government and the States must establish a compatible policy or standard
relating to the disposal of wastes removed by treatment processes
upon the land and into the air .in order to finally establish a
total environmental quality relationship or standard.           ..-,
      The concern that Houston has with respect to the financing r
of environmental control facilities and the provision of reserve
capacity is that the level of financing and the level of environ-
mental standards not be used to control local growth policy.
Discussion of EPA Identified Issues.
      1.  Does current practice lead to over-design of treatment
works?
      Population and waste load projections are the basis of
design of reserve capacity facilities and not financial capability.
The magnitude of these factors are arrived at by professionals
that have experience in such evaluations and the results are
related to many factors, the, least of which is not local policy.
As stated previously, we would hope that the primary purpose of
the Act is to control pollution and not growth.,
      2.  What could be done to eliminate problems with the current
program, short of a legislative change?
      The problem-implied in the question has to be anticipated
rather than defined because most experience to date is that over-
loaded sewers and treatment plants are the rule and that is the
major problem.  We certainly couldn't agree with State or Federal
                                  2:83

-------
supervision of the projection of local growth.  We foresee that the
next step would be the control of sewer connection permits to the
extent that growth would not exceed those^. arbitrary projections.
We submit that the locality is the best judge of the factors
relating to its future, and that they must make the final decision
relative to provision of reserve capacity based upon local conditions
and policy.
      The City of Houston, for example, has been, is, and is pro-
jected to continue to be a dynamic growing City and it is un-
reasonable to even consider, for example, the projection of its
short or ultimate growth upon the historical averages of the State
of Texas.  We would hope that arbitrary or inflexible criteria for
projection of growth is not established.
      3.  What are the merits and demerits of prohibiting eligi-
bility of growth-related reserve capacity?
      In its own descussion of this question the EPA implies that
over design is a fact.  We submit that there is no basis for such
speculation.  Irrespective of this fallacy in thinking, an objective
analysis and response to the question leads us to conclude that
the so called "10/20 program adopted by California might be an
equitable break point between federal and local responsibility.
      4.  What are the merits and demerits of limiting eligibility
for growth-related reserve capacity to 10 years for treatment
plants and 20 or 25 years for sewers?
      We responded to this question previously.
      5.  Are there other alternatives?
      There is the need to proceed immediately with the implementa-
tion of the law as presently written to the extent of presently
authorized and appropriated funds, and the need for immediate
financial planning by the EPA and Congress in order to make
additional monies available to finance 75% of the cost of the
facilities identified in the needs survey.
Paper #3.  Restricting the Types of Projects Eligible for Grant
Assistance
General:
      Wastewater and water pollution control efforts are accomplished
by a system of facilities which collect, contain, intercept, treat,
and finally deposes of effluent and separated wastes.  If there is
not a balanced system, then wastewater tributary to that system will
not be controlled.  An orderly and systematic approach to a pollu-
tion abatement program of a community or locality considers all
components of the system including the establishment of priorities
on a realistic basis.  We do not feel that the Federal burden of
wastewater and water pollution control is limited to the interception
and treatment of wastewater.                      F

-------
      The basic questions posed by the EPA to be explored in
evaluating the issue of restricting the types of projects eligible
for grant assistance are vague and confusing to us, at least
the answers would be speculative and philosophical.  Our general
response to this group of so called "basic questions" is:  that
there would be little change in the net environmental impacts; the
administration of the" program would be just as complex as it is
presently; and there would not be a material change in investment
and employment patterns. We qualify our answer on the basis that  the
needs survey reflects, for the most part, upon requirements to
bring existing systems into compliance with PL 92-500 and,
therefore, the inventory identifies deficiencies by classification
of system components.  Restricting Federal grant assistance to
some components of a system and emphasizing grant assistance to
others will not make the system as a whole sufficient.
"Closely Related Questions"
      1.  What impact do different eligibility structures have
on the determination of need for a particular facility?
      Restricting the eligibility structure would not provide the
flexibility required to establish priority of construction
based upon need.  This restriction would provide another arbitrary
provision in the way of implementation of abatement action
through the construction of needed facilities.
      2.  Is there adequate local incentive to undertake needed
investment in certain types of facilities, even in the absence of
Federal financial assistance?
      Local officials are generally responsible people with a
good understanding of what the needs of their communities are.
They are, also, responsive to the priorities established by their
constituents.  The basic reason that communities have not, on
their own, actively reconciled pollution problem is that local
funding was and is limited, and other programs were and are more
important to the majority of their citizens.
      3.  Is there adequate local financial capability to undertake
investment in different types of facilities?
      For the most part, citizens of localities are willing to be
assessed an additional amount on their taxes and service charges
to implement a pollution control program.  Local officials, however,
have related to their constituents that the federal involvement in
terms of financing is significant.  Local officials have told their
citizens that their increase in costs of wastewater service, or
taxes, is to secure the 75% federal share for eligible construction
projects, and to pay for increased operation and maintenance
expenses.  Future growth can probably support its facility requirements.
                                                            *

                                   285

-------
      This is an appropriate point to remind the EPA and the Congress,
for that matter, that the only issues andtbeonly costs involved
in the realization of the national anti-pollution goals, established
by Congress, are not just the types of projects eligible for
federal grant assistance, but also a multitude of other costs which
the grantees, the localities, must absorb.   These costs are,  for
the most part, new to the communities and,  therefore, another burden.
      The implementation of the national  goal, mandated by PL 92-500,
for all intent and purpose, has caused communities to organize and
operate wastewater service utilities.  Costs associated with  planning,
engineering, operation and maintenance, capital  improvements
ineligible for Federal grant assistance,  administration and
management, and research and davelopment will exceed the costs re-
covered through Fderal grants and provides  localities with
sufficient incentive to seek cost effective systems.
Paper #4
It is the opinion of the City of Houston that PL 92-500 should be
amended to extend the date by which publicly owned treatment  works
are to achieve compliance with section 301  of the statute.  PI  92-500
imposed extensive new planning and design considerations upon
the municipalities.  Further, it has taken  EPA extensive periods
of time just to write the guidelines and regulations  to effectuate
these new planning and design considerations.   As a result, the
planned construction program of a majority  of the cities has  been
severely hampered and delayed.  During this same period, the  county
has experienced rapid inflation.  To maintain the present  deadline
would cause further unnecessary inflation in the extreme rush to
construct needed facilities.  Additionally, it will be physically
impossible to meet the deadline in many cases since there  is  not
sufficient time remaining for construction  completion.
      The City of Houston would favor extending the deadline  from
1977 to 1980 and further provide the Administrator with discretion
to grant compliance schedule extensions through the NPDES  permit
program based upon actual time required to  construct  necessary
facilities considering funding and construction constraints.
Considerations
      1.  The City of Houston would support an amendment permitting
prefinancing subject to Federal reimbursement.   Many cities  have
the funding capability and could proceed to construction,  thus
enhancing the nation's water pollution abatement program.
      2.  Municipalities operate under many more restrictions
regarding capital expenditures and construction of public facilities,
and it is not unfair to extend the deadline solely for municipalities.
      3.  Same as number 2.
      4.  Construction and funding requirements and constraints are


                                     286

-------
not uniform from city-to city or from project to project, therefore,
the Administration should have discretion to make the compliance f
schedules realistic,  i  .
      5.  The economic and construction completion problems make
an extension not only reasonable, but absolutely necessary.
      6.

      7.  EPA should certainly consider changing the present
nationwide definition of secondary treatment.  A single definition
does not recognize or deal with the fact that natural stream
conditions and uses are not uniform throughout the nation.  An
arbitrary standard, therefore, is certainly not cost effective or
responsive to local conditions.  State and local governments
should establish stream standards and treatment levels that are
cost effective and responsive to local conditions.
      8.  Compliance extension should be made according to realistic
funding and construction schedules.
      9.

Paper No. 5
PL 92-500 mandates a massive water pollution abatement program
upon the municipalities of this country.  In order to cope with
this program, it is mandatory that the construction grants program
be streamlined insofar as possible so that the Federal funds
can flow to the municipalities as efficiently and rapidly as possible.
Delegating administration of the constuction grants program to the
states is, in the opinion of the City of Houston, a proper step in
more efficient management of the program.  Such delegation will
avoid much duplication of review and approval of grantee responses
to grant requirements.  The City of Houston is confident that the
State of Texas could very quickly and effectively assume administra-
tion of the construction grants program.  We do feel, however,
that the funds necessary should not come from the construction
grants appropriations.  It has already been pointed out that the
construction grant funds are far short of funding the needed
construction necessary to meet the goals of the Act.
Issues
      1 & 2.  It is our opinion that all functions in the review and-.'
approval of construction grant applications should be delegated
to the states.  EPA should only retain an overview to see that the
quality of the State's performance is proper.
      3.
      4.
                                    287

-------
      5.   The  State of Texas has evidence that it has a highly
professional and  qualified staff and in our opinion, delegation  to
the State of Texas would not compromise environmental concerns.
                                   288

-------
                      June 19,, 1975

Mr. James L. Agee-Assistant Administrator
Water & Hazardous Material
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Room 1033 West Tower
Water Side Mall
401 "M" Street, S.W.
Washington, D. C.  20460

Dear Mr. Agee:

Re:  Municipal Waste Treatment Grants

We urge you to consider the following comments prior to taking
action to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972, 33USC 1251 et. seq.

We have read the five papers written by your agency and feel  the
following comments are valid:

Paper 1 -  We recommend that grant monies to the critical categories
     (secondary treatment, tertiary treatment, and interceptor
      sewers) not be reduced.
Paper 2 - Both collection systems and treatment plants must have
      reserve capacity in their design to take care of some
      growth.  The 10-20 year policy used in California seems reason-
      able.
Paper 3 -  Eligible projects should be prioritized to:
      1.  Secondary treatment plants
      2.  Interceptor sewers
      3.  Corrections of sewer infiltration
      4.  Collector sewers
      5.  Tertiary plants when necessary
Paper 4 - A realistic date for compliance should be set.
Paper 5 - The states should be allowed to administer grants.

Very truly yours,

ERVIN RENNER, Chairman
Board of Supervisors
cc:  Humboldt County Wastewater Authority
     North Coast Water Quality Control Board
     National Association of County Officials
                                       283

-------
County Supervisors Assn. of CA, Washington, D.C.
Senator John Tunney
Congressman D.  Clausen
Public Works Department
Clerk, Board
                                     290

-------
                         June 10, 1975
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water Programs
Washington, D. C.  20242

ATTENTION:  Office of Water Programs
Re:  Waymart Municipal Authority

Dear Sir:

I represent the Waymart Municipal Authority concerning their EPA
grant under Federal Act 92-500.  It has come to my attention that
recent hearings are being conducted concerning this federal  grant
which is presently at 751 federal funding.  The purpose of these
hearings, it is my understanding, is to reduce this grant to a
55% grant.  This reduction would completely eliminate the possibility
of the Waymart Municipal Authority of gaining financial wherewithal 1
to construct their sewer project.

Furthermore, Waymart Municipal Authority has in reliance upon the
past practices an existing law committing the Borough to a
$115,000.00 loan relying upon the above criteria of 75% reimburse-
ment from the federal government.

Should such a reduction be approved by the legislation, this
money would be virtually wasted in design and engineering costs
which would never be realized as the project could never be
completed.  I cannot emphasize Waymart's position any stronger
than to demand that the legislation refuse to amend the present
PL 92-500 in order to save not only the Waymart Sewer system but
the other hundreds of applicants who have also applied and relied
upon the same criteria as set forth in the existing law.

I might suggest that if an amendment is to be made to reduce
the percentage allowed by the current law, that any reductions only
take effect concerning all  projects which have not been commenced
or applications filed prior to relying upon the present laws
that exist.

Sincerly yours,-
HOWELL, HOWELL & KRAUSE
LCK/rkc
cc:  Senator Hugh Scott, Senator Richard S. Schweiker, T. Newell
     Wood, Representative

                                     291

-------
                          July 1, 1975
Mr. Paul DeFalco, Regional Director
Region IX, Environmental Protection Agency
100 California Street
San Francisco, CA  94111

Subject:  Proposals to Amend PL 92-500

Dear Mr. DeFalco:

A recent bulletin from the California Association of Sanitation
Agencies discussed the recent hearing on adminfstratidn proposals
to amend PL 92-500.  Although I was unable to attend the hearing, I
felt it important to share my views on a principle of the Water
Pollution Control Act which seems to have few defenders, the principle
of disallowing ad valorem taxes for sewage treatment financing. v '
Many municipal administrators have decried the portions of PL 92-500
which prevent them from continuing a practice which has adverse
effects.  The general prohibition against use of ad valorem taxes
is, with few exceptions, definitely in the public interest.
                                                 • f -    • ''-   • .    . ,' 1'-:,
At recent city council meetings in a Northern California city,
industry representatives expressed considerable disapproval over
higher sewage treatment service charges (required by inflation and
higher discharge requirements).  This is understandable!  However,
several of those representatives stated that the doubling of rates l
would stimulate their firms into analyzing factory water conserva-
tion and process modification.
                                i OS'.
There might be a considerable reduction of demand for limited
sewage treatment grant monies if all industries discharging to
public facilities would have to pay for treatment services on the
basis of quantity/quality charges.  In the words of the economists,
ad valorem taxes create a diseconomy by separating wastewater  '
charges from wastewater discharges.                   '"   **     <
                                                                  ' -• i';$
In most cases, ad valorem taxes enable large treatment users to
ignore the impact of their discharges to the sewer system.  Dis-
cussions with other consulting engineers, who, like I, have produced
"fair and equitable" revenue programs for cities, convinces me that
the present law is having a strong and beneficial impact.
                                       192

-------
It may be that there are a few cities and sanitation districts
in which overriding factors outweigh the disadvantages of ajd
valorem.  Perhaps a degree of flexibility could be introduced
into the law which permits ad valorem.  Nevertheless, ad valorem
should be the exception, if allowed at all.

A hypothetical example demonstrates the inequity in the use of
ad valorem taxes.  Two competing companies in a city each discharge
10% of the total flow to the municipal sewage treatment plant.  The
first company significantly reduces its discharge, thereby saving
the city operating expenses and postponing a planned expansion.
Under an ad valorem system, the benefits (reduced taxes) will be
spread to everyone, including the competition.  The cost of discharge
reduction will be borne by the civic-minded company.  Under user
charges, the first company only would receive the benefits of
reduced discharge through a lower user charge.  The city would have
the benefits of treatment capacity available for a third company
or some other user, as needed.

In summary, I encourage you to retain the principle whereby
users pay for services in proportion to their use of the services.
This principle should remain the backbone of all revenue programs.
Special cases may be considered for exemption.

Thank you for this opportunity to present my views.

Very truly yours,

Howard L. Hoffman, P.E.
HLH:hrm
                                       2.93

-------
                HUMBOLDT BAY WASTEWATER AUTHORITY
                          P.O.  BOX 1449
                   Eureka, California  95501

                           June 26, 1975

Mr. James L. Agee, Assistant Administrator
Water and Hazardous Material
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Room 1033, West Tower
Waterside Mall, 401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D. C.  20460

Subject:     Municipal Waste Treatment Grants

Dear Mr. Agee:

In response to your notice of public hearings on pbtentiaUleglsIa-
tive amendments to the Federal  Water Pollution Control  Act,  we are
submitting this letter of comments and concerns for your considera-
tion.

The Humboldt Bay Wastewater  Authority is a recently established
agency which has the responsibility for the planning, financing,
construction and operation of a regional wastewater treatment and
disposal system in the Humboldt Bay area.  The Authority, was created
on January 8, 1975 by a Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement entered
into by the County of Humboldt, the City of Eureka, the City of
Arcata, the Humboldt Community Services District and the McKinley-
ville Community Services District.  With the cooperation and assis-
tance of the EPA Regional Office in San Francisco and the California
Water Resources Control Board we are moving forward by means of the
current Federal and State grant programs to solve wastewater treat-
ment problems of the Humboldt Bay area.

It is in this context, having read the five papers written by your
Agency, we are submitting the following statements of concern:

Paper 1.  Because of continually increasing cost pressures on local
          agencies it is becoming increasingly more difficult to
          maintain the status quo level of funding.  Therefore, we
          recommend that the Federal grant share not be reduced,
          but be continued at 75 percent.  Should a reduction in
          Federal grant share actually be enacted, provision should
          be included for "hold harmless" protection of those local
          agencies which are already engaged in water pollution con-

                                     29'*

-------
          trol  projects based upon the 75 percent Federal  grant
          share.   This should apply to those projects which have
          received concept approval, as from that point firm com-
          mitments of project financing and construction are made.

Paper 2.   The system established by the State of California limiting
          grant eligibility to treatment plants with reserve capacity
          foM'Q years of growth and for interceptors, outfalls and
          sewers with a reserve capacity for 20 years of growth is
          workable and reasonable.  Therefore, we recommend this
          approach to reserve capacity eligibility limitations.

Paper 3.   The California system of priorities appears to be a wbrk-
          able method for approving only those projects which produce
          significant improvement in water quality.   We recommend
          that the current authorization in P.L. 92-500 remain un-
        ,  changed, and that other states follow the California
      '°   system in establishing priorities.

Paper 4.   Since it is quite evident that the 1977 date for meeting
          water quality requirements cannot be attained by most waste-
        „  water dischargers due to the limitations,  to date,  of the
          grant funding program, we believe that the current pro-
       , .visions of the law must be amended.  We favor adoption
    ,..„. '   of vthe fourth alternative, to maintain the 1977  date,
    '""  'but providing the Administrator discretion to grant com-
          .pliance schedule extensions on an ad hoc basis,  based
          upon the availability of Federal funds.  This recognizes
          the responsibility of local dischargers to continue to
          pursue the clean water objectives of the Act, while
       ,   also recognizing the other basic premise of the  Act,
       , '   which isf.the responsibility of the Federal  Government
          to financially assist local agencies in order to meet
          the objectives.

Paper 5.   Delegation of .management authority to a level closer to
          the required end product can eliminate a great deal  of
          bureaucratic red tape, time delays and costs.  Therefore,
          we highly favor the delegation to the states of a much
          greater degree of grants management responsibility.

In addition to our: direct response to the five EPA Position Papers, this
letter is  also , in tended to express our concern in the following matters:
      • ;      ' '    '•'  '       '

         'Either by amendment to the law, or by change in administra-
            4 - •" -

                                          295

-------
          tive regulations,  eliminate or reduce the great amount
          of administrative  processing and red tape necessary to
          achieve construction of water pollution  control  projects.
          This will  aid in achieving the goals of  clean water;
          cost savings at the Federal, State  and local levels;
          and speedup of projects, which will  aid  in economic
          development.  In general, more administrative flexibility
          is needed.

      2.  The law should be  amended to eliminate restrictions on
          methods of financing local  costs of construction, debt
          financing  and operation of wastewater facilities.   Local
          agencies should be allowed to use any combination of
          financing  which is legal and acceptable  within  the  juris-
          diction of the State and the locality.   This will allow
          opportunity for elimination of many hardships and inequal-
          ities in paying for local costs.

                                 Very truly yours,

                                 CHARLES F. GOODWIN,  JR.,  CHAIRMAN
                                 HUMBOLDT BAY WASTEWATER AUTHORITY
cc:   County of Humboldt
      City of Eureka
      City of Arcata
      Humboldt Community Services District
      McKinleyville  Community Services District
      Senator John Tunney
      Congressman Don Clausen
      California Water Resources  Control  Board
      North Coast Region, California  Water Quality  Control Board
      Senator Alan Cranston
                                    29:

-------
                           July 2, 1975

Mr. James L. Agee
Assistant Administrator for
Water & Hazardous Materials
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460

Dear Mr. Agee:

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (the Agency) is sub-
mitting these comments on behalf of the State of Illinois to be
included in the record of the hearings on proposed amendments to
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which were announced in
the Federal Register of May 2, 1975.  The Agency's comments are
presented in the order in which the papers were presented in the
Federal Register of May 28, 1975.

Paper No. 1 - Reduction of the Federal share
     • F<                      -          '

The Agency opposes reduction of the Federal share from its current
level of 75%.  At least until the developmental financing of projects
in the Needs Category I, II, and IV-B are essentially met, it is
inequitable to create a situation in which certain applicants re-
ceive 75% and other applicants receive less.
             «
In response to the specific questions being discussed at the public
hearing the Agency's responses are as follows:

      1.  A reduced Federal share would inhibit and delay the con-
struction of needed facilities, for reasons described below.

      2.  The States would have difficulty taking on a larger pro-
portion of the construction grant program.  Although in Illinois
the electorate of the State overwhelmingly passed a $750 million
dollar bond issue for water pollution abatement in 1970, there is
no interest at this time to pass another.  In addition, the State
prefers to finance additional facilities at 75%, rather than return
to the original  arrangement of supplementing Federal grants.  The
Agency is of the opinion that other States, as a rule, confront
greater budgetary problems in raising funds for capital invest-
ment in such programs as pollution abatement than does the federal
government.

                                      297

-------
      3.  The Agency believes that communities,  especially small
communities, will  have special  difficulty in raising additional
funds in capital  markets for a  larger portion of the program.   It
might be necessary for projects to be phased or  artificially seg-
mented if communities were required to raise a larger portion  of the
funds, thus possibly delaying compliance or increasing costs.
Several small communities in Illinois, and one major city (East
St. Louis) have already encountered severe problems in raising a
25 percent local  share.  These  problems can be expected to increase
in number and in severity if communities are required to raise a
larger local share.

      4.  The Agency does not believe that a reduced Federal  share
would lead to greater accountability on the part of the grantee
for cost-effective design, project management and post construc-
tion operation and maintenance.  As for cost effective design, the
Agency believes that, particularly in the case of the smaller
communities, the most effective cost analysis of proposed design  can
be made hot by the applicant but by State or Federal  review.   The
same situation may also be true as far as project management is
concerned.  Post construction operation and maintenance may be kept
under control by adequate enforcement of specific NPDES permit re-
quirements.               .                                       ,

      5.  The Agency believes that a reduced Federal  share would
have an adverse impact on water quality and on meeting the goals  of
Public Law 92-500, not only for the reasons already stated but be-
cause of the problems which are bound to arise when any further
changes or instabilities are introduced into the program.

Paper No. 2 - Limiting Federal  funding of reserve capacity to
serve projected growth.

      The policy of the State of Illinois, as expressed in Section
2(b) of the Environmental Protection Act. is "that adverse effects
upon the environment should be fully considered  and borne by those
who cause them."  Consistent with this philosophy of internaliza-
tion of abatement costs, the Agency believes that in the long run
growth-related expansion should be financed by the users of the
increased capacity.  The Agency agrees that in light of the fact '
that population has been growing at a rate lower than any of the
Census Bureau's projections for fertility rates, it probably does
make sense for population projections to be limited to the lowest
of the Census Bureau's projected growth rates.


                                     29J

-------
The funds available to a State to finance growth-related expansions
should be limited to the total amount expected to be necessary to
handle the State's expected population at an established cutoff
point.  The Agency sees considerable reason to support the Cali-
fornia plan.  It would assist in accomplishing the goal of
spreading available funds further among applicants, and it has
the following additional advantages:

      The land use issue would not be as apparent; subsidized con-
      struction would not encourage suburban sprawl to the extent
      that it sometimes now does.

      There would be more immediate pollution abatement for  .
      the same number of dollars.  Unlike reducing the Federal
      share, this approach would not decrease the incentive of
      units of local government to seek and secure construction
      grants and abate pollution.  This generation would be
      paying for less unused reserve capacity than otherwise.
      Since this generation is already paying for abatement of the
      pollution which occurred during previous generations, it
      should not be called upon also to provide and pay for
      pollution abatement for future generations.

The Agency recognizes that there would be administrative problems
in determining the incremental cost of the growth portion of a
proposed project.  The Agency suggests that small communities
where very limited or no growth is expected during the coming  10,
20, or more years should be allowed a 10 percent reserve (10 years'
growth or 10 percent of capacity, whichever is greater), simply
for the purpose of covering the possibility of error.   It does seem
necessary to allow certain margin of safety for no-growth communi-
ties and there should be very little cost attached to  that precau-
tion.

It should be remembered that another form of capacity  present  in
sewage treatment plants is represented by the assumptions made con-
cerning per capita water use.  The Agency believes that construc-
tion grants projects should not assume increases in per capita water
use and automatically be designed for these assumed increases.   In-
creased water use should be discouraged because of the energy  costs
both of treating clean water and reclaiming wastewater.  With  respect
to possible increases in industrial water use, the Agency points
out that the industrial effluent guidelines are emphasizing recycling
and reuse.  If these guidelines are implemented and industrial abate-
ment follows that approach, the water use of the typical direct dis-
charging industry should decline.
                                      293

-------
Another area in which hidden excess capacity might be said to exist
lies in the diurnal  fluctuation of flows.   Flow equalization at
the beginning of the system or somewhere along the system prior to the
treatment plant will increase the capacity of a system by a con-
siderable amount.
                                             *
The Agency is not prepared to estimate the savings that might occur
by limiting Federal  funding to present day or 10 year heeds (or
in case of interceptors, 20 year needs).  Almost all  of the sewage
treatment projects in growth areas of Illinois are already corn-
mi ted and covered by grant.  Many, if not most, of the facilities
not within available funding in Illinois would fall  into the cate-
gory of no-growth or limited growth small  communities.   The saving
of going from financing 20 years to financing 10 years, therefore,
would be minimal for those projects which remain in Illinois.

In reply to the specific issue questions included  in  Paper No.  2,
the Agency states:

      (1) Current practice does lead to overdesign of treatment works
          in some cases, thus placing the cost of  future abatement
          on existing taxpayers.

      (2) Some problems*with the current program should.be dealt
          with by using the lowest of the Census Bureau's popu-
          lation projections, as already mentioned.   Projected
          per capita domestic water use and projected industrial
          water use should be critically evaluated.   Systems should
          be designed with flow equalization and other features to
          increase capacity.

      (3) The greatest merit of prohibiting or strictly limiting
          the practice of financing growth-related expansion
          through current Federal (or State and local)  funds is
          the fairness of requiring users to pay abatement costs.
          Other merits and demerits are incidental to this fundamental
          principle, which is basic to the general philosophy of
          Public Law 92-500.

      (4) The Agency believes that, as a rule  of  thumb approach,
          the California plan has considerable merit and can be
          administered in other states.  There are administrative
          problems in determining the growth-related costs of a
          particular project but careful assessment of the alter-
          natives -by the applicant, its consultant, and reviewing
          agencies should enable reasonable estimates to be made.

                                       300

-------
Paper No. 3 - Restricting the types of project eligible for grant
assistance.

The Agency is opposed to restricting the eligibility of particular
types of projects.  In its opinion, whether or not a project should
be considered eligible should be judged only by whether or not and
to what extent it will have a desirable influence on water quality.

The State desires to maintain flexibility in the construction of
its priority list.  In Illinois, the priority system handicaps but
does not exclude projects such as treatment of combined sewer over-
flows or storm runoff.  If the water quality impact of such projects
is sufficiently great, they may fall within funding under the Illinois
system.  We believe that that is the way it should be done.  Where
water quality impact is so severe as to overcome a bias against
financing collector sewers or combined sewer overflows or stormwater
treatment, the project should, in fact, be funded.

The Agency recognizes that State priority systems are subject
to Federal approval.  The Agency suggests that priority systems
which emphasize Categories I, II, and IV-B and de-emphasize the
other categories should probably be the systems which are approved.
But the opportunity should nevertheless be open to fund other types
of projects where necessary to protect water quality.

Recognizing, as Paper No. 4 does, that State allotments are based
on total State needs without regard to priority, and that therefore
low priority types of needs may be funded in one state earlier than
in another, does not imply that these needs should be made ineligible.
If the allocation formula were changed to allow bonus points for  the
high priority,,needs the same purpose would be accomplished.
                                t: ?
On the arguments presented in favor of declaring certain cate-
gories of needs ineligible, the Agency has the following specific
comments:

      The proposed approach would not ensure that Federal funds
      would provide greatest water quality benefits.  Many strate-
      gies, including those proposed to be made ineligible as well as
      some already ineligible, may in specific cases, be the
      strategies with the best payoff in certain circumstances.
      Applicants should be encouraged to consider all feasible
      alternatives in order to secure greatest water quality bene-
      fits.  Flexibility is basic.

                                301

-------
      The reduction of Federal  budgetary comnritments  is  not,  in
      the Agency's view,  a desirable objective at this  time or for
      the next several  years.

      The proposal would  not encourage State and local  self-suf-
      ficiency.  It would probably merely discourage  ineligible
      approaches even if  they were otherwise desirable.   The  water
      quality goals have  been set by Congress;  states and locali-
      ties do not have the option of "setting water quality goals
      that more accurately reflect their perceived benefits."

      Wiser investment decisions  can best be encouraged  if all
      options are available. Certain strategies should  not be
      prejudged by making them  grant-eligible or grant-ineligible.

Paper No. 4 - Extending 1977 date for the publicly-owned treatment
works to meet water quality standards.

The Agency endorses the fourth  of the five proposed alternatives --
seeking statutory amendments that would maintain the  1977 date but
would provide the Administrator  with discretion to grant compliance ,
schedule extensions on an ad hoc  basis, based upon the availability
of Federal funds.

The Agency does not believe the deadline should be extended on  an
across-the-board basis for the  following reasons:

      1)  A substantial number  of industrial  dischargers,  estimated
          to be as high as 90%, eitherare in compliance  or can be
          in compliance by July 1, 1977.  Those industrial  dischargers
          who, often at great effort and substantial  expense, have
          installed pollution abatement facilities to meet the 1977
          deadline should not be  put at a competitive disadvantage
          by the granting of further extensions to their competi-
          tors.  On the other hand, to grant extensions  on an across-
          the-board basis to municipal  dischargers and not to
          industrial dischargers  seems inequitable.

      2)  The Agency strongly believes that to  retain deadlines
          without enforcement causes severe credibility  problems
          to continue to  exist.

      3)  The Agency does not believe the Administrator should have
          the discretion  implied  in alternative 3—to grant com-
          pliance schedule extensions on an ad hoc basis based upon
                                    302

-------
          actual time required with good faith efforts.  Nor does
          the Agency believe that the deadlines should be extended
          to 1983 under any circumstances (alternative 5).  To do
          so would penalize all dischargers, both industrial and
          publicly owned, which have made efforts to'comply'ear.l ier  .
          than 1983.     u;      
-------
construction grant funds are a Federal  obligation and the
abatement of pollution from publicly owned treatment works
is a national  responsibility, at least for this "catch-up"
program.

If extensions  are tied only to funding, no outside limit
need be provided to the Administrator for such extensions.

The Environmental Protection Agency will  lose credibility if
it supports an across-the-board extension for municipal  com-
pliance which  would include cases where the extension is
unnecessary.

The extent to  which there would be differences in local
funding or State financing, depending upon which enforcement
alternative is chosen,would be highly variable.  It is con-
ceivable that if alternative 1 is chosen, municipalities with
adequate resources to finance their abatement facilities them-
selves might choose to do so.  The Agency estimates that
relatively few municipalities are in that fortunate position.
In addition, some municipalities which  receive conservative
legal advice and have the resources to  build the facilities
might choose to do so rather than to gamble on continuation
of a selective enforcement policy.  As  is pointed out in Paper
No. 4, it is always possible that a municipality relying on
alternative 2  might confront an enforcement case brought by a
complainant other that USEPA.                            r

The Environmental Protection Agency should not, under any
circumstances, consider changing the definition of secondary
treatment in midstream.  Playing around with definitions to
accomplish indirectly what should be accomplished directly,
if at all, creates unending confusion.

Alternative 5—extending the deadline to 1983--is unnecessarily
lenient.  However, no blanket extension for any period of time
is desirable.

The Agency finds no authority in Public Law 92-500 for a docu-
ment known as  a "letter of authorization."  It seems perfectly
clear, particularly under NRDC v. Train,  that a discharger
requires a permit under the NPDES program, and not some other
document.  If  USEPA wishes to propose amendments excluding
dischargers from NPDES permit requirements, amendments of
Sections 40Vand 402 would be necessary.

-------
Paper No. 5 - Delegating a greater portion of the management of
the construction grants program to the States.

The Agency has supported and expects to continue to support H.R.
2175, the Cleveland Bill, which would permit the Administrator to
delegate to the States a broad range of grant processing functions,
and to compensate the States for this service from the States'
allotments for construction grants.  The Agency supports the con-
cept of delegation of all of the activities listed in Paper No.  5.
However, the Agency does have some concerns about this delegation.
Among them are these:

      1)  The cost of the review of these key documents and require-
          ments is an inescapable cost.  If it is paid out of con-
          struction grant funds, the necessary implication is that
          2% less pollution abatement facilities will be built.
          If, on the other hand, it is paid out of program grant
          funds, the proportion paid by the Federal government
          or by the government of each State will depend upon the
          percentage of the State's water pollution program which
          the 106 program grant represents.  This percentage varies
          from under 25% to over 70% in different States.   Therefore,
          the financial impact of delegation to States of this
          responsibility would vary significantly among the States.

      2)  The Agency is sensitive to the considerable complexity
          of requirements having to do, for example, with  bidding
          procedures, user charges and industrial cost recovery
          requirements, and others.  Obviously, sufficient time
          would have to be provided to the States to develop and
          train sufficient staff to evaluate compliance of these
          requirements in a sophisticated manner.

      3)  The Agency has a basic concern with efforts to shift
          activities and responsibilities from the Federal level
          to the State level when such proposals are made in the
          guise of saving money.  What is really happening in
          most such circumstances is that the cost of engaging in
          the activities is being shifted rather than minimized.
          On a national basis, it is quite possible that the adminis-
          tration of the construction grants program could more eco-
          nomically be done by a sophisticated, well*trained staff at
          USEPA, rather than by 51 state staffs, each independently
          attempting to become acquainted with and to apply these
          very difficult and complicated guidelines.


                                     305

-------
Concluding Remarks:

The Agency wishes to compliment the anonymous authors of the dis-
cussion papers for the skill  with which they highlighted the very
complex issues involved.  Their work has contributed significantly',
we are sure, to intelligent discussion and evaluation of, those
issues.

Finally, the Agency wishes to express its support of USEPA's
approach in developing its legislative position on these issues.
We are certain that the publication of the issue papers  and the
encouragement of public comment at the hearings and in writing cannot
help but result in a more logical, well-developed position  than would
otherwise have been the case.

                                 Very truly yours,

                                 L.D. Hudson
                                 Manager
                                 Division of Water Pollution Control

BHS/gd
                                  306

-------
                           June 24, 1975

Mr. Edwin L. Johnson
Acting Assistant Administrator
  for Water and Hazardous Materials
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.  20420

Dear Mr. Johnson:

                Re:  Public Hearings on Potential
                     Legislative Amendments to
                     PL 92-500

We have reviewed the five papers published in the May 28, 1975,
Federal Register concerning potential amendments to PL 92-500 and
have the following comments to submit for the official record of
the public hearings:

Paper No. 1 — Reduction of Federal Share

We believe reducing the Federal grant from 75 percent to a lower
amount would be a disadvantage at this time for the following
reasons:

      1.  The reduction would be unfair to those communities that
          have not received a grant since the 1972 amendments and
          who have based all their planning and proposed financing
      :   at public hearings on 75 percent Federal and 10 percent
 / ;   1   State participation.
      2.  A reduction in Federal participation, unless borne by
          the states, would be a deterrent to municipalities
          which hold out for another legislative change going
          back to 75 percent Federal participation.

      3.  Many small communities needing to install  all new sewers
          and sewage treatment in Indiana will not be able to in-
          crease their participation because sewer rates with 85 per-
      •    cent government participation are over $12 per month
          minimum rate and residents would oppose the projects.

      4.  This approach does not directly address the use of grant
          monies for construction of sewers and sewage treatment
          for future popoulation growth.  Large communities could


                                       307

-------
          still overdesign for a 50-year project period and afford
          the sewer rates with reduced participation; however, small
          communities could not.  This places an unfair penalty
          on small communities.                  •<  *•           wfc:"'    ;*
                                                         •  • .   ^'- - • ,
      5.  The present philosohpies of State government is not!
          conducive to increasing State grant participation under
          present economic conditions.                         ,    s

Recommendation:  We oppose the amendment proposed in Paper No. vl
and ask that it be deleted from consideration.

Paper No. 2 — Limiting Federal Funding of Reserve Capacity to Serve
Projected Growth

We believe reducing Federal participation to cover only the cost of;
solving present water pollution problems is a more reasonable  approach
than proposed by Paper No. 1; however, it does have disadvantages.  -•
They are as follows:                                         i

      1.  The small communities will have difficulties in raising
          the additional money needed to cover overdesign for
          sewers and sewage treatment for even nominal communityi •
          growth.                                    s.     >v-   ~.>.r.•-•?<•*
                                                               '• ^
      2.  There will be projects in communities such as outfall
          sewers from sewage treatment plants, truck line sewers
          to sewage treatment plants and interceptor sewers in
          congested areas where construction should be done at
          greater than 10- to 20-year design period because of
          high costs.  Under this proposed plan a community may
          not, particularly if close to its bonded indebtedness,
          or because of high user rates, choose to proceed with
          the longer design project and defer cost to the future
          which would be adverse to cost-effective analysis.

Recommendation:  We believe that this recommendation has good  merit
when applied to interceptor sewers that  :extend into undeveloped
or partially developed areas and for sewage treatment plants which
can be effectively constructed in modules.  We believe the states
should be able to act on eligibility for these projects during
the Step 1 Facility Plant Phase of the grant and set the design of
the project to be pursued under Step 2.  Communities should be
able to increase the project scope with 100% local funding which is
presently prohibited.  We support this proposal if amended to  allow
for the State making exceptions, fully justified in a Facility Plan,
to utilize a longer project design.
                                   308

-------
Paper No. 3 -- Restricting the Types of Projects Eligible For Grant
Assistance

We believe restricting the type of projects eligible for grant assis-
tance has merit because at the present level of funding all  the
needs cannot be satisfied and treatment needs for some communities low
on the state's priority rating system won't be addressed until all
needs in higher rated communities are satisfied.  We believe that
the proper place for guiding the priorities for using the available
Federal funding is through the state priority rating systems.   We
definitely believe that project types in categories I through  V
must remain eligible for grants.  Category VI is the only one
which we believe could be eliminated at this time.   We recommend
maintaining the present requirements with the requirement that the
states, through their rating system, direct funds to categories I,
II and IVB first and to categories IIIA, IIIB, IVA second and  to
categorize V third and delete category VI.

Paper No. 4 -- ExtendingJ1977 Date for the Publicly Awarded  Pre-
treatment Works to Meet Water Quality Standards

We support alternate No. 4 if it is amended to provide that  the
NPDES permit issuing authority with discretion may grant compliance
schedule extensions based on actual time required with the avail-
ability of Federal funds and with the authority of the permit  issuing
authority to require certain minor plant improvements such as  lift
station pumps, chlorination facilities, phosphorus removal to  be
installed without availability of auxiliary funding.

Paper No. 5 — Delegating a Greater Portion of the Management  of
the Construction Grant Program to the States

We support the proposed amendment to PL 92-500 contained in  HR 2175
and request its early enactment.

Please enter our comments into the record of the public hearings.

                                 Very truly yours,

                                 Ralph C. Pickard
                                 Acting Technical Secretary
SLM/pk
cc:  Mr. Russell Train
     Mr. Francis Mayo


                                     30B

-------
                           June 19, 1975

Mr. David Sabock
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials
Room 1033 West Tower, Waterside Mall
401 M Street, Southwest
Washington, D.C.  20460

SUBJECT:  Potential Legislative Amendments to the Federal  Water
Pollution Control Act

Dear Mr. Sabock:

Please accept the following comments  as the position of the City of
Jacksonville, Florida with regard to  the subject proposals.

Although all of the proposals substantially affect our program,
we are directing our comments to those of greatest impact  upon
our situation, namely, papers No. 1 and 4:

Paper No. 1 - Reduction of the Federal Share

In Jacksonville's sewerage improvement program the first two phases
were estimated at a total cost of $95,717,106.00 in March  of 1972.
Now nearing completion in June of 1975, those costs have escalated
to $135,910,805.00 due to inflation.

During this period, federal grant assistance has provided  a total,
to date, of $49,437,994.00.  The inflation experienced has, therefore,
substantially reduced overall grant effectiveness.  By practical
application, the net benefit applied  to original program cost
reduced that figure to $86,492,811.00 resulting in an overall
savings to our community of 9.6%.  A  meager savings if we  consider
that compliance with federal regulations may have caused some
increase in contract prices.

In all fairness, we recognize that the major portion of these grants
received were under the old grant system, and federal participation
was substantially below the current level of 75% of eligible projects
provided by PL 92-500.

The most frustrating aspect of this process i$ that in the previous
grant program Jacksonville was substantially by-passed by  available
monies due to methods of funds allocation.  Now, when we are in a

                                     310

-------
more favorable position to avail ourselve of  increased assistance
under 92-500, the proporaT is made to  reduce  the federal share on
a program we have just begun to utilize.

Compounding this frustration is the fact that compliance with grant  >
regulations has been and continues to  be difficult at best, and
reduction of assistance now seems to add insult to injury.  Reduction
of grants at a time when inflation is  straining construction capa-
bility and timely compliance with pollution control regulations r
depends upon current funding levels is a paradox beyond our under-
standing.

Therefore, we take this opportunity to voice  strong objection to
this proposal primarily on the grounds that our programs for financing
current local shares are already strained to  the breaking point and
implementation of this proposal would  seriously inhibit our capa-
bility to meet the requirements of the Act within the time frames
established.

Paper No. 4 - Extending the 1977 Date  for Publicly Owned Treatment
Works to Meet Water Quality Standards.

Jacksonville has been issued over 40 N.P.D.E.S. permits based on
locally established Water Quality Standards.  The schedules of com-
pliance with those standards were based on our projected regional
system construction which would replace many  of the point sources
currently existing.. Due to delays caused by  tardy federal funding
assistance and compliance with other aspects  of the Act, we are
unable to meet those schedules of compliance  and must request ex-
tensions of time beyond the June 30, 1977 deadline.

Fully recognizing our delimma, E.P.A. has nevertheless notified us
that they do not possess the legal authority  to grant extensions
beyond June 30, 1977 unless the Act is amended.

The regional concept of pollution control has  been identified as the
most cost-effective method of controlling pollution for our area by
the E.P.A. required Water Quality Management  Plan for Duval County,
Florida.  That Plan, with the original construction schedules has
been approved by both State and E.P.A. offices and yet, due to delays
totally beyond our control, cannot be  implemented in time to insure
our compliance under the Act.

In our situation, which we are certain is not unique, it is therefore
aboslutely essential that the extension of this deadline to 1983 be
approved and we submit our full approval of the fifth alterat^  to
accomplish that goal.                   o-i -j

-------
                                 Respectfully  submitted,

                                 M.L.  Forrester
                                 Utilities  Planning Officer
cgp
cc:  J.H.  Hyatt,  P.E.,  Deputy Director
     L.W.  Graves, P.E., Chief.
     P.W.  File
                                    312

-------
                           June 4, 1975

                                               File No. 26

Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
100 California Street
San Francisco, California  94111

Dear Sir:

It is requested that this letter be entered in the record and be
made a part of June 19, 1975 hearing on Potential Legislative Amend-
ment to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

Any review of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act should
determine how much good the historic expenditure of funds has done
toward correction of the total pollution problem.

The administration of this Act has concentrated on urban problems
and surface water pollution, but total pollution control must also
consider agricultural problems and groundwater deterioration.  The
time has come to provide reasonable assistance and funding to agri-
cultural problems.

Irrigated agriculture of the Central Valley of California uses over
90% of the water consumed in this area.  In the process of growing
crops, nearly all of the original salts carried by the water supply
are left, in the ground, in a concentrated form.  Deep percolation
of additional water transports these salts to the underground water
supply which are utilized by all water well users.  The total pollu-
tion load resulting from normal agricultural activities can be com-
pared with pollution from other sources on the basis of their approxi-
mate precentages ot total use; 90% from agriculture and 10% from all
other sources, including municipal waste treatment facilities.

It is not equitable that agricultural producers or consumers be
required to pay all such costs while urban problems receive billions
of dollars in grants.  Because the productive capabilities of agri-
cultural lands in the San Joaquin Valley are beinglimited, our
ability to meet our share of the food and fibre demands of the nation
will  also be restricted if State and Federal taxes are not employed
to ameliorate this problem.

A portion of the subsurface pollution can be reduced through Use of


                                      313

-------
"on-farm" tile installations in high water table areas; if the col-
lected effluent can be exported from the problem.

The engineering feasibility of constructing a master collection system
has been established, but the financing of this facility by only
those people who are now suffering from the problem has been determined
to be infeasible.

It seems only reasonable that the Act which was instituted to protect
the nation's water supplies should be tailored to do the most good
for every dollar spent.  We therefore request that some Federal funding
be dedicated to help alleviate the major water supply pollution problem
of the Central Valley of California, it's groundwater degradation and
the related salt imbalance.  A program of State and Federal  grants,
similar to those for urban problems, should be established to assist
local districts and agencies with data collection and planning pro^
grams.  There should also be Federal and State grants and loans
avialable to assist witfr construction of local and regional  drainage
works.  A permanent solution to the San Joaquin Valley drainage problem
will occur only when a "Master Drain" is constructed.  This  is author-
ized as part of the State Water Facilities and joint construction
was authorized as part of the Federal San Luis Project.  A program
for joint financing and construction should be reconsidered."  Farm
assistance programs, under the Federal Department of Agriculture,
should be instituted to provide a share of capital  needed for on-
farm drainage installations.

We recommend that E.P.A. research the current availability of Federal
funds for the above activities and suggest what amendments to P.L.
92-500 are necessary to combat this severe but unrecognized  waterf
pollution problem in the State of California.
                                                                  r

                                 Yours very truly.

                                 Stuart T. Pyle
                                 Engineer-Manager
STP:ep
cc:   Mr. Don Maughan
      Mr. Ronald B. Robie
      Mr. Billy Martin
      Honorable William M. Ketchum
      Honorable Walter Wl Stiern
      Honorable Howard Way
      Honorable William M. Thomas
      Honorable Gordon W. Duffy
      Honorable Larry Chimbole
      Board of Directors, KCWA

-------
Statement made at PUBLIC HEARING ON POTENTIAL LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS
TO THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT IN SAN FRANCISCO, CALI-
FORNIA, JUNE 19, 1975 - Presented by - Peter R. Gadd, 2302 Sunset
Drive, Visalia, California.

Mr. Chairman:

      My name is Peter R. Gadd, Chairman of the Kings River Water
Association, whose service area boundaries comprise approximately
one million acres of highly productive farming acreage in the San
Joaquin Valley.  I am personally representing the Tulare Lake area
that encompasses approximately 188,000 acres within the Kings
River Water Association service area.
      Although my remarks today are being made relative to the
subject matter suggested to be discussed before this hearing group,
my statement is especially directed, and will be delivered to the
United/States Congress.
      Public Law 92-500, the "Federal Water Quality Control  Act
Amendments of 1972" should not be amended, it should be rewritten.
It is too broad in scope.  As it attempts to cover water and water
pollution in all of its aspects in the United States, the differences
in problems and solutions between municipal, industrial, agricultural,
mining, lakes, waste treatment basin planning, oil pollution as it
relates to water, marine sanitation, and ocean discharge are too
broad a coverage for any one law even if certain above named problems
were identical for different areas in this country.  They are not.
      In my humble opinion the question before this hearing group
today  should not take the form of possible amendments to try to
alleviate the inadequacy of funding an unfundable law.  It should
recommend to Congress that the law be rewritten.
      It is obvious that when Congress passed this law and the Presi-
dent signed it that the actual costs, impossible time constraints,
police state surveillance, and overbearing monitoring of the private
citizen was not contemplated.
      Now, three years after the signing of this Act into Law, all
of these unbearable factors are emerging for public scrutiny.  The
public, and particularly the taxpayer, does not like what he sees.
He especially does not approve of the half measures, through amendment,
that are offered to remedy the fatal weaknesses of this law.  Amend-
ment can only worsen an already impossible situation.
      The Office of Management and Budgetstated in part "This require-
ment is made even more pressing by the results of the most recent
E.P.A.  - State survey which indicates a need under current law to
furid eligible projects in excess of $350 billion."  I should say
the figure will be in excess of $350 billion.  It doesn't include any
of the cost to agriculture.  Naturally, nobody knows what this cost

                                     315

-------
will be but it will  also be astronomical.   For this reason alone this
law, when rewritten, should exclude agriculture.                  v
      One of the solutions offered by the  5 papers printed in the
Federal Register of May 28, 1975 and being discussed here today pro-
pos'e as a solution a greater monetary input by States and Local
Agencies and lessor Federal funding than called for by the law
"without negating the major water quality  objectives of the Act."
Does it really matter at what level of taxation the taxpayer's back
is broken.
      I give Congress and the President the benefit of the doubt.  At
the time they passed this law they undoubtedly thought they were
doing what was best for the country.  Time has proved them wrong.
Give them a chance to rewrite the law in light of the mistakes that
were made.  One of the mistakes of course  was their failure to con-
template that the cost of this Law, according to  the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget, would come close, if not  exceed  the present National
Debt.
      I trust that Congress will now realize that agriculture is
a subject of its own and cannot be incorporated in the rewriting of
this Law.  Agriculture faces a number of problems to survive that
may be present, but to a far lesser extent, in other spheres of
enterprise.  When a crop is planted the weather factor may produce
disaster.  When the crop is sold, the price may prove disastrous.-
When the total cost of 92-500 to the farmer is finally determined,
the first two problems mentioned may be found to  be of secondary
importance.
                                    316

-------
                           July 2, 1975

Mr. James L. Agee
Assistant Administrator for Water
  and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.  20460

Dear Mr. Agee:

In accordance with the notice of the public hearings on the Amend-
ment to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Lexington  Fayette
Urban County Government submits the following constructive comments
for incorporation into the record of those public hearings.

For the most part, the format of these comments is in answer to
questions which were discussed in the public hearings.

Paper No. 1 - Reduction of the Federal Share

      Q.  1 - Would a reduced Federal Share inhibit or delay the
              construction of needed facilities?

      A.    - Yes.  This proposed amendment, unless accompanied by a
              corresponding change in the requirements for water
              quality by 1977, would place a burden on Lexington
              which it could not support.  Local communities have
              developed their plans for improved water quality  as
              determined by PL 92-500 under the assumption that
              75% of federal assistance would be available.   The
              proposed amendment of this assumption would  be highly
              disruptive to communities which have planned already
              tight budgets very carefully.

      Q.  2 - Would the States have the interest and capacity to
              assume, through State grant or loan programs a large
             •portion of the financial burden of the program?

      A.    - Kentucky does not have, nor has it ever had, a state
              grant program to assist in local  water quality pro-
              jects.   It is very unlikely that the state will adopt
              such a  program in the future, unless required to  do so.

      Q.  3 - Would communities have difficulty in raising additional
              funds in capital markets for a larger portion of  the
              program?
                                         317

-------
      A.     - Yes,  Lexington  experiences  such  difficulties  at  pre-
              sent.   When  buyers  are  available the  interest demanded
              is  excessive.   In point of  fact, the  most  recent bond
              issue  received  no bids  at all.
                                                            j.
      Q.   4 - Would  the reduced Federal share  lead  to greater
              accountability  on the part  of  the grantee  for cost-
              effective design, project management, and  post construc-
              tion operation  and  maintenance?

      A.     - In  answer to this question  it  is perhaps best to refer
              to  this government's past practices in relation  to      *
              other  federal grants.   Parks developed with federal  ' c
              funds  are treated no differently than parks developed
              with  local  funds.   Consultants employed through  the-
              use of federal  grants are monitored in the same  manner
              as  consultants  employed with local funds.  It follows
              that  the answer to  this question,  in  the experience
              of  this government, is  no.  Please remember that 25% of
              the cost for projects under PL 92-500 is local.

      Q.   5 - What  impact would a reduced Federal share have on
              water  quality and on meeting the goals of PL  92-500?

      A.     - It  may not be possible  to predict the effect  of  a re-
              duced  federal share on  local financing capabilities,
              but it is fundamental that  all the recent changes in
              the economy, including  both inflation and recession,
              exist  in the local  communities.   A reduced federal
              share  could  only inhibit or delay construction of
              needed facilities.

Paper No.  2 - Limiting Federal Funding of Reserve Capacity  to  Serve
Projected Growth.

      Q.   1 - Does current practice lead  to  overdesign of treatment
              works?

      A.     - Yes,  if measured against current needs.  No,  if  measured
              against eventual needs. The entire concept of PL 92-
              500 relates  to  regional and comprehensive planning.
              It  is  difficult, therefore, to understand how design
              for current  needs only  could be  justified.  At a
              minimum treatment works should be planned  to  accomodate
              anticipated  growth  during:the  time necessary  to  prepare


                                     318

-------
              plans for future expansion, apply for federal grant
              and construct the additional facilities.  Such a pro-
              cedure may take as much as five years.  Many of our
              current pressing problems are the result of such a
              lack of vision in prior planning.

      Q.  2 - What are the merits and demerits of prohibiting eli-
              gibility of growth related reserve capacity?
      »
      A.    - This proposal defeats sound municipal  planning.   A
              reputable engineer would not consider designing  a
              trunk sewer or an interceptor for present population
              only,; without considering anticipated future growth.
              The unnecessary additional cost of purchase of right
              of way and reconstruction at a later time can not be
              justified to tax payers.  Under-destgn, results and is
              costly.

      Q.  3'- What are the merits and demerits of limiting eligibility
              for growth-related reserve capacity to 10 years  for
              treatment plants and 20 or 25 years for sewers?
            - This government objects more strenuously to  limiting
              growth related reserve capacity to sewers than  to
              _«_	__!__.__	l_ 	^ _ _ - 1 _
A.

        treatment plants.
Paper No. 3 - Restricting the types of projects eligible  for  Grant
Assistance.

      Q.  1 - What impact do different eligibility structures have
              on the determination of need for a particular facility?

      A.    - If certain categories are deleted, it would seem that
              those categories would lose priority in  the local
              implementation schedule.  This could result in water
              quality programs that are less cost-effective.  That
              is, if infiltration and combined sewers  are not cor-
              rected, treatment plants will  have to be overdesigned
              in order to meet the required standards.  In any case,
              categories I, II, and IV B should retain their eligible
              status.

      Q.  2 - Is there adequate local incentive to undertake  needed
              investment in certain types of facilities,  even in  the
              absence of Federal  financial  assistance?

                                       319

-------
      A.    - There may be incentive, but it will  have to vie in
              the political arena with other needs which may be
              more visible and whose advocates may be more vocal.
              Federal financial assistance allows  local  elected repre-
              sentatives to stand as leaders rather than politicians.

      Q.  3 - Is there adequate local financial  capability to under-
              take investment in different types of facilities?

      A.    - If EPA funds only categories I, II and IVB, according
              to the 1974 needs survey, local communities would be
              required to fund more than 85% of the cost of projects
              needed in order to meet the requirements of PL 92-500.
              Local funding at that level is not available.

Paper No. 4 - This paper raises the issue of whether PL 92-500 should
be amended to extend the date by which publicly owned treatment works
are to achieve compliance with requirements of Section 301  of this
statute.  It would seem that EPA should seek statutory extension of
the 1977 deadline to 1983 and require compliance regardless  of
Federal funding.  Private industry should be granted the same exten-
sion.  The above course of action could not but result in justice  to
all local communities equally, would result in less administrative
costs for EPA than any of the other four alternatives and would
represent an honest reaction to the realities of the situation which
coultfonly be received by local governments with  respect.
                            f
Paper No. 5 - Delegating a greater portion of the  Management of the
Construction Grants Program to the States.

Lexington favors the Cleveland-Wright Bill,   However, sufficient  time
should be given to allow states to staff adequately and  strong
consideration should be given to requiring states  to provide a
matching grant, perhaps 10%.

In summary, if the magnitude of the entire program is beyond the
funding capability of the federal budget, it is  likewise beyond the
funding capabilities of local budgets.  Therefore, the act should
be amended by reducing the requirements to attain  a more practical
and economically feasible goal.

At the public hearing in Wasghinton, D.C., Mr. John Quarles  remarked
that federal assistance to construct water quality control  facilities
would be"on-going", as the Federal Highway Program now is.   If that
is in fact true, then the philosophy should be toi fund the present
programs at the highest possible level in order to meet the goals  of

                                    320

-------
PI 92-500 by 1983 and thereafter, to lower the level of federal
participation to help maintain that system.

Sincerely,

Diane F. Schorr, Director        Dean D. .Hunter, Jr.
Office of Program Development    Chief Administrative Officer
   and Management

DFS:ko
                          July 4, 1975
Environmental Protection Agency
Division of  Water and Hazardous Wastes
401 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.

RESPONSE TO PROPOSALS TO AMEND THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT,
TITLE II, MUNICIPAL WASTE TREATMENT GRANTS

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, are
less than three years old.  We believe that nothing should be done
to cripple an effort barely begun nor to alter the intent or letter
of the Act except to strengthen its enforcement and clarify and
streamline its administrative procedures. PL 92-500 is a good law.
Its provisions ably reflect both the broad and specific environ-
mental, social and economic implications of municipal treatment
facility construction to the Nation, the States and their munici-
palities.  These provisions and the Act itself reflect positions
upon which the League of Women Voters has acted positively for over
twenty years.  Pertinent to the proposed modifications are:

Improvement of water quality including:
      Overall long-range planning of water resource development.
      Managing water resources on a river-basin or regional basis.
      Federal financing of water development with cost-sharing by
      state and local government and private users.
      Improved coordination between agencies and departments.
      Procedures that supply informationand encourage intelligent
      weighing of alternative plans.
      Citizen participation in water resource decisions.

We believe the last two positions are particularly pertinent here
because, on the one hand you are soliciting input and direction from

                                     321

-------
the public on these very important issues (and offering well  con-
ceived alternatives), but on the other, you have limited circulation
of the public hearing notices and issue papers to the Federal Register,
Few of us have regular access to the Federal  Register.   Consequently,
few of us were aware of the public hearings and few of us have re-
sponded.  If it is not too late now, we would recommend:  1)  keeping
the record open for comments until the 21st of July;  2) publicizing
through newspapers of general circulation.

The construction grant program, as expanded under PL  92-500,  is  just
beginning to be implemented.  It is our opinion that  it would be dis-
astrous to reduce the Federal share of the  cost now.  There is no doubt
that the bill for clean water is a big one.  But the  alternatives
to paying it now are much more costly.  In  a  budget the size  of  the
Federal Budget, it is all a question of priorities.   We believe
that improving the quality of the Nation's  water demands  the  highest
priority.  And given the facts on water pollution, its  effects on
the health of their children and their children's children, we believe
that the public at large would also give water pollution  abatement
a high priority.  Pollution abatement cannot be put off to another
time.  Permanent damage to our ground water is already  occuring  and
toxic wastes are appearing in our drinking  water.  These  may  fae
impossible to remove, or their removal so costly as to  make  it
impossible.  Let us use the means provided  by the Act now, to their
fullest, to clean up the water before it is too late.  Looked  at  in
this light, we would hope that EPA would not  recommend  measures  to
reduce federal expenditures on the construction grant program.

Priorities
— i^— »••• 11 ii. .^-•••-••i^                                                    i    k  x

Let us pursue the question of priorities a  bit further.  According
to your 1974 Strategy Paper, there is no question that  treatment
facility construction for secondary and advanced treatment (in certain
cases) is taking priority over storm water  control.'  We are  told in
no uncertain terms that only after the treatment facility program
is well on its way to meeting water quality goals, will the  focus
shift to storm water and low priority concerns.  Therefore,  if the
priority system is well understood and properly instituted administra-
tively (as it appears to be in Missouri), postponement of expendi-
tures on low priorities should not require  legislation.  In  fact, in
terms of national priorities, more rather than fewer  Federal  funds
should be expended on all aspects of the pollution control program.

Another way to look at priorities is through  the implications of the
planning programs (Sections 20k, 208 and 303e).  Most of these are
32
                                         2

-------
incomplete, and our understanding is that "208" plans are not due for
completion until 1978.  It is our belief  that we could look to
reduced waste water loads, in the first place, and a reduction in
the financial burden, in the second, if priorities are set based on
needs established through the planning process; at the same time,
management alternatives are sought in pricing mechanisms; land use
legislation is acted upon.

Paper Number One

We do not believe the Federal share of the construction grant program
should be reduced.  If municipalities were willing, or their States
were willing to finance the program themselves, they did not have to
wait for ever larger federal funding, in the first place, or while
funds were impounded, in the second.  Since an acknowledgedly big
issue in Congressional debate over passage of PL 92-500 was how to
spur the cities into installing the necessary facilities to meet
the goals of the Act, lessening the Federal share and consequently
putting the burden of construction more heavily on municipalities as
well as States, would lessen that impetus considerably.  This burden
would only delay construction.  The money may go further, but there
is no more to support the supposition that States or municipalities
can or will invest more than their present share, than there was
when the creators of the Act recognized the necessity of raising the
Federal share to fill in the gap.  Congress should not renig on that
decision;.

Encouraging greater accountability for cost/effective designs and
the pursuit of alternative mechanisms is another issue that can be
taken care of by clarifying guidelines for construction grant appli-
cations and enforcing whatever postures are instituted.

At this early juncture of the program, we submit that the question of
whether the Federal budget can afford the program, is almost moot.
Because of the administrative and financial delays, the cost of
meeting the goals will be delayed unfortunately, for the program,
but a plus for the Federal budget.

Under Incentives, the fact that communities have traditionally had
more incentive to build collection and interceptor sewers, reinforce
the present priority system and leaves open to communities questions
of a communityvs incentives.

Under Issues.... see our discussion above.  In addition, if Missouri
is an example, it has a great deal of difficulty squeezing out the


                                       323

-------
necessary matching funds now.   In our State,  authorized bonds are
going a'begging.  The League and other interested citizens  have to
hammer home to our legislature every year, the necessity of alloca-
ting funds required to qualify for Federal water pollution  control
monies.

Paper Number Two

In the narrow sense, we do not favor federal  funding of reserve
capacity to serve projected growth.   However, rather than put a "no
reserve growth" or a time-limit on allowable  growth, we would prefer 4
to see cost/effective designs  emerge from carefully prepared area
plans.  In some areas, growth  should be thwarted by the limits  of
a facility.  In other areas, where land-use decisions deem  it necessary,
a limited reserve capacity should be permitted.   Of all  the alterna-
tives, we would favor the California method,  but we believe there
must be serious consideration  given, in every instance,  to  the nega-
tive implications of secondary growth.   Again, well  designed and
well executed area plans should provide this  direction and  legi-
timately decide "no growth" where it is deemed necessary.   The Act
has to remain flexible and sensitive to all  the implications of
building reserve capacity.  And nothing to alter the present program
should be contemplated until area plans are in and have been assessed
from this point of view.  The  information offered on the cost of
building reserve capacity does not appear well based.  However, f    '
this is the one area where cutting down costs appears legitimate,

Paper Number Three

We believe that the types of projects eligible for grant assistance
should not be restricted.  We  base this position on our support of
the construction grant provisions of the Act  and on the unquestionable
need for water pollution control  now.  Are there not programs sup-
ported by the Federal budget that have little to do with the welfare
of the people of this nation in the sense that water pollution con-
trol provisions offer?  Could  not some of these be reduced  while
solutions are provided for a desperately needed program?

If PL 92-500 did not provide assistance for operating and maintenance
costs for management alternatives to construction facilities) or
most non-point source control  measures, then  administrative or legis-
lative provisions for these should be looked  to.  We agree  with the
arguments offered in Paper Number Three in support of maintaining
or enlarging upon the present eligibilities.   Facilities planners
should be encouraged by a wide variety of alternatives, to  produce
the best plan possible for each area. Money should be found to facilitate
this job.

-------
The arguments offered in support of restricting eligibilities are
weak.  See our points throughout this discussion, for response
to them.

We see strong economic incentives in full implementation of the
construction grant provisions of the Act...many jobs, needed work
for construction, engineering, industrial firms.

Paper Number Four

Our answer to the question of extending the 1977 date of compliance
is that we prefer a case by case alternative.  Retain the 1977 date,
enforce against conscious violators, provide EPA with means of ex-
tending compliance schedules on an individual basis according to
need.  In response to Considerations, our answer to the first five
questions is "yes".  Compliance deadlines should not be open-ended.
Number nine, if carefully enforced, appears acceptable.

Paper Number Five

We support the provisions of the Act which lay down a "mix" of
EPA/State grant activities.  However, we see the need for improvement
in administrative procedures.  Clarification and streamlining ;are
necessary but not to the extent that they sacrifice the intent of
the  law.-  Civil/administrative penalties for violators of the
permit process is an area of enforcement which needs attention.
EPA  should provide the overall policy, the consistency, the distance
and  the clout to assist the States in fulfilling their responsibi-
lities.  Too much variation in the abilities, attitudes and administra-
tive procedures of the States exists to leave the success of this
national program largely in their hands.

Statement prepared by Environmental Quality Committee of the Metro-
politan Council,*Leagues of Women Voters of St. Louis and St. Louis
County, Suzanne M, Pogell, Chairman.
                                         32 £

-------
                     TESTIMONY FOR THE RECORD
                                ON
                     EPA PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
                              TO THE
               FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

                                BY
                         Stephen J.  Leeds
                    69 Mountain Heights Avenue
                     Lincoln Park, N.J. 07035
                           July 3, 1975

      I am writing in response to the Environmental  Protection
Agency's policy papers that appeared in the Federal  Register of
May 28.  If EPA wants to reduce substantially federal  outlays for
sewage treatment system construction, the Agency should propose
that each such project be approved by a public referendum in which
the costs to local taxpayers are clearly and accurately depicted.
Even with the present 75 percent grant, project costs  are out-
rageously high and beyond the ability to pay of most communities
and tax payers.
      To the extent that individual  projects are imperative and
desirable, federal aid to such projects should be provided in
the following manner:

      (I)  The necessity of a project should be documented in rela-
      tion to the severity of the health and water pollution pro-
      blems  in that area.
      (2)  Such a project should be considered in its  entirety,
      without artificial distinctions being made between treatment
      plants or interceptor lines, on the one hand,  and local collec-
      tion lines, on the other.
      (3)  Reserve capacity in areas not fully developed should
      be restricted to a set percentage of current needs, rather  than
      being based on generally unreliable population projections
      which can become self-fulfilling prophecies.
      (4)  A project should be approved by the residents of the
      area it will serve, by means of public referendum in which  local
      costs and tax impacts are clearly spelled out.
      (5)  Federal aid should take the form of a 30- to 40-year
      interest-free loan instead of the present 75-percent out-
      right grant.

Most communities are financing the local share of sewage facility
construction costs by means of 40-year bonds.  (This is rational,

                                     326

-------
in the sense that today's residents should not bear the full brunt
of buying a system that will benefit future generations.)  In my
section of the country, at least, such 40-year bonds are selling
with interest rates at or above 35.5 percent.
      Let us look at how such financing works out for a "typical"
$10 million project, under the provisions of the Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972.  About $800,000 of total project
costs are ineligible for federal subsidy; they involve land acqui-
sition as well as legal and financing costs.  Of the remaining
$9.2 million, 25 percent, or $2.3 million, constitutes the local
share.  Thus, EPA provides $6.9 million in grants, and the town
goes to bond for $3.1 million.
      Utilizing 40-year bonds at 7.5 percent interest, with level
debt service, the town will end up paying out $3.20 for every dollar
it originally borrows.  Thus, over the term of the bonds, the con-
struction will cost the town $10 million ($3.1  million X 3.20).
In other words, the town, even with a 75-percent grant, ends up
paying out an amount equal to the initial project cost.  Since this
is the case, the town would be equally well served by an interest-
free loan covering eligible project costs.
      With an interest-free loan, the town would save substantial
sums on legal and financing fees that would otherwise arise in the
process of going to bond.  An interest-free loan would cost the
Federal Government the same, since appropriations for grants or for
loans would have to be obligated in either case within the near
future.  Influence-peddling by bond salesmen would be eliminated  as
a factor in whether the town decided to sewer.   Long-term municipal
bond interest rates might decline because billions of dollars of
borrowing needs would be withdrawn from the bloated bond market.   The
federal deficit would be reduced, since loans are carried on the  books
as assets.  And, most importantly, federal dollars for wastewater
treatment facility construction would be stretched farther and work
harder, since loan repayments by municipalities would be rolled over
to fund new projects on the same basis.
      Interest-free loans would eliminate much  of the uncertainty
about ultimate project costs that currently derive from fluctuations
in the bond market, as well as from the myriad ways in which bonding
may be structured,  Interest-free loans would!  give the Federal
government much tighter control over the management and operation
of facilities, since EPA would in effect be holding the notes on  a
project.   Moreover, with clear-cut cost estimates made possible,
townspeople could rationally decide on just how badly they want
sewers and other treatment facilities.
      Beyond the above, EPA should move affirmatively to reduce     <
project costs, by rejecting usual and customary ways of doing business.


                                       327

-------
For example, engineers should not  be  paid on  the basis of a per-
centage of construction costs.   If construction workers are to
receive Davis-Bacon wages,  then  productivity  standards should be
enforced.  Contractors should not  be  allowed  their 10 percent
cushions, buried throughout their  cost  estimates.  Immediate upward
grant revisions, resulting  from  "underestimates" of costs, should
be severely restricted.
                                         328

-------
                           July 2, 1975
                       i
Mr. David Sabock       i
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water & Hazardous Materials
Room 1033 West Tyler
401 Michael Street
S.W. Washington, D.C.  20460

Dear Mr. Sabock:

Enclosed is testimony from the Mayor and Council of Lincoln Park,
New Jersey regarding the five potential legislative amendments to
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act currently being considered
by the Environmental Protection Agency.

Your careful consideration of the position paper would be appreciated.

                                 Very truly yours,

                                 BOROUGH OF LINCOLN PARK

                                 Paul F. Gleason,
                                 Business Administrator
PFG/hs
Enc.


                            TESTIMONY

To:  U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
From:  The Borough of Lincoln Park, Lincoln Park, New Jersey
Subject:  Position Statement on Potential Legislative Amendments  to the
          Federal  Water Pollution Control Act.

      The Borough  of Lincoln Park, New Jersey (pop. 10,000, 7.5
square miles) offers testimony relative to the problems that Muni-
cipalities (like median  Family income $12,869 in 1970) Lincoln Park
face in light of the five potential legislative amendments to the
Federal Water Pollution  Control Act.  Our elected officials are not
able to offer all  the solutions to the complex implications of the
five principal amendatory sections of the act under consideration,
but they can provide a perspective on a small metropolitan community's
struggle to provide a panitary sewer system, on ".a regional basis  with
two other towns, under the constraints of a family income squeeze,


                                       329

-------
inadequate federal funding, changing project priorities, decreases
in State sewer grants and compliance with the National  Pollution
Discharge Permit System.

Reaction tp_ Paper No. 1_

      Lincoln Park is a member of a regional sewer authority organized
to construct a treatment plant and interceptor lines to process .
sewage from three communities.  The estimated cost of the Authority
facilities is now in excess of $50,000,000.   Approximately $35,000,000.
of eligible costs will be funded by the Clean Water Act under the
present $18 billion congressional appropriation.   Limited State
Assistance might have funded another $7.5,million if the bond Issue
had not been depleted before the project was certified  by E.P.A.
      Assuming only Federal assistance is obtained, the $15,000,000.
ineligible project costs will be bonded*for forty years at 7% to 8%
interest rates.  The average annual homeowner cost, including operation
and maintenance expenses, will be approximately $115 in property taxes
per annum during the first few years of operation.  If  Federal  funding
is reduced to 55%, then the cost per homeowner would rise to approxi-
mately $200 per year.  If no funding was  available, the average annual
levy would exceed $450 per annum.
      Now let's add on the cost of building the local sewer system.
To construct sewers throughout the whole town, the Engineer has
estimated a construction cost exceeding $9,000,000.  If 75% Federal
funding is received, the average annual cost per $35,000 assessed
household on 30 year bonds at 7 - 8% interest paid off  through
general taxation will total approximately $115 in additional taxes per
tear.  With 55% funding, the taxes would increase $200. in the first
year with no sewer grants, the costs would exceed $400  peryear.
      In summary, the costs of a combined regional treatment facility
and a local sewage collection system at various funding levels  are
estimated as follows:

      Annual Tax Levy per Household for Construction, Operation and
Maintenance of Sewer Systems
                                    Auth.      Local System    Total

90% (Fed. and State)                $68.   +     $60.  -        $128.
75% (Federal )                      115   +     115.  =         230.
55% (rev. Fed.)                     200.   +     200.  •         400.
0%                                  450.   +     400.  =         850.

      Thus, the cost figures presented above indicate  the necessity for
E.P.A. providing a minimum of 75% Federal funding on the whole sewage
treatment system so that a homeowner is not financially strangled trying

                                       330

-------
to pay for sewage facilities.  If the funding level was lowered below  <•
75%, Lincoln Park residents would have a difficult task trying to
pay for the cost of this program, in addition to already high taxes
for other Municipal services.  Likewise, the State of New Jersey is
facing a drastic budget cutback in 1975 due to the resistance of
elected Officials to raise additional taxes, and the possibility is
remote that additional sewer funding will be appropriated to the
present State Sewer bond issue which is presently inadequate to sub-
sidize 15% of total sewer project costs.  Thus, the burden of de-
creased funding would fall on the Municipal taxpayers.  Our Officials
believe that advanced treatment facilities required by E.P.A. are
beyond the financing ability of most middle class suburban communities
and substantial federal funding is required to induce municipalities
to comply to the intent of the Act.

Reaction to Paper 2

      The Borough Officials generally agree that State and Federal
Governments should exercise legislation to develop a sound, effective
land use policy to curtail the random spread of urban sprawl in metro-
politan areas while allowing for the residential, commercial and
industrial growth that inevitably must occur due to population in-
creases and business expansion.  The question of restricting reserve
plant and interceptor capacity hits at the core of municipal and
national growth.
      There is no question that Lincoln Park would continue to
grow residentially and commercially without a sewer system by extending
the use of inadequate septic system disposal.  With the present heavy
reliance on property taxes to finance Municipal  operations, city fathers
must encourage development to help defray rising operating costs.
Much of the growth is inevitably tied to the ability of a municipality
to provide water, sewer and transportation facilities.  Since the
intent of the Act is to clean the waters of the Passaic Valley in New
Jersey, the lack of facility reserve would force developers to install
septic systems which have been responsible for the bulk of pollution
in the region's waters.  Thus, E.P.A. should subsidize facility
reserve capacity during initial construction.
      Certain economies are realized by sizing interceptor capacity
for 25 years growth during initial construction, since increasing
pipe size initially represents a small  incremental construction cost.
If heavy costs are incurred by municipalities to provide reserve capa-
city for facilities, municipalities will forego or postpone sewage
facility construction due to heavy costs associated with 75% funded
zero reserve capacity facilities.  Thus, E.P.A.  should subsidize rea-
sonable facility reserve capacity during initial construction to
insure municipal ability to treat future development's pollution.

                                      331

-------
Once facility saturation is reached, municipalities can decide if
growth will continue by expanding facilities at their expense if
no federal assistance is available due to appropriation restric-
tions.

Reaction to Paper No. 3

      Although Federal funding supply is scarce in relation to
demand for funds, the present list of eligible projects for funding
should be retained to bring total sewage facilities into compliance
with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.   The E.P.A. is faced
with updating old systems as well as constructing new facilities to
insure that all sewered areas meet treatment standards.
      Before release of the Act's funds by the Supreme Court in
March, 1975, the State of New Jersey had established a priority list
to fund only treatment plants and interceptor lines.  The elected
officials of Lincoln Park refused to consider the construction of
the local system until it became eligible for 75% funding.  Although
design plans for a treatment plant and interceptor system were
complete and high on the E.P.A. priority list, construction would
not commence until local lines were fully funded.  The project
remained stalled until funding was available for the entire system.
Thus, as the aforementioned cost estimates indicated, local officials
simply did not think that local, residents could affordto finance
the local system without 75% funding.
      No sewage facilities will be constructed by our regional authority
or Municipality unless 75% funding is available for the total  project.
The E.P.A. has mandated standards that are expensive for municipalities
to meet and subsidies for total systems must be made available to
avoid undo hardships on residents.
      Available funding should be allocated to total (treatment plants,
interceptors, local lines and rehabilitation etc.) sewage treatment
systems according to a priority list'drafted in relation to realistic
standards developed to clean up critical lake, river and ocean waters.
E.P.A. must determine the areas to be cleaned up initially and commit
available funding to these areas.  Lower priority regions should only
launch pollution control projects when funding becomes available if
projects are beyond their ability to finance.

Reaction to Paper No. 4

      As E.P.A. survey of needs indicate, hundreds of billions of
dollars are needed to construct facilities to clean our nations waters.
Since complete funding needs are not available, most municipalities
will not initiate construction to meet the 5 year National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System deadline.

                                       332

-------
      High priority pollution areas must be designated when federal
funding is available to assist the project and be mandated to design
and construct sewer facilities to comply with the Water Pollution
Control  Act.  Lower priority regions should not be compelled to
design and construct systems that are prohibitively expensive and
beyond reach of Federal assistance.
      The E.P.A. Administrator should be given the jurisdiction to
grant compliance schedule extensions to low priority communities while
enforcing compliance in high priority areas.  Similar power should be
granted the Administrator toward industry.  Serious polluters and
wealthier companies should comply by 1977, while lower priority    -'
companies and those that would experience irreversible economic harm
by complying in a short period of time without sewer grants,  should
be given extensions.
      The effects of compliance are far-reaching and merit variances
in light of funding restrictions and ability to pay for unsubsidized
projects.  The E.P.A. should not mandate immediate compliance for all
industries and municipalities by 1977, but establish a realistic
priority of objectives over the next 10-15 years which is receptive
to the massive problem of cleaning the nation's waters.  Pollution has
spread through lakes and rivers for many decades and requires many
years to clean up.

Reaction to Paper No. 5

      The State of New Jersey has apparently established a sizeable
and competent staff to review construction grant applications of New
Jersey Authorities and Municipalities.  The review of process engi-
neering design and environmental assessment is long and detailed but
the plans must conform to E.P.A. regulations before the State Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection renders approval.  The New York
E.P.A. office generally performs a cursory review with minor  plan
adjustment before rendering certification.  If adequate administra-
tive funding is made available, most states or regions should be able
to incorporate a construction grant review division within the State
Environmental Agency.

-------
                           June 18, 1975

Mr. James L. Agee. Asst. Administrator
EPA, Office of Water & Hazardous Materials
Room 1033, West Tower
Waterside Mall
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.  20460

Dear Mr. Agee:

The writer has just received a copy of the Public Hearing Notice,
San Francisco, June 19, 1975, relative to "Potential  Legislative
Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act"  and desires
to make the following comments with regard to items (4)  and (5):

      (4) Extending the 1977 date for meeting water quality standards
          would have real merit from the point of both  EPA and the
          ultimate water quality benefits achieved.  At least in
          the western states, extensive improvements  have been made
          in waste discharges over the past few years based on
          rather significant data previously collected.   We have not
          had the oppotunity to experience the benefits  of these
          improvements.  The economics of the situation  strongly warrants
          taking one step at a time, i.e., measuring these benefits
          for a period of at least 5 years and then taking further
          action if required.  In Southern California,  the Los
          Angeles, San Gabriel and Santa Ana River watersheds are
          prime examples of this situation.

      (5) I am sure you are aware that the State of California has
          a strong and active  State Water Resources  Control  Board
          which is coordinating both water quality and  water rights.
          This coordination is extremely important in California and
          warrants the state having the leeway to manage the wide
          spread construction grants program based on the widely
          different conditions in various parts of the  state.  Many
          of these differences would not be likely to be understood  if
          the funding was primarily controlled at a National  or Regional
          level.  Thus, the greatest benefits would not be achieved
          unless the state can be assured of a continuing strong manage-
          ment position.

                                 Sincerely,

                                 Finley B. Laverty
                                 Consulting Engineer
                                     33*4

-------
TO:   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

FROM: Lila Euler, Chairman, Livermore-Amador Valley
      Water Management Agency (LAVWMA)

RE:   LAVWMA Testimony to Environmental Protection Agency - June 19,
      1975 - Concerning Proposed Amendments to the Federal Water
     'Pollution Control Act	
                              "i.ii    '
      The LAVWMA is a joint powers undertaking between the cities
of Pleasanton, Livermore, and the Valley Community Services District
charged with studying, recommending and implementing policies and
programs pertaining to water supply, wastewater treatment and dis-
posal planning.  Current work is directed towards planning and im-
plementation of facilities for the disposal of wastewater in the
Livermore-Amador Valley in order to.meet the requirements of the
San  Francisco Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control Board.
      The LAVWMA has been in existence since January of 1974, and
it has endeavored to work closely with the Regional Board, the State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), and the EPA to ensure the
acceptability of the recommended facilities plan.  The time in-
volved and familiarity with EPA procedures qualify the agency to
address this subject.

      1) - Reduction of Federal Share -

           It is the opinion of,the LAVWMA directors that the Federal
           revenue contribution to Water Pollution Control projects
           should not be reduced for the following reasons:

             a)  Federal standards are strict to the point that huge
             sums are necessary to meet those standards.  Raising
             additional revenue at the local level is difficult, if
             not impossible.  Of the alternatives being considered
             by LAVWMA only one would be financially feasible
             without Federal and State funds, (EIS - 4-130). Others
             exceed bonded debt potential of the three Joint Powers
             Agreement  (JPA) members combined.  Local agencies need
             the current level* of federal funding if standards are
             to be met in the foreseeable future.

             b) 'Lowering the federal share to projects currently in
             advanced planning stages, or currently  underway, will
             necessitate replanning, cause time-consuming, inflation-
             plagued delays and further discourage implementation.
                                       335

-------
2) - Limiting Federal Financing to Serve Existing Populations-

Between the two extremes of limiting financing to existing
population and funding extraordinary expansions, the LAVWMA
Board felt that funding for an  E-o population growth would
be a reasonable alternative.  This would allow control  of
existing pollution and include allowance for basic popula-
tion growth which can be realistically assumed.

3) - Restricting Types of Projects Eligible for Grant Assistance-

The funding of projects should not be limited by type.   Clean
Water projects should be considered for grants regardless of
the source of pollution.

4) - Extending the 1977 Date for Meeting Water Quality Standards-

Realistic dates need to be set for meeting standards.  Speci-
fication of the 1977 deadline in the Act has required EPA and
the State to build this deadline into NPDES permits  even though
they are well aware that the deadline cannot be met  in most
instances.

The draft Project Schedule for LAVWMA calls for construction
of facilities to begin in February of 1978 and to be completed
in February of 1980.  Although LAVWMA is working conscientiously
and with all possible speed, it would seem meeting a 1977
deadline is impossible.  The most recent delays have been
caused by EPA requirements for additional  review of  the EIS.

It is the agency's understanding that EPA desires extensive
environmental review to determine that one environmental pro-
ject (for water) does not promote other forms of environ-
mental degradation and to avoid environmental litigation which
would stop projects.  These are both excellent reasons.
However, where the requirements of EPA itself cause  delay,
it would seem a wise alternative for EPA to extend deadlines
imposed on the wastewater management agencies.

5) - Delegating a Greater Portion of Management of the Grants
     Program to the States-

The most pressing problems surrounding the Grants program con-
cern its administration.  Delegating from EPA to the State is
not necessarily the answer.  The State has not demonstrated
any exceptional ability to administer governmental programs
with any organizational expertise.  They are as prone to

                                  336

-------
      inconsistency and confusion  as  other administrators of the Grant
      program.   EPA has been  given the  responsibility to "Clean up
      the Nation's Waterways" and  should accept  it.

      Local  agencies, such as LAVWMAj would benefit  from changes in
administration  of the Grant program that would:

           a)  simplify procedures;

           b)  reduce the number of agencies involved in regulations;

           c)  reduce the number of agencies involved in administration;

           d)  provide clear, specific, justifiable  written regula-
               tions which are applicable to all.

                                 LILA EULER
                                 Chairman, LAVWMA

                                 c/o Valley Community Services
                                     District,
                                     7051  Dublin  Boulevard,
                                     Dublin, Ca. 94566
                                     337

-------
TESTIMONY OF DONALD G.  MILLER,  COUNCILMAN,  CITY OF LIVERMORE AT
PUBLIC HEARING ON POSSIBLE EWPCA AMENDMENTS,   JUNE 19,  1975

I.  INTRODUCTION

      I am Donald G. Miller,  Councilman,  speaking on  behalf  of the
City of Livermore.  Before discussing the issues, I would like to
provide some background information to show why we are  strongly
concerned about the FWPCA.                                           •
      Our city has 50,000 people out of 100,000 people  in the Livermore-
Amador Valley (LAV).  This valley is 40 miles  southeast of San
Francisco and is a natural smog bowl partially spearated  Prom the
Bay Area which is in turn a critical air basin.  Our  Valley  itself
has the worst smog in Northern  California,  and is the next worst
region after Los Angeles.  We had 93'adverse oxidant  days in 1974
and have already had over 20  this year.  Almost all of  the pollution
is from cars, and most of it  is generated by local  residents commuting
out of the valley and driving locally.  The LAV! population is largely
commuter, and the rapid population growth of the last 10  years has
been almost entirely white middle class commuters.
      Our Council and the majority of our citizens are  concerned
about air pollution and its effects on our health.  We  are also
disturbed by the peculiar view  that long  term  effects on  air quality
and energy wastage should be  ignored in sizing wastewater treatment
projects.

II.  The Issues for This Hearing

     Our testimony on the 5 areas of interest  follows:

     A.  Reduction of the Federal Share

         The cost of plant improvements to  clean up waste water pollu-
tion is expensive far beyond  the means of local governments.   Conse-
quently we urge that there be no reduction  in  the federal  share for
cleaning up the water for existing populations.  However, if federal
funds are short, we urge that none be provided for plant  expansions,
particularly in critical air basins.

     B.  Limiting Federal Financing to Serve Existing Populations

     We strongly support tteprinciple that FWPCA funds  should be used
primarily for pollution clean-up, not for massive plant expansions.
The law should be very specific on this point.
     Population growth from plant expansions almost universally leads


                                       338

-------
to more air pollution and energy wastage.  Consequently expansions
should be allowed only in areas where 1) federal air quality stan-
dards are met and 2) where the expansion will not result in fuel
wastage or exceeding of air quality standards later, both based on
conservative estimates.  Clearly expansions in critical air basins
should be sharply limited.
      If expansions are permitted in critical air basins, then the
law must require and EPA must administer severe restrictions on the
use of any excess capacity until the federal air quality standards
are met.  Mitigation measures should only be considered once they
are actually in effect.  Promises!  are without value.
      Air pollution is a generally recognized health menace.  Con-
sequently it is wrong in principle to use clean water grants which
include expansion to solve water pollution problems, if at the same
time the air quality  problem is worsened; especially when both
problems can be solved if there are no expansions.

C.  Restricting Types of Eligible Projects

      We urge that eligible projects be restricted only to those whose
size and nature are simultaneously consistent with the Clean Air,
Clean Water, and Energy Conservation acts.
      This point is important.  We commend EPA1s limited attempts
in this direction, but hope that both the law and EPA would be
stronger.
      We believe it is irresponsible to endanger public health
with air pollution and to waste national energy resources by en-
couraging population expansions and commuting.  Special interests
looking to economic gain and some local government agencies oppose
this view.  You and Congress will hear much testimony from the.
They argue that grant restrictions interfere with local land use
control.
      It is precisely the failure to control land use by some city and
county  governments in our area that has led to our smog.  This snog
will continue to worsen if their desired expansions are permitted.
      Since disregard to environmental problems is so pervasive in
loci! government, the citizen suit portion of the act is essential
for the public's protection.

D.  Extension of Dates !for Water Quality Standards

      Clearly the 1977 date cannot be met.  However near term dates
and pressure'to meet them must be maintained - or no real progress
will be made towards reducing pollution.
      Expediting waste water management programs is desirable, pro-
viding they are consistent with environmental and energy conservation

                                      339

-------
goals.  However no compromises should be made by ignoring long term
effects.

E.  Delegating Greater Portions of Management to the States

      We recommend that EPA retain overall  control.
      So far, grant administration by the state in our valley has not
shown much regard for environmental problems, despite California's
Environmental Quality Act.  For example, the State Water Resources
Control Board staff has approved substantial population increases for
sizing sewer projects in the LAV.  These approvals have occurred
in spite of EIR and air pollution reports which clearly point out
that the Federal Air Quality Standards will never be met if there
are any further population increases in the LAV (without unacceptable
changes in life styles).  These approved population increases
correspond to the deliberate concentration of population in the
worst part of the critical air basin.  Since our population growth
is almost wholly commuter, such approvals also show a distressing
disregard for national energy conservation goals.
      In these circumstances, we do not believe that state agencies
are necessarily better qualified than EPA to administer grants.  The
state is surprisingly susceptible to pressure to downgrade environ-
mental standards.

ill:  Final Comments.                                         ,,-•
 	   '  • ••— -' • -•——. i • •..- «                                          • • i,
                                                              a •
      We believe in the principle of cleanup first in priority and  .
expansion last.
      We stress the self-fulfilling prophecy aspect of utility expan-
sions in environmentally sensitive areas.
      We know that EPA receives criticism from every direction.  We
wish to support their efforts, and believe they should take a
stronger role.
      We have repeatedly stressed the intimate connection between air
quality, water quality, and energy conservation because it is impor-
tant to our health and future.  Many local  governments wish to ignore
this connection in part because of a devotion to the obsolete slogan
that growth is always progress, and unfortunately  in part because they
are sometimes dominated by special interests whose concern for the
public interest and the public's health is non-existent at best.
      Finally, everyone now recognizes that what happened in LA was
a ghastly environmental mistake.  Those of us trying to learn from
that mistake hope that this lesson will be written into the FWPCA.
We need the support of that law and responsible agencies to keep
us from being the San Fernando of the north.
      Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

                                       3'.*0

-------
                           June 11, 1975

Mr. James L. Agee
Assistant Administrator for
  Water and Hazardous Materials
Room 1033, West Tower, Waterside Mall
401 M Street, S.W.
Wasghinton, D. C.  20460

Re:  Municipal Waste Treatment Grants

Dear Mr. Agee:

Thank you for supplying copies of the position papers that were
prepared for discussion at the noticed public hearings.  We con-
clude from the information presented that proposed HR 2175 would confine
EPA activities to overall policy making and to auditing and moni-
toring the grant activities performed for the states.  We are persuaded
that this approach would reduce duplication of efforts, avoid sub-
stantial increases in Federal administration personnel, and "enhance
the policy expressed in PL 92-500 to recognize, preserve, and pro-
tect the primary responsibilities and rights of states."

You are to be complimented on the objectivity of the discussion papers.
The public hearings should be most enlightening.  We would appreciate
being placed on the mailing list to receive your specific proposals
at such time as they are developed.

                                 Yours very truly.

                                 LAS VIRGENES
                                 MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT

                                 H.W. Stokes
                                 General Manager - Chief Engineer

HWS/es

-------
                           June 17, 1975

Statement of Harvey A. Jones, Chief Engineer
For the LITTLE BLUE VALLEY SEWER DISTRICT

Presented on June 17, 1975, at a public hearing on
potential Legislative Amendments to Federal  Water
Pollution Control Act

Grand Ballroom Muehleback Hotel
12th and Baltimore, Kansas City, Missouri

      The driving force behind the nation's  water pollution control
effort is the municipal waste treatment grant program.   This program
must not be allowed to falter and come to a  halt while  amendments
to the act are debated and new rules and regulations  are formulated.
The lessons learned from attempting to implement PL 92-500  must be
heeded to prevent cost escalation from pushing project  financing
out of reach while paper work is shuffled.
      We suggest a two phase approach be adopted to permit  the grant
program to proceed without further delay:  First, extend authoriza-
tions at a 7 billion to 9 billion dollar annual  level for the next
five years.  This action is needed immediately to permit state and
local governmental units to proceed with any semblance  of order in
their planning.  Second, approach any amendments to the Act in an
orderly fashion and avoid additional costly  time consuming  pro-
visions.  This time listen to the professionals.  Paper number 4
states that 60% of the 1977 population will  not be receiving secon-
dary treatment by that date.  How much advice of the  professional
community was heeded in originally establishing this  date for secon-
dary treatment?  The following suggestions  are offered  as possibi-
lities to be considered in order to optimize expenditure of the
grant dollar:

      A.  The federal share should be maintained at the 75% level.
State and local governments have in most instances made arrangements
for financing projects at this level.  A change in the  federal
share at this time would in almost every instance, create delays
and in some cases, probably force abandonment of projects already
under development.

      B.  Limiting federal funding or reserve capacity  to any fixed
parameter will not be cost effective.  Local governments are not over
spending because of the grants.  Even the 10% local share is burden-
some and the electorate also knows the final source of  matching
funds.  The capacity design must be established at a  case by case

                                        3142

-------
level to be cost effective.  The California plan may have spread the
money but could still be uneconomical.  To attempt to coordinate
population projections on a state-wide basis would merely result in
delays and duplications of the regional planning efforts.

      C.  Funding at the 75% level should be limited to treatment
facilities and interceptor sewers.  There should, however, be
flexibility to permit funding of a lesser degree of treatment for
combined sewer overflows should this be more cost effective than
providing secondary treatment at the main outfall.  States should
also have the authority to permit funding aty a lower level (50%) for
treatment or control of storm water after all sanitary wastes have
been cared for.  Grant money should not be made available for main-
tenance items such as correction of inflow/infiltration in collec-
tion systems, sewer rehabilitation, separation of combined sewers
or for the construction of collecting sewers.

      D.  The 1977 date for meeting water quality standards should
be extended to a reasonable obtainable date and should still be
based upon the availability of matching funds.  In addition, the
requirements for treatment should be reinvestigated and where the
cost effectiveness of secondary treatment cannot be proven, the
requirements should be relaxed.  Funds saved by this action could
be better utilized to improve potable water treatment plants.

      E.  Many of the roles played by EPA should be phased out and
returned to state governments for more responsive action to the needs
of the populous.
                                     31*3

-------
                     Summary of  Statement by
                   League of Kansas Municipalities
              to the Environmental Protection Agency
                       Kansas City, Missouri
                      Tuesday, June 17, 1975

      My name is Richard Cunningham, Associate Director of the League
of Kansas Municipalities.  The League of Kansas Municipalities repre-
sents over 475 cities in the state of Kansas.  These cities compose
approximately 99 percent of the total population of persons residing
within cities of the .state of Kansas.
      The League of Kansas Municipalities has had a long interest in
various environmental matters.  League policy committees have con-
sidered environmental matters for several years and the purpose of
my testimony is to describe to you the attitudes of Kansas local
government officials insofar as they relate to the five questions
under consideration by this hearing board.
      First, let me note to you how League Policy is developed.  The
League of Kansas Municipalities does have a policy statement which re-
presents a foundation upon which the cities build legislative pro-
grams at both the state and federal levels.  The policy does not
attempt to set forth the League's position on specific bills which
may be considered by the legislature and Congress—rather the policy
attempts to set forth principles and guideposts at the basis for
specific action by staff.  This policy is developed through an
extensive process of committee meetings composed ofboth elected
and administrative city officials.  Finally, each year the Statement
of Municipal Policy is considered at an annual convention of city
officials.  It is on the basis of this policy I appear before you today.

Comments on Hearing Questions

      Question No. 1--Should the Federal government reduce its share
of municipal waste water treatment grants?  The answer to this ques-
tion is a strong and emphatic "no".  The cities of Kansas are primarily
dependent upon the property tax and other relatively stable revenue
sources for funding.  And these sources are not expanding.
      The Federal government has established through both congressional
and executive branch decisions, a clear indication of the standards
toward which environmental quality improvement efforts should be
directed.  As noted later in my presentation, there is question as
to the appropriateness of these standards now that they have been
interpreted by the Environmental Protection Agency staff, but we can
find no reason why the ratio  of the federal match should be reduced.
If the intent is to save federal dollars, then most city officials

                                          3k k

-------
in Kansas would suggest that there should be some other priorities
that could be tested.  Another approach to cost reduction or deferral
would be deferral of deadlines.
      Question No. 2—Should Federal financing be limited to serving
the needs of existing population?  The real meaning of this question
is not clear.  It seems an idea, whose implementation even with a
vast bureaucracy, would be almost nonenforcible.  Added or new
population pays Federal taxes just as does existing population.  We
can see that an attempt to limit to existing population might lead
to rather unrealistic conclusions, actions and certainly would seem
to be arbitrary in its basic nature.  We therefore,:  oppose such a
limitation.
      Question No. 3—Should EPA restrict types of projects eligible
for grant assistance?  This item might receive some support from
Kansas cities, but I would expect the vast majority would be in
opposition to any reduction of projects eligible for assistance.   It
seems that all municipal facilities contributing to potential  or
additional pollution of our streams and waterways should be eligible.
Any reduction of types of projects eligible would most likely be done
on a rather arbitrary basis and such changes could discriminate against
particular types of situations or parts of the country.   Kansas city
officials are particularly sensitive to regulatory and legislative
actions that do not adequately recognize the character of Kansas.
The concept suggested^ Question 3 is one which does not seem to
have much merit and therefore would not be supported by the majority
of cities in Kansas.
      Question No. 4--Should the 1977 date for water quality deadlines
be extended?  The cities of Kansas have suggested that such extensions
should have been considered previously.  We do support such action.
We believe that the deadlines should be times to the federal  govern-
ment's ability to provide its share of matching costs and the  con-
struction industry's ability to deliver.  Additionally,  we are quite
concerned about the ability of the Environmental  Protection Agency,
state agencies and consulting engineers to do their part as it
relates to current and existing technology as well as ever-changing
administrative regulations.  The cities of Kansas would support some
extension of deadlines.
      Question No. 5--Should a larger portion of the management of the
construction grants program be delegated to the states?  The cities
of Kansaswould support such delegation.  The cities, however,  would
want the federal  government to continue to exercise monitoring
oversite as to the quality of administration, state by state.   In
recent times, the cities of the state of Kansas have generally had
a favorable record of experience with the State Department of Health
and Environment.   This has not always been true.   I believe th-at the
cities are not as concerned about whether it be the state government

                                     31*5

-------
or the federal government who administers the program, but that as
little as possible duplication exists and that the bureaucrats, for
whomever they work, be responsive and sensitive to the realistic
situations and needs that exist in various parts of the state of
Kansas.  We therefore, would support some further delegation of
management of construction grants programs to the state.
      General Comments. Two final notes.   To our knowledge, the
League of Kansas Municipalities did not receive a notice of this
hearing other than through the Federal  Register.  The League of
Kansas Municipalities, as well as leagues in other states, are used
to receiving some type of timely, direct mailed notice as to impor-
tant matters and we consider this hearing an important matter.  We
would not be here otherwise.  There are many other matters on our
agendas.
      We strongly recommend that when hearings of such magnitude are
held, that regional administrators of the Environmental  Protection
Agency be directed to notify municipal  leagues so they in turn may
consider notifying their constituent members.  I understand very well
that postage costs are high these days  and that there are a great
number of special interests who would like to be notified directly.
We do believe, however, that city governments, who are governed by
elected officials in this representative system of government, should
receive some type of unique consideration.  Cities are not "special
interests" city government is the democratically selected representa-
tive of the people who reside in cities.
      We appreciate this opportunity to be heard.  We do not, however,
appreciate the fact that we were notified in a rather untimely and
ineffective manner.  According to latest estimates, Kansas cities
need to expend approximately $2.25 billion in the next several years
to meet existing standards for plant (parts 1, 2 & 4b).   Another
$2.4 billion is estimated for other standards.  Effectively dealing
with water quality is serious business  in Kansas.
      Finally we ask that EPA intensify its efforts to simplify the
administration of the municipal waste water treatment program.  The
improved treatment of water cannot occur if all of the inlets to the
system are clogged with paper!  If  Congressional changes are needed,
then you can be sure that many city officials from Kansas will do
their dead-level best to convince the Kansas Congressional delegation
of the rationale for such changes.  In  the meanwhile we plead with
you to get the scissors out and cut very inch of bureaucratic tape
out that is not vital to your true legal  obligations.
                                        31*6

-------
                           June 12, 1975

Mr. D. Sabock
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.  20460

Dear Mr. Sabock:

The League of Women Voters of Missouri wishes to submit the following
written comments for the public hearing scheduled by the Environmental
Protection Agency to consider possible amendments to the Water Pollu-
tion Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500), on June 17, 1975,
Grand Ballroom, Radisson Muehleback, 12th and Baltimore Street, Kansas
City, Missouri.

                            STATEMENT

      1.  The League of Women Voters of Missouri urges the Environ-
mental Protection Agency to maintain the current 75% level of federal
funding for publicly owned treatment works to meet secondary water
quality standards.  The Federal government is the best source of
revenues, its guidelines are stringent, and in the Missouri-Missi-
ssippi watershed, many downstream states are affected by the lack of
secondary water treatment facilities.

      2.  The only way to clean the waters of the Meramec River and
its tributaries is to build an intercepter which would require federal
funding of reserve capacity, even though this woilld encourage future
population growth in this area.

      3.  We would eliminate the treatment of stormwater as a "need"
to be funded under the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments.  Instead,
we would encourage the extension of the Corps of Engineers' authority
over storm water in urban areas.  Their plans in the St.  Louis metro-
politan area are excellent.  Storm water, although very damaging,
is extremely expensive to control.  In addition, the metropolitan
areas need to develop full employment.  The Corps of Engineers'
have access to unlimited funding and personnel.

      4.  We believe that the 1977 deadline should not be extended.
Many small  communities delay until the last minute.   The law provides
for variances in case of hardship.

      5.  More management responsibilities should be given to the
states.                                 o L 7

-------
      The inability by the federal  government to meet the financial
needs of the municipal waste treatment construction grant program
represents the misplaced priorities of our nation.   The protection
and redemption of the environment of our cities is  a vital  human need.
Employment of the citizens of our urban areas would be stimulated.
The program is important to the future health and economic well  being
of the nation and ought to be fully funded to the amount estimated by
states, $350 billion.

                                 Sincerely,

                                 Mrs. Julian C. Hall
                                 President
                                 Ernestine T.  Magner
                                 Water Quality Chairman
MH/EM/cp

Copy:  Carol Jolly
       LWVUS

-------
                            June 18,  1975

 Honorable  Tom Bradley,  Mayor
 Chief  Legislative  Analyst
 Councilman Nowell
 Councilman Snyder

 Environmental  Protection  Agency
 1626 K Street,  N.W.
 Washington,  .D.C   20640

 Environmental  Protection  Agency
 1626 K Street,  N.W.
 Washington,  D.C.   20640

 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO  THE  FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

 At the meeting  of  the Council  held June  18,  1975, the attached
 motion was adopted.

                                  Rex  E.  Layton
                                  City Clerk

                                  I HEREBY CERTIFY that .the attached
                                  motion  was  adopted by the Los Angeles
                                  City Council at its meeting held June
                                  18,  1975.

                                  REX  E.  LAYTON, CITY CLERK

                                  By A. Rinati, Deputy
                              MOTION

      The Federal Environmental Protection Agency, at the request of
the Office of Management and Budget, in conducting public hearings to
receive testimony on five potential amendments to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (PL 92-500).  The five proposed amendments are:

      1.  To reduce the Federal share of grant eligible costs from
75 percent to a lesser amount.  Because of the new requirements of
PL 92-500 for secondary treatment and the cessation of sludge disposal
to the ocean, the cost of the city's program for providing clean water
has expanded to over $400 million, of which $250 million would be in

-------
grant funds.   Any reduction in the Federal  share would necessitate an
increase on the City's part.   For example,  a 10  percent reduction in
the grant would mean an increased cost to the City of $34 million.
Therefore, to change the grant program at this time would seriously
impair the City's program for accomplishing the  goals of PL  92-500.

      2.  To limit the size of a project's  reserve capacity  as  a
means to control growth.  Every system should be designed on a  cost-
effective basis.  If reserve capacity is  warranted, it should be
provided.  A reasonable time period should  be used as the basis of
design—a pariod of 20 years after completion of  construction would
appear reasonable.
      Population growth projection curves should be made on  the
treatment plant service area, not on a region.   This would allow  for
localized trends in population to be accommodated.

      3.  To restrict types of projects eligible for grants.
There is no need to change eligibility of projects  provided  that  a
priority order of funding is established.  A project should  be
funded on the basis of its ability to correct a  major pollution
problem.

      4.  To extend the 1977 date for meeting water quality  standards.
      The impoundment of the Federal funds  has substantially delayed
the program for meeting the 1977 deadline.   Therefore,  the proposal
to allow the Regional Administrator to extend the deadline on a
case by case basis should be permitted.

      5.  To delegate a greater portion of  the management of the
construction grants program to the states.   This delegation  is
highly desirable and has been accomplished  in California.

      THEREFORE, I MOVE that the following  recommendations be submitted
to the Federal Environmental  Protection Agency as the City's position:

      1.  Oppose reducing Federal grant share.

      2.  Oppose limiting funding for reserve capacity.

      3.  Oppose restricting eligible project types.

      4.  Support extending 1977 deadline.

      5.  Support.
                                         350

-------
                           June  5,  1975

Mr. Russell E. Train, Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C.

Dear Sir:

We appreciate the opportunity to respond  to the proposed changes in
the Municipal Waste Treatment Grants  as published in the Federal
Register on Friday, May 2, 1975.

On proposal No.  1:  Proposing to reduce^ the amount of the Federal share.
We feel there is no .way that a municipality the size of ours could do
with a lesser amount, and at times  we feel that we cannot meet the
monetary requirements for our share at the present levels of funding.
There have been  times that we have  had to forego other projects
because of the matching requirements.  Our major tax effort comes
from the property tax and we feel that these cannot be raised beyond
the present levels without causing  undue  hardship upon our people.
It requires all  of the revenue from these sources to meet the day to
day operating expenses.  We also feel  that our water and sewer rates
are as much as our people can pay and it  takes all of the revenue
from these to meet existing expenses  of bonds and operating expenses.
For these reasons we are opposed to any reduction whatsoever in the
Federal share.

On proposal No.  2:  Limiting Federal  financing to serving the needs
of existing populations:  Here again  we are opposed to this.  How
can our municipalities expect to grow and serve the needs of our
people if we cannot give them the services which they expect and
rightly deserve  and which cannot be done  by limiting ourselves to
the strict existing boundaries of today.  This restriction could
force a town or  city to reject any  annexation because we would be
unable to provide them with the  necessary sanitary facilities.

On proposal No.  3:  Restricting  the types of project eligible for
grant assistance.  We do not see how  this could be done effectively
and fairly.  What might not be needed  in one municipality could.very
well  be a very pressing need in  another.  We thinly that the types of
projects should  be broad enough  to  encompass virtually every need
and then be judged on its merits  and  the benefits it would provide to
the people as a whole in better  environment.

-------
On proposal No. 4:  Extending the 1977 date for meeting water quality
standards.  This is one proposal  that we are very much in favor of.
As we see it, our municipality, as well  as numerous ones in our area
cannot meet these standards now and will be unable to do so by 1977
even under the present levels of funding.  We feel  that if these
were extended for two years or longer, while at the same time ex-
tending the 1981 standards, would remove some of the strain on
the Federal as well as local  revenues, while at the same time not
endangering the environmental impact to any appreciable degree.

On proposal No. 5:  Delegating a greater portion of the management
of the construction grants program to the States.  We think this
would be a very good idea.  At the present time we feel  that we have
to satisfy the State Department of Health and Environmental Control
and the Environmental Protection Agency and we feel  that the two
are not working as closely together as they could be to avoid
some duplication of effort on everyone's part.  We feel  that there
is certainly some room for improvement in this field.  It is our
opinion that any program that is  closer to the people it is intended
to serve then the better it serves them.

Thank you for this opportunity to express our opinions on these
subjects and we would certainly implore you to look at them very
closely before any decision is made.

                                 Sincerely yours,

                                 Robert T. Smith
                                 Mayor
                                 Town of Lake View
                                 South Carolina
                                   35

-------
                             June  9,  1975

         "PUBLIC HEARING ON  POTENTIAL LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS
                TO THE WATER POLLUTION  CONTROL ACT:

       I  am John J. Mil burn,  Executive Director of the Louisville and
Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer  District, 400 South Sixth Street,
Louisville,  Kentucky  40203.   I wish to thank you for this oppotunity
to present my testimony.    I  will also  submit two written copies
of this  oral testmony for the record.

Paper  No. 1  - Reduction of  the Federal  Share

       Under  this proposal,  the Federal  Government, who adopted the
Act, would be relieved of the financial burden as proposed by the
Act.   In turn, the burden would be shifted to the states or local
governments  who are certainly in  no  better financial position to
fund the projects.
       The first of the two  objectives stated is to permit the limited
funding  available to go further in assisting needed projects.  It has
been our understanding that all of the  eligible projects are,  in
fact,  needed in order to meet the requirements of the act.  There-
fore,  if the 75% federal share as proposed by the act is reduced,
so should the requirements.
       The second stated objective is  to encourage greater accounta-
bility for cost-effective design and  project management.  I think
it is  absurd to assume that there would be a greater accountability
on the part  of the grantee  simply because the federal share would be
reduced.  Grantees, such as MSD, do  not determine their own destiny
as far as the cost-effective  design  of  a project.  If future exper-
ience  in dealing with EPA parallels  past experience,MSD will have no
independent  say-so in determining accountability for cost-effective
design.
       The further question  has been  raised as to whether the 1974
needs  survey costs can be accommodated  in the  federal budget in
time to  meet the 1977 and in;turn, the  1983 requirements.  I firmly
believe  the  1974 needs survey are indicative of the estimated costs
necessary to meet the unrealistic,   idealistic requirements of the
Act.    The conclusion is obvious - either the requirements must be
reduced  or the time extended,  expecially since the federal funds will
not be available in time to meet the  unrealistic deadlines.  It may
not be possible to predict  the effect of a reduced federal share on
local  financing capabilities,  but it  is fundamental that all the
recent changes in the economy, including both inflation and recession,
exist  in the local communities.  The  net effect of this paper is

                                        353

-------
tantamount to saying:  "We haven't got the money and, therefore,
yog should have it."
      A reduced federal share would not only inhibit or delay con-
struction of needed facilities, it would result in a screeching halt
of the on-going implementation by MSD of a 201 facilities plan in
Louisville and Jefferson County.
      Kentucky does not now have a state grant program and it is
very improbable that they will adopt one in the future.   Their pay-
back state loans are the equivalent of MSD financing its own bond
issues since we must commit to funding the state bond issue.  If
the federal share is to be reduced by amendment, then that same
amendment should require the states to provide matching  grants
(not pay-back loans)in order to receive their allocation of federal
grants.  Many states (not Kentucky) already provide state grants
(not loans.)

Paper No. 2 - Limiting Federal Funding of Reserve Capacity to Serve ,
              Projected Growth

      This proposal is so fantastically ridiculous that  I almost
hesitate to comment on it.  Whereas the entire concept of PL 92-500
relates to regional and comprehensive planning, I certainly have
difficulty in understanding why it should suddenly be conceived,
by an unknown author, that the local community would be  responsible
to pay for 100% of all reserve capacity over and above the existing
population.
      The statement that the grantee would be "permitted, and in fact,
encouraged" to provide effective reserve capacity is absurd.  There is
certainly not an engineer who would even consider designing a trunk
sewer, or an interceptor, or a treatment works for the present
population.  However, the implication is that EPA would, in fact,
not disapprove a system so designed since they state that the grantee
would be "permitted, and in fact, encouraged" to provide reserve
capacity.
      The only logical basis of design is a cost-effective analysis
using present worth.  Overdesign will occur only if a design other
than the most cost-effective is selected.  EPA should fund on this
basis.
      Based upon the law and the knowledge that EPA would, in fact,
fund 75% of eligible projects, MSD, through a local institutional
arrangement with the fiscal court of Jefferson County, has an
agreement by which fiscal court will appropriate .$1,775,000 annually
toward the implementation of a program which conforms to a 201
facilities plan.  Iti.includes the construction of two new wastewater
treatment plants, and hundreds of miles of eligible trunk and interceptor

-------
sewers.  This commitment by local government, through its tax
revenues, will fund approximately $25,000,000 of local bonds.  This
amount, together with the 75% federal share, will finance a
$100,000,000 construction program for Categories I, II, IIIA,
IIIB and IVB only.  And this is only the first phase of projects
1n those categories.
      Therefore, if the recommendations of Papers 1 and 2 in com-
bination are followed and the Act amended, it would require approxi-
mately $60,000,000 (not $25,000,000) of local funds.  This would
mean that the fiscal court would have to appropriate $4,260,000
annually, instead of the already committed $1,775,000.  I can assure
everyone that if the object is to not only delay, but to completely
stop the program that is already underway in Louisville and Jefferson
County, please follow the recommendations as presented in Papers 1
and 2.
       It took MSD almost 10 years to convince the fiscal court that
tax money was necessary for the initial phase of the program before
MSD (which has no taxing authority) could continue and complete
the program through subsequent issuances of revenue bonds, financed
by revenues from user charges from new customers on the new systems.
In fact, our agreement with fiscal court would be terminated since
it is  predicated on MDS's receiving 75% federal funds for Categories
I,II,IIIA, IIIB and IVB.

Paper  No. 3 - Restricting the Types of Projects Eligible for Grant
              Assistance

      The recommendation of Paper 3 is to limit the federal  funding
to Categories I, II and IVB.  If all of the costs of meeting the
requirement of eligible projects (categories I through VI) would
have to be met by the local communities, and if, in fact, EPA
funded only categories I, II, and IVB, then local communities would
be required to fund more than 85% of the total requirements  covered
by the Act.
       Ifl EPA's purpose is to limit federal participation to only
those projects that are most essential to meet the water quality
goals of the act, then not only the funding of the other categories
should be eliminated but the requirements as well.  Under any con-
dition, however, categories IIIA and IIIB should remain eligible
for grant assistance.

Paper No. 4 - Extending 1977 Date for the Publicly Owned Treatment
              Works to Meet Water Quality Standards

      Believe it or not, MSD has no objection to extending this date,


                                       355

-------
since it really has no apparent impact on us one way or the other.
We are under construction with secondary treatment facilities  for
the existing system which should be completed well  ahead of the
present July 1, 1977 deadline.  It was funded through EPA under
the old law, and would hot be affected by a change in date under
the present act.

Paper No. 5 - Delegating a Greater Portion of the Management of
the Construction Grants Program to the States

      Paper No. 5 proposes that the states should assume EPA's
responsibility for enforcing their idealistic law.   The inducement
is the 2% compensation.  This further erodes the federal  share  to
the local communities.  It also assumes that the amount will be
adequate and that the states can hire sufficient qualified per*-;
sonnel to administer the program.   If this amendment should be
enacted, it should apply to only those states which have a matching
grant (not a pay-back loan) program.
      Now I'd like to take an overall  look at the possible impact
if the proposals of all five papers are adopted.

      Paper No. 1 proposes a reduction in the federal  share from
75% to as low as 55%.

      Paper No. 2 proposes that the eligible cost should be based
upon capacity for existing population and that the cost of all
reserve capacity be funded locally.  It further indicates that
the reserve capacity cost in Categories I, II and IVB is at least
$12 billion of a total of $46.2 billion.  This means the reserve
capacity is 26% and the federal share would be 74%.

      With only papers 1 and 2 considered, the federal  share would
become 74% of 55%, or 40.7%.

      Paper No. 3 proposes to reduce the scope of eligible projects
by retaining only categories I, II and IVB.  In the 1974 needs
survey, the total amount for all categories is $342 billion.   In-
cluded in that total is $46.2 billion for Categories I, II and  IVB.
Therefore, if only those three categories are eligible, the federal
share would be only 13.5% of the federal share for all  needs.
      Now let's consider only papers 1, 2 and 3.  The Federal  share
would be 13.5% of 40.7%, or 5.5%.
      I would like to temporarily skip Paper No. 4 and go to Paper
No. 5.


                                    356

-------
      Paper No. 5 proposes to pass the buck to the states for the
management of the program and to compensate each state by using
2% of the state's annual allotment.  Therefore, the federal share in
eligible projects would be only 98% of the total allocated.
      Grouping Papers 1, 2, 3, and 5, the net federal  share would
be 98% of 5.5%, or only 5.4%.  Or, in other words, the present federal
share of 75% is almost 14 times the proposed federal share of 5.4%.
      With this information, let's go back to Paper No. 4.

      Paper No. 4 proposes extending the July 1977 date of the act.
It would appear not unrealistic to base the time extension on the
inverse ratio of the federal shares, current and proposed, and not
only for the 1977 date, but for the 1983 and 1985 dates as well.
      The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
provided 5 years to meet the 1977 requirements, 11 years to meet
the 1983 requirements, and 13 years to meet the 1985 requirements.
These time allowances, when multiplied by 14, become 70, 154 and
182 years, respectively.  Therefore, the new dates would become:

      For 1977:    1972 plus     70 years  =   2042
      For 1983     1972 plus    154 years  =   2126
      For 1985     1972 plus    182 years  =   2154

      The National Commission on Water Quality was formed in accord-
ance with Section 315 of the Act and was given three years to make
a detailed study of, and submit a report on, the 1983  requirements
of the Act.  The report will apparently not be completed on time,
but should be delivered to Congress by mid-1976.
      In light of the fact that this extensive and required study  is
taking more than three years, how can the  '.anonymous author or
authors of these five papers come up with meaningful amendments to
the Act in so short a time period.
      Further, how could EPA propose any amendments which do not
include the'proposed elimination of the ridiculous industrial  cost
recovery provisions of the Act.
      In summary, if the magnitude of the entire program is beyond
the funding capability of the federal budget, it is likewise beyond
the funding capabilities of local budgets.  Therefore, the act should
be amended by reducing the requirements to attain a more practical
and economically feasible goal.  I have always felt that EPA would
swing the idealistic environmental pendulum back to normal, but I
never thought they proposed to destroy the clock.
                                 John J. Wilburn
                                 Executive Director, Louisville and
                                  Jefferson County Metropolitan   '
                                  Sewer District
                                 400 South Sixth Street
                             ">c. jLouisville,  Kentucky   40203
                             OD f502  587-0591

-------
                          RESOLUTION OF
            THE McCANDLESS TOWNSHIP SANITARY AUTHORITY

      WHEREAS, notice was published in the Federal  Register regarding
certin hearings to be held before the Environmental  Protection Agency
regarding proposals to amend the Federal  Water Pollution Control  Act,
Amendment of 1972 as contained in the 33 USC 1251,  et seq.; and

      WHEREAS, The McCandless Township Sanitary Authority has  had
the privilege and opportunity of being familiar with this Act  and
the great benefits which have resulted from its wise application,
and desires to record the assistance the Act has been in providing
necessary services to many residents in the North Hills  area of the
County of Allegheny in Western Pennsylvania; and

      WHEREAS, this Authority recognizes  a continuing need for
Federal construction grants in order to meet water  quality goals
and to protect public health; and

      WHEREAS, it is appreciative of the declaration of  goals  and
policies of Congress contained in the Act including the  desire for
area wide waste treatment management in order to assure  adequate
control of sources of pollution.

      NOW, Therefore, this Authority does hereby state that is 1s
particularly cognizant of the benefits of the Act as it  commenced a
study in the year 1963 and received a professional  report in regard
to the drainage area designated as the Pine Creek Drainage Area
in the Countyof Allegheny in 1964.  The Authority recognized the
need for municipal cooperation of all  municipalities in  the drainage
basin and was successful in entering into agreements with the
Borough of Bradford Woods, the Borough of Franklin  Park, the Township
of Pine, the Township of Marshall  and the Townshipp  of McCandless
for the furnishing of waste treatment services; and

      The project required the cooperation of all of the aforementioned
municipalities and the County of Allegheny to make  it economically
feasible.  It was accomplished by the County of Allegheny guaranteeing
a $520,000.00 bank loan in order that the engineering could be com-
pleted and construction contracts  awarded and the necessary applica-
tion for grant made under the aforerecited Act.  A  grant for the
sewage plant and interceptors was  approved in 1973  in the amount  of
$7,235,000.00 and construction is  currently under way on said  project
and should be completed in late 1975, the total cost is  $ 10,175,000.00.
In order to make this operation feasible the County  of Allegheny  has
agreed to make a loan in the amount of $1,700,000.00. The balance of

                                      358

-------
the cost is financed by local money.  Said operation is designated
as Phase I of the proposed installations and will serve approximately
5,000 people plus.  In addition it servesNorth Park, a large recreation
area in excess of 3300 acres.  Phase I consists of the 3MGD Sewage
Treatment Plant and 91,000 feet of interceptor sewers ranging in
size from 8" through 42".  The Sewage Treatment Plant is modularly
expandable in 3MGD increments to an ultimate capacity of 12MQD.

      The second Pahse of said project is a collector sewer system
for which application for grant has been made in the amount of
$5,500,000,00.  The application which is pending for Phase II pro-
vides for approximately 288,000 feet of 8" lines costing approxi-
mately $10,000,000.00. It will service approximately 6500 people.
These persons together with the 5000 people served by Phase I will
make waste treatment services available to 11,500 people immediately.
Pine Creek is a tributary of the Allegheny River.  It drains
through North Park Lake, a recreation lake in Allegheny County's
North Park.  Western Pennsylvania is hilly country and this facility
which could be obtained only by means of the grants afforded under
this Act has made, available waste treatment services to an entire
drainage ,basin .(28 square miles) as contemplated under the Congres-
sional declaration of goals and policies.  The experience of this
Authority indicates a need for continuing Federal construction grants.
It further demonstrates that continuing stable Federal  financing
authorization is necessary and that the priority system be utilized
to fund high priority projects rather than by changing eligibilities
under the Federal Act.  Pennsylvania, in accordance with the Act
has established such a priority system acting by and through the
Envriqnmental Quality Board .after public hearings.

      NOW, Therefore, this Authority having the experience aforesaid
and recognizing the need for continuing stable Federal  financing
and the fact that costs will escalate if there is not this stability
does hereby recommend that a continuing Federal financing authoriza-
tion be provided and the priority system be utilized to fund high
priority projects,  this Authority does further recommend that the
administrative procedures under the Act will  be much more efficiently
utilized at the State level due to the familiarity of state officials
with local  problems and state laws.  It further recommends that the
intent of the Act can be best achieved by local initiative with
financial  assistance as presently provided by the Act.

      Further, that officers of this Authority are authorized to appear
before the Environmental  Protection Agency and make a statement
expresssing the position of this Authority.

                                      359

-------
      I certify that I am the duly elected and  acting Secretary of
The McCandless Township Sanitary Authority.   I  further certify that
the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution adopted at
a meeting of the Board of the said Authority June  24, 1975,  as a
full quorum being present.

                                 Chas.  R.  Blazier, Jr.
                                 Secretary
                 STATEMENT OF McCANDLESS TOWNSHIP
                       SANITARY AUTHORITY

                      STATUS OF AUTHORITY

      The McCandless Township Sanitary Authority was  created  under
the Municipality Authorities Act of 1945 of the Commonwealth  of
Pennsylvania.  It is authorized and has among  other powers  the right
to establish a system of sanitary sewers with  necessary  treatment
plant or plants.  Pennsylvania Municipal  Authorities  must finance
projects by nondebt revenue bonds.   They do not have  the power to
pledge the taxing power or the credit of the Commonwealth of  Penn-
sylvania or of any municipality including the  municipality  or munici-
palities by which they are incorporated.   It is essential,  therefore,
that all projects of an authority be economically  feasible  and self-
sustaining or private funds by means of loans  and  bond issues are
not available to it.

      The Resolution to which this  statement is attached gives the
background of the McCandless Township Sanitary Authority insofar as
a present grant is concerned.  In addition it  should  be  pointed out
that the Authority has since 1960 provided santiary sewage  treatment
services for some twenty thousand persons in five  watersheds  in addi-
tion to the Pine Creek Drainage Basin set forth in the Resolution
of the Authority.  It has done this by means of purchase of existing
systems and by construction projects.  This experience extends over
a period of fifteen years.  It was  also the recipient of two  grants
under PL660.  With this background this Authority  presents  the
following comments in regard to the various papers and issues pre-
sented at the hearing scheduled for June 25, 1975.

                           PAPER NO. 1

      McCandless Authority states that any reduction  from the 75%
level to a level as low as 55% would not effectively  serve  the
purposes of the legislation.  The Pine Creek installation referred
to and set forth in the Resolution  to which this paper is attached

                                     360

-------
demonstrates clearly that the project would not have been economically
feasible without the 75% grant.  The rates contemplated for the average
homeowner in the Pine Creek Project approximate $120.00 to $150.00
per year.  A'larger sum would impose an economic hardship and make
difficult the'realization of the system.  A reduced Federal share
would have greatly inhibited the construction of the facilities now
being installed which are estimated to be completed in late 1975.
There would not be the capability in the community to raise addi-
tional funds if the grant had been less than 75%.  As pointed out
in the Resolution the 75% grant was not adequate and it was necessary
that the Authority have an additional loan from the County of
Allegheny in the amount of $1,700,000 in order to achieve feasibility.
In view of the fact that the Authority must operate on a "pay as you
go" basis economies in operation are an absolute essential.  Profess-
ional services are utilized at all stages of the planning and maximum
efficiencies in planning and the greatest possibility in cost reduc-
tion is effected.  None of the Members of the Board receive compensa-
tion as Board Members and their services are donated as a community
service.

      If there were a reduced federal share and this project had been
delayed a continuing pollution of the Pine Creek area would have
had adverse effect on the Allegheny River, thence to the Ohio River
and ultimately to the Mississippi River.  If this were true in the
many communities which drain into the nation's rivers the total
effect would be such that pollution would be accentuated in the
future.  Certainly the best inrerest of all United States is effected
by a continuing policy making possible adequate grants to remove
the most critical situations via the priority system.

                           PAPER NO. 2

      McCandless Township Authority has had to face the problem and
issues presented in Paper No. 2 regarding planning for reserve capa-
city in each of the projects which it has entered and constructed
during more than its 15 years of construction work.  It has adopted
the policy that insofar as it is possible through sewage treatment
plants to build an expandable plant that it would follow this procedure.
This was done, as set forth in the Resolution to which this is attached,
by a modular system of plant construction.  The Authority, however has
recognized the need for a provision for a reasonably adequate reserve
capacity in the construction of mains and interceptors.  Certainly,
in an urban area, well developed, this can be limited by the available
building lots.  In a suburban and semi-rural area such as the area in
which this Authority has operated for almost 20 years, provision must
be made for future use to prevent undue increase in costs at a later
date for construction of duplicate facilities.

                                         361

-------
      Directing discussion to the issues outlined in the notice it
is the opinion of McCandless Authority that the current practices do
not lead to over design of treatment works.  This has been handled
by the McCandless Township Sanitary Authority by using a modular
type of design.  Sufficient ground was obtained to permit the con-
struction of the additional modular units as the same were required.
Design can be controlled on an administrative level  and therefore
legislative change would not be required.  To prohibit eligibility
of growth related reserve capacity would ultimately result in a
tremendous additional  cost to future generations.  Our present tax
structure is such that much of the money which the United States
makes available via grants is borrowed on long term obligations, many
of which will  be paid by future generations.   To now adopt a  policy
which requires them to pay the debt created in this  generation by
taxes orii future generations, and then turn over to those generations
a capital improvement which will  require that those generations spend
considerable additional money in order to increase the capacity of
the system to accommodate their needs, means that those generations
will be paying twice for the same project.

      Certainly insofar as interceptor lines are concerned, many fac-
tors must be considered, including potential  growth.  It is the thought
of McCandless, with almost 20 years experience, that one cannot
arbitrarily pick a given number of years and determine if that is
the period for which the structures and lines shall  be built.  Mc-
Candless has had experience  in the design of lines of limited capa-
city which were over reached at a period much sooner than expected.
This results in backing up of sewers, inconvenience to property
owners, danger to health, and the expenditures of large amounts of
money to correct these conditions.  Certainly a wise policy requires
that the sewers be sized to permit future requirements to be  met.
It should also be pointed out that the installation of sewers in
any area result in extreme inconvenience to the public and diffi-
culties with property owners during construction.  Should this be
inflicted periodically on an area because of a duplication of faci-
lities requirement when the original installation could have  been
an adequate one?

      We would also like to point out that where there is an  overflow
of sewage and contamination and it is absorbed in the ground  there
is great difficulty in areas such as Western Pennsylvania, much of
which has a clay and shale subsoil in having lateral travel of
sewage so that the same appears on roads, streets, and streams and
causes a health problem to children and adults as well over a wide
area.  When this pollution isisorbed in the ground the effect on
future population cannot be foreseen.

                                       362

-------
                           PAPER NO. 3

      The issue adequately points out that there are six types of
projects eligible for construction grants.  Different municipalities
have needs for different provisions set forth in the Act.   It is
suggested that in new construction projects high quality be required
in all contracts so that ultimately items such as III A the correction
of sewer  inflitration inflow, or item III B major sewer rehabilitation
should not become problems on more recently installed systems.  A
possible suggestion might be that the budget of the municipalities
require adequate amounts to be set aside annually to maintain the
systems in a proper state of repair.  The experience of McCandless
Authority in area wide planning proves the cost effective benefits
of this type of planning.  All of the residents in the municipalities
who will receive the services of the McCandless Authority under the
current Pine Creek project set forth in the Resolution are interested
in and receive periodic statements of all matters in connection with
the area wide operation.  It is thought that this type of treatment
in and of itself is aa effective cost cutter in that the sewage
treatment plant can operate on a much more efficient basis and at
a lower cost serving many residents than one which serves only a
limited number of people in a small municipality.  Its experience
in Western Pennsylvania and in talking with other operators of
sewage systems and with municipalities compels McCandless  Authority
to state that a system of priorities for funding projects  should be
continued.

                           PAPER NO. 5

      McCandless Authority feels that the best interests of all
elements of the population in the United States would be served
by delegating a greater portion of the management of the construc-
tion grant program to the State.  It is felt that the time element
involved in securing approvals could be greatly reduced.  The local
State officials certainly know the areas in their States much better.i
than could be expected of anyone who has to look at projects for
many different states.  Certainly the costs should be decreased. If
the role of EPA is that of an over viewer rather than an original
examination and approval role, it will reduce the duplication of
review and approval.  This should reduce the functions and personnel
required of the Federal Government;  It is appreciated that this
will  mean additional costs to the States.  Assuming that the 2% of
the allotment to each State for each fiscal year is adequate it is
felt that the advantages accruing to local municipalities and to
all  of the peoples of the United States warrant adoption of such a


                                      363

-------
policy.  It is thought that all  parts of the construction grant
process should be delegated to the State.   In the opinion of McCandless
this would make the program more efficient without compromising in
any way environmental concerns.   To do this would follow the state-
ment of the Act that the primary responsibility and rights in the
prevention, reduction and elimination of pollution belong in the
states.

                                 Respectfully submitted,

                                 MCCANDLESS TOWNSHIP SANITARY AUTHORITY
                                 By:   The  Chairman

-------
                           June 19, 1975

Honorable Edwin D. Eshelman
1009 Longworth House
Office Building
Washington, D.C.  20510

Sir:

We ha\eread with dismay, certain of the amendments to PL 92-500
proposed by EPA and published in the Federal Register dated May
28, 1975.

Paper #1

A reduction of the federal share of the project by 20% would increase
Myerstown's share by 80% resulting in a substantial  increase in cost
to the Borough.  The objective of encouraging greater accountability
for cost effective design is moot for this project since the pre-
liminary and final engineering have been completed for well  over
a year.  The first objective of this proposed amendment to permit
limited funding to go further, is in direct conflict with the estab-
lishment of project priorities.  It is our belief i that assistance
should be substantial and in accord with priorities  dictated by
water quality standards rather than by the political expediency of
insuring that every project receives the crumbs of federal  partici-
pation.  The Borough of Myerstown, the Borough of Richland,  and the
Townships of Jackson and Mi 11 creek stand opposed to  this amendment.

Paper #2
Although the intent of this amendment is not without merit,  its
application to projects of the size and scope of the Myerstown
Project is not practical  and would cause hardship and unnecessary
expense.  Given the increase in planning and design times  presently
mandated by the administration of PL 92-500, a 10 year growth limit
on plant size has the effect of demanding a conttriuous ; on-going
engineering and planning effort for an indeterminate length  of  time
into the future.  The expense of maintaining such an effort  by  a
municipal  body of our size patently unreasonable.  Retroactive
application of this proposal to the Myerstown Project would  necess-
itate the additional  expense of redesign.  For these reasons, the
Borough of Myerstown, the Borough of Richland, and the Townships of
Jackson and Mi 11 creek stand opposed to this amendment.
                                     365

-------
We ask that you thoughtfully consider our opinions  before  taking
action on these amendments.

                                 Edward H.  Treat-Secretary
                                 Myerstown  Borough,  Lebanon  Co.
                                  Sewer Auth.

cc:  Borough Council
     MBLCSA
     Gilbert Assoc.  Inc.
     File
                                     366

-------
                                 Appendix "A", June 23,  1975

                             SUMMARY

                         STATEMENT OF THE
                     METROPOLITAN SEWER BOARD
                              OF THE
                   TWIN CITIES AREA, MINNESOTA

                              TO THE

              SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS AND REVIEW
                       PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE
               UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        FOR:  HEARING ON THE
                WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT OF 1972

                        APRIL 2, 3, 4, 1974

                 PRESENTED BY:  RICHARD J.  DOUGHERTY
                        CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR
                      METROPOLITAN SEWER BOARD
                     350 METRO SQUARE BUILDING
                    SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA  55101

      I am Richard J. Dougherty, Chief Administrator of  the  Metro-
politan Sewer Board of the Twin Cities Area.  Accompanying me  is
Milton C.  Honsey, our Board Chairman.  I would like to present to
tteiSubcommittee the Board's views and experience with the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1972.

INTRODUCTION.

      For your information, the Metropolitan Sewer Board was created
by the Minnesota State Legislature in 1969  to solve water pollution
problems in the seven-county, 3,000 square  mile Twin Cities  Metro-
politan Area.  The region has a 1973 population of just  over 2 million
people, one-half of Minnesota's population.   The Board was established
as an operating agency of the Metropolitan  Council, the  regional planning
and coordinating agency of government.  The Sewer Board  is charged
with the planning, financing, construction  and operation of  a
regional-scale Metropolitan Disposal  System.  Existing sanitary
districts  and municipally-owned treatment works and interceptors were
purchased to establish this regional  disposal  system.

                                      367

-------
      The Metropolitan Disposal  System presently includes 23 waste-
water treatment plants, all providing a minimum of secondary treat-
ment and ranging in size from 218 million gallons per day down to
100,000.  GD.  The treatment plants are backed up by 450 miles of
interceptors and forcemains, and 42 lift and pumping stations.  The
system, as formed in 1970, consisted of 33 treatment plants.   By 1977,
through a program of consolidation and regionalization,  15 wastewater
treatment facilities will  be in  operation.  The system serves 96
municipalities with a.total sewered population of 1.7 million.  During
1973, an estimated 88.3 billion'gallons of wastewater was treated by
the system.
      Our Annual Operating Budget totals about $28.3 million, and our
current Construction Fund balance for projects completed and  under
construction as of December 31,  1973 totals $156.8 million.   The
approved Capital Improvements Program for the 1974-1978  period contains
35 projects to be constructed at an estimated cost of $206.5  million.
      The goals of the Board are consistent with the intent of
Congress as enacted in the 1972  Water Pollution Control  Act.  Expressed
by our Chairman, when the Agency was formed in 1969, our objectives
amount to the following, and I quote:

           "It is my goal  and the goal  of the Sewer Board to  provide
           this  means for the total abatement of the pollution of
           sewage where it now exists,  and also to provide the means
           for the total abatement of the pollution of sewage where
           it will exist;  and to do this as quickly as practical  and
           as fairly as possible."
                             -*
The budgetary figures above support this concept, as will my  remaining
testimony.
      Shortly before the final passage of the Federal  Water Pollution
Control Act of 1972, the Board's staff reviewed the impact of the
legislation on the Board's operation, planning,  and construction
programs.  The staff determined  to make every effort to  implement
the Act to the fullest extent possible to assist the Board in up-
grading Metropolitan Area waters.  During review, it became clear
that many of the requirements included in the Act were a restatement
of numerous standards already in existence.  It was also apparent
that the Board was already practicing many of the planning and
operating concepts called for in the Act.  Our staff, with Board
approval, determined at that time that the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act of 1972 would be a guide to action in solving water
pollution problems in the Metropolitan Area.  In accepting the
challenges of the Act, the intent of the Board is to achieve  as its
primary goal  the best practicable treatment by 1983.


                                     368

-------
      To quote the words of the late Adlai  Stevenson on the need
to achieve our goals in the area of environmental  controls:
 i                      ,

           "We travel  together on a little  spaceship dependent
           on its vulnerable supply of air  and soil, all  committed
           for our safety through security  and peace, preserved
           from annihilation only by the care, the work,  and I
           will say, the love we give our fragile  craft."

I'm sure that he would fully reocognize the fact that nature,  like
man, cannot cheat on the facts of life and  death.   I am sure he
understood that if we condemn our air a/nd v/water,  and other  re-
courses; then we choose death and it would  make little difference who
destroys these things, for everyone of us will be  condemned to the
consequences.
      The Board has devoted its energies to making the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1972 work.  It is  our judgment after a
year and one-half that the Act is workable, and that it can achieve
the goals intended by Congress. The sponsors of this Bill  deserve
to be congratulated.  We believe it is the   greatest piece of
environmental legislation passed by Congress.
      Lest these words appear hollow, permit me to relate to you
how we have implemented the various provisions of  the Act.   In doing
this, I would commend to you that the Act and the  subsequent guide-
lines issued by the Environmental Portection Agency are not written in
granite from bolts of lightning but are man-made regulations and guide-
lines.  In recognizing the value of the Act and the implementation
efforts of the Environmental Protection Agency, we must also
realize that certain revisions can be accomplished to improve  the
Act and the administrative Rules and Regulations of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency.  But let me relate to you our experience.
      Rather than attempt to read you our entire detailed statement,
I would like to address myself to the Summary, Conclusions and
Recommendations section, and provide you with written copies of the
entire formal -statement.

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

      The Metropolitan Sewer Board's experience with PL 92-500 has been
very positive to date.  The guidelines under the program have  not
provided any major obstacles to the Board.   In fact, many of these
guidelines provide standards of excellence  that should be welcomed
in the waste treatment field.  These are goals that are attainabTe?
and are useful in providing a uniform application  of waste control
nation-wide^that has not been present in the planning, construction,

                                    389

-------
and operation of waste treatment facilities in the private and public
sector to date.  These are needed national  standards to ensure that
waste treatment is carried on in a uniform manner through out the
United States.
      I would now like to make some specific summary comments on
various provisions of the Act.

      1.   The secondary treatment requirement as a minimum treatment
           level is justified and technologically attainable.

      2.   The impoundment and redistribution of funds allocated
           to the States, implementation time to issue all  the guide-
           lines, inflation, material  shortages resulting from the
           energy problems and the necessary planning requirements
           of the Act makes it improbable that except for a few
           communities can we achieve  the 1977 secondary treatment
           level or higher level of treatment in water quality
           designated areas.

      3.   The Board recommends that the 1977 goal  of secondary
           treatment be eliminated and that best practicable treat-
           ment be established as the  goal  for all  communities in
           1983; with a minimum of secondary treatment for all  point
           sources by that date.  These dates may be extended
           proportionately with further impoundments of grant funds.

      4.   The planning requirements of Sections 201, 208,  and 303
           and regional management designations are essential  to the
           carrying out of the intent  of the Act.  The implementa-
           tion after one and one-half years indicates that with
           proper organization and relationship between the various
           levels of government all the planning requirements can
           be carried out.

      5.   The water quality standards as being adopted are certainly
           more stringent than anything in  the past, however, at
           least in our areas and others coming to our attention
           are reasonable goals.  The  time  schedule to achieve these
           standards are in doubt as for 1977, but still achievable
           by the 1983 best practical  treatment goal.  The toxic
           waste standards in the guidelines needs to have further
           review before adoption as some of the levels are not
           practical.

      6.   An incentive-type grant program should be considered by the
      -•-- Congress for both construction and operation of treatment

                                      370

-------
     works to reward early compliance with standards, water
     quality, operating efficiency, and constituent;removals.

7.   There is evidence that insufficient programs and funds
     are being provided for research and development.  The
     real constraint may well be due to the lack of adminis-
     trative efforts by the Environmental  Protection Agency.

8.   The Phase I, II, and III grant procedures are cited as
     being an alternative to the former reimbursement program
     and as a contractual agreement between the Environmental
     Protection Agency and the local governments.  Further,
     this procedure permits prior purchase of essential  equip-
     ment after PhaseII approval, which will prevent needless
     delays and reduce project costs.

9.   Environmental Protection Agency management of all  grant
     programs continues to be timely, consistent and logical.
   ;  Congress is getting an effective and solid management job
     done despite the Administration impoundment restraints.

10.  The reimbursement of projects between 1956 and 1966 is
     inflationary and not needed.  The program has been
     carried out, however, most expeditiously by the Environ-
     mental Protection Agency.  Specific amendment requiring
     the earliest use of reimbursement funds, by local  govern-
     ment, for upgrading sewage treatment plants, sewers or
     appurtenances is suggested.

-11.  On guidelines, I reiterate that secondary treatment
     standards cannot be reached by 1977.   The cost of
     attainment will be higher than expected unless there is
     an acceleration of the program and/or a technological
     and economic breakthrough in treatment process.

12.  User charges and industrial cost recovery pro vis ions
     are acnleveable and to a limited extent already have
     been implemented.  Only minor changes, such as area-
     wide cost recovery rather than project cost recovery
     is needed for regional operation agencies.

13.  The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
     Permit provisions are being developed methodically
     without severe difficulties except for establishment of
     time schedules and water quality assimilation model


                                 371

-------
     programs.   Voiding the 1977 goal  and establishing
     the 1983 goal  by amendment of the Act would resolve
     the existing restraints by allowing reasonable schedule
     to be assigned.

14.  The Act provisions requiring integration  of wastewater
     treatment with solid waste, recycling and by-product;
     development, are now the most exciting parts of the
     Act in view of the energy, inflation and  materials
     shortages.  The  continuity of the overall  programs
     and its goals will buffer the developing  unemployment
     problem.

15.  The river monitoring programs are sound and needed.
     It is our judgment that the Environmental  Protection
     Agency should support such programs of local  govern-
     ments and the United States Geological  Survey to
     develop an integrated flow - quality assessment of  river
     water.  More funds are needed in  this area with USGS
     playing a major  role with the Environmental  Protec-
     tion Agency.

16.  The Annual Survey should be made  but expanded to
     include an Operating Grant Program.  In this way,
     the Survey will  become an effective effort to assure
     the efficient operation of treatment works.   An incen-
     tive type Operating Grant should  be developed by  amend-
     ment to this Section of the Act.   An Operating Grant
     should reflect and be in proportion to flow, efficiency,
     and the constituents removed.

17.  Inflow and infiltration programs  are being carried  out
     in a very methodical and logical  manner by the Environ-
     mental Protection Agency.  The requirements are needed
     and justified.  No delays have been experienced due to
     these requirements or its administration.   The regulator
     program to store inflow data is to be expanded.

18.  Research and Development Programs should  be accelerated
     and more funds made available. A specific program  by
     the Environmental Protection Agency should be developed
     and defined which would encourage contractors to  under-
     take these programs.  It would appear that Regional
     Operating Agencies would be the best source to under-
     take these programs, perhaps as joint ventures with
     equipment manufacturers, both being better equipped to

                                372

-------
           to do the job and jointly making a great team.   The
           Environmental Protection Agency seems to have avoided
           this area of expertise.

      In closing I would observe that the past and present Environ-
mental  Protection Agency Administrators and our Regional Administra-
tor have, in our judgment, carried out their responsibilities  under
the Act in a most timely and sound manner.  Many of their problems,
and what delays that have occurred, are a result of the lack of
inertia, resistance to change, and lack of comprehension of the
broad and total effects of water pollution on the part of those
responsible for the design, construction, operation, and financing
of abatement facilities.  It is our judgment that the Act truly is
a guideline for action, and I think this Committee should be most
reluctant and most careful in making any amendments that would
weaken the Act or the responsibilities of the Administrator.
ROD:km
4.1.74
Exhibits Attached
                                      -* ••)
                                       I J

-------
Mr. David Sabok                                        July 3, 1975
EPA HEADQUARTERS
Wasghinton, D.C.

Municipal Waste Treatment Grants/Public Hearings

EPA has held a series of public hearings concerning proposed changes
to the Municipal Waste Treatment Grants Program.

Specific comments have been requested on five points.  Our comments
are as follows:                             ,

      1.   We feel that a reduction of the federal share of the
           construction cost would be beneficial, because it would
           spread the available money to more municipalities.
           Our position is based on total funding to remain at the
           established level.

      2.   The policy of Federal financing for facilities to serve
           future population should be continued.

      3.   We feel that at least sewage treatment plants and major
           pumps and major pump lines should be eligible for grant
           assistance.

      4.   Instead of extending the date for meeting water quality
           standards, a speed-up in the processing of grant applica-
           tions should be initiated.

      5.   It would be fine to delegate more management of the con-
           struction program to the states, except that any change
           causes confusion and delay in programs.  Therefore, we
           feel it should stay as it is.

Thank you for reviewing our comments.

                                 Very truly yours,

                                 MICHAELS - STIGGINS INCORPORATED

                                 Walter R. Fritz, PE
                                 Vice President

rm
A-B99-190-00

-------
Statement on:  Federal Water Pollution Control Act

By:            GEORGE MILLER
               United States Congressman
               Seventh District

Issued:        July 1, 1975
,-i:  .   . •   .;-;> - . *••  ."     "> '         'i
There is a feeling among many people in California that we are being
prevented from achieving the original goal of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act - that is - the basic clean up of our water.
Unfortunately, we find that in administering the Act, the Federal
and the State Governments have often tied sewage treatment plant
improvements to an entire agenda of related but reasonably separable
environmental issues such as air pollution, urban growth, govern-
mental consolidation and land use planning.
       & .*  , '    '      '      *
There is no argument as to the importance of these and other related
matters, but each is a complex issue not lending itself to an easy
solution. ! However, the logic of tying all of these issues together
seems rather shaky.  There is little reason to believe that we can-
not move forward on each front in a semi-independent manner.  It
is important that we continue to work to achieve success in all
the incremental aspects of the system while keeping sight of the
overall comprehensive relationship between the various parts.  We
have the legislation and the funds to make a good start if we handle
the job properly.
            i    <••    ,        '•','•'
According to the May 28, Federal Register, the recently completed
1974 Needs Survey reported a total of $342 billion for the construc-
tion of all the facilities that are eligible under the Act.  There
can be no expectation whatsoever that this committment could be
made.   It would, therefore, seem reasonable to find the best approach
to achieving the basic intent of the Act, that of upgrading water
quality.
    f
The Needs Survey indicated that about $12.6  billion would be re-
quired to construct secondary treatment plants throughout the
nation.
          •" ', * "•" '' •. i       • f
As a step toward achieving some measure of water quality, the Act
should require-a minimum of secondary treatment for all municipal
and industrial  users and then determine the level of further treat-
ment dependent on the amount of money available and the quality  of
the receiving water.
                                     375

-------
This approach would apply the money in an even basis while also
retaining the ability to attack the worst problems.   This would
also allow the investigation of the complex set of interrelationships
between sewage treatment and other environmental problems to be
investigated at the level of the greatest concern and thus largest
possible impact.

In California, this would allow us to move ahead and develop the
improved treatment facilities that are needed without delaying the
effort with the pretense of solving all  the problems at once.  If
we do not simplify and direct our efforts we are doomed to repeat
our experience so far.

In Contra Costa Cointy, we see the wasting of thousands of dollars
on planning studies that deal with a constantly changing federal
rule making pattern.  We then bog down in questions  that are not
central to providing better and improved sewage treatment plants.
The people of my County are frustrated with the waste of time and
money.  We end up further away from the ultimate solution and prey
to ever-rising construction costs.

As an example of the effort made in Contra Costa County and the
delays we have experienced, I would like to provide  a short
history.

In late 1966, Kaiser Engineers was retained by the State of Cali-
fornia for the purpose of preparing a comprehensive  report on solving
the water pollution problems of the San Francisco Bay Area and the
Sacramento-SanJoaquin Delta Area which included the  County.   >
$3,000,000 was spent in conducting the study with a  final report
entitled The San Francisco Bay-Delta Water Quality Control  Program.
("Kaiser Report") submitted to the California Legislature in June
1969.

In Contra Costa County the recommended construction  was a regional
facility located in the westerly portion of the County which would
receive all sewage from major interceptor sewers for treatment and
eventual discharge to Central San Francisco Bay.
Two things have happened with the report:
      1.   The Bay Area communities that were affected by the
           report almost found the report unreal  and almost uni-
           versally rejected its conclusions.
                                   376

-------
      2.   The Federal Government ignored the Kaiser Report and
           participated in a 40-50 million dollars expansion of
           the Central Costa County Sanitary District in the central
           part of the County.

Since the Kaiser Report, the County has undertaken two more reports
at a cost of $165,000 in an effort to satisfy the Federal  Government.
Both reports started out under the existing regulations but had to
be abandoned on completion due to a change in the federal  guidelines.

At the present time the County is again trying to meet the State
requirements with three separate area studies at a total  price tag
of over $500,000.  All three of the studies are under the  present
Federal/EPA guidelines with the participation of EPA representatives
at each step of the process.  And again there is the hint  of a
further change in the ground rules by EPA that would obviate major
portions of the work!

What this really means is that we have been doing planning studies
since 1966, with no guarantee that we are through it.

In terms of the five issues that are under consideration at this
time I will make the following comments:

      1.   Reduction of the Federal  Share from 75% to 55%.
           It should be clear to everyone that this issue  would
           cause the cancellation of most of the Projects  now under
           consideration.  In California, the cities just  cannot
           afford the vast amounts of money that would be  re-
           quired if the Federal share were to be reduced.  In
           fact, in the Eastern part of my county, the cities will
           be hard pressed to raise  their existing 25% share.
           No one has to be reminded of the affect of inflation
           but we must not forget that this has a double effect on
           local government with the demand for higher wages and
           material costs and the refusal  of the taxpayer  to pay
           additional taxes.  I feel  that the reduction of the
           Federal  share would destroy any chance we might now
           have to  move ahead with the program.

      2.   Limiting Federal Funding  of Reserve Capacity.
           My proposal of secondary  treatment facilities as a
           minimum speaks to the questions raised by this  section
           and balances the concern  for equitable use of federal
           funds and the need to attack major areas of need.  •

                                    377

-------
4.   Extending the 1977 Date for the Publicly Owned Treatment
     Facilities to Meet Mater Quality Standards.
     One of the key considerations in establishing a waste-
     water management program is the treatment of industrial
     discharges along with municipal discharges.   The manner
     in which industry has been forced to meet "1977 dead-
     line" practically eliminates their cooperation in
     joining with public communities formulating  a waste-
     water program.  It is the present situation  in Contra
     Costa County that industry has already  spent tens of
     millions of dollars on upgrading their  treatment faci-
     lities and, therefore, quite understandably  is now reluctant
     to join into waste water management program  with public
     agencies that have an indeterminate completion time.
     Now that these monies have already been spent, or are
     in the process of being spent, it is virtually impossible
     to show that a joint municipal industrial  wastewater
     program is capable of being effected.

     Is it not quite apparent that many municipalities and
     communities throughout the nation are not going to be
     able to meet the "1977 deadline".  The  only  possible
     solution is to:

     "Seek statutory amendments that would maintain the
     1977 date but would provide the Administrator with
     discretion to grant compliance schedule extension of  an
     ad hoc basis based upon the availability of  federal funds".

5.   Delegating a Greater Portion of the Management of
     Construction Grants Program to the State.
     It has been our experience in Contra Costa County that
     we have been stymied in obtaining funds for  the construc-
     tion of wastewater management facilities.   It is not
     clear whether or not more power or authority in adminis-
     tering the Act should be vested with the states unless
     the states are given a clear mandate to act.  It would
     appear to me that any legislation should include within
     its provisions a clear direction with respect to the
     administration of the Act.

     The direction of efforts toward secondary treatment would
     give the state a clear mandate for action.  In addition,
     the states are in a unique position to  determine the
     analysis of further treatment required  due to receiving
     water quality.
                                 378

-------
It is not time now to dwell on whose fault it may be that we are
without a fully effective program at this time.   It is important
to get on with the job as soon as possible.

It seems to me that the best approach is concentrating on performing
that aspect of the job that is basic to the overall problem and
then deal with the more complex aspects in a specific case by case
manner.

What this means, then, is providing secondary treatment as a minimum
federal standard and then dealing with the problems of tertiary
treatment, collector and interceptor sewers, inflow/infiltration,
and consolidation in terms of the quality demands of the receiving
waters.

If we  take this approach I am confident we can move ahead toward the
original intent of the Act and still retain the ability to deal  with
the entire realm of environmental problems that face us today.
                                      379

-------
                          June 30, 1975

Mr. James L. Agee
Assistant Administrator
 for Water and Hazardous Materials
(WH 566)
Room 1033
West Tower, Waterside Mall
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D. C.

Dear Mr. Agee:

Subject:  Potential Legislative Amendments to the Federal  Water
          Pollution Control Act

In regard to the discussion papers published in the May 28th Federal
Register, the Department of Environmental  Protection takes the
following positions:

      1.   Do not reduce the Federal  share of the funding of grant
projects below 75%.  Leave the Federal  share as is.

      2.   Do not limit Federal financing  to serve only the needs
of existing populations.  We believe that  wastewater treatment
facilities should be designed for a 20  year life and that inter-
ceptor sewers should be designed for a  50  year life as ifc presently
done.

      3.   We believe that the present  eligibilities should remain
as they are.  States should be allowed  to  assign priority to which
categories are funded with Federal funds.

      4.   We believe that the 1977 deadline for municipalities to
achieve secondary treatment and compliance with State water quality
standards should be extended on a case-by-case basis.

      5.   We believe that the State's  role should be increased in
the following areas:

           a. Plans & specs review
           b. I/I review
           c. Change Orders review
           d. Facilities Plan review
                                    380

-------
We do not believe EPA's  role should be decreased  in the following
categories:

      1.   Auditing for  partial  payments  and  final payments

      2.   Construction  inspections

      3.   0 & M Manual  review

                                 Very truly yours,

                                 William  R. Adams, Jr.
                                 Commissioner

DAP: sib
cc:   John McGlennon
      Lester Sutton
      Stuart Peterson
                                       381

-------
                           July 7, 1975

Mr. James L. Agee
Assistant Administrator for Water
 ans Hazardous Materials
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.  20460

Dear Mr. Agee:

This statement is in response to the five potential  legislative
amendments to the Federal  Water Pollution Control  Act Amendments
of 1972 as outlined in the Federal Register of May 28, 1975.

Public Law (PL) 92-500 has greatly impacted Minnesota's water
pollution control program.  In implementing the provisions  of PL
92-500, Minnesota has embarked on an aggressive program through
revisions to state law, staffing of the Pollution  Control Agency,
and the adoption of regulations and policies by the Pollution
Control Agency Boards.  Minnesota's success in implementing these
programs is evidenced by the issuance of over 90%  of the required
permits under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination  System
(NPDES) permit program, and the current status of  expenditure of
construction grant funds allocated to Minnesota; i.e., 100% of the
FY 1974 allotment has been obligated and approximately 92%  of the
FY 1975 money has been obligated (as of July 1, 1975, $5,973,212 remained
out of the total  FY 1974 and 1975 allotment to Minnesota of $125,204,300).

As indicated by the 1974 National Needs Survey, Minnesota has over
$1.4 billion in needs for wastewater treatment facilities.   In an
attempt to resolve these needs, top priority has been assigned to
the construction grant program.  Minnesota's FY 1976 Municipal
Project List (revised after the release of the impounded funds, of
which Minnesota's share will be approximately $172,000,000) contains
some 75 projects which we intend to process expeditiously.   We
continue to maintain that the FY 1976 funds are the result  of illegal
withholding and as such, should not be substituted for a congressional
appropriation to continue the wastewater treatment program.  This
Agency recognizes, however, that the possibility of an appropriation
of funds over and above the release level is probably not realistic
at this time.

While our comments follow concerning the five potential legislative
amendments to PL 92-500, our primary and overriding concern is the
existence of the FY 1977 authorization.  We feel Minnesota  has demon-
strated its effective and efficient operation of the construction

                                    382

-------
grants program and it should be allowed to continue to resolve the
pollution problems of the state.  A review of the status of the
expenditures of construction grants nationally indicate Minnesota
is one of the leaders in this regard.  We understand some $12 billion
of the $18 billion initially authorized under PL 92-500 remains to
be spent.  We feel strongly that this was the result of EPA procedures
and possibly the ineffectiveness of other state programs.  Those
states attempting to implement the requirements of provisions of
PL 92-500 should not be penalized by reduction or elimination of
an FY 1977 authorization.   Minnesota would be capable of immediately
utilizing any FY 1977 authorization.  We request, consequently, the
EPA and the Administration to request Congress to appropriate at
least $7 billion in FY 1977 for the wastewater treatment program,
or that portion of the FY 1975 appropriation that can be utilized
nationally by the states, like Minnesota, capable of distributing
these funds.  We further request the EPA to support continued
Congressional funding of this program through, at least, FY 1979,
at levels at least of $7 billion a year.  Only with these continued
federal dollars can the promise of the FWPCA of 1972 for municipal
treatment be even partially fulfilled.

Our specific comments relative to the five potential legislative
amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act follow:
                                                                    •'
PAPER #1 - REDUCTION OF THE FEDERAL SHARE.

We oppose any reduction of the current 75% federal share for the
following reasons:

(a)  The criteria required for developing the priority listings or
municipal discharge inventory and needs and the municipal project
list weighs heavily in the favor of large municipalities.  As a
result, in Minnesota, a state dominated by a large majority of
small municipalities, the bulk of the state's allotments under PL
92-500 have gone to the large metropolitan areas.  To now reduce the
federal share, would severely impact these smaller municipalities.
Indeed a reduction from 85% to 50% for many small or larger munici-
palities may makd it Mterally impossible for them to afford the
cost of waste treatment.

(b)  If indeed, the nation has needs in the range of $350 billion
any proposed reduction of the federal share in the range discussed
would not, it seems, result in a dramatic increase in project
construction.
                                 383

-------
(c)  We are concerned that such a reduction of the federal share
may be accompanied by a similar reduction in federal appropriations
for this program.  This obviously would severely slow the program
and would be disasterous in light of the staggering needs across
the nation and in Minnesota.

(d)  Optimization of the procedures used to obligate grant monies
may facilitate disbursement to the point where substantial cost
savings would be affected, due to the reduction of the inflation
costs.

(e)  How would such a reduction impact cost recovery programs -
especially those developed and agreed to during the FY 1973 to 1975
period?

(f)  We do not feel the reduction of the federal  share and the resul-
tant increased local share would impact in any way, the current cost
effectiveness analysis done for project design and construction.

(g)  The existence of a 15% state grant has financially assisted
Minnesota municipalities in the construction of these facilities
(local share is 10%).  The Minnesota Legislature  has to date appro-
priated $95 million for this state's grant program.  Expansion or
continuation of the state grant program cannot be guaranteed.  The
remaining portion then, above the federal  share,  may have to be
carried by the local municipality.  It has been our experience that
a 45% or even a 25% share can cause severe financial burdens on
municipalities since these funds must be raised by local  levies,
particularly the regressive property tax.   These  financial burdens
could result in abandonment of the project.

PAPER #2 - LIMITING FEDERAL FUNDING OF RESERVE CAPACITY TO SERVE
           PROJECTED GROWTH

We know of no  situations in Minnesota where exorbitant reserve
capacity has been approved.  We feel that it is practical to design
sewer systems for the generally accepted 50 year design life.  For
situations where waste treatment facilities must  be built where there
seems to be no apparent controversy over effluent quality standards or
dramatic population shifts or industrial growth projected, we feel
that it is cost effective to design for the currently used 20 year
design life.  If unique situations do exist, a modular approach may
be beneficial.  The additional cost and environmental disruption
for providing parallel interceptor facilities or duplicate treatment
facilities at some future date in order to reduce the cost today
seems highly impractical.
                                     38?*

-------
We do believe that if this is a problem in other states, the EPA
ought to undertake a broad study to determine methods for address-
ing the particular reasons, rather than amending PL 92-500 to address
a localized problem.

      PAPER #3 - RESTRICTING THE TYPES OF PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR
                 GRANT ASSISTANCE.

In December of 1973, by virtue of the overwhelming needs in this
state, compared to the limited amount of federal construction grant
money available, a policy was adopted by the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency to fund the construction of waste treatment facili-
ties in the following priority order:

(1)  Sewage Treatment Works and Related Major Interceptors to Eliminate
Inadequate Sewage Treatment Facilities and Immediate Health Hazard.

(2)  Waste Treatment Works for Municipal Water Treatment Plants and
Power Plants (This category has since been ruled ineligible by EPA).

(3)  Other Interceptors.

(4)  Sanitary Sewer Systems, Sewer Separation, Combined Sewer and/or
Combined Storm Water Treatment Works, ets.

As this was consistent with previous priority systems, we have not
experienced major problems with this policy.  We feel  strongly that:
(a) the state ought to be allowed continued discretion in determining
the type of projects to be funded, so as to optimize pollution abatement.
For example, a collection system for a small community where a
severe health hazard problem may be considered grant eligible if
other funding sources are not available; (b) the elimination of some
portion of a system from eligibility may make the overall project
beyond the financial capability of the municipality.   This  situation
may become particularly prominent if the reduction of the federal
share discussed in Paper #1 is realized.

      PAPER #4 - EXTENDING 1.977 DATE FOR THE PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT
                 WORKS TO MEET WATER QUALITY STANDARDS.

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Board has adopted a policy,
consistent with EPA policy, of suspending enforcement action against
those municipalities not sufficiently high on the municipal  needs
list to receive funding.  As a result, NPDES permits  were issued to
those municipalities setting forth interim effluent limits and an
expiration date prior to the June 30, 1977 deadline.   It would seem

                                   385

-------
prudent, that the 1977 deadline be extended,  but only on a case by
case basis, where a good faith effort has been put forth by the muni-
cipality.  Consderation ought to be given to  that prior to the June
30, 1977 deadline, a new permit be issued for all  such municipalities
containing a revised schedule,  based on anticipated funding level.
                                                     y •    * • >

PAPER #5 - DELEGATING A GREATER PORTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF THE
           CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM TO THE STATES.

While the relationship between the Minnesota  Pollution Control  Agency
and the Region V Construction Grants Branch has been excellent, 'some
of the tasks could be readily accomplished singularly by the]state.
Generally, we would be in favor of a program  to delegate the manage-
ment of the construction grants program, providing assurance could
be given for sufficient staffing for the state agencies either through
106 program grant monies or other legislative amendments /similar
to the Cleveland-Wright Bill which would facilitate reimbursement
to the state for those tasks currently accomplished by the EPA. We
do feel that a phased delegation would be prudent for the EPA,  to
ensure consistency of the program, and for the states to adequately
train staff in administration of the program  in those areas currently
conducted by the EPA.  Should commitments for financial  assistance
to the states not be possible, consideration  ought to be given to
flexibility in delegation so as to maintain the current mix of
federal/state activities while states attempt to qualify for the
delegation.

In summary as indicated previously, we cannot over emphasize our
concern over the continuation of the funding  of PL 92-500, as a
minimum at $7 billion per year through FY 1979.  We are concerned
that delays in the disbursement of funds in other states may detri-
mentally impact the program nationally, and in turn, penalize the
states, such as Minnesota, that have been able to adapt their programs
in the wake of PL 92-500 to facilitate the water pollution abatement
program so important to the State of Minnesota.

I would appreciate being informed of any recommendations the EPA
makes to the Congress on amendments to^the FWPCA.

                                 Sincerely,

                                 PETER L. GOVE
                                 Executive Director
                                 386

-------
Distribution:
      The Honorable Wendell  R.  Anderson,  Governor of Minnesota
      Representative Jim Oberstar
      Representative Tom Hagedorn
      Representative Joseph  E.  Karth
      Representative Richard Nolan
      Representative Albert  H.  Qui
      Representative William Frenzel
      Representative Donald  M.  Fraser
      Representative Richard Bergland
      Senator Hubert H.  Humphrey
      Senator Walter F.  Mondale
      Mr. Harold D. Field, Jr., Chairman, MPCA  Board
      Mrs. Marion Watson, Vice  Chairman,  MPCA Board
      Dr. Howard Andersen,MPCA  Board
      Ms. Carol  Buckmann, MPCA  Board
      Mr. Art Engelbrecht, MPCA Board
      Mr. Steve J. Gadler, MPCA Board
      Mr. Joseph F. Grinnell, MPGA Board
      Mr. Burton Genis,  MPCA Board
      Mr. David F. Zentner,  MPCA Board
      Congressman Robert Jones, Chairman, House Public Works Committee
      Senator Jennings Randolph, Chairman, Senate Public Works Committee
                                387

-------
June 30, 1975

Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials (WH-556)
Room 1033, West Tower, Waterside Mall
401 "M" Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.   20460

Re:  Potential Legislative Amendments  to P.L.  92-500

Gentlemen:

We appreciate the opportunity to respond to your request for public
reaction to the proposals enunciated by OMB.  The comments herein were
authorized by formal action of the Professional  Engineers in Private
Practice Division, MSPE at its annual  meeting  on June 19, 1975,  and
by the Board of Directors, MSPE during its annual meeting onsJune 20,
1975.

We are first of all concerned that any major change in the law and/
or regulations promulgated thereunder  could well have an inherent ad-
verse effect in maintaining momentum in the pollution abatement  program.
Therefore, any changes should be made  in terms of minimum disruptive
effect.                                                       ,

Also, any changes that are retrogressive in terms of Federal  financial
participation place the Government in  a position of having dictated
the establishment of a program it then is not  willing to financially
support as earlier committed.'

With these comments in mind, we respond to the five proposals as
follows:

      No. 1 - Reduction of Federal Share
      There should be no reduction of  the Federal share, the Federal
      government having initiated a comprehensive program and estab-
      lished a pattern of financing.  It could be argued that alter-
      natively a reasonable reduction  in selected categories could
      be made; however, taking into account previous Federal  commit-
      ments, local financing problems, impact  on meeting the completion
      date, etc., any reduction would  be counter productive in meeting
      the objectives of the program and financially disruptive to al-
      ready hard-pressed local  governments.

      No. 2 - Limiting Federal  Funding of Reserve Capacity

      Funding of reserve capacity to serve projected growth could
      possibly be limited, but only trn terms of  the criteria for

-------
      the pertinent growth projections.  In any event, allowance for
      anticipated growth must be built into the system on a logical,
      economically sound basis.  To do otherwise would be to find
      some systems undersized at the outset of operation, and many
      others with overly expensive additions required shortly there-
      after, thereby adding to the ultimate financial burden on the
      nation.

      No. 3 - Restricting Types of Eligible Projects   '
                                     p»	 	  j ^

      Restricting the types of projects eligible for grant assistance
      is basically illogical, in that the objectives of pollution
      abatement will need to be met in different ways under varying
      local circumstances.  Furthermore, such an approach could en-
      courage grantees to opt for a program less cost effective in
      order to obtain grant assistance.

      No. 4 - Extending 1977 Deadline

      The law should be amended so as to maintain the objective 1977
      date, but provide the Administrator with some discretion in
      granting extensions to the compliance schedule on the basis of
      the limited availability of Federal funds.  Alternatively a gen-
      eral 2 or 3 year extension could be applied, but this could re-
      sult in slowing down the program by those grantees otherwise
      able to move ahead.

      No. 5 * Delegating Management to the States

      A greater portion of the management of the grants program should
      be delegated to the States, recognizing the need for a realistic
      process so that the overall program will not be slowed.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

                                 Sincerely,

                                 MISSOURI SOCIETY OF PROFESSIONAL
                                 ENGINEERS

                                 Thomas C. Kirkwood, P.E.

TCK/js
                                     383

-------
June 30, 1975

Mr. James L. Agee
Assistant Administrator for
  Water and Hazardous Materials (WH-556)
Environmental Protection Agency
Room 1033, West Tower, Waterside Mall
401 "M" Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.   20460

Re:  Proposed Amendments
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act
                                       i
Dear Mr. Agee:

We have made a thorough study of the proposed amendments by analyzing
the five papers that were prepared for discussion purposes, and by
participation at the hearing held in Kansas City, Missouri.  We are
firmly convinced that a reduction in the Federal  share would be a most
serious regression from an objective, once considered to be very im-
portant, namely, "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the Nation's waters".  Given the demonstrated
inability of Local and State government to significantly increase the
level of revenue, and therefore essential services, and given the
examples of the Federal government being obliged  to step  in with Gen-
eral Revenue Sharing, and with a myriad of grant  programs to satisfy
needs that are not nearly so critical to our health and well-being
as the subject Act, how can anyone suggest that citizens will flock
to the polls to vote increased support for State  and Local  programs to
improve wastewater collection and treatment.  It  is impossible to con-
ceive of public willingness to assume a larger financial burden, par-
ticularly where  there is an existing system that gives the appearance
of functioning (perhaps by simply allowing  the wastewater to dis-
appear from sight).  The Local level is the only  place where citizens
have a direct opportunity to approve or disapprove of tax questions
and there is a rather convincing record of rejection of increased
financial burden, regardless of the merit of the  proposed program.

Our recommendation, therefore, would be to present Congress with the
true picture of needs and the required funds, and follow our existing
pilot program with a combination of funds and regulations that are
truly designed to meet the aforementioned objective.  Only the Federal
government can muster the resources necessary for a task of this mag-
nitude and Congress has in the past evidenced a willingness to deal
with this issue, so it seems only logical to look to them for the

                                      390

-------
June 30, 1975

Following a bona fide effort to meet the issue head on and go for the
solution, consideration can be given to trimming the Federal contribu-
tion in ways that will not endanger realization of the objectives.  If
the Federal participation in the funding of reserve capacity is restric-
ted, the locality must be allowed the option to build additional  re-
serve capacity at their own expense.  We would concur with the sugges-
tion that secondary treatment plants, tertiary treatment plants,  and
interceptor sewers retain the top priority in receiving the present
full level of Federal participation.  As far as the question of the ex-
tension of the 1977 date for publicly owned pretreatment works to meet
water quality standards is concerned, the question is rather academic.
At the present rate of funding and processing, this date would appear
quite unrealistic.  Finally, if the States are to be given greater
responsibility for the management of the construction grants program,
the funds, as well as the time for additional staffing, must be pro-
vided.  There is frequent evidence that the State of Missouri cannot
perform its responsibilities with its present force, which results
in a tragic delay of projects.  Most certainly this dual role and re-
sponsibility for administering the program must be brought to an end.
The delays brought about by the excesses in monitoring by the EPA and
the State add tremendously to the cost of accomplishing the objective.

In conclusion, let us work to make the program sufficient to the task,
rather than to calculate how the task can be tailored to fit a modest
unambitious budget.

The five papers were well prepared, thought-provoking, and beneficial
to the consideration of the questions.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

                                 Sincerely,

                                 HOWARD 6. MOORE COMPANY, INC.
                                 CONSULTING ENGINEERS

                                 Carl D. Carlson
                                 Project Coordinator

CDC/dc
                                       391

-------
July  2, 1975

Mr. David K. Sabock
Office of Waste and Hazardous Materials
Room  1033 West Tower
401 "M" Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.

Dear  Mr. Sabock:
                                             i

According to the Federal Register the Environmental Protection Agency
is considering several legislative amendments to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act which would cut back the federal grant share from
the present 75/25 to a 55/45 match.  In addition, it seems EPA proposes
to cut down on reserve capacity to bare minimums (i.e., construction
for existing populations) and to increase the amount of managerial and
financial responsibilities of states and local communities.

Some  of these proposed actions on the part of EPA are distressing and
do not seem timely.  Massachusetts, like most other states, is having
severe financial problems.  It would be impossible for the State to
fulfill its obligations necessary to meet the mandate of the Act if
these changes go into effect.  Either EPA must continue at its current
funding levels, or a severe cut back in the construction of badly
needed pollution control facilities must occur.

I am  enclosing a copy of the statement of Secretary Evelyn F. Murphy
of the Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs in re-
gard  to these amendments.  I strongly endorse these comments concern-
ing the proposed EPA cut backs, and hope you will review and weigh
the implications of such actions on the part of the agency.

                                 Sincerely,

                                 Michael S. Dukakis

cc:   John A.S. McGlennon, Regional Administrator

             Statement by Evelyn F. Murphy, Secretary
            Executive Office of Environmental Affairs,
                   Commonwealth of Massachusetts
             Concerning the Proposed Amendments to the
             Federal Sewerage Treatment Grant Program

Since the 1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
Massachusetts and the Environmental Protection Agency have dramatically
39
                                       2

-------
expanded the state water pollution control program.  In 1971, con-
struction contracts awarded in Massachusetts amounted to $53 million.
By 1973, this amount more than doubled to $126 million.

The Massachusetts construction grant program for 1976-1977 totals more
than $350 million on federal dollars.                           '".
                               i                                  i

Despite this growth in the program, projected n|ee
-------
First, as provided for under the Act, a state should have primary re-
sponsibility for its waste water treatment program.   We should be
moving in the direction of states assuming more of the program require-
ments and minimizing the addition of new federal  requirements.  To
meet the Congressional timetable, we must keep the process as simple
and flexible as possible.

Second, we must take advantage of this opportunity to improve both the
environment and the economy.  Too often we have played one interest off
the other and seen no progress.  The waste water treatment programs
remain the best example of compatible environmental  and economic invest-
ments.

Third, many of the EPA proposed amendments are directed at reducing the
federal share of financial assistance.  Although all  levels of govern-
ment must meet stringent fiscal targets, reducing the federal  share at
this time would be disasterous.  Older cities, where the major treatment
problems are located, have been hit the hardest by unemployment and
rising costs.  The state government also has  reached its limit.

This year, Massachusetts taxpayers are being  asked to support $600
million in new taxes and bonds just to meet the current State deficit.
By reducing the federal share, the State waste water treatment program
would come to a half for many of the priority areas.

Finally, we must resist efforts which promise to upset program contin-
uity.  The Federal Act is only a few years old and realistic priority
programs are being developed.  It would be a  major mistake to change
the basic ground rules now.

The following is a more detailed reponse to the EPA  proposed amendments.
Where we disagree, we have proposed workable  alternatives.   Where we
can agree with the proposals, specific suggestions have been made in
support of EPA.

REDUCTION OF THE FEDERAL SHARE FOR CONSTRUCTION GRANTS

The proposal to reduce the federal share from 75% to 55% is based upon
two misleading arguments.  The EPA argues that the 1974 Needs study
has indicated that $349 billion is needed across the country, an
estimate which can't be accommodated in the federal  budget.

The '74 Needs study should not be used to determine fiscal  limits,
since it includes treatment or control over stormwaters.  The cost of
stormwater control is considerable,  Massachusetts indicated in 1974

                                     39*

-------
that a total of, $6.1 billion was needed, but $3.1 billion of this was
for stormwater cbntrol.

When eliminating the cost of this item from the national Needs
estimate the $349 billion is reduced to $121 billion.             i
                                   , •!                          :    '' i
The federal proposal to /reduce its jSjhare is;also based upon anj interest
to promote design efficiency.,  ERA ffindicates that! by increasing th6
State and local investment there will be greater incentive to develop
cost-effective designs and improve! project management.
                               '••'•"  '     '      /'   l< '••/             I
We should not rely upon fiscal controls to solve design and management;
problems.  In almost all cases these problems are/engineering prob-
lems requiring engineering solutions.             .. ' ,

In response to the specific questions relating to this proposal as out-
lined in the Federal Register, we offer the following:

1.  The reduced federal share would inhibit and delay construction.
Examples of major projects in Massachusetts which would be jeopardized
include:  MDC priority improvements ($1 billion), and projects in the
cities of Lynn ($40 million), Lower (Phase II -- $50 million), Fall
River ($30 million) and New Bedford ($30 million).

2.  Neither the State nor the municipalities which would be affected
by the proposed federal cut, could assume a larger share at this time.
Most of the cities in Massachusetts are located in older urban areas
which already have the highest unemployment rates in the State.  Many
of these cities can barely meet their share of the planning requirements.
Continuity of the entire program would be disrupted if the proposal
were approved.

The Commonwealth is not better off.  Massachusetts tax payers have never
been faced with a larger state deficit.

3.  The proposed reduced share would not lead to greater accountabili-
ty to improve cost-effective design, project management and post-
construction operation and maintenance.

In our opinion, the programs for plan review, construction and operation-
al supervision must be expanded, in order to assure best use of state,
local, and federal funds; but within available resources much attention
has been paid to cost-effective designs, and regionalized programs have
been developed in many areas.  We strongly disagree with any conclusions
that significant sums are wasted through overdesign, or poor design.

The current federal share must be maintained just to keep pace with in-
flation, labor demands and other new requirements.

                                        395

-------
In the end, a reduced federal share will only encourage inadequate
facilities.

4.  A reduced federal share would adversely impact the goals of the
Act and water quality standards.  With a stoppage and slowdown of con-
struction, litigation can be expected, presenting further delays in
meeting the Act's timetable.  In all likelihood, the federal standards
and deadlines could not be met if the amendment were approved.

In response to this proposal we urge consideration of two recommendations.
First, if the '74 Needs study is to be used for identifying priorities,
category VI should not be included.  Until  waste water treatment is
provided for, stormwaters programs should be placed at a lower priori-
ty.  Second, if the federal share must be reduced, one possibility is
to reduce the federal share for category IV-A, Collector Sewers.  An
agreeable compromise would be to revert back to the 50% federal  fund-
ing for that category which was provided for when the program was ad-
ministered by HUD.

LIMITING FEDERAL FUNDING OF RESERVE CAPACITY TO SERVE PROJECTED
GROWTH

EPA's proposal to limit the size of eligible reserve capacity is short-
sighted.  Although federal monies may be saved in the short run,
over the long-term projects will be much more expensive to the taxpayer.
Moreover, by restricting the flexibility of states to provide reserve
capacity, more careful design will not be encouraged.

In Massachusetts, much effort is now being  made to develop a comprehen-
sive 208 areawide planning program.  This program will  be integrated
into a statewide land use plan and be made  consistent with economic
development plans and other environmental plans, such as Air Quality
Maintenance Planning, which are currently being prepared.

In response to the specific points raised by the EPA in proposing
this amendment,  the following can be said:

1.  The economies of scale in constructing  treatment plants could be
lost with this proposal.  The costs of installing a 12-inch sewer pipe
compared to a 16-inch sewer pipe, for example, is insignificant.  The
real costs are involved in trench digging and disrupting streets, not
in providing reserve capacity.  The increment of cost which would be
saved by trimming reserve capacity amounts  to very little.  Long-term
development costs will be greatly increased.

In addition, many of the treatment plants are supported by bond pro-
grams which require the life of the facility to at least match the
life of the bonds.  In Massachusetts,^g^tment plants are designed

-------
to accomodate a 25-year growth, with provision for expansion -- a typi-
cal time span required by most bonding programs.

2.  Current federal practice does not lead to overdesign for treatment
plants nor does it encourage underdesign.  The present system provides
states with enough{flexibility to make sound engineering and planning
judgments.  By tightening restrictions over reserve capacity, EPA
will only interfere with the ability of the State to make sound judg-
ments on a case-by-case basis.

3.  By issuing restrictions on reserve capacity, secondary environment-
al impacts will not be alleviated.  In general, reserve capacity con-
straints will worsen water quality.

4.  Very few, if any, municipalities, for reasons already discussed,
could fund the growth-related reserve capacity.

RESTRICTING TYPES OF PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR GRANT ASSISTANCE

The Commonwealth also takes exception to amendments'aimed at reducing
the list of eligible projects.  Here again we would discourage efforts
which try to "force" efficiency by issuing uniform, tighter restric-
tions on the use of grant monies.

Simply by reducing the list of eligible projects we will not encourage
wiser investment decisions or produce a more effective priority system.

We also disagree that this would encourage state and local self-
sufficiency, as suggested by the proposed amendment.

Instead, restricting the list of eligible projects will tie the hands
of states which have special problems.  While some states may need
collection systems, others may need more treatment plants.  In Massa-
chusetts, we need both.  Considerations of this type must be left up
to states, not mandated by federal law.

EXTENDING ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS THE 1977 DEADLINE FOR MUNICIPALITIES
TO ACHIEVE SECONDARY TREATMENT AND STATE- WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

EPA has offered five alternatives for discussing means tb'deal with
the probability that the 1977 deadlines won't be met in many of our
large urban areas.

Based upon our experience in Massachusetts, we believe the 1977 dead-
line should be retained but allowance Should be given for providing
extensions on a case-by-case basis.

                                            397

-------
In addition, in many cases it may make sense to require some industries
to meet the 1977 deadlines while some municipalities may be granted
extensions.  The basis for judgment in these cases should be straight
forward.  If an industry is not tying into a municipal  system it may
be possible to meet the 1977 deadline.  Where an industry is tying
into a city system and it has been given an extension,  so will  the
industry (except for pretreatment requirements).

DELEGATING GREATER PORTION OF MANAGEMENT TO STATES

We support efforts by EPA to delegate more responsibility to states.
It's in this area that the lead time for plant construction can be
reduced significantly.

In Massachusetts, the State performs almost all of the  necessary actions
under the existing arrangement.  Practically all of the functions
outlined in H.R. 2175 are being performed by the State.  On the other
hand, most of these duties also require some action by  the Regional
EPA office.  By minimizing the EPA role we can reduce much of the
duplication which presently exists.

In the end, this will reduce the time required for plan review and
approval.  For example, in the recent task force report issued by EPA
on streamlining the grant process, it states that the average time for
EPA application approval is three months.  Specifically, the EPA's
role should be limited to addressing federal environmental  impact and
equal opportunity requirements.

Again, we should be moving in the direction which transfers to states
and municipalities as much responsibility as can be made possible
under a national program.  Efforts by EPA to provide states with the
resources to take over more of the program's administration will re-
ceive the full support and cooperation of Massachusetts.
                                       393

-------
CHARLES B. KAISER, JR.
GENERAL COUNSEL
METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT
JUNE 17, 1975

The Environmental Protection Agency's public hearing in Kansas City,
Missouri on five topics for which proposed amendments have been made
to Public Law 92-500 Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

      My name is Charles B. Kaiser, Jr.  I'm General Counsel for the
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District and also Chairman of the Legis-
lative Committee of the Association of the Metropolitan Sewage Agen-
cies.  I am not speaking for AMSA here today, only the Metropolitan
St. Louis Sewer District.  But I would like to note that AMSA will
present its statement on the same subject at the federal hearing
June 25 in Washington, D.C.
      I'd like to thank the Environmental Protection Agency for the
opportunity to appear today to express MSD's views on the proposed
amendments to Public Law 92-500.  I will try to be brief and discuss
the five issues to be covered here today in the order in which they
were discussed in EPA's papers on the proposed amendments.

           Paper No. 1 - Reduction of the Federal Share

      1.  Would a reduced federal share,inhibit or delay the construc-
tion of needed facilities?
      It is our opinion that any reduction in the federal share from
the present 75% of eligible cost would severely inhibit and delay the
construction of needed facilities.  First of all, I think that the
1974 need survey, which reported a total need of 342 billion dollars
for facilities eligible for construction grants under Public Law 92-
500, is a very low estimate in terms of what we all know inflation
has done to that figure in the last months.  I was quite amused by the
question raised in the paper as to whether the total amount or even
the amount for critical categories can be accommodated in the federal
budget in time to meet the 1977 and 1983 municipal pollution control
requirements of Public Law 92-500.  If the federal government thinks
it has financial problems, I think those of the states, local cities,
towns and villages and municipal agencies such as ours are far more
critical, and any huge expenditures in the billions would probably
bankrupt many of the local agencies.  It was my understanding-that
the 75% federal grant figure was placed in Public Law 92-500 $o that
this job could be accomplished in a reasonable time and that Congress
realized it had to be undertaken by the federal government because it
was beyond the financial capabilities of the local governments.


                                      393

-------
      2.  Because of the financial problems of many of the states and
local governments, I feel that the states do not have the capacity to
assume through state grant or loan programs a larger portion of the
financial burden of the program.  I know in Missouri, it would be
virtually impossible to secure legislation authorizing our state to
increase its grant amount or start a loan program.  In short, I do not
feel that the state could stand to place anymore money in the construc-
tion grant program for water pollution.  On the contrary, the state
passed a $150,000,000 bond issue which is being eroded by tremendous
inflation, and instead of increasing the state grant amount it might
reduce it so that the limited funds from this Water Pollution Control
Bond Issue would go farther.
      3.  Just how much difficulty local communities would have in
raising additional funds in capital markets for a larger portion of the
program is hard to estimate, but anytime you're talking about local
governments raising billions of dollars, I'm sure you're talking about
tremendous problems in raising these funds.  To give you an example,
both St. Louis and Kansas City are already heavily in debt and still
owe on the bonds used to provide primary treatment in the sixties.
I'm sure that when you go farther in debt, particularly in these large
amounts, you're going to run into difficulty in obtaining buyers for
the additional bonds.  Some might even have constitutional or charter
limitations and debt ceilings.
      4.  We at the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District feel  that
our responsibility to our local taxpayers has given us the greatest
accountability for cost effective design, projectjnanagement and
post construction operation and maintenance of the facilities.
      We recently completed 100 million dollars of pollution abate-
ment facilities on the Mississippi River and an additional 12 million
dollars of treatment facilities on our Coldwater Creek project.  I
think our record on the engineering, design, construction and opera-
tion and maintenance of these facilities shows it all was done with
our responsibility to our taxpayers or users to keep the total  cost of
these facilities as low as possible and still do an outstanding job
of cleaning up the waters around the metropolitan St, Louis area
uppermost in mind.
      I'm not so sure that the opposite effect would not be the case
with a severe limitation on funding.  It's been our experience through-
out the country that when there were limits on funding people tried
to design to the funding without regard for the efficient operation
of the plant or they tried so hard to cut costs that an adequate job
was not done in producing an effluent that was satisfactory for the
stream conditions to which the effluent was being discharged.  I'm sure
that if local municipalities have to go heavily in debt to build new
treatment facilities they will be very reluctant to spend any addition-
al money to hire sufficient personnel of adequate skills to operate
and maintain the plans efficiently.

-------
      5.   There's no doubt in my mind that a reduced federal  share be-
low the 75% level for eligible projects will have a disastrous ef-
fect on efforts to meet the water quality goals set up in Public Law
92-500.  Here I think we already have proof as to what effect the
limit on funding would have by the Presidential impoundment of the funds
that, even with all of the red  tape we all talk about, we would be
at least 18 months to two years ahead of our construction program of
today.
      In summing up on this subject, my understanding is that Public
Law 92-500 was enacted1 to clean up the waters of the United States.
It was a gigantic undertaking requiring gigantic amounts of funds.
Many of us felt that the 75% was going to be very burdensome to the
United States government, but also that it was the only way that the
goals set out in 92-500 could be attained.  One of the problems in
keeping a constant program going throughout the United States to clean
up our waters was the frequent changing of the grant amounts  or eli-
gibilities in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,  Therefore, we
feel to keep continuity and be fair to everyone, the 75% level  should
be retained.  Whether or not the 75% construction grant should apply
to all types of projects eligible for grants under Public Law 92-500
or receive the same priority for these grants will be discussed later
under paper number 3.

  Paper No. 2 - Limiting Federal Funding of Reserve Capacity  to Serve
  Projected Growth

      1.   We certainly don't feel at MSD that the current practice leads
to over-design of treatment works.  But certainly in some cases in
recent years, the growth has not equalled our anticipation of some
ten or twenty years ago in certain areas.  I think this is more the
result of past practices in engineering design and projections by
municipalities when they are constructing new treatment facilities.
Public officials are constantly being criticized for not anticipating
the rate of growth when the facilities are incapable of handling the
waste from this increased population.
      To make a brief answer to Paper No. Two, it is our belief that
to spread the limited federal funding further, and in the interest
of efficiency, some limitations on the eligibility for growth related
reserve capacity for treatment plants is not only in order at this time
but might be very wise so long as treatment facilities are designed
in what we call a modular way so that additional capacity can be
added in an efficient manner and without much additional cost.  However,
some reserve capacity must be provided in all wastewater treatment
facilities to insure that they will not be overloaded by the time they
are completed and to provide the lead time necessary to expand them
before they are overloaded.


                                      1*01

-------
      On the other hand, we feel that sewers should be designed for
the ultimate growth of the watershed that they serve and that to do
otherwise would be penny-wise and pound-foolish and cost our taxpayers
billions of dollars in the future.
      In closing our discussion on this subject, let us say that it
appears to be an attempt to reduce the federal 75% share without having
to amend the act.  By that I mean that traditionally in the water
pollution control field treatment facilities and sewers were designed
for population at least 20 years to 25 years in the future and certain-
ly, I think, any new studies were based on that type of planning.  To
limit the eligible cost to the present population could only be inter-
preted as a legal method of reducing the 75% provided for in Public
Law 92-500.

  Paper No. 3 - Restricting the Types of Projects Eligible for Grant
  Assistance

      1.  When one considers that the 1974 need survey reported a total
need of 342 billion dollars for facilities eligible for construction
grants under Public Law 92-500 and that a 75% federal  share, if satis-
fied, would require almost 260 billion dollars in federal  funding,  it
becomes apparent that there must be some method of restricting the
types of projects eligible for grant assistance or at least a priority
system for determining projects eligible for grant assistance.
      I think that all of us who have followed Public Law 92-500 and
have been involved in the water pollution control field the last 10
or 20 years realize that there will not be forthcoming from Congress
342 billion dollars within the next five or ten years.  Therefore,  we
have to seriously look at the problem posed by Paper Number Three
very carefully.
      The need survey further stated that the cost of secondary treat-
ment, advanced treatment and interceptor sewers would be 46 billion
and would require federal funding of nearly 35 billion.  I think we
could anticipate this level of funding and, in fact, we recommend a
federal funding level of at least seven billion dollars a year for
the next five years.  If this is done, certainly we could construct
the necessary secondary treatment, advanced treatment and interceptor
sewers needed.
      We at MSD feel that so long as there are certain time deadlines
on such things as secondary treatment and advanced waste treatment  for
certain areas, then those areas should definitely be given the
priority in the federal funds.
      2.  We feel there are adequate local incentives to undertake  '
needed investment in certain types of facilities even in the absence
of federal financial assistance.  All of us in the urban areas of the
United States have had to construct collector sewer systems without
any federal assistance.  When the septic tank problem reached a level

-------
that was either dangerous to public health or a public nuisance, we
have been able to finance the construction of these facilities.  In
fact, many of our homeowners are still paying off special benefit as-
sessments which were made against their properties to provide them
with a sanitary collector sewer system.  I think this point was well
put in the EPA comments on the proposed amendments when it said that
1t may be hard for some local agencies to raise capital to clean up
the waters for their downstream neighbors.  But I can tell you that my
experience has been that when the local conditions caused by failing
septic tanks get so bad, you are amazed how people can find the money
and support to clean up the local mess.

                           Paper No. 4

      If there is one amendment to Public Law 92-500 that seems to be
obviously needed, it is that of extending the 1977 date by which
publicly-owned treatment facilities are to achieve compliance with the
requirements of the Act.
      We all agree that it's impossible for the publicly-owned treat-
ment works to achieve these deadlines.  Therefore, Alternative 1 is
out of the question.
           In fact, none of the five alternatives really solves the
problem.  If the 1977 deadline is impossible to meet, why keep it in
the law?  Me feel the best solution would be to extend the deadline
to a realistic year based on the level of Federal Funding and then
use the fourth alternative which would provide the Administrator with
discretion to grant compliance schedule extensions on an ad hoc basis
based upon the availability of Federal Funds.

        Paper No* 5 - Delegating a Greater Portion of the
           Management of the Construction Grants Program
                          To the States

      It seems that the general consensus of opinions of the federal
government and of most state and local agencies is to delegate a
greater portion of the management of the construction grants program
to the states.  We hope if this happens we don't lose another year or
two while the states staff-up to do what the federal  government
says 1t does not have sufficient staff to do.  Certainly we have no
quarrel  with this delegation to the state authorities, but we do feel
that the states will have difficulty in securing any additional  fund*
1ng from the state legislatures.  Therefore this delegation must be
accompanied with some financial help from the federal  government,  We
only hope that they can staff up in time to not delay the clean water
program.

-------
      We do have one objection in the area of delegation to the states
and in particular to letting each state set its own priority program.
      We strongly feel that if a state secures its federal  funding
based on needs or population then the state should set up its priority
system for awarding construction grants on a needs, or population
basis.
      To give  an example, much of the federal money Missouri gets is
based on the needs of the urban areas and the population of the urban
areas.  But it could totally disregard this when it sets its priorities
and awards its grants throughout the state.  This could result in  -
areas such as Kansas City and the St. Louis metropolitan area receiv-
ing little or absolutely no federal  funding to achieve the  goals set
out in Public Law 92-500.
      This is in no way an attempt to quarrel with the rural areas or
the outstate areas, but to merely state a fact that pollution origi-
nates where people are, and people are in the urban areas and this is
where the pollution is that Public Law 92-500 was enacted to clean
up.  The federal government must place conditions on the award of
construction grants that comply with some criteria set out  by the fed-
eral government to insure that the goals of Public Law 92-500 are
being achieved.
      In closing, let me say we appreciate the opportunity  to appear
and discuss these five papers regarding Public Law 92-500 and it is
hoped that in the future we will be able to discuss and make some other
recommendations on possible amendments to Public Law 92-500.

                                 Respectfully submitted

                                 Charles B. Kaiser, Jr.
                                 General Counsel
                                 Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District

-------
                                                May 28, 1975

                             PROLOGUE

      The Ad Hoc Committee of the Region VII Pollution Control Confer-
ence functions in behalf of municipalities and such firms and indus-
tries involved with the design and construction of water pollution
control facilities in Iowa, Kansas, Missouri and Nebraska.
      The committee was formed at the behest of the first meeting of
the Region VII Pollution Control Conference, convened at the Alameda
Plaza Hotel in Kansas City, Missouri January 28 and 29, 1974.  This
conference was attended by 224 municipal officials, consulting engin-
eers, contractors, and manufacturers.
      The Committee was charged with the responsibility of recommending
changes which would alleviate problems relating to PL92-500.  This
would include changes in dates, procedures, priorities and in methods
of funding.  A copy of the goals and objectives is appended to this
statement.
      The committee held successive meetings on February 24, 1975 and
March 31, 1975 and adopted the attached recommendations.  These were
submitted to the below-listed organizations and were subsequently
adopted by the Associated General Contractors of America and included
in their recommendations submitted to EPA Administrator, Russell
Train on April 14, 1975.
           1.  AGC of America.
           2.  American Consulting Engineers Council.
           3.  Professional Engineers in Private, Practice,
           4.  American Society of Civil Engineers.
           5.  W.E.M.A.
           6.  Water Pollution Control Federation.
           7.  American Public Works Association.
           8.  Mayors Conference (National League of Municipalities).
      On May 16, 1975 the Committee held a special meeting to prepare
the following statement in response to the proposed amendments to the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act recommended by the Office of
Management and Budget:

         STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
            TO THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

The Ad Hoc Committee of the Region VII Pollution Control Conference,
While realizing that there is a need for an overall reduction of Fed-
eral expenditures, feels that a reduction of the Water Pollution Con-
trol Program at this time would not only cause deleterious effects on
our environment, but would jeopardize the economy by weakening the
industry that has tooled itself to cope with water pollution problems.

-------
For that reason we strongly urge that any reduction in Federal parti-
cipation in the Water Pollution Control Program be limited to the
March 31, 1975 recommendations of this committee which were subse-
quently adopted by the Associated General Contractors of America.  /
Basically we are recommending that any reduction of the federal share
be accomplished by reducing the complexity of federal requirements.

Our reaction to the proposed Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act by the Office and Management and Budget are as follows:

      1.   A reduction of the Federal Share
           Since the inception Of the Act, local governments have been
           adopting the criteria and more stringent standards promul-
           gated by EPA in anticipation of a promised high degree of
           federal funding.  Should that degree of federal participation
           be reduced, these communities would face dire financial con-
           sequences .

      2.   Limiting Federal financing to serving the needs of existing
           population.
           A proposal which would not permit design and construction
           for imminent population growth without adequate reserve
           capacity would definitely not be cost saving.  It also would
           not be effective in controlling water pollution.  EPA has
           already established adequate controls which, in Region VII,
           are being properly administered to prevent over-design.
           The expense of under design, which could Involve duplication
           of certain costs, is penny wise and pound foolish.

      3.   Restricting the types of projects eligible for grant
           assistance.
           The act Itself (PL92-500) restricts funding to "programs for
,;t         preventing, reducing, or eliminating the pollutionof the
           navigable waters and ground waters and improving the sani-
           tary condition of surface and underground waters."  In some
           communities this can only be accomplished by the construc-
           tion of collector systems, 1n others, plant construction 1s
           necessary.  The establishment of arbitrary criteria would
           only subvert the Intention of the act.

      4.   Extending the 1977 date for meeting water quality standards
           The committee concurs that the 1977 standard is Impractical.
           It recommends that in extending the date, priorities and
           firm schedules be established on a case by case basis con-
           sistent with the availability of funding.  The extensions
           should not be such that the resulting slow down would
           abrogate the national goals established by Congress in the
           Act.  (Title 1 - Section 101 Declaration of Goals & Policy).

-------
      5.   Delegating a greater portion of the management of the
           construction grants program to the states.
           The committee concurs with this proposed amendment and
           reiterates its recommendation of March 31, 1975.

THE AD HOC COMMITTEE OF THE REGION VII POLLUTION CONTROL CONFERENCE

      Jack R. Kidder                       Glenn Coulter
      Paul Ombruni                         L.W. Kehe
      Robert C. Dobson                     H. Robert Veenstra
      Don Boyd                             Harold Smith
      Robert E, VanSant                    Fred Deay
      Frank Weaver                         Ray Lindsey
      Jerry C, Liston                      John G. Havens
      R.P. Elsperman                       Robins Jackson
      Max Foote                            Pete Mattei
      Glenn Gray

General

It is the feeling of the committee that the law (PL 92-500) and the
attendant Rules and Regulations promulgated by EPA are inordinately
complex and restrictive.  These factors have been responsible for cost-
ly delays in the program.

Some changes need to be made.  However, there is an inherent danger in
making changes at a time when there is evidence that the existing re-
quirements are finally being assimilated by the system.   In other words
at this stage it is important that changes, which would  otherwise be
desirable, not be made that would defeat the intended purpose of those
changes - to eliminate the delays in the program.

For this reason, the committee's recommendations have been, as much as
possible, restricted to changes which would eliminate requirements rather
than change or add to them, or to changes that could be  achieved with-
out interrupting the program.

Proposed Changes

Design Responsibility

The requirement for non-restrictive specifications should be eliminated.

EPA Regional  Staff

The size of the EPA Regional Staff is not adequate to process projects
at a reasonable rate.  This problemshould be solved by reducing the
complexity of the requirements rather than increasing the staff.

                                       1*07

-------
Decentralization of Authority

The committee supports passage of the Cleveland-Wright Bill (H.R. 2175)
which would permit the Administrator of the EPA to delegate to those
states, which are equipped to do so, the responsibility of certifying
compliance with all requirements.

Owners Responsibility to Engage Professional Services

Eliminate legal, administrative and engineering costs as eligible for
reimbursement, and at the same time increase correspondingly the
percentage of construction costs reimbursed.

Standard Contract Documents

Encourage the use of the revised Standard Contract Documents for all
EPA water/sewer projects.

Payments

In order to maintain a positive cash flow position, provisions need
to be made wherein engineers, manufacturers and contractors are en-
titled to receive timely progress payments.  Since cost of money is
significantlyrhigher than that of government funds, the net effect of
progress payments would be lower quotations.  It should be required
that all payments, progress and final, be made promptly.

Payment Delays

Sections of the regulations
      35-935-11C (Requirement for draft of 0 & M Manual)
      35-935-13A (User charges and industrial cost recovery)
      35-935-16  (Sewer use ordinance)

have been used as the basis for withholding progress payments to the
contractors.  These regulations should be modified to eliminate the
use of owner omissions (over which the contractor has no control) as
a barrier to making partial progress payments on construction.

Stabilize Project Funding (taken from PEPP Recommendations)
In the area of funding the act should be amended:
      to authorize funds through 1983 to insure the steady flow of
      funds into the waste treatment plant construction program thus
      eliminating the peak and valley situations which create difficulty
      within the construction industry and inhibit efficiency wfthin
      the program.

                                        W8

-------
Permit Ad Valorem Tax

The act should be amended to permit local discretion in devising fin-
ancing systems which provide sufficient funds to cover operational,
maintenance and replacement costs on a proportionate basis among all
classes of users.  Such an amendment should specifically permit imposi-
tion of an ad valorem tax as one of the accepted methods of financing.

Permit Reimburseable Agreement

The regulations which would forbid payment for planning initiated prior
to the receipt of the grant i.e., 35-917(e), should be eliminated,
because they stifle initiative by engineers and municipalities.

Infiltration and Inflow Analysis

Either completely eliminate from the law the requirement for showing
that each sewer collection system is not subject to excessive infil-
tration or modify the regulations to permit acceptance of the opinion
of qualified experts without extensive documentation.

                       GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
                           OF THE JOINT
       MUNICIPAL-CONSULTANT-CONTRACTOR-MANUFACTURER (MCCM)
                        AD HOC COMMITTEE

  I.  Development and maintenance of an understanding of the problems
      experienced by the various governmental agencies charged with
      administration of PL92-500 and associated regulations.

 II.  Identification and delineation of the problems encountered by
      the groups represented by the MCCM Committee in working with
      PL92-500 and associated regulations.

III.  Determination of the various governmental, professional and trade
      associates and/or societies and their current activities that
      have an active interest in expediting the administration of
      PL92-500 and associated regulations.

 IV.  Identification and delineation of methods of expediting the ad-
      ministration of PL92-500 and associated regulations.

  V.  Determination of the most effective means of providing meaning-
      ful  feedback to governmental lawmakers and administrators that
      are in a position to affect changes in the law and regulations.

-------
 VI.  Development of an effective means  of  communication  between
      the various governmental,  professional  and  trade associa-
      tions and/or societies that have an active  interest in
      PL 92-500.

VII.  Development of an effective means  of  monitoring and report-
      ing the activities and results  of  the MCCM  committees
      efforts.
                                    WO-

-------
                                  1025 Turkeyfoot Road
                                  Lexington, Kentucky 40504
                                  June 19, 1975
 Mr. David Sabock
 United States Environmental
   Protection Agency
 401 M Street, S.W.
 (WH556)
 Waterside Mall
 Washington, D.C.  .20460
                              RE:  Public Hearing  on
                                  Proposed Amendments  to  PL
                                  92-500 (FWPCA)
 Dear Mr.  Sabock:
 I  appreciate  being  invited  to   take  part  in  the Public Hearing on the
 Proposed Amendments to  the  Federal Water  Pollution Control Act for
 submission  to Congress, which was held June  9, 1975.  Due to a prior
 conmitment  to conduct a Public  Hearing on one of our 201 Plans, I was
 unable to attend.   However*  I would  like the enclosed comments in-
 cluded in the record.

 If you have any questions,  please contact me.

                                 Very truly yours,

                                 William H. Meadows, P.E,

WHM/pje

Enclosures (2)
cc:  Mr.  Lei and Gottsteln
     Mr.  Joseph R. Fraizmathes, P.E.

                             COMMENTS
                                ON
                       PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
                                 _
                        PL 92-500 (FWPCA)
                                           Submitted  by:
                                           William H. Meadows, P.E.
                                           1025 Turkeyfoot Road
                                           Lexington, Kentucky   40502

-------
(1)   Reduction in the Federal Share of Grants
Inasmuch as the Federal government has the framework of taxing power
and the agencies to disburse funds for grants and the costs for water
pollution abatement is to be borne by the taxpayer, I suggest it would
be most expeditious to leave the federal share of the grant at its
existing 75% contribution.  Reducing the Federal share will not result
in reduction of costs and will only provide further complications for
generating the revenues on a local or state level.  Additionally,
since Congress1 first recognition of the water pollution program in
the late 1940's, the states have resisted financial participation.
Reduction of the Federal grant for funding will only magnify the prob-
lems in states whose governments elect not to impose additional taxes.

(2)   Limit Federal Aid to Serve Only the Needs of Existing Population
Although Congress has listed many lofty goals to be achieved in water
pollution control, it is, in fact, the needs of the existing population
which are being served first, such as planning and construction of
treatment works to achieve water quality limits and intercepting sewers
for transportation to these plants.  To ray knowledge, there has been
limited use of Federal funds for construction of collecting sewers
and I have no knowledge of sewering projected population other than
providing capacity tn treatment works for future development.

With the accomplishment of infiltration/inflow analyses and reduction
of extraneous flows, sewer systems that have been designed, historical-
ly, on a 100 gpcd basis, with a peaking factor of 2.5, will not have
a greater capacity for carrying sanitary wastes which may,  in  fact,
eliminate the construction of many relief sewers for any anticipated
growth.  Additionally, proper planning may result in the designation
of land use for future growth which may receive adequate service from
existing sewer lines.

(3)   Restricting the Types of Projects Eligible for EPA Grants

The projects that are eligible today, under current legislation, are
eligible, presumably, because they are required to comply with Federal
legislation.  The restriction of types of projects should be approached
only on terms of priority to insure compliance with Congressional
intent.

(4)   Extending 1977 Deadlines for Meeting Water Quality Standards
According to a recent statement by Russell Train, the water pollution
control program has achieved only 25% completion, to date,  of work to
accomplish the goals of 1977.  Since there was approximately 5 years
between the time of the PL 92-500 Congressional action to the 1977
goals, as outlined, and two years elapsed in providing the states,
cities and consultants with guidelines for implementing the program,

-------
it appears a great amount of the delay is due to the inability of the
Environmental Protection Agency to administer the program.  The ad-
ministrative staff of the EPA should certainly be expected to respond
to meeting*the program as 'quickly as other parties.  Their staffing
is obviously inadequate in terms of numbers and capability.  As they
tell-us, the operation and maintenance is vital to the survival of   '  «
even-the most sophisticated wastewater treatment works.  I should
remind,them the operation of the administration of this program is al-
so vital.                                                     i.
      3-  <,*"  ,,,,,'"•''
Additionally,- the windfall of Federal /funds deimpounded by President '
Ford was disbursed in an unusual manner. . Since the state priority list
are generated on the basis of need," it would seem the impounded funds
would have been"disbursed to*the states on the priority of needs,'as
established in 1975, rather than on the 1973-74 method of disbursement
based upon population.  Although it is obvious the 1977 deadlines for
water quality standards will not be met, ri only agree that those
deadlines should be altered on a case-by-case basis in which the muni-
cipalities or industries can show cause for the delay and submit an
acceptable implementation schedule which they should be required to
conform to.

(5)   Delegation of Water Grant Operations to the States
The delegation of more duties to the states in the program will, with-
out a doubt, only compound these complex problems.  With the exception
of the State of Pennsylvania and a few others we may hear of, I would
expect even if the states were willing to accept this significant
leadership role, it would be legislatively impossible for a number of
years.  Although some states may be willing to accept this responsibi-
lity, for whatever reason, in general I should think nearly 30 years
of resistance and inability of the states to provide any meaningful
leadership in water pollution abatement would be, alone, reason enough
to discount this as being worthy of consideration.

An additional comment I would like to make is that, hopefully, the
greatest undertaking of public works by this country would not be
aborted before there is any real evidence of whether it will be a
success or failure.  As many people realize, the costs of Clean Water
Surveys, which as I understand, may be the basis of these proposed
amendments, is, at best, a guess.  As I recall, initially, it was only
a tool to be used to continue the funding program in Congress on a 1
and 5 year basis in addition to those funds provided by continuing
legislation.  My recollection of the end of fiscal years while working
with the EPA reminds me of how deftly the regions could expedite grant
funding in order to commit themselves and perpetuate a bigger and
better next year.  The cost of Clean Water Surveys was used as a tool

-------
by the states to increase funding with the states  submitting informa-
tion based on the premise that the larger the number,  the better off
everyone should be.   The number generated, rather  than being used as
a guidance tool for Congressional allocation, has  become an early
planning tool which threatens to destroy the program itself.  Assum-
ing the cost of Clean Water Surveys is in the amount of $350 billion
and the sewered population is 175 million, this indicates a per capita
cost of approximately $2,000.00.  My experience with our 201 studies,
in planning for over 150,000 people to achieve minimum standards as
outlined for 1977 (including infiltration/inflow analyses, sewer, sys-
tem evaluation surveys, rehabilitation, construction,  and all  other
related costs) indicates a cost of approximately $250,00 per capita.
I am not suggesting this is representative of the  cost throughout the
nation.  However, there appears to be an irreconcilable difference.
Therefore, I suggest some restraint and reasoning  be used if,  in fact,
this is the basis for amending the current program.
                                     klk

-------
        MONTEREY PENINSULA WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY

        P.O. Box 190                       1101 CASS ST.
        MONTEREY, CALIFORNIA  93940        (408) 375-9773

                   TESTIMONY TO BE PRESENTED AT
                 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                   PUBLIC HEARING June 19, 1975
                    San Francisco, California

The Board of Directors of the Monterey Peninsula Water Pollution Control
Agency, a joint powers agency formed to plan, construct and operate a
regional wastewater treatment system, is generally opposed to the
proposed legislative amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act as promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency on April 25,
1975.  The Board considers that covenants entered into in good faith
must be honored.  Construction of a regional wastewater treatment
system was, in effect, mandated by the EPA and the anticipated costs
to local communities in considerable even under the present 75% Federal
share agreement.  Abrogation of that agreement by a reduction in the
Federal share would involve a reduction in the Federal share would in-
volve an additional financial burden on the member municipalities
which might well jeopardize the existence of our Agency.

As to the specific amendments proposed for consideration by the EPA,
our Agency comments follow:

      1.   Reduction in the Federal share;  It is estimated that EPA
           Facilities Planning and Project Guideline Reports have
           added 20-30% to project planning costs.   Delays in con-
           struction of various phases of our project of from one to
           four years, occasioned primarily by EPA regulations, have
           increased construction costs by an estimated 10-40% due to
           inflationary factors.  Costs to. the tax payer for waste-
           water treatment and disposal will increase by 60-100% due
           to EPA discharge standards and requirements for regionali-
           zation even under the present Federal 75% share of capital
           costs.

      2.   Limiting Federal Financing to current population needs;
           Such action would increase construction cost to the local
           taxpayer!  No municipal government can afford to build a
           new wastewater treatment plant without making provision for
           normal growth.  The proposal would shift total cost of future
           capacity to local government at a time when municipal finan-
           cing capabilities in California are at a low ebb.


                                       M.5

-------
      3.   Restricting type of projects eligible:   Our agency agrees
           that this proposal might result in overall reduction of
           costs.  Where regionalization and reclamation and reuse are
           mandated without adequate justification, construction and
           energy costs incurred may outweigh any dubious environmental
           advantages or economies of scale in operation and mainte-
           nance.  Elimination of the requirement for treatment and con-
           trol of storm water run-off would effect major savings.

      4.   Extending the 1977 date for meeting water quality standards:
           The date for meeting water quality standards will have to
           be extended as it is obviously impossible to meet the 1977
           date in many localities; however, extension of the date will
           not reduce the final costito the Federal government.

      5.   Delegating a greater portion of the managing of construction
           grants program to the States:  This is  the only alternative
           proposed which could conceivable reduce costs of the pro-
           gram; a single level of government approval would hopefully
           reduce planning and construction costs  by expediting project
           completion.  This alternative would be  most effective if
           the States were given authority to modify discharge standards
           to suit local conditions and circumstances.

In summary, our Agency is heartily in favor of reducing the overall cost
of the program mandated by the FWPCA and believes  that revisions of
the act with regard to discharge standard to permit basing treatment
standards on local conditions would provide such a reduction.  Revision
of arbitrary numerical effluent limits, and relating treatment  stan-
dards directly to public health purposes would satisfy the basic intent
of the Act and reduce the overall cost of the program.  De-emphasis of
regionalization and reclamation and reuse to those specific instances
in which there is an obvious economic or environmental advantage would
further reduce program costs.

-------
June 11, 1975

Mr. David Sabock
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials          '
Office No. WH556 - Room 1033
West Tower Waterside Mall
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.  20460

Dear Mr. Sabock:

We have been advised through the Federal Register, Volume 40, No. 86,
dated May 2, 1975, that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will
hold a series of public hearings concerning proposed amendments to
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.  It is understood that the
proposed amendments include the following:

      1.   A reduction of the Federal share in the cost of construc-
           tion for water pollution abatement projects.
      2.   Limiting Federal financing to serving*the'needs-of existing
           population.
      3.   Restricting the types of projects eligible for grant and
           assistance.
      4.   Extending the 1977 date for meeting water quality standards.
      5.   Delegating a greater portion of the management of the con-
           struction grants program to the states.

The Mayor and City Council for the City of Midwest City wish to advise
you of the Council's position on these proposed amendments:
                                                                 t, •'  -"' ' «i; •
      1.   A reduction of the Federal share
           The environmental quality standards coupled with  the soaring
           cost of inflation have caused the construction cost of
           pollution abatement facilities to skyrocket faster than
           the City's ability to finance the local share of  construc-
           tion.  If badly needed projects are to be financed, it is
           essential that the Federal share of construction  costs be
           increased, not decreased.

      2.   Limiting Federal financing to serving the needs of existing
           population
           It is impractical to  construction wastewater treatment
           facilities and wastewater collection lines to serve the
           needs of existing population.  Such a design criteria would
           mean that facilities would be overloaded and outdated as
           soon as they are constructed.  It is essential that facilities

                                        W7

-------
           be designed to meet reasonable growth expectations in order
           to preclude the need for immediately duplicating newly
           constructed facilities.

      3.   Restricting the types of projects eligible for grant assis-
           tance
           It is essential that the Federal participation continue for
           helping to finance the construction of both wastewater
           treatment facilities and wastewater collection lines.

      4.   Extending the 1977 date for meeting water quality standards
           The time-consuming and cumbersome process of financing and
           performing the Comprehensive Engineering Study (Section 201,
           Step 1) makes the date for compliance to new environmental
           quality standards of 1977 an impractical date to meet.  A
           more realistic date for compliance would be 1983.

      5.   Delegating a greater portion of the management of the construc-
           tion grants program to the states
           The Oklahoma State Department of Health has qualified engineers
           and administers capable of managing the Water Pollution Con-
           trol program for Oklahoma.  The City of Midwest City whole-
           heartedly endorses the proposal of the Federal Government
           releasing the management of the construction grants program
           to the State of Oklahoma.

The Mayor and City Council of Midwest City are eager to help the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and the State Department of Health to
Improve the water pollution control program in every way possible.  This
position paper is offered in the spirit of achieving that objective.

                                 Sincerely,
                                 MARION C. REED
                                 Mayor
MCR/gmh
cc:  Dr. LeRoy Carpenter, Commissioner
     Oklahoma State Department of Health

-------
                            MEMORANDUM

DATE:      June 18, 1975

FROM:      Kenneth M. Karen, Director, Division of Environmental
           Quality

TO:        Jerome H, Svore, Regional Administrator, Environmental
           Protection Agency

SUBJECT:   Comments on Proposed Changes to PL 92-500

The attached copies are being mailed to you since we did not have  them
available at the hearing.

KMK/mjs
         COMMENTS ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO PUBLIC LAW 92-500

                          June 17, 1975

             Prepared by Staff Water Quality Program,
          Div. of Environmental Quality, Dept. of Natural  Resources

The following comments are numbered in order the items were presented^.
in the Federal Register announcement.                         .  _    '".".„

1)  Reduction in Federal Share - The Department recognizes that  it
would be very difficult to decrease the percentage of federal  funds,
although there was apparently no great demand in 1972 to increase from
55 percent to 75 percent, except in Congress.

A reduction in the Federal share would allow an expansion  of the number
of projects funded, and thereby reduce the time required to meet the  ..
needs in the State.*  Based on Missouri needs as reported  in the 1974
Needs Survey, it will probably take 10 to 15 years to meet secondary  .
treatment if federal funding is retained at the present levels of 4 to
5 billion dollars per year.  Missouri's needs in 1973 dollars  to meet
secondary** treatment is approximately 471 million dollars. Missouri's
*See Table 1
**See Item b, for an additional comment on this requirement along with
  Attachment No. 1.  Costs based on EPA corrected figures in 1973
  dollars.

-------
total needs as reported in the 1974 Needs Survey is 2.399 billion dol-
lars.  Construction costs have risen in 1973 and 74 at between 15 and
25 percent for sewage treatment plants and for sewer installation,
with no reversal presently in sight.  Although a reduced federal  share
will place an additional burden on some municipalities'  ability to
fund necessary improvements and might increase the rate at which the
state bond authorization (state share) is used up, the reduced federal
share will permit more projects to be funded and result in more rapid
overall improvement in water quality.

At the same time an increase in local participation will provide a much
needed incentive for the local public officials to take a more active
interest in overall project costs.  Hopefully this would cause less
"gold plating" of projects because "the feds are paying the bill."
Missouri had adequate projects to use the federal  appropriation at 55
percent federal funding and we would expect the same to be true in the
future.

In conclusion, while the above argues for a reduction in the federal
share, the Department is concerned about the difficulties in raising
revenues at the local level.  We also feel that the federal government
is obligated to assist in providing the large sums required to meet
federally mandated standards.  The Department believes a reduction in
federal grant should only be made if there is a corresponding de-
crease in federal requirements and control, and delegation of more
authority to the states,

2)  Limiting Federal Funding of Reserve Capacity - While we acknowledge
the possible impact of funding excess reserve capacity on urban sprawl
in individual cases, the Departments generally opposed to restricting
funding for reserve capacity.  Without a careful analysis on a case
by case basis, we belive such a limitation would result in poor en-
gineering or economic design and would discriminate against the high
growth areas where the most serious water pollution problems will
result if adequate facilities are not provided.  Communities will be
reluctant to provide adequate reserve capacity if they will be required
to finance 100 percent of the costs.  This will result in many faci-
lities becoming overloaded in a very short time following their com-
pletion.  The facilities will then have to be expanded at a far greater
cost than what the additional capacity would have cost at the time
of the original construction.  In addition, we believe this would be
a difficult provision to administer equitably.  We favor retention of
flexibility to select design periods which are based on sound engineer-
ing and economic judgment, to take into account local cost differences,
growth rates, and interest rates.  Ideally, a case by case review is
required for projected reserve capacity to serve future growth.

3}  Restricting the Types of Projects Eligible for Grant Assistance -

                                      WO

-------
Limiting-eligibility to Categories I, II, and IV B as proposed (secon-
dary treatment facilities, tertiary treatment plants as needed to meet
water quality standards, and interceptor sewers) may be acceptable
depending on how infiltration-inflow matters will be handled.  If
elimination of infiltration-inflow is found to be more cost effective
than expansion of treatment capacity, the correction of the infiltration-
inflow should be made eligible under Category I or II.  If the reverse
is true, added treatment capacity to handle infiltration-inflow should
be made eligible under Category I or II when the added capacity is
found cost effective.  If infiltration-inflow costs are eligible under
Category I or II we would support limiting eligibility to Categories
I, II and IV B.  If not, we believe that Category III A should be
included since this is very closely tied to treatment capacity require-
ments .

Deletion of the eligibility of collection sewers will be unpopular with
small community officials and result in continuing health hazards in
unsewered areas.  Therefore, we urge EPA to press for an expansion of
those programs that provide alternate methods of funding for sewer sys-
tems (HUD - FHA loans, grants, etc.).  This is basically in line with
the.present Missouri state matching grants.  When the federal share
was increased from 55 percent to 75 percent and collection sewers became
eligible, the legislature determined that the state matching grant
should not cover collection sewers.  Consequently, a separate state
funded program provides funds for sewer systems not to exceed $600 per
connection.  '

Subject to the above consideration, the Department generally supports
limiting the eligibility.

4)  Extending the 1977 Date for Publicly Owned Treatment Works to Meet
Hater Quality Standards - The Department supports a combination of al-
ternatives 3 and 4 which would provide the Environmental Protection
Agency administer with discretion to grant compliance schedule exten-
sions on a case by case basis for:
               r
      (a)  time required with the expenditure of good faith to build
           the necessary facilities; or
      (b) extension due to the lack of sufficient federal  funds.

We believe this approach will require municipalities which are able to
comply with the law to do so, and allow the others additional time to
comply.   Extension of the date would not, however, allow municipalities
in Missouri  which are able to comply to postpone their improvements.
Industry deadlines should be reviewed on the same basis.

-------
5)  Delegating a Greater Portion of the Management of the Construction
Program to the States - The Department supports the maximum delegation
of authority possible to the states.  We also favor the Cleveland-Wright
Bill, HR 2175, which would provide sufficient funding for the states
to carry out the management of the grant program.  The states are more
directly familiar with the problems  in their states and thus are better
able to manage the program.   This would also avoid much of the dupli-
cation of State-Federal review which now exists.

In addition to the above, we offer the following comments for your
consideration:

      a)  In order to enable the state to properly plan for construction
grants it would be very desirable if Congress would provide authoriza-
tion for appropriations for construction grant funding for the next 5
years.  If this is not done, it is very difficult for the state to
properly plan and schedule for future construction.
      b)  Ocean outfalls and large (Missouri and Mississippi) rivers
must be considered on more equitable basis.   Requiring primary treatment
only for ocean outfalls and secondary for large (Missouri and Missi-
ssippi) river cities does not provide either an equitable nor a cost-
effective solution in our opinion.  The cost versus the derived benefits
in water quality improvement is very questionable.  (See Attachment No.
1).
      c)  Emphasis needs to be placed on land conservation practices.
Too much emphasis is placed on municipal waste where it is not the most
important pollutant.  In this matter we urge a continuation of the 100
percent federal funding for 208 Study Areas  for an additional year
with a provision to allow states to  participate for statewide non-
point source 208 studies on the same basis (100 percent funding for 2-
year study).
      d)  Present law (92-500) calls for an  annual water quality (Sec-
tion 205 b) report to Congress.  A biennial  report will be more realis-
tic and reasonable.  We would recommend that the report coincide with
the water years, that is from October 1 through September 30 two years
later and be submitted to EPA by the April 1 or 15 date.
      e)  Publication of regulations in the  Federal Register provide
an entirely inadequate amount of time for the necessary review and
comments on complex rules and regulations.  We urge that the agency
be required to give at least 60 days for comments.  In some cases 90
days would be more realistic.

We thank you for the opportunity to express  our views.

-------
                                  TABLE 1
                                          Agency Share
Condition
Federal
State    Local
TOTAL
$4 Billion Federal Appropriation

     75/15/10  (since  PL  92-500)..    75.84
     55/15/30  	    75.84
     55/25/30  (before PL92-500)..    75.84

$5 Billion Federal Appropriation

     75/15/10	,	     94.80
     55/15/30	     94.80
     55/25/20	     94.80

$6 Billion Federal Appropriation

     75/15/10	    113.76
     55/15/30	    113.76
     55/25/20		    113.76

$7 Billion Federal Appropriation

     75/15/10	     132.72
     55/15/30  	     132.72
     55/25/20  	     132.72
             15.17
             20.68
             34.47
             18.96
             25.85
             43.09
             26.54
             36.20
             60.33
         10.11
         41.37
         27.58
         12.64
         51.71
         34.47
22.75    15.17
31.02    62,05
51.71    41.37
         17.70
         72.39
         48.26
101.12
137.89
137.89
126.40
172.36
172.36
                                 151.68
                                 206.84
                                 206.84
176.96
241,31
241.31
In millions  of  dollars  based on FY75 allocation formula.   Missouri's alloca-
tion 1.89607 of total federal appropriation.

-------
                         ATTACHMENT NO. 1

In support of our position regarding the mandated requirement that all
plants other than large ocean outfalls have secondary treatment, we
offer the following facts regarding the cost versus federal  dollars
available for construction.  There is little evidence that secondary
treatment on a large river (flow 30,000 plus cfs versus a plant flow
of less than 100 cfs) will have a measurable improvement in  the river
water quality.  Furthermore, extreme costs for such treatment in view
of limited water quality benefits seem unjustified in the face of
other needs.

Total needs for secondary treatment in Missouri  (1973) = $471 mil-
lion.

Total needs for secondary treatment along the Missouri and lower Mis-
sissippi River (1973 dollars) = $300 million.

Total needs for secondary treatment at the big 3 Missouri River plants
(Kansas City Blue River, M.S.D. Bissell and Lemay - 1973 dollars) =
approximately $252 million.*

Expected funding levels from federal share - 95  million (based on $5
billion nationwide and present allocation).

Thus, only a few plants discharging to the nations largest inland water-
ways will require the entire state share of federal funds for about
three years for little if any water quality improvement.

We urge either a reconsideration in the secondary treatment requirements,
special funding for these large plants, or greater state flexibility
to utilize a combination of the above.
*This estimate has recently been re-calculated to run over $300 million.

-------
June 25, 1975

Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials
(WH-556), Room 1033
West Tower, Waterside Mall
401 "M" Street, S.W.
Washington,D.C.  20460
                                 Public Hearings
                                 Potential Legislative Amendments
                                 to FWPC Act
Gentlemen:
I am a member of the Massachusetts Construction Industry Council which
represents a cross-section of the construction industry in the State
of Massachusetts.  The Council has been designed to give industry, the
largest in Massachusetts, a single, united voice on those matters
which affect it.

A Task Force has been organized within our Council whose main purpose
is to research and identify all available sources of construction
funds and to determine how these funds may speedily be channeled into
construction projects.  Our goal is to see needed construction projects
undertaken in order to provide jobs for workers that have been hardest
hit by unemployment.

In this regard, I have been appointed chairman of a subcommittee of the
Task Force.  We have been concentrating our efforts on the Water Pollu-
tion Control Projects under the Environmental Protection Agency.  We
note that the subject hearing is considering amendments to the present
FWPC Act relative to reducing the Federal share, or limiting Federal
financing of Water Pollution Control Projects.  We would like to go
on record as opposing any such legislation.  Such a move would only
serve to cause more unemployment in the construction industry, a sec-
tor of our economy which is already in serious condition.

One may argue that the communities and the states should now finance
these projects in order to reduce federal involvement in local problems.
We would probably agree if every community and state had the same
problems, and required the same amount of money to correct the problems.
Unfortunately, this is not the case.

In the State of Massachusetts it has recently been estimated by state
officials that $11.4 billion dollars will be required to construct

-------
wastewater collection systems and treatment facilities, alleviate in-
filtration-inflow problems and treat or control mixed stormwater-
wastewater conditions.  This cost would be an unrealistic burden for
the communities and the state to carry in order to meet our clean
water objectives.

The high cost for these projects in our state is primarily attributable
to the larger, older cities.  Their wastewater and storm collection
systems in many cases are combined, and many of the pipes are in ex-
cess of 50 years old.  Many of these areas are undergoing a severe
economic depression.  They cannot be asked to shoulder the burden of
this terrible expense alone.  Many areas of the country do not have
as great an expense facing them for water pollution control, and
many are enjoying better economic conditions.

If we are to meet our clean water objectives in Massachusetts within
a reasonable period of time, the present financial aid of the Federal
Government must continue for water pollution control  projects.  If the
largest industry in Massachusetts is to make a satisfactory economic
recovery, these worthwhile projects must continue to be undertaken.

                                 Very truly yours.
                                                               •

                                 Warren H. Ringer
                                 Chairman
                                 EPA Study Group

WHR/mdp
                                       1*26

-------
July 3, 1975

Mr. Russel Train
Admi ni strator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.  20460

Dear Mr. Train:

Pursuant to the invitation as published in the Federal Register, Vol. 40,
No. 86- Friday, May 2, 1975, I am submitting herewith my comments on
proposed amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

1.    Reduction Of The Federal Share

      A reduction in the level of Federal grant participation would
      further aggravate an already existing credibility problem.  Ad-
      ditionally, it would be inequitable and would unfairly penalize
      local agencies which were unable to qualify for grants under the  r
      present program.  More than likely the smaller communities would
      be affected most and they are the ones which are least able to
      assume a greater share of the financial burden.  The overall
      effect of a grant reduction will be compounded for these communi-
      ties if inflation continues to rise at its current rate.

      It appears that any reduction in the level of Federal grant par-
      ticipation would have to be assumed entirely at the local level
      in Michigan.  For several years the State has had its own pro-
      gram of grant assistance for sewage treatment works but the
      funds authorized for this purpose are expected to be fully ex-
      pended at about the same time as the present Federal grant
      authorization expires and there is little likelihood of the pro-
      gram being continued.

      Under these circumstances there is no question in our minds but
      what the construction of needed wastetreatment facilities would
      be delayed or at least drastically curtailed.

2.     Limiting Federal Funding Of Reserve Capacity To Serve Projected
      Growth

      This is obviously a very sensitive subject and one where there
      is no simple, straight-forward answer.   A policy which limits
      capacity to ten years growth for treatment plants and twenty
      years for sewers cannot be applied across the board.  There are
      projects where a ten-year limitation makes good sense, not only

-------
from a planning standpoint, but economically as well.  There are others,
however, where this makes no sense at all, especially for smaller com-
munities.  The high cost for interest on borrowed money has made the
lower design period more cost-competitive than previously, when interest
rates were four or five per cent.  Each project has an economic break-
ing point where it is more cost-effective to build in stages rather
than build a larger facility and it usually is different with each
project and each set of circumstances.  The objective should be for
limiting reserve capacity where it is cost-effective with a maximum lim-
it of 20 years.

3.    Restricting The Types Of Projects Eligible For Grant Assistance

      We oppose restricting the types of projects eligible for grant
      assistance on the grounds that if a source is causing pollution
      contrary to the goals and objectives of P.L. 92-500 it should
      be eligible for grant assistance.  We also feel  that the -States
      should be allowed to allocate grant funds to any project, regard-
      less of type, which will accomplish the most water pollution
      control.

      If it becomes necessary to limit eligibilities in order to reduce
      the Federal burden in financing the construction grants program,
      we suggest that category VI, Treatment or Control  of Stormwater,
      be temporarily suspended.  This category alone represents almost
      70 per cent of the total needs costs and its suspension would
      least disrupt the program.

4.    Extending the 1977 Date To Meet Water Quality Standards

      Since the July 1, 1977 compliance date obviously cannot be met
      either some types of national policy or statutory extensions
      need to be adopted.  For our part, we would favor a statutory,
      across-the-board extension with industrial dischargers granted
      the same extension.

5.    Delegating A Greater Portion Of The Management Of The Construction
      Grant Program To The States

      Michigan has long advocated delegation to the States of greater
      authority and responsibility for management of the construction
      grants program.  In this regard, we endorse and support proposed
      amendatory legislation in the form of H,R, 7418.

                                 Very truly yours,

                                 WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION

                                 Ralph W. Purdy
cc: James L. Agee              , ^ecutive Secretary

-------
July 7, 1975
                           t
Mr. James Agee
Assistant Administrator for
  Water and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.   20240

Dear Jim:

The public hearings you have held with respect to potential legislative
amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act represent a very
constructive action to involve the public in this important policy
area.

I regret that circumstances did not permit me to attend one of the hear-
ings, but I am taking the liberty of submitting some comments at this
time with the hope that they will contribute something of value.   I
will not be able to comment on all of the papers in the detail  I  would
like and recognize the incomplete nature of this review.

Paper No. 1

      1.   Would a reduced federal share inhibit or delay the construc-
           tion of needed facilities?

           It is indeed regretable that during the years since federal
      grants for local waste treatment works construction were first  '
      authorized in 1956 that no rigorous analysis has been made  of
      the need for and the amount of federal subsidies in this  area.
      It is particularly regretable that the Congress increased the
      authorizeton for this purpose without any attempt to make such
      an analysis.  Now that the level is 75 percent it will  be very
      difficult politically to reduce the federal share.  You must be
      extremely sensitive to this fact as a result of the hearings
      where, according to the Environment Reporter, there was
      ample testimony from those affected.   While one can question the
      validity of the negative point of view from the standpoint  of
      self-interest, its political consequences are quite real.

           As one who formerly administered the federal  construction
      grants program, I have yet to see any evidence that the original
      30 percent authorization would not have been adequate if the
      limiting $250,000 provision had been removed.  There is,  in fact,
      plenty of good argument to question the need for federal  sub-
      sidies at all  if we could find the means for assessing effluent

-------
charges, bring regulatory actions to bear, and provide for the
federal underwriting of bond issues not otherwise marketable.
But that  is water over the dam.

     The subsequent amendments to increase the federal share to
50 percent with add-ons for compliance with regional  plans and
state participation at least had the advantage of encouraging
cost sharing and gave tangible recognition to compliance with
regional planning.  The latter provision, however, was most dif-
ficult to administer in a meaningful way and many of  the assuran-
ces had little substance.  It would seem in retrospect that com-
pliance with regional planning should be a foregone conclusion
that regional and state authorities should be willing to assure
without any federal subsidies.  I can see no reason why the pre-
sent federal share should not be reduced to its prior level of
50 percent with add-ons for cost sharing.  My only reason for not
recommending further decreases is that it would seem  impossible
to gain their adoption through the political process.
              > _ V           i,*
     The most effective way to reduce participation and extend
available funds would be to reduce the range of eligible work.
This is discussed under subsequent questions.

2.   Would the states have the interest and capacity  to assume,
     through state grant or loan programs a larger portion of
     the financial burden of the program?

     States would vary in this respect.  Capacity must be measured
in political as well as financial terms.  It should be remem-
bered that many states moved in with cost sharing programs in
response to the federal legislation in effect prior to the 1972
amendments.  North Carolina's program, for example, was adopted
on the assumption that federal grants would not exceed 50 percent
plus cost sharing and regional compliance add-ons. Once the 1972
amendments increased the federal share to 75 percent, dropping
the cost sharing incentive, the maximum state authorization of
25 percent was reduced to 12% percent by administrative action.
This requires local government to provide only 12% percent of the
total cost, which is far too little to create much local govern-
ment interest in cost-effective design.  I see little reason at
all for the present 12% percent and thus view the state cost shar-
ing as largely negated by the increase in the federal  share.

3.   Would communities have difficulty in raising addition funds
     in capital markets for a larger portion of the program?

     The Local Government Commission of North Carolina could pro-
vide a much better answer to this question than can I.  In North

-------
      Carolina a strong interest continues - legislation was enacted
      in the 1975 General Assembly and a referendum is all that is now
      required - for tax-free local government industrial development
      bond issues.  If local government can justify these issues there
      should not be too much question as to their capability to mar-
      ket municipal issues for water pollution control facilities-

      4.   Would the reduced federal share lead to greater accounta-
           bility on the part of the grantee for cost effective design,
           project management, and post-construction operation and
           maintenance?

           I think that it would for at least the larger communities
      that have the engineering and management capability to assume a
      major share of responsibility.  The question of O&M for the my-
      riad small communities would not be well addressed by this change
      since the problem here is an institutional one of not having a
      governmental management unit of sufficient size to assure the
      required technical and financial basis for the assumption of this
      responsibility.

      5.   What impact would a reduced federal share have on water quali-
           ty and on meeting the goals of PL 92-500?

           I am confident that there would be an initial slow-down of
      construction with any change in the local share of the cost of
      waste treatment facilities.  Much would depend upon the record
      established as to the intent of Congress and general  understanding
      of the public purpose to be served.  If it were clearly shown that
      there will not be enough federal money to continue to address the
      problem at the present level of federal cost sharing and that the
      only way to make major progress toward national goals for water
      quality would be through a reduced federal share, and if it were
      also clearly shown that this was a final decision not subject
      to alteration in the next Congress, then I believe that the slow-
      down would be temporary and of no great consequence.   This assumes
      that federal and state regulatory programs would not be relaxed.
      Should this record be unclear and indecisive so that local govern-
      ment would be encouraged to delay in expectation of subsequent
      increases or let-down in enforcement, then the situation would be
      entirely different.

Paper No. 2
                                                            I:
      1.  Does current practice lead to over design of treatment works?

-------
     I wonder if this question doesn't have to be addressed from
the point of view of types of facilities involved.  The term
"treatment works" used herein is presumed to mean all  currently
eligible facilities, or at least treatment plants, interceptor
and outfall sewers.  Even in the case, of the interceptor and out-
fall sewers there has always been a great deal of confusion as
to the social purpose served.  In the case of treatment plants
the purpose is rather clear - likewise, for interceptor sewers
actually intended to intercept major discharges and transport the
waste waters to plants for treatment.  As often as not, however,
"interceptors" are in fact major trunk mains designed  to open up
areas for development beyond present urban centers served by
existing utilities.  The Crabtree Interceptor Project  in Raleigh
is a classic example.  The EPA project is currently undergoing
EIS review.  If funded the project would have the effect of
negating a large portion of the benefits from flood retarding
structures upstream from the City of Raleigh.  It would, in fact,
have the effect of opening up a large land area for development
bypassing many closer areas which are presently served by sewers.
In my opinion federal subsidy of such projects is not in the pub-
lic interest and serves little to control water pollution.  Yet
such projects are viewed as "treatment works."

     The economies of scale inherent in the construction of treat-
ment plants and particularly sewer systems cannot be ignored.
I have some difficulty in seeing much of a problem with respect
to the usual excess capacity built into sewage treatment plants.
If additional interceptors are not constructed simultaneously
than that excess capacity would presumedly go in support of popula-
tion growth in the existing urban areas served by present utili-
ties.  This is certainly in the public interest.  The  problem
arises under circumstances such as indicated above and it could
most effectively be addressed by completely eliminating all
sewage collection facilities including interceptor and outfall
sewers that have the purpose of stimulating growth in  presently
undeveloped and unserved areas.  Since such facilities are never
clear cut and single purpose and many will intercept minor dis-
charges as well as contribute to new development it is suggested.
that federal participation be limited to that portion  of the
project needed to serve existing discharges plus population
growth that can be handled in areas serviced by existing collec-
tion systems - by this I mean within the area of the major sewer
grid serviced by principal arteries of the existing systenu

2.   What could be done to eliminate problems with the current pro-
     gram short of legislative change?

-------
     State priorities for federal grant projects have the means
of at least partially addressing this problem.  There is no rea-
son why priority systems cannot include major and significant
incentives for facilities required to deal with existing problems
and penalties with respect to projects that have the primary pur-
pose of encouraging new growth.

     Engineering review of plans and specifications has been too
narrow in concept and can be expanded to address the questions
of beneficial and adverse effects of land use - particularly with
respect to effects on new growth.

     Certainly, the suggestion that federal participation be lim-
ited to the capacity required to service existing populations
and industrial production, leaving beneficiaries to pick up
the cost of additional capacity, has some merit.  A principal
question, of course, would be how cost is to be shared.  If bene-
ficiaries contribute only in terms of marginal costs to provide
additional capacity, such costs are likely to be so low as to
prove to be little incentive and growth-inducing facilities would
continue unabaited.

     There are so many ways to circumvent restrictions on cost
sharing where projected growth is involved that meaningful  com-
pliance would be extremely difficult.  Population projections
are unquestionably a source of much of the difficulty with over-
capacity and adverse effects of facilities on urban growth.  Many
projections do not incorporate recent data on fertility rates.
Many are carelessly done and distort rather than contribute to
the planning process.  As a minimum, states should be required
to produce reliably developed population projections and all
engineering plans should be required to utilize these.  Even with
this, there is a great deal of opportunity for misuse.  So the
process needs to be substantially tightened up.

3.   What are the merits and demerits of prohibiting eligibility
     of growth-related reserve capacity?

     A major problem in the past has been that treatment plants
and municipal sewers become over loaded with consequent bypassing
and infractions of regulatory standards well in advance of re-
gulatory and planning action to provide needed additional capacity.
In other words, there has been a long time gap between reaching
capacity and providing needed additional capacity.  So, obviously,
treatment plants and sewer mains connecting the plants with


                                        1*33

-------
collection systems need to have sufficient additional  capacity
to withstand the time lag between recognition of the additional
need and its provision.  Much of this need could be eliminated,
I suppose, if regulatory and planning activities were more ef-
ficient - but they aren't.  This time lag - unassodated with
growth - needs to be included.  Certainly a minimum of 5 years
is required.

     Then there is the question of infiltration and other system
weaknesses that normally lead to sewage treatment plant bypass.
This requires either additional capacity or some other provision -
such as temporary detention ponds - to prevent overflow and pollu-
tion.

     If these questions were taken care of, the prohibition of
eligibility for growth-related reserve capacity would  still  de-
prive local government of cost savings associated with economies
of scale.  This is particularly true with interceptor  and outfall
sewers.  It seems almost irrational to restrict the design of
these facilities to present needs and then turn around in 5-10
years and build parallel lines at high costs that could have been
otherwise avoided.  Yet, the problem remains, and the  only answer,
it seems to me, is to require far more extensive cost  sharing at
the  local level.  Most pressure for- growth-inducing interceptor
and outfall sewers is from developers who have the most to gain.
These are costs of development and one might ask why the costs
should not be borne by those who profit from the development or
who invest in it in some form, i.e., ultimately those  who pur-
chase the homes or businesses involved.  Anything less than pro
rata cost sharing might not have much effect as incentives or
disincentives for their construction.

     Ultimately, local government must assume responsibility for
better planning and management with respect to the location of
growth-indueing facilities.  Until they do, it would seem
reasonable that higher levels of government have some  responsibi-
lity to avoid actions leading to adverse effects.  The present
federal cost sharing is an adverse action and I can see no
workable solution except to reduce that incentive.  Again, the
cleanest way to do this would be to amend the Act to limit
federal participation to projects directly involved in waste
treatment in contrast to waste collection.  By policy decision
additional capacity could be limited to a figure like 10 percent
with the requirement that local government pick up the remainder.
Cost sharing could be on a pro rata basis to distribute the cost
of this action.

-------
      4.    What are the merits and demerits of limiting eligibility for
           growth-related reserve capacity to 10 years for treatment
           plants and 20 or 25 years for sewers?

           I believe that cities could live with 10 years for treatment
      plants with no real problems.  Since I do not believe that the
      plants are the major source of incentive for growth outside of
      currently served areas, at least, I don't consider this too impor-
      tant.  Periods of 20-25 years for sewers are sufficiently  long
      so that I doubt these restraints would have any particular effect
      in limiting their use.  As above, I suggest a much more limited
      growth-related reserve capacity with the requirement that  local
      government pick up the rest.  I am really suggesting that  the
      question of reserve capacity be handled through cost sharing and
      not design - the latter is untenable, irrational  and extremely
      difficult to justify.

      5.    Are there other alternatives?

           The economic incentive alternative is applicable here^  as
      elsewhere, in this series of policy questions.  In the long  run
      effluent charges are the only way to bring sanity to water pollu-
      tion control.  The literature is full of references and there is
      no purpose in trying to build a case here.  If the developers (and
      ultimately the buyers) had to pay the full cost of their develop-
      mental activities the added cost of major sewers  to service out-
      lying lands would tend to offset the benefits of low land  costs
      with self-moderating effects.  What the developer is doing,  in
      fact, is to maximize his own returns at public expense.  It seems
      to me that excess capacity is not a question of real  social
      importance if we limit its application to open and available
      lands currently within utility service areas.  I  see no social
      purpose to be served by federal subsidy of leap-frog development,
      but that is precisely what is going on at the present time.

Paper No. 3 - Restricting types of project eligible for grant assistance

           The expansion of federal participation in collection  sewers
      did not start with P.L. 92-500.  Under earlier acts the categor-
      ies of "interceptor-outfall" sewers was widely interpreted to
      include a great deal more than sewers needed to intercept  existing
      discharges.  At least half of all federal funds went to these
      types of facilities and a goodly portion of these were sewer mains
      into previously undeveloped areas.  Efforts in the earlier program
      to limit participation to facilities needed to directly abate
      pollution were unsuccessful.

-------
           Certainly, one way to limit the' amount of federal  funds re-
      quired would be to limit participation to those projects needed
      to abate existing pollution.   Additional  capacity could be picked
      up by local  government and/or develdpers.  I would include in
      this group categories I, II,  V, and VI.   Category IV (b) should
      be included when necessary to intercept major discharges.   I
      would further limit federal  participation in the above  until
      local government had corrected sewer infiltration and had  carried
      out necessary sewer rehabilitation.  Under no circumstances would
      I include categories IV(a) nor IV(b) where these are, in fact,
      minor or major parts of collection systems.   There was  simply no
      excuse for widening legislative authorization to include all
      these categories.

Paper No. 4 - Extending dates to meet water quality standards

           I don't see how the 1977 date can be enforced against viola-
      tors when everyone recognizes that compliance cannot be attained
      by that date.  Why should one expect the  courts to enforce under
      these circumstances?

           Retention without an attempt to enforce against "those dis-
      chargers that cannot realistically be expected to meet  the dead-
      line due solely to funding problems," strikes me as an  extreme-
      ly difficult if not impossible administrative task,

           It would be better, I believe, to publically recognize that the
      original dates were unrealistic, adjust these to realistic dates,
      and announce and demonstrate that enforcement by the new dates
      is expected.  There is nothing wrong with recognition by the
      Congress that a mistake was made, to correct it and get on with
      the business of cleaning up the Nation's  waters.  I wouldn't
      want the task of enforcing the law under  any other circumstances.

           Thanks for the opportunity to comment on these important
      questions.

                                 Sincerely yours,
                                 David H.  Howells
                                 Director
DHHrjj

-------
  TESTIMONY BY WILLIAM E. MARKS BEFORE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON POTENTIAL
    LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS TO FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

      I thank you for the opportunity to comment on the possible legis-
lative changes governing the Agency's grant program for the construc-
tion of municipal sewage treatment facilities.  My name is Billy Marks
and I'm an Environmental Analyst for the City of Newark.
      To begin, we would like to say that the City of Newark is address-
ing the needs of our country's development and is aligning our city's
needs to complement those of the country.  It is with deep sincerity
that we comment on the possible legislative changes before us today.
In presenting our comments, we feel that the key issue to be considered
in these legislative changes is the establishment of priorities on a
national basis.  Is the Congress going to accelerate the demise of this
nation's cities by providing water monies to fuel suburban and exurban
development, or is the Congress going to curtail this sprawl by placing
an emphasis on remedying urban blight and problems.  The City of Newark
believes that such a renaissance is in the national energy and environ-
mental interests, and the establishment of a set of national priorities
as part of the legislative changes being entertained here today would
support these national goals.
      The first area of legislative change proposed is the reduction
of the Federal share of the funding for grant projects.  Section
202(a) of Public Law 92-500 sets the current Federal grant share at
75 per cent, with $18 billion presently authorized and allotted by
the Congress.  The City of Newark recommends a continuation of this
75 per cent Federal subsidization, with a new priority given to urban
allocations.  If the .75 per cent Federal funding is not retained, we
would then recommend the minimum allocation of 55 per cent funding only
for suburban and exurban projects and that the 75 per cent figure be
retained for funding of urban projects.  These mfnimum allocations will.
place the emphasis on support of the needs of existing densely popu-
lated urban centers.  These centers are now experiencing strained envir-
onmental, conditions that are instrumental in the negative patterns of
growth presently being suffered, as evidenced in New York City, Newark
and other northeast areas.  By incorporating this type of discretionary
Federal funding policy, we will experience a built-in growth control
regulator that should help to curtail present suburban and exurban
sprawl, while providing for an urban refurbisnment and renaissance,
      The second area of proposed legislative change is the limiting
of federal financing to serve only the needs of existing populations.
As it has been well documented that the United States Environmental
Protection Agency is presently financing rural development and growth
through its water funding programs, the City of Newark wholeheartedly
agrees with limiting Federal financing to serve only the needs of
existing populations.  Our only request is that priority be given to

-------
urban areas that support dense existing populations.  Since urban areas
 have a relatively stable growth projected for the near future, there
 will be little or no need to plan a reserve capacity in these areas.
 But, we also recognize that the Federal  financing of only existing
 populations will not prohibit grantees from providing cost effective
 reserve capacity beyond that fundable by the United States Environmental
 Protection Agency with that reserve.capacity being 100 per cent financed
 by the grantee.  This issue should be addressed.
       The third area of proposed legislative change is the restricting
 of the types of projects that are eligible for grant assistance.   P,L.
 92-500 authorizes funding of the following types  of projects:

            I   Secondary treatment plants
           II   Tertiary treatment plants as needed to meet water quality
                standards
          IIIA  Correction of sewer infiltration/inflow
          IIIB  Major sewer rehabilitation
           IVA  Collector Sewers
           IVB  Interceptor Sewers
            V   Correction of combined sewer overflows
           VI   Treatment or control of stormwaters

 This classification above is the same used to identify water pollution
 control needs in the 1974 Needs Survey.   The City of Nweark's reaction
 to the narrowing of project eligibility by eliminating some of those
 categories where clearly identified needs have been established,  is
 that it may jeopardize the basic P.L. 92-500 objective "to restore and
 maintain the chemical, physical, and biological  integrity of the
 Nation's waters."  If implementation of a narrow  approach for project
 eligibility is enforced, many projects may not be implemented because
 of prohibitive cost factors.  What the City recommends is that each
 project's eligibility be evaluated on an ad hoc basis, with the regu--
 lating factor being orderly environmental growth  planning.  The proposal
 to limit eligibilities to categories I,  II and IVB, as defined in the
 1974 Needs Survey, would further stimulate the damaging patterns  of
 sprawl taking place today.
       Sewers and sewage treatment plants are today's prime determinants
 of development.  The location and rate of extension  of interceptor
 sewer lines across undeveloped land has more impact on land use than  any
 other public facility (ref. The Costs of Sprawl  and the 4th Annual
 CEQ Report).  The location of a new interceptor increases the number
 of buildable lots along its right-of-way, with population density
 being controlled by the interceptor's size.  Thus, to give priority
 to interceptor development is not in the best interests of sound land
 use practice.  To the contrary, Newark proposes that the types of pro-
 jects eligible for funding remain unchanged and that instead, a priori-
 ty be assigned for each project on an ad hoc basis, thereby insuring
 that only environmentally sound projects will receive the highest
 priority.

-------
      The fourth area of proposed legislative change is the extension
of the 1977 deadline for municipalities to achieve secondary treat-
ment and compliance with State water quality standards.  Since it is
currently estimated that 50 per cent of the municipalities will not
be able to comply with the requirements of Section 301 of the statute,
the City of Newark agrees that there should be an extension of the 1977
deadline.  However, these extensions should be extended on a case-by-
case basis through the discretionary authority of the USEPA.  This will
permit compliance schedules to be established on a relative basis as
each municipality starts construction.
      The fifth area of proposed legislative change is increasing the
States' role in managing the grant program.  The USEPA now reviews
all construction grant projects and oversees the use of Federal grant
funds.  The City of Newark agrees that a tightening of the fiscal
accountability systems should be required of states carrying out their
construction projects.  Statutory authority should be retained by the
USEPA to develop criteria for independent audits and evaluation of
construction grants.  Even though the USEPA may delegate the management
of grant programs to the states, Newark believes that the USEPA should
establish a list of national project priorities and supervise the de-
velopment of priority lists of each state.  The Federal control over
the priority arrangement of the projects will help to insure the in-
corporation of national objectives, especially those of curtailing
suburban and exurban sprawl.
      In closing, the City of Newark would like to reemphasize that
the establishment of well defined national priorities should be
adopted as part of the legislative changes that are being discussed
here today.  Through this process, the Congress will insure that na-
tional goals are met ifi preserving our urban centers and decreasing
the momentum of suburban and exurban sprawl.  Thank you.

6-25-75
WEMrgbl
                                        1*33

-------
                         STATEMENT TO THE
                  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
     PUBLIC HEARINGS ON POTENTIAL LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS TO
              THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

                                BY

        Warren T. Gregory, Director of Legislative Affairs
             National Solid Wastes Management Association

                           June 25, 1975

The National Solid Wastes Management Association appreciates  the oppor-
tunity afforded to it this morning to comment on proposed amendments
to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.   NSWMA  is a
professional trade association which represents private  firms engaged
in the collection and disposal of solid waste, as well as the recovery
of energy and resources from the waste stream.  A recent United States
EPA survey showed that the private solid wastes management industry
provides for more than 75% of the daily collection and disposal  services
of the nation.

The programs of the Environmental Protection Agency to foster and de-
velop planning for both water and solid waste, as well as other areas
of environmental concern, have always been supported by  NSWMA.   We
are, however, concerned that a proposed amendment to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act as outlined in the April "Solid Waste Utiliza-
tion Act of 1975" Staff Working Paper, would invite an additional area
of responsibility of a regional planning agency established under
Section 208 of PL 92-500.  We feel that this amendment is inappropriate
and inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Federal Water Quali-
ty Program.

The National Solid Wastes Management Association supports local  and
regional solid waste planning as a part of a coordinated statewide
management plan.  State government through its appropriate state en-
vironmental agency should be responsible for the development  and admin-
istration of statewide solid waste management planning and resource
recovery policy.  This planning should delineate specific environmental
goals as outlined in national legislation, as well as objectives of
the state and its respective local governmental organizations.   State
level planning should include as assessment of the waste management
needs for waste collection and disposal along with practical  assess-
ments of available markets for utilization of recovered  materials.

We ask that EPA and OMB consider the economic and administrative problems
that could result from a mandatory planning requirement  for solid wastes

-------
management as a part of Section 208 planning.  Many states are finally
developing statewide programs that are the result of many years of
costly research and study.  To Callow the independent actions of a
regional agency to disrupt and compete with existing solid waste man-
agement programs is, in our opinion, exactly the duplication of money
and effort that the OMB seeks to avoid.

Consideration should be given to the question of whether or not the re-
gional planning and management agency for waste water treatment should
be vested with the planning and implementation of solid waste manage-
ment and resource recovery programs.  Water quality management and plan-
ning is obviously facilitated when it can be done for a river basin,
sub-basin, or ground water (aquifer) region.  Solid waste management
and planning, however, will not necessarily be best suited to these
same regions.  Furthermore, unlike the water quality programs which
have been the responsibility of public agencies, waste collection
and disposal services have historically been provided by the private
sector.  Therefore, the participation of private enterprise in the plan-
ning of regional solid waste management and resource recovery programs
is essential to insure development of policies and programs which will
provide the most economical and environmentally acceptable service.

Two of the questions raised by the Office of Management and Budget to
EPA: "(2) limiting Federal financing to serving the needs of existing
population; (3) restricting the types of projects eligible for grant
assistance)" directly address appropriateness of amending Section 208
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to include solid waste
management planning.  The possibility of duplicating existing or planned
programs in solid waste management by creating an additional  layer of
responsibility for this area within the Federal Water Quality  Program
is very real.  The inclusion of solid waste management as a planning
requirement for 208 agencies would, in our opinion, duplicate the com-
prehensive existing solid waste management planning institutions on-
going at this time.  We have seen examples of this conflict among
Federal programs and are concerned that it creates more costly and
duplicative activities.

The Interim Staff Report of the Sub-Committee on Investigations and
Review, Committee on Public Works and Transportation, emphasizes the
need to "stream-line and simplify" the national program called for in
PL 92-500.  One of the general difficulties of implementing PL 92-500
has been the lack of stability in this program.  The transition from
the old law to the new one has been characterized by so much confusion
and disillusionment, largely growing out of the complex, ever changing
shape of the program, that to introduce major new changes at this
time could produce chaos.  The report went on to stress that the program

-------
desperately needs simplification and streamlining.   NSWMA concurs with
this observation and suggests to EPA and OMB that the inclusion of
solid waste management planning in a water quality program will only
create more complexity and expense at a time when simplification and
economy are necessary if our nation is to achieve its water quality
goals.

NSWMA urges the  EPA and OMB to review carefully the amendments proposed
in the staff working paper of the Senate Public Works Committee which
would include solid waste management planning as a part of the functions
of a regional water quality agency.  We feel it would be inappropriate
to include solid waste management planning in the Federal  Water Quality
Act and that such an inclusion would only result in increased cost with-
out any benefit to solid waste management or water quality planning.
We would be pleased to supply to the Committee any additional comment
or amplification of these remarks.  NSWMA appreciates the opportunity
to comment on these proposed amendments to the Federal  Water Pollution
Control Act.

-------
                        STATEMENT TO THE
                 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                BY
                        THOMAS C, WALKER
                BROWNING-FERRIS INDUSTRIES, INC.
                           JUNE 25, 1975
                        WASHINGTON, D.C.

      Good morning.  My name 1s Thomas C. Walker.  I appear before
you today on behalf of Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc. the nation's
largest waste systems company, with subsidiaries having substantial
operations in all aspects of the waste systems and resource recovery
business throughout the United States.
      In the way of background information, Browning-Ferris operates
in 130 locations in the United States, Puerto Rico, and Canada in-
cluding:
           solid waste systems operations in 97 cities;
           numerous contracts with municipalities;
           primary recovery operations conducted by 40 secondary
      fibre reception centers with more planned;
           25 Chemical Services Division locations, seven of which
      are liquid waste reception and treatment centers.
      In 1974, BFI handled over 10.5 million tons of our nation's solid
waste and our Resource Recovery Division supplied in excess of
1,400,000 tons of secondary paper-making fibre to the paper manufac-
turing industry throughout the world.
      Although the primary thrust of our operations involve solid
waste systems, a small but increasing portion of our energies and re-
sources are being devoted to the collection, disposal  and recovery
of liquid wastes.
      We have had the opportunity recently of reviewing the Senate
Public Works Committee draft of the "SOLID WASTE UTILIZATION ACT OF
1975" and have taken particular note of the provisions in that committee
draft to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.  The Federal
Water Pollution for the management of water quality on a regional  bas-
is throughout the country including, either directly or by contract,
the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of such water
management facilities as may be required by any plan developed pursuant
to that section of the act.
      We recognize and fully support achieving solid waste management
and resource recovery goals through regional planning; however, we
must seriously question the appropriateness of mandating that a
specific planning agency established under other environmental programs
such as waste water treatment should also be charged with the addi-
tional responsibilities for solid waste management and planning.  Through
our experience working at the state level, we recognize that numerous

-------
states have taken meaningful steps toward the establishment of re-
gional solid waste planning programs within the state often under the
auspices of state "EPA like" agencies.  The early results of these
programs have been commendable and based on their success, many ad-
ditional states are now seriously considering legislation in the cur-
rent or for the next legislative session that would provide for a
regional planning program to meet the solid waste planning needs of
the state.
      Notably the State of Michigan in January of 1975 enacted land-
mark legislation providing for the planning, administrative and op-
erational needs of that state while utilizing, to the maximum extent
possible, existing and planned private solid waste operations and
facilities.  Legislators in other states have drafted legislation
for consideration which parallels the Michigan legislation while en-
acting other sections from progressive legislation such as exists'in
California, Connecticut, or other states that have made meaningful
progress toward solving this critical problem.
      This planning process within the state, integrating its activi-
ties through a state "EPA like" organization, provides the basis for
a broad national plan which can then be administered through a legis-
lative mandate to the Federal EPA.  Sudden transfer of these respon-
siblities to an agency established to meet the other diverse and
frequently conflicting needs associated with water quality, particular-
ly at a time when these water agencies are at best embryonic, could be
catastrophic to both the water quality and solid waste management
needs of our country.  By their very nature, the regional planning  and
management agency for waste water treatment, water quality management,
and planning is most reasonably structured around river basins, sub-
basins, or aquifer regions.  Solid waste planning and management, par-
ticularly that associated with the broad resource recovery programs,
which are held by many to be the ultimate solution to the solid waste
problem, must be structured around population centers and availability
of waste resources in manageable quantities that can be processed,
recovered, and disposed of in the most efficient manner.  The start-
ing point, therefore, must, by definition, be different  because the   *
needs to be served by these two types of agencies are clearly diverse.
      Historically, water quality programs have been the responsibli-
ty of public agencies with utility-like structures.  Waste collection
and disposal services, however, have historically been provided by
the private sector.  It is the private operator who handles 73% of the
nation's solid waste with only 34% of the nation's solid waste em-
ployees.  It is the private operator who, supported and financed by
private capital within the framework of the free enterprise system and
utilizing the profit motive as stimulus for his activity, has developed
the most significant technical solutions for these critical problems
while maintaining favorable economics for the consumer of his services.
Interjection at the national level of a utility-type planning

-------
operational and administrative organization, bureaucratic in nature
by its basic structure, can only negate the dramatic advances of
recent decades by the private sector and result in a quantum jump in
costs to the individual who must ultimately pay the bill for these
services, the taxpayer.  This same taxpayer has invested enormous
amounts of his funds through the water quality programs initiated and
proposed by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in an effort to
meet ambitious and desirable water quality standards.  The presently
existing organization established for this purpose are struggling
admittedly to achieve these optimistic and 1 audible standards.   To di-
lute these efforts at this most critical juncture through the assign-
ment of additional, unfamiliar, and inconsistent responsibilities could
be disastrous to the future  of both our water quality and our solid
waste management programs.
      By the very nature of the waste water treatment agencies, their
inclination would be to own and operate facilities and their motiva-
tion might well be to reproduce, at taxpayer expense, existing  solid
waste and resource recovery facilities, consistent with their histori-
cal way of doing business.
      As indicated earlier, many states have'recognized the importance
of mandating that facilities created by the public sector do not need-
lessly duplicate or displace existing or planned private facilities.
Both the Michigan and Florida resource recovery acts assure a non-
duplication of services.  The Michigan Act No.  336 states:
           "The department's action shall not displace a licensed
           resource recovery, waste facility,  or other waste
           management project in existence or under construction."
The Florida Chapter 74-343 states:
           "to the maximum extent possible, include provisions
           for continuation of existing regional resource re-
           covery, recycling, and management facilities and pro-
           grams ."
      It is our understanding that, to date, approximately 40 regional
areas in 17 states have been designated as waste water management
regions and only 14 agencies have actually received grants under
the act.  We further understand that a total of approximately  $9
billion has been allocated for these purposes for 1975 indicating the
enormous magnitude of the waste water program.   If similar resources
are brought to bear on a solid waste program certainly the incentive
for  private capital to expand its investments   in these areas  will  be
thwarted and it can become, we believe, a public utility type function
requiring large amounts of capital to sustain itself on a national
basis operating outside the constrictive parameters of the free enter-
prise system.
      In summary, we believe that there is a clearly evidenced need
for an extensive regional planning program to identify facilities-and
needs throughout the country on a region by region basis to achieve
the solid waste management and resource recovery goals so vital to

-------
the sustenance of our environment.  The program that is proposed, uti-
lization of authorities created under section 208 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act to accomplish this task, would be a serious mis-
direction of our national resources and result in the diluting of al-
ready ambitious water quality programs while concurrently disrupting
the established efforts in many states to attack this problem through
what we believe to be the most effective vehicle, a state controlled
agency for this purpose.  We believe that by the very nature of the
water quality authorities, granting them this new responsibility will
result in substantially higher costs for waste management.  In the
event thatthese authorities are given responsibility for this added
task, we believe that full utilization of the existing private enter-
prise system will not be achieved.  We strongly recommend to you that
the EPA act in every possible way to bring the full power of this
agency to bear on Congress to remove this well intended but counter-
productive section of the current draft,of the Solid Waste Utilization
Act of 1975.
      The future well being of the citizens of the United States will
surely depend in part on the manner in which the waste of this country
is managed in the years to come.  We look forward to continuing to play
a vital role in developing progressive and practical solutions to this
challenge and appreciate this opportunity to express our views on this
very important aspect of that challenge.  We would be pleased to pro-
vide such additional information as the Environmental Protection Agen-
cy feels would be useful in evaluating positions we support.  Thank
you.

-------
                           TESTIMONY BY

                           ROBERT A. LOW
              ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTION ADMINISTRATOR
                         CITY OF NEW YORK
                                ON
  PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
                            (PL 92-500)
                           BEFORE THE
         UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                        WASHINGTON, D.C.

                     WEDNESDAY, JUNE 25, 1975

      This testimony is submitted on behalf of Robert A. Low, Adminis-
trator of the New York City Environmental Protection Administration,
which includes the City's Department of Water Resources.  I am Martin
Lang, Deputy Administrator of EPA and former Commissioner of the De-
partment of Water Resources.
      I am very pleased to have this opportunity commenting on the
Administration's proposals to amend Public Law 92-500 and to suggest some
additional actions for which we in New York see an urgent need.
      At the outset, I would like to declare in the strongest possible
terms New York City's opposition to any amendment that would dilute
the historic purpose of  the present law — to improve the marine
environment of our nation for the rest of this century and beyond.
      The intent of the law was to make possible an intensive effort, in
one decade, to atone for all the errors of the past and upgrade our wa-
ters by creating new works to last into the 21st Century.
      The timing of the law was fortuitous.  In a faltering economy, it
provided construction and manufacturing employment, not for make-work
projects, but directed to a high national purpose.  In New York State
alone, the water pollution control program is estimated to account for
150,000 jobs over the next five years.
      The law's timing also coincided with the now-obvious inability of
municipalities themselves to generate such a massive program.
      Therefore, any reduction in the Federal 75 percent share, any
statutory limitation on Federal participation in long-term planning
and building, any restriction on Federal funding for necessary collec-
tion systems would all have a crippling effect — on the goals of the
Act, on construction and manufacturing employment and on the nation's
effort to combat municipal decay.

      Reduced Federal Sharing

      I know that I can speak for all the nation's municipalities in de-
claring that is has been the prospect of substantial Federal funding
that has spurred water pollution control programs around the country
                                      44 /

-------
even at a time when local budgets were hard-pressed.  If this prospect
were to be allowed to dwindle, there is no question but that municipal
managers would find it only prudent once again to hold clean water
programs in abeyance, as they have in the past, until such time as
the Federal government renewed its funding commitment at a higher
1evel.
      The facts speak for themselves.  From 1965 on, when the previous
Federal act promised 55 percent reimbursement and then failed to deliver
the funds, construction was virtually frozen in most of the country.
What would be the sense, Mayors asked, in committing substantial local
funds now when additional Federal funds might be forthcoming later?
      In New York, the State government had the vision to advance to
the City a portion of the Federal share and gamble on the credibility
of the Federal government, thus triggering substantial construction.
Where actual appropriations follow authorizations, construction to
achieve the goals of the Act accelerates.  Without this incentive, PL
92-500 will become an empty promise.
      Asking each community now to accept less than the present 75 per
cent funding level, as the result of an abstract feeling that nation-
wide Federal funding will thus go further is patently unrealistic.
What each community will understand is that a neighboring town that
was a bit faster with its planning got more Federal  reimbursement
for its pollution control program.  The natural reaction would be to
delay the second plant in the hope that a higher level of Federal  fund-
ing would be restored.
      I would make the same point in relation to the Administration's
proposal to limit Federal participation to programs designed to serve
only current needs, and to the proposal to eliminate Federal  funding
for collection systems, both of which I will discuss in more detail
in a moment.
      Both of these proposals would inhibit development and funding
of local programs.  Requiring localities to pay alone for. that part
of a wastewater treatment program designed to serve future growth
would only encourage them to delay the entire program.  And elimina-
tion of sewer upgrading and collection costs from the Federal program —
since in many cases sewer work is required by the Federal regulations
as part of pollution control -- would present the same inhibition.
In other words, experience shows that if funding for a whole job is
not available, it is unlikely that the job will ever be done at all.
      With regard to the management impact of a reduction in Federal
participation, the working papers raise the issue and imply that muni-
cipalities are not profligate with Federal funds and would be inspired
to be more careful if their own investment was increased.
      I assure you that this issue is specious.  No matter how small
the local investment, the respect of municipalities for all public
monies insures prompt and professional handling of pollution control

-------
programs.  In New York City, for example, we have adopted a procedure
under which State and Federal engineers participate with us along
every step of a program from conception to completion.  An increase
in local expenditures for these programs would not have any affect on
the care with which they are produced.  The issue is irrelevant.

      Role of States

      I would mention here, in fact, our strong support for the Admin-
istration's proposal to delegate to states even more authority in man-
aging these programs than exists under present law.   Not only are
states more intimately familiar with the problems and needs of their
municipalities, but -- at least in New York — they have demonstrated
their professional capacity to monitor implementation of the law.    ?
Giving the states more authority would substantially reduce duplication
of effort and would speed the process of planning, design and construc-
tion.

      Limitation of Projects for Federal Funding

      In contemplating the possibility of reduced Federal sharing, of
course the basic issue is the availability of real Federal dollars
for the enormous job that must be done.  But let us  consider the need
realistically.  The fact is that more than two thirds, or $235 billion,
of the $342 billion estimated in the 1974 Survey of  State Needs to
be required for facilities eligible for funding under the Act is for
a high degree of treatment of storm waters.  However, there can be no
argument that the real needs are for collection systems, interceptor
sewers and treatment plants for dry-weather flow.  The resulting total
is, therefore, seriously misleading.  To try to frighten Congress away
from 75 percent funding because of an unnecessarily  inflated national
needs figure is absurd.
      In the allocation of priorities for pollution  abatement programs,
certainly treatment and control of storm waters should be low on the
list — as it is in fact last on the list of eight types of projects
eligible for Federal funding under PL 92-500.
      But to suggest, as does the third Federal proposal, that all
collection systems discharging into intercepting sewers and then to
treatment plants be eliminated from the Federal program would seriously
hamper our progress.
      The law requires the recipient of a grant to agree to certain con-
ditions.  Often one of them is that the municipality cornnit itself to
build or rehabilitate the collection system for a new plant.  In some
cities, the cost of such construction equals that of the treatment

-------
plant itself.  To remove Federal participation from such necessary
work would inevitably motivate the municipality to abandon the entire
project.
      To suggest that cities already have enough motivation to do sewer
work and, therefore, do not require Federal  aid is a non sequitur.  Mo-
tivation is not the question.  Money is.  New York City, for example,
has a $6 billion investment in its existing collection system -- an
investment that it made virtually unaided   Much of that system is now
old and in need of rehabilitation and extension.  It makes little sense
for the Federal government to invest heavily in wastewater treatment
without a concomitant investment in the system for delivering the
wastewater for treatment.
      Eliminating funding for sewers would also reward the laggard
states which have not yet progressed in developing  treatment programs.
They will continue to receive full Federal reimbursement for the
treatment plants that cities like New York have already underway --
many of them at the old 55 per cent rate, by the way — while cities  •
now ready for collection system work will be out in the cold.

      Limitation on Reserve Capacity

      Turning to the proposed limitation of Federal funding for that
portion of systems designed to serve future needs, I again find the
working paper to be a bit cavalier.  As with the proposals to reduce
the Federal share and to limit the projects covered, the papers say,
in effect -- go ahead with what you need anyway, we just won't share
the bill.
      Gentlemen, we come to these hearings directly from all-night
sessions on how to continue essential garbage collection and water
supply services with a 20 percent cut in budget.  I will not belabor
the point.  Obviously, there can be no realistic expectation that mun-
icipalities in the foreseeable future will be able, without Federal
assistance, to do what's right.  We will be doing only what's absolutely
necessary, if we're lucky.
      The Federal proposal seems to achnowledge the prudence of plan-
ning for the future and encourages municipalities to do so, but with- •
out Federal participation.  It makes no sense to specify such limit-
ations nationwide.  The nature of problems around the country are too
diverse.
      For example, in a sparsely  populated rural area, increasing the
size of a pipe laid through open fields as population increases in
future years is a relatively simple matter.  Such a change cannot be
compared with changes that might be necessary in an interceptor sewer
laid in a deep rock tunnel under a congested metropolitan area mined
with complex utility lines.  Such an installation can be made only
once in a lifetime, with an eye on future generations,

-------
      The proposal is clearly a sincere effort to prevent windfalls
for irresponsible developers in undeveloped areas of the country.   But
the effort misses by adopting a technique that would also deter the  -
construction of logically-designed facilities for major, mature metro-
polises.  Certainly the environment can be better protected by con-
tinuing prudent review of project proposals than by arbitrary limita-
tions on a program that was intended to serve future generations.
      If the intent of a limitation on reserve capacity is to devote
presently-available funds exclusively to current needs, I predict  it
will backfire.  The result will be that the funds will  not be spent at
all.  Municipalities are unlikely to approve their share of an invest-
ment in a plant that will be obsolete even before it is completed.

      Extension of the 1977 Compliance Date

      On the final proposal — extension of the 1977 date for compliance
with effluent limitations — there is no question that  extension is
required.  Even New York City, with what we believe is  the most
advanced wastewater treatment construction program in the nation, will
not be able to achieve compliance earlier than 1981, if no impediments
arise.
      I am sure it will come as no surprise that we support the fifth
alternative proposed in the working paper -- extension  of the deadlines
to 1983 — with a crucial modification.  Again the proposal  is un-
realistic in suggesting the compliance in 1983 be required "regard-
less of Federal funding."  I have addressed this point  often in this
testimony so will merely restate that compliance will not be possible
without continued Federal support as provided in the present  law.

      Prefinancing

      I would like to suggest, however, that PL 92-500  be amended to
authorize prefinancing, as was possible under the previous law. As
I reported earlier, it was the possibility of prefinancing that ori- .
ginally accelerated the development of New York's massive program.
However, the amendment must provide for strict guarantees and time
schedules for reimbursement, which did not exist in previous law.
      New York is still waiting for about $200 million  in Federal re-
imbursement of eligible work that we prefinanced starting in 1966.
Those funds just began to trickle in in 1974 to cover revenue antici-
pation notes issued almost 10 years before.
      Since the working paper specifically asks for comment on the
question of prefinancing, I suggest that before considering such a  pro-
gram for the new law, the old debts must be paid.
      Section 206 of PL 92-500 provides for reimbursement to munici-
palities for work started under previous pollution abatement programs.

-------
But, as you know, the funds were not allocated in sufficient amounts
to cover the debt.  No funds have been allocated to cover pre-
financed projects started between 1956 and 1966 under a 30 percent
Federal sharing formula, and only $1.9 billion has been allocated
to reumburse for the full 55 percent Federal  share on projects
planned between 1966 and 1972.  This is an obligation assumed in the
1972 legislation and I urge you to press Congress to accept that full
obligation now.

-------
TESTIMONY ON POTENTIAL REVISIONS TO THE  FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
                           ACT OF  1972

  Presented For The National Society of  Professional Engineers,
                    Professional Engineers  in Private Practice Division

  In Washington, D.C., June 25, 1975

  By James A. Romano, P.E., Vice President-NSPE; Chairman - PEPP

                           INTRODUCTION

      At the outset it should be absolutely clear that the 70,600-
member National Society of Professional  Engineers, encompassing five
divisions including the Professional Engineers in Private Practice,
does not favor any substantial changes in P.L. 92-500, Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 at this time.  In spite of
the deficiencies and frustrations, the construction grants program
is beginning to function.  Any change, however modest, will adversely
affect this progress.  Under these circumstances, we look at only
two of the proposals as worthy of  immediate consideration.  They are
the extension of the July  1977 deadline  and the delegation of a
greater portion of the management of the program to the states.  We
will offer words of caution with respect to the latter.
      It is within that context that I present the following statement
in which the five subject  issues are addressed.

                  Reduction of the Federal Share

      The National Society of Professional Engineers recommends that
the Federal share of funds for the construction grants program remain
at its present 75 percent  level.  This position is based on several
factors.
      Our primary reason for adopting this position, and a major fac-
tor in subsequent discussions in this presentation, is the fact that
the program from start to  finish is essentially a Federal program.
Goals and objectives were  established by the United States Congress
and these goals were, although laudable, beyond the economic reach
of most municipalities.  The Congress assured the municipalities - and
the states - that to achieve these goals and objectives the Federal
Government would provide 75 percent of the funds.  The Congress then
instructed the Environmental Protection  Agency to establish the
mechanism by which the program would function,  Within this mechanism
are a myriad of regulatory requirements  which must be met by indivi-
dual applicants before they become grantees and grantees before their
respective plants come on  line.

-------
      In short, the Federal government has imposed on states and muni-
cipalities certain requirements and restrictions in return for which
it, the Federal government, will provide three quarters of the funds
to support the construction grants program.
      It is recognized that with Federal dollars comes Federal control.
The reverse should also be true, with Federal control should come
Federal dollars.  There is no reason to assume that a reduction in Fed-
eral participation in the program will be accompanied by a similar re-
duction in Federal control.
      It must be emphasized that this Federal control has ramifications
which reach far beyond construction into operation and maintenance
for the life of the facility.  The latter costs must be shouldered by
the local community and they relate directly to the requirements im-
posed by the Federal government.  It is patently unfair, therefore,
for the Federal government to reduce its financial participation in
construction and thereby further burden the community.
      The above does not take into account the extreme fiscal  con-
straints in which many of our states and municipalities find themselves.
The reduction of the Federal share quite obviously would require an in-
crease in the state and local share.  In all  but a very few instances
this would demand either increased revenues - via taxes - or a reduction
in other types of services.  Given these alternatives it is unlikely
that most communities would look with favor on the construction of
treatment facilities particularly when the beneficiaries of such ef-
forts are the residents of communities downstream.  Under these cir-
cumstances, it is a virtual certainty that the construction grants
program would stall with the reduction of the Federal share.
      Those who would support a reduction in the Federal share would
at least partially support that position on the figures taken from the
1974 Needs Survey*  With justification they look at those figures with
alarm.  However, rather than a reason to partially withdraw the Fed-
eral government it is all the more reason to continue significant
Federal participation.  Rather than reduce the Federal share perhaps
we should be considering an increase in that share.
      In summarizing this element, it might be said (and possibly re-
peated elsewhere) that a zealous Congress, with good intentions and  "
an idealistic approach got us started down this road.  By withdrawing
now - even partially - the Federal government will virtually insure
the destruction of the program as envisioned.

Limiting Federal Financing to Serving Needs of Existing Population
                                               *

      The National Society of Professional Engineers would oppose leg-
islation designed to restrict Federal support to include only those
facilities needed to serve the existing community needs and, further,
we would oppose similar efforts designed to reduce Federal support by
linking it to a finite'value related, for example, to the 10 and 20-
year rule of estimated growth.

-------
      The basis for our position  is  related directly to P.L. 92-500
and the regulations it spawned  emphasizing cost effectiveness.  There
is far greater eventual cost  involved  in  underdesigning a facility
than in overdesigning the  same  facility.  For example, the cost of
installing sewer lines which  would double the capacity involves essen-
tially only the added cost of the pipe.   Excavation and other labor
costs remain virtually fixed.   However, if it becamejnecessary to install
a larger pipe some years hence  it is fair to assume the cost wou,ld be
doubled at least.
                                                  i               11
      The question of cost effectiveness  deserves, emphasis.  At the out-
set, it is important to note  that while cost effective guidelines,' are
imposed by the Federal government -  and not without reason - they im-
pact on all parties to the project,  Federal, state and local.  A faci-
lity that is not cost effective for  whatever reason is detrimental to
all parties.  Likewise, a  cost  effective  facility is economically
beneficial to all parties.  Cost  effectiveness is generally related to
technology.  However, it should also be related directly to the capa-
city of the facility and the  relationship of this capacity to future
anticipated growth within  the served community.  It may be, for example,
more cost effective to build  a  facility larger than will  ever be needed
than to under design and under  build and  thus force the replacement
or remodeling of the facility at  some  date in the future.   Cost effec-
tiveness is an elusive term and it must not be viewed only in short
term context.
      Few would argue that to project  the growth - commercially, indus-
trially and populationwise -  in most areas is risky business, particu-
larly if such projections  extend  beyond 10 or 15 years.  For this
reason, it seems inappropriate  to attempt to legislate a fixed growth
deadline beyond which the  Federal government will not participate in
facility financing.  What  would appear to be more realistic would be
the continuation of the current practice  in which each applicant is
judged on the basis of data related  specifically to its situation and
anticipated future development.
      EPA, rightly or wrongly and we will not argue that point, has
become a force in land use and  land  development through this program.
Whether or not the Congress intended this to take place is immaterial,
The fact is, through P.L.  92-500  it  is happening via the various plan-
ning sections and the associated  construction grants program.  Long
range land use planning is clearly required of states and grantees
under Sections 208 and 303(e) of  P.L.  92-500.  The implication is that
any treatment facility should be  designed to meet the anticipated
growth patterns exposed via this  planning procedure.  The intent is
unquestionably the identification of the  scope and nature of develop-
ment to be anticipated and subsequently served.  If there is validity
in the planning requirements  there is  also validity in the expectation
of a Federal funding commitment to meet the goals and objectives of
the plan.
                                   i+55

-------
      From a practical point of view, it would appear that few communi-
ties have or are willing to commit funds to meet sewage treatment needs
anticipated beyond that period of time for which Federal support is
provided.  Cleaning up the nation's waters has become a national pro-
gram and a national responsibility.  Local communities and states will
continue to look to the Federal government for substantial  assistance -
whether that assistance is related to facility designed to meet a need
for a short period of time or, at some future date, the replacement or
substantial overhauling of that facility to meet emerging  needs in a
new day.
      Finally, -we would reiterate that the Federal  government by its
actions in 1972 and subsequently has established clear national policy,
national objectives and given assurance of national support.   To main-
tain and enforce the national policy and national  objective without
maintenance of national support can only result in chaos.
      In summary we would oppose any arbitrary limit on Federal support
tied to a finite time period.

Restricting the Types of Projects Eligible for Grant Assistance

      The National Society of Professional Engineers opposes  any restric-
tion  on the types of projects which should be eligible for grant assis-
tance.
      Here again, as was the case with the type previous proposals,
the Federal establishment has lead states and communities  to  expect sub-
stantial Federal support.  In the first instance it was the amount of
that support.  In the second it was for the anticipated growth.  Here
it relates to the nature of the project(s).
      To achieve the goal of clean water as established by the Congress
in P.L. 92-500 demands that all alternatives to resolving  a local
pollution problem be given full consideration.  This fact  alone implies
Federal support is insured regardless of the alternative - and its
attendant facilities - selected to achieve the objective.   To preclude
Federal grant aid for one or more elements of any system is a negative
incentive and will encourage the grantee  to propose other and perhaps
less effective alternatives to insure full participation by the Fed-
eral government.
      Implicit within such limitations is also the potential  for in-
equity.  This inequity would arise in instances where one  community
received Federal funds for a class of project while its neighbor, some
time later, would be denied Federal support for the same type of pro-
ject.  The other circumstances of inequity is one in which it would
be necessary for an applicant to undertake a given project -  i.e., ma-
jor sewer rehabilitation - to meet Federally imposed water quality
standards only to find there are no Federal funds available for that
type of project.  Hence, heavy commitment of local  funds to achieve
Federally imposed requirements.

-------
      Under these sets of circumstances it seems logical that we
again raise the question of cost effectiveness.  If the grantee is en-
couraged to do something other  than what is most cost effective to
achieve an objective  it will be to no one's best interests.
      In rather simplistic terms it is highly unlikely that the nation
will achieve the goal of P.L. 92-500 to "restore and maintain the chem-
ical, physical, and biological  integrity of the Nation's waters" if
certain elements of the treatment system are categorized as non-<
eligible for Federal  assistance.
      In summarizing, we reject the concept which would restrict the
type of projects eligible for Federal assistance on the basis of its
negative incentive to applicants and the inherent inequities in such
an approach.

   Extending the 1977 Date for  Meeting Water Quality Standards

      It would seem there is universal support for this suggestion.
The question that must be answered deals with the nature and length of
the extension.
      Complicating factors include:  the level of funding to be pro-
vided by the Congress in coming years; whether Federal funding will
be made available over an extended period of time permitting long
range program planning; will other aspects of the program be altered -
legislatively or administratively - to provide for more efficient op-
eration or will additional regulatory requirements be imposed which
will have the effect  of slowing down the program.  One alternative is
to extend the deadline on a case by case^basis, based on the,ability
of the community - or industry.  This implies at least the following:
industry would be given the same consideration as are publically
owned treatment works; reasoned, fair judgments would have to be made
by state and Federal  officials.  It should be recognized, however, that
in this situation, enforcement  would very likely become a nightmare
since it, too, would  function on a case by case basis.
      The National Society of Professional Engineers is convinced that
the July 1, 1977 deadline is totally unrealistic.  We further believe
that the realities of the situation must be given full consideration
in discussion of any  extension.  These realities include the level and
consistency of Federal funding  as a primary fact.  Of almost equal
importance, however,  is the recognition that the process by which
treatment facility moves from conception to utilization consumes con-
siderable time and that there are literally thousands of such projects
to be completed.  A mad rush to pump these projects through to meet
an unrealistic deadline will result in chaos at best or what is more
likely, complete disaster.
      It is obvious that one of the primary difficulties with P.L.
92-500 has been its tight deadlines.  Some have been described *s


                                  1*5?

-------
ridiculous and in practice that description may be correct.  However,
to relieve the industry, the Congress, the Environmental Protection
Agency and the hundreds of municipalities involved of the pressures
associated with this deadline it seems appropriate that a rational
time span be established in which to achieve the act's objectives.  To
this end, we would strongly recommend that serious considerations be
given to the deletion of the July 1, 1977 deadline and that attention
be focused rather on achievement of the July 1, 1983 deadline.

Delegating a Greater Portion of the Management of the Construction Grants
                        Program to the States

      This suggestion, clearly defined in legislation already intro-
duced in the House of Representatives by Reps. James C.  Cleveland and
James C. Wright with substantial support from their colleagues, has
broad acceptance.  We of the National Society of Professional Engineers
add our endorsement of the concept.
      However, in offering this endorsement, we would also call atten-
tion to the fact that some cautions should be acknowledged.  There are
certain responsibilities such as those imposed by the National Environ-
mental Policy Act, which cannot be delegated to the states.  There is the
inherent danger that the process of individual states building their
capacity to assume additional responsibilities and the transfer of
those responsibilities following certification by the Administrator,
could and perhaps will cause disruptions in the program  resulting in
further delays.  There is the likelihood that not all states will
achieve ~ and in some instances desire - the authority  which would be
granted under this procedure.  In those instances, the Environmental
Protection Agency would by necessity retain management responsibility
and as a result to avoid duplication within those states some Federal -
state accomodation would be required.  We would also emphasize that
the process by which state certification is secured will be extremely
important in order to insure the viability and integrity of the pro-
gram.
      The above is not intended to imply that we will not give this
recommendation full  support.  It is intended to acknowledge that cer-
tain realities must be recognized if the implementatin of such a
recommendation is to achieve its most positive impact.
      Summarizing, we fully support this proposal but caution those
who would view it as the panacea.

                           Conclusion

      The above recitation indicates that the National Society of Pro-
fessional Engineers essentially opposes major changes in P.L. 92-500.
This position is firm.  Any tampering with the law or its associated
regulations automatically impedes the construction grants program.
We do not believe any of the above proposals, with the exception of

-------
the extension of the July 1, 1977 deadline, and perhaps the Cleveland-
Wright Bill warrants serious consideration at this time.
      Although we express this word of caution, we support the concept
of study and  analysis of P.L. 92-500 with the objective of improving
it and as  a result, speeding the day when its objective of clean
water will become a reality.  The NSPE trusts this kind of review will
continue and appreciates the opportunity to participate.

-------
July 7, 1975

Office of Water and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Protection Agency
Room 1033, West Tower, Waterside Mall
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.  20460

Gentlemen:

The North Central Texas Council of Governments Water Quality Council
Committee as well as the Executive Board met on June 25th and 26th
respectively to discuss the five proposed amendments to P.L. 92-500-
After an indepth analysis of each of the proposals,  the following
positions were approved on each of the issues:

1.    Reduction of the Federal Share - NCTCOG opposed any effort to
      reduce the Federal share from its present 75%  to a proposed
      55%.  Financial planning by the  area cities and Water and
      Sewer Agencies has been formulated on a 75/25  basis and a
      reduction in this percentage will cause significant delays in
      their overall program.  City budgets are simply stretched to
      their limits with no reserve to  take on added  monetary respon-
      sibilities; likewise, the State  budget would seem to offer dim
      prospects for absorbing any reduction of Federal participa-
      tion.

2.    Limit the Reserve Capacity of Facilities Eligible for Grant -
      NCTCOG, likewise, opposes the adoption of stringent limitations
      for future reserve design for plants and interceptor sewer
      lines.  In a rapidly developing  drainage area, such a policy
      would not prove economically advantageous since the cost to
      increase the pipe diameter to handle ultimate  flow is minimal
      when comparing it with the cost  of paralleling that facility
      after development has occurred in the drainage area.  Such a
      policy would appear to discourage the regional approach to
      sewer interceptor design and such action, especially in com-
      bination with proposal number one, would cause cities to again
      revert to the old philosophy of  designing for  the city limits
      rather than considering the entire drainage area,

3.    Restricting the Types of Grants  Eligible for Grant Assistance -
      NCTCOG concurs in limitation participation to  Items 1.  Secon-
      dary Treatment Plants, 2.  Tertiary Treatment  Plants, and 4B.
      Interceptor Sewers.  In addition, NCTCOG feels that Item 3A.
      Correction of Sewer Infiltration/Inflow should also be retained
      as an eligible project under P.L. 92-500.

                                  WO

-------
4.    Extending the 1977 date for the Publicly Owned Pre^Treatment
      Works to meet Water Quality Standards - NCTCOG concurs that one
      of two options should be allowed; either to extend the 1977 dead-
      line to 1983, or to tie compliance with approval of the grant for
      Step 3, the Construction Phase for Sewerage Treatment Plants.

5.    Delegating a Greater Portion of the Management of the Construction
      Grant Program to the State - NCTCOG approves giving States
      maximum authority for affecting compliance with P.L. 92-500 and
      supports House of Representatives Bill number 2175 on this point.

We hope that our position on these significant issues will be helpful
to the Environmental Protection Agency in your evaluation of the need
to amend P.L. 92-500, and if our position on each of the proposals
needs further explanation, please let us know.

                                 Very truly yours,

                                 William J. Pitstick
                                 Executive Director

WJP:cf
                                     1*61

-------
       STATEMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL
AND ECONOMIC RESOURCES - DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
 IN CONNECTION WITH PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO P.L. 92-500
                            July 3, 1975

PROPOSAL NO. 1 - On Reduction of the Federal Share
      The federal share should not be reduced from the present
75%.
      The assumption that goals of the act would be reached more
expeditiously by the use of more state and local funds so as to
extend limited federal funds is not true in our opinion.
      The State of North Carolina through the Clean Water Bond
Act of 1971 authorized $50 million in State Bonds to assist in
the construction of interceptors and wastewater treatment facilities
and $25 million in State Bonds to assist in the construction of
wastewater collection sewers.  The $50 million was to provide
26% State matching grants in order to qualify for 55% Federal
grants.  However, after passage of P.L. 92-500 which increased
Federal grants to 75%, the State revised its grant percentage
to 12.5% of the eligible cost.  The bond funds will not be adequate
to supplement all projects funded from the FY 76 allocation and, to
date, there have been no arrangements to provide additional
State grant funding.
      Under present economic conditions, there is very little, if
any, possibility that the State will appropriate grant funds for
wastewater facilities.  This can easily be confirmed by the fact
that the 1975 General Assembly had to cut both the expansion and
continuing State budgets.  Local units of government, especially
small municipalities and counties, will have serious difficulty
in providing the additional financing made necessary by a reduction
in the percentage of the Federal grant.
      It further appears that a reduction in the percent of Federal
funding could delay projects which have completed arrangements for
local financing based on receiving 75% Federal grant funds.  Also,
it is anticipated that a reduction in the percentage of federal
participation would prevent the construction of regional systems
which are determined cost effective to serve multiples of local
governments.
      The existing guidelines spell out in detail the methodology
for cost/effectiveness analysis.  Settlement of the question of
allowable design capacity of treatment works will result in constra-
ints such that cost reductions achieved by local accountability
will, we believe, be accompanied by an equal reduction in
effectiveness.
      PROPOSAL NO. 2 - On Limiting Federal Funding of Reserve
Capacity to Serve Projected Growth
      The generally accepted practice for design of wastewater

-------
treatment plants has been 20 years and for interceptor sewers 40
to 50 years.  One of the major factors considered in the design life
of wastewater treatment plants was the amortization of the capital
debt incurred in the construction of the facilities.  However,
with the higher construction costs and large percentage of Federal
grant participation, the cost of reserve capacity has become a
considerable issue.  One factor which is also creating the need
for larger capacities is the EPA requirement that by-passes must
be eliminated from wastewater treatment facilities and-capacities
must be provided for all I/I which cannot be cost-effectively
eliminated.
      We agree that the high percentage of Federal and State
funding has probably contributed to the desire of local units of
government to build reserve capacities.  The fact that Federal and
State grant participation may be reduced at some time in the future
is also an incentive to construct larger facilities with presently
available grant funds.  We also agree that an equitable method to
limit grant funding of excess capacities of wastewater treatment
works must be developed.  However, if such policies do not allow
for any growth or very limited growth, it will probably create
a back log problem.  We believe the California experience is the
preferable of presented alternatives and in that case some
provision should be made to allow additional capacity for plants
having a design capacity of less than 1 mgd because of the extreme
uncertainties in projecting growth for small communities.  For
example, a single small industrial addition could account for
more than 15 years of projected population growth.  Such industrial
discharge rates become a part of the population/flow projection for
large cities.  Equitable consideration must be given small commun-
ities or whether their growth will be completely stymied or a
backlog problem will be created.

PROPOSAL NO. 3 - On Restricting the Types of Projects Eligible for
Grant Assistance
      We believe that funding should be directed to project types
I, II, IIIA, IIIB, and IV B.  We recommend that projects for the
correction of combined sewer overflows and for the treatment of
storm water not be grant funded unless such work is more cost
effective than providing additional treatment in water quality
limited segments.  It is further recommended that grants for
collection sewers be given low priority.

PROPOSAL NO. 4 - On Extending the 1977 date for POTW's to Meet
the Requirements of Section 301 (b) (1) (B) and 301 (b) (1) (c)
      It is obvious that a large percentage of publicly owned
treatment works will not meet the 1977 date of achieving effluent
limitations based upon secondary or mo.re stringent level of treatment,

-------
if necessary, to meet water quality standards.
      The Division of Environmental Management has recommended
that 301 (b) be amended to allow achievement of 1977 treatment
requirements to 1980 and by deleting the 1983 requirements.
      It is further recommended that the regulations implementing
301 (b) (1) (B) be amended so as to permit the use of waste
stabilization lagoons or equivalent treatment where water quality
objectives can be achieved with their use.
      We question the energy/economic prudence of establishing
base level treatment as "best available" if there is no water
quality need and of establishing base qater quality levels
suitable for recreation in and on the water if there is no
public use need.

PROPOSAL NO. 5 - On Delegating a Greater Portion of the Management
of the Construction Grants Program to the States
      We believe that HR 6821 should expressly provide for delegating
the approval of facility plans and should be enacted.  The Bill
could expedite the grants program and minimize duplication
if EPA objectibily delegates its functions to qualified States
and uses its personnel to spot check the States and assist them
in moving the program.

-------
                         COMMENTS OF THE
          NATIONAL INDEPENDENT MEAT PACKERS ASSOCIATION
                  ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE
        FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT*

      The National Independent Meat Pakers Association (NIMPA) is
composed of over 250 member companies from 37 states who are
involved in slaughtering and meat processing.  On behalf of its
members, NIMPA has actively participated in the various rule
making proceedings under the Act which were applicable to the
meat processing industry, and is one of the petitioners in a
challenge of the meat prosessjtngeffluent guidelines amd limitations
which is currently being considered by the Eighth Circuit Court
of Appeals in the case entitled National Independent Meat Packers
Association, et. al. v. United States Environmental Protection
Agency et. al. (NO. 74-1387)
      Based upon this background of participation, NIMPA has become
increasingly concerned with numerous problems created by the Act.
Primarily among such concerns is the total lack of flexibility
in the Act which, if available, would provide relief to the numerous
dischargers who, through no fault of their own, have not been
able to obtain NPDES permits so as to meet the December 31,1974
deadline imposed by S402(k) and /or are uinable to achieve best
practicable control currently available (BPT) by July 1, 1977,
as required by S301(b)(l)(A).
Such problems have been well recognized and publicized by federal
and state officials and yet, unaccountably, no relief in these
areas is being urged by EPA.
      The nonissuance of NPDES permits by December 31, 1974,
was specifically referenced by Brian Molloy, director of EPA's
water enforcement division, at an American Bar Association - EPA
conference on enforcement of water laws on December 10, 1974.
While noting that EPA will not move against dischargers without
permits, Molloy acknowledged that nothing prevents the Justice
Department or private citizens from taking action, based on the
Water Acts Section 505 citizen suit provision.  A similar analysis
was advanced by Alan G. Kirk II, EPA assistant administrator for
enforcement and general counsel, in a letter to the National
Association of Manufacturers dated September 6, 1974.  For the
text of said letter, see the September 27, 1974 issue of
Environmental Reporter, p.118.  For like observations by other
EPA officials, see the December 13, 1974 issue of Environmental
                                        \
*Presented by J. A. Chittenden, Chairman of NIMPA's Environmental
Activities Committee.

-------
Reporter, p. 1268.
      Reaching similar conclusions, the Water Pollution Control
Federation issued a report entitled "P.L. 92-500:  Certain
Recommendations of the Water Pollution Control Federation for
Improving the Law and Its Administration".  Said report is dated
Ocotber 10, 1974, and recommendation no. 5 thereof is as follows:
      "The Federation recommends that:  (a) the Congress extend the
      December 31,1974 deadline for issuing permits to allow for
      the orderly issuance of meaningful municipal and industrial
      permits, based on a compatibility with local conditions, and
      to remove potential legal liabilities for good faith
      permit applicants."
      NIMPA supports this recommendation and urges EPA to pursue
such an amendment to the Act.
      Similar commentaries and recommendations have been made
concerning the inability of numerous dischargers to achieve BPT
by July 1, 1977.  An EPA internal memorandum from Alvin L. Aim,
assistant administrator for planning and management, and James
L. Agee, assistant administrator for water and hazardous wastes, to
Russel E. Train clearly indicates that EPA is sufficiently
concerned with the July 1,1977 date to have considered requesting
authority to extend said date as part of its 1975 legislative
program.  For the full text of said memorandum, see the November 29,
1974 issue of the Environmental Reporter, p. 1119.
      That EPA clearly recognizes the problems of an inflexible appli-
cation of the Julyl,1977 date is further evident in the comments
of Brian Molloy at the October  10, 1974 conference referenced above.
Molloy stated that EPA will strive to set "reasonable" compliance
schedules even if this means going beyond the 1977 statutory
deadline for achievement of BPT.  He further acknowledged that
such a procedure would violate the requirements of the Act and
would eventually have to be resolved either in the Courts or
through legislative amendment.  See also the reports of the May
13-14. 1975 hearings before the House Public Works Subcommittee
on Investigations and Review to investigate ways of making the
Act work more effectively.  (May 16,1975, issue of the Environmental
Reporter, pages 131-132).  During said hearings, Charles A.
Krouse, Subcommittee staff member, observed that the Julyl, 1977 dead-
line would not be met by all affected facilities and that although
the staff believe said deadline for industry "may have to be
faced in the months ahead", it was not prepared to offer a recom-
mendation for resolving the problem.
      Nimpa believes that the problem can not be ignored and
urges that it be resolved through EPA's support of an amendment
to the Act in accordance with recommendation no. 5 in the
October 10, 1974 report of the Water Pollution Control Federation
referenced above.  Said recommendation is as follows:

-------
      "The Federation recommends that:...(b) the Congress provide,
      where appropriate, administrative relief to...industrial
      dischargers unable to meet July 1, 1977, effluent limitations...,
      provided such dischargers demonstrate good faith efforts to
      the satisfaction of the Administration."
      Such an amendment is especially necessary in view of EPA's
support of extending the July 1, 1977, compliance date for publicly
owned treatment works, which proposal is the direct subject ot
this hearing.  While NIMPA supports the need for this extension
it does not understand why like problems facing industry are
ignored.  Partciularly is this true since in many instances the
ability of industry to attain compliance is directly related to
the date by which publicly owned treatment works are updated to
meet 1977 standards.
      This occurs when an industrial discharger contracts to have
its waste treated by a publicly owned treatment works,  Said contracts
are usually dependent on the completion of the modification and
expansion of such works.  Consequently, where such works are
not completed by July 1,1977, the industrial discharger is placed
in an impossible position.  On the one hand, it would have to
construct its own treatment facilities for just a short period
of time which in most cases would be economically impractical, if
not impossible, considering the EPA cost sharing requirements.
Alternatively, the discharger would simply await completion and
for the period of time between July 1,1977 and later completion
would place itself in the precarious position of being in non-
compliance and subject to heavy civil and criminal penalties.
      Of course, there is a third alternative, i.e. to forego
completely any contractual relationship with a publicly owned
treatment works,  For several reasons, this is not a practical
or desirable alternative.  First, due to the current progress of
the NPDES permit program, contractual obligations for public
treatment have already been incurred and are legally enforcable.
Second, where contracts exist, public monies have already been
expended based upon the inclusion of wastes from the industrial
discharger.  Even if the industrial discharger was able to disregard
the contract, there would either be a severe monetary setback for the
public authority or the necessity of redesigning the works at
the cost of delaying the completion date even further beyond the
1977 deadline.  Finally, the foregoing of  contractual relationships
between industrial dischargers and public authorities for waste
treatment is directly opposed to the policy of EPA and the
States to encourage such cooperation thereby reducing the number
of point source discharges particularly where the indistria!
discharge is totally compatible with the biological treatment
utilized by publicly owned treatment works, such as in the case
with meat processing wastes.

-------
      Based upon these considerations, NIMPA strongly urges EPA
to formulate and actively support the amendments to the Act
requested herein.  At absolute minimum the Act must be amended
to provide an extension for any industrial discharger that has
contracted for (including an executed letter of intent)
public treatment - said extension to be for the period necessary
for the completion of the public facilities which are the subject,
of the contract.  Such an amendment would not only remove the legal
problems facing many industrial dischargers under the current
inflexible provisions of the Act, but, importantly, would also
further the policy of reducing the number of point source
discharges.

Respectfully submitted,

National Independent Meat
Packers Association
/s/ J. A. Chittenden
JAC/keg

-------
July 3, 1975

Mr. James L. Agee
Assistant Administrator for Water
   and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Protection Agency
Waterside Mall Building
401 M Street, S. W.
Washington, D. C.  20460

Dear Sir:

The following comments are submitted on behalf of the membership
of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) in response
to the five papers prepared by your agency related to the
Municipal Waste Treatment Grant program and entered in the Federal
Register, Vol. 40, No. 103, May 28, 1975.

Paper No. 1, Reductions of the Federal Share.

      In general, NAHB would not recommend a reduction in the
federal share of the construction costs associated with providing
the facilities necessary to comply with the provisions of P.I.
92-500.  To do so would shift the burden of payment to state and
local governments.  EPA has already noted the difficulty munici-
palities have had in meeting their share of the funding program
and considerable publicity has been given to local governments'
financing difficulties in general.  New York City is one example
and Montgomery and Prince George's Counties in Maryland are
others.

      The result of the 1974 Needs Survey, $342 billion for
facilities eligible for construction grants, is a staggering
sum and one that creates a real problem within the program.
Increasing the state and local government share of funding of
it by decreasing the Federal participation will not resolve the
problem, however, since this level of funding would be
beyond their economic means.  Despite a statement to the contrary
at the end of the "Background"section for* Paper No. 1, it should
be well within the capabilities and resources available to the
EPA to predict the effect of a reduced Federal share on local
financing capabilities.

      Comments on the listed issues to be discussed for Paper
No. 1 are as follows:
      1.  Yes, a reduced Federal share would delay the construc-
tion of the needed facilities.
      2.  It is extremely doubtful that States would have the
capabilities to generate loan or grant programs to assume a

-------
larger share of the program.
      3.  Yes, it is believed communities would have difficulty
in raising additional funds for a larger portion of the program.
      4-  A reduced Federal share would not necessarily lead to
more cost effective design, project management, etc.  This presumes
that present designs are not cost effective despite the elaborate
review and approval procedure to which they are now subjected.
      5.  A reduction in the Federal sharing of the costs will
no doubt create delays in achieving the goals of the Act.

Paper No. 2, Limiting Federal Funding of Reserve Capacity.

      The stated objectives intended to be achieved by limiting
eligibility for reserve capacity need further analysis.  As a
prelude to the objectives it is stated that it is not intended
to preclude the cost effective sizing and design of the needed
facilities but the grantee would be expected to fund 100 percent
of the reserve capacity.  This then would permit realization of
the first objective to allow Federal funding to go further in
reducing the backlog of projects,  In reality what this action
would effectively accomplish is to transfer a greater share of
the cost of meeting the total needs to the local governments as
was proposed in Paper No. I.  It is doubtful that they can handle
the increased financial burden.
      The second objective is to induce more careful sizing
and design of capacity to serve future growth.  It is stated
that this would reduce the tendency to provide excessive reserve
capacity and would help avoid secondary impacts of growth„  The
second objective appears to be based on a premise that present
design and design review processes are inadequate in the results
achieved.  If the reserve capacity included in a design exceeds
that which can be supported by a cost effective analysis,
reduction of the size should be directed during the review process
to which it is subjected.
      Also of concern are the negative aspects of the sub-
objective, i.e., to reduce the secondary environmental impacts
of growth.  It must be recognized that the country and its
people are not static.  Moves and relocations will occur.  New
family formations will take place.  New industries will be
established and others will relocate.  Many communities actively
seek such relocations as they are related to the economic and
social well-being of the community and its inhabitants.  This
growth must be accomodated and it must be recognized that to
some degree it will take place nationwide.  This inference that
such growth is so detrimental as to be worthy of special review

-------
is certainly biased and if carried out to the ultimate in reduction
of the environmental impact, could result in a national no-
growth policy.

      Comments on the listed issues to be discussed for Paper
No. 2 are as follows:

      1.  It does not necessarily follow that the 75 percent
Federal participation leads to overdesign of treatment works.
As indicated in the discussion on Paper No. 2 a preliminary
survey indicated an.average of 18 years reserve capacity was
designed into 53 treatment plants.  Cost effective analysis
have generally resulted in approval of reserve capacities of
20 years for these facilities.  These analyses, which it is
assumed were correctly performed by competent persons, show
that the facilities are not overdesigned.

      2.  This issue presupposes that problems exist in the
program because of capacity.  Since the design capacity is
based on review of a cost effective analysis it would indicate
the capacity is the result of a firm derermination of need.
What rational exist for limiting population projections to
the lowest of those projected by the Census Bureau?  Why not
select one that represents the average of all such projections?

      3.  It would appear there are no merits to prohibiting
eligibility of reserve capacity.  The penalties for this
prohibition include the loss of cost effectiveness and economy-
of-scale and also results in the transfer of a massive financial
burder to local communities not gererally able to handle it.
The result may well be under-designed facilities, or no construc-
tion of facilities at all, with continuing degradation of the
waters a very likely result.

      4.  A ten year capacity is considered insufficient.
From inception to operation construction of a sewage treatment
facility may take four years.  This would mean that the new
plant would effectively serve the community six years before it
would have to be modified, replaced, or duplicated to handle
anticipated loads.  Proper analysis based on projected annual
increases in material, direct construction, construction loan,
land and other costs should be made to determine the most cost
effective design period.  Previous or current analyses now in
use support a 20 year reserve capacity.  These surely remain
valid.

Paper No. 3, Restricting the Types of Projects Eligible for


                                  •1*71

-------
Grant Assistance.

      Limiting eligibility for Federal assistance does not
eliminate the need for the construction or correction of a
facility deficiency which bears on the improvement of water
quality.  To do this would be another action which would shift
the^financial burden to local governments which are not generally
capable of handling it.  P.L. 92-500 anticipated eight types
of projects would be needed to effectively control water pollution.
The arguments presented in this Paper both for restricting and re-
taining the eligibilities are well stated.  In reality, however, it
must be recognized limiting the eligibility will most likely mean
needed facilities will not be built.

      Comments on the listed issues to be discussed for Paper
No. 3 are as follows:

      1.  Restricting eligibilities will  hinder the program
objective to provide the greatest improvement in water quality.
Concerns that facilities would be designed to take advantage
td the eligibilitfes when in fact an administrative or management
directive would achieve the desired results are not valid and
do not give proper credence to the planning and review process.

      2.  In most instances as the discussion implies there
is not likely to be adequate local incentive to build needed
facilities without Federal assistance.  It is not an issue
of local pride but rather one of too little money with too many
legitimate demands.

      3.  Again the question revolves around recognition of the
difficulties facing local governments if they must increase
their share of funding construction of the needed facilities.
The inclusion of the possibility that they may have difficulties
in the various papers itself lends support to the belief that
such difficulties will occur.  Suggesting relief may be possible
through other Federal grant programs such as those available
to the Department of Housing and Urban Development avoids the
issue.  Federal funds are still being spent for assistance.
It would be logical to ask for a redistribution of the monies
with a greater share to be allocated to EPA to support con-
struction of the needed facilities.

Paper No. 4, Extending the 1977 Deadline Date.

      The 1977 date must be extended until the funds are available

-------
to provide the necessary facility construction.  The date should
be made in accord with the Federal financing ability in order
to be realistic.  In determination of a realistic date, adequate
time for planning, design, and construction must be provided.
It should be noted that although $18 billion are now available
for construction only $ 4.8 billion has been obligated.  Of the
five alternatives, none properly reflect the relationship between
the need for an extension and the availability of Federal financing
assistance.  Alternative No. 5, to provide an extension until
1983 and require compliance regardless of Federal funding, offers
a reasonable increased period to plan and construct the necessary
facilities but is unsatisfactory in that the needed Federal funding
may never materialize.  It should be reworded to require compliance
contingent upon the availability of the Federal funds.

      Comments on the other considerations offered with Paper
No. 4 are as follows:

      1.  Yes, prefinancing should help local communities
construct and complete needed facilities within the deadlines.

      2.  Some adjustments for industry would be necessary,
but those with particularly toxic discharges should be required
to provide treatment at the secondary level as soon as possible.

      3.  No, only when the discharge is so strong as to be
a major contributor to the municipal plant loading and thus
uses more than its proportional share of the municipal plant
treatment capacity.

      4.  Compliance dates should be open-ended pending the
availability of Federal funding assistance.

      5.  In most instances the economic situation at the
local government level is such that across-the-board extensions
are in order.

      6.  The various alternatives, except No. 4 which is
related to Federal funding, would all impact State and local
funding to some degree.

      7.  No comment.

      8.  A two year extension would be relatively meaningless
in light of current economic conditions at all funding levels.

-------
      9.  If the letters of authorization accomplish the same
results as do short-term permits and are less costly to administer
they should be used.

      State certification of project documents and associated
other requirements should tend to reduce the period for project
approval and would place the review authority at a level sufficient-
ly knowledgeable and concerned about local conditions as to be
truly meaningful.  Funding assistance to meet the added adminis-
trative costs would be required, however.

In summary it appears that a complete review of the intent of
P.L. 92-500 and our national priorities is in order.  One
cannot argue with the need to control water pollution and to
upgrade water quality.  What is of concern is the time frame
within which it is intended that this program of enhancement
take place.  The standards to be met and the time in which
to meet them are unrealistic as originally conceived as is
reflected in the estimated costs of the program.  It is apparent
that correction of existing conditions and provision of new
facilities as authorized in P.L. 92-500 are essential to meet
the water quality goals.  It is equally apparent that funding to
the level stated in the 1974 Needs Survey is beyond the immediate
and near-term capabilities of the combined resources of the Federal,
State, and local governments.  This suggests that national
priorities for environmental improvements need to be reviewed so
that a reasonable level of funding to this end is made available
each year and that realistic time tables related to that level
of funding be established.

Very truly yours,
/s/ Brian R. Landergan
Director
Technical Services

BRL/bs

-------
July  2,  1975

Environmental  Protection Agency
Office of Water and Hazardous  Materials
Room  1033, West Tower
Waterside Mall
401 M Street  S.  W.
Washington, D.  C.   20460

Gentlemen:

The Nebraska  Water  Pollution Control  Association wishes to have
the attached  Comments considered  in your  decision on proposed
amendments to the FWPCA.

We were  unable to testify at the  June 17,  1975, public hearing but
trust that these written comments will  be  entered into the records.

Sincerely,

NEBRASKA WATER POLLUTION CONTROL  ASSOCIATION
/s/ Donald Hillrichs, President

/s/ Ronald Benson,  Chairman
Governmental  Affairs  Committee
Enclosure
                            TESTIMONY
               ON  PROPOSED  FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION
                       CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS
                      SOLICITED BY THE PUBLIC NOTICE
                          IN THE MAY2, 1975
                          FEDERAL REGISTER
The Nebraska Water Pollution Control Association Governmental
Affairs Committee polled representative members of the Association
and wishes to go on record with the following comments concerning
the proposed amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

First, a general' statement to indicate displeasure in the general
lack of, and tardiness in availability of information concerning
the correspondence between federal agencies concerning these
proposed amendments and policy statements by EPA.  It is very
difficult to make intelligent and meaningful comments when   ;
only generalities are available concerning the proposed amerid-
                                1*75

-------
ments and alternatives.

The five general areas in which amendments are proposed will be
commented on in the same order they appeared in the May 2, 1975,
Federal Register.

      1.  The proposal to reduce the federal share of construction
grants is one which received a mixed reaction.  The communities
generally would prefer to see the Federal share of the grants
remain at 75% while some Association members feel that a reduction
in the percentage might enhance the viability of the program and
ultimately result in more water pollution control construction
activities.  If the percentage were to be reduced it was the
general concensus that a subsequent and proportional reduction
should be made in the requirements for obtaining the construction
grants.  Notably, the infiltration/inflow analysis should not
be a blanket requirement and much of the paper work involved
in proceeding to the various steps should be reduced or eliminated.

      2.  The proposal to limit federal financing to serve the needs
of existing population only was opposed totally by those contacted
for opinions.  It was generally felt that this amendment would
result in reluctance to construct facilities with capacity to
serve anticipated population since the excess capacity would
have to be financed strictly with local funds.  Design and
construction of facilities strictly for present population would
not be prudent and would result in nearly continual overloading
of the facilities in a growing community and likely would
result in a continuous series of construction grant applications
to expand the facility as each successive one becomes overloaded.
If the facility were designed to handle future population expansion
it would be quite difficult to accurately determine how much of
each unit process would be serving present population and thus
be eligible for financing assistance.

      3.  Without knowing the specific alternatives in the proposal
to restrict the types of projects eligible for grant assistance,
it was difficult to evoke much response.  It was generally felt
that the present program is operating satisfactorily in regard
to eligibility of projects and it was felt that there presently
is a certain amount of restriction in the program since certain
types of facilities, namely collection and transportation systems.
receive a lower priority than treatment facilities.

      4.  The proposal to extend the 1977 deadline for meeting
water quality standards met with general approval.  However, it

-------
was nearly a unanimous feeling that this should not be done unless
some provision to prevent "foot dragging" was utilized.  It was
felt also that the 1977 deadline has always been unrealistic in
light of the tremendous amount of work to be accomplished, the
slowness of regulation for administerint the Act, and the
unavailibility of sufficient funds for construction.

      5.  The proposal to delegate a greater portion of the manage-
ment of the construction grant program to the States was found to
be highly desirable to all those contacted.  Those not approving
whole heartedly of this amendment were not in opposition to it
but indicated that they had not experienced difficulty in dealing
with the federal agency but definitely encouraged elimination of
the duplication of document review and approval to speed the processes
up.  If these responsibilities were delegated to the States, it
is felt that the processing would be much smoother and quicker
than it now is with duplicative reviews and dealings with
persons not intimately familiar with the local situations.
                                   1*77

-------
EPA Spills WSH
EPA SPILLS WSH

WU INFOMASTER   2-026887E188  07/07/75
ICS IPMMTZZ CSP
 6099213838 TDMT  PRINCETON NJ  213  07-07  0205P  EST
TWX 7108229269 EPA SPILLS WSH
HONORABLE RUSSEL E TRAIN ADMINISTRATOR U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
 AGENCY CARE WH-556 ROOM 1033 WEST TOWER
WATERSIDE MALL 401 M ST SOUTHWEST
WASHINGTON DC 20460
THE NEW JERSEY ALLIANCE FOR ACTION IS FORWARDING BY MAIL A POSITION
STATEMENT ON PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO PL92-500.  THE ALLIANCES POSITION
ON THE FIVE PROPOSALS BY OMB ARE BRIEFLY STATED AS FOLLOWS:
1.  BECAUSE OF THE CRITICAL PHYSICAL CONDITION OF COMMUNITIES AND THE
STATE A REDUCTION OF FEDERAL SHARE WOULD HALT MANY PROJECTS. -THERE
ARE NO OTHER SOURCES TO FILL THE GAP.
2.  A LIMITATION Qf FEDERAL FUNDING TO PRESENT NEEDS MIGHT BE
PRACTICAL FOR PLANT CONSTRUCTION WHICH CAN BE SAVED BUT TT WOULD
SERIOUSLY HAMPER ADEQUATE TRUNK AND INTERCEPT CONSTRUCTION.
3.  WHILE STORM WATER MIGHT BE DROPPED FROM TREATMENT FUNDING OTHER
PRESENT ELIGIBLE TYPES OF PROJECTS SHOULD BE CONTINUED TO ACHIEVE
GOALS AND COMPLETE ESSENTIAL CONSTRUCTION.
4.  SOME METHODOLOGY SHOULD BE INCORPORATED INTO THE LAW WHICH WILL
GIVE EPA THE FLEXIBILITY TO ADJUST DEADLINES FOR EACH CASE BASED ON
THE MERITS AND FACTS.
5.  THE ALLIANCE SUPPORTS THE CONCEPT OF TRANSFERRING MORE
RESPONSIBILITY TOGETHER WITH FUNDS TO THE STATES.

FINALLY THE ALLIANCE FOR ACTION ENDORSES THE STATEMENTS OF NEW
JERSEY GOVERNOR BRENDAN P BYRNE AND COMMISSIONER DAVID J BARDIN
WHICH HAVE PREVIOUSLY BEEN SENT TO YOU.  WE FEEL THAT WITH DUAL
INCENTIVE OF IMPROVING THE ENVIRONMENT AND STIMULATING CONSTRUCTION
EMPLOYMENT THAT SHOULD BE NO REDUCTION IN THE PRESENT CONSTRUCTION
GRANT PROGRAM.
  NEW JERSEY ALLIANCE FOR ACTION DAVID J GOLDBERG GENERAL CHAIRMAN
219 EAST HANOVER ST TRENTON NJ

-------
June 13, 1975
Mr, David Sabock
EPA OFFICE OF WATER AND HAZARDOUS
    MATERIALS (WH-556)
Room 1033 - West Tower
Waterside Mall
401 M Street S.W,
Washington D. C.  20460

Dear Mr Sabock:

We are writing in favor of amending the Federal Register Pollution
Control Act.  Reference is made to amendment #1 -' "a reduction of
the Federal share" - as put forth in the Federal Register, dated
May 2, 1975, pages 19236 and 19237.

It is requested that an amendment be made to EPA grant regulations
allowing "primary treatment facilities", with ocean outfalls"to
make design modifications in lieu of a secondary plant;  when
it can be determined that EPA water purity standards can be
attained.

The City of New Bedford, Massachussets has in operation a primary
sewerage treatment plant.  Under EPA rules, a secondary treatment
plant is necessary regardless of whether or not, with modifications,
the effluent from the existing system meets EPA standard of State
water control standards.

In order to meet EPA funding requirements, the City of New
Bedford engaged the engineering firm of Camp, Dresser and McKee
to make a detailed study and to recommend water pollution controls,
Camp, Dresser and McKee has recommended pollution controls that
include a $21,585,000 secondary treatment pi an...the Federal
share to be $16,188,750.

Our chief concern in this matter is that Camp, Dresser and McKee
indicates that in ocean outfall situation, such as, New Bedford's
case, that in their opinion the existing primary treatment plant
could be modified at a cost of approximately $2 million , to
effectively treat the effluent to EPA water purity standards.
Because of the letter of the law, the City, by making such a
comparatively inexpensive modification could not obtain Federal
funding under grant regulations.

By allowing modification to "ocean outfall" primary treatment

-------
plants, that in turn will meet EPA water purity standards,
cities such as New Bedford could reduce Federal participation
from $16,188,750 to $1,800,000.

Funding requirement reduction such as the preceding, multiplied
by this country's many coastal communities, will  go a long was
in reducing the $350 billion funding requirement.

Our committee represents thirty industries in New Bedford, with
an employment of over 10,000 people and an annual payroll  in
excess of $100 million.  We are all very much concerned about
this situation and its employment effect, now and in the future,
for the citizens in our area.

                                 Very truly yours,
                                 NEW BEDFORD INDUSTRIAL WASTE-
                                 WATER COMMITTEE
                                 /s/ George Bentley
                                 Contineneal Screw Company

                                 /s/ David Cameron
                                 Morse Cutting Tools

                                 /s/Phillip Murray
                                 Cornell-Dubilier

                                 /s/Richard Young
                                 Acushnet Company

                                 /s/Ernest Yuille
                                 Polaroid Corporation
                                  480

-------
June 5, 1975
Mr. Russel E. Train, Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C.
                            Re:  Changes  Proposed  For Federal
                                 Water  Pollution  Control Act
                                 Amendment  (PL 92-500)
Dear Mr. Train:
I have reviewed the changes proposed  in PL 92-500 and have several
comments which I would like to  place  into the record.

Reduction of the Federal Share

The proposal to reduce the Federal share is untenable.  The
requirements of PL 92-500 necessitate in most instances, large
capital expenditures in order to achieve compliance.  The
purpose in providing such a large Federal share was to relieve
municipalities of the tremendous financial burden necessary to
comply with the Act.  A reduction of  the Federal share would
force municipalities to revise  their  long range fiscal plans and
possible to eliminate certain other projects.

Limiting Federal Funding of Reserve Capacity to Serve Projected
Growth

In order for any treatment works system to serve its intended
function, there must be reserve capacity to serve projected "
growth.  The design period should not be limited.  Frequently, is
is more cost effective to construct interceptor sewers for time
periods in excess of twenty years by  considering service life, cost
of replacement, etc.  Also, at  present, areas with a history
of high industrial growth have  no means of building in treatment
works capacity for such future  growth and, as a result, available
capacity as provided for under  present EPA regulations will
be utilized in a short period of time.

Restricting The Types Of Projects For Grant Assistance

The cost of rehabilitating sewer systems for the correction of
infiltration/inflow can amount  to a substantial cost and, in the
absence of Federal funds, may reduce the capability of financing
other phases of the treatment works projects.  These items
should remain eligible for Federal funding.

Collector sewers should also be eligible for EPA funding in

-------
instances where the continued use of septic tanks would present
a definite health hazard.

Extending 1977 Date For Publicly Owned Treatment Works to Meet
Water Quality Standards

It is impractical to expect that the 1977 deadline for complying
with PL 92-500 in regards to secondary treatment ( or advanced
treatment where necessary ) will be met by most municipalities,
The extensive capital costs associated with most compliance
activities are not within the fiscal capabilities of municipal
budgets.  If compliance is enforced regardless of Federal par-
ticipation, other City projects with high priorities may be
delayed.  Consequently, we recommend that the deadline for
compliance be shifted to allow more time for funding under
PL 92-500.  In no instance should compliance be enforced without
Federal assistance.

Delegating A Greater Portion Of The Management Of The Construction
Grants Program To The States

We concurr with the provisions of HR 2175 as outlined in the
Federal Register  May 28, 1975.  There could be a substantial
savings of time, expense, and manpower by providing States with
the authority to adminsiter the EPA Construction Grants Program.

In considering all five proposed amendments to PL 92-500, we
feel that the continued effects of the changes should be very
carefully evaluated.  If, for example, the Federal share were
recuced to 55%, and there was no funding of reserve capacity,
the economic feasibility of most wastewater treatment works
projects would be very low.
                                           Sincerely,
                                           /s/ K.W. Riebe
                                           City Manager
KWR/ehm

-------
           Position Paper presented at the Public Hearing on
           Potential Legislative Amendments to the Federal
           Water Pollution Control Act, conducted in Atlanta,
           Georgia, on June 9, 1975

The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Ten-
nessee, Department of Water and Sewerage Services, welcomes the
opportunity to express its comments and concerns on the proposed amend-
ments to Public Law 92-500.

The reduction in the Federal share would inhibit and delay construction
of needed facilities due to limitation, which presently exist in mon-
ies available to local governments.  The State of Tennessee does not
have an available grant program, which aids the local governments,
but it does borrow monies to fund a State loan program, which presently
allows the cities of the state, who can meet the guidelines, to qualify
for a 25% loan of the eligible cost.  These loan monies can only con-
tinue until the indebtedness of the local community reaches its
maximum capacity or the State refuses to sell additional bonds to sup-
port the program.  The Department of Water and Sewerage Services,
presently, cannot extend its own bonded indebtedness without an increase
in the water and sewer revenue rates.  The present economic condition
of our community would find it extremely difficult, if not impossible,
to obtain the support to pass a revenue increase in our local council.
The Metropolitan Government is currently striving to obtain the optimum
capital improvement per dollar invested, whether it be through federal
grants or local revenues.  All projects are viewed with the full under-
standing that the government must operate and maintain the constructed
facilities, be it treatment plant, interceptor sewer, pumping station,
etc., and it is our objective to obtain the best possible facility
for the dollar, so we may use our annual budget to continue our water
and sewer programs.  The reduction in the Federal Grant to something
less than 75% would place an added burden on the state and local
governments to explore other sources of funding, and during this tran-
sition period, it would continue to cause us to lag further behind in
meeting the goals of Public Law 92-500.  Exactly what the impact
will be on our programs can only be projected, but unless other funds
are provided, we would have to delay our construction program.  This is
a drawistic approach for EPA to consider at a time when there is 9 plus
billion dollars of construction monies, which could be used by local
governments today, to build needed facilities that are tied up with
continuing wraps of red tape.  The everyday inflation in this country
is eating at these dollars to the extent that the 75% grant today
will only fund what a 55% grant would have funded some three years ago.
Whatever action Congress might take relevant to the reduction of the
federal grant monies will have a significant impact on the nation's
objective of meeting the goals spelled out in Public Law 92-500.

-------
The local governments have a responsibility to meet the needs of its
citizens, and if it is projected, the population of an area is going
to expand from rural land to a residential  area, the city has the
responsibility to protect the public health, the environmental quality
of the area and the environmental impact on the area.  The construction
of sewer facilities provide all three of these needed functions for
the community.  The people are going to find a place to live, and if
steps are made initially to consider the health  and environmental
considerations, then the cost to the community is much less.

The growth and development of a community should be a major factor  con-
sidered in the design of a sewerage facilities.  This design  should not
be for an estimated growth judged on 10 or 20 years, but on good sound
engineering judgment, based on the particular situation under study.

Local financing and federal financing of projects should be established
for a period that exceeds the useful life of such projects.  At today's
extremely high bond interest rates and amortization periods,  less than
thirty to forty years provide an annual debt service so great as to
make conventional financing impossible, therefore, long term  bond
financing is inevitable.  The plan to reduce the design period of a pro-
ject to that less than the financing period of the project is folly
economics.  In effect, we are requiring our subsequent generations
to pay for facilities that would have outlived their projected life.

The reduction of the types of projects eligible for grants assistance
to only secondary treatment plants, tertiary treatment plants, and
interceptor sewers would place a tremendous burden on any local
government.  It has been projected that it would take approximately
300 million dollars to just correct the combined sewer overflow in
our system.  At this time, correction of combined sewer overflow ap-
pears to be prohibitive with federal assistance, and without  federal
assistance, it appears impossible.  If the responsibilities for cor-
rection of sewer infiltration/inflow, major sewer rehabilitation,
collector sewers, correction of combined sewer overflows, and treat-
ment or control stormwaters are placed back on the local governments
with no assistance, the compliance requirements would have to be ex-
tended way beyond what presently exists for correcting these  sources
of pollution.  The local governments would establish a completely dif-
ferent set of priorities for correction of its local pollution prob-
lems, such as the extension of sewers to presently unsewered area.
If these types of projects are declared ineligible by EPA, most likely
they will not be funded in the future.

The Metropolitan Government would recommend the 1977 compliance date
be extended to late 1978, because this would be the earliest possible  .
date our wastewater treatment system could meet the 1977 discharge

-------
limits.   This 1978 date is, also, assuming federal and state grant ap-
plications are processed promptly and no delays are experienced.  Dur-
ing this extended period, the Environmental Protection Agency with the
cooperation of the state agencies could develop a review board for
each state, which would be responsible for establishing compliance dates
for each discharger, taking into consideration the availability of re-
sources  balanced against the ultimate goals of Public Law 92-500.  It
is entirely impracticable to apply the same compliance date to all
discharges without some type of balancing approach based on the limited
resources available to correct the pollution problems of this nation.

An example of this is the treatment and control of discharge from
wastewater treatment facilities and sanitary sewer system should have
higher priority, whereas compliance date for the management and control
of stormwater and combined sewer overflows could be set at a later date.
                >              >,.
The State of Tennessee should be given a greater share in the adminis-
tration of the Public Law 92-500, and this could reduce the unwarranted
time delays we have experienced in processing our recent applications
and reduce the duplication of efforts from the State to the Federal
1evel.

The Metropolitan Government recommends that the State of Tennessee be
delegated the authority to administer the Federal Construction Grant
Program, as proposed in the Cleveland Bill, H.R. 2175.  The existing
Construction Grant Program has, by its very nature, inherent time
delays, which have proven quite costly to local governments and Amer-
ican taxpayers.  The duplication of efforts in review of engineering
design and specifications, by both State and Federal Agencies, is
just one example of such waste of effort and time delays.  We have
experienced delays, which have extended final approval on several of
our projects, in excess of six months.  These extended periods, coupled
with the spiral ing inflation, have cost the local government several
thousand dollars, through no fault of its own.  We would encourage this
legislation to allow the United States Environmental Protection Agency
to delegate its administrative authority to the states in relation
to the Construction Grant Program.

The Metropolitan Government trusts the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, after careful consideration and/or deliberation on
the remarks given here today, will develop, for us, a more realistic
and workable law.            ,   (

-------
June 25, 1975

TO:  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

The National Utility Contractors Association, representing the Na-
tion's sewer and water facilities' construction contractors, ap-
preciate this opportunity to comment on the five possible proposals
for amending the Water Pollution Control Act.

However, we would be remiss if we did not express our concern over
EPA's apparent emphasis on writing regulations rather than building
water clean-up facilities.

In the month of May - one of the Agency's best months in the history
of the program - EPA funded 59 construction projects but issued 42
pages of proposed regulation revisions and changes in the Federal
Register totalling about 60,000 words, and issued 24 news releases.

Our members want work - NOT words.  The American people want and need
clean water.  We respectfully urge EPA to get on with the job of clean-
ing up the Nation's water.  The benefits to the environment, the
economy and the employment situation are obvious.
Thank you.
                                 Peter Inzero
                                 President
                           EPA PAPER #1

The National Utility Contractors Association are in favor of any pro-
posals that will increase the rate at which our nation builds the
necessary environmental control facilities to assure the integrity
of the nation's lakes and rivers.  However, we do not believe that
simply reducing the 75% Federal share to 55% will accelerate the pro-
gram.  A reduction in the Federal share:
      (1) does not address the basic question concerning the willingness
      of the nation to pay the price for water pollution cleanup es-
      timated by the Needs Survey (or an interpretation of the Survey);
      (2) will not increase the rate of treatment plant construction
      because the principal problem is not funding but EPA generated
      red tape;
      (3) will not increase the probability of producing more cost-
      effective designs;
      (4) will probably not be accompanied by a comparable increase
      in state and local funds to fill the gap;

-------
      (5) discriminates against economically depressed areas; and
      (6) would be unfair to those communities which failed to re-
      ceive 75% Federal funding due to circumstances beyond their
      Control.

Regardless of the accuracy of the Needs Survey, the Federal cost of
building the necessary municipal treatment facilities is generally
acknowledged as being much higher than the original $18 billion esti-
mate.  If the costs are $300 billion plus, then Congress must recon-
sider the desirability of commiting that large a portion of national
resources through the existing program to construction of municipal
facilities.  This implies a reconsideration of the goals of the Act.
The nation's price sensitivity at a 55% or 75% Federal share is likely
to be low.  If the costs are in the $30-$50 billion range, then the
savings which accrue  from a reduction in the Federal share ($6-$10
billion) must be weighed against the remaining problems arising from
a change in Federal policy.  A larger local share implies more local
control which would apply to both setting water pollution cleanup
goals and deciding what pollution control equipment is required.

NUCA is keenly aware and greatly disturbed that only $5 billion of the
authorized Federal funds have been obligated by EPA with only a few
days left in FY 75, which is the last fiscal year of authorized funds.
If EPA cannot obligate the funds available at 75% Federal funding,
there is no reason to believe that projects will be reviewed and
funded at a faster pace with a lower Federal share.  At EPA's average
funding pace, the original $18 billion will not be obligated until
January, 1982, seven years too late.  This reduction in the Federal
share will not result in an increased rate of funded projects unless
the "red tape" created by EPA regulations and program guidance is
reduced to permit more projects to be funded.

Another stated objective of the reduced Federal funding is to encourage
greater state and local accountability for cost-effective design and
projected management.  This appears to NUCA to be an admission of EPA's
failure to effectively implement its cost-effectiveness guidelines
developed pursuant to Section 212(2)(c) of the Act.  The implication
that local and state governments will produce more cost-effective
designs at 55% Federal funding than they did at 75% funding has little
basis in reality.  The kinds of legal and regulatory controls which
EPA has developed but admittedly not succeeded in implementing are
not even in existence at the state and local levels in most areas.
NUCA believes that continuing substantial Federal assistance even at
55% will provide pressure for over-design.  Simply chaging the Federal
share will not create the incentive for cost-effectiveness which is
implied.

-------
The history of Federal funding of municipal treatment plants predicts
the effect of changing the Federal share on state and local governments.
Prior to 1956, Federal funds were not provided for the construction
of treatment works.  Between 1956 and 1966, 30% could be obtained for
treatment works.   During  1966 and 1972, a variable Federal percentage
between 30% and 55% was made available, with the higher percentage
made available to states which also provided funds.  The Federal  per- "
cent increased above 30% on a matching basis for each percent, up to
25%, that the state provided.  This law clearly has an incentive for
state aid.  However, 13 (or 26%) of the states did not provide
matching funds.  Even those states which did provide matching funds
often did not use the full matching provision.  NUCA believes that
shifting the burden back to state and local communities will result
in a delay in communities' ability to clean up the nation's waters.
As a result, economically depressed areas will be further handicapped
and are less likely to benefit from the jobs created by the construction
of collection and treatment systems.

Those communities which did not receive 75% Federal funding would be
forced to pay a  higher share of the clean up costs.  While some
transition provisions would be necessary, there is an obvious inequity
when a community or state which was willing to  pay a 25% share is
suddenly forced to pay 45% of the costs.

                           EPA PAPER #2

Consideration of EPA's proposed 10-year/20-year design requirements re-
veals four basic problems:  (1) it is arbitrary and conflicts with
EPA's cost-effective guidelines; (2) it is a poor way of handling the
broader issue of growth; (3) the design life allowed is too short,
given the current delays in funding procedures; and (4) the restriction
is prejudiced against the taxpayer moving into a growing area.

Limiting Federal funds to 10-year reserve capacity for treatment plants
and 20 years for collection systems is an arbitrary and harmful
method of saving Federal funds.  The policy is an over-reaction to a
recent CEQ study which found that sewers funded by EPA were often used
to their fullest extent.  This study, though, did not show whether or
not the full utilization was due solely to induced or accurate pre-
dictions.

Here, EPA is suggesting that an arbitrary design life of 10 years
preempts cost-effective design.  The EPA regulations for cost-
effectiveness already require phased construction if this is cheaper.
But, EPA has almost totally excluded cost-effectiveness from their
decision-making process by limiting communities' options to a decade
of growth.

-------
Another related issue is how to control or predict growth.  The pro-
posed amendment assumes that growth is solely induced by sewer con-
struction and that growth is undesirable.  But, highway locations,
school locations, job availability and other factors also create con-
ditions for growth.  Sewers are a limit on, not a cause of, the
pressure generated by these factors.

A ten-year limit on reserve capacity does not control growth any bet-
ter than the present cost-effectiveness guidelines.  This point be-
comes even clearer when one considers that the minimum time from con-
ception to start-up of a sewage treatment plant is eight years under
the current review procedures.  Consequently, if plants are built for
only 10 years of growth, communities will have to start planning
their replacement two years after they come on-line.  This two-year
period is not likely to enable communities to make significantly more
accurate growth predictions.

Restricting Federal funds for reserve capacity is also less equitable
than the present program.  Taxpayers in high-growth areas would
have to pay higher taxes, because of the increased local expenditures
required, and these taxes are likely to be much more regressive than
those which fund Federal grants.

EPA's stated concern about current practices leading to over-design
is contradicted by the existence of numerous over-loaded plants.  In
fact, recent surveys show that a majority of secondary plants cannot
meet secondary requirements.  NUCA feels that the harms of an over-
loaded system are greater and more' likely to occur than the disad-
vantages of excess capacity.

                           EPA PAPER #3

The third paper proposes that EPA limit eligibility for Federal funds
to specific structural categories.  The EPA's stated purpose is to
limit Federal participation to those types of projects most essential
to meet water quality standards.  This goal can already be met under
EPA's present ranking system.  Guidelines pursuant to Section 106 re-
quire that states establish and maintain a priority list of municipal
construction needs.  This must be consistent with both the state's
water quality management basin plans and the stream segment priority
ranking.  Additionally, EPA approval is required.  This system is
a rational and efficient method for distributing the limited Federal
funds available.

EPA is proposing to replace this system with an arbitrary procedure
which will incur a significant loss of both efficiency and effectiveness

-------
in the nation's water pollution control  efforts.  The discussion
paper suggests that treatment plants and interceptor sewers be
selected for funding.  These happen to be the segments with the lowest
identified needs.  The law views the collection and treatment of waste-
water as a single system.  Presently, sewer rehabilitation exten-
sion proposals are sufficiently high on state priority lists to receive
funds.  They achieved this ranking through the EPA's elaborate system
of basin plans.  Now EPA is attempting to abandon these collection
systems in favor of less essential sewage treatment plant construction.
The existing priority system of ranking construction needs is an in-
tegral part of state water quality planning and provides a much more
cost-effective procedure than selection of projects through arbitrary
classifications.

The high estimates received in the Needs Survey are no excuse for
panic.  Three factors have over-inflated the Needs Survey.  The first
problem is that the survey is tied to state allocations creating an
incentive for states to over-estimate needs.  Secondly, EPA has failed
to clearly define its requirements and expectations for new technolo-
gies in areas such as combined sewer overflow.

Finally, thfe current funding system does not cover operation and main-
tenance expenses.  This creates an incentive for communities to build
a new treatment plant with Federal funds rather than improving the
efficiency of the existing facility which would not receive Federal
aid.  This ploy is not often caught by EPA assessments.  In fact,
a study of the NPOES permit program, done for the National Commission
on Water Quality, indicates that less than one-third of the sampled
municipal permits had operation and maintenance conditions.  This
failure makes it seem unlikely that EPA would include these factors in
assessment of construction.grant proposals.

EPA's proposed amendments to P.L. 92-500 shift the emphasis of Federal
fund allocations from maximizing benefits to building treatment
plants and interceptors.  This blind reaction to an over-inflated
needs survey is a serious threat to the effectiveness of our water
pollution control program.

                         EPA PAPER #4

Of the five options presented in Paper #4, NUCA supports a modifica-
tion of the third.  The 1977 deadline must be retained as a firm
date except in those cases where it would be physically impossible
to meet this requirement.  If the deadline is impossible to meet, U.S.
EPA should have the power to grant exceptions.  However, NUCA dis-
agrees that extensions should be based on "good faith efforts".

-------
Instead, tight compliance schedules should be mandated for the Step 1
and Step 2 levels of decision.  These revised schedules must, of
course, be developed with care, yet once written into NPDES permits,
enforced vigorously.

NUCA agrees that EPA must retain the ability to mandate Step 3 con-
struction independent of Federal funding.  This is necessary to keep
local pressure on the bureaucracy to obligate funds.  In addition, EPA
should employ strong interim operation and maintenance conditions in
the permits.  These conditions, which are largely ignored by EPA
presently, not only will improve our nation's water quality in absence
of funding, but will also provide incentives to the community to work
for long-term solutions to their pollution problems.

                         EPA PAPER #5

The National Utility Contractor's Association supports the greater
delegation of the management of the construction grants program to
the states.  In a recent comprehensive evaluation by NUCA of the de-
lays in the present construction grants program, it was concluded
that the "Cleveland-Wright Bill" is one of the keys to accelerating
the fund obligation rate.  It believes that the bill will have two
major benefits.  First, it will eliminate the duplications inherent in
the present system.  Secondly, it will improve communication with the
local agencies involved.

NUCA found in its study that the decisions were being made mostly by
the EPA Regional Administrator, a level which is too distant from pro-
ject details.  NUCA recommended that a distribution of responsibility
be given to single project management who are familiar with the myriad
of project details.  It is believed that consolidating all the aspects
of project review at the state level would help in attaining account-
ability with local sensitivity.

NUCA also found that a single project can filter through governmental
review process seven or more times with as many as 55 professionals
reviewing various aspects of the project.  Duplication of effort and
lack of deadlines were serious problems.  Consolidation of the
program at the state level would minimize duplication, reduce manpower
requirements, and allow states to be accountable for delays.  It is
believed this would allow EPA to have broader responsibilities in poli-
cy and finance.  •

Applicant agencies are more familiar with state agencies and regulations
than with EPA program requirements.  By restricting the EPA's role to
general audit and review of state decisions, this gap would be avoided.
The amount (up to 2%) required seems a very reasonable price to pay
for moving  nearly $13  billion  of  unobligated grant  monies.

-------
June 25, 1975

Mr. James L. Agee
Assistant Administrator
Water and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Protection Agency
Room 1033
West Tower - Waterside Mall
401 "M" Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.  20460

Re:  Public Hearing on Potential Legislative Amendments to the
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act

Dear Mr. Agee:

Reference is made to the notice of public hearing to be held in Wash-
ington, D.C. on June 25, 1975.  The following comments are submitted
on your discussion papers and should be included in the hearing record:

No. 1 - REDUCTION OF THE FEDERAL SHARE

It is strongly felt that a reduction of the Federal share from the
current level of 75 percent to a level as low as 55 percent would  fur-
ther delay the construction of needed facilities.  In light of State
and Local governmental budgetary problems, it is obvious that both
governmental levels would lack financial capacities to assume a larger
portion of the financial burden of the grant program.  It is felt  that
a reduction in the Federal share would further make it impossible  to
meet the goals of PL 92-500.

No. 2 - LIMITING  FEDERAL FUNDING OF RESERVE CAPACITY

The only comment this office has is that projects should be designed
to meet future growth within a specified time frame.

No. 3 - RESTRICTING THE TYPES OF PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR GRANT ASSIS-
TANCE

It is felt that no further restriction of the types of projects eligible
for grant assistance be made.  This office strongly recommends that  EPA
reverse its recent decision to declare projects involving the treat-
ment of wastes from water treatment plants, ineligible for Federal
grants.  These restrictions further reduce the possibility of meeting
the goals of PL 92-500 and place an unjust financial burden on local
governments.

-------
June 25, 1975

No. 4 - EXTENDING 1977 DATE FOR THE PUBLICLY OWNED PRETREATMENT WORKS
        TO MEET WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

This office strongly recommends that the 1977 deadline be extended to
1983 due to the economic situation in the nation.  This will allow more
time for research and development of more economical and effective
means of treating wastes.  It will also allow for the possible im-
provement of the national economic situation.

No. 5 - DELEGATING A GREATER PORTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION
        GRANTS PROGRAM TO THE STATES
This office supports the delegation of management of construction
grant program to the States.  It is felt that greater delegation of
program responsibility to the States will make the program more ef-
ficient without compromising environmental concerns.

I would be happy to answer any questions you might have on the above
comments.

                                 Very truly yours,

                                 John E. Kemper
                                 Principal Civil Engineer
                                 Department of Utilities

JEK:gc
cc:  Honorable G. William Whitehurst

-------
June 24, 1975

Mr. David Sabock
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials
  (WH 556)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 "M" Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.   20460

Dear Mr, Sabock:

The National Wildlife Federation submits for the record the following
comments on the Environmental Protection Agency's  proposals relating
to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Federal Register (May 2,
1972).
                               !
The Federation is a private, nonprofit organization which seeks to
attain conservation goals through educational means.  Established in 1936,
the Federation today is supported by approximately three and one half
million individuals who either participate in the more than 8,000 local
clubs which comprise our affiliates in all fifty states, Guam, Puerto
Rico, and the Virgin Islands; hold direct associate memberships; or
contribute in other ways.  Throughout the Federation's existence, the
elected representatives of our affiliate members, now totaling approxi-
mately one and a half million persons, repeatedly have adopted resolu-
tions at annual meetings in support of strong water pollution control.

Because the questions raised by the Agency in publishing these propo-
sals cover a broad range of technical and administrative matters, we
do not address all of them.  Instead, our comments focus on selected
Issues which we believe deserve serious consideration in any evaluation
of amendments to P.L. 92-500.

These comments are influenced by our understanding of four basic objec-
tives established by the 1972 legislation.  1)  No one has a "right"
to pollute the navigable waters of the U.S.  2)  A national water pollu-
tion control strategy should include a minimum level of uniform, man-
datory control for each category of dischargers,  3)  Because water
pollution is a highly complex problem resulting from both point and
non-point sources, control efforts should be coordinated at the local,
regional, state, and national levels to ensure a comprehensive national
strategy.  4)  So serious is the nation's water pollution problem
that it should be remedied as expeditiously as possible.

The particular urgency with which Congress viewed the need for pollu-
tion control ts expressed in a number of ways in the law.  Stringent
deadlines for incremental improvements in controls were established

-------
to ensure that the speed with which law is implemented corresponds to
the urgency Congress perceived.  To accentuate the need for strong
controls, as well as to underscore the point that water pollution is
not a "right," Congress called for the fulfillment water pollution con-
trol requirements with the ultimate goal in mind of eliminating all
discharges by 1985.  Finally, to demonstrate the full extent of its
commitment to this massive cleanup program, Congress authorized $18
billion in contract authority to be committed over a three year period
for construction of publicly owned treatment works (POTW).

We believe that Congress demonstrated clearly its recognition of the
seriousness of the nation's water pollution problems and the need for
a strong national control strategy.  Since then, problems and dis-
appointments have arisen in the implementation of this strategy.  In
our judgment, these are practical and administrative problems resulting
from the formidable task of adjusting to a massive new control program
and the demands it places on resources at the federal, state, and local
levels.                                 .     ,

However, in no way are these problems an indication of any diminishment
in the need for such a strong pollution control program.  In fact, since
1972, we have become even more aware of the value of a no-discharge
goal to the protection of public health.  At the same time that the   ,
government is releasing reports of the presence of carcinogens and other
hazardous substances in drinking water systems, the National Cancer  In-
stitute is reporting that between 50 and 90 percent of all'incidences
of cancer may be environmentally .caused.  Scientists are suggesting  that
there may be no such thing as a threshold level of safety for human
exposure to certain hazardous substances in the environment.  Therefore,
we conclude that any proposals for changing the 1972 Act should address
the law's administrative problems without compromising its basic goals.

Reports by the Environmental Protection Agency as well as a House Pub-
lic Works Subcommittee and Touche Ross & Co. (working under a contract .
from the National Commission on Water Quality) have evaluated the admin-
istrative problems of EPA's implementation of Title II of P.L. 92-500.
Although each of those reports  focuses on different aspects of the
law, we particularly agree with the warning made by the Investigations
and Review Subcommittee staff in their April Interim Report:  "The
Staff believes that caution should be the watchword in making changes
in it CP.L. 92-500).  The interlocking pieces of this very complicated
legislation are only now being fitted together in a way that is
understandable to officials in EPA, the states, and local communities.
To make major alterations could be disruptive to the point of demora-
lizing on-going effort.  Well-intentioned law changes could become a
boomerang that only created a new generation of problems — or exacer-
bated old ones."   (p. 19.)

-------
In addition to the problems of adjustment, the implementation of this
law has imposed major resource constraints on EPA during a period in
which the Administration has held tight rein on personnel increases.
According to EPA's "Review of the Municipal Waste Water Treatment
Works Program," (November 30, 1974), "The shortcomings in EPA's current
method of managing the construction grants program revolve around two
points -- inadequate manpower in the Regions and inadequate guidance
from EPA Headquarters...In 1974 EPA obligated $2.6 billion with 595 pro-
gram  personnel; in 1968, when the program obligated $0.2 billion, it
had 320 people."  (p. 7.)  If the recommendations for improving the pro-
gram's administration were implemented, the Agency's report estimates
that they "would require an increase of 700 positions above the current
staffing level of 595 -- virtually an impossibility in the foreseeable
future."

More recently, a task force reported to the Administrator that, "If a
significant increase in positions is not possible in the next few months,
serious consideration should be given to the alternative of revising
sharply downward the Agency's obligation goals."  (Air/Water Pollution
Report, 6/16/75, p. 235)  Speaking to the overall personnel  problems
which have arisen under the 1972 Amendments, the House interim staff
report states:  "EPA has not had enough trained people to handle the
workload placed on it by the passage of P.L. 92-500."  (p.2.)

It is clear that personnel shortages have considerably aggravated the
adjustment problems posed by the new law.  The efficacy of additional
legislative changes will depend directly upon adequate resources.  There-
fore, we recommend that any amendment EPA submits to Congress be ac-
companied by a full statement of the program change's resource needs.

                   "Needs" and Federal Funding

While the fifth paper deals with personnel needs, the first four reflect
financial needs.  Current estimates of financial needs for complying
with the law's requirements for POTW far exceed the capabilities of
the federal government alone.  Before any specific decisions can be
made about any of the individual proposals, we believe that two questions
must be answered.  1)  What exactly constitutes "need"?  2)  To what ex-
tent should municipal compliance with pollution control requirements
be contingent upon the availability of federal funding?

There are two basic problems with the "needs survey" used to assess the
nation-wide cost of fulfilling the law's municipal requirements.  First,
it encourages the states to overestimate costs to ensure that they will
receive a larger piece of the federal pie when it is dished out.

-------
Second, it fails to distinguish between total cost and the costs which
local/state governments are able to assume without federal assistance.

While it is obvious that all communities will not be able to achieve
the law's requirements on their own, it is unclear what a realistic
estimate of the need for federal assistance is.  Currently, the survey
results are multiplied by the 75 percent share which the law requires
EPA to assume when issuing a grant to a project, and the product is
identified as the federal financial responsibility under the law.  We
recommend that EPA undertake a specific evaluation of state and local
financial capability, separate from total needs.

Once such an evaluation of financial capability is completed, the Agen-
cy should reevaluate its policy on the extent to which the availability
of federal funding is a prerequisite to compliance with the law.  Accord-
ing to a December 28, 1973 memorandum from EPA's Deputy Administrator
to the Regional Administrators, "...it should be noted that although
the law does not make  POTW compliance directly contingent Upon the
availability of federal funds, it is widely recognized that the increase
of the federal share to 75 percent of construction costs makes it
highly unrealistic in many cases for force municipalities to finance
waste treatment facilities without federal funds.,.Each case depends
on its own facts and circumstances, but normally enforcement actions   *
should not be initiated 4f violations,can be shown to have resulted
solely from the lack of federal funds, although such enforcement actions
might be initiated where other factors have contributed to the delay."

The legislative history includes considerable emphasis on the importance
of federal grants to be law's implementation, but as the memo points
out, nowhere does it say that compliance is unenforceable in the ab-
sence of federal funding.  Sec. 106(b) of the law states clearly that
the prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution is the primary
responsibility of the states.  However, the assumption that compliance
cannot be enforced in the absence of federal grants implicitly transfers
final responsibility for pollution cleanup to the federal government.

Regardless of the different views on the accuracy of the needs survey
estimates, their enormity convinces us that it  is unrealistic to
expect the major burden of the nation's municipal pollution control
efforts to be borne by the federal government without an unavoidable,
long-term sacrificing of the law's goals.  If the country is to  live
up to the commitment Congress made in enacting  the 1972 Amendments,
It is essential that federal enforcement policy fully recognize  the
primary responsibility of local and state governments.  Such a policy
should condition enforcement on the extent of local/state efforts  to
ensure compliance with the law in the absence of federal funding.  Only

-------
when federal grants are viewed as a support to local and state pollution
control efforts instead of the financial foundation upon which they
are built, will the primary responsibility for the law's implementation
be shifted to the appropriate shoulders.

Such a revised policy will create the necessary incentives for local/
state governments to pursue the most cost effective approaches to muni-
cipal pollution control.  This is especially important in view of the
Agency's particular concern for the impact of all of its proposed amend-
ments on local incentive and ability to satisfy pollution control re-
quirements.  While revision of the Agency's  enforcement policy at this
stage in the game raises problems of equitable treatment of grant appli-
cants, its continuation entails a significant aberration from the goals
of the law,

                       The Position Papers

The following comments on the specific proposals reflect our advocacy
of clarification of "needs" and revision of the Agency's enforcement
policy.

Proposal #1

In keeping with a revised enforcement policy, we oppose the continua-
tion of a rigid federal share to coyer municipal facility construction
costs.  Federal funding, to the extent it is available, should comple-
ment  state/local financial capabilities to fulfill the law's require-
ments with new PQTW.  To facilitate this, we recommend a floating
federal share, with a ceiling of 75 percent.  This would enable EPA to
award grants according to financial need, rather than arbitrary per-
centage requirements.  At the same time, it would recognize a minimum
local/state share in any project, in keeping with their primary respon-
sibility for controlling water pollution.

Proposal #2

Disregarding the controversy over the secondary environmental effects
of excess reserve capacity, the trememdous costs of construction alone
raise serious questions about how much federal funding should be
used for any reserve capacity in treatment facilities.  Under the
current enforcement policy, a decision to limit federal funding of re-
serve capacity imposes on a municipality responsibilities for future
pollution control which it otherwise might not have to carry.  How-
ever, if local/state pollution control responsibility is recognized
in a revised enforcement policy, the question of reserve capacity takes
on a new perspective.

-------
Under such a policy, if the federal government continues to support
reserve capacities of 25 and 50 years, less funding would be available
for other communities to fulfill their pollution control responsibili-
ties.  On the other hand, if federal support for more limited reserve
capacity is established, grants would be available for a greater number
of eligibility projects.  In either case, localities in general would
have to assume a greater financial responsibility for pollution con-
trol than they do now.  Consequently, the reserve capacity issue would
become a question of what is the appropriate purpose of federal funding.

Given the goals af the law, the purpose of such funding should be to
complement feasible local and state efforts to comply with the statutory
requirements while upholding their primary responsibility for pollution'
control.  The availability of sewage treatment capacity is a key factor
in any community's ability to sustain not only additional growth, but
different kinds of growth.  The Council on Environmental Quality's
report, "The Costs of Sprawl," concludes: "Planned development of all
densities is less costly to create and operate than sprawl in terms
of environmental costs, economic costs, personal costs, and energy
costs."

Although not always, future growth in many communities is determined
by local decision-making.  If a community wishes to pursue additional
growth, it should assume the full responsibility for its compliance
with all existing environmental standards.  When federal funding is not
available to sustain such growth through reserve sewage treatment cap-
acity, a powerful incentive is created for a community to plan growth
that will minimize environmental degredation to the greatest extent
possible and thereby minimize the additional financial burden of
assuring compliance with pollution control laws.

In view of this, the Federation recommends that where it is essential
to a municipality's ability to comply with pollution control require-
ments, federal funding should be restricted to construction of treat-
ment capacity that will handle the waste load in existence at the time
of the construction's completion and for a moderate additional increment
of growth that is unavoidable during the subsequent five to ten years.
(In making this recommendation, the Federation is referring to re-
serve capacity to handle additional growth, not capacity to handle
peak load wastes.)

To ensure that such a policy does result in compliance with the law's
requirements without adverse secondary environmental effects, we re-
commend greater emphasis on the preparation of environmental impact
statements on construction grant projects.  As it now stands, Agency
plans call for the development of EIS on approximately five to ten
percent of the grant applications.  Only through increasing the number

-------
of EIS can the Agency adequately monitor this problem and ensure
compliance with the law.

Proposal #3

A major concern in the ongoing evaluations of EPA's implementation of
the Water Act is the adequacy of administrative flexibility to facili-
tate individual polluters' efforts to surmount their peculiar waste prob-
lems while fulfilling the common objectives of the law.   Limiting the
eligibilities for federal grants may reduce the demand on funding.   How-
ever, it also would diminish flexibility as well  as discourage the
pursuit of the most cost effective approach to the municipality's pollu-
tion problem, because communities tend to favor those strategies for
which they are eligible to gain outside funding.

A more effective approach would be to regulate grant issuance according
to established priorities.  To implement such an  approach would require
modification of the formula for the allocation of grants according to
state "needs" to take into consideration the relative priorities of
the individual projects within each state.

Proposal #4

There is little question that a substantial number of municipal  pollu-
ters will not achieve compliance with the 1977 requirements for a varie-
ty of reasons.  As we pointed out in the beginning of our comments,
the purpose of the Stringent compliance deadlines  incorporated into the
law was to ensure the most expeditious possible implementation of pollu-
tion controls.  Therefore, any extension on the 1977 requirements should
ensure the maintenance of significant incentives  for compliance with
the law.

The Federation's advocacy of a revised enforcement policy already limits
the acceptability of the different alternatives proposed.  We recommend
pursuit of policy number three, provided that adequate guidelines are
developed which clearly define "good faith efforts" to meet the dead-
lines plus sufficiently stringent conditions for  interim compliance
schedules.

The position paper questions whether such a policy would open the door
for amendments to the deadline requirements for industrial polluters.
However, we believe that the situations of the two different types
of polluters are not totally comparable.  From the beginning, industrial
dischargers have been confronted with the full responsibility for the
control of their pollution.  Municipalities, on the other hand, have
                                       500

-------
been allowed to operate under the assumption that their compliance
with the law was dependent upon the availability of federal grants.
In addition, regardless of the amount of federal funds available for
grants, their issuance has necessitated an additional set of regula-
tory requirements which first had to be developed and then complied
with.  For this reason, we believe that a number of additional obsta-
cles have confronted municipal pollution control efforts which have
not impeded industrial efforts.

Proposal #5

As noted earlier, the Agency has been forced to operate under severe
personnel limitations.  As its responsibilities continue to increase
substantially under the construction grants program, the Agency has
stated in this year's "Justifications of Appropriations Estimates for
Committee on Appropriations," that unless it is able to delegate more
of its workload to the states, those responsibilities will not be ful-
filled.

In our view, a major obstacle to an assessment of a state certification
program is the lack of a comprehensive evaluation of the resources now
available to the states and what they would need to take on added
responsibilities.  The certification proposal provides for two percent,
of a state's share of federal grants to cover the added costs of pro-
cessing those grants.  However, this extra money would come at a time
when the states' other pollution control responsibilities are increas-
ing and the Administration is pushing to cut federal support for those
programs.

Despite the testimony of states in support of certification during
congressional hearings, evidence has not been presented which persuades
us that they either possess the resources -- funding and trained per-
sonnel -- to handle the job, or that they would be able to gear up
to the added responsibilities quickly enough to avoid additional delays
in the issuance of grants.  In discussion the personnel problems of
EPA's water program, the Investigations and Review Subcommittee's
staff interim report notes:  "The states, too, have been short an es-
timated 3,400 positions in their water pollution agencies.  In spite
of their very substantial personnel problems, the states are being en-
couraged to assume additional responsibilities...Needless to say,
there are very troubling questions as to how well this work is being
done." (p.2.)

EPA's November 30 report on the construction grants program refers to
a study of increasing state delegations in July 1974 which "revealed
that delegation would not provide a near-term panacea for relieving
EPA of workload or staffing requirements, because the states require

                                    501

-------
time to organize and staff the actual implementation effort."  (p.50.)
The November report goes on to state:  "The overall success, both
current and prospective, of delegating the review of plans and speci-
fications and operation and maintenance manuals is the result of the
fact that states have performed these functions for a long time.  As
a general rule, however, the states have traditionally been less in^
volved in most of the other program functions...and in all but a few
cases, do not possess the technical and/or administrative experience
to effectively perform these other functions	In short, constraints
militate against significant immediate expansion  of delegations and
necessarily impose time delays (1 to 3 years) on  any concerted attempt
by EPA to encourage expanded delegations."

Because of the growing number of grants which must be handled, plus
the additional responsibilities which must be assumed if grants are
to be better administered, the November report points out that EPA
personnel requirements will increase under state  deletation as well
as under continuation of headquarters' responsibility for the program,
although not as much.  In reviewing the different alternatives open
to EPA to improve the issuance of grants, the November report favored
continued reliance on fed.eral administration of the program over state
delegation.  Only because of inadequate federal resources does the re-
port suggest state delegation.

The purpose of state certification is not simply  to take a load off
EPA's back, but also to improve the administration of the construction
grants program which has been widely criticized.   In view of the re-
ports by both the House subcommittee and EPA which suggest that serious
resource problems exist among the states, we do not believe adoption
of state certification at this time would achieve its intended purposes.

In conclusion, we urge the Agency not only to consider the recommenda-
tions presented in these comments, but also to fulfill its responsibili-
ty under the National Environmental Policy Act to prepare an environmental
impact statement on any legislative proposal it does choose to submit
to Congress.  Thank you for the opportunity to present our comments.

                                 Sincerely,

                                 LOUIS S. CLAPPER
                                 Conservation Director

cc:  Russell E. Train, Administrator, EPA
     Sen. Edmund S. Muskie, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Environ-
        mental Pollution
     Rep. Jim Wright, Chairman, House Subcommittee on Investigations
        and Reviews
     NWF staff

-------
                         June 4, 1975

Mr. Edwin L. Johnson
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Water and Hazardous Protection Agency
Waterside Mall
Washington, D. C.

Dear Mr. Johnson:

Enclosed please find one original and two copies of testimony
submitted for the E.P.A. hearings on possible amendments to the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.

The material is being submitted on behalf of the Milwaukee River
Restoration Council, a local citizens organization working towards
cleanup of the Milwaukee River.

It would be appreciated if this testimony would be made part of
the hearing record.  In addition, please be sure to provide me
with a copy of the record once it has been printed.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

Sincerely,

Gaylord Nelson
U.S. Senator
6N:ee
enc.

May 20, 1975
There follows the testimony that MRRC wishes to have entered on
its behalf at the hearings on Potential Legislative Amendments to
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

Problem I:
      Many municipalities are in need of upgrading or expanding
their sewage treatment plants.  In many cases they are holding
back on construction for only one reason:  If they went ahead now
and paid for it themselves, they would not be eligible to receive
75% federal funding via PL 92-500.  The loss of such financing
assistance from the federal government if a municipality pays the
full bill first while waiting in line on their state's priority
list, has probably done as much to hurt the fight for clean water as
                                       50J

-------
the more positive aspects of PL 92-500 have helped in the effort.
      We would like to stress that many municipalities have the
resources, or could get them by short term borrowing, and want to
go ahead now with construction of a new or expanded STP, but are not
doing this.  Officials cannot justify such loss of federal funds
to their taxpayers.  Add to this the fact that further residential,
commercial or industrial development has been halted because
of current inadequate sewage systems.
      This presents a tremendous economic burden to the municipality
and its taxpayers, while at the same time permitting dischargeetif
their partially treated sewage into our waterways.  It's a case of
hurry-up and wait.  Hurry-up with plans for the new or expanded
plant, hurry-up and monitor their present "rich" effluent, then
wait in line on their state's priority list while the federal
funds trickle down to their community.  It seems a bitter-twist
tart with irony that this law should be known as the Clean Water
Act.
ACTION RECOMMENDED:
      The following action should be considered:  If a municipality
wishes to go ahead now with construction of an upgraded or expanded
STP, and pay for it themselves, and if EPA has fully approved
their plans and the completed project, then let EPA (or the Environ-
mental Financing Authority) guarantee that the municipality will
receive federal funding assistance in the future.  The exact date
of reimbursement to the municipality need not necessarily be
specified, but the indicating of a reasonable time span would
permit bonding or short term financing to expedite the project.
EPA guarantees that it will be paid, conditional upon their prior
approval, would guarantee such loans.
      In this way these STP expansions and upgradings can get
going now without fear of loosing out on federal financing aid.
That would mean a lot for the clean water fight.  Also, it would
support sensible land use and permit development	which in turn
would provide new jobs at a time when they are needed.
PROBLEM II;
      There's not enough federal money currently available to  match
the national need for 75% federal funding assistance for municipal
waste treatment grants.
ACTION RECOMMENDED:
      Lower the ratio of federal funding assistance to municipalities
from 75% down to, say, 55%, but spend as much or more nationally,
for municipal waste treatment grants.  Our rationale is that it
would be more beneficial to spread the federal assistance in small
proportion over many more municipalities.
      We feel strongly that the net effect on our country's waterways
                                         50k

-------
will be more clean water, sooner, from cutting more and smaller
pieces of the federal money pie.
CONCLUSION:
      Clean water makes sense.  Spending money for clean water  also
makes sense.  Spending money now for clean water makes  even
better sense.  You're not really spending - you're investing.   Clean
water is a wise investment.  America will become wealthy as  clean
water is achieved.
      The Milwaukee River Restoration Council urges EPA to adopt
these concepts in their recommendations for legislative amendments
to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

Respectfully submitted,

Bob Fuller, President
Milwaukee River Restoration Council, Inc.
                                 505

-------
Mr. David Sabock
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Waterside Mall
Washington, D.C.  20515

Unable to attend hearing June 25th as state legislature is in
session.  On behalf of my constituency in western New York, I
desire to protest any moves to legislate reductions in federal
grant percentage or restrictions on types of projects eligible for
federal grant assistance.  The inflated costs of sewer construction
of all types in this period of economic instability renders it
virtually impossible for local taxpayers to add to their burden.

They have willingly supported environmental improvements on a
state and national basis in the past but are unable to support the
cost burden unaided.

Sincerely,
John B. Daly
Assemblyman
138th District

14:35 EST
                                     506

-------
                     RESOLUTION NO. 10576
                  RESOLUTION BY THE HONORABLE
                   CHARLES A. "PAT" ROSE FOR
                   INTRODUCTION AT THE 1975
                       NATIONAL ASSEMBLY
                   U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS

      Whereas, the Congress of the United States has established
uniform national goals for the improvement of the quality of
our national water resources requiring, among other things, local
action to improve the treatment of sanitary wastes disposed of
through municipal sewage treatment facilities and specifying that
municipal governments utilize the best practicable treatment
technology to effect a minimum of secondary treatment for
sanitary wastes by July 1, 1977, specifying that municipal govern-
ments utilize the best available technology to treat sanitary wastes
by July 1, 1983, and specifying that municipal governments eliminate
entirely pollutant discharges to the waterways of the United States
after July 1, 1984; and
      Whereas, the Congress of the United States in  Public Law
92-500, also known as the Water Quality Control Act, authorized
the Environmental Protection Agency to supervise the implementation
of these water quality goals and authorized the agency to assist
municipal governments in the funding of improvements to local
treatment facilities in order that the national goals might be met; and
      Whereas, progress toward.the national water quality goals man-
dated by Congress has been seriously delayed due to Presidential
impoundments of funds, due to imperfections in Public Law 92-500,
and due to deficiencies in the quality of the administrative actions
taken by the Environmental Protection Agency; and
      Whereas, among the major imperfections of Public Law 92-500
is the absence of a provision for retroactive funding of water
quality control improvements undertaken by municipalities prior
to the availability of federal funds under EPA-established priorities;
and
      Whereas, the absence of this provision is currently creating
severe financial difficulties for many municipalities because of
federal guidelines which (a) require that revenues to meet local
costs of water quality improvements be generated exclusively from
fees assessed upon users of municipal sewage systems and (b) provide
that federal assistance is to be available only for water quality
control improvements, such as treatment plants, which are currently
assigned EPA priority but which do not increase the user base; and
      Whereas, many municipalities have thus been forced to sub-
stantially increase the proportional rate of charges assessed on
                                        507

-------
users of their sewage treatment systems in order to raise revenues
necessary to meet the water quality control requirements of Public
Law 92-500 and of the Environmental Protection Agency, which in-
creases have placed a severe and disproportionate economic burden
upon the citizens and businesses who utilize the sewage treatment
facilities of said municipalities; and
      Whereas, the imposition of this disproportionate burden for
the achievement of water quality goals would appear to violate the
intent of the Congress of the United States as expressed in Public
Law 92-500 which specified that said goals are of national  importance
and which appropriated general tax revenues to support efforts to
achieve them; and
      Whereas, the inequities inherent in the present priority
funding system for water quality control  projects could be
materially reduced by the adoption by Congress of an amendment to
Public Law 92-500 which would permit municipalities to utilize local
funds to complete non-priority water quality control projects
needed to solve pressing problems of individual municipalities,
such as extending collector systems in order to increase the user
base of a system, with the provision that such improvements, if
approved by the Environmental Protection  Agency, would be eligible
for retroactive funding reimbursement at  a future date if and
when the federal funds became available.;
      Now, therefore, be it resolved that the members of the United
States Conference of Mayors do hereby declare that it shall be
the policy of this body to support amendments to Public Law 92-500,
the Water Quality Control Act, to permit  municipalities and other
eligible local governments to apply to the Environmental Protection
Agency for authority to expend local funds for construction of
secondary priority water quality control  projects provided  that such
local expenditures for approved projects  would be eligible  for
retroactive reimbursement at a future date if and when federal
funds are available in accordance with standard federal and state
priorities.

Adopted 5/27/75
                                        500

-------
               North Bay Water Advisory Council
                   Comments for EPA Hearing on
                         June 19, 1975

      The specific purpose of this organization is to provide a
central agency through which local public corporations and private
industries can cooperate for the purpose of improving water quality
standards in the northern portion of San Francisco Bay.  Further-
more, the organization will obtain and disseminate information
and stimulate interest concerning water quality of the northern
portion of San Francisco Bay and to cooperate with, be advisory
to and consult with state and federal bodies and agencies in
seeking the most satisfactory interim and long-range solutions
to the problems of maintaining and improving water quality in
the northern portion of San Francisco Bay.
      I wish to speak to three of the five areas described in
your hearing notice.
Reduction of Federal Share
      We strongly oppose reduction of the federal share of project
costs for a variety of reasons.  Reduction of federal funding
without reduction of federal requirements would place intolerable
burdens on the already overextended taxing ability of local
agencies.  Voters are consistently refusing to take on larger
property tax loads.  The federal government, on the other hand, has
the greatest capability of funding the national pollution control
program through withholding taxes.
      Our citizens are also opposed to increased service charges.
Therefore, we reiterate a request that has previously been made
to Congress; that the law be amended to permit use of Ad Valorum
Taxes for maintenance and operation of wastewater facilities.
      Of great concern to local agencies is EPA potential for
enforcement.  If federal funds were reduced, communities could be
forced to reduce other necessary services, e.g. fire and police
protection.  To prevent such a disaster, we  recommend an amend-
ment which would prohibit enforcement whenever federal funds
are not provided.
      Also of concern is the possibility that the entire grant
program will be prematurely abandoned, just as general revenue
sharing threatens to be.  We recommend that Congress be asked to
commit itself for at least a ten year period.  This would allow
for a more reasonable scheduling of our programs.
Extending the 1977 date for Meeting Water Quality Standards
      There has never been sound justification for the 1977, 1983
or 1985 dates in the Act.  Therefore, they should all be deleted.
Dates should be established at administrative levels where they
                                         503

-------
can be matched to local conditions.  They should not be incorporated
into a law, as they have in PL 92-500, causing both the federal govern-
ment and local agencies to be in violation of them.
      The 1977 deadline will be met by very few communities in
the Bay Area.  In most instances, federal and state planning
requirements will prevent compliance.  Industry is making an
extraordinary effort to comply with the 1977 deadline.   It is
inequitable to make industry comply with a date that adjacent communi-
ties cannot meet.
      There is insufficient information to support the timing of
the 1983 deadline.  The treatment requirements would be far more cost
effective if they were directly related to the receiving water
quality necessary to protect beneficial uses.
      The 1985 date for elimination of discharge of pollutants is
both unwarranted and confusing.  This objective is open to inter-
pretation.  If it is kept in the Act, a more precise definition
of what it means should be included.  However, our preference
is to delete it.
Delegating a Greater Portion of the Management of the Grants
Program to the States
      We strongly support full delegation of the entire program to
California.  This delegation should include grants, environmental
impact, permits and enforcement.  The State has a 25 year history
of pollution control which has placed California well ahead of the
rest of the nation.  It is unsound government to overlay a monolithic
federal program on the State.  The same requirement which brings compli-
ance in a less advanced state often brings over-reaction by
California agencies.  This governmental overlay gives local com-
munities two masters who do not always coordinate their in-
structions.  We see federal intervention delaying our wastewater manage-
ment programs.  Full delegation to California would speed up the
program and make it more cost effective.
                                       510

-------
Gentlemen:
      I am Seymour A. Lubetkin, a licensed Professional Engineer
and Chief Engineer of the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners,
the largest Authority in the State of New Jersey and a Director-
Elect of the Water Pollution Control Federation.  This paper,
commenting on the five papers, as published in the May 28, 1975
Federal Register, is presented on behalf of both the New Jersey
Water Pollution Control Association and the Passaic Valley
Sewerage Commissioners.  As Chairman of the Committee which was
asked to review the five papers, we offer the following comments
and recommendations:
          PAPER NO. 1 - REDUCTION OF THE FEDERAL SHARE
      The proposal is a reduction of the Federal Share of Project
Costs from the present 75% to a level as low as 55%.  One of the
stated purposes is to let the limited available funding go further.
This purpose, we believe, is an illusion and, rather than aid, will
adversely affect the individual taxpayer.
      There is no question that, whether the State or Federal
Government pays, it is still the taxpayer who ultimately foots the
bill.  But in all areas where the major expenditures are needed,
the cities are finding it harder and harder to raise the cash.
Bonded indebtedness of our big cities is one of the items that
is shaking our country.  The municipal bond market interest rates
are going higher and higher - despite the fact that they are tax free.
The public is losing confidence in the municipality's and authority's
ability to keep on paying.  Thus, if $100 million must be spent, it
is cheaper on the taxpayers if the Federal Government spends it.
Maybe Treasury Bills and Bonds may not be much lower in interest,
but at least the Government gets back income tax on the interest
made on its borrowing, while the cities are being forced to pay 8%
and 9% of TAX FREE INCOME to its lenders.
      In addition, the forced load on the Municipal Bond Market
will hurt all other Municipal and State Bonds we issue, that might
be needed for proper operation of our local governments.  Remember,
even though the U.S. now pays 75% of construction cost and local
costs are 25%, the municipalities also pay operation, maintenance
and ineligible costs, which, we believe, are not only higher than
the construction cost, but many of these costs will continue to
increase with our inflationary spiral long after our bonded debt
service is stabilized.
      As far as the specific issues raised in the paper, it is
our opinion that:
      (1)  A reduced Federal Share will inhibit or delay construction
of needed facilities because of the financial difficulties of local
governments;
                                        511

-------
      (2)  Although State Aid would be better than no aid, we feel
that the difficulty of getting State Aid and getting the necessary
referendums passed by the taxpayers in the present climate of
austerity would doom such a program and would certainly make it
inequitable if some states would give aid and others wouldn't.
We think greater State Aid as a substitution for Federal Aid is
just not in the cards;
      (3)  There is no question in our minds that many communities
(including those that need it most) would have difficulty in
raising additional funds in the capital market for the reasons
expressed before;
      (4)  We do not believe that reduced Federal Share would lead
to greater accountability on the part of the grantee for best cost
effective design, project management, and post-construction operation
and maintenance.  In fact, all those items, with the possible
exception of design, are completely independent of grantee share.
If the grantee is negligent with a smaller share, it will be
equally negligent with a larger share.  Its negligence affects
its operation and maintenance cost more than the cost of construction.
As far as effective design is concerned, we feel there may be a
tendency to the opposite, namely, that design in many cases may
be adversely^effected by the grantee bearing a larger share of the
cost.  The inability to fund sufficient monies may force a reduction
in construction costs by making an inferior or inadequate design in
order that any work be done.  Existing office holders may feel "they
can be reelected because of lower immediate capital costs, and
the fact that reckoning on inadequacies may not have to be answered
until later by their successors.
      (5)  We believe a reduced Federal Share would be detrimental
to water quality because some of the necessary projects would not be
able to be funded.  There are some cases where sufficient local
bonds would not be able to be sold economically, even if the city
fathers were willing to take on the large debt.
      In summary, we believe it would be a mistake to reduce the
Federal Share; it would be much better to review and change the many
questionable environmental standards and save money in that manner.
         *        ******       *
          PAPER NO. 2 - LIMITING FEDERAL FUNDING OF RESERVE
                        CAPACITY TO SERVE PROJECTED GROWTH
      We think this is also an area where we must be judicious
in our thinking.  We think the principle is proper, but the number
of years upon which to put a growth limitation requires careful
analysis.  Certainly the idea of zero growth is not equitable as
we will find the population paying a bond debt service for facilities
that are no longer adequate.
                                    512

-------
      However, the principle of taking care of our immediate
needs without sacrificing our economical ability to adjust to
the future may be accomplished by breaking down the size of any
project into hydraulic or physical size and" size necessary for the
degree of treatment mandated.  We believe it is absolutely essential
for a plant to be able to hydraulically handle future expansion to
at least twenty years from completion of construction, even if we
limit the treatment facilities' sizes to much lesser amounts.  This
is important because if a plant is not hydraulically able to accept
or receive a given flow, wash outs, flooding or by-passing must
occur, whereby a limitation on treatment equipment will just cause
a gradual reduction in degree of treatment which, in many cases,
can be easily tolerated.  However, if this is done, I believe it
is important to incorporate into the law some protection from re-
quirements on a municipality or authority, by the USEPA in the
near future, to force expansion shortly after completion of expensive
facilities.  We also point out that larger pipe to allow for proper
hydraulic growth is a small percentage of cost, but would be very
expensive to add to later particularly in high density areas.  We might
use the following principles:
      (a)  Structures, pipes, etc. to be built will
be sized hydraulically for reasonable future expansion of growth;
      (b)  Room for future additional facilities to be allowed;
      (c)  Construction to be modular so that future facilities
can be added in a practical and reasonable manner;
      (d)  The municipality or authority not to be required to
add facilities to improve treatment until the treatment level, due
to increased load, falls a significant or specific figure below the
design or required criteria.
      If, in the opinion of the Administrator, Item (d) is in-
tolerable due to the critical nature of the receiving stream, then
he must allow the facility to be built with greater reserve
capacity.  This is a judgment factor and must be decided before
limiting plant size.
      As far as the specific issues raised in the paper, it is
our opinion that:
      (1)  Although current practice, in some cases, may lead to
overdesign, we do not believe changing the 75% Federal Share to 50%
would eliminate this.  The proper place to eliminate overdesign
is at the State or Federal review level.  Certainly the State
Certifying Agency should know how to properly distribute the available
funds, so as to get maximum water quality benefit for the present
and near future for its particular state.  We believe there should
be less legislative restrictions and more leeway given to the
Regional Administrators, State Certifying Agency, and Local Authority.
                                     513

-------
      (2)  We agree with the principle as stated before of allowing
full hydraulic growth but limiting treatment growth.
      (3, 4 & 5)  We believe the answers to these issues were
covered in the discussions.
       ******      *     *     *      *
       PAPER NO. 3 - RESTRICTING THE TYPES OF PROJECTS ELIGIBLE
                     FOR ASSISTANCE
      We believe on evaluating the projects eligible for grant
assistance, but not for the reasons cited, nor do we believe it
should be by legislative decree.  We think we have the necessary
restrictions now with the priority system and limited money.
Proper state evaluation of projects to determine the best water
quality improvement for the dollar can be used as a basis for
priority so that those projects needed most get funded first.
Those projects not immediately funded, lower priority projects,
would have to wait until they could be afforded.  We think it
imptpopierv' to declare ineligible any type of project by class.
Although we think treatment plants generally should have high
priority and correction of combined sewer overflows and treatment or
control of storm water should have low priority, possibly under
certain circumstances there may be exceptions, and we should
leave it to the State Certifying Agency to determine what is
most needed to accomplish the goals of Water Quality Standards.
      Another point which we feel is extremely important is to
reinstate the reimbursable provision in the Grant Sections.  We
had discussed this in detail and felt the following would be not
only equitable, but would aid in accelerating construction of
needed work.
      (1)  Every municipality or authority submitting a project
by means of a feasibility report would be placed on a priority
list in accordance withtheneed of the project to accomplish
the goals of the Act.
      (2)  As applicants complete approved plans and specifications,
if they are high enough on the priority list, they may have their
project approved for construction with available grants.
      (3)  Applicants with approved plans and specifications may,
if they desire, proceed with construction if they are not high
enough on the priority list; however, they must proceed without
Federal financing, but they will be eligible for reimbursement if
and when they become high enough on the priority list.
      (4)  At the end of each fiscal year the priority list is
revised to remove projects already funded, add new projects, and
re-evaluate the need for old projects, with the understanding
that if a project was funded locally, its priority status cannot
drop; that is, now new projects or old lower priority projects

-------
may be put on the list ahead of the locally funded project.
      Thus, if a municipality decides its project is important
enough, or if it is near enough to the top to be funded in a
following year, it might elect to proceed, saving the inflation
costs of waiting and knowing it will not lose out because it
was acting for the good of the environment.  Any project on the
priority list would move to the top eventually, if it proceeded
with construction, as other projects were funded and removed.
      As to the specific issues raised, we feel:
      (1)  That we should evaluate the priorities and therefore the
environmental impact on the cost effective improvement to water
quality, that is, the greatest benefit per dollar spent.  Then,
when this is done, we must finance the high priority type items
first on both Federal and local levels.  Also, we must not mandate
local completion of lower priority items that do not get Federal
Support.  The important thing is to realize that we must not re-
quire municipalities to fund these lower priority items alone,
but we must recognize they are postponable.
      (2)  The administration and assignment of priorities, and there-
fore construction programs, will be a State function.
      (3)  The progress and construction of both priority items
and non-priority items would proceed more rapidly because of the
reimbursement provisions proposed by us.  This would increase
employment, and if taken in conjunction with other recommendations
made in the latter part of this paper, would improve the overall
economy compared with the present situation.
      *****      *      *      *       *
      PAPER NQ. 4 - EXTENDING THE 1977 DATE FOR THE PUBLICLY
      OWNED TREATMENT WORKS TO MEET WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
      This is a self-evident must.  The date was never realistic
and made non-compliance practically mandatory.  This may not
mean much, except we lose confidence in a difficult law with an
impossible goal.  We are forced to look for invisible "loop
holes" to enable us to make grants when we know the date cannot
be met, and yet if the grant is not made, either we financially
penalize an earnest attempt to clean up or nothing gets done.
Of the five alternates, we think the most practical is a combina-
tion of alternate three and four, slightly modified  as follows:
      Seek statutory amendments that would maintain the 1977 date
but would require the Administrator to grant compliance schedule
extensions on an ad hoc basis based upon the availability of Federal
Funds and upon actual time required with the expenditure of good
faith efforts to build the necessary facilities.
      We also believe that industrial  deadlines should be capable
of Administrator extension based upon physical impossibility of
                                    515

-------
compliance and when good faith performance is shown.
      As far as the specific issues raised in the paper, we
feel we have given our opinion concerning issues 1 through 6.  As
to the remaining issues we believe:
      (7)  EPA should definitely change the definition of
secondary treatment to cover a large range of degrees of treatment
(and abolish B.O.D. as a standard), and apply the necessary
treatment (including the necessity of disinfection) on a case by
case basis, giving the Regional Administrator wide latitude as to
application, considering all environmental and socio-economic
factors.
      We feel extensions of the deadline would still be necessary
because of the time lag due to construction and funding.
      (8)  We do not feel any specific extension in the legislation
is proper.
      (9)  Yes, letters of authorization would be much better than
the complex, paper consuming short-term permits.
      *       *        *         *          *            *
       PAPER NO. 5 - DELEGATING A GREATER PORTION OF THE MANAGEMENT
                     OF THE CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM TO THE STATES
      We feel this should be done when the state demonstrates it
is capable of handling such a complex proposition.  .If, however, a
state does demonstrate i.ts ability and has a desire to do so, we
believe it should be compensated by the Federal Government to off-
set the additional expenditure it makes compared wi*h states that
do not take over this management.  We do not, however, believe the
compensation should come from the State's allotment of Federal
money as proposed.  This would penalize states that did this work.
We feel payment should be either from a General Fund or a Fund
set up by taking up to 2% of the total allotment to all states
(before allocation).  At the end of the year any unexpended monies
in this fund would be distributed amongst all states in the same
ratio as originally to be used for grants.  Thus, no individual
state would be rewarded or penalized for not doing this work by
affecting its grant allocation for projects.
        *****         *
      Besides the five specific items, we believe there are
many more important items that could have been addressed, and
since the notice stated that the hearing was not meant to confine
the discussions, we are mentioning a few with a very brief discussion.
      Item A:  Have the Federal Government Guarantee the
               Payment of "Environmental Municipal Bonds"
      This would allow the Government to move against a de-
faulting municipality for repayment if need be, but the real
asset to the taxpayer would be to make all environmental bonds
                                      516

-------
(so certified to by EPA) Class AAA Bonds and the interest
rate in many cases would drop from 8% or 9% to 4% or 5%.
What a savings to our taxpayers for very little Federal cost.
      For example, for each $15 billion dollars a year of
Federal expenditure, there must be $5 billion of State or local
monies spent (based on present 75% - 25% share).  $5 billion
dollars, on a 30 year bond issue of 9% and 5% gives debt services
of $486,680,000. and $325,257,000. respectively.  Thus, you can
see that such Federal support could .save municipalities $161,432,000.
per year for 30 years for each $15 billion put up in Federal Aid.
This is a reduction of 33% of the municipal share without increasing
the Federal share.
      This would also make the municipality put its priorities
in environmental work, since other municipal bonds that were not
guaranteed by the Government would be paying the high rate of
interest (depending upon the rating and stability of the local
government) called for by the local status.  It is important
to note that we are not recommending Federal backing of all
municipal bonds, just those issues certified by EPA as environ-
mental issues for work required by P.L. 92-500.
      Item B:  Review and Adjust our Requirements on a Case by
               Case Discharge Basis;  Reduce Our Expenditure by
               not Requiring the Same Minimum Discharge by Everyone.
      To require the high standards that we have defined for
secondary treatment for discharges into the ocean, or even our
large rivers, at all times, is the height of folly, and a waste
of money.  Mandatory year-round chlorination of all discharges
is not only economically wasteful, but harmful to our environment.
All discharges should be individually evaluated as to the effect
on the environment and each Regional Administrator should be
able to prescribe the required treatment and schedule for operation.
We could save much money and at the same time aid the environment.
      Item C:  Do Not Mandate Some of the Theoretical
               Details Presently in the Law
      Make the law more general and allow the Regional Adminis-
trator more latitude on details.  As stated before, there is no
substitute for good judgment, but make the law permissive enough
so that the judgment of the Administrator is not overruled by
an adverse ruling from O.M.B. or another watch dog agency.
Generally speaking, we should go over the Act paragraph by para-
graph and delete those parts of the Act which legislatively are
in too much detail, particularly where we feel the item does
not contribute to water quality, but is an administrative type
of ruling which does not leave us much discretion.  Thinqs like
equitable and user charges sound good, but in pr.actice"are defined>:
                                      51 /

-------
too strictly to permit a cost-benefit type of operation.
If you have a law that states that costs shall be equitable,
leave it to the municipality to determine what is equitable*
If they are are wrong some taxpayer will take them to task.
The present regulations are so complex that the cost of administrating,
in many cases, outweighs our financial return at a net loss  to the
taxpayer.
      We don't believe the Federal Government should get into
the rate structure aspects of operation.  It's just another
expensive area for them to monitor with no direct affect on  the
environment.
      Procurement is another area where we should be careful.
The mandating of two name brands or equal could, in many cases,
cause the purchase of inferior material that can lead to very
high maintenance or replacement costs.
      Item D:  Improve the Cash Flow to Grantee After a Grant
               Offer is Accepted
      At present, it is not until a portion of the construction
is completed that we may apply for a partial payment of the  grant
money to cover the cost of that particular construction phase.
      Even when all delays of processing are reduced to a bare
minimum, there is a one month lag period from the time a Grantee
requests this payment to time of receipt of check.  To this
must be added the time from construction in the ground until the
time the engineer can certify this to the Grantee (and EPA)  of
approximately one month.  Thus, if a contractor must wait for the
grant funds to be available, he has a minimum of two months  (and, in
practice, three or four months) until he gets paid.
      If, on the other hand, the Grantee pays the contractor
when the money is due, as many do, it finds it is prefinancing
a portion of the grant, to its financial detriment.
      We suggest that the legislation or regulations be modified
so that the funds be given to the Grantee in accordance with the
cash flow schedule that is submitted with the application
for the grant.  Reports and inspections can be required, so  that
if construction is seriously lagging, a rescheduling of the  cash
flow can be made.  In other words, let the Grantee
have the money about two weeks before it needs it, so that
when calculating its cash needs, the Grantee does not have to
do some very expensive overfinancing.
       *     *       *        *        *       *        *
      Thus, the realization that we have limited funds must be
extended to municipal participation.  We must not just consider
reducing Federal  Share; we must reduce total share to highest
priority items with greatest cost-benefit ratio.
                                     518

-------
The thing to bear in mind is that the reduction in  the  Federal
Share, without corresponding reduction in local share,  will
contribute to Federal responsibility for bankrupting many of
our communities which are presently in trouble.
      Thank you for allowing us to present our views, and I
shall be happy, on behalf of our Association,  to answer any
questions our presentation has raised.

Sincerely,
NJWPCA LIAISON COMMITTEE
S. A. LUBETKIN,
Chairman
                                   519

-------
                           TESTIMONY
                         ON BEHALF OF
             NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS
                          BEFORE THE
         UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
              "MUNICIPAL WASTE TREATMENT GRANTS"
           U.S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION AUDITORIUM
                       WASHINGTON, D. C.
                         JUNE 25, 1975

                         INTRODUCTION
      Mr. Chairman, I am H. Neal Troy, Manager, Environmental  Control,
Owens-Illinois, Inc., Toledo, Ohio; and as such am responsible for
the environmental protection programs for 137 manufacturing plants
in the United States and a number of other countries.   I  also
serve as a member of the Steering Group of the Environmental
Quality Committee of the National Association of Manufacturers.
      Accompanying me are Kenneth S. Watson, Director  of  Environ-
mental Control, Kraftco Corporation, Glenview, Illinois,  who has
like responsibilities and is also a past president of  the Water
Pollution Control Federation, representing water pollution
control experts in the United States and many other countries;
and Daniel W. Cannon, Director of Environmental Affairs for the
National Association of Manufacturers, a voluntary association of
enterprises engaged in manufacturing in the United States.
      We are appearing on behalf of the NAM, many members of which
have cooperative arrangements with publicly owned treatment
works for the treatment of industrial wastewater.
      We would first like to make the point that we are strongly
dedicated to this joint approach.  Several years ago,  the NAM  Board
of Directors adopted a formal policy statement that "Such regional
solutions may achieve cost and technical advantages and are being
accomplished in many parts of the country."
      The NAM Environmental Quality Committee has consistently
worked for laws and regulations which would facilitate and encourage
sound regional solutions.  Unfortunately, some laws and regulations
have had the opposite effect.
      We are, therefore, greatly appreciative for this opportunity
to participate in hearings held to explore possible ways  to achieve
more efficient construction of publicly owned treatment works  with
least cost approaches.
                LIMITING FUNDING OF RESERVE CAPACITY
      Our attention is first caught by the proposal to limit
Federal funding of reserve capacity to serve projected population
and industry growth.  We believe this would be a short-sighted
                                   520

-------
approach.  We note that Review Paper No. 2 cites "a study on
interceptor sewers conducted for the Council on Environmental
Quality.  This study was critical of EPA's present practice (of
approving eligible reserve capacities of up to 20 years for treatment
plants and 30 to 50 years for interceptor sewers) in that it
occasionally permits excessive reserve capacity for interceptors,
which facilitates growth and its attendant secondary environmental
impacts."
      We believe that there are adequate means to control the
secondary environmental impacts of growth, and that this is the
preferable approach rather than to impose a no-growth policy
through limitations on the construction grants program.  Arbitrary
limitations wholly unrelated to cost-effectiveness analyses would
be false economy and could lead to unnecessarily high expenditures
in the future.  In the light of the sharp upward trend in construction
costs, this would appear to be inevitable.
      Review Paper No. 2 itself points out that "large economies-of-
scale are realized in interceptor construction--for example, a 10
percent increase in capacity represents only a 3 to 5 percent
increase in cost.  Second, traditional design periods are very long
usually about 50 years."  We believe that it is important not to
create a backing of future problems by encouraging "no reserve
capacity" design, and that allowing no reserve capacity for future
industrial dischargers would stifle economic growth and be illogically
discriminatory.
                       EXTENDING THE 1977 DEADLINE
      Review Paper No 4 discusses extremely important issues
related to the proposal to extend the July 1, 1977 deadline for
publicly owned treatment works to achieve effluent limitations
based upon secondary treatment, or a more stringent level of
treatment if necessary to meet state water quality standards,
in light of the estimate that 50 percent or 9,000 municipalities
serving 60 percent of the 1977 population will not be able to comply
with these requirements.
      Among the questions raised by Review Paper No. 4 are:
      "2.  Is it fair to require industry to meet the 1977
deadline while extending it for municipalities?"
      "3.  Is it fair to make industrial requirements more stringent
pending municipal compliance, as is the case with joint systems?"
Control Act Amendments of 1972 is such that a mid-course reassess-
ment and correction is needed as a matter of overall national policy.
The Act should be amended to provide that, after July 1, 1977,
an assessment should be made of all of the nation's waters to
ascertain what progress and what results have been attained under
Phase I of the Act.  Dischargers into waters which met State water
                                        521

-------
quality standards by that date would not be subjected to any more
stringent effluent limitations.  Dischargers into waters which still
did not meet State water quality standards would be required to
comply with more stringent effluent limitations equitably
designed to help achieve receiving water standards for desired
uses, which themselves should receive a 1977 review.  This would
be a program that would make sense from both the economic and
environmental standpoints without raising any questions of fairness
as between municipalities and industries.
                     DELEGATION TO THE STATES
      Review Paper No. 5 discusses the proposal to delegate a
greater portion of the management of the construction grants pro-
gram to the States.  We concur that, if the States were able to
assume a greater degree of program management, if might be possible
to expedite the flow of funds into necessary construction projects,
thereby obtaining both environmental and economic benefits.  We
note that H.R.. 2175 is designed with such an objective in mind.
                       SUPPLEMENTAL COMMENTS
      Mr. Watson would now like to make a few supplemental comments,
particularly from the standpoint of the food processing industry.
      My name is Kenneth S. Watson, I am Director of Environmental
Control for the Kraftco Corporation, directing this area of
activity for the Corporation's four Divisions and roughly 150
plants in the United States and Canada.
      My total professional experience has been in the field of
environmental control.  This experience has encompassed serving
as Executive Secretary of the West Virginia Water Commission, the
pollution control agency for that State: Assistant Secretary of
the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission; Director of
the General Electric pollution control program for many years;
and my present assignment where I have served for a period of
more than 5 years.
      I am a registered professional engineer in a number of
States and a Diplomat of the American Academy of Environmental
Engineers.  In an effort to help the environmental field evolve
to cope with the tightening climate,  I have served as President
of the Water Pollution Control Federation and Chairman of the National
Technical Task Committee on Industrial Wastes.
      With reference to the Public Hearings scheduled by EPA
concerning Changes in the Sewage Treatment Grant Program as
detailed in the May 2, 1975 Federal Register, the Food and Dairy
Industry has a general interest in all five areas outlined and
would briefly like to address this fact prior to commenting
specifically on point four being considered in the hearings.
      It is hoped that, as a result of these hearings, EPA can


                                    522

-------
move its program in the direction of more flexible deadlines which
will permit tailoring a program more nearly encompassing the many special
considerations which apply to any particular community.
      Since most food and dairy plants are properly connected
into municipal sewer systems because their wastes are completely
compatible and this approach thus represents the most equitable
one for the total community, this industry feels that the use of
the joint approach should be preserved and encouraged in any changes
made in the EPA grants program.  It appears that the specification
that treatment required be fully cost effective will not necessarily
be followed by EPA in many cases, particularly insofar as the best
available, 1983 treatment is concerned.  Since this is true, it
is requested that any changes made in the EPA program thrust in
the direction that expenditures necessary to meet EPA requirements
be tested against the cost effectiveness principle before being
enforced by that agency.
Extending the 1977 Deadline
      Now with reference to "extending on a case-by-case basis
the 1977 deadline for municipalities to achieve secondary treatment",
if appears obviousv that something must be done about this deadline
because it simply Cannot be met by all municipalities.
      Flexibility on a case-by-case basis should be available for
extending the 1977 deadline for municipalities. , Obviously, the
extension should also apply to Industrial plants discharging
compatible wastes into any municipal system receiving an extension,
even though the joint load of the home owners and the industrial
plants may overload the municipal treatment plant until it can
be upgraded.
      Further, where contractual agreement has been reached that
an industrial plant with or without pretreatment will be connected
into a municipal sewer system when it is upgraded, it is not in
the financial interest of the industry or the nation to require
such a plant to provide some type of interim treatment pending
the completion of municipal facilities if an extension of time
has been granted to the municipality.  The only exception to this
position might be that of an industrial plant discharging
incompatible wastes creating critical stream conditions, which
had agreed to provide pretreatment prior to connection into the
municipal system.  If an extension were granted to the municipality
during the period when planning and construction of the city project
was being moved forward, it would be reasonable to expect the industrial
plant to provide the pretreatment facilities agreed upon on a time
schedule consistent with the construction time required.
      Although the cost of industrial treatment facilities is not
generally financed by public funds, case-by-case extensions of the
                                        523

-------
1977 deadline should also be granted for industry.   An area by
area approach on a sound judgment basis should be used and comparable
extensions granted to industrial plants in an area  if a municipality,
which is a large contriubtor, has been granted an extension.
      Since the points just outlined bear on the fact that citizens
of an area and industrial plants discharging compatible wastes will
most soundly and equitably be served in the fewest  number of
professionally operated treatment plants, it is desired to again
appeal to EPA to encourage the joint approach.  There appear to
be many locations today, as the pollution control program is being
moved forward, where the joint approach is not receiving great
encouragement.  This appears to result from the nation's consulting
firms, perhaps somewhat encouraged by EPA, to attempt to connect
together such large regions and plan so far into the future that
excessively costly systems are being proposed.  In  such programs
costly usable and expandable treatment facilities are being abandoned
and this, along with the excellent new facilities proposed, is
increasing costs to the point"that, with the EPA cost recovery formula
in effect for industry, which probably deserves some review
thought also, the economic burden on the industrial  plants is not
consistent with the services to be provided.  In light of the basic
soundness of handling private citizen and compatible industrial
wastes in common plants, one of the key objectives  of the
present national program should be to continue to make full use of
this joint approach concept.
                         CONCLUSION
      We appreciate the opportunity to present our  views.
                                     521*

-------
       STATEMENT BY COMMISSIONER OGDEN REID FOR PUBLIC HEARING
         ON POTENTIAL LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL
              WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT- JUNE 25, 1975
               AT AUDITORIUM, U.S. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
                          19th and E STREET N.W.
                            WASHINGTON, D. C.

I am Ogden Reid, Commissioner of Environmental  Conservation for
the State of New York.
      I was a member of the 92nd Congress that enacted the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 and then voted to,
sustain them over the Presidential veto.
      As State Commissioner of Environmental Conservation charged
with the responsibility for implementation of the Act that I
participated in drafting, I am in the dual position of progenitor
and heir.  From this double vantage point, I am pleased to present
before this hearing, my views on the five topics the Office of
Management and Budget feels should be discussed-publicly with the
aim  of modifying the Act if necessary.
      Lest there be any doubt of my position, I wish to state at
the outset that I am convinced not one of the five topics are
justifiable or necessary.  The first three; reduction of federal
share, limiting federal financing to existing population, and
restricting eligibility for construction grants, will make a mockery
of the goals established in the Act through failure to provide the
federal assistance to communities promised by the 92nd Congress.
      The motivation behind these three topics is the evident dismay
of the Executive Department over the magnitude of the 1974 Needs
Survey estimate 342 billion dollars to meet 1983 goals.  This
situation was foreseen precisely by the House Committee on Public
Works in House Report No. 92-911, dated March 11, 1972 wherein on
page 119 it states:
      "The Committee received extensive testimony on the cost
of the elimination of discharge of pollutants.   While there is
controversy as to the validity of the estimated costs to both the
Federal, State, and local governments and to industry that were
received, there is no question on the part of the Committee that
the costs would be enormous.  Faced with the wide variation in
estimates, the Committee feels that it would be irresponsible at
this time to impose this requirement on the Nation without gathering
additional facts and without making a detailed and competent
review by a multi-disciplined team which can review all facets of
the social, economic, technological, and environmental effects of this
requirement."
                                    52S

-------
      It was for this reason that the House bill  HR 11896
provided a study group, later to become, in Section 315 of PL 92-500,
the National Commission on Water Quality.
      Any proposal contemplating amendment of the Act for these
three topics is premature until the Commission Report is completed
and submitted to the Congress as stipulated in the Act.  Rather
than seek to reduce needs by curtailment of federal grant
participation, the efforts of EPA and OMB should be directed
towards re-examination of rules, regulations and procedures that
impose ever-changing criteria and standards at a cost that far
exceeds the resulting benefits in water quality improvement.
      I do agree that these topics can be discussed and I am
prepared to do so.
                          PAPER NO. 1
      In considering Paper No. 1 - Reduction of the Federal Share,
as published in the Federal Register for May 28, 1975, I find
that the background material is grossly understated.   The first
paragraph indicates that from 1966 to 1972 the federal share ranged
from 30 to 55 percent.  The paper neglects to state that in
order to qualify for the 55 percent federal grant, there had to
be a state matching grant of not less than 25 percent.  The
maximum grant available to a municipality was the sum of the two,
or 80 percent.  Therefore the grant available during that period
exceeded the present 75 percent federal grant.
      From 1956 to 1966 the federal share was 30 percent or a
maximum of $250,000.  In the case of multi-municipal  projects this
was increased to $1,200,000 maximum.  However, under Section 206(b)
of PL 92-500 all grants for this period were increased to the full
30 percent.  If Paper No. 1 is intended to provide comparison
with the past, it presents an inaccurate starting base.
      The logic to support the assumption that the federal
government must provide 75 percent of 342 billion dollars under the
Act is unclear.  I find no commitment to do so, and I again
refer to the task assigned the National Commission on Water Quality
to determine "the economic, social and environmental  effects of
achieving or not achieving" the 1983 goals.
      States and local municipal bodies will find it difficult
to raise funds to pick up the difference between the guaranteed
75 percent grant and a lesser amount.  Over $5 billion in federal
assistance has been obligated at a flat 75 percent of eligible
project cost.  It is unreasonable to expect that any significant
number of States or communities will accept less.
      For one intimately involved in the State and local budgetary
process, the answers to the questions posed by Paper No. 1 are
painfully apparent -
                                    526

-------
1.  Yes, a reduced federal share will inhibit construction of
needed facilities!
2.  No, the States, or a majority of them, cannot assume a larger
financial burden!
3.  Yes, communities will have difficulty raising additional  funds,
not only in the capital market but from their voting public who
must assume the costs of debt service.
4.  Accountability is not an issue as this is accomplished by
State review and surveillance regardless of the proportion of
local funding.
5.  The goals of PL 92-500 may have to be abandoned.
                        PAPER NO. 2
      Limiting Federal Funding of Reserve Capacity to Serve
Projected Growth, is reduction of federal grant assistance in
another guise.  The proposition is fundamentally the same as
Paper No. 1.
      The Environmental Protection Agency has already determined
that reconstructing a sewage treatment plant every 10 years and
tearing up a city's streets for new sewers every 20 years are not
cost effective.  They have conceded that plants should be constructed
for a 30 year life but OMB is arbitrarily imposing a condition
that federal assistance will be granted only for present population,
with the State and municipality responsible for the added costs of
planned growth.
      OMB infers that constructing for growth results in over
design.  It should be easy for EPA to refute this from their own
records by determining how many plants in existence, constructed
in accordance with the growth policy under criticism, have
actually proven to be over designed.
      There must be few if any because if treatment plants had
been over-designed in the past, there would have been no need for
Public Law 92-500 in the first place.
      Had our founding fathers, 200 years ago, established a
national no-growth policy such as this, we would today still  be
13 original states huddled along tidewater.
      What would be the effect of federal assistance if projects were
designed only for present population?  Disastrous!
      States and cities unable to increase their participation in
sewage treatment works costs, would re-design their plants for
existing population only.  After completion, the plants would be
already overloaded.  The condition which PL 92-500 was designed
to correct would worsen instead of improving.
      I urge the prompt abandonment of the concept of Paper No. 2
which seeks to limit federal funding to serving present populations.
                                      527

-------
                           PAPER NO. 3
      Restricting the Types of Projects Eligible for Grant Assistance
is unacceptable.  The U.S. Congress, after 1% years of deliberation
(May 1971 to October 1972) decided that the eligibilities for
Title II Construction Grants were essential for attainment of
the goals of the Act.  Therefore, they should not be restricted
irresponsibly in a misguided effort to reduce needs by sweeping
certain categories of requirements under the rug.
      The same panic created by the results of the 1974 Needs
Survey discussed in the opening of my statement is responsible
for this issue.  The fear seems to be that States will  be pre-
senting blank checks for all of the eligible projects making
up the 342 billion dollars of needs.
      The Act makes the States responsible for a list of sewage
treatment works projects in order of priority according to the
severity of pollution.  This "severity of pollution" may require
action in any of the categories for which eligibility was established
by the Act.  It could be control of urban runoff, correction of com-
bined sewer overflows, collection sewers or any of the others.
      Therefore, for improvement of water quality, the goal  we
strive for, a State should be able to exercise the option of
choosing a proper means for abatement of each specific pollution problem.
      There is a growing need for the construction of new, or the
rehabilitation of existing, collection sewer systems.   Due to the
costs of such works, the pressures of unemployment and inflation,
more of our communities with a low tax base to begin with are
finding themselves unable to provide the wherewithal  to construct or
repair such collection systems without the assistance of a federal
grant.  The programs of the Fanners Home Administration and the
Department of Housing and Urban Development cannot cope with
this situation.
      The elimination of eligibility for collection sewers would
set back the attainment of PL 92-500
goals indefinitely.
      As I peruse the elaborate discussion, questions, suggestions
and considerations devoted to Paper No. 3, I recall the words of
Hamlet in Act III:
      "Thus conscience does make cowards of us all
      And thus the native hue of resolution
      Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought
      And enterprises of great pith and moment
      With this regard their currents turn awry
      And lose the name of action."
                           PAPER NO. 4
      Extending 1977 Date for the Publicly Owned Pretreatment


                                      520

-------
Works to Meet Water Quality Standards is not a matter of great moment.
With the early impoundment of fiscal 1973 and 1974 allotments, the
momentum of the previous Act was lost and has never been recovered.
Failure to meet 1977 standards was predestined on December 8, 1972
when the impoundment was ordered.
      I do not subscribe to any of the five alternatives discussed
in the paper.
      I do not agree that the decision on publicly owned treatment
plants meeting secondary treatment standards by 1977, should in-
fluence the attainment of 1977 standards by industry with the sole
exception when they discharge into a municipal system.
      I do not agree that the 1977 standard should be extended
to 1983 as this would give cause to delay on the part of those
plants that can comply with 1977 standard.
      I do not agree that there should be any enforcement
proceedings against municipalities to obtain compliance with
1977 standards except in the most flagrant violation of water
quality standards.
      My approach is that the Agency should re-examine their
secondary treatment standards.  An effort has already been accomplished
by the proposal to eliminate coliform standards from the definition
of secondary treatment.  There are many receiving water bodies
where maintenance of water quality does not require 85 percent
removals.  The 1977 date should remain but application of the
standards should be reasonable.
                          PAPER NO. 5
      I am a zealous advocate for Delegating A greater Portion of
the Management of the Construction Grants Program to the States.
It was intended by the Act, and it is the stated policy of the
Administrator, EPA.  But is H.R. 2175 really necessary?
      It is difficult to rationalize the desire of EPA to delegate
more responsibility to the States while at the same time a
regulation effective during the nine months since October 31,
1974, and which accomplishes even more than H.R. 2175, lies
dormant.  I refer to Section 35.912 40 CFR Part 35 as published in
the Federal Register October 1, 1974.  I also find it rather odd
that the background in Paper No. 5 does not mention the existence
of this regulation.
      H.R. 2175 as presently worded is defective.
      H.R. 2175 provides for state certification of only three
elements of the Section 201 facilities plan, whereas the regulation
delegates to the State, certification of aY\_ the facilities plan
including the twelve elements of the plan described in 40 CFR Part
35, Section 35.917-1.
                                      52J

-------
      H.R. 2175 authorizes the Administrator EPA to reserve two
percent of a State's allotment, in contravention of the Supreme
Court decision that the entire amount authorized should be allotted
to the States.
      H.R. 2175 provides up to two percent only for those allotments
made after the date of enactment of that bill.   As the $18 billion
dollars authorized by PL 92-500 have been fully allotted, there may
not be further allotments until after September 30, 1977.
Consequently, H.R. 2175 cannot be effective until too late for
any benefit.
      H.R. 2175 provides contract authority as  a source of funding,
whereas other state costs for administration of PL 92-500 are
reimbursed from appropriated funds under Section 106 of the Act.
      Delegation of authority to the States should be consummated
through the currently effective regulations. New York applied for
this delegation on October 31, 1974, and it has not yet been
granted.
      Funding should come from appropriated funds for "liquidation
of contract authority" provided for Title II construction Grants.
                           SUMMARY
      As  I said in the beginning, I cannot support any of the five
proposals for amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, Public Law 92-500.
      I have given you my reasons in detail with suggestions for
alternatives that seem viable to me.
      I reiterate, no amendments should be made to the Act at
this late date nor until the National Commission on Water Quality
report is evaluated by the Congress.
      I thank you for the opportunity of presenting my views on
these matters.
                                      530

-------
4th Draft
6/12/75
        *»    (               -           " . •
Recomendations of the Nebraska Natural Resources Commission,
Lincoln, Nebraska, on Potential Legislative Amendments to the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act.          ,i;

For Presentation to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency at Public
Haring, Kansas City, Missouri, June 17, 1975.    -r

Mr. Chairman:
      My name is Sue Hoppel and I am representing the Nebraska
Natural Resources Commission., Our address is 7th Floor, Terminal
Building, Lincoln, Nebraska.  We are the state agency preparing ;
Nebraska's water quality management plans for implementation by
the Nebraska Department of Environmental Control.  We agree      >
with and support the goals of P.L. 92-500 for fishable, swimmable
waters, for zero discharge of pollutants, and for public support
of wastewater facilities.  We are making progress in Nebraska
toward  implementing those goals.  We have .our. six most difficult
water quality plans completed and we expect to complete the other
seven in the next year.  The Nebraska Department of Environmental
Control is administering4the NPDES program in the state and,all
municipal permits have been issued.  They are implementing the  7
plans through all their water pollution control programs.  Public
understanding and acceptance ofP.I. 92-500 have come a long way ?
as these programs have been implemented, and we have enjoyed a
useful  working relationship with the EPA Region VII office in    :
Kansas  City.  For the sake of continuing this progress, and since
we support the original law, .changes which are, not necessary for
program function and improvement and do not, as an end.result,
accelerate goal accomplishment should be and will be opposed
by this agency.  We appreciate the opportunity to address the
five amendments before this hearing.
Amendment 1:  A reduction of the Federal share.
      We oppose this amendment.  The Federal share should remain
at 75 percent and sufficient funds should be allocated to meet
the needs.  Clean water has been accepted as a public benefit and
the public is going to pay for it one way or another. The most
logical way to accelerate needed treatment is to require it and
pay for it.  We would favor setting an ending date for the 75
percent share, say 1983, after which the Federal share would
decrease.  This would discourage any unnecessary delays by grant
recipients.  Federal money must be raised, authorized, allocated,
and spent if treatment facilities are to be built.  That, not
                                   531

-------
the 75% share, is the real problem.
Amendment 2:  Limiting Federal financing to serving the needs of
existing population.
      We oppose this amendment.  As a planning agency we feel the
legitimate needs of the future should be considered.  If these
needs are not met, we will always be behind and our water quality
goals will never be achieved.
Amendment 3:  Restricting the types of projects eligible for
grant assistance.
      From a practical point of view, the construction grant
program in Nebraska is almost wholly directed toward treatment
plants.  We also fund some interceptors.  We feel that the construction
required under the most cost-effective solution should continue  '
to be eligible for a grant, and changes in the law are not necessary.
Amendment 4:  Extending the 1977 date for meeting water quality
standards.
      This deadline will have to be extended but it should be
extended only on a case by case basis.  We favor your alternate 3
which would keep the 1977 date but allow the Administrator to
grant extensions.  Secondary treatment is still a desirable
minimum goal and will be achieved in many areas by 1977.
Maintenance of the 1977 date should not be dependent on the avail-
ability of Federal funds.
Amendment 5:  Delegating a greater portion of the management "of
the construction grants program to the States.
      We favor this amendment which would expedite the construction
grant process.  The entire program should be transferred to the
States as they are ready with appropriate reviews, audits, and
funding by EPA.
      In conclusion, I appreciate the opportunity to participate
here today and I will leave copies of our recommendations.  Thank
you.
                                    53,

-------
                           July 3, 1975

Mr. David Sabock
Environmental Protection Agency
Room 1031-D                         Re:  Proposed amendments to the
WH-556                                   Federal Water Pollution
401 M. Street, S.W.                      Control Act
Washington, D.C.  20460

Dear Mr. Sabock:

It is hereby requested that the contents of this letter be entered
into the record of the June 25, 1975 public hearing on the above
captioned matter.

Before commenting on each of the 5 proposals separately, it is
imperative that several general points be presented.

1 -  When taken as a whole, the proposed amendments indicate a
general desire on the part of EPA to "abdicate" authority and
responsibilities for a program which they vigorously initiated and
in which they encouraged the state and local bodies to participate,
with the promise of adequate financial assistance in order to
make state or local participation practical.  We must express
considerable opposition to this apparent attempt to suddenly
relinguish responsibility in this matter.

2 -  The strict standards and ambitious goals which were established
by EPA, and which were thought to be excessive at their time of
adoption, are now being confirmed as unreasonable when taken in
the time frame of the act and the financial capabilities of both
the federal government and local authorities.

3 -  The federal budget problems, which are at the heart of most
of the proposed amendments, are not only magnified on a state or
local level, but the state and local authorities possess far less
effective methods of raising the necessary revenue.

4 -  The impoundment of most of the federal funds in recent years
only served to diminish the already remote possibility of compli-
ance with the goals of the act, since such impoundment not only
made progress impossible during the period of impoundment, but
meant that once the funds were eventually released, the inflated
cost of treatment facility construction lessened the "buying
power" of these funds.
                                    3

-------
5 -  The fact is that the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
of 1972 is one whose provisions exceed the technical and financial
capabilities of both the Federal government and the state and
local agencies and in order to correct this inequity, amendments
to the act must be incorporated primarily for the purpose of
modifying and lessening the goals and effective dates of such
goals, which is the only practical way in which it is even con-
ceivable that the federal spending obligations under this act could
be decreased.  However, as long as the goals and requirements of
the act remain as ambitious as they presently are, it is incon-
ceivable to envision any reduction in the financial responsibility
of the federal government.

Our comments with regard to each of the proposed amendments are
as follows:

1 -  Reduce the Federal share for construction grants from the
current 75% to as low as 55%.
At the present time, New Jersey is experiencing considerable
difficulty in raising the necessary 25% funding in order to supplement
the federal allocation.  It will be necessary to present a bond
issue of approximately $350 million to the voting public in
November, 1975, for the purpose of raising the necessary 15%
on a state level to supplement the nearly $1 billion federal funding,
and it is extremely doubtful if such a bond issue will  receive
the approval of the general public.  Any reduction in the federal
share will almost certainly result in the failure to construct
many of the projects which New Jersey so desperately needs.

At the present time, 79 municipalities in New Jersey are prohibited
from issuing building permits because the sewage treatment facilities
which serve those municipalities have either reached or exceeded
capacity.  Federal funding under F.W.P.C.A is instrumental in
the removal of such sewer bans and the proposed reduction in
federal funds would only lengthen the time before such bans could
be lifted.  The net effect of such bans has been to discourage
reduction of approximately 12,000 units of housing and has had
an adverse economic impact upon the State of New Jersey in the
form of a loss of $1.3 billion.

It is also highly doubtful that a decrease in federal funding
would encourage more economic design on the part of the state or
local agencies.  Instead, we believe it is more likely that such
a decrease in funding would simply discourage such necessary
construction, thereby, serving neither the goals of the act nor
                                      531*

-------
the purpose for which the act was created.
               i
2 -  Limit-Federal funding of reserve capacity to serve existing
population only.
We are in total opposition to this proposal and recognize it as
an attempt to control population growth in a given area in much
the same manner in which the EPA attempted to limit growth through
the Central  and Southern Ocean County treatment plant construction
proposals last year.

The general  reference to "reserve capacity" should be discussed
in greater detail.  If EPA is truly concerned with the most
efficient measures possible, it is our recommendation that they
encourage the design and construction of treatment facilities
"in parallel," whereby smaller facilities with minimal reserve
capacities could be constructed — but where the size of sewer
lines could and should be maximized to provide for reserve
capacities of 50 years or more.  This suggestion is most economical
since the cost differences with regard to different size sewer
lines is a minimal amount in comparison with the cost differences in
the size of different treatment plants.  In this way, it is possible
to design and build treatment plants with limited reserve capacity
and then construct additional treatment plants "in parallel"
to serve actual increased demands, when they occur.

3 -  Restrict the type of project eligible for grant assistance.
It is regard to this proposal that revisions can and should be
made concerning the goals and requirements of the F.W.P.C.A.  We
believe that it is far more beneficial to achieve secondary treat-
ment on as broad a scope as possible and to be satisfied with such
an achievement than to attempt to bring plants to the tertiary
treatment stage, which not only represents a relatively insignifi-
cant improvement over secondary treatment, but also mandates
additional expenditures, which are not commensurate with the limited
benefits which tertiary treatment brings in comparison to secondary
treatment.

A modification in the goals and requirements of the act should
make secondary treatment a priority item; should relegate tertiary
treatment to a much lower priority; and should encourage and
fund correction of sewer infiltration/inflow (III. A) Since such
corrections are•instrumental in providing relief from the sewer
bans which we described in #1 above.

4 -  Extend beyond 1977, the requirement that publicly-owned

-------
treatment works achieve.   	am secondary treatment.
As we mentioned earlier, it is imperative that the act be amended
to extend the date for compliance beyone 1977.  However, it is
fallacious to establish a date beyone 1977 and require compliance
regardless of the availabilities or absence of funds.  EPA must realize
that state and local authorities are ill-equipped to assume greater
financial obligations and only through the combination of an
extended compliance date, less ambitious goals and requirements,
and the combination of the present degree (not necessarily total dollar
amount since such total dollar amount could be reduced if the
effective date and the requirements were reduced) will the purpose
of this act be met.

It is significant to note that most of New Jersey's large plants
will be unable to reach secondary treatment by 1977, and .is likely
that they will not even be able to achieve secondary treatment by
1983 even with the continuation of 75% of federal funding —
and obviously any decrease in the level  of federal funding will
only increase the time necessary before such plants can eventually
achieve secondary treatment.

5 -  Delegate greater management of the construction grants
program to the various states.
In the interest of encouraging  more prompt approval of project
proposals, we concur that this amendment is a worthwhile change
to the existing act.  It should also be noted that the state
presently conducts a comprehensive review of such facilities
and is, for all practical purposes, presently assuming the increased
management function which this amendment proposes.

We are hopeful that the above comments will provide EPA with a
clear picture of the proposed amendments to the F.W.P.C.A. as it
relates to the State of New Jersey and the conditions which prevail
in the State.

Sincerely,

Frank P. Farinella, Jr.
President
FPF:pc
cc:  Commissioner David J. Bardin
                                       536

-------
                           July 7, 1975

Mr. David Sabock
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials (WH-556)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Room 1033, West Tower
Waterside Mall
401 M Street, S. W.
Washington, D. C.  20460
Regarding:  Comments submitted for the record of the June 25, 1975
hearings on potential legislative amendments to the Federal  Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 concerning the Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Grant Program.

Dear Mr. Sabock:

Enclosed are our comments on the above hearing which we request
be included in the official record.  In summary, our^recommenda-
tions and concerns are that:

      1.  similar hearings should be held to consider other
possible changes in the Act, specifically (a) extension of the,
July 1, 1977 deadline for industry, (b) industrial cost recovery
and payback provisions, (c) the proper return of seafood processing
wastes to the marine environment, and (d) the need for establishing
1983 standards at this time:
      2.  if reducing the Federal share will result in less
municipal treatment facilities being built or in a drastic slow
down in the program, the Federal share should not be reduced;
      3. since industrial plants have problems similar to those of
municipalities and many probably will not be able to meet the
July 1, 1977 deadline, an extension of time for industrial plant
compliance is also needed;
      4.  plans for the construction of many regional wastewater
treatment facilities are being developed with price tags that
are not commensurate with benefits that will be realized in water
quality improvement.  Hence, approval of funds for the building
of regional treatment facilities (over $50,000,000 in cost)
should not be granted directly to the states.  EPA Washington
should maintain control over the approval of such grants to insure
that benefits in water quality improvement commensurate with the
cost are to be achieved;
      5.  in the case of several treatment facilities in advanced
stages of planning, industrial payback costs are projected to be
much higher than would be the case if the industrial users were to
                                     53 /

-------
build treatment facilities of their own.  In this regard, it is
recommended that the Act be amended to provide that no industrial
plant be required to pay more for treatment of its wastewaters
by a municipality than it would have to pay if it were able to
build and operate its own treatment facility;
      6.  current EPA policy requires industrial  dischargers to
satisfactorily treat their own wastewaters until  such time as
they can hook up to a municipal system, even if such treatment
might require construction of a treatment plant to be utilized for
a very short time period.  Requiring industry to  spend funds for
such a purpose is certainly not practical considering present and
projected financial resources.  This is especially true in the
seasonal food processing industry where the wastewaters discharged
are comparable in content with domestic sewage.

We trust our comments will be useful to the Agency in their
assessment of the construction grant program, and hope the Agency
will give serious consideration to holding public hearings on
concerns of industrial dischargers.  We will be pleased to provide
any additional information possible which the Agency may request.

Sincerely,

Jack L. Cooper
Assistant to the Director

cc:  ad hoc Effluent Guidelines Technical Review  Committee
     for Seafoods, Fruits, and Vegetables

July 7, 1975               COMMENTS
                             by the
                  National Canners Association
                            for the
              U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
                            on the
                Public Hearings Held June 25, 1975
                           concerning
                 Potential Legislative Amendments
                            of the
         Municipal Waste Treatment Grant Regulations
                    Established under the
   Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972

      The National Canners Association is a non-profit trade
association with approximately 475 members operating canning plants
                                      538

-------
in 41 states, Puerto Rico, and American Samoa.  Members of NCA
pack approximately 85 to 90 percent of the total U.S. production
of canned fruits, vegetables, soups, juices, meat and poultry
products, seafoods, baby foods, puddings and specialty items.
      We wish to commend the Agency for convening the above hearing
and the others held on this subject earlier in the month.  We
believe public hearings of this type provide a good means of obtaining
"grass roots" views on anticipated Agency actions.  We wholeheartedly
support the public hearing concept.
      In this regard, we note that the above hearing was convened
to obtain interested individual and group views concerning the
municipal wastewater treatment grant program and specifically
on the five discussion papers published in the Federal Register.
We did not request to appear in person because we felt the Agency
wanted to receive views from those most affected by the treatment
grant program, e.g. public administrators and the construction and
contracting industries.
      Industry has problems with PL 92-500 which were not identified
as topics for discussion at these hearings.  For this reason, we sug-
gest consideration be given to holding hearings on other aspects
of the Act.  Specific topics we would recommend for discussion
at such hearings would be the industrial cost recovery provisions
of the Act, the requirement that seafood processing wastes be
treated prior to return to the ocean environment where adequate
tidal flow and marine life exists to rapidly disperse and dispose
of the material, the extension of the July 1, 1977 date for in-
dustrial dischargers, economic factors involved in meeting water
quality standards, and the costs vs. benefits to be derived
from requiring industrial sources to install BATEA technology.
      Between 40 and 50 percent of the seasonal food processors
in the United States use publicly owned treatment works for
treatment of their food processing wastewaters.  Because such
a high percent of the industry uses municipal treatment systems,
we have -concern for any possible changes in EPA programs which would
tend to increase the cost of such treatment.
                     DISCUSSION PAPER 1
      It is apparent from statements presented at the June 25
hearing that local communities and the states have had and are
likely to continue to have considerable difficulty raising the
25 percent share needed to qualify for full 75 percent Federal
funding.  Before EPA asks Congress to require local and state
governments to come up with a higher level of funding, we suggest
that a study be made to determine whether the additional capital
needed can and will be raised at the local level.  If reducing
the Federal share will result in fewer publicly owned treatment

-------
works being built, as we suspect will be the case in many municipalities,
it is likely that more food processors and others will be forced
to build their own wastewater treatment systems.  Also, many could
be forced out of current municipal systems because of "overcrowding."
Thus, if our suspicions are correct, we would not favor a reduction
in the Federal share.
                     DISCUSSION PAPER 4
      We have no comments on discussion papers 2 and 3.  However,
we do have several about discussion paper number 4.  As many
individuals stated during the hearing, it is obvious that many
municipalities cannot meet the July 1, 1977 requirements of the
Act.  The same is true for industry.  For various reasons, many
companies are not likely to be able to comply by that date.
Thus, an extension of time for compliance in both the industrial and
municipal sectors is appropriate.
      We do not believe that it is a reasonable allocation of
scarce industrial resources to require an industrial discharger
°f compatible pollutants, such as a food processors, to "...
satisfactorily treat its wastewaters until such time as the plant
can hook up to a municipal system, even if such treatment might
require construction of a treatment plant to be utilized for a
very short time period . . .", as is stated to be EPA's current
policy.  This policy is obviously counter-productive in encouraging
industry cooperation and participation in the development-of
municipal treatment systems.
      We believe the NPDES permit should be the guidepost to
achieving desirable water quality standards.  EPA should come to
a realistic agreement with each discharger, whether industrial or
municipal, concerning the BPCTCA for that plant, taking effluent guide-
lines and water quality considerations into account, and that a
date by which compliance can reasonably be achieved should be
determined.  Compliance schedules should be written into permits
and periodically monitored by the Agency to assure they are met.
Legislated dates would then be unnecessary.
                  INDUSTRIAL COST RECOVERY
      One issue about the construction grant program which was
touched on by several speakers during the hearing but not addressed
in the discussion papers is cost recovery.  We support the state-
ment by Mr. Watson of KRAFTCO, who testified on behalf of the
National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), that the cost of
many regional systems is excessive and as a result the economic
burden placed upon industrial plants is not consistent with
the services to be provided.  Two examples in California are
represented by the communities of Sacramento and San Jose.
      In the case-of Sacramento, large sums of money are projected

-------
for the construction of a new super regional plant and abandoning
substantial  portions of secondary plants, which currently comply
with EPA's requirements for 1977 and which essentially or entirely
comply with existing local discharge requirements, with the
exception of their point of discharge into the American River.
It has been proposed that all discharges into the American River
be ceased.
      In another form, the regional approach is being attempted
at San Jose, California, where the present secondary treatment plant
achieves a better than 90 percent BOD removal, and where the
receiving waters have shown a marked improvement in recent years.
A 99 percent removal of BOD is now being proposed, together with
transportation of this treated waste to a remote area without
we believe full justification.
      In both Sacramento and San Jose, idealistic environment
objectives were established a number of years ago and we believe
they now require a reevaluation to confirm that they continue
to reflect the best interest of the community.  The substantial
improvements in the environment which have been made since
initially establishing those objectives merit serious consideration
in relationship to the complex economic factors and significant
increases in project scope which these two examples represent.
These are only two examples.  Others exist throughout the country.
      Because of the tremendous costs of these Regional Systems
which are being assessed to industrial users, many firms are finding
it more economical to treat their own wastewaters.  However, many
companies in such situations are unable to treat their own waste-
waters because of location and hence are forced to pay for treatment
capacity or other features of the regional system which they do
not use.
      We believe that the industrial cost recovery provisions of
the Act should be modified to state that no firm should have
to pay more for municipal treatment than it would have to pay
if it were able to treat its own wastewaters.
                     DISCUSSION PAPER 5
      In general, we support practical changes which will reduce
costs and speed up the allotment of funds for building needed facilities.
However, we believe EPA should retain control over the large
regional plants (over $50 million) to be sure that they are indeed
the most cost effective option available.  We feel that monies
should be allocated on a priority basis to build secondary
treatment plants where no such treatment currently exists.  It
seems to us to be a waste of time, money, and resources to build
regional facilities to replace existing adequate secondary treatment
plants where there are no or only very limited commensurate benefits

-------
in water quality improvement to  be  obtained.  We believe EPA
should retain approval  authority for  all  such regional contracts
to be sure that there are indeed commensurate benefits in water
quality improvement that result  from  the  expenditure of the funds.
                        ************

-------
                           June 23, 1975

RusselUE.  Train, Administrator
U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.  C.  20460

Dear Mr. Train:

New .Jersey has taken significant steps over the past year to
assume its proper role in administering the provisions of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.  We are
beginning to see the fruits of our efforts in an accelerated
rate of approval of waste treatment facilities.  These projects
are significant job creators today and will soon begin to im-
prove water quality.

The potential changes in the program outlined in the May 28,
1975 Federal Register could once again disrupt the orderly
development of projects in our State.  We cannot afford such disruption
to our water pollution control program.

We urge a comprehensive and positive program over the next ten
years (fiscal years 1977 through 1986) for municipal waste-water.
The most significant features of our proposal include:
      1.  A five-year national program (for fiscal years 1977
through 1981) should be established including:
          (a)  Firm commitment of federal construction-grant
               money for each fiscal year;
          (b)  Fixed allotment formula for distribution of
               funds to the states;
          (c)  Seventy-five percent federal grants;
          (d)  Continued eligibility of collection systems and
               of projects for the correction of the combined
               wastes overflow problem;
          (e)  Reimbursement to municipalities which proceed
               with construction even if money is not immediately
               available from the current year's allotment to
               the states.  (Reimbursement should be possible
               from the remaining funds of the five year program.)
      2.  Greater delegation to the states of the management of
the grants program should be accomplished.  We support the provisions
of the proposed legislation to compensate the states for this added
responsibility.
      3.  The rigid 1977 deadline for achievement of secondary

-------
treatment by municipal-type plants, or higher if required by water
quality standards, should be modified.  Schedules of compliance
should be established to reflect the availability of funding under
the five-year program, realistic project development and construction
periods, and construction of the advanced waste treatment phase
where required after the first five-year program.
      4.  The first five-year program should include the planning
of projects to correct the combined waste overflow problem,
selective construction of combined waste corrective projects and
the planning of the advanced waste treatment phases where required
to comply with water quality standards.
      5.  A second five-year program (for fiscal  years 1982 through
1986) should provide for the implementation of the plans to correct
the combined sewage problem and to construct the advanced waste
treatment phases where needed.
                                              •
We urge your careful consideration of our proposal, and of its
detailed presentation in the attached letter from Commissioner
of Environmental Protection David J. Bardin, since'it provides
for the orderly and expeditious development and construction of
the required waste treatment facilities.

Sincerely,
Brendan T. Byrne
GOVERNOR

Attachment

                         June 23, 1975

Mr. Russell E. Train, Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C.  20460

Dear Mr. Train:

This statement responds to the proposals of the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency as published in the Federal Register dated
May 28, 1975.

We sense the need for expeditious construction of waste treatment
facilities.  Construction of environmentally sound facilities will
achieve the objectives of the Federal Act and will also create jobs.
Significant changes in the legislation or regulations governing the

-------
program are liable to delay the needed facilities.  Only now, over
two and a half years after the passage of the 1972 amendments, are
sizable numbers of projects proceeding to construction.  This is
the time for extreme caution in entertaining significant changes
in this important program.  The most immediate objectives must
be to simplify the program regulations wherever prudent to stabilize
the level of funding for at least a five-year period and to fix
the basis for the allotment of funds to each state.

Efficient and effective management of this vast public works and
pollution ocntrol program must rely upon an orderly development
of projects.  This includes the current group of projects finally
starting construction after satisfying the many changes in the
federal requirements.  Other projects for construction start
over the next five to ten years must now begin the preliminary
studies and complete the necessary construction drawings and
specifications.

Development of these new facilities cannot proceed in an orderly
manner without knowledge of the basic factors for these projects,
including:
      (a)  Continued availability and level of federal financing;
      (b)  Planning requirements including environmental evaluation;
      (c)  Levels of treatment mandated by the federal statute;
           and
      (d)  Timing of federal grant for each project.

Continued incentives are needed now to complete these projects
as quickly as possible and to achieve the goals of the Act,  Pro-
posals to reduce the federal share, rigidly to restrict the reserve
capacity of facilities and to change the type of projects eligible
would create disincentives to move ahead.  Moreover, the Environmental
Protection Agency must recognize the interrelationship of any
proposed actions.

We urge you to adopt a program which will stabilize and simplify
the ground rules of this vital pollution abatement activity.

Our evaluation leads us to the following comprehensive proposal:
      1.  A five year (1977-1981) national program should be
          established including:
          (a)  Firm commitment of money for each fiscal year.
          (b)  Fixed allotment formula for distribution of funds
               to the states.

-------
           (c) 'Seventy-five percent federal  grants.
           (d)  Continued eligibility of collection systems
                and correction of combined waste overflows.
                (Collection systems for existing communities are
                needed to correct serious health hazards, prevent
                runoff to the surface stream and to avoid con-
                tamination of our ground water resources.  Correction
                of the combined wastes overflow problem must be
                planned and implemented to assure achievement of
                our water quality objectives.)
           (e)  Restoration of reimbursement:  Municipalities
                should be able to proceed with construction
                even if money is not immediately available from
                the current year's allotment to the state.  Re-
                imbursement should be possible from the remaining
                funds of the five year program.
      2.  Greater delegation to the states of the management of the
grants program should be accomplished.  We support the provisions
of the proposed legislation to compsnsate the states for this added
responsibility.
      3.  The requirement for achievement by 1977 of secondary
treatment (or higher if required by water quality standards) should
be modified.  Schedules of compliance should instead be established
to reflect the availability of funding under the five year program,
realistic project development and construction periods, and con-
struction of the advanced waste treatment phase where required
after the first five year program.
      4-  The definition of secondary treatment should be modified
to allow many smaller existing trickling filters and lagoons to
satisfy the Act.
      5.  As a matter of general policy, E.P.A.  guidelines
should establish criteria for reserve capacity in proposed
facilities.  However, each state should be given the responsibility
to define their specific policy for the design of facilities,
subject to E.P.A. review.
      6.  The first five year program should include the planning
of projects to correct the combined waste overflow problem,
selective construction of combined waste corrective projects
and the planning of the advanced waste treatment phases where re-
quired to comply with water quality standards.
      7.  A second five year program (1982-1986) should provide for
the implementation of the plans to correct the combined sewage
problem and to construct the advanced waste treatment phases where
needed.
      The program which has been outlined above will  make

-------
possible achievement of the goals of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972.  Furthermore, it will  provide for
the identification of a path to be followed for expeditious and
orderly development of waste treatment facilities.  The path
must be clear and not subjected to unexpected detours  as suggested
by the E. P. A. proposals for funding and rigid requirements
for reserve capacity and eligibility.

Faithfully,

David J. Bardin
Commissioner

CC:  Assistant Commissioner Rocco D. Ricci
                                      51*

-------
                         Comments on
                 Potential Legislative Amendments
                         To PL 92-500
                     EPA Public Hearing
                       June 25, 1975
                      Washington, D. C.

   Presented by Alfred E. Peloquin, Executive Secretary
 New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission

Mr. Chairman:
      I am Alfred E. Peloquin, Executive Secretary, New England ,
Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission.  The Commission
wishes to express its appreciation for opportunity of offering
comments on the five issues noted in the Federal Register on May
2, 1975.  The Commission's comments have been limited to the
"Issues to be Discussed" portion of each issue paper as published.
      EPA's issue papers were discussed at the Commission's
Annual Meeting held June 19-20, 1975 and with the Directors of the
water pollution control agency of each Compact-member State in
a telephone conference call on June 24, 1975.  The comments presented
herein reflect a concensus of State views on the five issues and
represent several hundred man-years of actual field experience in
administering water pollution control programs at the State and local
levels.
      The comments are presented in the same numerical sequence
as set forth in the Issue Papers.
                  Paper No. 1 - Reduction of the Federal Share
Issues to be Discussed
      1.  Would a reduced Federal share inhibit or delay the
construction if needed facilites?
      Yes.  In the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control
Commission Compact area, communities are geared to bonding for
approximately 10 percent of the eligible project cost.  Resistance
to the funding of treatment works is already developing because
the impact of operation and maintenance costs is beginning to
hit home.  A reduction in Federal share could cause a surge in
project applications to beat a deadline in reduced level of funding;
could cause a community to have its plans redrawn to a reduced
scope consistent with available dollars, or it could completely
kill credibility in Federal programs with all pollution control
activity coming to a halt.
      Initially, many States opposed the increase in grant level.
However, subsequent to enactment of PL 92-500, States with grant
authority to as much as 40 percent were forced to seek legislative
amendments to provide for at least some local contribution. States

-------
feel  that the situation has stabilized and a change at this point
would be extremely disruptive.
      2.  Would the States have the interest and capacity to
assume, through State grant or loan programs a larger portion of
the financial burden of the program?
      State water pollution control agencies do have the interest
to assume a larger portion of the financial burden.  Realistically,
many States are facing severe fiscal problems.  States also realigned
their grant structure in 1973-74 to conform to requirements of PL 92-
500.   Consequently, it is the concensus of the States that the
State Legislatures would not look favorably, on authorizing additional
bond issues at this time.  It should be stressed that all NEIWPC
Compact-member States make State grants to communities in addition
to the Federal grant.
      3.  Would Communities have difficulty in raising additional
funds in capital markets for a larger portion of the program?
      Many communities, particularly large cities are in severe
financial difficulty.  The larger cities are those needing the
larger, costlier projects.
      Considering recent developments relative to New York City's
fiscal dilemma, we would expect communities to have substantial
difficulties in raising additional funds.
      4.  Would the reduced Federal share lead to greater accountability
on the part of the grantee for cost effective design, project
management, andposteonstruction operation and maintenance?
      Most States feel that the State water pollution control
agency has good overall control over projects in their respective
State.  Reduction in the Federal share will not change local
impact nor grantee accountability.  In most cases, the grantee
lacks the expertise to perform the functions necessary to preclude
development of the problems noted in this item.  A reduction in
local share could lead to greater operational problesm as local
communities in attempts to reduce the total project cost — thereby
reducing the local share -- accept unproven designs promoted as
cheaper, more efficient systems.
      5.  What impact would a reduced Federal share have on
water quality and on meeting the goals of PL 92-500?
      The goals of the Act will not now be met within the framework
of the law.  Reducing the grant percentage would probably stretch
out even further the achievement of the goals.
                   Paper No. 2 - Limiting Federal Funding of
                  Reserve Capacity to Serve Projected Growth
Issues to be Discussed
      1.  Does current practice lead to overdesign of treatment
works?

-------
      We question the validity of the statements under this item.
Drawing on the Commonwealth of Virginia's analysis of this issue
and recognizing that many overloaded works exist, it is the con-
census of the professionals in the field that growth was there before
the grant system was instituted.  The study on which these state-
ments are based is considered grossly inadequate.  Before any
policy change is directed relative to reserve capacity, a broader,
more in-depth, imparital study should be made by professional in
the field having the necessary expertise to adequately assess
the problem - particularly on overloaded systems - to ascertain
whether growth was definitely related to reserve capacity or to
such other economics oriented inducements as improved highway
and transportation systems, available labor force and availability
of existing facilities left vacant by changes in the industrial/
manufacturing complex of an area.
      2.  What could be done to eliminate problems with the current
program, short of a legislative change?
      States are unanimous in the view that there are no problems
at the present time.  What is being espoused as problems ts, in
reality, the problems which will develop by cutting back on reserve
capacity.  States consider growth to be a local zoning issue,
not within Federal regulatory control.  Growth can also be controlled
by appropriate management of the NPDES program.  There is agreement
on a need for greater refinement of population/industrial growth
analyses.  New technology and new discoveries, such as the pill, are
changing many socio-economic structures.  Planners, designers and
governmental agencies must be attuned to ever-changing situations
and, using computer and other technology, apply the best possible
judgment to the issue under consideration.
      3.  What are the merits and demerits of prohibiting eligibility
of growth-related reserve capacity?
      Prohibiting growth reserve capacity may stretch available
dollars among more projects.  However, the end result could be
disastrous.  Reserve capacity provides a safety valve for water
pollution control.  It accommodates a degree of storm flow and
developing infiltration as the collection system ages.  Communities
can also be expected to require design of facilities consistent
with available grant funds - If this occurs, we will soon have gone
"full-circle" and will face the problems of the 1956-60 era.  We question
the implication that monetary inefficiencies exist relative to
over-design.  Granted, there could be situations considered to
represent "monetary inefficiencies" but the resultant problem
is probably related to factors other than over-design.  We also
feel that there may currently exist over-designed systems, but
the extent of this current over-design may be due to socio-economic-

                                        550

-------
industrial realignments within an area rather than over-design
per se.  At the time of initial design, such systems were most-
likely consistent with the needs of the time.
      4.  What are the merits and demerits of limiting eligibility
for growth-related reserve capacity to 10 years for treatment
plants and 20 or 25 years for sewers?
      Limiting reserve capacity would have the same impact as
prohibiting reserve capacity.
      5.  Are there other alternatives?
      In addition to comments under item 2 above, modular construction
of treatment facilities should be considered; a better analysis
of the need for reserve capcaity; consideration of a reduced
Federal share for reserve capacity as opposed to a reduced Federal
share across-the-board, and growth control through the NPDES
program.
                   Paper No. 3 - Restricting the Types of
                   Projects Eligible for Grant Assistance
Issues to be Discussed
      1.  What impact do different eligibility structures have on
the determination of need for a particular facility?
      Impact of different eligibility structures vary on a case-by-
case basis.  A national standard priority system is unrealistic and
unworkable.  The Commonwealth of Virginia has very eloquently
illustrated the impact of reduced eligibilities.  We strongly
endorse Virginia's "Statement of Position" that States should
have the option of recommending grant funds for projects that are
necessary to meet water quality standards.  Virginia's positon on
this issue is included in its presentation at this hearing and
is, therefore, available to you.
      2.  Is there adequate local incentive to undertake needed
investment in certain types of facilities, even in the absence of
Federal financial assistance?
       In the early sixties, local incentive for water pollution
control was high.  Such efforts were considered local efforts and
when spearheaded by a few local enthusiasts > great strides were
made in developing and funding projects.  These were considered
local projects.  Many large local bond issues were voted which
water pollution control officials felt would fail.  The advent of
PL 92-500 imposed a Federal, highly complex program on the "grass
roots" level.  This was no longer a local issue to be addressed
with pride.  It was a dictated Federal program.  This action
combined with other priorities such as schools, highway, inflation,
and unemployment to mention a few-- effectively killed local incentive
to undertake the investments now needed to satisfy the requirements
of the Act.
                                    551

-------
      3.  Is there adequate local  financial  capability to
undertake investment in different types of facilities?
              Paper No. 4 - Extending 1977 Date for the
           Publicly Owned Pretreatment Works to Meet Water
                         Quality Standards
Considerations
      1.  Should PL 92-500 be amended to permit prefinancing of
POTW's subject to Federal reimbursement?
      Many states feel prefinancing of POTW's should be reinstituted.
Our compact-member states, however, feel that the Federal government
has defaulted on its commitment as set forth in the 1965 Act and
with 31 percent of the prefinanced amount still remaining unpaid,
it is unlikely that the New England and New York State legislatures
would again authorize prefinancing.
      2.  Is is fair to require industry to meet the 1977 deadline
while extending it for municipalities?
      The Act, by virtue of its grants provisions and administration,
has generated conditions which have resulted in delays in the
construction of municipal facilities.  Most States feel  that industry,
other than those tieing-in to municipal systems, are not bound by
precedent setting grant conditions and consequently should move
ahead with their-respective treatment works.  For those industries
scheduled to tie-in to municipal systems at a later date, we concur
with the House Public Works Committee staff philosophy that some
legislative language be considered to assure that such industries
will in fact tie-in at the appropriate time.
      3.  Is it fair to make industrial requirements more stringent
pending municipal compliance, as is the case with joint systems?
      Requirements, whether industrial or municipal, should be
made as stringent as necessary to meet water quality standards.
      4.  Should an outside limit be provided to the Administrator
granting extensions, for example five years from date of amendment,
or should the possible compliance deadlines be open-ended?
      Extensions should be based on a realistic appraisal of the
situation and on a case-by-case basis at the regional level.
      5.  Will EPA lose credibility supporting an across-the-
board extension for municipal compliance, especially in cases where
it is annecessary?  Or are the current economic priorities such
that such an extension is only reasonable?
      A case-by-case analysis on extensions would provide flexibility
and a realistic approach to a critical field problem.  This type of
approach should enhance EPA's  credibility.   It is also the concensus
of the States that the NPDES program provides the vehicle for
granting extensions on a case-by-case basis.  The NEIWPCC Compact-
                                   552

-------
member States are unanimous  in  their proposition to  across-the-
board extensions.   It  is  felt that  such  action  would  delay  achieve-
ment of the goals in that communities who would otherwise meet
the 1977 date would tend  to  lag anticipating  relief  under the
extension.
      6.  How big a difference  would these alternatives make on
local funding or State financing?
      The NEIWPC Compact-member States are of the opinion that
these alternatives would  make no difference  on  local  funding and
State financing.
      7.  Should EPA consider changing the definition of secondary
treatment to allow  for classifications according to size, age,
equipment, and  process employed?
      States have consistently  recommended a change in definitions
of secondary treatment.   On  June 4th, the Committee of 10 was
told this could "only  be  done on the Hill".  We disagree since
•this definition is  regulatory as opposed to  statutory.  Again
flexibility is  needed  to  assure achievement  of  water  quality
standards.  The States concur in the philosophy  of secondary
treatment but feel  that the  controlling  factor  should be the
quality of the  receiving  water. It has  been suggested that treatment
works be designed to achieve secondary level treatment but  that
allowances be made  for seasonal variations with threat of enforcement
for temporary deviations  from the  stated definitions.
      8.  Would a two-year extension for compliance be preferrable
to the six-year extension promoted  under Alternative  (5.)?   Is this
alternative unnecessarily lenient?
      Comments  under  Item 4  above  apply.
      9.  Until such a time  when a  solution  to  current compliance
delays is adopted,  should EPA issue letters  of  authorization to
those POTW's that cannot  achieve compliance  with the  1977
deadline instead of issuing  short-term permits?
      Most States feel that  the permit program  provides a vehicle
for extending the 1977 deadline.  Essentially,  the  simplest and
most effective  method  of  coping with compliance delays is recommended.
Whatever method is  used,  consideration should be given to the pro-
cedures used by States having permitting authority  so as not to
override State  actions.
                    Paper  No. 5  - Delegating  a Greater Portion
                    of  the Management of  the  Construction Grants
                    Program to the  States
Considerations
      1.  What  functions  should be  delegated?
      The Act should provide, for the delegation of  all functions
                                    553

-------
identified in the EPA Title II regulations including environmental
impact statements.
      2.  Should all parts be delegated?
      Provisions should be made for delegation of all parts subject
to negotiations between the State WPC agency and the appropriate
Regional Administrator.
      3.  What difficulty may be encountered?
      Provisions for use of up to 2% of a State's allocation
should preclude the need for additonal financial commitment on
the part of the State.  For those States where receipt of Federal
funds must be approved by the State Legislature some delays may
be incurred.  Several of the Compact-member states are performing
various functions now and feel that additional staffing problems
will be minimal provided guarantees of continued funding are
available.
      4.  Will suggested funding be adequate?
      Suggested funding in HR 2175 should prove adequate providing
regulatory requirements are kept to a reasonable "real-world" achieve-
ment level.  Every effort should be made to preclude the development
of bureaucracies at State level for implementation of the amendment.
      Section 213 (e) (1) of HR 2175 states that the 2 percent
allotment will be made each year after the date of enactment.  It
is anticipated that the allotment will not apply to the presently
available $18 billion.  Since the next appropriation may not be until
FY1977, implementation of the provisions of HR 2175 may not
occur until 1977 or 1978.  The language of the proposed legislation
should be adjusted to allow for implementation of HR 2175 immediately
upon enactment.
      5.  Will program efficiency increase?
      Delegation of program responsibility to States will improve
program efficiency unless the rules and regulations adopted for
administration of HR 2175 generate the types of problems created
in the past by rules and regulations issued under PL 92-500.
      6.  Time required for State assumption of responsibility.
      Time required will be dependent upon the implementary
regulations developed by EPA and whether such regulations will
require State Legislative approval.
      7.  Alternative funding schemes.
      States recommend that funds be made available by special appro-
priation rather than utilizing funds allocated for construction
of treatment works.  There should also be a reasonable guarantee of
funding for a long enough period to provide program stability.

-------
                          June 13, 1975

      STATEMENT IN RESPONSE TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE
            FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 92-500	

      This statement is being presented to the Environmental  Pro-
tection Agency on June 17, 1975 at the Radisson Muhleback Hotel
in Kansas City, Missouri.
      The statement is on behalf of the Nebraska Consulting
Engineers Association which represents 85% of the private con-
sulting engineers in the State of Nebraska and all of the major
firms paracticing environmental engineering in the State of Nebraska,
      We appreciate this opportunity to present our constructive
suggestions to you.  The consulting engineers in Nebraska have
been involved in the administration and implementation of the grants
program going back to its inception in the mid 1950's.
      Our statements to the proposed amendments to the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act by the Office and Management and
Budget are as follows:
      1.  A reduction of the Federal Share
          a.  In our opinion the construction program will be
              delayed.
          b.  From our experience, some of our clients will
              experience financial difficulty in funding their
              share of the water quality facilities.
          c.  As long as the NPDES Permit establishes efficiency
              standards and as long as USEPA regulations require
              cost effective designs and value engineering
              analyses, it appears to us that a reduction in
              federal grants will not increase the accountability
              of the grantee.
          d.  A reduction in the federal share in our opinion
              will result in greater resistance on the part of
              the grantee to meet effluent standards and the goals
              of PL 92-500.
      2.  Limiting Federal Financing to Serving the Needs of
          Existing Population	
          a.  A proposal which would not permit design and
              construction for imminent population growth without
              adequate reserve capacity would not be cost saving.
              It also would not be effective in controlling water
              pollution.  The expense of under design which could
              involve duplication of certain costs is penny wise
              and pound foolish.
                                     555

-------
 b.   The EPA has established adequate controls which, in
     Region VII, are being properly administered through
     metropolitan and state-wide planning agencies.   The
     determination of local population projections is best
     done by these agencies.
 c.   The design and construction of facilities that do
     not include reserve capacity would result in many
     instances where these facilities are starting up
     at capacity or overloaded.   This will  demand that
   .  additional facilities be planned or under construction
     when the new facilities are started.  Such planning
     of water quality facilities could not be cost effective.
 d.   It is our opinion that the  design of treatment
     facilities to include a reserve capacity to 10
     years from date of start up may be cost effective.
     The changing effluent standards and the state of the
     art make this a practical consideration.   It is also
     our opinion that 20-25 years reserve capacity for
     sewers in many instances is not cost effective;,  Since
     sewers have a life in excess of 50 years, engineers
     should not be limited by an administrative cut off
     date, but be allowed to make a cost effective analysis
     over a longer period of time taking into-consideration
     local conditions.
Restricting the Types of Projects Eligible for Grant
Assistance	
a.  The states through their priority schedules can
    most effectively direct available  funds to meet the
    standards of the Act PL 92-500.  To restrict the
    types of projects that are eligible, ignores the reality
    of very diverse problems to  be solved by the grantee.
    We feel that the present range of projects allows
    a better cost effective approach because all alternates
    are funded alike.
Extending the 1977 Date for Meeting Water Quality Standards
a.  In our opinion, as a practical matter, it is impossible
    to meet this deadline.
b.  It is our suggestion that the 1977 date for publicly
    owned pre-treatment works to meet federal  quality
    standards remain in the law, but that the law be
    amended to permit extensions of time to be made on
    a case-by-case basis consistent with the availability
    of funding and the priority  schedule determined by
    the states.
                        556

-------
      5.   Delegating  a  Greater Portion  of the Management of the
          Construction  Grants  Program to  the States	
          a.   We concur with this  amendment because  it provides
              for more  local control  of the program.  However,
              we also feel  that the transfer of more administrative
              responsibility from  the regional office of the EPA
              to the  states should be done on a gradual basis so
              as not  to slow down  the program.
      This statement  is respectfully made for the  Nebraska
Consulting Engineers  Association,

Bruce L.  Gilmore, P.E.
Practicing Consulting Engineer
Chairman of the NCEA-EPA Committee
                                     557

-------
            TESTIMONY OF DR.  JAY H.  LEHR OF THE NATIONAL
             WATER WELL ASSOCIATION  AND MEMBER-COMMISSION
                        ON RURAL WATER
         MEMBER-NATIONAL DRINKING WATER ADVISORY COUNCIL BEFORE
                 THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                          PUBLIC HEARING
                               ON
               POTENTIAL LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS TO THE
                 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
                            PL 92-500
                          June 25, 1975
                        Washington,  D. C.
National Water Well Association
500 West Wilson Bridge Raod
Worthington, Ohio  43085
(614) 846-WELL

      My name is Dr. Jay H. Lehr.  I am Executive Director  of
the National Water Well Association  which represents more than
100 thousand men and  women involved in the ground water supply
industry in this country.  This includes most of the ground water
geologists and hydro!ogists involved in locating and developing
our underground water supplies, the  water well  drilling  con-
tractors who construct our water wells as well  as the manufacturers
and suppliers of water well construction equipment.
      We are primarily an educational and research-oriented
organization which is concerned with the broad hydrologic picture
of the nation's water supply problems.  This includes of course
both surface and ground water which  are inexorably linked in the
earth's hydrologic cycle.
      While the Water Pollution Control Act, Public Law  92-500,
deals primarily with surface waters  rather than underground water,
the pollution of either source of water affects the other and
thus our science and industry are vitally interested in  all
aspects of this legislation.   We had hoped years ago that the
Water Pollution Control Act, when it was being written,  would  in-
clude a strong focus on the protection of ground waters  but that was
not, and is not the case.  Now, at last in the Safe Drinking Water
Act of 1974, PL 93-523, attention is being paid to protection  of
our ground waters.  At this time, however, when the Government is
considering amending PL 92-500, we feel that many improvements can
be made which will specifically aid  in the development of ground
water protection programs by the states and generally improve  the
operation and implementation of the  act with regard to surface
                                       556

-------
water protection which ultimately affects our ground waters.
      To begin with, I would like to commend the Congress and EPA
for establishing these public hearings and for its desire to consider
recommendations for amendments to Public Law 92-500.  It took many
years of extensive effort to write this law with all its good in-
tentions and now after more than three years of operation it clearly
is time to rectify many of the problems which have developed, which
had not been previously predicted.
      I further wish to commend EPA for the production of the five
position papers which focus attention on the more obvious problems
in the legislation, the subjects of these papers bing 1) Potential
Reduction of the Federal Share of Grants; 2) Possibility of Limiting-
Federal Funding of Reserve Capacity to Serve Projected Growth; 3)
Consideration of Restricting the Types of Projects Eligible for
Grant Assistance: 4) Consideration of Extending the 1977 Date for the
Publicly Owned Pre-Treatment Works to Meet Water Quality Standards;
and 5) which deals with the Delegation of a Greater Portion of
the Management of Construction Grant Programs to the States.
      I will comment briefly on.each of these and then close with
a discussion of general problems in the overall implementation of
this act with regard to the states.
Reduction of the Federal Share of Construction Grants
      We believe that the reduction of the federal share from
75% down to something in the range of 50-60% would be a wise change
in the law.  While such-a move would not be without negative effects
it would spread limited federal funds through more communities
and lead to greater accountability on the part of grantees in
establishing cost effective designs, management, operation and
maintenance.
      While such a reduction in the federal share might slow
movement toward the ultimate water quality .standards in some areas,. t
it would expedite such movement in other areas.  This is particularly
true in rural low income areas where studies by the Commission on
Rural Water have proven the problems to be most critical while the
priority on the EPA schedule leaves them without any hope of Federal
aid.
Limiting Federal Funding of Reserve Capacity to Serve Projected
Growth
      We are truly pleased with the comprehensive consideration EPA
has given toward limiting reserve for future growth.  It is said that
mathematicians and others can make figures and statistics lie.
Thus, large sunrs of money made available for future potential
growth allow also flexibility for shading the facts with figures.
A much greater control of this activity should definitely be
                                    553

-------
required.  It should also be recognized that the growth of the
country is fortunately slowing and we should no longer be promoting
growth by overbuilding facilities that effectively attract growth.
      Thus, we feel greater limits on grant programs should be
implemented.
Restricting the Types of Projects Eligible for Grant Assistance
      In the way of restricting eligibility, we would strongly
oppose any restrictions that would reduce the flexibility of the
Environmental Protection Agency to help finance a project which would
contribute clearly to the well being of our nation's waters.  Here
again, such limitations of flexibility would totally eliminate
any hope of attention being paid the problem of low density,
low income rural areas.  If only the squeakiest wheel can get
oiled, heaven-can only help the poor voiceless minority away from
the teaming cities.
Extending 1977 Date For the Publicly Owned Pre-treatment Works to
Meet Water Quality Standards
      We feel very strongly that the 1977 date which has been
set for meeting water quality standards by publicly owned pre-
treatment works is totally unrealistic and must be extended.
At the same time, requirements on industrial treatment should in
all fairness also be extended.  We believe that compliance dead-
lines should be open-ended and that the determining factors be
that everything within reason is being done to move in the direction
of ultimately meeting the standards set out in the law whether
it is an industry or a publicly owned operation.  We do not believe
that EPA will lose credibility in supporting such across the board
extension for both municipal compliance and industrial compliance;
rather its credibility will be enhanced when it is recognized
that such a move is being made not due to failure to achieve
previously set goals but rather due to a newly found understanding
of the problems that inhibit the achievement of these goals in
the previously designed time framework.
      Even with an open-ended compliance schedule, industrial
compliance should still be achieved well in advance of public
utility complaince.  The tools at the hands of our industrial
organization as well as their ability to mobilize their efforts
and finances far exceed  those of the public sector whose interests,
desires, and mobility are far  more diverse.
Delegating a Greater Port-ion of the Management of the Construction
Programs to the States
      Here our industry has perhaps the greatest feeling and interest
in regard to moving the center of effort from the federal government
to the State government.  The time has past in which the federal govern-
ment could afford to look down at the states as a big brother telling
                                    560

-------
them what to do and how to do it as though they did not have the
native intelligence to carry on for themselves.  The federal govern-
ment was never established to usurp  any of the power of the states.
It was established to allow a consistent form of government to
allow a central authority to rule where diverse seats of ;>power
could not hope to be as efficient.  These concepts have long ago
gone astray.  The power has unwisely flowed from the states to
the federal center and this flow must be reversed.  This is so
even if a temporary loss in efficiency results although it is
difficult for one to conceive of any operation less efficient
than that of our own federal government.
      I wish now to address my final remarks, and indeed those
which I hope will receive the most attention, to the problems that
Public Law 92-500 has had with regard to relationships between
the federal government, specifically the Environmental Protection
Agency, and the state agencies who would have the responsiblity of
carrying out the requirements of this federal program.
      It is no secret to anyone that this legislation has strained
these federal-state relationships to the point where very real hostility
exists.  Not only has this hostility impeded progress in carrying
out the very good intentions of this law, but additionally it
has obstructed other similar programs because of a latent mistrust
which has developed on the part of the states toward the federal govern-
ment.
      Much of this unfortunate situation is the result of a lack
of pure and practical understanding on the part of the federal
government with the very real problems that face the states in
their attempt to obtain and maintain high quality water within
the state boundaries.  It is one thing to order the waters of
our land to meet certain quality standards at certain dates --       p
it is another thing to achieve this condition.  Sometimes such
achievement within required time frames is much akin to attempting
to gain blood from a stone.  It simply cannot be done.
      The establishment of unreal goals and,then the attempt
to force compliance where such compliance is virtually impossible,
makes folly of the law and loses the respect of those who must
get the job done for those who are pompously requiring that it be
done.
      There is no need to labor this point further because by
now it has been clearly chissled in stone and is well understood
by everyone involved.  The problem is how can we begin a remedial .
program.
      To my mind, the development of a remedial program could be
carried out by heeding the apparent success of the new Safe
                                   56i

-------
Drinking Water Act.  This act is being implemented by EPA with a
concerted effort to walk hand in hand with state officials
in recognizing what needs to be done, what can be done, and
when tasks can reasonably be expected to be accomplished.
      The National Study Commission developed in the Water Pollution ,
Control Act was an attempt at getting more input into the establish-
ment of standards for our surface waters, but it did not truly
integrate all of the feelings of the states.   Nor did it go far enough
in continuing as an overseer as new evidence and new problems
developed in the implementation of the act.
      The Safe Drtnfetng^.Water1.Act. is doing two things to overcome
this;  First; EPA, through its own desires, has utilized state
officials at every turn to study the direction the implementation
program should take.  Second, and of equal significance, the act
itself established a National Drinking Water Advisory Council
made up of 15 individuals with close ties to water supply
problems.  The Council has the continuing task of advising EPA
on the implementaiton of the Safe Drinking Water Act.  In a very
real sense, the Council having been chosen from all  walks of
American life, is the representative of the people in the con-
tinuing effort to carry out the mandates of the Safe Drinking
Water Act.
      The reason for the recurring disasters often produced by
well intentioned legislation is that once a bill becomes law,
the public loses its representation. The Congress goes on to other
matters and except for infrequent  oversight hearings in the House
and Senate, the Federal Administration, made up of career bureau-
crats and tenured civil servants, takes over.
      Were it possible to write laws with true precision, there
would be little problem as its reading subsequent implementation
would be straight forward requiring little or no question of inter-
pretation of the language of the law or the intent of the Congress.
      But alas, this is earth peopled with fallible men, not heaven
inhabited by perfect angels.  And so while advanced mathematics
and theoretical physics may achieve precise solutions to problems,
man's written language still leaves much to be desired as an exact
form of communication.  Herein lies the problem-- namely that while
the administrative agencies of the Federal Government were designed
to implement the decisions of the people acting through the Congress,
these agencies were not designed for, but frequently end up making
the most important decisions of all, long after Congress is out of
the picture and the people out of a voice in self-government.
      But such will likely not be the case with Public Law 93-523
(The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974).  The mandate from the Congress
states clearly that the 15-member National Drinking Water Advisory
                                    582

-------
Council not be a group of interested citizens merely placing a
ceremonial rubber stamp on the activities of our non-elected
administration officials, but rather that these 15 knowledgeable
and involved representatives of all segments of the public guide
the EPA in its interpretaion and implementation of a law passed
for the benefit not for the detriment of the people.
      True, the idea of a citizens' advisory council is not new,
but the way in which it is working this time is quite unique.  First,
the Congress specified that the Council be composed of persons
with direct knowledge>of the nation's water supply problems and
that 5 be chosen from representatives of state and local government,
5 from private organizations directly involved in water supply and
that 5 be public citizens with an independent interest in the subject.
      Second, the U.S. EPA, after selecting the 15 Council members
according to the wishes of the Congress, pledged its sincerest
cooperation in working with and for the Council toward the attainment
of an implementation program which would advance the belief of
the public in the workability of the American Federalist system.
      That is to say, EPA recognized that this time their program
for implementation of an environmental law must satisfy the needs
and desires of the states, localities and individual citizens if
there was to be hope for success.  In the Clean Air Act of 1970
and the Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, the U.S. EPA tried
unwisely to play big brother to the whole country in deciding that
by some power vested in it, it knew what was best for the helpless
unwitting public whose environment was being fowled by some evil
arch enemies.  What they never came to grips with was Pogo's early
revelation that environmentally speaking "We have met the enemy and
it is us."  Thus in protecting us from ourselves, EPA was man-
handling our lives and our ability to govern ourselves at the local
and state 1 eve!.
      Admitting to little or no good sense on the part of those
lower echelons of government, it (U.S. EPA) called all the shots in
a dictatorial manner which created hostility, ill will and an un-
fortunate backlash which prevented the development of the necessary
spirit of cooperation required for the ultimate achievement of
these environmental improvements.
      This time around, the U.S. EPA, from its Administrator, Russell
Train, on down to each assistant and deputy administrator as well
as its division and branch chiefs and their staffs has pledged and
already partially fulfilled its intention to depend heavily on
the feeling of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council as the
voice of the people in an experiment of self-determination and self-
government.
      As Rome was not built in a day, the protection of our waters
                                    563

-------
will not be achieved tomorrow or even next year, but as a journey of
a thousand miles begins with the first step, the path of the Water
Pollution Control Act can be marked by small but determined steps
all in the right direction.  Success will come in a time frame
determined by the practical ability of state and local government to
achieve necessary change with adequate Federal support in the
form of money, research capability and training programs.
      Examples of a new look in the operation of EPA are many.  At
the philosophical level one can site the comprehensive strategy paper
produced by EPA's Office of Planning and Management which describes
the intended guidelines to be followed in the implementation of
PL 93-523.  It says brilliantly preceptive things about Federal-
State relationships of which the following four paragraphs stand
out as a shining example of a new awareness:
      "The importance of involving the States to the maximum
extent possible in the development and implementation of the
Safe Drinking Water Program cannot be over-emphasized.  The success-
ful accomplishment of the majority of the program objectives will,
in large part, be dependent on the enthusiastic acceptance of program
responsibility by a majority of the States.
      EPA's past experiences in programs similar to that required
by the Safe Drinking Water Act have shown that neither the
willingness nor the ability of States to assume their share of re-
sponsibilities can be taken for granted.  To foster that ability
and willingness, EPA must structure.a system of both tangible and
intangible incentives.  These incentives must be directed at
reducing obstacles which States will likely face in developing a
capacity for implementing the program.  These obstacles include
but are not limited to:
      Lack of funds; lack of trained personnel; distrust of
Federal Programs; misunderstanding of the program including the
need for a national safe drinking water program, the objectives
of the program, and the role states are expected to play.
      The degree to which EPA is able to overcome these obstacles will
in a large part determine the success it achieves in accomplishing
the important goal of fostering an effective Federal-State partner-
ship for the implementation of the major programs under the SDWA."
      The strategy later concludes with eleven basic principles
for implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act which should become
a Federal Bill of Common Sense in implementing all legislation.  They
too bode well for the future of Federal-State'relations:
      "1.  Public health considerations deserve highest priority.
       2.  The worst problems will be given first attention.
       3.  Take cost into consideration in all decisions made in
                                   56**

-------
the Safe Drinking Water Program.
      4.  Encourage State and local participation in decision-
making.
      5.  Reduce need for massive changes in current state operations.
      6.  Place maximum financial burden for implementation of
regulations on the ultimate users of drinking water except as
provided by State law.
      7.  Encourage public participation in all deliberations and
decisions.
      8.  Require adequate attention to the environmental
impact of decisions made under the Act.
      9.  Decentralize decision-making and operational responsi-
bility for the Act to the EPA Regional Offices and to the State
and local governments to the extent practicable.
     10.  Keep paerwork and red-tape to the absolute'minimum.
     11.  Utilize existing Federal and State resources."
      I strongly believe that the people of America whom EPA
serves will relate positively to these principles and begin to acquiesce
in their latent hostility toward this new federal program.
      Thus, in conclusion, I wish to strongly urge that an
amendment be made to the Water Pollution Control Act calling
for a similar 15-member advisory council to be established on a
continuing basis along the lines of the council in the Safe Drinking
Water Act.  This body would bridge the gap between the federal
implementation of PL 92-500 and the people and the state officials
who must comply with that implementation.
      In this way, I believe a new and more realistic path will
be laid toward the ultimate objective of every one of us in this room,
in this city, and in the country; namely, the waters of our great
nation be made safe from pollution and degradation so that man
will ultimately reap the optimum benefits of nature's greatest of all
gifts, our water.
                                  56

-------
                     POSITION STATEMENT
    NEW YORK STATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ASSOCIATION
                         JUNE 25, 1975
      The Executive Committee of the New York State Water
Pollution Control Association has directed the preparation, and
presentation of this position statement on the five (5)  published
papers of proposals to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act of 1972.  The statement was developed after careful  examination
of Notice of the Public Hearings and proposal papers printed in
the Federal Register.  The statement is predicated on the basic
ground rule stated in the notice, that is, "none of the  proposals would
retroactively apply to the $18 billion presently authorized and
allocated.
      The New York State Water Pollution Control Association
recognizes that the total price tag of $350 billion in municipal  .
facilities construction resulting from the 1974 Need Survey has
staggered the imagination of the Administration and the  Congress
of the United States and raised the "question of whether  the
Federal budget could support or underwrite such a program.   Regard-
less of this staggering estimated program cost developed from the
Need Survey, this Association strongly supports P.L. 92-500
and its objectives required for these municipal facilities  must
come from the taxpayers whether on a Federal, State or Local level.
With this in mind, we wish to present the Association's position
on the five (5) papers under consideration at this time.
PAPER NO. 1  Reduction of the Federal Share
      Even as P.L. 92-500 has been applied to date, with 75%
of the eligible costs being borne by the Federal Government,
the objectives of the Act have not been fully met.  In most  of
the projects presently funded the grantee must invest more  funds, often
in excess of the grant monies, to achieve the satisfactory  water
quality.  The Association therefore, feels that a reduction in
the percentage of the grant monies of the eligible portions of
a project wil not necessarily inhibit construction or slow  down
the abatement pollution program.  In place of the higher percentage
of grant monies, legislation which would aid local communities
in financing their commitments to meet the requirements  of  the
Act might be considered.  Income tax relief to the taxpayers of
communities that are moving to achieve the satisfactory  water
quality would ease the load and might very well expedite lagging
projects.  A reduced percentage of grant monies if coupled  with a
reduced involvement of Federal review would probably advance many
projects.

                                  568

-------
PAPER NO. 2 - Limiting Federal Funding to Reserve Capacity
              to Serve Projected Growth
      It is the position of this Association that considerations of
this proposed legislation is unnecessary, and we, therefore,
oppose this proposal.  We feel that the proposal would be extremely
difficult if not impossible to administer, and that the reduction
in the Federal Share is an adequate constraint.  Application of
the 201 planning provisions of the Act and the proposed earlier
fundings, of this portion of the program, the questions of
reserve capacities will resolve itself.  With the commencing next
month of the 208 planning provision of the Act and the legislated
requirement to complete this management plan in two (2) years
time, any major changes in reserve capacities should be a result
in this planning activity rather than a constraint to it.  The local
share of any project must be funded over an extended period of time
and the facilities should serve the community at least for the
duration of this debt redemption period.
PAPER NO. 3 Restricting the Types of Projects Elibible for Grant
            Assistance
      This Association is opposed to this proposal primarily
because there are different problems in different areas.  The
range of treatment requirements to meet water quality standards
in New York State is very broad and is vastly broader across the
nation.  The Association feels that proper planning through the
201 and 208 activities and properly considered water quality
standards is more important than limiting the eligibilities of
projects.  The completion of the 208 Planning activities and a
resultant needs projection from this activity might better define
any required limits of eligibility.
PAPER NO. 4 - Extending 1977 Date for the Publicly Owned
              Pretreatment Work to Meet Water Quality Standards
      This Association strongly recommends that this proposal for
the extension of the date for compliance be approved.  A more
realistic date should result from the planned funding of known
project needs under the 201 provision and the about to begin 208
planning provision.  P.L. 92-500 necessarily had to run before it
walked on many major pollution problems that were existing, but
coupling this fast start with total overall compliance without the
benefit of indepth study and planning was a weakness in the Act.
PAPER NO. 5  Delegating A Greater Portion of the Management of
             the Construction Grants Program to the States.
      This Association strongly supports this proposal.  New York
State has for years developed and supported an exceptionally
fine regulatory health agency.  We feel that the New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation has the experience,


                                     56?

-------
capabilities and administrative staff to competently and efficiently
manage the construction grants program.   We are confident that
their broad range of activities and their long standing knowledge
of the needs of the State will result in the most orderly applica-
tion of the Construction Grants Program.
      If the Federal monies for this program came from a source other
than Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer* then maybe the Federal  Agency would
necessarily want and need the positive control of the program.
Since it is the taxpayers money being returned in large amounts
to the areas that will benefit all  the taxpayers and since each additional
review consumes time and money, the delegation of the management
to the states should be cost effective.
                                   56U

-------
    STATEMENT FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY PUBLIC HEARINGS
                          WASHINGTON, D. C.
                            JUNE 25, 1975
                                  by
                  NED E. WILLIAMS, P.E., DIRECTOR
                OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                        361 E. BROAD STREET
                           COLUMBUS, OHIO

      The following are comments relative to possible legislative
changes in fiYe areas listed in the Hearing Agenda.
      1.   Reducing the federal share of grant projects:   It is  the
State of Ohio's .contention that the federal share as passed in
92-500 for wastewater treatment plant grants should  have been
50% instead of 75%.  This would allow Ohio to become involved
in more wastewater treatment plant projects as well  as being
able to finance sewage collection systems instead of just wastewater
treatment plant construction.
      2.   Limiting federal financing to serve only the needs of
existing populations:
      This would be a great mistake to finance capacity to serve
only the needs of existing population.  Since we have not reached
zero population growth, growth and pollution problems will occur
requiring greater expenditures for solving the problems at a later
date.
      3.   Restricting the types of projects that are eligible
for grant assistance:
      Eligibility in Ohio on grant projects is limited by the funding
available.  At the present time, there is insufficient funding
to provide secondary treatment at all locations.  If more funds
were available we could take advantage of financing  collection  systems
controlling storm water.  We are not in favor of reducing eligibility.
      4.   Extending on a case-by-case basis the 1977 deadline for
municipalities to achieve secondary treatment and compliance with State
water quality standards:
      This will be necessary in Ohio because of the  insufficient
wastewater treatment plant grants awarded.  A great  many of our munici-
palities have not received a grant and will be unable to meet the
1977 deadline.  One of the problems with 75% federal grant funding
has been the elimination of enforcement action against entities
which have not been unable to receive a grant.  From a practical
standpoint, if we do not get a grant to a polluter,  we are unable
to proceed with action against the entity.  This was not the case
when the federal percentage was a lower amount.
                                     563

-------
      5.  Increasing the States'  role in managing the grant program:
      The Ohio EPA Is now approving construction plans and operation
manuals.  We are not approving specifications and bidding documents.
One of the problems probably common to all  states is budgetary;
how to obtain the funding for the necessary qualified people
to take over approval of additional work.  Since this obligation would
be transferred from the federal, government to the states, one
possibility would be that;,a certain percentage of the grant amount
could be allocated to the states  for use by the states to obtain
good qualified people.-  ,                        ',;"•<
      I appreciate the opportunity to appear at your hearing on
these matters.
                                    570

-------
                          STATEMENT
                             OF
                     KARL L. ROTHERMUND, JR,  ;
                    Executive Vice-president
                  OHIO CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION
                            filed with   -'
                  U.S. EPA PubVic'Hearings On
                Potential Legislative Amendments
        •'.:•  •    :, -    •       to     r<;;-^   --^  .,  •-      •.    •
               FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
       ' '  '   ••••    •'-   ;  ~'     at     .  •'   ' •   *:'  -:>.^-v/  ••.
                        Washington, D..C.
                         June 25, 1975

Mr. Chairman, I am filing this statement on behalf of the Ohio
Contractors Association and the construction Industry of Ohio.
      It may be meaningful to state a few known facts which have
already come before this hearing as a preface to this statment.
Such facts would Include:
      1.  That since the passage of the 1972 Clean Mater Act,
the administration of the municipal waste water treatment program has
had only two productive months of grant awards * first, June 1974 when
the pressure of the lapsing FY 1973 authorization forced an $888
million obligation, and second, May 1975 when these hearings
motivated a $658 million obligation.  Otherwise the grant awards
have been moving along at a dribbling rate of $160 million or so
a month.
      2.  One of the consequences of this grant award constipation
has been that Industry, through the permit program has, during
the time since October 1972, committed almost twice the amount
(more than $4 billion) to treat Industrial waste water while
the governments have authorized for construction only about 75
percent of the amount, although $18 billion, or four-and-a-half times
the Industrial commitment has been authorized.
      3.  Another consequence has been the delay 1n creating at
least a th1rd-of-a-million desperately needed jobs.   The emphasis
here was best stated by Mr.  George Meany last April  22 when testifying
for the Local Public Works Capital Development and Investment Act
of 1975, he said, "Mr. Chairman, the depression In the construction
Industry dragged the rest of the economy into this mess.  And an
absolutely essential first step 1n economic recovery 1s restoring
economic health to the construction Industry*"  Awarding these waste
water grants at a pace equal to authorization could solve up to
42 percent of the unemployment problem 1n the construction industry.


                                    571

-------
      4.  That there have been two separate professional analyses
of the EPA's construction grants program which have concluded that
the program is badly managed emphasizes the need for reassessment.
The first was done last November 1974 by EPA's own Construction
Grants Review Group and the second report, dated March 1975,
was done by Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc., for the
National Utility Contractors Association.  The most succinct state-
ment from the first is, "Each EPA Regional Office has interpreted
the program guidance differently . . .  as a result there are ten
programs functioning reasonably well, but in no instance are all
the required elements fully implemented."  The second report is even
more blunt when it reports, "Everybody, including EPA, agrees
that the program delays stem primarily from mismanagement.   No
goals are set, and no deadlines enforced."
      5.  That from Administrator Russell Train down to the first
level supervision there is near psychosis with issuing  multitudinous
memos, directives, modifications, guidelines and just plain threats,
many of which (Mr. Train's recent "Considerations of Secondary
Environmental Effects" memorandum, for example) are aimed at
stretching the EPA's authority, until now there is ten inches
of it, requiring 55 people, 11 sign-off signatures and a ton  of
paper to process the average grant.
      6.  Ohio is a creditor state in the federal tax collection
and distribution system.  For every $1.31 Ohioans paid to the
federal treasury in 1974, the state received back a single dollar
in federal aid.  New York taxpayers, on the other hand, paid in
85
-------
   RELATIONSHIP. OR TAX RECEIPTS TO GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT
       f*.;»••«,»<>.'• t    1Q48    ,,  1972   „„ Percent Increase (Decrease)
Federal     ,;.',   ..,16.4*  ' ,4,  14.5%''      '     (12.0%) ./
Local        "     "   2.85   '   4.V        ''       63.0

            RATES OF INCREASE IN GOVERNMENTAL TAXES         "';
-------
getting construction underway,  1s  known to and will be the subject
of testimony from Mr.  Ned  Williams, Director, Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency, and has therefore been omitted from this
statement.
      Thank you.
                                     574

-------
                          July 7, 1975

Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials (WH-556)
Room 1033, West Tower, Waterside Mall
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.  20460

Attention:  Mr. David Sabock

Gentlemen:
            Potential Legislative Amendments to the Federal
                      Water Pollution Control Act

This is in response to your public'hearing notice dated April
25, 1975, soliciting comments on certain possible amendments to the
Water Pollution Control Act.  The following comments express the
viewpoints of the Orange County Water District (a Southern Cali-
fornia agency) which operates a wastewater treatment facility
besides being responsible for the management of a groundwater basin,
both quantity and quality, containing 15,000,000 acre-feet of
water.

1.  A reduction in the current Federal share would create severe
economic problems for wastewater treatment agencies.  The competition
for tax and service dollars is severe and unplanned expenditures,
such as an:increased share of a treatment facility, would at least
cause a delay ift construction.  Our agency projects a five year
budget and any major change in cost of any project means that
other projects must be deleted, deferred or additional revenues
must be obtained.  We believe that it would be possible to reduce
the Federal share in a long-term program; however, in looking at
the time restraints of P.L. 92-500, it does not appear to be
feasible.

As a sideline to this topic, we believe that in many cases, and
ours is one of them, an ad valorem tax is the most appropriate
way to finace treatment facilities.

2.  We believe that it would be unwise to limit Federal financing
to serve existing population; a reasonable allowance for excess
capacity should be allowed.  Our fear is that if capacity is limited
to existing flows this would provide an incentive for the use of
septic tank - leach field systems.  In our watershed this would be
especially harmful since the imported Colorado River water has more

                                       575

-------
dissolved minerals than most of the goundwater.

3.  The types of projects eligible for grant assistance should be
listed on a priority basis.   Tertiary treatment  plants  coupled with
reclamations programs should have a higher priority than secondary
treatment projects that discharge effluent through long ocean  outfalls
to deep water.  The Benefits received from reclamation  are
greater than the possible benefits of secondary  ttreatment for
ocean disposal.  The studies done to date on the ocean  environment
in the vicinity of ocean outfalls appear to be inconclusive as
to possible detrimental effects, and we believe  that until  possible
detrimental effects are more clearly defined secondary  treatment  for
deep ocean disposal should be lowered in priority.

Very truly yours,

Neil M. Cline
Secretary Manager
                                     578

-------
                           July 2, 1975

United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials (WH-556)
Room 1033, West Tower, Waterside Mall
401 "M" Street, SW
Washington, D.C.  20460

Re:  Potential Legislative Amendments
     on the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
     (Based on Papers published in Federal Register
     Volume 40, No, 103 - Wednesday, May 28, 1975
     Pages 23107 thru 23113)

Gentlemen:

We wish to add our testimony to the hearing record on the subject
matter as follows:
Paper No. 1:  (Reduction of the Federal Share)
Continuity of grant programs is of utmost importance.  Since
passage of PL 92-500 in 1972, many projects have been and are being
planned in.anticipation of 75% Federal funding.  A change to 55%
could seriously jeapordize many of these projects and create
further costly delays.  Further, continued funding to 75% will
relieve the Financial burden to the aged, unemployed, and those
on fixed or low incomes, and will particularly benefit depressed
areas.

Our experience indicates that funds, either local or the 75%
Federal share are now being used in a cost effective manner.

Paper No. 2:  (Limiting Federal Funding of Reserve Capacity to
        Serve Projected Growth)
We wholeheartedly agree with "Present Practice" as outlined in this
paper.  Such practice is not unlike that which has been carried out
on most successful projects in the past.  To limit design to the
10/20 rule would set aside a part of sewerage problems for later,
less economical solutions.  We are entirely opposed to the general
concept of reducing reserve capacity if done as a means of con-
trolling population growth.

Paper No. 3:  (Restricting the Types of Projects Eligible for
        Grant Assistance)
No comment.
                                      57 f

-------
Paper No. 4:  (Extending 1977 Date for the Publicly owned
       "Pretreatment Works to meet Water Quality Standards)
We strongly recommend that the July 1, 1977 date be extended
because it is impossible to adequately plan and construct the
necessary facilities by that date.

Paper No. 5:  (Delegating a Greater Portion of the Management
       of the Construction Grants Program to the States)
We firmly believe that the States must be given full authority to
certify and administer projects if any reduction in costly delays is
to be achieved.  We suggest that the activities of the EPA be
more directed to those activities necessary to provide for uniformity
in the application of 92-500 rules and regulations between states
and providing assistance to the states in an effort to
speed up the overall review and approval process.

Thank you for allowing us to present these comments.

Very truly yours,

DonaldW. Ringler
Director
DWR/bg

cc:  Honorable Philip A. Hart
     Honorable James G. O'Hara
     Honorable James J. Blanchard
     Honorable Robert P. Griffin
     Honorable William M. Brodhead
     Honorable William S. Broomfield
                                        578

-------
                           July 7, 1975
James L.  Agee, Assistant Administrator
  for Water & Hazardous Materials (WH-556)
Room W  1037-WSMW
Washington, D. C. .20460

Re:  State of Oregon Comments on Potential Amendments to PL 92-500

Dear Mr.  Agee:

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality comments relative to
the five position papers pertaining to potential legislative
amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act are as follows:

Paper No. 1 - Reductions of the Federal Share.  The Federal share
should remain at 75% because of:
      a)   The great increases in project costs due to extensive
federal requirements and time delays.
      b)   Inflationary increases have in some instances exceeded
local ability to pay more than 25% share.
      c)   The high operation and maintenance costs of secondary
and tertiary treatment plants are already a heavy burden on local
resources.

Paper No. 2 - Limiting Federal Funding of Reserve Capacity to
Serve Projected Growth.  Sewage treatment works capacities could
reasonable be limited to 10 years projected growth.  Plants should
be required to be designed to facilitate economical expansion
and debt retirement .should not be allowed to exceed plant design period.

Interceptors should be constructed to be consistent with land use
plan, or in absence of land use plan, for 25 years because:
      a)   Interceptors cannot be economically expanded or
replaced, and
      b)   Additional size can be added at relatively low cost at
time of initial construction.

Paper No. 3 - Restricting the Type of Projects Eligible for
Grant Assistance.  Limit eligibility to:
      a)   Sewage treatment works and interceptors, or
      b)   Maintain present flexibility and allocate total dollars
to States strictly on basis of population.  This would ensure
selective funding of projects by States subject to EPA Regional
                                   579

-------
approval.

Paper No.  4 - Extending 1977 Date for the Publicly Owned Pretreat-
ment Works to meet Water Quality Standards.   The requirement of
the present law presents no particular problem to Oregon since
Statewide secondary treatment has been essentially achieved.
Additional time would undoubtedly be necessary in some States
and should not cause irreparable damage to the program as long
as reasonable progress is maintained.  Program should shift to
emphasize prevention of pollution in those states where standards are
achieved.

Paper No.  5 - Delegating a Greater Portion of the Management of
the Construction Grants Program to the States.  Oregon favors
increased delegation to the States, but in order to reap the potential
benefits of such delegation, EPA would have to find a way to keep
its audit/inspection procedures and rules simple and to a minimum.
It wouldn't help to delegate the program to the States if EPA
intends to continue to duplicate the States activities.

Sincerely,

LOREN KRAMER
Director

E.J. Weathersbee
Director of Technical Programs

EJWrlb
cc:  Region X EPA
                                   500

-------
                           June 5, 1975

Mr. Russell E. Train
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.

                        Re:  Proposed Amendments to P.L. 92-500
   V

Dear Mr. Train:

Our attention has been directed to the Federal Register of May 28,
1975 concerning proposed amendments to the Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972, and,we appreciate this opportunity to
make the foil owing "comments in behalf of the City of Orangeburg,
South Carolina.
      I.  REDUCTION OF THE FEDERAL SHARE:
      We do oppose any reduction of the Federal share as for several
      years our overall fiscal planning has been based on 75% E.P.A.
      funding of wastewater treatment works projects.  Any change- to
      lower E.P.A, funding level would cause substantial delays in
      providing waste treatment facilities as well as other major
      municipal services.

     II.  LIMITING FEDERAL FUNDING OF RESERVE CAPACITY TO
          SERVE PROJECTED GROWTH:
      It is our opinion that wastewater treatment works should not
      be designed on any arbitrary service period.  Instead we
      recommend that reserve capacity be designed and constructed
      on the basis of cost effective analysis taking into con-
      sideration such things as actual useful life of structures and
      equipment, and incremental cost increases in design.

    III.   RESTRICTING THE TYPES OF PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR GRANT
          ASSISTANCE
      We have no objections in regards to the changes proposed
      under this heading and are of the opinion that such changes
      are advisable, and will permit the funding available to go
      further.

    IV.   EXTENDING THE 1977 DATE FOR THE PUBLICLY OWNED PRE-
          TREATMENT WORKS TO MEET WATER QUALITY STANDARDS:
      While we do not agree to any of the changes proposed under
      this topic, we feel that the 1977 date of compliance should
                                  581

-------
not be enforced in cases where there has been no Federal  Funds
available.  We recommend that this 1977 deadline be shifted to
some future date such as 1985, and that compliance by that time
be based on the availability of Federal Funds.

V.  DELEGATING A GREATER PORTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF THE
    CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM TO THE STATES:
We wholeheartedly endorse the provisions as called for in H.R.  2175
as to delegating to the states the broad range of grant processing
functions.

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to participate in this hear-
ing and to express our views and recommendations in what can be
a most important decision effecting the progress which is to be
made in cleaning up the waters of our country.

Sincerely,

E.O. Pendarvis
Mayor

EOP:pb
                                  58,

-------
                            June 23, 1975

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials
WH-556
Room 1033
West Tower, Waterside Mall
401 "M" Street, SW
Washington, D.C.  20460

Gentlemen:

We are writing to have included in the record our comments
regarding "Potential Legislative Amendments to the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act".  We will keep our comments brief
inasmuch as most of the issues have been adequately covered
under the separate papers published in the Federal Register.

It is on rare occasions that we find ourselves agreeing with the
E.P.A.  That, however, is the situation with regard to Papers No.  1,
4 and 5.  We are in partial agreement with Paper No. 2.  It is
obvious that in some cases, considerable waste results from the
current practice of designing for 20 to 50 year population pro-
jections.  However, it is also obvious .that in many cases a
considerable amount of the projection years have gone by before
the facilities are approved, constructed and ready for operation.
This being the case, we would be opposed to any proposal that
would limit funding to existing populations at the time of design.
We would, however, favor the proposal that would achieve 10 and
20 year estimates for treatment plants and sewers respectively.

We are totally opposed to Paper No. 3.  Any move, at this time, to
reduce the seope of eligible projects is nothing short of being
discriminatory towards municipalities that have not as yet had
the opportunity to get their abatement programs underway.  In
addition, we can foresee a possible loss of incentive, due to
the financial impact.  Either or both of the above would in our minds
be contrary to the overall objections of the Act.

We appreciate the opportunity to present our opinions and look
forward to the EPA analysis and decision based on the comments
received at the -on-going hearings.

Sincerely,
JOHN M. KARANIK
Projects Officer
JMKrfb                              b8J

-------
                         Statement of
                 CONGRESSMAN RICHARD OTTINGER
                          before the
            Environmental Protection Administration
                   Submitted for the Record
                   Wednesday, June 25, 1975

      Good morning.  I appreciate the opportunity to come before
the Environmental Protection Administration today and present
my views on proposed amendments to the Water Pollution Control Act
in order to reduce the Federal share for construction grants under
Public Law 92-500 from the current 75% to a level as low as 55%.
To cut Federal aid and require local communities to contribute
millions of dollars for more pollution abatement when the recession
already has them impoverished, when cities like New York are on
the verge of bankruptcy, school budgets are being cut for lack of
an adequate local tax base, and municipal employees are being
laid off in droves is just plan foolhardy in my opinion.
      Let me address myself to the two stated objectives of such
a reduction.  One, it has been suggested that such an amendment
would permit the limited Federal funding available to go further in
assisting needed projects.  This is nonsense.  The State and local
government, in their dire economic straights, simply won't under-
take these truly needed projects at all.
      Environmental facilities are today receiving precious few
dollars from the Federal government.  This is not the time to be
cutting back further.  If the Federal government wishes to impose
environmental demands on the States and localities, the Federal
government should also be willing to assume a substantial burden
of the costs.  Reducing the Federal commitment to the needed
projects will not serve any purpose other than to directly and
adversely affect the goals of P.L. 92-500.
      A reduced Federal share will undoubedly inhibit and delay
the construction of needed facilities.  As the EPA itself
accurately observed, "a reduction of the Federal grant share would
reduce incentives" of a community to construct treatment plants.
These reduced incentives, coupled with recent problems in the
economy for which no clear solution is in sight, cannot help but
to have an adverse effect on local financing capabilities.  If
the Federal government doesn't have the money, we certainly
can't expect the States and local communities to be able to come
up with it.  Even assuming that all States had the interest and
commitment in these programs — which, unfortunately, is not a
very accurate assumption in many cases — the States do not have
the capacity to-assume, even through State grant, or loan programs,


                                    58 ^

-------
the financial burdens involved.
      The second stated objective of the proposed amendment, to
encourage grantees to assume greater responsibility and account-
ability for cost-effective design and project management systems
by virtue of his greater investment in the project, is fallacious
for the same reason.  There will simply be fewer and fewer pro-
jects for which the grantee will spread his accountability re-
sources.  If the EPA wants to delay the construction of facilities
or finds that current Federal resources do not permit the con-
tinued current commitment to the program, it should say so.
It should not mask Federal funding problems behind a cloak of
greater local accountability.
      I might also point out that the requirement of a greater
local commitment to secondary expenses such as cost-effectiveness
studies and project management designs will also further inhibit
the desire of a locality to get involved in the construction of
needed facilities.                                 ,
      How, then, is EPA to meet the incredible gap between available
and necessary funds to meet the mandates of P.L. 92-500?  First,
press hard and publicly for more adequate funding.  After all,
this is a matter of public health and safety.  For my part, I
will do all I can in the Congress to support the EPA's desire
for more of these needed funds.  And from the various alternatives
which appear to be open with whatever inadequate funds the Adminis-
tration will approve, I would think that restricting the types of
projects eligible for grant assistance to those which are most
essential to meet public health needs is most acceptable.
      Any reduction of commitment of funds is a reduction of commit-
ment to the law and to vital health needs in our communities.  This
is wholly unacceptable.  I urge the EPA to abandon any such proposal.
      Thank you.

-------
                            June 13, 1975

Mr. David Sabock
Office of Water and Hazardous Material
Office No. WH 556- Room 1033
401 Kim Street, S.W.
Washington, D. C.  20460

Dear Mr. Sabock:

We have been advised through the Federal Register. Volume 40,
No. 86, dated May 2, 1975, that the U.S. Environmental  Protection
Agency will hold a series of public hearings concerning proposed
amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.   It is
understood that the proposed amendments include the following:
      1.  A reduction of the Federal share in the
          cost of construction for water pollution abatement
          projects.
      2.  Limiting Federal financing to serving the needs of
          existing population.
      3.  Restricting the types of projects eligible for grant assistance.
      4.  Extending the 1977 date for meeting water quality standards.
      5.  Delegating a greater portion of the management of the
          construction grants program to the states.

The cities of Oklahoma City and Mustang wish to advise you of their
position on these proposed amendments:
      1.  A reduction of the Federal share
The environmental quality standards coupled with inflation
have caused construction costs of pollution abatement facilities
to increase faster than the cities ability to finance the local
share of construction.  If badly needed projects are to be financed,
it is essential that the Federal share be maintained.

All local bond fund programs approved by the voters were funded
in good faith according to the present Federal funding  level.
In Oklahoma City alone an encumberance of $24,958,987.00 was
approved for specific projects through 1978.  Without seventy-five
percent participation it will not be possible for Oklahoma City
to meet her commitments.  At all costs, Federal funding at the
present level should be maintained for all projects which have
already received local voter approval.
      2.  Limiting Federal financing to serving the needs of
          existing population
Construction of waste water treatment facilities and waste water
collection lines to serve existing population is not practical.

                                   58b

-------
Such design criteria would mean that facilities would begin opera-
tion at capacity.  We support the principle of designing for maximum
efficiency but cannot support the elimination of funding to con-
struct for reserve capacity to meet reasonable growth expectations.
      3.  Restricting the types of projects eligible for grant
          assistance
It is essential that Federal participation continue to finance
all types of projects which affect water quality.  Changes in
eligible projects would unfairly penalize communities that have
planned programs to meet water quality standards.
      4.  Extending the 1977 date for meeting water quality
          standards
The present process of financing and performing the Comprehensive
Engineering Study (Section 201, Step 1) makes the 1977 date for
compliance with new environmental quality standards unrealistic.
A statutory  extension to 1983 for compliance would be more
reasonable and feasible.
      5.  Delegating a greater portion of the management of the
          construction grants program to the states
The Oklahoma State Department of Health has qualified staff capable
of managing the Water Pollution Control program for Oklahoma.  The
cities of Oklahoma City and Mustang support the proposal to re-
lease management of the construction grants program to the State
of Oklahoma.

The Mayor and City Council of Oklahoma City and Mustang will
continue to cooperate with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and the State Department of Health to improve the water
pollution control program.  This position paper is submitted as
a means of achieving that objective.

Very truly yours,

Patience Letting, Mayor
City of Oklahoma City
Geroge McWhirter, Mayor
City of Mustang
                                       587

-------
June 13, 1975

Environmental Protection Agency
401 "M" Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460

Attention:   Administrator for
             Water and Hazardous Materials

Gentlemen:

The Oklahoma State Department of Health wishes to express our concern
and comments regarding the items to be discussed at the public hearing
to be held in Kansas City, Missouri on June 17, 1975 to amend PL 92-500.

Item 1

A reduction in the federal share will  probably delay or cancel the con-
struction of needed facilities particularly in smaller towns which have
very limited local funds.

The State of Oklahoma has no funds available to offset the loss of
federal funds.
                                                     *
Communities  cannot raise funds except through F.H.A. loans or bonds,
It is difficult to pass bond elections for any purpose at this time.

A system should be devised to increase the accountability of local  govern-
ments.  There is some question that merely decreasing the grant  amount
would accomplish improved accountability.   Better auditing systems
might be a solution to the problem.

A reduction in federal share will have a definite detrimental  effect  on
water quality and would at the minimum cause delay in compliance.

Item 2

In most cases, no overdesign is apparent under the present PL 92-500
guidelines.

We presently require some backup data  as to the source of the population
projections and normally use the Oklahoma Employment Security Commission
projections.

The major disadvantages in design for the present population is that  the
facilities may be overloaded upon completion.  This would cause parallel

-------
construction at a much higher cost to provide for needed capacity and
could continue to be a problem with a series of partial solutions.
If reasonable excess capacity is not provided, we will continually be
abating pollution problems and not preventing and controlling pollution.

It is felt that overdesign can best be controlled by review of the
facility plans and population projections.  The 20-year design appears
to be a reasonable goal since this is generally the minimum term of
bonds for capital improvements.

Item 3

It has been our experience that eligibility of project costs have little
bearing on design.  We have little exposure to systems that are not
grant eligible at least in part.  Based on past history, it is felt
that the applicants have little or no capability to correct those items
such as rehabilitation or correction of I and I problems without grant
participation.  Many of these problems have been evident for years with
very limited programs to correct them prior to PL 92-500.  Since these
projects, along with treatment plants, have a direct bearing on bypassing
wet weather flows, they are all considered essential to upgrading water
quality.

Each case should be considered on its merit as to the most cost effec-
tive way to resolve a problem that degrades the water quality of a com-
munity.  Restricting the eligibility of classes would limit the flex-
ibility.  It is our opinion that inflow is the major problem and should
be corrected prior to infiltration analyses.  Under the present program,
we feel that costs of I/I studies are excessive in terms of benefits
derived.  In particular, we feel that the survey, if required, costs
far more than the benefits derived for such a detailed study.  In many
cases, the costs of the study could be better used to reduce or eliminate
the problem; therefore, we recommend that the requirement for the survey
be eliminated.

Items 4 and 5
Concur without comment.

                                 Very truly yours,

                                 Charles D. Newton, Chief
                                 Water Quality Service

CDN/mks
                                 583

-------
June 9, 1975

Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water and Hazardous Material
(WH-556)
Room 1033
West Towers, Waterside Mall
401 "M" Street, SW
Washington, D.C.  20460

Gentlemen:

We offer the following comments on the  discussion papers published in
the Federal Register for 5/28/75 for inclusion in the record of the
public hearings on potential legislative amendments to the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act.

Paper No. 4 - It is obviously unfair to require industry to meet com-
pliance dates earlier than those imposed on municipalities.  It is also
economically unreasonable to require industries which discharge to mun-
icipal systems to design their pretreatment facilities before the re-
ceiving municipality has designed its treatment facility.   Compliance
dates for municipalities should be established at the earliest date
that the required facilities can reasonably be completed.   To avoid the
task of assigning individual compliance dates, categories  by types and
sizes of projects should be established with appropriate compliance
dates for each.

Paper No. 3 - Federal funding should be restricted to treatment plants
and interceptor sewers, and the cost-efficiency criteria of Sec. 313
of P.L. 92-500 should be rigorously applied.  This will  result in
the greatest water quality improvement  per dollar spent.

Paper No. 1 - Our suggestions above to  provide reasonable and enforced
compliance dates, and to commit Federal funds most efficiently, should
be reinforced by a phased reduction in  the amount of the Federal share
to municipalities which willfully or negligently fail to meet compliance
dates.  For example, if a municipality  were allowed three years to com-
ply, and did so, it would receive the full Federal share.   If it was
one year late, it would receive 2/3 of  the Federal share;  2 years late,
1/3 of the Federal share; and 3 years late, no Federal share.

Paper No. 5 - The delegation of the management of the construction grants
program to the states, generally as proposed in H.R. 2175, is a logical
supplement to the state's existing planning, permit, enforcement, and
                                   590

-------
grant programs.   Numerous states already manage their  own N.P.D.E.S.
programs, which are closely related to municipal  pollution abatement
construction projects.  State takeover of the construction grants pro-
gram will reduce the number of levels of grant approvals and should,
therefore, expedite completion of facilities, which is the ultimate
objective.

                                 Very truly yours,   ,  ,   i      i

                                 L.W. Maxson
                                 Director, Engineering Services

/dim
                                       591

-------
June 30, 1975

Mr. James L. Agee EPA
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials
Room 1033
West Tower Waterside Mall
401 M Street SW
Washington, D.C.  20460

Dear Mr. Agee:

Comments to the administration proposal to amend the Federal  Water Pollu-
tion Control Act Amendments of 1972, PL 92-500.

Paper No. 1

In general, PMA supports this amendment of reducing Federal  funds from
75% to as low as 55%.  Federal funding would be  even more reduced if
the quality of the receiving waters would be used as a basis  for dis-
charge guidelines.  However, as far as a new lower level  of support is
concerned, it should be carefully analyzed as to its impact.  -Possibly,
the levels should be flexible and support granted on the basis of need,
case by case.

Paper No. 2

PMA supports this amendment as it, in spirit, falls along the lines of
Paper No. 1.  It will help stretch the dollars available and  encourage
cost effective design of reserve capacity.  As you know, treatment
works can be constructed in a modular fashion and a new capacity added
as it is needed.   As far as the collection system is concerned, the
incremental cost for additional conveying capacity is relatively small.
The area which is planning the treatment works can best tell  what
growth rate is to be expected and its cost levied to take care of the
reserve capacity in that area.

Paper No. 3

PMA does not support this amendment, but feels a priority system should
be established and assistance granted on a case  by case basis.  This
priority system should be based on beneficial effect to the receiving
waters.

Paper No. 4

One major reason for seeking this amendment is not having the Federal
funds to meet the 1977 time frame.  Also, national goals in this area

-------
of water pollution control should be revised to reflect the ability
of the economy to fund the projects needed to reach the goals.  The
same standards, goals, and deadlines should apply to industry because
they do not have an extra pot of funds to meet criteria that the Govern-
ment cannot meet.

Paper No. 5

This amendment is good, but has to be exercised with care as to the
ability of the state to effectively handle the program.  If a state
is given the authority it has to be given to them with only audit type
supervision and not close, shadow following that exists much of the
time.

In summary, its good have local control, goals versus funding versus
dates required should be based on receiving waters, if Industry is
still required to meet PL 92-500 so shall the Government.

Duane Kiihne
Environmental Action Committee Chairman
                                   593

-------
Mr. James L. Agee
Assistant Administrator for
  Water and Hazardous Materials
United States Environmental
  Protection Agency
Room 1033, West Tower, Waterside Mall
401 "M" Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.  20460
                                                                       >
Dear Mr. Agee:

The May 2, 1975,  Federal Register provided notice of public hearings
on potential amendments to PL 92-500.   This notice stated that the hear-
ing record would be held open through  July 7,  1975.   We are, therefore,
submitting the following comments on the proposed amendments in accor-
dance with that notice.  These comments are based on our review of the
five papers published in the May 28, 1975, Federal  Register.

Papers Nos. 1, 2 and 3 dealt with alternatives which alone or in com-
bination would serve to reduce the demand for  Federal  funding for eligi-
ble projects.  The need for such reductions is apparently based on the
1974 Needs Survey which indicated total needs  of $342 billion for eligi-
ble projects.

We feel that the Environmental Protection Agency is  reacting too quick-
ly in proposing amendments to the Act  based on this  needs survey.
Figures included in many categories of the needs survey are most likely
"guesstimates" entered to insure that  individual  states were not slighted
in allocations, since the total allocations were directly related to
"needs."  The time period over which many of these projects would be
applied for is basically unknown, and  the eligible costs could not be
determined with accuracy until design  studies  were completed.  The
scope and costs of projects in categories IIIA, IIIB,  V, and VI would
fall into this area.  This would mean  that the vast majority of costs
included in the 1974 Needs Survey were very uncertain.

The remaining $46 billion in needs for secondary treatment, advanced
treatment, and interceptor sewers still results in needs in excess of
the $18 billion presently authorized and allotted, but further measures
short of the proposals developed could be taken to more closely match
needs and funding.  The present application backlog should be analyzed
along with the $46 billion of needs to determine the timing of project
applications and annual needs.  Particular emphasis should be put on
secondary treatment projects.  This should more closely match needs and
available funding.  If additional funding is required, Congress should
be requested to increase authorizations -- only as a last resort should
consideration be given to reducing the Federal share, restricting

                                  59 H

-------
reserve capacity, or restricting eligibility.  Adjustments to cover
additional needs for categories IIIA, IIIB, IVA, V, and VI should not
be proposed until more accurate information is available on eligible
costs in those categories.

We also have specific comments on papers Nos. 1, 2, and 3.  Implemen-
tation of the proposals presented in papers Nos. 1 and 3, and to a
lesser extent No. 2, would place an additional enforcement burden upon
the EPA if there was to be no delay in the construction of needed facili-
ties.  A reduction in the Federal share or restricted eligibilities would
certainly cause local communities to give second thoughts to the under-
taking of affected projects.  This would also occur where the project
included reserve capacity in excess of that allowable which would re-  <•
quire 100 percent local funding.  In many cases, such projects could
remain on the drawing board unless forced by the EPA.

Unavoidable delays would result from funding problems.  It is doubtful
that States which are already under great financial pressures would
provide additional funds to make up for the proposed Federal reduction
under any of the alternates.  The burden would, therefore, fall  upon
the local agencies.  This would mean that delays would result from
placing additional bond issues on the ballot, and processing such issues,
and would be contingent upon ballot approval and a market willing to
buy the bonds.  This could be a real problem in communities with poor
credit ratings or in areas where the bond market is already saturated.
Even where bonds could be readily sold, agencies would not look forward
to further increases .in user charges to fund this additional debt ser-
vice.

Restriction of reserve capacity is not a desirable alternative.   It
would increase the amount of paperwork, administrative reviews,  cause
further project delays, and probably result in underdesign of facili-
ties.  From the survey results included in the paper, overdesign does
not appear to be a major problem.  Designing for 18 years capacity for
plants and 47 years for interceptors does not seem unreasonable, par-
ticularly when you consider that you may spend five years or more in
obtaining a grant and constructing the facility.  If a 10 year limit
for plants and a 20 year limit for interceptors were implemented, there
certainly would be a tendancy to design for those limits, obtain the
full share of Federal funding, and then apply in the near future for
additional grants for further expansion.  This certainly would not be
the most cost effective way to operate when all funding is considered,
but it might be the most cost effective way for the local agency which
is only concerned with the local share.  The additional paperwork, re-
views, and delays would not be in accordance to the Act's goal of
"...   drastic minimization of paperwork..."

-------
Restriction of project eligibility by category as proposed in paper
No. 3 seems neither desirable nor necessary in terms of determining
priorities.  The present State priority system is capable of placing
the most desirable projects in position for funding and the least de- r
sirable projects low on the list.  This system allows for consideration
of projects individually rather than by category.  This approach is
far more desirable since what may be the best alternative in one situa-
tion may not be the best alternative in another situation.  A priority
ranking of individual projects allows for such considerations to be
made.

Restriction of eligibility would certainly reduce incentives to under-
take non-eligible projects and could result in biasing project evalua-
tions in favor of alternatives in grant eligible categories.  Enforce--
ment provisions would certainly be tested for projects which were
required but not fundable.

In summary, we feel that it is not desirable at this time to reduce
the Federal funding requirements by one or a combination of the alter-
nates presented in papers Nos. 1, 2, and 3.  We feel  a better approach
would be to work with needs in categories in which costs are accurate
and the projects imminent and to provide adequate funding for this  work
on a scheduled basis.  Major modifications resulting from needs in
other categories should be delayed until  more accurate costs and sche-
dules for this work are available.

Paper No. 4 concerns extension of the 1977 deadline for publicly owned
treatment works to meet water quality standards.   We fully agree with
the need to recognize the fact that the majority of discharges will  not
meet this deadline.  To ignore this fact would subject these agencies -
to enforcement action by citizen^suits against EPA.  We, therefore,
feel that the Act should be amended to recognize this situation.

The paper included five alternates for handling the situation.  Alternate
No. 1 calls for no change, is not reflective of the problem and should
not be considered.  Alternate No. 2 calls for no legislative change,
but would provide for selective enforcement.  This alternate assumes
that citizen suits would not mandate enforcement -- it seems likely
that such suits would be filed and this alternate should, therefore,
be rejected.  Alternatives Nos. 3 and 4 deal with amendments to the
Act providing the Administrator discretion to grant extensions in cer-
tain situations.  While this is an improvement, it is not totally de-
sirable in that it depends upon policy and policies are subject to
change.  Alternative No. 5 would extend the deadline to 1983 which
should be sufficient, but it ignores funding problems.
                                   596

-------
We do not feel that the alternatives considered should be restricted
to those five.  We would like to propose that the deadline be extended
through 1980, but that the Administrator be provided discretion to fur-
ther extend compliance for individual projects based on time and fund-
ing considerations.  This would allow most dischargers sufficient time
to meet the requirements within the extension period, and still allow
for discretionary extensions beyond that date if necessary.  Such an
arrangement would minimize the number of extensions requests the EPA
would have to review, minimize the dependence upon policy decisions,
and still provide enough flexibility to recognize exceptions.

We also feel equitable treatment should be provided for industry since
in most cases it is economically desirable to provide joint treatment
facilities.  This concept has been fostered for many years and, if
their compliance dates are not also extended, the incentive to consider
joint treatment possibilities will be minimized.  Requirements for
short term upgrading of industrial treatment for discharges into muni-
cipal systems until the municipal plant is upgraded should be minimized.
Such requirements often necessitate capital expenditures for equipment
to achieve a degree of treatment which would not be required after the
municipal plant was upgraded.  Such expenditures are not really cost
effective and further reduce industry's incentive to participate in
joint treatment systems.

Paper No. 5 dealt with delegating a greater portion of the management
of the construction grants program to the States.  Our only comment
on this is that careful analysis of the capability of the States to
administer the program should be made.  It is likely that many States
do not have sufficient personnel or expertise to effectively adminis-
ter the program.  In such cases, further delegation of authority would
only further delay the construction grant program.

I certainly hope that you will consider these comments in your deter-
minations on legislative amendments.  Present regulations involve
significant amounts of paperwork, review, and delay, and further modi-
fications should simplify rather than expand upon such matters.

                                 Very truly yours,

                                 Carmen F. Guarino
                                 Commissioner
                                      59 f

-------
July 3, 1975

EPA
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials (WH-556)
Room 1033 West Tower
Waterside Mall
401 "M" Street
Washington, D.C.   20460

Gentlemen:

Attached herewith are some comments relative to the current hearings
on potential legislative amendments to the Federal  Water Pollution
Control Act.

While the hearings appear to be restricted to certain aspects of the
construction grant program, they are not all inclusive,   As an example,
in our opinion, the requirements for Industrial Cost Recovery are not
even mentioned and we considered this provision to  be very vicious,
arbitrary and unreasonable.  In our opinion, Industrial  Cost Recovery
provisions should be deleted, or at least modified  so that the current
interpretation of their applicability is drastically different from
what it is now.

For many cities, including those in the Phoenix area, all  the other
changes being considered might go for naught and not provide the proper
incentive to be involved in the Federal Grant process.

For your additional information, we request that you review those
portions of the enclosed copy of testimony provided to the National
Commission on Water Quality that pertain to Industrial Cost Recovery.

                                 Very truly yours,

                                 Art F. Vondrick
                                 Water & Sewers Director

AFV:ra
Attachment

         Comments on the Potential Legislative Amendments
            to the Federal Water Pollution Control  Act

Paper #1  Reduction in Federal Share

Whatever level of Federal funding will be involved  in construction grants,
one of the most important issues is that, the level should be funded

-------
and not remain a mere promise.  The lack of funding bold imaginative
programs has been a significant cause in the delay of needed projects,
either as a basic financial need or as an excuse not to proceed.

The Federal Government has been quoted many times that they eventually
will phase out construction grants, and put the full burden on the local
entities and expect them to be eventually self-sufficient.

Paper No. 2  Limiting Federal Funding of Reserve Capacity to Serve Pro-
             jected Growth

The argument in itself, is partly purely academic and contrary to the
philosophy of intelligent and rational pollution control.  The only
(probably) instance of where  a local agency could and would build a
sewer or a plant to serve ONLY today's needs would be in  an instance
where NO sewers or NO treatment works presently exist, and the project
is starting from pure scratch.  A ZERO limit for existing utilities would
essentially mean that a treatment works would not be expanded until it
were overloaded and polluting the stream, or a sewer would not be built
unless wastewater was running down the streets and bubbling up through
the manhole covers.

Including some future capacity or reserve capacity is essentially cost
effective, since inflation and increased costs are as certain as the
sunrise.  Treatment works are more easily expanded on predetermined
schedules, especially if a master plan of modular design is used.  Large
interceptors and outfall sewers provide additional important problems.
The available rights-of-way may not have space for two large pipes,
and easements for such large conduits are not easily obtained.  Some
segments of the pipelines which ultimately discharge into the plant
headworks are more practically designed and built for the ultimate
capacity of the treatment works to be constructed at that site, without
regard to "years" of reserve capacity.

Paper No. 3  Restricting the Types of Projects Eligible for Grant
             Assistance

Certainly a high priority for Federal assistance should be the treatment
works, and the priority becomes less and less as the progression down
to the local lateral sewer is considered.  The local facilities such
as lateral sewers are usually the responsibility of the land developer
and not that of the community at large.  It is difficult to use the
"broad brush" technique to establish priorities using the Needs Survey
Categories since problems vary so much around the country.  But from
the standpoint of cost effectiveness and that of being most essential,
Categories I, II and IV B should have first priority.
                                     59J

-------
Another issue related to local financing is the ability of local en-
tities to finance costly projects from fiscal budgets.  Generally when
a project is conceived general financing is self evident, but when
construction contracts are awarded, the funds for the project award must
be encumbered in their entirety.  If local Bond Funds are available,
the problem is less, but the sheer size of some projects make them im-
possible to finance from fiscal budgets.  On the other hand, the capa-
bility and ability to finance smaller projects from fiscal revenues
would make it appropriate to eliminate these from consideration for
Federal assistance.

Paper No. 4  Extending Dates for Meeting Standards

In this discussion is the consideration to change the definition of secon-
dary treatment to allow for classifications according to size, age,
equipment, and process employed.  We most heartily agree that the de-
finition should be changed and furthermost heartily agree that the
broad brush technique of applying the same treatment requirement to
every works in the land should be abolished but certainly not in the
manner proposed.

The fecal coliform level in the definition should be modified to be con-
sistent with the capability of secondary treatment processes that are
well operated, regardless of age, size, etc.   The present fecal coil-
form level is a meausre of tertiary treatment.  The imposition of the
need for secondary treatment should be determined on the basis of the
receiving waters, or whether there are any receiving waters at all,
or ocean outfalls, etc.

Paper No. 5  Delegation to the States

We are in favor of this proposal, since it has been demonstrated in the
past that this is effective.  The statement in the Paper that additional
staffing for the states will be necessary, however, escapes us.  Gen-
erally, State Regulatory Agencies are charged with the responsibility
of reviewing engineering plans and specifications for water and sewerage
projects.  The State Agencies that we are familiar with have accepted
this responsibility for the most part and in fact do that very thing
at present even with EPA's involvement in the review and bidding and
contract awarding procedures.  At the same time it is recognized that
many State regulatory agencies are understaffed in order to accomplish
certain objectives and programs.  The comment has been made that the
need for additional state staffing to take over the full grant program
is a reflection of requests originating from the States themselves.  We
are tempted to ask, which states and how many are there? — and what
kind of employees are"needed, clerks, typists, engineers or scientists???

Isn't this something they should be doing anyway even if EPA didn't exist??
                                      600

-------
    STATEMENT MADE TO THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON WATER QUALITY
                         April 3 & 4, 1975
                    Los Angeles, California
                                By
                         ART F. VONDRICK
                     WATER & SEWERS DIRECTOR
                         PHOENIX, ARIZONA
      My name is Art F. Vondrick and I am the Water & Sewers Director of
Phoenix, Arizona.  Phoenix's Water & Sewers Department administers
the operation of the municipally owned water system as well as the  mun-
icipally owned sanitary sewerage system.  The water utility is operated
as a fully self-supporting utility, while the sanitary sewer operation
is financed by general revenues of the City.  Ad Valorem Taxes make
up only about 17% of the total general revenues of the City.
      The water system has about 226,600 water connections, and the
sewer system has a similar number although we provide sewer service to
some areas where we do not provide water service and vice versa.
      We have been involved with various aspects of P.L. 92-500 since
it became Law or rather even before it became the Law of the land.   We
have had numerous pieces of correspondence, many, many meetings arid
telephone conversations on the subjects covered in the Law which  have
in many instances ended with more than a normal share of frustration
and disbelief.
      Our problems with P.L. 92-500, the Rules and Regulations and  the
Environmental Protection Agency have centered around two principal
areas, i.e., the Construction Grant Program, and the NPDES, the Dis-
charge Permit provisions.
      Before passage into Law, the issues were debated publicly and
privately and we all thought that we had a basic understanding of what
it was all about.  When P.L. 92-500 finally was generated in a form
that was an acceptable compromise, EPA people pleaded with the pro-
fessional community to help pass the Law because we needed one badly.
They said, "Don't worry what it means, we'll straighten that out later."
Now most of our attention has been directed to the administrative ac-
tivities of the Federal Government because we seem to have been led
down a garden path.  Many people who have been thoroughly familiar  with
the issues debated before Congress are held in awe by administrative
rules and regulations and interpretations of legislation.  "Is this
what Congress meant?" is a very often asked question.
      In Phoenix, we have believed in water pollution control long
before the Federal government knew what the expression meant.  Our
considerations for doing were obvious.  Our wastewater plant effluents
discharged to completely dry channels which offer no dilution whatso-
ever, therefore a secondary treatment capability was always used
Moreover, for more than 40 years now, the treated effluents'have been
diverted by downstream agribultural interests and reused and recycled.

                                   BQl

-------
We do not have a record of being water polluters, but as a matter of
fact have been forthright in accepting our community responsibilities.
I think it is important to state this, because in the discussion that
will be presented herein, one might be tempted to ask "Since the objec-
tives of the P.L. 92-500 and the National  effort has been to eliminate
and prevent water pollution, how does it come to pass that Phoenix and
its neighboring communities have so much trouble with the implementa-
tion of the Law?"  Everyone thought that the purpose of national legis-
lation was to get after the guys in the black hats, the bad guys.
      In retrospect, however, it seems that the national  policy has been
to lean heavily on some case histories of bad examples and paint every-
one with the same big, broad brush.  It seems that the only way to
achieve success is to do it the way prescribed by EPA.  The Rules and
Regulations which augment P.L. 92-500 were intended to clarify the
Law, but in truth in many areas they do not accomplish this and only
need further interpretation.  We believe such interpretations should
be reasonable and prudent so that water pollution control  efforts can
be conducted on a professional, businesslike plane.
      But this has not been forthcoming, in our opinion.   Instead we
have been confronted with a set of arbitrary, somewhat irrational re-
quirements.  What is most disconcerting, is that the changes that would
be required will not improve the effluent.  We don't seem to be con-
centrating on the issue, which is pollution and pollution control.  We
seem to be embroiled in the age old engineer's controversy of specifying
methods as well as results.  If I have to  run my operation exactly the
way the Rules and Regulations say, why should I be responsible for the
results, especially since our results now, doing it our way, are more
than satisfactory.  Don't we get any credit for that?  And by the way,
most of the changes will cost money.
      Responsible managers of local utilities have to answer to City
Fathers and local taxpayers, and when regulations and stipulations
are imposed upon us that would require serious and complicated revisions
of existing local statutes and ordinances, many of which would require
large additional expenditures of public funds, it is incumbent upon us
to ask questions for which we should get satisfactory answers.
      But getting to specifics, our experience with the construction
grant program provisions of P.L. 92-500 might be of interest.
      In the Salt River Valley of Arizona, Phoenix and several other
cities have joined  together in what is known a Multi-City Sewerage
Plan.  The best way perhaps to describe the plan is to tell you what
it is not...rather than what it is.  We have mutual contracts that
provide for cost sharing of construction costs as well as operation
and  maintenance   costs   of  the largest treatment plant that we
have.  We have a second treatment works that is wholly and solely oper-
ated for the benefit of Phoenix wastewater.
                                      602

-------
      The Multi-City Sewerage Plan is not a governmental entity; it
has no authority to adopt ordinances or impose any ad valorem taxes
of any other charges; it has no direct financing authority; and it is
not a Sanitary District.  Each city controls its own general destiny
by imposing its own Users Charges, Industrial Waste Control, and
other functions.  The City of Phoenix has no authority over industries
in Mesa, Tempe, or Scottsdale, or vice versa.  We do, by mutual contract,
agree to control the specific character and quality of all wastewater
discharged, that is tributary to the 91st Avenue Joint Plant.
     The City of Phoenix operates the plant under these agreements and
charges the other cities their proportionate share of the costs based
on their respective sewage flow.  This particular Multi-City Sewage
System was envisioned many years ago and since its inception has been a
model for cooperative agreements in other fields.
      One of the incentives to centralizing treatment facilities was
the posture of the Federal government in encouraging such installations
in the interest of better water pollution control.  We wholeheartedly
concur with this philosophy and have been consistently concerned over
adequate treatment and water pollution control partially because our
effluent is discharged into dry river channels.  We also recognize that
treated wastewater effluent is  a valuable water resource and have
made important strides in promoting the reuse of our sewage effluent.
In fact, we have recently entered into agreements with the utilities in
this area where we will provide them with sewage effluent for use in
serving as a cooling agent in a projected nuclear power plant.  We
are also carrying on extensive experiments partially financed by the
Federal Government for use'of sewage effluent in crop irrigation.
      Our interest in the quality of our sewage effluent has caused
us to engage in extensive surveillance in control of discharges from
industries into the system.  We require all of these industries to pre-
treat their sewage to the point where we believe they are effectively
discharging a "domestic type" wastewater.

      Industrial Cost Recovery - This extensive interest in the quality
of our effluent resulting in the "domestic type" wastewater which is
flow discharged into our system by these industries causes us real prob-
lems with the industrial cost recovery regulations.  It is our under-
standing that under the interpretations, industries which extensively
pretreat their effluent are treated in the same manner in the Industrial
Cost Recovery system as are industries in areas where such pretreatment
is not required.  We do not believe it is fair and equitable to expect
such industries to construct their own facilities for pretreatment and
then expect them-to pay a special charge for a part of the cost of
building required additions to our sewage treatment plant when the
required additions are, in fact, not needed to treat their flow, but
for the flow resulting from very rapid growth of residential development.
                                     603

-------
The logic of the interpretations of these Regulations escapes us.  In-
dustrial Cost Recovery Regulations, in our opinion, are more directly
applicable to those municipalities that have industrial discharges,
but where np_ municipal treatment works exist at present, or where an
existing treatment works is overloaded by virtue of industrial  dis-
charges.  We do not agree that existing industries whose waste dis-
charges are being successfully accommodated or those new industries
that will of necessity have to pretreat their wastewater to levels of
normal wastewater, should be subject to Industrial Cost Recovery.  In
other words, if an industry discharges a "domestic-type" wastewater,
then they have reached equity as far as Capital Costs are concerned.  To
do otherwise appears to be arbitrary, illogical and confiscatory.  Ade-
quate and equitable Users Charges, in our opinion, are sufficient to
accomplish the intent and objectives of water pollution control  in the
Phoenix area.  Treatment plant additions being constructed with  the
Federal Grants are not being built  to serve these existing industries.
      Some of our participating cities have entered into written agree-
ments with specific industrial installations setting forth obligations
of both City and Industry.  There is serious question whether such
agreements, entered into in good faith, would be violated by imposing
certain interpretations of EPA, relative to Industrial  Cost Recovery,
particularly since the present agreements provide for adequate and
equitable Users Charges.
      The imposition of Industrial Cost Recovery on existing industries,
whether they pre-treat or not, is additionally confusing as demonsrated
by the attached example.  With such an interpretation,  an existing in-
dustry, whose waste is being adequately treated in existing Municipal
facilities, would be expected to pay for facilities they would not use,
and furthermore would be expected to pay not just once, but repeatedly,
every time the treatment works expanded.  Whether or not these present
interpretations of the ACT and EPA Regulations will continue to  prevail
is not known.  But without any assurance that some consideration would
be given to the excellent workable system that we have in operation,
we could not in good conscience agree to invoke Users Charges and Indus-
trial Cost Recovery.  As a result, the City of Phoenix, along with its
partners in the joint treatment works, rejected a Federal Construction
Grant rather than comply with EPA interpretations of the applicability
of Industrial Cost Recovery charges.
      To be completely open and fair about this particular situation,
you should be aware that we did eventually receive the Grant in  ques-
tion but not because of compliance with these particular regulations,
but due to a recent ruling that permitted the transfer of Federal
funds from one fiscal year to another.
      We did not, therefore, lose any construction funds on this pro-
ject, but perhaps some valuable construction time during a period when
costs were rising at the rate of 1% or more per month.   The purposes,


                                     6 CM*

-------
objectives, and benefits of Industrial Cost Recovery ought to be re-
evaluated.  They do not achieve equality in Industry as far as we are
concerned, but act as a .penalty, that can be assessed times without
number against such industries.  In addition, the O&M expenditures
required by the cities to administer this could exceed the revenues
derived.

      User's Charges - We fully appreciate and understand the concept
and intent of User';S Charges.  In spite of this, however, we have had
problems on this score.  Adequate and equitable User's Charges applied
simply probably would not be too formidable a deterrent to attaining
compliance with the Regulations to qualify for Federal  Construction
Grants.  But the situation gets more complicated in our scheme of things.
      Each of the so-called "participating cities" is regarded as a
joint power cooperative partner, and each partner has financed and re-
tains a specific share of the joint treatment works capacity.  Federal
Grants that are awarded  for Aid to Construction are shared by the part-
ner cities and pro-rated in accordance with their share of participa-
tion in the construction project for which the Grant was made.
      The Multi-City Regional concept grew from its initial beginnings
by encouraging others to join.  Some years ago, the City of Glendale,
one of the participating partners, signed agreements obligating itself
to provide treatment capacity to accommodate the wastewater flows
from the Town  of Peoria and from Sun City, by "renting" its (Glendale's}
capacity at the joint treatment works.  Neither Peoria nor Sun City
are regarded as true partners and do not share in any Federal Grants
since they do not participate in the financing of plant construction.
They are, in fact, regarded as two of Glendale's customers, and what
is more unique is that the Sun City Sewer System is owned and operated
as a private, Investor-Owned Utility.  Their discharges are measured
and are subject to "quality controls" consistent with Industrial Waste
Ordinances.  The Town of Peoria and the Sun City Sewer Company both
impose Users Charges on their customers, however the Multi-City par-
ticipants have no control or authority over these charges.  EPA
stated that they would deny Federal Grants to Phoenix, Mesa, Tempe,
Scottsdate, Glendale and Youngtown because individually or collectively
we could not assure EPA that the Ordinances of the Town of Peoria and/
or the fee schedules of the Sun City Sewer Company do comply with EPA
criteria for adequate and equitable Users Charges and would continue
to do so, or Industrial Cost Recovery, for that matter.
      The City of Peoria and the Sun City Sewer Company do not share
in the Federal Grant.  If Industrial Cost Recovery Charges are imposed
by, say Peoria, are they (Peoria) obligated to send 50% of these fees
collected to the U.S., or is this an obligation of Glendale?  If this
is an obligation of Glendale, how can Glendale collect these sums from
customers in Peoria that are Peoria's customers?  We take the position

-------
that Peoria and Sun City should be regarded as two customers of the
City of Glendale as provided for in their written agreements, just
the same as the TowneHouse Hotel and Western Electric Company are
customers of Phoenix, or Motorola is a customer of Mesa, or Arizona
State University is a customer of Tempe.
      We are scheduled to have a number of additional joint sewer pro-
jects in our Valley and a treatment plant addition is scheduled once
every five years based upon population projections, so we have some con-
cern for the future.

      National Pollution Discharge Elimination System - NPDES -For the
past several months, the Phoenix Water & Sewers Department has been
corresponding with EPA regarding the issuance of discharge permits for
both of the wastewater treatment plants operated by Phoenix in accor-
dance with the provisions of P.L. 92-500 for the NPDES.
      We again find ourselves at odds with EPA over the interpretation
of the Law and Regulations which have been promulgated.  EPA would re-
quire us to do things we have no authority to do, to impose additional
financial burdens on our operations, and to impose burdens on all  the
major industries in Phoenix and other Valley cities, many of which
would be costly, but for all practical purposes would not improve the
quality of effluent that we discharge to the dry channels.
      The stated objectives of the NPDES is to eliminate discharges of
pollution and to preserve the integrity of the nation's waters.   However
EPA deems it appropriate to dictate only effluent quality, but exact
methods and procedures on how this should be achieved.   It is not an
overstatement of the fact to say that if the Phoenix plants discharged
effluent of drinking water quality we would still be in violation of
several permit provisions.  Moreover, the only integrity in the chan-
nels is the integrity of our effluent, since the rivers have long since
ceased to flow because of impoundment dams and the irrigation and re-
clamation practices employed.
      There are several issues involved.

      Electrical Power Standby - EPA would require us to install  a 100%
standby power system with an alternate source of power OR else certify
that we could control our discharges AT ALL TIMES to meet permit re-
quirements no matter what happens to the electrical power.
      No responsible agency can certify flatly that they can control
their discharges to at all times meet Permit Requirements no matter
what happens to their electrical power.  EPA has never required the City
of Phoenix or any other agency that we know of, to install 100% standby
power systems in new wastewater treatment plants as a condition for
receiving Federal Aid for construction, including our present construction.
The plans for this construction, we might add, were approved without
provisions for standby power by the same EPA office.  The cost of


                                      60b

-------
Installing generating capacity for 100% of plant requirements is con-
siderable, and is money that we don't have, but what is more interesting
is that we can find no authority given to EPA by P.L. 92-500 (nor in any
of the Regulations) for including this condition in NPDES permits.

      Pretreatment of Industrial Waters - Since the City of Phoenix
operates the 91st Avenue Plant for and in behalf of several other cities,
the City of Phoenix has been subject to the permit provisions and the
enforcement thereof.  Under this scheme of things, EPA would have
Phoenix enforce Federal Laws and requirements not only in Phoenix but
in all other cities and sewer systems that are tributary to the treat-
ment works.
      At the present time, we are unable to advise our partners in the
Multi-City Sewerage Plan what is to be expected of them by EPA particu-
larly with respect to industrial discharges.  We are, unable to advise
our industries what is to be expected of them, and furthermore EPA has
been unable to clarify what EPA expects of the City of Phoenix.
      Likewise, the legal responsibility for administration and enforce-
ment of Federal Regulations and/or permit provisions has never been
clarified or resolved.  We know not whether we have any legal authority
or responsibility to impose EPA requirements on other municipal cor-
porations, or on discharges located in other municipal corporations or
whether or not we can even force Phoenix industries to comply with Fed-
eral Regulations.
      It is impossible at the present time to make an assessment of
the financial impact of these requirements on our operation.  The type
and kinds of data that would be collected by monitoring and surveillance
of industries is completely strange to the traditional industrial waste
control operation of municipalities.
      We think that our industrial waste control program is very success-
ful, namely because of the amenability that the wastes we receive have
to biological treatment, as well as the quality of the effluents, but
we cannot tell if our industrial waste control efforts are based upon
better numbers than EPA or not, because we are comparing apples with
oranges.  It will take some concerted retraining or dual training of
many personnel, with considerable amounts of budgetary expenditures
for added personnel, vehicles, equipment, .laboratories, etc.

      Water Supply Salinity Monitoring - Another condition of the permits
is a requirement for monitoring and reporting of the Total Dissolved
Solids in the "municipal water supply".  The City of Phoenix water
supply consists of four surface water treatment plants, obtaining water
from two separate rivers of differing water characteristics and water-
sheds, thirteen shallow river wells, and approximately one hundred
deep wells widely scattered and pumping from many chemically different
aquifers.  There is no such thing as a typical sample of Phoenix water,

                                     80 /

-------
The IDS content varies widely over our 250 square mile water service
area, sometimes from a month to month basis in specific locations.

      In addition, the 91st Avenue Plant serves several other cities as
well as Phoenix.  Each of these cities has its own separate water system,
with multiple, chemically different water sources.  Likewise, our sewer
system serves areas that are supplied with domestic  water from a variety
of investor owned water companies.  Such data may not even be available
to report.
      Is the expense of such monitoring and testing  justified?  We
think not.

      Effluent Requirement - Fecal Coliforms - In the sanitary engineer-
ing field, the expression, "secondary treatment" has been used and  de-
veloped to describe a quality of treated wastewater  that was expected
to be produced from several biological treatment processes,  and expressed
in terms of BOD and suspended solids.  In recent months, EPA has seen
fit to modify this tradition concept of "secondary treatment" by estab-
lishing a value level for fecal coliform organisms of 200 per 100 ml.
      The values for BOD and suspended solids seem to be reasonable
and should be attained by a properly designed and operated secondary
treatment plant.  However, the monthly mean value of 200 fecal  coliform
organisms per 100 ml is much too low and is not consistent with the
levels given for BOD and suspended solids.  This extremely low coliform
level might be expected after secondary effluent has undergone addi-
tional physical or chemical treatment but can certainly not  be achieved
by conventional secondary treatment alone.
      It is questionable if fecal  coliform concentration is  a valid
index of the efficiency of secondary treatment.  If, however, it should
be included in a list of constituents intended to describe or define
secondary effluent, then the fecal coliform level  should be  several
orders of magnitude greater than the one given in the EPA rules. A
fecal coliform level consistent with 30 mg/1 BOD and 30 mg/1  suspended
solids would be more on the order of 1,000,000 fecal organisms per
100 ml rather than 200/100 ml.  If the definition of secondary treatment
is to be "that treatment given by a conventional biological  process
such as trickling  filter or activated sludge plant  followed by chem-
ical disinfection" then the coliform level listed is still inconsistent
with the BOD and suspended solids concentration of 30 mg/1.   For in-
stance, if chlorination or ozonation is to be used to reduce the fecal
coliform concentration in secondary effluent to the  200/100 ml level,
the massive dose required would also reduce the BOD  to a level much lower
than 30 mg/1.
      Now I must admit that the foregoing discussion might be academic
and that all might not agree with these views, but let us put this  into
perspective.

                                        600

-------
      Both the 23rd Avenue and 91st Avenue Sewage Treatment Plants in
Phoenix discharge their effluent to the dry Salt River channel.  Much
of the effluent is diverted from the channel downstream and used for
irrigating non-edible crops in compliance with the Rules and Regulations
of the Arizona State Department of Health Services.  The remainder of
the effluent evaporates or percolates into the dry river bed.  The direct
reuse of the effluent will greatly increase in the future.  The Arizona
Nuclear Power Project has entered into an agreement with the Multi-Cities
to purchase 140,000 acre feet of effluent per year to be used as cooling
water for nuclear generating units.
      Unchlorinated secondary effluent has been discharged into the dry
Salt River channel by the City of Phoenix for over forty years without
adverse effect on the environment.  We feel that a 200 organism/100 ml
fecal coliform requirement is unrealistic and unnecessary for our ef-
fluent in view of particular local circumsatnces.  A fecal coliform
level of 200/100 ml is consistent with tertiary, not secondary treat-
ment.  This fact is fully recognized in the "Rules and Regulations for
Reclaimed Wastes", Arizona State Department of Health, which were de-
veloped for the direct reuse of treated wastewater.  A copy of this
document is attached.  The standards set forth in the regulations were
rationally derived with realistic considerations, and provide for the
maximum beneficial use of treated effluent consistent with good public
health practice.  Minimum treatment and effluent quality standards were
established for various types of uses.  Secondary treatment alone (no
coliform limit) is required for the irrigation of crops not intended
for human consumption.  Secondary treatment plus disinfection (1,000
fecal coliform/100 ml) is required for the irrigation of food crops
that are cooked before being eaten.  For the non-restricted irrigation
of edible crops, tertiary treatment plus disinfection (200 fecal coli-
form/100 ml) is required.  It should be noted however, that the surface
waters from the relatively pristine Salt and Verde River watersheds
now being used for unrestricted agricultural irrigation in the Sal
River Valley do not always meet the 200 fecal coliform/100 ml limit!!
      It should also be noted that these same canals that deliver
irrigation waters to the farms deliver water to our municipal water
treatment plants.  In other words, EPA is prescribing a lower fecal
coliform limit in the wastewater effluent than there is in the raw
water intake of our water plants and as stated above, we are blessed
still with a rather uncivilized water shed almost pristine in nature.
      Chlorination is the obvious method to achieve EPA coliform limits,
and we have calculated that this will cost in excess of $200,000 per
year for us, if the chlorine is available.  We cannot get commitments
from our chlorine suppliers to satisfy our needs for water supply.
      The above  discussion can be  summarized with  one question  --
"What rational  consideration dictates  that  the  low fecal  coliform levels
are required for discharge of effluents into a  dry river  bed?"   •
                                     60;

-------
      About 95 MGD of treated wastewater effluent is committed to re-
use by virtue of several contractual commitments, but EPA has decided
unilaterally and in our opinion irrationally, that our treatment is not
good enough!!
      In fairness, it should be stated that we did win concessions from
EPA on three counts.
      Early versions of the permits included stipulations that the adop-
tion and enforcement of User's Charges and Industrial Cost Recovery
Charges were necessary permit requisites.  Again there was no justifi-
cation for this, legal or otherwise and EPA modified their stance by
inserting the words "if appropriate" in the permit language.  As you
know, User's Charges and Industrial Cost Recovery provisions are re^
lated to eligilibity for construction grants and not to the NPDES.
      A second issue was that, in spite of the fact that both of our
plants discharge to the same dry river bed only a few miles apart, and
that both are activated sludge plants, EPA set up a higher and more
stringent effluent requirement for the 91st Avenue Plant than the
23rd Avenue Plant.  Later it was revealed that this was developed from
our plant data from a period of exceptional performance and this data
was used to establish a sustained standard.  The cost of providing
these facilities would have been enormous.
      A third issue was that upon the issuance of discharge permits,
EPA required the commencement of effluent chlorination on the effective
date of the permits whereas the Law states that secondary treatment must
be in effect by 1977.  If chlorination of the effluent was necessary,
desirable or beneficial, we would have voluntarily complied.
      Instead, however, we succeeded in getting this requirement relaxed
based upon rational consideration of the conditions involved.
      I realize that the stated purpose of this meeting was to concern
itself with possible future amendments to P.L. 92-500 and yet many of
my comments were directly related to the Rules and Regulations and
even interpretations of the law and regulations.  But they do seem to
go hand in hand.  In many instances, the Rules and Regulations are
worse than the Act itself.
      Part of the problem in determining financial impact whether it
be capital expense or O&M is that we cannot get adequate answers to
many questions.  But in this day and age, O&M cost are increasing at a
much more rapid rate than capital costs are, therefore the real im-
pact of O&M constraints should not be neglected.
      It would be much easier if we all kept the objectives of elimina-
ting pollution in mind, instead of trying to measure success by com-
pliance with rules.
      A discharge permit ought to be based upon effluent quality, not
the amount of paperwork that is generated.
                                    610

-------
                                                     6-4-1.1
                    RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR
                        RECLAIMED WASTES

                            Article 6
                             Part 4

SEC.  6-4-1.        GENERAL

REG.  6-4-1.1       LEGAL AUTHORITY

   .  The regulations in this Part are adopted pursuant to the authori-
ty granted by Sec. 36-1854.3 and Sec. 36-1857, Arizona Revised Statues.
(Added Reg.  1-72)

REG.  6-4-1.3      APPLICABILITY

      A.   The direct reuse of wastes originally containing human  or
animal wastes is prohibited unless such wastes comply with the standards
in this Part.

      B.    Nothing in this section shall be constructed as an  exemption
from other applicable Rules and Regulations of the Arizona State  De-
partment of Health including but not limited to Reg.  2-2-4.9.
(Added Reg.  1-72)

SEC 6-4-2.        REQUIRED TREATMENT

REG.  6-4-2.1       SECONDARY

      All waste shall receive a minimum of secondary treatment or its
equivalent before they are used for any of the following purposes:

      A.    Irrigation of fibrous or forage crops not intended  for human
           consumption.

      B.    Irrigation of orchard crops by methods which do not result  in
           direct application of water to fruit or foliage,

      C.    Watering of farm animals other than producing dairy animals.

REG 6-4-2.2       -SECONDARY AND DISINFECTION

      A.    All wastes shall receive a minimum of secondary treatment
or its equivalent and disinfection before they are used for any of
the following purposes:
                                      61.1

-------
        1. Irrigation of any food crop where the product is subjected
to physical or chemical processing sufficient to destroy pathogenic
organisms.
        2. Irrigation of orchard crops by methods which involve direct
application of water to fruit or foliage.
        3. Irrigation of golf courses, cemeteries and similar areas.
        4.  Watering of producing dairy animals.
        5.  To provide a substantial  portion of the water supply in any
impoundment used for aesthetic enjoyment or for purposes involving only
secondary contact recreation.

    B.  Following treatment specified in A. above, the monthly arith-
metic average density of the coliform group of bacteria in the effluent
shall not exceed 5,000 per 100 milliliters and the monthly arithmetic
average density of fecal coliforms shall not exceed 1,000 per 100
milliliters.  Both of these limits shall be an average of at least two
consecutive samples examined per month during the irrigation season,
and any one ample examined in any one month shall not exceed a coliform
group density of more than 20,000 per 100 milliliters, or a fecal  coli-
form density of more than 4,000 per 100 milliliters.
(Added Reg. 1-72)

REG. 6-4-2.3      TERTIARY AND DISINFECTION

      A.   All wastes shall receive a minimum of secondary treatment
or its equivalent followed by tertiary treatment and  disinfection un-
less tertiary treatment effects disinfection before they are used for
any of the following purposes:

           1.  To provide a substantial portion of the water supply in
any impoundment used for primary contact recreations.
           2.  Irrigation of school grounds, playgrounds, lawns,  parks,
or any other area where children are expected to congregate or play.
           3.     Irrigation of food crops which may  be consumed  in
their raw or natural state.

      B.   Following the treatment specified in A. above, the effluent
shall not contain more than 10 mg/1 of 5 day BOD, 10  mg/1 of suspended
solids and 200 fecal coliform per 100 milliliters. When the arithmetic
average of five consecutive daily samples taken over  a period not
exceeding fifteen days is greater than the values given above for BOD
of suspended solids or when the arithmetic average of five consecutive
daily samples taken over a period not exceeding fifteen days is greater
than the value given for fecal coliform, use of the effluent shall
cease immediately upon notification by the Department.  The use of such
effluent shall not resume until the values of five consecutive daily
samples taken over a period not exceeding fifteen days meet the require-
ments for BOD, suspended solids and fecal coliform listed above.
(Added Reg. 1-72)                      Bid

-------
SEC .*• 6-4-3.        INDUSTRIAL USES
                  i
SEC.  6-6-3.1       GENERAL REQUIREMENTS

      Reclaimed wastes used for industrial purposes shall  have re-
ceived a minimum of  secondary treatment, or its equivalent.
(Added Reg.  1-72)

REG.  6-4-3.2      OTHER REQUIREMENTS
                                        !
      The variety of industrial uses is so extensive that establishing
specific criteria governing all uses is not possible.  Each  industrial
use will be  considered on an individual bases.  In fixing such treat-
ment requirements and quality criteria the Department shall  give con-
sideration but not be limited:

           1.  The degree of potential contact with the reclaimed wastes
by the general public.
           2.  The degree of potential contamination of the  products
or by-products being produced or handled in the industrial process.
(Added Reg.  1-72)
            TYPICAL EXAMPLE OF INDUSTRIAL COST RECOVERY
            (If existing Industries are required to pay)
                    In Addition to Users Charges

1.    INDUSTRY "A" discharges at the present time into the existing
      plant, about 3 million gallons per day and this is being adequately
      pre-treated at the industrial site, and being adequately treated
      at the Municipal treatment works along with other wastes.

      According to EPA this Industry would be subject to INDUSTRIAL
      COST RECOVERY.

2.    The present plant capacity is 65 MGD.  The proposed additions are
      30 MGD making a total of 95 MGD.

3.    The Phase II Grant amounts to $1,065,000.
      Using the effective plant capacity of 95 MGD, the Grant amounts
      to $11,210 per MG.

4.    Therefore Industry "A" would have to pay back $11,210 X 3 MGD or
      $33,630 of which 50% is returned to the U.S. Treasury.
                                        613

-------
5.    On the same theory that existing  Industrial  Dischargers must  be
      subject to INDUSTRIAL COST RECOVERY, what  happens  in  1978 when
      we add another 30 MGD addition  to the  treatment works??

      Following the same thinking,  Industry  "A"  would have  to repay
      again, even if their flow of  wastewater  remained the  same at
      3 MGD.

6.    A 30 MGD addition in 1978 will  cost about  $13,020,000 at 1973
      prices.  With a 75% Federal Grant, Federal Aid will amount to
      $9,648,000.  The effective capacity of the treatment  works now
      will be 125 MGD, and the Grant  will amount to $77,184 per
      million gallons.

7.    Therefore, Industry "A" will  have to repay $77,184 X  3 MGD or
      $231,552 for the 1978 expansion.

8.    Evidently the same sort of formula would apply in 1982 when
      another expansion takes place.

      How many times does Industry  "A"  keep  on paying for 3 MGD capa-
      city???
                                    Blh

-------
June 17,  1975
                              i
Environmental Protection Agency
West Tower, Waterside Mall
401 "M" Street, S.W.
Washington, D\C.   20460

Attn:  Mr. David Sabock

Re:  Potential Legislative Amendments to the
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act

Dear Mr.  Sabock:

Notice was published in the Federal Register on May 2, 1975 (40 FR 19236)
of a series of four Public Hearings to discuss possible Administration
proposals to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972,  33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.  Five papers for discussion were pub-
lished in the Federal Register on May 28, 1975 (40 FR 23107-23112).
A Notice of Public Hearings, Correction was published in the Federal
Register on June 4, 1975 (40 FR 24044).

I regret that I will be unable to attend any of the Public Hearings.
However,  I welcome the opportunity to comment on the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act Amendments of 1972, P.L. 92-500, and request that my
comments, contained herein, be made a part of the record in accordance
with the notice of May 2, 1975.

Without doubt, all who have had an opportunity or requirement to work
within the framework of P.L. 92-500 have cursed the Act for its ambi-
guities,  its rigor and the delays it has caused in restoring and main-
taining the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's
waters.  The furor which has arisen over this Act indicates that some
amendment of the Act is mandated.  It is my believe that P.L. 92-500
is limpingly workable in its present form and, therefore, should not
be subjected to massive amputation or mutilation.  My experience is
that the delay in the establishment of regulations to implement the
Act on February 11, 1974 (FR 39, 5251-5270) and the difficulty of
interpreting the regulations is more responsible for the frustration,
bewilderment and stagnation of the construction program than the Act
itself.  I, personally, find the language of the P.L. 92-500 more
lucid than the regulations dated February 11, 1974.

Despite the slow start and current obligation of only $4.8 billion of
the program's $18 billion total, the program now seems to be crawling.
Therefore, any amendments to the Act, which would tend to reverse this
progress, should be resisted.
                                         615

-------
If the above appears to be critical  of the Administrator's promulga-
tion of regulations and execution of the Act, it is.  However, I rec-
ognize the Herculean task the Administrator was faced with in mobili-
zing a capable staff, promulgating implementing instructions and fin-
alizing the program, and doubt that anyone could have done it better.
The State agencies were, of course,  faced with the same problems.
As a result, while the Administrator proclaims a program of logic and
expedition, the communication and credibility gap between the various
levels of political sub-divisions is such that too much effort is
spent in crossing t's, dotting i's,  and preparing CYA (cover your
posterior) papers.

I would now like to turn to the 5 EPA papers and address them in order:

A.    Paper No. 1.  Reduction of Federal  Share.

Before addressing the 5 specific issues a few general comments are in
order. It is now obvious that the $16 billion currently in the program
will hardly commence the effort necessary to attain the National goals
edicted in the Act.  Therefore, the Federal  Government must commit vast
new sums to the program whether or not the Federal contribution remains
at 75%, is increased or is decreased.  As a matter of practicality
the total funding is ultimately extracted from John Doe, taxpayer, and
because of their greater number and remoteness legislators at the
National level can enact increased taxes with greater immunity from
retaliation at the polls than legislators at the state and local levels.
As a consequence, the greater the Federal share or funding the sooner
the National goals are attained.   I, personally, am  opposed in
principal to the increased reliance of local governments on Federal
funds because of loss in brick and mortar due to siphoning off of
funds to support layered echelons of bureaucrats.  However, as a
realist, I must beg for Federal funds because everyone else does it
and because local voters are loath to approve the tax increases which
would otherwise be required.

The specific issues are addressed below:

1.    Would a reduced Federal share inhibit or delay the construction
      of needed facilities?

      Absolutely!  A reduction in the Federal share will result in a
      larger indebtedness which must be liquidated by the sewer users.
      This can only lead to additional increases in sewer user charges
      which are already reaching astronomical levels as a result of
      sky-rocketing chemical, utility and labor costs.

2.    Would the States have the interest and capacity to assume, through
      State Grants or loan programs a larger portion of the financial
      burden of the program?             r   „,
                                         bib

-------
     This appears  doubtful  since  all  states  have not yet  established
     grant  programs.   As  for  loan programs  this  is  just a device
     to  switch  the source of  borrowed money.   The only advantages
     being  an evasive  reduced interest rate  on a loan  to  a municipali-
     ty  without a  credit  rating,  the  user must still pay  the tab.

3.    Would  communities have difficulty in raising additional.funds in
     capital markets for  a  larger portion of the program?

     Undoubtedly some  would and some  would  not.   The ability to raise
     additional  funds  is  not  really the relevant question.  The real
     question is the added  cost to the individual users of the improved
     sewerage system.   A  question which is  ignored  in  both P.L. 92-500
     and the EPA Regulations  of February 11,  1974.   Cost  effectiveness
     analyses mandated therein are geared to Capital outlay and other
     figurative costs  without consideration  of the  final  impact on the
     user charges.
                                                                       1t
4.    Would  the  reduced Federal share  lead to greater accountability
     on  the part of the grantee for cost effective design, project man-
     agement and post  construction operation and maintenance?

     The mere phrasing of this question is  a slap at conscientious, ef-
     ficient local administrators throughout the United States and
     could  have only originated from  the sublime ivoried  vacuum of
     bureaucracy.   As  in  all  other areas of employment government ad-
     ministrators  range from  those who frugally  and wisely manage all
     resources  to  those who expend federal  funds with  the same wild
     abandon they  spend locally generated monies.

5.    What impact would a  reduced  Federal share have on water quality and
     on  meeting goals  of  P.L. 92-500?

     Dependent  on  decree  of  reduction of the Federal  share, the impact
     would  vary from minor  delay  in attaining National goals to the
     eradication of the goals.

B.    Paper  No.  2  Limiting  Federal Funding  of Reserve  Capacity to Serve
     Projected  Growth.

Specific  questions  are  discussed below:

1.    Does current  practice  lead to overdesign of treatment works?

     Current practices encourage  overdesign.   This  encouragement does
     not come so much  from  the 75 per cent  Federal  Grant  rate.as it
     does from  the delays in  obtaining Grant approval. My files

                                            617

-------
     con tain documentation of 8 years of agressive attempts to improve
      the treatment works and to date we do not have an approved grant.
      It will  be at least three more years before we have a usable
      improved plant.   We are not unique in this time lag.   If not
      consciously, then at least subconsciously, we are encouraged to
      design for sufficient excess capacity to postpone  for a few years,
      if not for a lifetime, the date on which we will  have to again
      take-up the hassle.  In addition,  except for those larger systems
      which have an incremented program, because of the magnitude of
      the back-log, local governments look on the program as a once-in-
      a-lifetime shot.

2.    What could be done to eliminate problems with the current program,
      short of a legislative change?

      The Administrator's latitude to eliminate problems is restricted
      by the language of P.L. 92-500. However, I feel  there is leeway
      to speed-up the process of grant applications,  particularly those
      for which planning was well  underway prior to February 11,  1974.
      The Administrator has some qualified experienced  personnel  on his
      staff as do state and local  agencies.   Instead  of insuring  that
      every step in the approval process is taken or  retraced by  the
      numbers, the effort would be better expended to establish rapport
      between the various echelons of government, and to use the  avail-
      able expertise to evaluate on the  basis of existing documents
      with a view to/minimize back-tracking to pick up  steps passed be-*
      fore promulgation of the regulations and to maximize  the use of
      the Administrator's authority to waive requirements for CYA doc-
      umentation.

3.    What are the merits and demerits of prohibiting eligibility of
      growth-related reserve capacity?

      To prohibit eligibility of growth-related reserve capacity  is to
      play the ostriph, since almost without exception  growth can be
      expected at the local level.  It now takes anywhere from 4  years
      upward to design and construct a treatment works, therefore, to
      prevent under-constructing,  reserve capacity must be constructed.

4.    What are the merits and demerits of limiting eligibility for growth
      related reserve capacity to 10 years for treatment plants and 20 ,
      or 25 years for sewers?

      Limiting eligibility for growth-related reserve capacity will per-
      mit the accomplishment of more projects with available funds.
      On the other hand such limitations build in the need for constant-
      ly enlarging the plant on a cyclical basis.  I recommend a 10

-------
     year  limit  on  treatment plants  and  a  25 year  limit  for sewers
     provided  that  the  program is  assured  as a  continuing program so
     that  municipalities will  be eligible  for a second,  third or fur-
     ther  generation  grant  based on  priority rating.  This would make
     the program more responsive to  growth pattern changes while in-
     suring  maximum stretch of available bucks.  In limiting reserve
     capacity,  I further recommend that  where future growth potential
     exists, provisions for ready  future expansion, be grant eligible.
     Such  provisions  to include but  not  be limited to additional land
     procurement, knock-out walls, utility raceways, etc.

5.   Are there other  alternatives?

      I  have  none to offer at this  time.

C.   Paper No.  3 Restricting the  Type of  Projects Eligible for Grant
                  Assistance.

      If the  National  goals  established by  P.L.  92-500 are to be met
     all of  the  types of projects  now eligible  for Grant Assistance
     must  remain grant  eligible.  Even then, the goals cannot feasibly
     be met  on the  mandated schedule.  The EPA  track record thus far
     creates doubts as  to whether  or not total  funds could be obligated
     if they were made  available by  the  Federal  Government.  I would
     anticipate  that  the 1974 estimated  $365 billion for eligible needs
     for all these  facilities will continue to  rise for  at least the
     next  5  years and more  likely  the next 10 years despite improvements
     made  during the  same period.  This  increase will arise from the
     further deterioration  of the  Nation's older facilities, greater
     awareness on the part  of local  governmental agencies and findings
     unearthed either by infiltration/inflow analyses or sewer evalua-
     tions.

     The question of  local  funding is.not  so much  one of local incen-
     tive  and  funding capability as  it is  one of motivating the elec-
     torate  to approve  bond issues,  tax  increases  or assessments.  In
     this  day  of free cash  flow from Washington to state and local
     governments for  a  wide variety  of causes the  greatest incentive
     for raising local  monies is the prospect of obtaining more Fed-
     eral  funds. It  is the fashionable  way to  go.

     Developing  and rapid growing  urban  areas can  be expected to find
     both  the  ways  and  means to provide  the required facilities.  On
     the other hand the older more stable  cities with fixed boundaries
     will  normally  be less  aggressive in their  support of new or
     improved  facilities.

                                         sir

-------
      If any of the currently grant eligible project types  are  to be
      dropped, the first to be denied eligibility should  be IIIA
      Correction of Sewer Infiltration/Inflow,  IIIB  Major Sewer Re-
      habilitation and V Correction of Combined Sewer Overflows.   The
      above mentioned project types are broadly speaking  maintenance
      projects.

      In any event the National  goals must be re-evaluated  and  a  de-
      termination made on the order of priorities.   For instance, may
      not the National goals be approached more rapidly if  all  tertiary
      treatment plants were postponed in favor  of construction  more
      secondary treatment plants?

      Project Type VI, Treatment or Control  of  Storm Waters - should re-
      main grant eligible since this is a new requirement not antici-
      pated by most municipalities.  On the other hand, as  the  pollutant
      characteristics of storm waters and the impact on water quality are
      more fully appreciated, emphasis may shift from the elimination of
      sewer infiltration/inflow and combined sewers  to nationwide accep-
      tance of combined sewers.

      Project Type IV-B, Interceptor Sewers - must remain high  on the
      grant eligible priority list if the regional treatment works con-
      cept is to be encouraged.

D.    Paper No. 4.  Extending 1977 Date for Publicly Owned  Pretreatment
                    Works to Meet  Quality Standards.

      The 1977 date for publicly owned pretreatment  works to meet water
      quality standards which was  ridiculous when P.L. 92-500 was enacted
      is even more ridiculous today.  If major  construction is  required
      to meet water quality standards, unless construction  is already
      in progress, attainment is already impossible.   The Act itself, pro-
      vides a discriminatory delay of up to 1 year for localities
      fortunate enough to obtain a grant approval prior to  July 1, 1974.
      How can there Be respect for a law which  already placed 9,000
      municipalities (50% of the Nation's municipalities) in violation.

      The 1974 Needs Survey estimated the need  for Categories I,  II, &
      IUB to be at least $46 billion.  If this  is total cost, the Fed-
      eral 75% share under P.L.  92-500 is $34.5 billion.  Since only
      $4.8 billion has been obligated, only 14  percent of some  18,000
      municipalities can possibly  meet the 1977 deadline.  Included
      within this 14 percent are municipalities which have  an automatic
      extention granted by the Act.

      I recommend that a statutory extension of the  1977  deadline to 1983
      be sought that will provide  the Administrator  with  discretion to

                                           620

-------
     grant compliance  schedule  extensions  on  an  ad  hoc  basis based upon
     the availability  of  Federal  funds.  Future  fiscal  year appropri-
     ations would  be implicit in  such  an extension.   I  further recommend
     that statutory amendments  sought^maintain the  1977 date for indus-
     tries but  provide the  EPA  Administrator  with discretion to grant
     compliance schedule  extensions  on an  ad  hoc basis, based upon
     actual time required with  the expenditure of good  faith efforts
     to build the  necessary facilities.

     The EPA has been  much  belabored for its  slowness in approving
     grants.  However, all  of the blame for missing  the 1977 date   •
     cannot be  placed  on  those  delays. Had all  grants  been made
     available  immediately, it  is almost a certainty that manufacturers
     and contractors could  not  have  produced  and installed the
     sophisticated equipment on a timely,schedule.   Utilities en-
     countered  this problem in  meeting air quality  standards.

E.    Paper No.  5.  Delegating a Greater Portion  of  the  Management of
                   the Construction  Grants Program  to the States.

     Maximum management of  the  program, consistent  with individual
     state capability  should be delegated  to  the states and I recom-
     mend passage  of the  Bill,  H.R.  2175 except  for Section 213 (e).
     While the  proposed 2 per centum may provide an incentive to the
     states to  expedite obtaining capabilities to undertake the in-
     creased work  load, the total program  is  currently  so underfunded
     that the drain of any  funds  from  the  construction  grant pot is
     unwarranted.  Therefore, the states should  accept  the additional
     administrative costs as their contribution  to  expediting the
     attainment of the National and  State  goals.

In  closing, I offer the following  general comments:

1.    Any amendments to the  Act  or any  changes to the implementing
     regulations should specifically exempt projects which are under
     active design or  construction at  the  time of enactment or promul-
     gation, as appropriate. Much time and many dollars have been
     frittered  away on projects in advanced design  phases for the mere
     sake of picking up steps in  a sequence which was previously non-
     existent.   Let's  move  forward - Stop  trying to regain that which
     is past.

2.    Guidelines and implementing  regulations  should be  promulgated
     earlier than  in the  past.
                                          821

-------
3.    Maximize delegation to  the  states.

                                 Sincerely,
                                Arthur W, Berger, P.E.
                                City Engineer
AWB:bjs

cc:   Council  of Environmental Quality

      National Commission of Mater Quality
      P.O. Box 19266
      Washington, D.C.    20036

      Ned Williams, Director Ohio EPA

      N.O.A.C.A.

      City Manager
      Finance Director
      Sup't of W.P.C.P.
                                           622

-------
                           Statement of
                       WESLEY E. GILBERTSON
    DEPUTY SECRETARY FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND REGULATION
         PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
                               at the
          EPA Hearing - Municipal Waste Treatment Grants
                 June 25, 1975 - Washington, D.C.
                  »
We are strongly opposed to changes in the Federal construction grant
share to any different level.  What the municipal construction program
needs at this time is funding stability for at least five years.
Such stability would produce economies in the entire range of the pro-
gram — consulting, contracting, supplies, and administration.  A
change in the Federal funding level would disrupt administration of
the program and would be inequitable to those projects which have al-
ready been delayed because of inadequate funding.  We urged during the
drafting of P.L. 92-500 that the grant levels provided in the Act be
worded as "up to 75%" allowing the states flexibility in assigning and
using allocated funds.  We would not support even this approach now
that the mandated 75% grant level has been implemented.  A second rea-
son for objection is that municipalities rely on the Federal grant to
afford sewerage construction.  Our experience indicates that even with
the 75% grant, sewer rates are excessive in many small communities. Re-
duction of the Federal share may well make projects infeasible or at
best will delay needed projects.  Many of the projects now waiting for
funding for new facilities are the small, less affluent communities
which did not proceed when the grant levels were lower.  Because of
present economic conditions, states would not be likely able or willing
to make up the difference of the reduced Federal share.  We do not
believe that reduction of the Federal share will have a significant
influence on cost effective design either.  We are not aware of any sig*
nificant difference in project cost-effectiveness where grant levels
were changed from 30% arid 50% up to the present 75% level.  If any
changes are made at this time, we would encourage the inclusion of
financial need  as a consideration in determining project priorities.
This rating factor was used prior to the passage of P.L. 92-500.   Fur-
ther, we believe that elimination of the 80% grant limitation should
be allowed for small and impoverished communities.  In summary, we be-
lieve that a reduction of the Federal share now would be a mistake and
would have a serious impact on municipal compliance with the goals of
the Act.

With regard to the issue of funding reserve capacity, we also encourage
caution on the part of EPA. 'I recognize the problem of sewer service
for growth and development siphoning off grant funds needed to correct
pollution problems.  However, if adequate consideration is not given to
providing for reasonable reserve capacity, pollution problems will

                                       623

-------
reoccur with noticeable effects when facilities reach and exceed cap-
acity.  An arbitrary legislative limitation on the funding of reserve
capacity and interceptors on treatment plants is approaching the funding
problem with blinders.  I do believe that there should be reasonable
justification for reserve capacities provided and that sewer  construc-
tion to serve new development should not be funded through this program
now, but we do not believe that these concepts require new legislation.
Full phasing into the Section 201  and 208 planning activities and up-
to-date cost analysis techniques should be beneficial in providing for
better and more realistic project design.

In a general way, I oppose changing the types of projects eligible for
grants.  I say this because it would be another unsettling and dis-
ruptive step.  I agree that at this time there is not enough knowledge
about the impact of storm water runoff to fund high cost projects
when more basic waste treatment needs still  are to be met.  I believe
that the state priority systems are designed and operated so that funds
are channeled into the most urgent projects.  These priority systems
are more sensitive than broad-brush statutory exclusions.  Funding of
sewer rehabilitation and correction of infiltration and inflow also
needs careful consideration.
                                                               ~s

There seems to be universal agreement that the 1977 deadline for achiev-
ing compliance with Section 301 of the Act will  not be met in many in-
stances.  The EPA alternative suggestion calls for an extension or
retention of the 1977 deadline.  We suggest that an additional  alter-
native that the 1977 deadline be modified to a goal but not a mandatory
requirement.  This would allow the administrator or delegated states
through the NPDES program the flexibility to deal with scheduling of
compliance on a case~by-case basis, recognizing the needs of each case.
With the limits and uncertainty of Federal funding, it is senseless to
mandate a national deadline for municipal compliance.  As an alterna-
tive to this suggestion, I would be willing to support the concept of
granting to the administrator or states with NPDES program delegation
the discretion to approve compliance schedule extensions based on avail-
ability of Federal funding.

Delegation of more authority to the states for management of the con-
struction grant program is a concept we have supported from the incep-
tion of this Act.  Note that I said authority, not only responsibility
because the two must go together.  We favor the provisions of H.R. 2175
and we would be willing to phase into accepting an increasing amount
of the construction grant program work load,  I believe that the 2%
level suggested will be adequate to support such a program.  States
should be delegated any portion of the program which they are willing
to do and capable of doing.  I caution you, however, that for this

-------
approach to work, states must be given latitude to  operate a  pro-
gram overseen, not directed, by EPA and there must  be  some assurance
of continued program funding.  State agencies even  more  than  Federal
agencies are sensitive to fluctuations and program  funding levels.
Such a program will require large increases and state  staffing which
probably could not be readily absorbed if Federal funding is  cut off.
                                         625

-------
June 11, 1975

Mr. Russell Train, Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Waterside Mall West Tower
Washington, D.C.  20460

Attention:  Mr. David Sabock

Dear Mr. Train:

The Florida Institute of Consulting Engineers and Florida  Engineering
Society thank you very much for the opportunity to present comments
on the proposed PL 92-500 Amendments at the Atlanta,  Georgia  hearing,
June 9, 1975.

In accordance with my commitment to Messrs.  Rhett, Aim  & Ravan,  I  am
furnishing herein two (2) copies of our comments for  your  considera-
tion and record.  If you have questions or desire additional  input,
please contact us.

                                 Respectfully submitted,
                                 Phillip E.  Searcy
                                 For FICE/FES
PES/jw
             FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF CONSULTING ENGINEERS
                                AND
                   FLORIDA ENGINEERING SOCIETY

        COMMENTS IN REFERENCE TO EPA'S PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
                               TO
                            PL 92-500

                         ATLANTA, GEORGIA
                           June 9, 1975

Distinguished panel, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Phillip Searcy
of Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., 2131 Hollywood Boulevard,
Hollywood, Florida.  I am representing Florida Institute of Consulting
Engineers and Florida Engineering Society.  My directive for this hear-
ing was to be tactful, gracious, diplomatic and polite but  firm and
to the point.  Out of respect for the others who also want  to be heard,
I am going to skip the first group of directives and get right to the

                                        626

-------
bottom line.   We are opposed to Amendment No. 1; Amendment No. 2 is
no good; Amendment No.  3 is okay with some reservations; Amendment
No. 4 is fine if you choose the right alternative and Amendment No. 5
is great if you can really delegate.  (Note "really" is underlined.)

Amendment No. 1. Reduction of Grant %

PL 92-500 was a very positive act.  In fact, it was considered idealis-
tic in parts.  It took a struggling pollution control effort, set forth
specific goals, provided some muscle and included the very important
incentive of increased grants.  Many projects are under construction
today, many more are back-logged waiting for funds, many are in the
Step 1 and Step 2 stages and far too many have not even started yet.
Caught in the middle, are the many counties cities and communities
who have banked on the good faith of this act and its 75% grant program.
To reduce the grant amount at this time would be certain to rob the
act, EPA and the Congress of the momentum gained to date.  At the same
time, the increased local share would send many projects into economic
orbits which would eventually see the projects landing in some court-
room for determination of progress (?).  (I have a question mark after
progress.)  There is mention of reduction of the federal share to as
low as 55%.  That is an 80% increase  in the local share.  During
this period of high unemployment and economic distress, any increase
in local demands is critical.  An 80% increase would be disastrous.
The nation's sagging economy has already stopped many water pollution
control projects because politically sensitive public officials are
unwilling to thrust new sewer assessments and rate increases as addi-
tional burdens on their already over-taxed constituents.  These are
people who believe in environmental protection, many of whom have worked
long and hard to comply with state and federal programs.

The proposal  to reduce the federal share to spread the money to more
projects is based upon the assumption that additional funds will not
be forthcoming.  That assumption is the problem, and the solution is
not the reduction of grants, but rather the realignment of federal
spending.  If we are going to have a viable water pollution control
program let's quit playing "dodge ball" or "keep away" and get on with
a positive program.  I believe that is what this hearing is really
designed to achieve.  Incidentally, we believe the ratio of local/
federal share has little or no influence over accountability for cost
effective design, project management, or post-construction operation
and maintenance.  That statement is based upon a great deal of exper-
ience within the FICE with both this EPA grant program and other federal
funding programs.
                                      62

-------
Amendment No. 2, Limiting Reserve Capacity

Here, again, the problem is the assumption that federal funds will not
be available to meet the needs.  The solution again, is to realign fed-
eral spending to meet the needs.  If that is not possible, then neither
will the program be possible, at least within a reasonable period of
time.

Cost effectiveness must be the primary consideration1in determining
reserve capacity.  To set arbitrary limits in the law will automatically
narrow cost-effective determinants.  What may appear to stretch or
save federal dollars at this time may prove to make the next stage
costs unreasonably high.  There is a great need for a high level of
flexibility in sizing pollution control facilities.  We call for
faith in the ability of the design engineer, the leaders of our commu-
nities and the professional staff of the States and EPA to arrive at
proper reserve capacities.  If there are those who would take advantage
of such flexibility (and there are) EPA now has the responsibility
and the authority to control the final decision.  The California systen,
as stated in the EPA position paper, is administratively expensive.
We do not need any more administrative burdens.  We need the limited
funds that are available returned as directly as possible to the com-
munities ("returned" is underlined).

Regarding the "secondary environmental impacts of growth" that could
result from reserve capacity, we believe that issue belongs in the fam-
ily planning program and not in the water pollution control program.
We do not believe people stop to consider reserve capacity, but to do
so in this manner is considered improper.  If the people want federal
population and land-use controls then let their elected congressional
delegates establish such controls openly and directly.

Amendment No. 3, Restricting Eligibility

There is much concern and discussion in reference to incentives.  Let's
face it, for the most part communities build pollution control faci-
lities because they are required to build them.  If the cost per cus-
tomer (voter) is not too unreasonable, the communities will work with
the program.  When the cost per customer becomes too high (and no one
can predict what that breaking-point is) then the communities will fight
against the program.   Unfortunately, many believe we are rapidly
reaching that point.  The key to the per customer cost is the amount
of grant and eligibility.  Therefore, if you are to restrict projects
for eligibility then serious consideration should be given to relaxa-
tion of requirements.  Otherwise, the entire program could be thrown
in reverse by strong reaction to cost prohibitive requirements.  All
parties would lose if that happened,   r^-a

-------
      Eligibility must be tied to availability of funds.  This is done
now.   Whatever reductions are made in eligibility, if any, it is our
position that infiltration/inflow correction projects should remain
as eligible projects, subject to cost-effectiveness.   Excessive in-
filtration/inflow can have such a significant effect upon the cost,
operation and maintenance of treatment works that correction programs
should be a definite part of treatment projects.

Amendment No. 4, Extension of Compliance Deadline

It would be inequitable to simply extend the 1977 deadline to 1983.
Many communities complied in good faith.  Others have not.  Those who
have not should not be given unfair advantage.  There are some projects,
of course, which deserve additional time and the law should provide an
honorable remedy.  Alternative No. 4 presented in EPA's position paper
is considered most acceptable.  This provides authority for the admin-
istrator to grant compliance schedule extensions on an ad hoc basis
based upon the availability of federal funds.  The paper discusses
a significant funding problem associated with this alternative due to
the 75% grant  requirement for eligible projects; however, that is a
problem of funding priorities which is basic to the entire program
and one which must be faced by Congress.
        y
Amendment No. 5, Delegation of Management to States

We believe delegation of more program functions to States is healthy.
The program is bogged down today with far too much duplication of
effort.  States review project documents which are then re-reviewed
by EPA, sometimes more than once.  The communities, the federal program,
the taxpayers and the environment which we are trying to protect pay
the bill in lost time and money.  We believe administration of the
program should be as close to the people and their projects as possible.
Florida has the potential to administer the grant program in a sound
and responsible manner and we would like to see a greater delegation
of functions to the Florida program.  However, we would not like
to see "store front" or false delegation.  If the proposed delegation
is to be so closely scrutinized by EPA that states must constantly look
over their shoulders to see how they are doing, then forget it.  We
need delegation of review and approval (or certification) of all grant
documents with substantial acceptance by EPA and we need to have such
delegation extended in an honest manner.

In concluding my remarks on behalf of FICE/FES I wish to express our
appreciation for the opportunity to be heard.  Our comments are given in
a spirit of cooperation-and dedicated concern for the EPA's mission to
protect the future for the public we all try to serve.

-------
June 24, 1975

Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials
(W.H. 556) Room 1033, West Tower
Waterside Mall
401 "M" Street S.W.
Washington, D.C.  20460

Gentlement:

I concur with the testimony of John L.  Maloney given at the public
hearing, San Francisco, California, June 19,  1975.   Copy of his letter
attached.

As an industrial developer in the City  of Los Angeles,  I have spent
thousands of dollars on sewer line installation for our industrial
tracts.  For the privilege of hooking a building up to  the sewer line,
I must pay additional tens of thousands of dollars  to help the City of
Los Angeles meet your sewer treatment requirements.

If you prohibit new sewer hook ups, a badly needed  source of revenue
will also be cut off from Los Angeles to help it meet your requirements,

You are hereby requested to extend the  July,  1977,  deadline for meet-
ing water quality control standards.

                                 Respectfully submitted,

                                 SANFORD P. PARIS

SPPrrd
Enclosure
June 17, 1975

Industrial Association of the San Fernando Valley
P.O. Box 3563
Van Nuys, Calif.   91407

E.P.A. Public Hearing, S.F. Cal.
Re:  Proposed congressional legislation to be introduced circa July
31, 1975.  Potential legislation amendments to the Federal  Water Pollu-
tion Control Act.

Gentlemen:

-------
Our remarks are addressed to parenthesis four (4) as one of the pro-
posed amendments setforth, namely extending the 1977 date of meeting
water quality control standards.

Me believe this is the only proposition that should be enacted, and
it should provide for indefinite extension of the date to meet water
quality control standards.

E.P.A. has developed an embryo body of knowledge and experience in this
water quality control field during its brief existence.  It does not
appear that it has as yet learned of the economic impact of its pro-
gram on the communities affected when said program is too hastely
applied.

Herewith is our assessment of the adverse economic impact in the San
Fernando Valley community.

Jobs

Our 13 high schools, 3 colleges, and 1 university have enrollment of
over 100,000.  Almost all these students are preparing to enter the
labor market.  The workers now in the Valley labor market (approx)
300,000 will not be retiring when these students seek jobs.  What do
we do without growth?

Housing

The students, now seeking work, will nevertheless be forming family
units.  Where do we house them without growth?

Capital Investment

Our Valley industrial plant investment is $3 billion and the figure for
commercial business is much more.  What do we do if these sources of
jobs, taxes and general properties are atrophied by "no growth?"

In our opinion this is pretty much the predicament of established commu-
nities throughout the nation.

Give us time to adjust economically while a workable clean water program
is soundly developed.  By 1985 we should be able to embrace such a
program.

                                 Respectfully,

                                 John L. Maloney
                                 President

JLM/bm                                   63 i

-------
                             REMARKS
                          PUBLIC HEARING
                                ON
                 POTENTIAL LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS
                                TO
                FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
                           JUNE 9, 1975
                         Atlanta, Georgia

      These remarks are presented by David G.  Presnell,  Jr.,  100 East
Liberty, Louisville, Kentucky, President of Presnell  Associates, Inc.
and General Manager of Vollmer-Presnell-Pavlo, the Management Consul-
tant to the Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District
"Master Plan Expansion Program" which encompasses over $500 million
in sewer construction and over 700 miles of sanitary  sewers.   More
than 50 engineering firms will be involved in  this very  major project.
The positions of the Kentucky Professional Engineers  in  Private
Practice and the Consulting Engineers Council  of Kentucky are also
reflected in these remarks.
      Categorically, the following is a response to the  notice pub-
lished in the Federal Register of May 2, 1975:
      Issue No. 1 deals with a possible reduction in  the Federal  share.
The integrity of the Federal government's role in Water  Pollution Con-
trol would be impugned by these steps being taken and they would,
in fact, significantly delay - and increase the construction  cost -  of
all proposed treatment works.  The statement in the Federal Register
that "a prediction relative to the impact of a reduced federal  share
cannot be made" borders on irresponsibility by the author. We are
presently in an economic structure which finds municipalities and
states functioning with diminished revenues and eroded capabilities
to market significant bond issues.  Today's irrefutable  example of this
is, of course, New York City.
      Treatment works and interceptor sewers do not produce customers,
per se, and therefore generate no incentive for their construction.
Reduced Federal funding would specifically encourage  the continued
construction of small treatment plants and collector  sewers on a non- •
cost effective and fragmented basis  - particularly by the private
sector.
      The grantee, typically, does not presently possess sufficient
funding capabilities to properly advance a program and more importantly
any concern regarding the accountability of a  grantee would, and
should, exist under the present program. Conversely,  reductions in
funding would ultimately result in higher costs because  of the loss  in
the economy of scale.
                                        632

-------
      Issue No. 2 - Limiting Federal funding of reserve capacity is
an emotional issue and is not to be reckoned with in the realm of
proper engineering judgment.  It would be simple, and perhaps an appro-
priate filibuster, to cite - by rote - the myriad of reasons and spe-
cific examples as to the total lack of professional acumen attendant
to a zero growth design.
      120" & 72" vs. 132" - The objective cited in the Federal Register
"to induce more careful sizing and design of capacity to serve future
growth" - borders very nearly on the height of absurdity and flies in
the face of every conceivable sense of design.  This fae>  t* specifi-
cally concurred in by EPA in their statement regarding Issue No. 2,
i.e., "The limiting of eligibility for reserve capacity is not intended
to preclude the cost-effective sizing and design of the facilities.
The grantee would be permitted and, in fact, encouraged to provide
cost-effective reserve capacity, but he would be required to fund 100
percent of this capacity."  This clearly, and unequivocally, depicts
recognition by EPA that to do other than design for the future would
be haphazard and a grantee would be derelict in his duty.   This propo-
sition appears only to be a readily assailable attempt to substitute
the grantee's dollar for the Federal dollar.
      Conversely, to adopt an unassailable posture, a professional ap-
proach by EPA in the establishment of a reasonable design criteria
commensurate with controlled population projections is needed - legis-
lative change is not the answer.
      The demerits of prohibiting eligibility of growth related reserve
capacity are that it clearly is an irrational thwarting of proper
land use planning as a parallel objective of proper sewer design.
      This philosophy assumes the following:
      1.   Sound land use planning can be accomplished at the local
           level, with appropriate legislative jurisdiction to en-
           force this planning.
      2.   EPA does not, and should not, have authority to perform
           or oversee land use planning at the local level.
      3.   The science of land use planning has not reached the nec-
           essary sophistication to precisely predict developement
           trends 20 years hence and, practically speaking, this can
           only be accomplished by an increased clairvoyancy on the
           part of planners.
      Staging treatment plant works by 10-year increments may be a
reasonable position — attendant with the assumption that funding
will, in fact, be available when expansion is needed,
      It seems a "10/20", or "10/25", design program can be a reason-
able approach to the problem of pverdesign - as long as EPA allows
this design period to be measured from when construction is predicted
in the facilities plan for various segments of a treatment works.  This
is to say, however, that the time frame for the design of a s-pecific
segment should be 20 years from its anticipated construction  period,

-------
rather than the current EPA policy of designing a multi-year program
as if it were all to be constructed simultaneously.
      Issue No. 3 - This issue addresses restrictions on the types of
projects eligible for grant assistance.  Perhaps the single-most sig-
nificant statement is that the need for a facility does not rise and
fall based on the source of funding.  The feasibility does, of course,
change and sometimes this results in the construction of a less needed
facility because it has become financially feasible to construct.  Gen-
erally, a grantee is under considerable duress to build treatment plants
and interceptors with available Federal funds because his fiscal  needs
outweigh the inflow of Federal funds and, because of this fact of
life, funding for certain elements - such as collector sewers, is
not sought.
      The question has been raised as whether there is adequate local
incentive to undertake the required investment in certain types of
facilities - even in the absence of federal financial assistance.  If
eligibility is limited to interceptor and treatment plants, it will  be-
come imperative that grantees make appropriate investments in collection
systems in order to provide a complete system.  Collection systems
are the easiest type of facility to show a direct cost-to-service re-
lationship, therefore, the ability to finance directly is much simpler.
Nonetheless, adequate legislation giving the authority to the locali-
ties for such construction must be available.
      Storm water facilities and the correction of combined sewer over-
flows and infiltration/inflow problems could probably never be financed
through local financial capabilities.  Therefore, any local incentive
may be totally outweighed by fiscal constraints from other, completely
unrelated, programs.
      Issue No. 4 discusses extending the 1977 date for the publicly-
owned pretreatment works to meet water quality standards.  It seems
inconsistent for Congress to impose any deadline for achievement and
then have the President freeze the funding necessary to meet the
deadline.  Congress, therefore,should consider passing legislation
with the following provisions:
      1.   Establish a new deadline which can reasonably be met,
      2.   Provide the funding level necessary to finance meeting this
           deadline,
      3.   Place restrictions on the Presidential power to restrict
           funding, and
      4.   Place restrictions on EPA which will enforce the elimination
           of the myriad of red tape and initiate a realistic program
           to get sewers in the ground and treatment plants constructed
           without the present undue delays.

      This entire section in the Federal Register discusses the failure
of grantees to meet their deadlines because of funding problems and lack

-------
of compliance by the grantees.  It is high time to ferret out the
real culprit - the program itself.  If the nation is really serious
about water quality, the present significant delays and stumbling
blocks at EPA must be deliberately deleted from the program implemen-
tation.
      This public hearing should be a forum to help us to strive to-
gether in streamlining both fiscally and administratively - the imple-
mentation of Public Law 92-500.
      Simultaneous to the efforts to modify P.L. 92-500, efforts are
being diligently pursued by EPA to establish "Minimum Standards for
Procurement'Under EPA Grants - Federal Register, Friday, May 9, 1975."
These proposed regulations become another roadblock in the pursuit of
pollution abatement, build in new bureaucratic bottlenecks,increase
the cost to grantees, and establish procedures which can be expected  >
to cause project delays of up to two years or more - with attendant
increases in construction cost by as much as 25 percent.
      Issue No. 5 - Delegating a greater portion of the management of
the construction grants program to the states.  The ultimate delega-
tion of administrative authority would clearly be the most efficient.
This should be funded over and above the state's funding, as it would
reduce the EPA cost of administering the program.  EPA and the state
should jointly agree on the priority system and establish necessary   .
policy.  Then, all other administrative functions should be provided
by the state - with EPA serving in an overview capacity.  Consider also
that the state should in turn be allowed to further delegate the
plan review authority to the local agencies where adequate staff and
expertise is available.  EPA's role should only be in the proper
disbursement of funds to the state and the appropriate review of the
treatment works constructed in the field.  The Federal Highway Adminis-
tration has been generally successful in this type of role.  The final
proof of the pudding is not how much administration and bureaucracy can
be involved, but how well water quality can be improved.
      Efforts of EPA should be directed during such a transition per-
iod to assisting states in the establishment of proper staffs and pro-
grams to insure uniformity in the implementation of the program.
      Thank you for the opportunity to make these remarks.
                                       635

-------
June 16, 1975

Mr. David Sabock
Grants Administration Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.   20460

Dear Mr. Sabock:

I am presenting the statement today at the direction of the members
of the Professional Engineers in Private Practice Section of the Kan-
sas Engineering Society and the Kansas Consulting Engineers' Council.

I welcome the opportunity to provide input and comments regarding the
proposed amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control  Act.   I
realized that there would be several persons appearing  to present state-
ments; and, therefore, I have attempted to be brief in  my comments.
This is a summary statement, and we may choose to present more detailed
and specific written comments at a later date.
                                 Very truly yours,
                                 Frank Eaton
                                 Chairman
FE/daw
                        Position Statement
                                of
          The Professional Engineers in Private Practice
             Section of the Kansas Engineering Society
                                and
             The Kansas Consulting Engineer's Council
                         for Presentation
                                at
                 EPA Public Hearing on June 17, 1975
                       Kansas City, Missouri

Members of the above professional societies have met and  reviewed the
material presented in the May 28, 1975 Federal Register entitled
"Municipal Waste Treatment Grants" and subdivided into designations
"Papers No. 1 through 5".  We present the following statements relative
to each of these papers.

Paper No. 1 - Reduction of the Federal Share

In our opinion the reduction in the amount of the Federal share would
inhibit the construction of the needed facilities and would delay the
                                         638

-------
meeting of the goals of Public Law 92-500.  Local governments have
generally adopted the criteria and water quality standards promulgated
by the EPA in expectation of a promised high level of Federal funding.
To reduce the level of Federal funding at this time would not be keep-
ing faith with the local governments, and would seriously endanger
local planning where local funding has been completed but Federal  fund-
ing not allocated.

Paper No. 2 - Limiting Federal Funding of Reserve Capacity to Serve
              Projected Growth.

Anything less than a reasonable reserve capacity in treatment plants
and interceptor sewers would be unsound economics.  The incremental
additional cost is small relative to future cost of parallel  units.
A reasonable reserve capacity cannot be described by a "10/20"
program or by any other fixed time program.  What is reasonable for
one city is not necessarily reasonable for another.  What is  reason-
able for a large metropolitan area is not necessarily reasonable for
a city of 5,000 or 10,000 population.  Reserve capacity should be eval-
uated upon the most cost effective approach for each project.

A reasonable reserve capacity should be included in Federal funding.
100% funding of reserve capacity by local governments will bring pres-
sures for under design, and result in greater future problems.

Paper No. 3 - Restricting the Types of Projects Eligible for  Grant
              Assistance.

Restriction of the types of projects eligible for grant assistance
and yet maintaining the existing guide lines for water quality can
create great inequities in grant assistance.  All projects are gener-
ally alike, but all projects are individually different.  Another may
require treatment plus inflow correction.  Yet another may require
treatment, inflow correction and combined sewer overflow correction.
Restricting eligibility by type of project can result in doing only a
part of the job and failing to meet the goals.

Paper No. 4 - Extending 1977 Date for the Publicly Owned Treatment
              Works to Meet Water Quality Standards.

It is of course obvious that direct action must be taken to extend
the 1977 deadline.  Of the alternatives presented in the May 28 Federal
Register, that presenting the greatest fairness to the American people
is to seek statutory amendments that would maintain the 1977 date but
would provide the administrator with discretion to grant compliance
                                          637

-------
schedule extensions on an ad  hoc  basis based upon the availability
of Federal  funds.

Paper No. 5 - Delegating a Greater  Portion of the Management of the
              Construction Grants Program to the States

We support the passage of bill  HR 2175 with EPA activities confined to
overall policy making and auditing  of the grant program.
                                           636

-------
June 23, 1975

Mr. David Sabock
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W. (WH 556)
Washington, D.C.  20460

Re:  Federal Register, Wednesday, May 28, 1975
     Page 23107, et al Section entitled "MUNICIPAL WASTE TREATMENT
     GRANTS FRL-39-8"

Dear Mr. Sabock:

The following is a statement of concern by the Sanitary District of
Rockford regarding Papers No. 1, 2, and 3:

During the decade of the 1960's, the Rockford Urban Area faced tremen-
dous growth and industrial development.  This development placed many
additional burdens on the Sanitary District.  The additional burdens
centered upon increased volume of sewage water and increase in the con-
taminate level of that sewage water.  This development posed immediate
and costly issues that had to be addressed during the early part of
the 1970's.  As I am sure you are aware, the changing nature of
requirements placed additional and costly burdens on sewage treatment
facilities due to increased standards.

Paper No. 1 - Reduction of the Federal Share

In order to meet the demands of both the urban areas and the state and
federal regulations, the Sanitary District of Rockford voters, on
April 3, 1973, approved a $15,000,000 bond referendum to be the local
share of a $62,500,000 overall program.  This program includes addi-
tions and improvements to present plant facilities, supplemental in-
terceptor lines, and construction of new interceptor lines in expanding
areas of the Rockford Metropolitan Area.

The bond referendum was passed on the premise that the $15,000,000
was to be the matched share with a federal and state participation level
of 75%.  It can be readily seen that if the federal share were to be
reduced to 55%, a large portion of the renovation and plant expansion
would not be realized.

Paper No. 2 - Limiting Federal Funding of Reserve Capacity to Serve
              Projected Growth

It is difficult for the Sanitary District of Rockford to understand
limiting to twenty years the reserve capacity of interceptors in ex-
panding urban areas where potential exceeds a normal twenty years

-------
projected growth.  The justification of interceptor design for a capa-
city greater than twenty years may properly request documentation ex-
ceeding that necessary for less than twenty years.  Thus, a case can
be made that by providing proper guidelines, interceptors may be de-
signed in areas, such as Rockford, where growth direction may be fore-
cast, based upon past and present land use development.  This would be
true especially in areas having well developed and detailed micro land
use planning programs.

If a twenty year design requirement were to be enacted, areas such
as the Rockford Urban Area would constantly be supplementing interceptors,
Past design work has enabled the Rockford Sanitary District to operate
fifty years with supplementation.

Paper No. 3 - Restricting the Types of Projects Eligible for Grant
              Assistance

Please refer in part to statements made concerning Paper No. 1, speci-
fically, those dealing with the overall need of the Sanitary District
of Rockford.  The voters of the Rockford Urban Area in accepting a
significant financial burden, moved to improving all  aspects of their
sewerage treatment facilities.  The overall cost of such a project is
significant and beyond the means of the Rockford urban area to fund.
For the state and federal governments to change funding programs pre-
viously promulgated is a break of faith and commitment which they in
effect are committed to pursuant to the passage of Public Law 92-500.
The Rockford voters cognizant of the federal commitment to that law,
and in an effort to solve their own water quality problems, met the
commitment necessary to participate in the spirit of the program.

A reduction in Federal participation would reduce the Rockford Urban
Area's ability to meet the needs of its growing urban areas and the
regulatory requirements forced upon that area by the state and feder-
al governments.  In order for the federal government to rescind its
commitment in type of projects eligible for funding,  it then should
be willing to rescind significant parts of its standards and regulatory
processes.  The program as proposed by Public Law 92-500 was an aggre-
gate and to eliminate some of the parts would not allow the objectives
of the aggregate to be met.  Thus, reductions in federal support levels
and categories of the types of eligible projects would restrict the
ability of local government to meet the dictums of water pollution
control.

Paper No. 4 - Extending 1977 Date for the Publicly Owned Pretreatment
              Works to Meet Water Quality Standards

The Sanitary District of Rockford is in favor of Paper No. 4, and feels
the date should be extended due to the technical nature of the problems
                                         64 U

-------
faced and the length of construction time necessary to build necessary
capital  equipment.

Paper No. 5 - Delegating a Greater Portion of the Management of the
              Construction Grants Program to the States

The Sanitary District of Rockford feels that significant efforts should
be undertaken to improve the grants program so that funds can be pro-
cessed and awarded in a more orderly and speedier manner.  To delegate
the authority to the states is an acceptable means, but there should
be requirements as to performance and managing the grants.  The federal
government should also have the responsibility of maintaining the per-
formance standards and auditing the programs on a regular basis.

Thank you, Mr. Coordinator, for your presentation and reviewing of
this letter.  Upon request, I stand ready as District Manager to ex-
pound and to present evidence for any of the enclosed information.

                                 Sincerely,

                                 THE SANITARY DISTRICT OF ROCKFORD

                                 Jon L. Olson
                                 District Manager

JLO:nm

-------
June 26, 1975
Mr. James L. Agee
Assistant Administrator
Water and Hazardous Materials (WH-556)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Room 1033, West Tower
Waterside Mall
401 M Street, S. W.
Washington D. C.  20460

Dear Mr. Agee:

In accordance with the notice contained in the Federal Register of
May 2, 1975 concerning five specific amendments to P.L. 92-500 I
wish to submit comments as president of the Rocky Mountain Water
Pollution Control Association.  Comments concerning each of the
five proposed amendments are as follows:

      1.  A Reduction of the Federal Share of Construction Costs

          It is recommended that the federal share of construction
          costs be reduced from 75% of eligible construction costs
          to 55% of eligible construction costs.  The smaller fed-
          eral share will make it possible for available federal
          funds to stretch farther and help finance considerably
          more construction.  The federal construction grant program
          for wastewater treatment facilities was successful during
          the period 1956 through 1972 when the federal share ranged
          from 30% to 55%, so the return to a lower federal share
          should improve the facilities construction program.

      2.  Limiting Federal Financing to Serving the Needs of Exist-
          ing Population

          This proposed amendment would be unfair to those areas
          which are subject to a considerable amount of migration
          into the area from other parts of the country.  This pro-
          posed amendment also would probably result in the con-
          struction of inadequate facilities and also result in
          inadequate fiscal planning.  This in turn would result
          in pollution problems caused from overloaded sewer and
          wastewater treatment facilities.  It is thus recommended
          that this amendment not be approved.

      3.  Restricting the Types of Projects Eligible for Grant
          Assistance

          jt                       6^2

-------
          Cblfection system construction  and  rehabilitation  have his-
          torically been financed  by  the direct  beneficiaries of such
          systems, namely the property owners.   The construction of
          collection systems has historically been paid by  special
          assessments against abutting property,  by developers of
          land and the individual  purchasers of  properties.  The
          treatment of stormwaters according to  the 1974 EPA Needs
          Survey would be too costly  to  consider seriously, and the
          benefits of stormwater treatment are at best questionable.
          It is thus recommended that this proposed amendment be
          adopted by Congress to limit federal construction grants
          to interceptor sewers and treatment facilities, with re-
          placement of collector sewer system segments to be eligible
          for construction grants  only under extreme circumstances of
          adverse public health or environmental  degradation.

      4.  Extending proposed amendment is reasonable because of the
          many administrative delays  caused by PL 92-500 and the
          National Environmental Policy  Act.  Construction funds
          have been available from the federal government under
          only limited conditions, and the multitude of adminis-
          trative delays have made the 1977 date  unattainable.   The
          benefit to the waters of the nation during the past 20
          years has been much greater than normally publicized,
          and for these reasons the extension of  the 1977 date
          for compliance is recommended.

      5.  Delegating a Greater Portion of the Management of the
          Construction Grants Program to the States

          The approval of this amendment by Congress would result in
          less delays to facilities construction  because of the an-
          ticipated decrease in administrative delays if the states
          would administer the construction grants program.  State
          personnel have considerably better insight into local
          water pollution abatement problems than EPA personnel,
          and with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
          System management being taken  over by most states, better
          coordination of the NPDES management and construction
          grants management would be  accomplished with the approval
          of this amendment.   For these  reasons it is recommended
          that this amendment be approved for Congressional consider-
          ation.

I appreciate the opportunity to submit these comments, and I hope
they will receive your consideration.
                                       ,    Yours  very truly,
                                           /s/ wniiam E. Korbitz, P.E,
                                           President
WEK/gh  cc:   Executive Committee, RMWPCA

-------
                       NORTHERN CALIFORNIA
                  REGIONAL CONSERVATION COMMITTEE

                     Water Resources Division

                                           Reply to:
                                           232 Hi 11 view Avenue
                                           Los Altos, Ca.  94022

                                           1 July 1975
Mr Davis Sabock
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, Southewest
Washington, D. C.  20460

Dear Mr. Sabock:
                    Proposed Amendments to the
         Federal Water Pollution Control  Act Amendments of 1972
                                              •*
The following comments are to be included in the record of the
public hearings on the proposed amendments that were held  throughout
the country from 9-29 June 1975.  While Mr.  Peter Zars has subnitted
official Sierra Club testimony, the following is merely an addendum
to his remarks.

We believe that it is necessary to speak in strong support of
a particulat requirement of PL 92-500 that is presently under attack.
Specifically, we refer to the provision that generally restricts the
use of ad valorem taxes for the financing of wastewater treatment
plants and their operation.  The user fee is the fair and  equitable
approach to service charges.  Use of ad valorem taxes would eliminate
the incentive for large industrial users to reduce their discharges
of pollutants (to the sewer system) by means of good housekeeping,
internal process changes, and pre-treatment.

Perhaps of greater significance, the use of ad valorem taxes
would greatly reduce the incentive for industrial —and, in some
cases, residential and commercial—conservation of water.   If waste-
water user charges are proportional, or at least partly proportional,
to water use, there will be a tendency to conserve water,   Although
such considerations have always been of concern to most Californians,
conservation of water is becoming increasingly important across the
nation.  Controversies regarding additional  water supplies for cities
such as Washington and New York could become moot with significant
strides towards water conservation.

-------
Although the Environmental Portection Agency has no mandate to
conserve water, it certainly should be interested in minimizing
the amounts of water to be pumped and treated in increasingly expen-
sive treatment plants.  Energy savings could be significant if
year-round discharges to all sewer systems were reduced by even
10 percent.

Thany you for your consideration of this matter.  Please let us
know when copies of the hearing record are available.

                                           Yours very truly,
                                           /s/ Jane 0. Baron,
                                           Co-chairperson
                                           Water Resources Division

cc:  Mr. Paul DeFalco, Jr.
     Mr. John Rhett
     Mr. Peter Zars

-------
July 3, 1975
Mr. James L Agee
Assistant Administrator for Water
 and Hazardous Materials
Environmental Protection Agency
Room 1033, West Tower
Waterside Mall
401 M Street, S. W.
Washington, D. C.  20460

      Re:  Public Hearing on Potential Legislative Amendments
           to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act

Dear Mr. Agee:

In connection with the public hearings that have recently been
held on potential legislative amendments to the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act, it is noted that the hearing record is to be
held open until the close of business on July 7, 1975, for considera-
tion of any written comments recieved by that date.  This letter will
constitute the written comments on behalf of the County of San Joaquin,
a county of the State of California, and on behalf of the San Joaquin
County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, which is a
district embracing the entire area of the County of San Joaquin, and
governed ex-officio by the Board of Supervisors of the County of San
Joaquin.  This statement is also submitted on behalf of several county
maintenance districts which have been organized under and pursuant to
the Improvement Act of 1911, and particularly Sections 5820-5856, in-
clusive, of the Streets and Highways Code, all of which maintenance
districts are also governed ex-officio by the Board of Supervisors
of the County of San Joaquin,  This statement is submitted pursuant
to the direction of the Board of Superivsors.

On the proposal to reduce the federal share for construction
grants from the current level of 75% to a level as low as 55%, we are
opposed to any such proposed reduction.  If this porposal were to apply
to projects presently funded it would increase the cost to the
local government by an amount or approximately $357,200.00.  This
added burden would be very difficult for the local taxpayers to bear.

As for the proposal to limit the amount of reserve capacity
that would be eligible for construction grant assistance from the
federal government, we are also opposed to this proposal. Although
this proposal would not substantially increase the cost to local
                                 61*6

-------
taxpayers,-it would tend to limit provisions for planned growth in
that any funding of excess capacity would be solely at'local
espense.  In many instances, it would be more economical from the
long range point of view to provide for reserve capacity when
constructing a project.    ••    f
       f   -4   -<        ,-.   „>   ^    f  v,
As for proposal No. 3 which raises the issue of whether there
shouW be a restriction on the types of projects eligible for
construction grant funding, we are also opposed to this.  There
are other, provisions that may be relied upon to restrict eligible
projects.  For example, a system could be adopted by that state
which would, in effect, limit the types of projects to be funded.

As to the issue of whether the law should be amended to extend i
the existing date of July 1, 1977, by which publicly owned treatment
works are to achieve compliance with the requirements of Section 301
of the Statute, you have set forth five possible alternatives.. We
would be opposed to both alternatives one and two, and we believe
that alternatives three and four also present certain difficulties.
As a matter of principle, it is not advisable to vest any adminis-
trator with a broad discretion.  In this instance in particular
the EPA Administrator and his Regional Administrators would well
be swamped with applications for extension, all of which would
have to be examined with the attendant necessary paper work and
delay.  We believe, therefore, that the fifth alternative, which
is to seek a statutory extension of the 1977 deadline to 1983 and
require compliance regardless of federal funding, is, therefore,
the best.  Any strict adherence to the present time table will
undoubtedly create severe economic hardship throughtout the
country and especially in rural counties such as San Joaquin
which is already experiencing a depressed economy.  Our only
difficulty.with this fifth alternative is that portion of the
alternative which would require compliance regardless of federal
funding.  In order to meet the proposed 1983 deadline it still
may be necessary insofar as the financial situation of a local
agency is concerned to have federal funding.  Otherwise the deadline
could nto be met.

As for the proposal to delegate a greater number of  functions
and responsibilities directly to the states with EPA assuming
more of an overview role, we strongly support this proposed
delegation.  Already in California there has been a substantial
delegation to the  State, and it is working out quite satisfactorily.
We believe that this should be extended and supported.

-------
Anything to eliminate duplication of the administration and
duplication of the staff work is desirable from the point of view
of all persons concerned.

We thank you for the opportunity to submit these comments and
would appreciate being advised of any action that may be taken
in regard to this matter.

                                           Very truly yours,
                                           /s/Adrian C. Fondse
                                           Chairman

AFC/pm
cc:  Advisory Water Commission
     County Counsel
     Mr. William J. Ward
     Mr. A. N. Murray
                                    6
-------
July 3, 1975
Mr. James Agee  *
Assistant Administrator
Mater and Hazardous Materials
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C.
                            Re:  E. P. A. Administration Proposals'
                                 to Amend the Federal Water
                                 Pollution Control Act
Dear Mr. Agee:
On June 17, 1975 your agency held a public hearing at Kansas
City, Missouri for the purpose of obtaining public reaction to the
potential legislative amendments to the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act.  Papers listing the potential legislative changes
were published in the May 28,1975 Federal Register.  The Spring-
field Director of Public Works, Mr. David G. Snider, attended
the hearing at Kansas City and commented on the proposed
changes in P.L. 92-500.  This letter  is to restate and expand on
Mr. Snider's comments.

The City of Springfield currently has two major wastewater
treatment plant expansion projects underway.  The Springfield
Northwest Wastewater Treatment PI and Addition project will have
a total cost of approximately two million dollars while the
Southwest Wastewater Treatment Plant Additions project will cost
approximately forty million dollars.  Both of these projects were
funded with 75% federal funds, 15% state funds, and 10% local
funds.  Interceptor sewers are also presently under design
to serve growth areas of Springfield not now served by the
Springfield sanitary sewer system.  It is estimated that construc-
tion of these interceptor sewers will cost more than twenty million
dollars.  It is, therefore, evident that changes in P.L. 92-500
will drastically affect the City of Springfield in its plans for
expansion and improvement to the sanitary sewer system.

Paper No. 1 - Reduction of the Federal Share.

Reduction of the federal share of eligible projects from 75% to
55% or any reduction from 75% will certainly delay the construction
of needed facilities in the City of Springfield, Missouri.
Although both of our plant expansion projects are under construc-
tion of interceptor sewers which are needed to replace small
improperly operated wastewater treatment facilities.  The City
of Springfield does not have surplus funds available to pay more
than the 10% local share and, in fact, we have geared our sewer

                                    61*3

-------
use charge to finance only 10% of the construction cost of the
interceptor sewers.   It is very doubtful that bonds would be
voted by the citizens of the city to finance the additional 20%
local cost if the federal share was reduced to 55%.

This paper also listed the issue "Would the reduced federal share
lead to greater accountability on the part of the grantee for
cost effective design, project management, and post construction
operation and maintenance".  These considerations have always
been important to the City of Springfield and we don't feel that
our review of the design of our wastewater facilities could or
would be any more critical if the federal share in these projects
is decreased.

It is felt that the proposed reduction in the federal share will
have a significant impact on water quality and meeting the goals
of P.L. 92-500.  In Springfield this will mean that some improperly
operated and overloaded wastewater treatment plants will continue
to be used much longer than if 75% federal funding was continued.

Paper No. 2 - Limiting Federal Funding of Reserve Capacity to
Serve Projected Growth.

The proposal to limit federal funding of reserve capacity to
serve ten (10) years of growth for treatment plants and twenty
(20) years for sewers will cause many communities, including
Springfield, Missouri, to design and construct sewage facilities
for only the reserve capacity which is federally funded.  In
most cases this is not the most cost effective design and will    ,
cause increased costs to the taxpayers in just a few years.  If
communities had the local funds, they could, of course, construct
the sewage facilities to serve the ultimate population of this
area, but, unfortunately, this is not the case with most communities.

The limitation on federal funding could cause a 15 inch trunk
sewer to be built parallel to a 60 inch trunk sewer twenty (20)
years after the 60 inch sewer was constructed.  If the necessary
reserve capacity had been built into the initial trunk sewer,
the cost would have been much less.  The construction problems
in paralleling trunk sewers after the area is nearly fully
developed, or increasing  the capacity of a treatment plant every
ten (10) years, should also be considered in the evaluation of
this proposed amendment.

Paper No. 3 - Restricting the Types of Projects Eligible for Grant
Assistance.


                                650

-------
It is our opinion that construction grant funding should be limited
to certain types of projects.  Those types of projects which we
feel are most necessary in meeting the goals of P.L.92-500
are Secondary Treatment Plants, Tertiary Treatment Plants
(where necessary), Interceptor Sewers, Correction of Sewer
Infiltration/Inflow and Treatment or Control of Stormwaters.
These types of projects are chosen, of course, because of
Springfield's own unique water quality problems but would
seem to be priority projects in most communities.

Paper No. 4 - Extending 1977 Date for the Publicly Owned Treatment
Works to Meet Water Quality Standards.

It is evident that the effluent limitations necessary to achieve
compliance with Section 301 of P. L. 92-500 cannot be attained
by most commutities by July 1, 1977.  Even though Springfield,
Missouri has a construction project underway to meet these
effluent limitations, the project will not be completed by July 1,
1977.  It is, therefore, felt that the E. P. A.  Regional
Administrator should have the authority to grant compliance
schedule extensions based upon the availability of Federal funds
and the communities1 good faith efforts to build the necessary
facility.

Paper No. 5 - Delegating a Greater Portion of the Management of
the Construction Grants Porgram to the States.

The City of Springfield has had very excellent cooperation and
assistance from both the Region VII E. P. A. and the Missouri
Clean Water Commission personnel in our efforts to receive the
construction grants necessary  to correct our water quality
problems.  If the State of Missouri would be given additional
authority in this construction grant program, it will be necessary
that additional qualified staff be hired.  Their existing staff
is not sufficient to handle this very vital program.

I appreciate the opportunity to give you our thoughts about       \
the proposed amendments to P. L. 92-500.  I hope the above
comments,are helpful to you in determining the effect these
changes would have on Springfield's efforts in achieving the
goals of P.L.92-500.
                                 Very truly yours,
                                 /s/ Don G. Busch
                                 City manager
RRS:cc   ;
cc:  Mr Lonnie Mines, Federal Projects Coodinator,
     Public Works File

                                     65i

-------
June 26, 1975
Mr. James L. Agee
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Hazardous Material
Room 1033, West Tower
Waterside Mall
401 M Street
S. W. Washington, D. C.  20460

Re:  Written comments for Public Hearing Held June 19, 1975 -
     San Francisco, Califronia.

Dear Mr. Agee:

The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors acting in their capacity
as Board of Directors for numerous County service areas and
County sanitation districts, has by resolution directed me to
submit written comments for inclusion on potential legislative
amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

The County of Sonoma did not submit oral or written comments
at the public hearing on June 19, 1975.  However, a member of
my staff was in attendance and has reported excerpts of the
testimony.  I am aware that all five papers, as prepared by
your office for public review, were thoroughly discussed by the
many participating agencies.  Rather than submit new testimony,
it is the County of Sonoma'a desire to support the oral and
written testimony submitted by Mr. William Dendy, Executive
Officer, State Water Resources Control Board.

Mr. Dendy supported the retention of the current 75% Federal
Grant support on all eligible projects.  We concur with this
recommendation and would also agree with the State's policy of
restricting the maximum eligible items on the basis of the
State Department of Transportation's population projection.

Mr. Dendy also supported the retention of all present eligibel
types of projects, and particularly referred to the need for
providing Grant eligibility for collection systems in unsewered
communities with verified potential health problems.  He noted
that the amount of Grant funds required to provide collector
sewer systems in eligible communities is less than 1% of the
present State of California Grant funding.

Sonoma County strongly supports the continuation of the col-
lector sewer system eligibility since the septic tank effluent

-------
from our rural unsewered areas, where  former logging, agricul-
tural and recreation communities are now being utilized by full
time families, is overloading the  soil  leaching systems.

The accumulation of a relatively high  density of septic tank
leaching systems in these types of communities has resulted in
the prohibition of any new  improvements within four speicific
rural areas in Sonoma County.  The cost for the treatment
facilities including the collection sewer system in all four
of these communities, exceeds the  assessed value of all land
and improvements, and in one case  the  construction cost is more
than double the current assessed value.  This financial impact
necessitates  the continuation of the grant program, whereby
smaller communities are able to construct sewage systems.

The hearing officers at the June 19th  public hearing questioned
particular participants regarding  the  need for the eligibility
of the collector sewer systems.  In the cases where the parti-
cipant answered negative, I believe you will note that the
respondent represented urban areas where this type of project
is not needed.  We request  your consideration of Mr. Dendy's
report as providing an overall equitable testimony which repre-
sents the entire state.

Mr; Dendy's comment on papers No.  4 (extending 1977 date for
secondary treatment plants), and paper No. 5 (delegating manage-
ment of the construction grant program to the State), are
"in conformance with our recommendations.  Our recent experience,
with the State administering the Step  1, Step 2, and Construction
Grants, has been encouraging.  The staff of the State Clean
Water Grant Program has expedited  all  recent applications
and has not been a party to extending  the review and approval
period as had been experienced in  applications submitted in
prior years.  I appreciate  the opportunity to participate in
this public hearing process, and am looking forward to reading
E.P.A.'s final recommendations.

Donald B. Head
Director of Public Works
/s/ Hal E. Wood
Civil Engineer III
HEW/fb
cc:  Paul De  Falco
     William  Dendy
                                  65J

-------
      My name is Robert C. Levy, City Engineer of San Francisco.
There are five major areas of PL 92-500 according to the position
papers set forth by 0. M. B.  I would like to discuss these
proposed changes briefly and how they would affect the Water
Pollution Control Program in the City and County of San Francisco.
      I would also like to add some suggestions on how the law
might be amended or clarified in areas of more immediate concern
to the City and County of San Francisco.                     s:
      I.  The proposal to reduce the federal share of grants would
          have a detrimental effect on the already slow progress
          of the program.

          Parts of PL 92-500 were adopted in order to compensate
          for the previously inadequate or non-existant federal
          funding.  Reducing this share would only be a step back-
          ward.  Assuming the enforcement requirements of the per-
          mit system were left unchanged, the cities would be re-
          quired to carry a larger share of the capital  cost thereby
          adding another demand on an already strained municipal
          bond market.   The City's limited resources and the growing
          demands for funds by other high-priority porgrams to
          provide needed services cast a doubt on our ability to
          assume an increased share of the funding burden.

      II. Limiting the federal funding of reserve capacity to serve
          projected growth would have little effect on the City
          and County of San Francisco since all population pro-
          juctions available show little or no growth over the next
          30 years.  However, some provision should be made to
          guarantee existing capacity funding even when that
          capacity includes wet weather and to provide capacity
          for historical trends in per capita water consumption
          and the highly transient tourist and commuter popula-
          tions for which most Central cities provide sewerage
          service.

     III. Restricting the types of projects eligible for grant
          assistance would have a disastrous effect on cities like
          San Francisco with combined sewerage systems.   It has
          just been this year that the release of impounded
          federal funds has allowed the State to place combined
          sewer projects in a category that will be funded.  In
          cities like San Francisco with combined sewerage systems,;
          the dry weather and wet weather planning and construction
          are interrelated and often inseparable.  Restriction of

-------
          this type would cause lengthy delay in solving wet
       ...  weather problems and non-cost-effective construction of
       ,   dry weather,only facilities.  If both were fully inter-
          grated and funded it would result in year-round water
          quality improvement at an overall savings to the taxpayer.
          In addition, the pollution effects from combined flow
          bypasses in wet weather can approximate that of dry weather.

     IV.  Extending the 1977 date for the publicly owned treatment
          works to meet water quality standards appears to be a
          necessity  in some cases.  San Francisco will not
          reach substantial secondary treatment until 1980 or 1981,
          and I am sure many other communities have the same
          problem.  I'm sure when P.L.;92-500 was passed no one
          envisioned the mountain  of red tape required to comply
          with the requirements of not only PL 92-500 but many
          other federal and State laws which use the grant
          program for incentive such as NEPA, the Uniform
          Relocation Act, the Historical Monument Preservation Act
          even the National Flood Insurance Progran, CEQA.
          An example is the Yerba Buena project in San Francisco.
          In our own case, as I'm sure is the case with other
          urban cities* available land is either non-existant
          or at a premium and the prospect of removing more land
          from the tax roles, relocating businesses, and residents
          sometimes to other cities raised much community
          opposition and slows the progress considerable.  Some
          special consideration should be given to cities with
          these problems by extending the 1977 deadline to something
          more realistic.

      v.  San Francisco, as most other cities in California, has
          a good working relationship with the State Water Resources
          Control Board and would endorse a greater delegation of
          the Construction Grant Program management to the State
          since it is most familiar with our local problems.
          However, increased staffing should be provided with the
          increased responsibility and a corresponding decrease
          in the amount of EPA review and approvals or nothing  will
          be gained from such delegation.

      Other possible amendments to PL 92-500 which San Francisco
would endorse include a use of Ad Valorem tax to support the
Revenue Program in lieu of an increased user charge and industrial
recovery.  Supporting the program through Ad Valorem tax gives
the homeowner the advantage of the deduction from federal taxes
                                    65b

-------
whereas a user charge does not, and savings can be effected by
the semi-annual collection along with property taxes.   The indus-
trial payback will create an accounting nightmare for  the various
grant applicants arid industry, through property taxes  and source
control is already doing its share.

      Finally, action is needed to clarify the degree  of treatment
necessary for wet weather overflows and combined sewerage overflows.
The law is not clear on whether or not secondary treatment is
required for these overflows.  Cost effective treatment can in
most cases be provided at something less than secondary treatment
for combined sewage overflow.

      This concludes my remarks and I will submit a copy for the
record.
                                   658

-------
June 10, 1975
Mr. David Sabock
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials
Room 1033, West Tower
Waterside Mall
401 M Street, S. W.
Washington, D. C.   20460

Dear Mr. Sabock:

We are advised by EPA Region IV (Joseph R. Franzmathes,P.E.) of
proposed Atlanta public hearings on amendments to Public Law
92-500.  Mr. Franzmathes advises that the Federal Register of
May 23 provides additional information I'd appreciate your
sending me a copy of the changes.

Based on information now in hand, I'd like to offer the following
comments.

      1.  No reduction(from 100%) in the federal share for
          208 planning grants should be considered.  For the
          first time in urban public works legislation, the
          Congress has provided a responsive, comprehensive
          planning program addressed to the management and
          institutional fundamentals of plan implementation.
          Planning under Section 208 effectively addresses the
          question of urban growth versus facility development.
          These comprehensive planning approaches should be
          encouraged through continued 100 percent funding.

      2.  The Section 208 program under Public Law 92-500 should
          be expanded to include all urban areas interested
          in and perceiving a need for the program (rather than
          the SMSA-centered urban regions).  The reasons for
          extending the program to smaller communities are
          the same as in Item 1 above.

Thank you for whatever attention may be given to the above.  We
request that these comments be made part of the Atlanta Region
Hearing.

                               Very truly yours,
                               /s/  Charles C. Shimpeler,P.E., Principal
CCS:ve
cc:  Mr. Joseph R. Franzmathes

                                       65Y

-------
June 13, 1975
The Honorabel Jacob K. Javits
United States Senate
Senate Office Building
Washington, D. C.  20510

Dear Senator Javits:

It is my understanding that the United States Environmental
Protection Agency is considering proposals which would increase
the local taxpayers share of water pollution abatement costs.
Among these proposals is one which would revise the Federal grant
percentage from the present 75% to as low as 55% of the cost of
eligible portions of project costs.

Even with the existing Federal and State grants, the magnitude
of the amount to be paid by the local taxpayer and users of these
water pollution control plants is huge.  If the new proposal would
be adopted, the burden on the taxpayer and users would increase
significantly.                                   "'

As you know, the present law states that portions of the plant built
for industry are not eligible for any Federal grant.  The new
proposals would significantly increase the burden on industrial
users of these plants. Since the operating charges will have to
recover the added portions paid by the community if the grant is
reduced.  This added burden can only serve to increase that number.

Should the present consideration be reflected in a new measure to
be presented to the Congress, I would strongly urge that you vote
against these changes.

                               Very truly yours,
                               /s/ S. Friedman
SF:sw
cc: Mr. Charles Light
      President, Buffalo Area Chamber of Commerce
    The Honorable Edward V. Regan,
      Erie County Executive
                               658

-------
June 17, 1975
EPA
Office of Water and Hazardous
 Materials (WH-556)
Room 1033, West Tower, Waterside Mall
401 "M" Street, SW
Washington, D. C. 20460

POTENTIAL LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

The City Council of the city of Salinas has authorized me to
make a presentation at the public hearing on potential legislative
amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.  I will
attend the hearing in San Francisco on June 19, 1975.
                                                              X

The city recognizes that the magnitude of the cost of the program
is huge.  The time constraints build into the present legislation
were unrealistic for such a program.  To resolve the dilemma, the
city recommends alternates 4 and 5 as outlined in the notice of
the hearings.

The city considers the currently authorized percentage of partici-
pation by the federal government to be appropriate for several
reasons:

1)  The federal government has set standards of discharge higher
    than necessary. An example of this is the requirement for
    secondary treatment in all cases where sewage is being discharged
    to the ocean.

2)  Federal legislation, guidelines, procedures and red tape have
    increased the cost of these projects by about 50% with no
    commensurate imporvement in the elimination of pollutants.

We have long found that the delegation of authority to the level
of government most representative to the people improves the
efficiency substantially.  The federal representatives have a
misconception that they are the most knowledgeable concerning
problems and must pass final judgment on everything that is done.
Designating a greater portion of the management of the construction
grants program to the states is a step in the right direction.


                            •j r • ..•-'.   6 5 ^

-------
CITY OF SALINAS
/S/ ARNOLD C. JONES
Director of Public Works

ACJ/ljh
                                    660

-------
June 13, 1975
Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
1421 Peachtree Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309

Attention:  Mr. Joseph R. Franzmathes
                      Re:   Written Statement, Public Hearing
                            Proposed Amendments to the FWPCA
Gentlemen:

It is requested that the following written statement be entered into
the record of the Public Hearing held in Atlanta June 9, 1975
concerning proposed amendments to the FWPCA:

Reduction in the Federal Share. It is our opinion that the Federal
share of construction grants should not be reduced from current
level of 75%.  It was the intent of Congress that Federal Funding
be at the 75% level.  Otherwise, it would not have been included
in the legislation.  During this depressed economic period, the
Federal Government is in a better position to raise funds than
are units of local government.  If is is difficult for Federal
Government to fund sewer projects, it is even more difficult
for units of local government.

In our opinion, if the Federal share is reduced from 75%, the Water
Pollution abatement Program will become bogged down due to inability
of many units of local government to finance the local share.

We do not feel that reducing the local share from 75% to 55% will
encourage greater accountability for cost effective design and
project management.  It is in the best interest of the units of
local government to obtain as much pollution abatement capability
as possible for the dollars spent.  We believe that local officials
and the consulting engineers employed by these officials are
striving to their utmost to accomplish the goals of cost effective
design and effective project management.  We further believe that
the persons involved in sewer project initiation, sewer project
design and project management, on the local level, are just as
capable, honest and smart as are persons working at the Federal level.
We feel that rather than a reduction in the Federal share, it should
be increased to 90% since construction sewers is just as important
to a community as is building interstate highways.
                                    66J.

-------
Limiting Federal Funding of Reserve Capacity to Serve Projected
Growth

We are of the opinion that reasonable projected growth should be
considered in the design of any wastewater project.  We believe that
the basis for determining reserve capacity for projected growth
should be based upon the peculiarities associated with each individ-
ual project.  To establish hard and fast facilities may create the
construction of facilities which are not as cost effective as they
should be.                            ,                  <   ;

We believe that phasing of many components of wastewater treatment
plants is the most cost effective, however, we are not in  favor, I repeat,
emphatically not in favor of? phasing sewer interceptors.  The
percentage increase of construction costs to increase line size is
small in comparison to the increase percentage of capacity gained.

In addition to this, is the very important consideration of
rights-of-way.  Rights-of-way, for the first installation  of sewer
lines, are normally quite easy to obtain and can be obtained without
payment of damage to property owners;  However, to obtain  rights-of-way
for the installation of a parallel sewer line, frequently  can be
a nightmare.  Often, the price paid for damages is greater than
the value of the property.  Awards for damages by jurors seem to
be getting higher and frequently far outstripped reasonable assess-
ments of damages.  In addition to this, problems with property
owners during the construction are compounded with a second sewer
line installation.  Property owners are more demanding and are not
as underatanding of the inconvenience  that they are ecperiencing
due to the construction activities.  Another point to consider
concerning sizing of sewer interceptors is that as areas grow and
develop, it becomes difficult to find physical space in which to
install a parallel sewer line.

Restricting the Types of Projects Eligible for Grant Assistance.

It is our opinion that projects eligible for construction  grants
should be limited to Types I, II, III(a) and IV(b).

Extending 1977 Date for Publicly Owned Pretreatment Works  to Meet
Water Quality Standards.

We are of the opinion that the 1977 date for meeting water quality
standards by publicly owned treatment works should be extended.
The nation does not have adequate resources to meet water  quality
standards by 1977.  Even if funds could be made available, there
is sime question as to the availability of construction personnel
and equipment and as to the capability,ofj equipment manufacturers

-------
to deliver the volume of waste treatment equipment required.

We feel that secondary treatment should be redefined so as to permit
utilization of properly operated stabilization ponds with chlorination.

Delegating A Greater Portion of The Management of Construction Grants
Program to States.

Me are in favor of maximum delegation possible to the state agencies
to eliminate existing red tape.

                                 Yours very truly,
                                 Spartanburg Sanitary Sewer District
                                 Edwin D. Mitchell
                                 Assistant Director

EDM:lwb
                                   663

-------
       Junw 12, 1975
Mr. James L. Agee
Asst. Administrator for Water
  and Hazardous Materials                                        .  .  ,

Dear Mr. Agee:
                                          »    i-     ;,
I have reviewed the discussion papers regarding proposed amend-
ments in the Water Pollution Control Act and this is to record the
City of San Leandro's position on several of the issues.

1.  The grant level of 75% federal financing should be maintained.

    The elimination of water pollution is a national problem which
    affects every citizen in some way and it should be a national
    responsibility to correct.  We believe this was the original
    intent of the law and know that it is a prime motivation, and in
    some cases the only way that some communities can achieve the  ,
    goal.  If there is a need for additional finances, and apparently
    so, there is no fairer way, because of it being a national
    problem, than to provide funds from taxes collected on a nationwide
    basis.

2.  Limit funding for construction of reserve capacity to a 10
year projection for treatment works and 20 years for sewers.

    This is a reasonable limitation because it allows for nominal
    growth that in many cases may already be in process or committed,
    but does not permit any agency to prepare for future growth at
    the expense of others and which some others, because of their
    local financial condition, may not be able to benefit from at 75%
    funding if they want to.  The 20-year period for sewers
    opposed to 10 for treatment works is logical because of the
    excessive cost of constructing sewers, but which makes the cost-
    benefits for larger sizes constructed initially far greater
    than that involved in treatment works.

3.  Compute cost of added capacity on an incremental rather than
prorated basis.

    It only seems fair, becuase every agency may recieve grant
    funding according to specific criteria, that no agency who wishes
    to add additional capacity should be penalized for that additional
    capacity by sharing on a pro-rata basis.  For example, funding
    may be allowed for a certain size sludge digester or clarifier
    but the agency may wish to "play safe" by adding additional
                                         i

                                  66*4

-------
    treatment capacity of capacity for more than 10 years of growth.
    The volume of these structures, which is roughly comparable to
    capacity, is relative to the square of the diameter, but the
    cost of construction is closer to the relative diameter.
    Therefore, the greater the capacity constructed, the more
    disproportionate the share will be borne by the local agency and
    actually, federal funding will drop both in percentage and actual
    dollars.  This is not fair to the fore-sighted local agency.

4.  Me enthusiastically endorse HR2175 which would delegate to the
states a broader range of grant processing gunctions.

    We believe in local government , and as such feel states are both
    closer and better equipped to deal with the local agencies than
    either in combination with or directly by the federal governmemt.

                                 Yours very truly,
                                 R.H. Ward
                                 Public Works Director
RHW/ag

-------
Juen 17, 1975
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials
(WH-556) Room 1033
West Tower, Waterside Mall
401 M Street
Washington, D. C. 20460

Gentlemen:
                                          i
                        Public Hearing on Potential Legilsative
                        Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution
                        Control Act	

In response to your announcement of hearings to be held to discuss
amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA)
(PL 92-500), the San Diego County Board of Superivsors takes the
following position regarding those amendments listed and directed
staff to participate in the hearings to be held on June 19,1975 in
San Francisco. California.

1.  Proposed reduction of the Federal grant share from the present
75% level.
          The San Diego County Board of Supervisors is responsible
          for the operation of 14 sanitation districts.  All of
          these districts presently have existing facilities,
          paid for by the property owners and users within those
          districts.  Many of the districts now must abandon or
          construct major improvements on these facilities in order
          to comply with the FWPCA.  Some of the districts are
          experiencing severe financial problems and are virtually
          unable to provide even the 12%% local share (75% federal
          funds, 12%% state funds) required to construct the new
          facilities required by the FWPCA.  Any reduction in the
          Federal share will have to be borne by some of these
          districts.  Assuming a reduction in the Federal funding
          share, some of the smaller districts will be faced with
          two undesirable alternatives:

               a.  Noncompliance with the FWPCA, or
               b.  Severe financial hardship.

2.  Limiting Federal financing to serve only the needs of the
existing population.

          This proposal is too restrictive.  Limiting the funds
          in this manner may cause many dischargers such financial
          hardship that additional capacity for even nominal planned
                                 660

-------
          growth or discharge increases cannot be provided.   In
          such cases,  even after large capital improvements,  some
          districts may find that building moratoriums are inevitable.

          In  critical  air basins, California currently limits its
          share of financing to the so-called E-0 population;
          the E-0 population projection provides a very limited
          future growth factor.

          It  appears the State of California approach is a better
          solution to  the dilemma of providing funds for extensive
          growth versus no growth.  It ensures that the dischargers
          provide careful sizing and design of capacity to serve
          the limited future growth.

3.   Restricting the types of projects eligible for grants.

          The kinds of projects presently eligible for Federal
          grant funds all relate to water pollution abatement/
          Eliminating some of the projects will be counter pro-
          ductive to the achievement of the clean water objective.
          In  fact, consideration should be given to expanding the
          types of eligible projects.

          For example, secondary treatment is mandated by the FWPCA
          for ocean water discharge on the Pacific Coast.  It is
          recommended that the use of primary treatment be continued
          under certain limited conditions and the requirements
          for secondary treatment be investigated.  There are a
          number of ongoing studies to determine the effects  of
          waste water on the ocean environment, but additional
          data is required prior to the uniform application of
          secondary treatment.  Water quality standards must  take
          into consideration the possible adverse effects they may
          have on the land use and energy consumption.  Furthermore,
          it  is recommended that Federal grant monies be appropriated
          to  perform an extensive monitoring program in order that
          the effects of ocean discharge may be properly evaluated.
          The reslult of the study may determine that primary
          treatment, as presently practiced, is adequate in most
          West Coast applications or that treatment other than
          secondary is required.
                                      66 /

-------
          Our Board of Supervisors has continually stressed interest
          in reclamation projects.  To make reclamation possible,
          it is important that these projects remain eligible for
          Federal  grants.  Furthermore, the grant program should
          be expanded to partially subsidize reclamation projects
          that are not entirely cost effective now, but may be in
          the future.

4.  Extending the 1977 date for meeting water quality standards.

          It is already quite evident that additional time is
          required by many of the projects in San Diego County.
          The time required for the implementation of a project
          has increased subsequently during recent years because
          of grant review procedures, environmental impact reviews,
          citizen reviews, requirements of the California Coastal
          Commission, etc.

5.  Delegating a greater portion of the management of the construction
grants program to the states.

          In California, the Environmental Protection Agency
          presently delegates some portions of the program to
          the State.  Further delegation is desirable to eliminate
          duplication of efforts thereby causing delays and attendant
          cost escalation.

6.  Additional comments:

          Presently, the FWPCA requires the grantee to recover from
          industrual users an amount equal to the portion of the
          Federal grant allocable to industrial users.  Fifty
          percent(50%) is then returned to the Federal treasury
          on an annual basis.  The administrative costs associated
          with returning revenues from industrial waste dischargers
          are substantial.  In the County of San Diego we have many
          bedroom communities with some associated small industrial
          dischargers, such as stores and service stations.  The
          Administrative costs to recover, account, and forward
          funds from these industrual discharger industries is not
          economical.  It is recommended that these monies remain
          with local governments for necessary capital improvements or
          waste water reclamation investments.

-------
         Alternately,  the  list of dischargers  considered  to  be
         "industrial dischargers" should be modified  to eliminate
         those  businesses  normally supportive  of urban residential
         development (grocery stores,  restaurants,  service stations,
         etc.).

                                                    Sincerely,
                                                    /s/ Dick  Brown,
                                                    Chairman,
                                                    Board  of  Supervisors
                                                    County of San Diego

DB:GMB:db

Distribution for attached letter:

         CC:   Public Works Agency
               Department of Sanitation and Flood Control
               Office of Intergovernmental  Affairs
               Board of Supervisors
               Clerk of the Board  of Supervisors

-------
                          June 17, 1975
                           VIA AIR MAIL

Mr. James L. Agee
Ass't. Administrator for
 Water & Hazardous Materials (WH-556)
Environmental Protection Agency
Room 1033, West Tower, Waterside Mall
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D. C.  20460

Dear Mr. Agee:

It is our understanding that EPA is holding public hearings to
obtain information concerning five amendments to P.L.  92-500 in an
effort to reduce the $350 billion dollar impact that that law im-
poses.  These amendments are:

      1.   Lower the Federal Grant Share from 75%

      2.   Restrict Federal funding for projects accommodating
           only the existing population

      3.   Restricting the types of projects eligible for grants

      4.   Extend the compliance dates

      5.   Delegate management of the construction grants to the
           States

The City of San Diego is likewise concerned about the costs of
implementing P.L. 92-500.  While we herald the goals  of cleaning
up the nation's waters that are the source of our drinking supply,
we do feel it is a misdirection to spend money on secondary treatments
plants that discharge their effluents into receiving waters that
are not a source of drinking water supply.  Such is our case as
we discharge into the ocean.  There is no community "downstream"
of us using our effluent as a source of drinking water.  Of course,
if there was any indication at all that our effluent adversely
affected the ocean environment, we would be the first to prevent
that from happening.  To us, therefore, P.L. 92-500 simply means
building secondary treatment to accomplish nothing at all.  We
think this is a flagrant waste of money on the basis of existing
scientific knowledge.
                                 670

-------
Considerably less money could be spent and certainly better direction
could-be given with'the Federal, funding of beefed up monitoring
and scientific research programs:  It is felt that if anything is     *
to be done structurally, there should be a logical base for doing
it.  That logic is non-existent at the present time.

San Diego feels its pollution problem from liquid wastes is one of
low priority.  Looking dowwthe road 30 years all indications are
that our biggest priority problem is one of water supply.   Because
of this we feel that any plans made or structures built should be
towards reclamation  efforts leading logically in a step-by-step
fashion to recycle for reuse as a potable water supply.  P.L. 92-500
will not allow this to happen.  It simply mandates that effluent be
run through a secondary plant on its way to the ocean without any
possibility for reuse.  Thus there is no benefit from the money
spent for such efforts and we miss our opportunity to do something
now that will fit into our future needs.  We are at a pivotal junction
in our lives and we feel compelled to participate responsibly in
programs that will benefit subsequent generations.

Towards this end we oppose any alternates that lesisen the Federal
responsibility for its acts.  Thus we oppose alternates 1  and 2.
We would support funding on a basis of priority of need.  Treatment
plants where needed, i,e. discharging into a stream, river, or
inland lake for drinking supply; inflow, collector and interceptor
sewers, and put storm waters lowest of all.  We have supported
efforts to redefine the deadline into some priority of need.   We
would feel good faith efforts toward compliance, with Administrator
flexibility, for control, would be appropriate.  To this end we
would support a deadline on an individual basis, based on availability
of Federal funds.

Similarly we have supported delegation of the administrators  function
to the States in the hope that such a move would result in an effort
to build for the future using all local  environmental parameters,
incorporating natural resources and wastes impacting the air, land
and sea.   'Ts this end we would define the '83 goal of BAT to be
that plan which consumes the least natural resources and produced
the least wastes taking into consideration full broad based en-
vironmental considerations.

San Diego is as concerned about its environment and its future as  is
                                     671

-------
humanly possible to be.  It is felt our ultimate goals  are in harmony
with those at all levels of government.

                                 Very truly yours,

                                 R.W. King
                                 Water Utilities Director

RWK:bs

cc:  Deputy C/Mgr. John Lockwood
     Ass't. Water Util. Dir.
                                     672

-------
                           May 9, 1975

Mr. Russell E. Train, Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C.

Dear Sir:
                      '';'  ; i'  '  . f

Please enter the following remarks into the Public Record of the
Public Hearing on "Potential  Legislative Amendments to the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act."

As an agent of local government in a rural section of South Carolina
I wish to impress upon the Hearing Board the need for continued and
expanded EPA Programs and funding in the Municipal Waste Treatment
category.

My concern for small municipalities participating in the program
touches all the issues notied in the Public Hearing Notice of May 2,
1975, Federal  Register, Volume 40, Number 86.  The most pertinent
issues are those of reducing  the federal share, and restricting
types of projects eligible for grant assistance.

The existing 75% Federal  share for Municipal Waste Treatment Systems
seems adequate and should not be lowered untill all municipalities
have an opportunity to participate in the program.

My basic concern is for those small local governments which need
EPA's assistance in beginning their municipal waste treatment system
but are presently unable to receive funds because they lack an
existing system to upgrade.   If the Federal share is reduced
before these communities are allowed to utilize the program a mis-
take will have been made.  Without the 75% Federal grant most small
local governments will never  be able to provide a public waste treat-
ment system.

I appreciate the opportunity to enter the above remarks on the record.
If questions arise, do not hesitate to contact me.

                                 Sincerely,

                                 Donald N. Tudor, AIP
                                 Assistant Director
DNTrpw
                                    673

-------
                           June 19,  1975

Mr. Paul DeFalco, Jr.
Administrator, Region 9
Environmental Protection Agency
100 California Street
San Francisco, California  94111

Dear Mr. DeFalco, Jr.,

Because of illness I was unable to attend the E.P.A.  Public  Hearing
on June 19, 1975.

I am enclosing two (2) copies of the remarks  that I  intended to
deliver.  Would you please see that they are  included in  the
record.

                                 Sincerely,

                                 John L. Maloney
                                 President
                                 Industrial Association of
                                   the San Fernando  Valley

JLM -h

CC:  Mr. Dave Sabock
Enclosures
                           June 17, 1975

E.P.A. Public Hearing. S.F. Cal.
Re:  Proposed congressional legislation to be introduced circa
July 31, 1975.  Potential legislation amendments  to  the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act.

Gentlemen:

Our remarks are addressed to parenthesis four (4) as one of the  pro-
posed amendments setforth, namely extending the 1977 date of meeting
water quality control  standards.

We believe this is the only proposition that should  be enacted,  and
it should provide for indefinite extension of the date to meet water


                                      674

-------
quality control standards.

E.P.A. has developed an embryo body of knowledge and experience
of the water quality control field during its brief existence.  It
does not appear that it has as yet learned of the economic impact
of its program on the communities affected when, said program is
too hastely applied.

Herewith is our assessment of the adverse economic impact in the
San Fernando Valley community.

Jobs

Our 13 high schools, 3 colleges and 1 university have enrollment of
100,000.  Almost all these students are preparing to enter the labor
market.  The workers now in the Valley labor market (approx) 300,000
will not be retiring when these students seek jobs.  What do we do
without growth?

Housing

The students, now seeking work* will nevertheless be forming family
units.  Where do we house them without growth?

Capital Investment

Our Valley industrial plant investment is $3 billion and the figure
for commercial business is much more.  What do we do if these sources
of jobs, taxes and general properties are atrophied by "no growth?"
                                   '• ,.   '.":' '
In our opinion this is pretty much the predicament of established
communities throughout the nation.

Give us time to adjust economically while a workable clean water
program is soundly developed.  By 1985 we should be able to embrace
such a program.

                                 Respectfully,
                                 John L. Maloney
                                 President
JLM/bm

-------
                                 Reply to:
                                 232  Hi 11 view Avenue
                                 Los  Altos,  Ca.  94022

                                 1  July 1975

Mr. David Sabock
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, Southwest
Washington, D. C.   20460

Dear Mr. Sabock:

                    Proposed Amendments  to the
         Federal Water Pollution Control  Act Amendments of 1972

The following comments are to be included in the record of the public
hearing on the proposed amendments  that were held throughout  the
country from 9-29 June 1975.  While Mr.  Peter Zars  has submitted
official Sierra Club testimony, the following is  merely an addendum
to his remarks.

We believe that Unnecessary to speak in strong  support of a
particular requirement of PL 92-500 that is  presently under attack.
Specifically, we refer to the provision  that generally restricts the
use of ad valorem taxes for the financing of wastewater treatment
plants and their operation.  The user fee is the fair and equitable
approach to service charges.  Use of  ad valorem  taxes would eliminate
the incentive for large industrial  users to  reduce  their discharges
of pollutants (to the sewer system) by means of  good housekeeping,
internal process changes, and pre-treatment.

Perhaps of greater significance, the  use of  ad valorem taxes  would
greatly reduce the incentive for industrial—and, in some cases,
residential and commercial—conservation of  water.  If wastewater
user charges are proportional, or at  least partly proportional, such
considerations have always been of  concern to most  Californians,
conservation of water is becoming increasingly important across the
nation.  Controversies regarding additional  water supplies for cities
such as Washington and New York could become moot with significant
strides towards water conservation.

Although the Environmental Protection Agency has no mandate  to
conserve water, it certainly should be interested in minimizing the
amounts of water to be pumped and treated in increasingly expensive

                                      670

-------
treatment plants.   Energy savings could be significant  if year-round
discharges to all  sewer systems  were reduced by  even  10 percent.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.   Please let us
know when copies of the hearing  record are available.

                                 Yours very truly,
                                 Jane 0. Baron,  Co-Chairperson
                                 Water Resources  Division

cc:  Mr. Paul DeFalco, Or.
     Mr. John Rhett
     Mr. Peter Zars
                                   67 f

-------
                           June 6, 1975

Mr. James L. Agee
Assistant Administrator for
  Water and Hazardous Materials
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Room 1033, West Tower
Waterside Mall
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D. C.  20460
                                 Re:  Comments on EPA Papers Regarding
                                 Possible Changes to PL 92-500
                                 Federal  Register, May 28, 1975
Dear Mr. Agee:
The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental  Control
has read and carefully reviewed EPA's papers on possible changes to
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.   We
would like to take this opportunity to thank you and your staff for
giving consideration to our attached comments on these papers.   We
hope that you will find them useful in making recommendations to
Congress.

Prior to proceeding with our comments on each of the five substantive
issues raised by EPA, let me preface our remarks with the following
statement.  It should be remembered that in the State of South
Carolina (as in the other thirty-four "rural states"), out of some
350 incorporated  municipalities, only some twenty-one are over 10,000
in population.  Therefore, the "norm" for this State should clearly
be the "small town".  Generally speaking, the small  town official  is
part-time with little or no technical background, training,  or
expertise, and has virtually no "technical  staff" to call  upon for
aid and assistance in the application for or administration of a
construction grant from EPA.  Obviously then, any change in the law
ought not to be based upon the concept of passing further responsibi-
lity and duties, especially complex and technical requirements, on
to the small town official.  Further, the small town, in general terms,
has few, if any, resources (in terms of capital or labor) to call  upon.
Therefore, changes that are being contemplated ought to reflect a
concern for the "average applicant" for EPA grants, which in the case
of a "rural state", is the small town.

With these comments in mind, this Department offers the attached com-

                                      6-» .•.-
                                      /t?

-------
merits for your consideration.   If we  can  be  of  any  further help to
you in this matter, please do  not hesitate to call  on either myself
or any member of my staff.

                                  Very truly  yours,

                                  John E.  Jenkins, P.E.
                                  Deputy Commissioner
                                  Environmental  Quality Control
  f

JEJ/JDZ/cds
Attachments.

cc:  Jack E. Raven, Regional Administrator, EPA, Atlanta
     Joseph R. Franzmathes, Director,  Office of Water Programs, EPA,
Atlanta
  SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL
                       COMMENTS ON

        Paper No. 1 — REDUCTION OF THE FEDERAL SHARE

      In general terms, the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control strongly supports the maintenance of the present
seventy-five per cent (75$)  EPA construction grant.  It has been the
experience of this Department, since the beginning of PL 92-500,
that the average applicant, despite the seventy-five per cent grant,
still has problems raising the twenty-five per cent local share.  This
situation has come about through a number of ways:  (1) higher techni-
cal and water quality requirements which make the applicant put a
more expensive project into the ground; (2) inflationary trends both
in terms of material and labor costs and also in terms of the costs
of raising the local share; and (3) longer times to prepare a project
(from the Step I to the Step III stages) combined with more adminis-
trative requirements.  Despite the fact that the applicants in South
Carolina are trying to comply, to the best of their ability, the
twenty-five per cent share required under the law, is often almost
unobtainable.  And, for those applicants who are able to obtain
financing for the local  share, the minimum user charges imposed on
the citizens of the towns are often so high that it is doubtful if
these citizens will tap/.on to the system, orhstay on the system.!
Thus, the high costs may be placing EPA projects into a situation
where (despite the user charge, industrial cost recoverd, O&M require-
ments,2 etc.) the project will not be self-sustaining throughout its
life.  This trend,  in essence, defeats the purpose of the law which

-------
is, of course, to construct and maintain those facilities necessary
to meet the goals and objectives of the law by the times specified.
      In answer to the questions posed by EPA in the May 28 Federal
Register, this Department offers the following comments:

      1.   This Department feels strongly that a reduced Federal  share
would inhibit and delay the construction of badly needed facilities.
With respect to the above comments, and this question posed by EPA,
we can only suggest that a reduction in the Federal  share would raise
the cost to the applicant (and thus to the local taxpayers) which may
only further aggrevate the trend already alluded to.  Further, serious
consideration should be given to the question of whether or not the
"local revenue bonding market" could bear a substantive raise in
bond issues and sales.  While we have no "hard and fast" statistics  «
at our disposal, it has been suggested that a reduction in the Federal
share would cause the applicants, nationwide, to raise the numbers
and amounts of issues to be sold on the open market.  Further, it
has also been suggested that with the increased amount of local
revenue bonds being sold, in order to be competitive, the local entity
would have to accept higher interest rates on these  bond issues.   Thus,
this could well cause an even greater rise in the cost of a project
for the applicant and his taxpayers.  This Department does not find
that this situation is one which the states could live with.  Therefore,
for these reasons, we suggest that a reduced Federal share would  delay
and perhaps even prevent the construction of badly needed facilities.

      2.   This Department, after a great deal of conferring with
members of the South Carolina General Assembly can state that while
we may have the interest in assuming either through  State grants  and/or
loans, a greater share of the financial burden, we do not have the
capacity.  In addition to being found by constitutional provisions
to "balance the budget" each and every year, and in  addition to being
faced with declining revenues, this State has provisions that only a
certain amount of State bonds can be sold in any given year.  Our  re-
search into this requirement indicates that it would take, perhaps, as
long as five years in order for this State to raise  the necessary
revenue to create a State program for loans and/or grants.  Further,
we feel that a study of the .national trend strongly  indicates that
most, if not all, States are in a similar position.   Therefore, while
South Carolina may well be desirous of participating in the funding
of this program it is doubtful, at the present time, that we have the
capability to do so.

      3.   With respect to this question, let us only briefly repeat
what has already been stated above.  This Department does not believe
that the market for local revenue bonds or local general obligation

                                    fififl

-------
bonds has the flexibility to accept a massive increase in the number
of issues floated.  To reduce the Federal share would require this
increase in the number of issues offered for sale, and thus only
have the effect of driving up the costs to the applicant and his
taxpayers.  While we are fully cognizant that the wastewater control
systems being constructed are expensive, and we further recognize
that the days of the $2-per-month "user charge" are past, we do feel
that it is incumbent on both the States and the Federal  Government
to attempt to keep the costs to the consumer within the realm of
reasonability.  Further, we feel that this policy is fully in keeping
with the recent Executive Order requiring that all agencies examine
the "inflationary impact" of proposed measures.  This Department
suggests that a reduction in the Federal grant share would be infla-
tionary and further argue that this should be avoided.

      4.   This Department would suggest that a reduction in the
Federal share would not, in most instances, lead the grantee to
obtain or have a greater degree of accountability for cost effective
design, project management and/or post-construction operations and
management.  We feel that the "average applicant" does not have
sufficient expertise or technical knowledge at his disposal to achieve
these goals.  Rather, they rely almost totally on the recommendations
of their consulting engineer, .-the State, and EPA.  If this group of
professional personnel is unable to achieve the desired accountability,
then we would suggest that a reduction in the Federal share would
hardly cause the applicant to achieve the goal.  We would suggest,
instead, that the States and EPA work closely together to insure
that each project constructed under this program is, in fact, the most
cost effective project for the locality.  Further, we suggest that
if EPA and the States were to adopt this attitude (which we feel is
rapidly coming about between EPA, Region IV and this State) then the
consulting engineers will respond in an affirmative fashion.  Thus,
the goals can be achieved without reducing the Federal grant share.

      5.   This Department would suggest, in the strongest terms,
that a reduction in the Federal grant amount would have a negative
impact on the human environment in that the requirements of water
quality standards and the requirements and goals of PL 92-500 would
not be met simply by virtue of the fact that the average applicant,
despite NPDES Compliance Schedules, and State and Federal Court Orders
could not afford to construct or operate and maintain a wastewater
control facility.  It should always be remembered that if the goals
of the Act are not "affordable" to the persons upon whom they are
being imposed (the applicants) then these goals are probably not
"achievable" either.

-------
     This Department feels that if EPA were to recommend to the
Congress a reduction in the Federal grant percentage, then EPA
should be required to perform and file both an Environmental Impact
Statement and an Inflation Impact Statement.  We feel that this pro-
posed action is both inflationary in effect and that it would have
a great negative impact on the human environment.   We can only sug-
gest that prior to making any such recommendation  to the Congress,
EPA look long and hard at the implications and long terms effects
of such an action.
      Finally, it can only be suggested that while the costs of the
construction grants program are extremely high, as reflected by the
1974 Needs Survey, we feel that both the Congress  and the people of
this Nation are committed to the water quality goals contained in
PL 92-500.  With this in mind, this Department feels that the Federal
Government, in conjunction and cooperation with the State and local
governments of the Nation, continue to work toward achieving these
goals, and that all levels of government continue  to support these
efforts with the amount of funding necessary to achieve them.  Per-
haps rather than reducing the amount of Federal grant, EPA should give
consideration to continuing the present level;  Congress should
continue to fund, to the best of their ability, this program, and
EPA, Congress and the States should consider that  the dates levied
by the law are unobtainable, and thus consider that this program will
take substantially longer than originally anticipated.  This solution,
to us, is infinitely preferable to the proposal set forth in this
paper.  We can only reiterate that any reduction in the Federal  grant
percentage would do much more to slow down (and perhaps halt) our
efforts to achieve goals and requirements of the Act.

           Paper No. 2 — LIMITING FEDERAL FUNDING OF RESERVE
                          CAPACITY TO SERVE PROJECTED GROWTH

      In general terms, South Carolina supports the continuation of
the present policy concerning funding of "reserve  capacity".  That
is, we see no reason to change the language of Section 204(a)(5) of
the Act.  We feel that the funding of reserve capacity should continue
to be determined solely on the basis of cost effective analysis per-
formed by the applicant during the Step I Facility Planning Process.
Further, we feel that if cost effectiveness analysis is performed
in accordance with present EPA policies, procedures and guidelines,
then the funding of excessive reserve capacity can be controlled.
      This Department is cognizant of the recent studies performed
by CEQ and EPA and, in general, are familiar with  the results of
these studies.  However, we would suggest that these studies were per-
formed on projects that were initiated prior to the issuance of EPA
guidelines on cost effectiveness, or during the period when said

-------
guidelines were first issued.  Thus, the problem may well have arisen
more,from a lack of understanding and a lack of expertise by the con-
sulting engineers, the States, and EPA.  Therefore, rather than
changing the policy of funding cost effectiveness reserve capacity,
we would suggest that the intent of Section 204 (a)(5) will be met
in thex future, especially in view of the fact that the State and
EPA staffs-have gained far more familiarity and expertise with these
guidelines.
      While this Department can accept, to a certain degree, the
argument that we need to "spread the available funds" as far as
they will go, we do not stand ready to endorse a change in present
policy insofar as the Act is concerned.  We are able to accept,
however, at this point in time, the"California 10/20 Plan".  We can
foresee advantages to the California Plan, we feel that a sufficient
level of experience has been gained in order to properly evaluate the
net results and effects of the program.  Therefore, we would suggest
a continuation of the present policy with the nucleus of the California
10/20 Plan in the guidelines and stress that objective, in-depth
review of the Facilities Plans by the States and EPA will do more
to achieve the intent of the Act, and  the goals of this paper than
any drastic change in the Act itself.  Further, we feel strongly that ,
the maintenance of the present wording of the Act and the inclusion
of the California 10/20 Plan in the guidelines will help EPA and the
states "stretch the available funds" and alleviate the need to seek   ,
amendments to the Act.
      With respect to the specific questions posed by the EPA stafff .
in the May 28 Federal Register, we offer the following comments:
      1.   Current practice, when combined with the seventy-five per
cent grant, does tend to cause overdesign.  However, rather than
reduce the grant amount and seek an amendment to the Act, this Depart-
ment suggests maintaining the present grant percentage (as outlined in
our comments on Paper No. 1), maintain the present wording of Section
204(a)(5), and change the regulations and guidelines to include the
California 10/20 Plan.  We feel that this approach can be handled
simply in an administrative fashion (although it will cause some
changes in 201 Facilities Plans now under preparation and review) and
will  achieve the intent of this paper; that is, to prevent overdesign
of the facilities, underutilization of current Federal funding, and
a stretching of available funds.
      2.   With respect to this question, we feel  that the answer
offered above serve adequately as an answer to this question.  In
addition, we feel that a strongly-enforced policy by both EPA and
the States of strict adherence to the EPA cost effectiveness guidelines,
when  combined with strict adherence to the Census Bureau projected
populations (except in those cases where the applicant can prove that


                                       68J

-------
his figures are a more accurate reflection of the situation; e.g.,
areas of high impact tourism, areas where industry is presently
moving into, etc.) would serve to eliminate some of the problems
with the current program.  Further, we would suggest that many of
the problems in this paper are in the process of being eliminated,
since EPA and State staffs are gaining more familiarity and expertise
with the cost effectiveness guidance, and as the consulting engineers
gain more familiarity with the manner in which EPA and the States
are reviewing the 201 Facilities Plans they submit.
      3.   The complications of a policy of not funding any reserve
capacity are inherently great.  For example, while most applicants
would desire to build a larger facility and system,  they would
probably be prohibited from doing so because of the tight money market.
Therefore, they may well be put in the position of constructing a
facility that is "out of date" (in terms of meeting their NPDES
requirements) the day it begins operation.   As a result, they would
immediately have to commence a project to upgrade and expand the faci-
lity again.  This is hardly cost effective.   In those instances where
the applicant could raise the local funds to build a larger facility
(larger than that which would be needed to serve existing population)
 EPA and the States would have to devise a system to grant funds
only for the eligible portion of the facility and a system to account
for and inspect only this "portion" of the system.   This, in itself,
is an administrative nightmare, which EPA and the States are not likely
to be able to handle.  Basically then , we feel that such a policy of
funding only that portion of a system necessary to serve already
existing population would create more problems than it would solve.
      4.   With respect to the California 10/20 Plan, this Department
feels that it would (a) help save money and thus allow us to spread
the currently available funding for the program; and (b) it would help
to eliminate the problem of overdesign even though this problem may
partially be eliminated through stricter review procedures.  Initially,
EPA and the States would probably have severe problems in the adminis-
tration of this system.  However, if EPA and the States worked closely
together in the formulation of the "revised" guidelines, many
problems could be eliminated early, thus reducing this change require-
ment to a "manageable system".
      In summary then, this Department suggests that no legislative
changes be sought for Section 204(a)(5).  Alternatively, we suggest
that the California 10/20 Plan be implemented, after a proper period
of time to formulate the new guidance.

           Paper No. 3 — RESTRICTING THE TYPES OF PROJECTS
                          ELIGIBLE FOR GRANT ASSISTANCE

-------
      In general, the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental  Control has "mixed emotions" concerning the proposal
to restrict the types of projects eligible for construction grants.
In one sense,  we agree that we need to make the program affordable
to the Nation, thus we need to stretch the available funds and limit
the Federal liability for the program.  In another sense, however,
we cannot see how some items can be restricted without changing
other portions of the law to a great extent.
      For example, 201(g)(3) requires that the Administrator insure
that the.system to be funded not be subject to excessive infiltra-
tion/inflow.  Therefore, the Title II Regulations and the 201  Faci-
lities Planning Guidance have made provisions for the performance
of an Infiltration/Inflow Analysis on all projects, and the per-
formance of an Infiltration/Inflow Evaluation and program of repair
and rehabilitation on those systems demonstrated to have excessive
Infiltration/Inflow.  If the Act were to be amended to eliminate the
eligibility of projects for I/I Analysis, I/I Evaluation and I/I
Repair and Rehabilitation (that is, Categories IIIA and IIIB, then
Section 201 (g)(3) would also have to be amended in some fashion. And,
if this were successfully done, then Section 204(a)(5) (relating to
cost effectiveness and the sizing of-the facilities) would either
have to be amended, or EPA and the States would be in violation of
the Act since grants would be made to facilities that were overdesigned
in order to handle peak flows from infiltration/inflow.  Thus, one can
see that this proposal is neither easy to answer nor readily adaptable
to amendment.
      Further, this Department could easily agree to a restriction
which would declare Category V (combined sewer overflows) and Category
VI (treatment and control of stormwaters) ineligible.  However, we
have been advised that these two categories may well prove vital to
the clean up of waters in some large, industrialized areas.  Obviously
then, these areas would not be in agreement with this restriction.
      Therefore, what this Department would suggest is no legislative
amendment to the Act with respect to project eligibility.  Rather,
EPA and the States should strongly enforce their Priority Systems,
which should be aimed at the elimination of water quality problems
first, and the attainment of the legal requirements of the Act, and
thence other types of projects.  What we would recommend at this
point in time is a strongly-worded policy from EPA to the effect that
due to.the shortage of funds and the legal requirements of the Act,
all projects will remain eligible for funding; however, these pro-
jects actually certified for grant funding will have to be necessary
either in terms of water quality standards or in terms of the require-
ments of the Act.   Under this type of policy, no amendments to the
Act are necessary, and all eligibility remains.  However, the policy

-------
will direct the Federal funding only to those projects necessary to
meet the immediate objectives of the Act.   Also, under this policy,
collectors could be funded in those areas  where they are necessary
in terms of public health and water quality, infiltration/inflow
work could be funded where proven cost effective to meet water
quality standards or the statutory requirements of the Act, correc-
tion of combined sewers could be funded where necessary in terms of
water quality, etc.
      Further, this policy statement of concentrating available
funding on problem areas should be publicized by both EPA and the
States such that the applicants will be knowledgeable of the policy.
If these actions (that is, the policy and  the publicization of the
policy) were to take place, then all persons interested in the
program would be advised and would know whether or not a project
should be funded.
      We feel that this approach would suffice to limit or restrict
the eligibility of those projects not necessary to meet the require-
ments of the Act, while striving to focus  funding on those projects
where are deemed necessary.  It would alleviate problems, which is
the intent of the law, while going further to meet the overall
goals and objectives of the Act.  It would, also, give the States and
EPA the necessary flexibility to fund those projects determined to
be necessary while denying funding to those projects that are not
necessary.  Further, it would "bring home  the point" to applicants
that if they desire to construct a project which does not meet
these requirements, then they will have to find another source of
funding.  Finally, it would clarify and help the applicants, the
States and EPA by encouraging wiser investment decisions, encouraging
the examination of broader options, preserving administrative flexi-
bility, increase the incentive to achieve  the goals of the Act (espe-
cially since funding would not be utilized for any other reason),
and it would prevent inequitable changes.   Another advantage would
be that this course of action would eliminate the need to drastically
rewrite the existing regulations, which would allow EPA and the States
to continue to speed up the construction grants system rather than
halt the system while the regulations were revised.
      With respect to the first three considerations outlined by
the EPA staff in the May 28 Federal Register, we offer the following:
      1.   The net environmental impact of the suggestions outlined
above would be primarily positive since this would only serve to focus
all monies available to ward meeting water quality and legal require-
ments.  Almost any other alternative offered could have a deleterious
effect on the environment since a situation may arise where correction
of combined sewers, for example, is necessary to correct water quality
conditions, but is not allowed under an amendment to the Act.
                                     68S

-------
      2.    The suggestions outlined above would not require any real
administrative changes in the construction grants program.  Rather,
the staffs of the States and EPA would have to review more closely
in order to insure that the project under consideration, and each
and every portion of the project, is vital in terms either of water
quality considerations or in terms of meeting the requirements of
the law.   If this were not the case, then the State and EPA could advise
the applicant that this project, or portion of the project, is not
eligible for funding under joint EPA/State policy, and will have to
be withdrawn from the project application.  Also, with respect to
the proposed policy, this Department feels that it can easily be
enforced provided that EPA and the States work closely together
on the administration of the policy.  Further, we feel that this
Department and EPA, Region IV, are initiating and administering this
policy presently.
      3.    With respect to the third consideration, we do not feel
that this type of policy will, significantly disrupt either the invest-
ment or the employment patterns in the wastewater pollution control
field.  Since there are obviously many projects necessary that fall
under this policy as presently being eligible for funding, then
this policy will maintain and perhaps even increase the employment
situation.  The investment situation should remain basically as it
presently,is since EPA and the States will continue to fund projects
at an increased rate of speed and at the same percentage of grant
funding.   With respect to inflationary impacts, the funding of only
those projects necessary to meet water quality and/or  the require-
ments of the Act is insignificant, as recent EPA and CEQ studies
have demonstrated.
      With respect to the other three considerations posed by the EPA
staff in the May 28 Federal Register, we offer the following comments:
      1.    The major impact that this eligibility policy would tend
to have on the perceived need for a particular facility would be that
the applicant would have to consider each project in terms of whether
or not it meets the requirement of this policy.  If the project does
meet these termss then the applicant can make application and be
assured that the investment decision is in keeping with the goals
of the Act and the policies of both EPA and the States.  If it meets
the requirements of this policy then the applicant can also be fairly
assured that the project will be funded, provided that the State
has sufficient funds to do so.  If the proposed project does not meet
these requirements, then the applicant will rapidly realize that it
will not receive EPA funding and therefore should reconsider the
project in light of whether or not it is of sufficient importance to
merit itsnbeing funded through the use of local funds.
                                       BBT

-------
      2.   In response to this question, this Department would
suggest that while there may be sufficient local  incentive to under-
take projects that are needed to meet water quality and/or legal  require-
ments, there is, generally speaking, not sufficient funding available
to the average applicant to do so.   Therefore, if a policy were
adopted that did not focus funding on necessary projects, these
projects probably would not be constructed due to a lack of local
funding.  However, if a policy were adopted as outlined above, then
the applicants could also focus the limited local funding toward
those projects considered necessary in terms of the goals and ob-
jectives of the Act.  This type of policy would benefit the locality
by helping to provide the entity with those projects that are con-
sidered necessary under the Act.
      3.   To reiterate what has been stated previously, this
Department does not feel that there is sufficient local  financing
available to the average applicant, that is the small  town, to allow
them to invest in any butnthe most necessary projects.   While there
are other Federal and State programs open to the  small  town, most
of the funding is earmarked for projects other than those considered
eligible under the EPA construction grants program.  Generally
speaking, monies available to small towns have tightened up to the
extent that they cannot raise sufficient funding  to build any but
the most necessary projects in the wastewater pollution  control
field.
      To briefly summarize then, this Department  feels  strongly
that the best method of stretching the Federal funds while attempting
to attain the goals of the Act would not be through legislative amend-
ment.  Rather, an openly-declared policy which would prohibit funding
any project that is not shown necessary in terms  of either water
quality and/or legal requirements is the simplest manner, it is felt
to achieve the intent of this paper.

           Paper No. 4 -- EXTENDING 1977 DATE FOR THE PUBLICLY
         OWNED PRETREATMENT WORKS TO MEET WATER QUALITY  STANDARDS

      In general terms, the South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control does not agree off an arbitrary extension of
the 1977 deadline for all municipalities.  Rather, we would agree
that a legislative amendment should be sought from the Congress that
would allow the Administrator and the States (provided they have NPDES
authority) to grant extensions on a caseMby-case  basis.   Such an
extension in time to meet the requirements of the law would then be
based on (1) the status of the project for that facility (i.e.,
whether they are preparing a Step I Plan, Step II Design or already
                                      B88

-------
into construction); (2) how long it should take to build the required
facilities (providing for a good faith effort on the part of the local
entity); and (3) the availability of Federal funding for this pro-
ject (which would have to account for how much funding is available
to the State, where such a project falls on the Priority List, what
funds are anticipated to be received in future fiscal years, etc.).
This approach to the problem (which is generally a combination of
Alternatives 3 and 4 in EPA's paper) has been utilized with some degree
of success in the State of South Carolina in the administration of
our own compliance program for a number of years.
      The approach is based on the necessity of meeting legal require-
ments of the law and water .quality standards.  However, it is also
based on the realization that most small towns in this State cannot
construct such a facility without Federal aid and assistance. There-
fore, we consider this to be a reasonably pragmatic approach in that
it will move the violating facilities towards compliance,  it will
realistically account for the availability of Federal funds, and it
will not set arbitrary dates which cannot, obviously, be met by the
violating entity.  While this approach will not necessarily cause all
facilities to come into compliance with the requirements of the law
on some absolutely predictable date (like July 1, 1977 or July 1, D983)
such a policy will serve to assure the Congress, EPA, the States and
the local entities that all possible efforts are being made to achieve
the requirements of the Act, as rapidly as the mean allow.  Finally,
this approach will serve as a strong warning to a city official that
his facility will have to meet certain standards by a designated date.
Otherwise, compliance actions will be taken against the city or town
that will result in the imposition of the necessary fines, etc.
The objective of this approach is not to let the violating facilities
"off the hook" but rather to achieve reasonable and rational com-
pliance dates that can realistically expect to be met.
      In response to the considerations posed by the EPA staff in the
May 28 Federal Register, this Department offers the following:
      1.   In considering whether or not the Act needs to be amended
to allow prefinancing of facilities, one needs to consider whether this
is required.  It is the opinion of this Department that the implementa-
tion of Section 206(f)(l) of the Act would suffice for this purpose.
If EPA were to recommend and the Congress agree to pass a resolution
stating, in effect, that net less than $5 million (for example) will
be made available for the purposes of constructing publicly-owned
wastewater treatment works for Fiscal Years 1977 through 1983, then
EPA and the States could authorize the applicants to proceed with
construction even before the fiscal year in which the funding becomes
available commences.  This Department has long recommended the imple-
mentation of this portion of the Act, which would alleviate the
                                       683

-------
the necessity of seeking a statutory amendment.   The one point to
consider here would be whether or not the average applicant would
be  able to take advantage of such an option.   In light of earlier
comments (and South Carolina's experience with a similar type pro-
vision under Section 8 of PL 84-660) this is questionable.   We would
suggest that very few applicants would be able to raise the necessary
"interim financing" in order to take advantage of this provision.
However, if this were to come about, some applicants would be able
to commence construction immediately and await reimbursement, which
would eliminate some of the problems with a lack of funding.   This
Department does not consider that this is a necessary action  to take
at this point in time since most States are having problems com-
mitting the funds already available to them.  Yet, when this  funding
is committed, EPA may want to consider the implementation of  this
section of the Act.
      2.   Since it is our recommendation not to arbitrarily  extend
the 1977 deadline for all cities, but rather to  handle such an ex-
tension on a case-by-case basis, then the question of equity  between
cities and industry is not as sharp.  However, to avoid any possibility
of inequity, an amendment could be sought that would alHow an exten-
sion of the 1977 deadline for any industry that  could prove they
cannot meet such a deadline due to their lack of financial  capability
to do so (which is the same rationale behind the extension for cities).
This probably would not disrupt the industrial pollution control
program since industries have access to revenue  in many different
forms that are not available to cities and other grant applicants.
Further, as recent EPA studies have documented,  few industrial  plants
have actually had to close down operations as  a  result of environ-
mental regulations.  Therefore, it is logical  to expect that  even  if
such an amendment were obtained from Congress, most industries  would
still have to meet deadlines since they could not demonstrate an
absolute lack of financial capability to achieve these standards.
      3.   In the case of a joint municipal/industrial system,  the
extension for the municipality could be allowed  to apply to the in-
dustries participating or intending to participate in the system,
providing that they are not causing water quality violations  during
the interim.  If they are causing water quality  problems, then the
Administrator could allow the violating industry to install and
operate some sort of "interim treatment facility" that is sufficient
to halt the violation of water quality standards, but not so  compli-
cated and expensive as to make them leave the joint system.  Generally
then, it is felt that this sort of problem could be handled on a
case-by-case basis.
      4.   With respect to the above proposal, this case-by-case
extension would have a firm date by which the facility would have
to meet standards, and would also contain a schedule for the  achievement


                                        690

-------
of compliance.  With respect to the policy of allowing the Adminis-
trator the discretion of granting such extensions, this Department
does not feel that either the Congress or EPA are yet in a position
to state that the goals of the Act will definitely be achieved by
a certain date.  Therefore, we feel it most logical to seek an amend-
ment which allows the Administrator to grant such extensions, based
on the above-outlined considerations, and require that all facilities
move toward compliance with the goals and requirements of the Act as
rapidly as possible, consistent with the availability of funding for
such facilities.  At a later date, when the EPA and the States are
closer to achievement of the goals and are able to predict the total
accomplishment of these goals, 'then this could be reported to the
Congress and they could then proceed to modify the Act to establish
a new deadline.
      5.   Since we do not recommend an across-the-board extension
of the deadline, then this question does not require an answer.
Under the proposal outlined above EPA will not lose credibility, but
rather will simply be .addressing the reality of the situation.
      6.   If the above alternative were to be adopted, this
Department feels that local and State financing would be able to be
predicted with a sufficient degree of accuracy as to allow for
adequate financial planning.  Further, this would allow the local
bond market to make a gradual adjustment such that the prices of
local financing will not rise disproportionately, which will serve
to keep the costs to the consumer as reasonable as possible.  This
Department feels that this is the optimum solution at this point in
time.
      7.   This Department does not feel that we can adequately address
this type of redefinition  of secondary treatment at this point in
time.  However, we could suggest that EPA consider the possibility
of redefining secondary treatment in terms of the assimilative capa-
city of the receiving stream.  This approach would still  allow EPA
and the States to enforce water quality standards, thus meeting the
goals and objectives of the Act.
      8.   This Department does feel that Alternative 5 is unnecessarily
lenient.  Rather than take this approach, we feel that a pragmatic
approach, such as that outlined above, would be more appropriate in
terms of the existing situation and in terms of meeting the goals
of the Act.
      9.   With respect to the issuance of "letters of authorization"
as opposed to revised permits for facilities unable to meet the 1977
deadline, this Department feels that no immediate action should be
taken.   Rather, we suggest that EPA hold off on making this decision
until such time as Congress acts on EPA recommendations.   At that
time, EPA and the States will be cognizant of what we will be required

                                      691

-------
to do.  In the event that Congress does not choose to take action
on this recommendation prior to July 1, 1977, then we do feel  that
an extension of the existing permit for a period of one year would
be most advisable.  We feel  that by that time, Congress will  have
acted and then EPA and the States can react in whatever fashtmthe
Congress feels is necessary.
      In summary then, this  Department does not agree to a blanket
extension of the 1977 deadline.  Rather, we suggest that extensions
be granted on a case-by-case basis and such extensions'should take
into consideration (1) the present status of the project for the
facility; (2) the time required to construct and put into operation
a facility that will meet standards; and (3) a projection of funding
for the particular facility  under consideration

           Paper No. 5 ~ DELEGATING A GREATER PORTION OF THE  MANAGE-
             MENT OF THE CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM TO THE STATES

      The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control has long supported the passage and implementation of the
Cleveland Amendment to Title II of the Act.  We feel  that this amend-
ment to the Act would meet the intent of Sections 101(b)  and 101(f)
of the Act. Further, we feel that this amendment would serve to
eliminate the overlapping authority of the States and EPA, which would
result inacost and time savings to the applicants, the States and
the EPA.  In addition, we maintain that this type of amendment would
free EPA personnel for other types of activities, whether in the
construction grants program or elsewhere.  This Department feels that
we are capable of administering the construction grants program under
the terms of the Cleveland Amendment.  Further, we are more than
willing to provide whatever reports EPA determines are necessary in
order to demonstrate our continued capability to administer the
program, once the Department receives this authority, and, we would
cooperate to the fullest extent with any and all personnel from EPA,
Region IV, in the administration of this program.
      With respect to the considerations outlined by the EPA staff
in the May 28 Federal Register, we offer the following comments:
      1.   This Department feels that all functions of the con-
struction grants program could be delegated to this State, with the
possible exception of the review and approval of the Environmental
Assessment Statement.  While we feel confident that we could review
these statements, we recognize the requirements that NEPA levies upon
the Regional Administrator.
      2.   Further, we feel  that all parts of the construction grant
process could be delegated to this State.

-------
      While the above two statements are rather encompassing in their
scope, this Department fully recognizes that we will have to nego-
tiate with the Regional Administrator and demonstrate our capability
to assume this authority in accordance with whatever regulations are
promulgated by EPA.  We are both willing and anxious to do this. And,
if in the judgment of the Regional Administrator, this Department is
not capable of assuming all authority immediately, this Department
stands ready to work with the Regional Administrator in order to
build up that section of the program which may be determined lacking.
      3.   At this point in time, this Department sees little diffi-
culties in State staffing due to the fact that this program is
Federally funded.  We make this statement in light of the fact that
we recognize this program will continue for a number of years before
the goals of the Act are achieved.  As to whether or not we will
be able to increase our staffing level to that level deemed appro-
priate for the total assumption of this authority, while we may not
be able to increase our staffing levels immediately, we feel  that we
have sufficient staffing at present to begin  the process of assuming
some of this authority.  Further, we would anticipate that we would
be able to increase our staff within a relatively short period of
time.
      4.   At this point in time, we would suggest that the funding
level suggested in the Cleveland Amendment is adequate to carry out
this program, especially when considered in addition to the 106 State
Program funding.
  c   5.   We feel that delegation of this authority to the States
will make the program more efficient, especially in terms of the
amount of time necessary to review and approve a project, without
sacrificing or compromising the environmental concerns.  We feel it
should be recognized that the States are as committed to the goals
of this Act as anyone, despite the fact that State and local  govern-
ment does not have the financial capability to carry out the program
unilaterally.
      6.   Dependent upon the regulations and guidelines issued by
EPA, after passage of the Cleveland Amendment, we feel that South
Carolina is prepared and capable of beginning to assume this authority
almost immediately upon the successful negotiations of the necessary
agreements between the State and EPA.
      7.   At the present time, this Department does not wish to
present any alternative funding schemes for the purposes of carrying
out this program.
      In conclusion, this Department strongly advocates the passage
and implementation of the Cleveland Amendment.  We feel that this is
probably the optimum way to speed up the construction grants program,
in accordance with recent instructions issued by the Administrator.
2 I   .%       a

                                      G9J

-------
TESTIMONY ON CHANGES IN SEWAGE GRANT PROGRAM
TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AT WASHINGTON, D.  C.
JUNE 25, 1975

Delivered by Lynn Golldthwaite
             One Sunset Road
             Mountain Lakes, N.J.   07046

for the:     TOURNE VALLEY COALITION

We are here today to discuss modifications to Title II (Construction
Grants) of the Federal  Water Pollution Control Act.   The  objective
of this Act is to clean up America's waters.  This  goal,  unfor-
tunately, has been pushed aside by many in the scramble to get a
share of $18 billion now available in construction  grants.

While the ground rule for today's  discussion is that none of the
proposals would retroactively apply to the $18 billion presently
authorized and allotted, we must look at case histories to understand
the need for change.

I speak for the Tourne Valley Coalition, a watershed organization
forthe upper Rockaway River in Morris County, New Jersey.  We have
had practical experience in the confrontation between the objective
of the Act and the harsh realities of the Grant Program.   I  am here
today because our Coalition hopes  our experience will reinforce the
need for some of the proposed modifications in Title II,  specifically
those areas addressed in the second paper.

The upper Rockaway watershed is not at present part of any areawide
or basin-wide (303 or 208) plan.  The watershed has  been  presented
with a regional sewering plan developed by an engineering consulting
firm hired by a newly formed regional sewerage authority.  The plan
proposed is an ambitious one with  a first stage construction  price
tag of $83 million.  The plan is based on growth demands  to  the year
2020.
The growth demands were determined by the engineering consultant  and
have no relation to the carrying capacity of the land and its function
as a potable watershed.  The environmental assessment of  the project
justified the growth demands and the need to meet the growth demands.
The plan was approved by the State, and, in fact, immediate construc-
tion of the interceptor was urged  as a method of providing employment.

Informed and knowledgeable members of the public became alarmed at
the environmental assessment's justification of the "taking of parkland",

-------
the depletion of ground water resources, the loss of open space,
swamps, agricultural lands and historical sites, as being necessary
for the "greater good".  The "greater good" for whom, we asked?

It was perfectly evident'  that a great deal of money was to be made
by the land speculators and commercial developers who already were
appearing before zoning and planning boards in the watershed with
proposals based on tying into the proposed new facilities.

The magnitude of this growth was projected as an increase from 90,000
people now to 220,000 in the year 2020.  The proposed plant was
designed to service 160,000 people.  We had no doubt that the engineer's
growth projections would become a reality once the sewering facilities
were in.  Unfortunately, this was taking place in a county where the
reserve water capacity will be depleted within 10 years given the
current growth rate.

Regional sewering at bargain basement prices is what we have now!
The federal government pays 75%, the State pays 15%, the sewer users
pay the rest.  The more new development that is spurred by the pro-
ject, the less that average user charges will be.

In the upper Rockaway, the regional authority has no commitment to
sewer areas of existing need.  This is a function and an option of
the local municipalities.   Many areas of existing need may not be
sewered under the present proposals because the local municipalities
may find it far more attractive economically to allow new development
to gobble up available capacities.

The public concerned with the environment asked questions at the
public hearing — questions that were not answered until months
later, leaving no opportunity for rebuttal or further questions on
the same points.  Some questions were never answered.  But fortunately,
the EPA apparently recognized the validity of our concerns and a
further environmental assessment of the project has been requested.

Our difficult search fonanswers and our analysis of the watershed's
needs have led us to believe that the federal government's subsidy
of growth projections has led to inflation of these projections.
We know the sewering of undeveloped areas will result in the further
decline of our older marketing centers — areas which already have
municipal sewers, public water, public transportation, and vacant
factories and empty stores.  The proliferation of urban sprawl
into the countryside, will result in mor.e pollutants entering surface
waters, which are the potable water supply to Jersey City, and will


                                      695

-------
result in other environmental  problems of significant magnitude.
The environmental  assessment of the project recognized these problems
too, but proposed engineering solutions for them,  such as water
treatment plants,  pump storage reservoirs, and water importation
from the Delaware and other far off places.

In the area of cost comparisons of the alternatives,  no attempt was
made to consider the cost benefit of the externalities involved —
to show the real quantifiable costs, as well  as the  costs in terms
of destruction of non renewable resources. (This process  has been
ably described in New Jersey Conservation Foundation's series entitled
"The Process of Environmental  Assessment - Options and Limits".)

Commentary on Paper 2 - Limiting of Federal Funding  of Reserve Capacity

We favor the limiting of federal funding of facilities and inter-
ceptors to the capacity needed to service existing population in
service areas.  The grantee should be required to  fund 100% of
reserve capacity desired for future growth.

Communities desirous of new growth and new ratables  must  be willing
to plan for them with both their environment and their pocketbooks
in mind.  It is certainly wrong from a moral  standpoint for the federal
government to subsidize new growth for one area which will  cause
the decline of an adjacent area, as is the case in many areas of
New Jersey.

A demerit in limiting government funding is the difficulty in deter-
mination of what portion of the costs are actually applicable to
present population.  Interceptors that need to go  through undeveloped
lands offer the opportunity for development of new areas.  There  must
be an equitable method of allocating costs of the  interceptors so
that the federal government does not subsidize growth of these un-
developed lands.  There should be a commitment on  the part of the
grantee to service areas of existing need upon which the  federal
funding is based.

Whilie we do not support growth funding, we feel compelled to comment
on your extensive discussion of population projections.  Zero growth
funding will force the grantee to prepare growth projections carefully,
based on accurate data and well thoughtout assumptions.  Regions  should
be encouraged to formulate their own policies on growth.   Even to
limit projections to a certain fertility rate would  not apply in  a
state such as New Jersey where in-migratibn is the biggest source of
growth.  One way of encouraging accurate population  projections would
be to have EPA require projections based on both current (and not

                                      696

-------
historical) trends, available water and other resources,  physiography,
degree of air and water pollution, health statistics, crime rate  and
social deviance, and population density.

Commentary of Paper No. 3 - Restricting Types of Eligible Projects

We believe that cost-efficient proposals will continue to be made in
terms of only those alternatives that are eligible for funding.   Since
the solutions to some problems may be indirect and unsolvable via -
sewering, eligible projects should not be restricted as they were
prior to PL 92-500.  For example, storm water control problems should
be alleviated before the fact by land management solutions, such  as
acquisition of wetlands, and uplands with extreme slope.   In some
urban areas water quality goals may be met only by infiltration
correction or separation of combined sewer overflows.
                                                            i«,
We must keep a broad range of options available for solutions and
funding levels should also be sensitive to the situation.  Urban
areas should be given preferential federal priorities for those pro-
jects which would best improve and restore water quality such as,
tertiary treatment, correction of sewer infiltration inflow and the
separation of storm and waste water treatment by major sewer rehabi-
litation.  Communities in water recharge areas should be discouraged,
via'-lower federal priorities from encouraging added growth through
projects designed to increase capacity such as collector and inter-
ceptor sewers.

We are dealing with extremely complex systems.  Simple solutions
don't work.

Commentary on Paper No. 4 - Extending 1977 Deadline

We prefer alternative No. 3, discretionary compliance in good
faith.  Postponing compliance for eight years is shifting the burden
of our responsibility to the next generation , and is unacceptable.
The 1972 water quality amendments must be enforced, within reason,
now.   Outside limits of acceptable extensions must be established.
Open-endedness will only weaken the amendments, turning good faith
and high resolve into low results.

Commentary on Paper No. 5 - Delegating More Management to the States
          f
This  amendment could allow EPA to foster stronger state environmental
agencies.  Not all states are ready to accept enlarged responsibili-
ties.  A superior amendment could allow EPA to delegate more-functions


                                        631

-------
to states which have proven their ability to properly oversee present
functions.  Thus each state would have an incentive to upgrade their
own agency.

At the present time additional  funding to New Jersey's water pollution
control department would have only a limited effect on upgrading the
grant program.  Salaries of engineers in the New Jersey DEP are lower
than those in surrounding states.  Their salaries are tied to
those of New Jersey civil service, thus DEP could hire more engi-
neers, but not engineers with more qualifications.

We would like to include in our testimony two areas that are not
among the five issues suggested by EPA.
                                                           *

1.    Is the project a "good" one?

So long as the project meets EPA grant criteria it  is eligible for
Federal funding.  The fact remains that these criteria alone are
not sufficient.  The project must also be a good project, designed  .
to improve water quality, conserve water (preferably by keeping it
within the watershed) and maintain a rate of growth in keeping with
the natural replenishment of the water supply.   Sewerage projects
must be environmentally sound.   Projects which  drain watersheds dry
causing communities to "mine" their water supply, which propose using
county parks in areas of high population density to satisfy the re-
cycling criterion, which use inordinate  amounts of electricity to
satisfy this same recycling criterion, are bad  projects, despite the
fact that EPA's criteria are met.

2.    Public participation is essential.

a.    Unfortunately, public participation is for the most part an
      appeasement gesture and not a meaningful  attempt to add informa-
      tion and alternate points of view to the  decision-making process.

b.    The public is not invited to participate  early in the planning
      and developmental stages of a project, when their suggestions
      might be most helpful.

c.    The public has poor access to public information.  Reports are
      either not available or available in limited  numbers at un-
      available times in inaccessible designations.  Of course,
      most people work and are unable to visit  town halls during the
      working day to read reports.
                                     698

-------
d.     The availability of reports is generally not announced publicly--
      the reports must be "hunted down."

e.     Private meetings are held which exclude the public.

f.     There are no set guidelines for conducting public hearings.
      In the absence of needed guidelines, the project's designing
      engineering company usually dominated the first two hours of
      a public hearing going into descriptions of their project,
      and turning the meeting over to the public only when some are
      ready to go home.

g.     Many times public officials respond to public questions only
      after lengthy delay, thus reducing the effectiveness of the
      attempted communication.  Public questions are too often
      regarded as a del ay-factor and a nuisance, and not as a
      necessary part of the planning and decision-making.

h.     Public participation can be effective in exposing environmentally
      unsound projects.  The Tourne Coalition has a good working
      knowledge of two proposed sewerage treatment plants, both
      equally poor.  However, both plants met EPA baseline criteria.
      One plant was approved by EPA and one was rejected.  In the
      rejected project the deciding factor was strong and well-rea-
      soned public opposition.  In the accepted project this same
      public was unable to respond adequately because both plants
      were under review concurrently, and public opposition was
      polarized on the most environmentally disastrous of the two.

The Tourne Coalition is pleased that EPA Is making this timely and
careful review of the grant program.  You are to be commended on the
high quality of the discussion papers prepared for this meeting*
These changes will help focus the entire grants program on the goal
of the Federal Water Pollution Act - CLEAN WATER.
                                     69J

-------
                           June 20, 1975

Mr. Stewart Peterson, Chief
Municipal Facilities Plant
Environmental Protection Agency
JFK Federal Building
Boston, Mass.  02203

The Utility Contractors Association Chapter of Connecticut would like
to provide some comments in regard to the public hearings which are
being held on potential legislation amendments for the water pollu-
tions control act.

The proposed changes certainly have some substantial  impact on
the clean water construction grants program.  In regard to the items
referenced in your recent statement, we conclude the  following:

1.    In regard to the reduction in the federal  share, UCAC feels this
wouldprovide a disaster for local  communities in that they are now
facing severe funding restrictions and the reduction  of the amount
of money that would be planned for a sewage treatment plant would
provide great impetus to increasing resistance to actually pursue
the program.  This in fact would place a burden on the municipalities
and provide a disincentive for pursuing clean water programs.

2.    In regard to limiting federal financing on different projects
to the plant capacity needs of the existing population.  Again in
regard to municipalities the major commitment which is taken and
the overall political support which is received comes from a broad
segment including business, which has an extra incentive to supporting
financially and politically water pollution control programs in
that excess capacity will help stimulate general overall orderly
growth within the community of a residential nature which will
eventually relate to commercial and industrial development.  Any
change in reducing capacity would not provide proper  logic and in a
community wishing to undertake a major project  with  planning for
the future as that community grows.•> Certainly the degree of growth
in the future might be a policy question which could  somehow be
developed with the states and EPA, but to allow no growth to popula-
tion areas where sewage treatment plants would be built is not sensible
in our opinion, with the exception of possibly heavily over populated
urban areas, such as New York City where the natural  resources will
not allow accommodation of additional treatment discharge.
                                       70U

-------
3.    Restricting types of projects eligible for grants.   This may
have some merit, but we think the major concern here should be that
the projects which should be  funded first are those which are needed
to accomplish the objective of reducing severe pollution  to our water-
ways.  That priority continues to be the best guide in funding
assistance.

4.    Extending the 1977 date for clean water .standards is probably
not within the best interests of EPA, states or local  government at
the present time.  It would probably be a far better alternative to
allow the state the flexibility to extend under reasonable conditions
compliance with discharges to the waterways.  It would be appropriate
for EPA to review this delegation of authority after a year of opera-
tion to determine which states should have
-------
                         Presentation at
                 Environmental  Protection Agency
                    San Francisco Hearing on
                 Amendments to  Public Law 92-500
                          June  19, 1975*

Members of the hearing panel, my name is Jerome B.  Gilbert.   I  am
making this presentation on behalf of "Tri-Tac," a  joint advisory
committee of the League of California Cities,  the California  Associa-
tion of Sanitation Agencies, and the California Water Pollution
Control Association.  The purpose of this committee,  which  is com-
posed  of three representatives from each of the three organizations,
is to coordinate the views of public wastewater agencies throughout
the State on matters relating to water pollution control in California.
We hold regular meetings with representatives  of the  State Water Re-
sources in efforts to resolve problems in the  implementation  of the
construction grant program and  related matters.

At its most recent meeting, Tri-Tac voted to express  the following
views at this hearing.

SWRCH Position

In general, we support the comments of the State Water Resources
Control Board with the exception of certain comments  on eligible
reserve capacity.

User Charges

The use of ad valorem taxes should be allowed  to secure part  of in
some cases all of the revenue necessary for the construction, opera-
tion and maintenance of waste treatment facilities  providing  the
taxes can be shown to generate  revenues in an  approximate proprotion
of the cost of serving various  user classes.

Reimbursement

We support the concept of full  reimbursement for costs of past  waste-
water facilities to assure equity between those agencies that were
early in their efforts to clean up the environment  and those  that
are now implementing programs.
*Presented by Jerome B.  Gilbert, Chairman,  Tri-Tac,  a  joint  coordinating
committee of the League  of California Cities,  the California  Associa-
tion of Sanitation Agencies, and the California  Water Pollution  Con-
trol Association.

                                        702

-------
Funding Level

The existing level of Federal funding should be maintained to assure
full implementation of the 1977 and 1983 goals of Public Law 92-500.
The benefits from any significant reduction in grants would be more
than offset by upsetting local funding schedules, requiring addi-
tional local bond issues and the possible reassessment of construction
programs which are now approaching the design phase.  When a common
level of water quality achievement has beeri reached throughout the
country, it would be appropriate to significantly alter the grant
funding level.  This is particularly true in California where there
is no assurance that the additional 12-1/2 percent State grant will
be continued beyond 1976.
                                                 .1
Limiting Funding for Reserve Capacity
  •
Perhaps no single issue has been more controversial than funding limita-
tions included in the California grant regulations.  Even if these
limitations were adopted on a nationwide basis,1 they would not resolve
the growth problem since within the limitations there may be adverse
secondary effects (i.e., air quality problems); and if the local
agency decided to oversize its proposed facility, EPA might be
obligated under an EIS process to refuse to fund any part of the
project.  The present State grant regulations, particularly the fea-
ture that allows enlarging interceptors on an incremental cost basis
over the 20-year capacity if the local community idesires^ have been
accommodated by most of the current water quality planning programs.
Thus, the proposed limit on Federal funding would not have adverse
effects in California.  However, in general, we prefer that such limi-
tations be the prerogative of the State so that they can be adjusted
to reflect local circumstances which vary widely in different parts
of the country.

Restricting Types of Eligible Projects

The issue paper's arguments for broadening eligibilities are more
persuasive than those for reducing eligibility.  The idea of using
alternate techniques to achieve the same results, the need to pre-
serve administrative flexibility to deal with problems on a regional
or statewide basis, and the fact that benefits to be achieved by
pollution control are essentially national, except perhaps for the
septic tank-collection system installation problem, lead Tri-Tax
to firmly support the broadest possible eligibility of facilities
subject to the State priority system that can be adjusted from year
to year depending on the needs and the development of new information.
                                       703

-------
Extending the 1977 Date

When initial pollution control efforts have been successful, the
local incentive to achieve higher degrees of environmental protection
will be limited.  Thus the support for a high level of local fund
commitments which would achieve little pollution reduction would be
very small.  As long as the possibility of 75 percent funding exists,
it is unreasonable to expect local communities to provide a major
share of funding.  Problems in definitions of standards and environ-
mental reviews are delaying compliance.  Much of the delay results
from circumstances beyond the control of the municipal discharger.
In almost all cases, municipalities are endeavoring to comply with
the 1977 and 1983 goals.  The Administrator or the State should have
the authority to extend the deadline on a case-by-case basis and
provision should be made for schedule adjustments in the event of
reduction or unavailability of grant funding and for delays resulting
from circumstances beyond the control of the discharger.

State Delegation

Through delegation and agreements between EPA and the State of
California, the major part of the pollution control program is
being administered by the State.   However, EPA's active .- interest
in the EIS process creates the need to satisfy both State and Federal
staff requirements.  Thus, the concept of delegation is partly de-
feated.  The idea of composite EIR/EIS has tended to minimize any
delays associated with the State  and Federal processes, but it
would be preferable to conduct a  State EIR process with EPA acting
as a review or commenting agency.  We recognize that this would
require a change in the National  Environmental Policy Act which
could provide for an EIS delegation to the State.

-------
                           June 16, 1975

Environmental  Protection Agency
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials
Room 1033, West Tower, Waterside Mall
401 M Street,  S.W.
Washington, D.C.  20460

Gentlemen:
                                           X.
Enclosed herewith is Union Sanitary District's testimony on the five
proposals enunciated by the Office of Management and Budget to the
Environmental  Protection Agency regarding possible amendments to the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act.  This testimony has been prepared
on the basis of the statements made in the Federal Register (FRL 379-8)
dated Wednesday, May 28, 1975.

We respectfully request that this testimony be entered  in the
record of the Public Hearing on these matters to be held by the
Environmental  Protection Agency on June 19, 1975 in San Francisco,
California.

                                 Very truly yours.
                                 R.A. BOE6E
                                 General Manager and Chief Engineer
RAB/jk
enc:  (2) copies U.S.D. testimony
        UNION SANITARY DISTRICT TESTIMONY TO ENVIRONMENTAL
      PROTECTION AGENCY FOR THE JUNE 19, 1975 PUBLIC HEARING
        ON POTENTIAL LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL
                  WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT.

1.    Reduction of Federal Share

A reduction of the Federal Share to below the current 75% participation
would in effect throw a greater percentage onto local communities.   This
suggestion, if implemented could be the "straw that broke the camels
back".  Local financing plans are already experiencing strong resis-
tance as evidence by increasing failure of bond issues.  There is no
evidence that this trend is going to be reversed in the future.
                                     705

-------
We appreciate the fact that there are insufficient Federal funds to
do the job, however we believe that the way to attack this dilemma
is not to spread the funds thinner but to reassess the goals that
PL 92-500 is trying to reach and that by setting realistic cost
effective goals that the job can be done within budget limitations.

2.    Limiting Federal Financing to Needs of Existing Populations

Cost-effectiveness implies getting the most for the dollar in the most
effective way.  Engineering works in order to meet this requirement
must be designed so that they are not inadequate immediately upon
completion.  They must have a certain design growth built into them.
If it can be accepted then that good engineering design requires
some growth factor be built into engineering works it follows that
not building this factor in constitutes-inadequate design.  We con-
tend that by throwing the burden of 100% financing onto the local
community that this good design aspect of public works (provision
for growth) is put in jeopardy by interjecting the politics of the
growth - no  growth factions of the community.   We feel  that a
reasonable growth must be provided for in the design, and that it
be fully funded, and that the extend of this growth factor be dictated
by reasonable cirteria arrived at by full input by the local  and
regional community rather than by fixed rules that apply to all  cases.

3.    Restricting the Types of Projects Eligible for Grant Assistance

Judgment regarding the merits of each project to satisfy the goals of
the law must be the primary consideration rather the establishing of
inflexible criteria that will dictate which projects can be funded
and which cannot.  Priority projects by type are important as a guide
to applicants, however this should not rule out those projects that
can be shown to be the most effective solution to the particular
problem.

4.    Extending the 1977 Date for Meeting Water Quality Standards

Admittedly goal dates are important in order to get action started.
However, the goal date of 1977 for some time now appeared to be un-
realistic.  It has served its purpose in getting a huge project going
but now is the time to take stock of where we are and by means of
realistic engineering and economic judgement, making use of the lessons
learned in the past several years to modify the goals and the timetable
for achieving them.
                                      70S

-------
5.     Delegating a Greater Portion of the Management of the Grants
Program to the States.

We are strongly in favor of the states administering the grant programs,
State Government, by its very nature, is more sensitive to local
problems than is the Federal Government.  The problems that must  be
solved can only be done by cost-effective means with the support  of
the people.  The closer the Agency is to the people, while still
maintaining an overview perspective, the more effective will  be the
implementation of any program that depends on its support by the
people.
                                      70 ?

-------
                            June 19, 1975

Environmental Protection Agency
100 California Street
San Francisco, California

Attention:  Mr. James L. Agree
            Assistant Administrator for
            Water and Hazardous Materials
Dear Mr. Agee:
                          Public Hearing
                 Municipal Waste Treatment Grants
The Ventura Regional County Sanitation District is a special  district
embracing the entire county, which was formed for the purpose of
coordinating and guiding sewage treatment disposal, water reclamation
and refuse disposal.  This to be done within the available powers
and policies to serve the nee'ds of the member agencies when called
upon to do so.  The District encompasses 1,884 square miles.   It
is governed by a Board of Directors (20) composed of mayors,  county
supervisors and elected officials from the member agencies.  There
are nine cities, sixteen special districts and the unincorporated
area of the County.

Your request for public input and discussion on proposed amendments to
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is commendable.  It has be-
come evident that there will be need for in excess of $350 billion to
fund eligible projects which will qualify under the present law.

The most critical amendments are:

1.    Reducing the Federal Grant share.

      a)  Reduction would inhibit and delay the construction of
          required facilities.

      b)  Interest and the capacity of the State to pay a larger
          portion of the financial burden is very doubtful.

      c)  Difficulty would be significant for the agencies within
          this Regional District to raise additional funds as their
          current tax adding indebtedness is near the unbearable
          stage.  -
                                      708

-------
      d)    Reduction of the Federal  Grant to obtain greater accounta-
           bility is an assumption and would not become a significant
           factor in efficient grant administration by the State.

      e)    Reducing Federal share would have an impact on water
           quality because of the inability of the agencies to
           carry heavier financial burdens.

2.     Limiting Federal  Financing to Projects Which Serve the Needs
      of  an Existing Population.	

      a)    Current practice does not lead to overdesign because  the
           State Water  Resources Control  Board now administers grants
           on an EO population increase only.

      b)    Legislation  change would not be necessary to eliminate
           problems with the current program.   The State and EPA
           Regional office would eliminate problems by adopting
           slightly different guidelines.  1970 population pro-
           jections cause hardship where substantial growth has
           occurred between 1970 to 1975.  One example, the City
           Of Port Hueneme, whose population growth has reached  the
           1990 levels  now.

      c)    The merits and demerits of prohibiting eligibility of
           growth related reserve capacity.  We believe there are
           more merits  to controlling growth on an EO population line
           than demerits.

      d)    The merits and demerits of limiting eligibility for growth
           related reserve capacity to ten years for treatment plants
           and twenty or twenty-five years for sewers would be sub-
           stantial. This could be efficiently and effectively
           administered if the determinations had restricting ele-
           ents in the  plants or the sewers and not denying the  con-
           struction of a facility which is proper.  Certain hydraulic
           structures such as tanks, pumps, pipe lines, and holding
           vessels do not lend themselves to exact growth years  of
           reserve capacity.

      e)    The alternatives have been explained in (d) above by  having
           restricting  factors in the plant, which would limit its
           capacity but which could allow designs to be practical.
                                       703

-------
3.    Restricting the Types of Projects Eligible for Grant Assistance.

      a)   Different eligibility structures would have a determination
           of need for a particular facility.   Since all needed
           facilities cannot be built at once,  a grant system could
           ideally seek to provide the greatest improvement in water
           quality; however, we do not believe  that the grant program
           should be extended into providing collector systems, storm
           water treatment plants, etc, because of the limitation  of
           funds.

      b)   There is local  incentive to undertake needed investment in
           certain types of facilities.  These  local  projects relate
           directly to a benefit to the land that they are serving.
           Petition districts  and local  funding methods through
           improvement acts could be used for this need.  For extreme
           hardship cases  HUD does provide Federal  assistance, and
           this should continue.

      c)   In most cases there is adequate local  financial  capacity
           to undertake the investment.

4.    Extending the 1977 Date for Meeting Water Quality Standards.

      a)   To retain the 1977 date and enforce  against violators is
   ,        completely impractical  because funds  were  not made avail-
           able to the principal  agencies with  which  to comply with
           the 1977 deadline.  It is projected  that 9,000 municipali-
           ties will not be able to comply with EPA goals by  that
           year.

      b)   To retain the 1977 date without enforcement against those
           dischargers that cannot realistically meet the deadline
           is not recommended.   The law should  be changed and en-
           forcement insisted upon.

      c)
    & d)   The change in the statute by amendments  to provide the
           EPA administrator with discretion for grant compliance
           on an individual  basis appears to be practical.

      e)   A statutory extension of the 1977 deadline to 1983 is
           recommended and,  further, if Federal  funding is  not
           available, the  deadline for compliance should be ex-
           tended.
                                      710

-------
5.     Delegating a Greater Protion of the Management of the Construction
      Grants Program to the States.	

      a)   The present operations in the State of California have been
           acceptable.  If possible to delegate more to the states
           within the statute, it is recommended that this be done.

One vital  matter omitted in the consideration of this legislation, and
one that is important to the operation of all agencies within this
Regional District, is an amendment to permit the use of ad valorem
taxes as a source of revenue to effect the maintenance and operating
costs of wastewater treatment facilities.  This has been the method
of raising portions of maintenance and operating costs in most cases
in Ventura County; whereas, in others the total amount for maintenance
and operations has been raised by ad valorem taxes.  Further, there
are some cities that do not use the ad valorem tax at all.  This
determination of whether to support maintenance and operating costs
by monthly service charges, by ad valorem taxes, or a combination
of both should be give to the local community to decide which of the
three methods to use.

In conclusion, a resolution of the Regional District Board, No. 75-6,
was adopted on June 12, 1975, commending Congress for the progress
being made for, improving water quality standards.  However, the
Board opposes the reduction of the Federal share, the limiting of
scope of grants and restricting the types of^projects; and favors
extending the 1977 .date, delegating more to the States and allowing
the use of ad valorem taxes for operation and maintenance.  A copy
of the Resolution No. 75-6 adopted June 12, is hereby submitted.

                                 Very truly yours,

                                 John A. Lambie
                                 Chief Engineer-General Manager

JALisg
enclosure
                                        711

-------
                    VRCSC RESOLUTION NO.  75-6
            CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO P.L.  92-500       ^

      WHEREAS, the Federal  Office of Management  and Budget has
requested hearing on proposed amendments  to P.L.  92-500 regarding
waste treatment grants, and

      WHEREAS, the amendments propose a reduction in the Federal
share of such grants, limit the scope of grants  to facilities to
serve the existing population, restrict eligible  projects,  extend
the 1977 date for meeting water quality standards, delegate a greater
portion of management to the states, and  do not  cover the use of  ad
valorem taxes for operation and maintenance of treatment facilities,
and

      WHEREAS, several  of the proposed amendments would be  damaging
to the Regional District and its member cities and districts.

      NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that  the Ventura Regional County
Sanitation District hereby declares its position  in regard  to the
proposed amendments to P.L. 92-500 as follows:

      To commend the Congress of the United States for the  progress
      that has been made toward improving water quality standards
      through enactment of this law.

      To observe that it is important to  make revisions in  legislation
      after it has been in operation for  a time.

      To oppose reduction of the Federal  share of waste treatment
      grants, limiting the scope of the grants to facilities to
      serve the existing population, and  restricting the types of
      eligible projects.

      To favor extending the 1977 date for meeting water quality
      standards, delegating a greater portion of  grant management
      to the states, and allowing the use of ad  valorem taxes for
      operation and maintenance of treatment facilities.

      PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED THIS 12th DAY  OF JUNE,  1975.

ATTE$T.                          DONALD H. MILLER, Chairman

STEPHANIE GREER. Secretary-Clerk Board of
Board of Directors of the Ventura
Regional County Sanitation District


                                       712

-------
                           July 7, 1975

Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water and Hazardous
 Materials (WH-556),
Room 1033
West Tower Waterside Mall,
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.  20460

Attention:  James L. Agee

Gentlemen:

Re:  Proposed Amendments to Federal Water P611ution Control  Act
     (Public Law 92-500)

Please be advised that the Vista Sanitation District hereby  adopts
the statement of position in the above-referenced matter adopted
by the City of Carlsbad, California, a copy of which is attached
hereto, for the reasons set forth therein.  That position may be
summarized as follows:

      1.   Oppose reduction in the current level of federal  financing.

      2.   Concur in the present compliance date butencourage legis-
           lative changes to allow administrative discretion to
           grant time extensions based on availability of funding.

      3.   Support delegation of project control to the States.

      4.   Support resolution of the question concerning the necessity
           of secondary treatment for ocean dischargers on the Pacific
           coast.

      5.   Oppose proposal to return 50% of revenues from industrial
           users to the federal government.

Thank you for your consideration in this regard.

                                 Yours very truly,

                                 FRANK MEYER, Chairman

att.
                                   713

-------
MEMORANDUM

June 11, 1975

TO:        City Manager

FROM:      Public Works Administrator
                                                                  i   V
SUBJECT:   Public hearings on potential legislative amendments to
           Federal Water Pollution Control  Act
                                                •
The Environmental Protection Agency is holding public hearings in
order to respond to a series of questions asked by the Office of
Management and Budget concerning the Federal  Water Pollution Control
Act (PL 92-500).  The five questions being addressed in the public
hearings are:  1.  Shall Public Law 92-500 be amended to reduce Federal
share of construction grants from current level of 75% to a level,
as low as 55%?  2.  Shall Federal funding be limited  for projects
containing large reserve capacity to serve projected growth?  3.
Shall types of projects eligible for grant assistance be limited?  4.
Shall the 1977 compliance date be extended?  5.  Shall the states be
delegated a greater portion of management in the construction grants
program?
                           •
Attached is a copy of the EPA discussion papers on these five
questions and a copy of the position paper adopted by the County
Board of Supervisors.
                           c
DISCUSSION

Question 1 - Potential action here is to reduce the Federal share
of funding from its current level of 75% to as low as 55%.  The
potential effect to Carlsbad by this action would be to:  1.  increase
Carlsbad's share of the Phase III"upgrading by approximately $1.5
million;  2.  lessen the chances of a successful general obligation
bond issue; 3.  delay the project.   The Vista Sanitation District
and the San Marcos County Water District are also facing the possi-
bility of a bond issue.  Increasing the chances of failure of a
bond issue election of any of the agencies involved in the Encina
Water Pollution Control Facility upgrading would affect all agencies.
The net result would be to delay the program and the subsequent con-
formance with discharge standards.

Question 2 - The issue is the amount of allowable project capacity
beyond present-day needs.  The proposal in this instance is to require

                                     Ilk

-------
the rest of the nation to conform with the same standards of financing
eligibility currently used in the State of California.  The outcome
of this issue will have no significant impact on the City of Carlsbad.

Question 3 - The issue involved in restricting the types of projects
which will be eligible for Federal funding.  Inasmuch as the Encina
Water Pollution Control Facility is within that range of projects
currently eligible for financing and remaining eligible if the changes
occur, the chances of our being impacted are minimal.

Question 4 - The issue is extending the Federal compliance date.
There are several possibilitjes involved, ranging from retention of
existing compliance dates and stringent enforcement to extending
the compliance date an additional six years.  It is estimated that
50% of the nation's municipalities (9,000) which serve approximately
60% of the projected 1977 population will not be able to comply with
discharge standards.  The Encina project, if we can keep to our
proposed time-table and if there are no State and Federal project
approval hang-ups, will begin construction in 1977 with proposed
completion scheduled by mid-1979.

The cumulative effects and benefits of Public Law 92-500 are to the
general public.  This is acknowledged by several statements in the
EPA papers by the Federal government's involvement in establishing
discharge standards and by providing Federal monies for construction
funding.  I believe that it is inappropriate for the Federal govern-
ment to withdraw from a previously-stated position (75% funding)
simply because they have been made aware of the total cost of com-
plying with the discharge standards they have set and which they do
not propose to change.  Therefore, it is suggested that the course of
action in this question be that the 1977 compliance date be maintained
so that projects currently underway will be encouraged to complete
construction, but that the law be amended to provide for administra-
tive discretion to grant time extensions based on the availability of
funds, including Federal funds.

Question 5 - The proposal here is to grant additional responsibility
to the States for project control.  Increased State management would
result in cutting  significant amounts of red-tape and duplicate
processing without decreasing the effectiveness of the program.
Existing State discharge standards are as stringent, if not more so,
as those contained in Public Law 92-500.  Granting more State control
in lieu of Federal control would result in significant savings of
time and associated construction cost increases, as well as the cost
of duplicate project processing.

                                       715

-------
The County raises a couple of additional  points in their discussion.
The first is the requirement to return 50% of the funds recovered
from industrial users to the Federal  government.   It is my opinion
that this process is used to insure that industrial  users pay their
share and, while I agree that the process is cumbersome and not cost-
effective, the EPA is not inclined to change it.   The second question
raised concerns the need to provide secondary treatment for ocean
dischargers on the Pacific Coast.  There is considerable discussion
and study concerning the need for secondary treatment on the Pacific
Coast.  The question should be resolved before large amounts of Federal,
State and local funds are committed to construct  and operate a process
tha may prove to be unnecessary.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that the City Council  instruct  staff to give testi-
mony to the Environmental iProtection  Agency in writing and, if
Council wishes, in person at the June 19 hearing.   Our position
should be to oppose reduction in the  current level  of Federal  finan-
cing, to concur in the present compliance date but encourage legis-
lative changes to allow administrative discretion  to grant time exten-
sions based on availability of funding.   We should also support dele-
gation of project control to the States and the resolution of the
questions concerning the necessity of secondary treatment for ocean
dischargers on the Pacific Coast.

The requirement to return 50% of revenues from industrial users
to the Federal government should be opposed as being counter-productive
to the professional goal of raising more local funds for water pollu-
tion control.

If the Joint Advisory Committee adopts a similar  position, staff,
in the capacity of EWPCF administrator, should be  authorized to rep-
resent the joint owners.

                                 Ronald A. Beckman
RAB/de
attach.
                                      716

-------
                           POSITION OF
              THE VIRGINIA STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD
                         WITH RESPECT TO
                   FIVE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
            THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT

      A summary of the Virginia State Water Contorl Board's position
on the proposed amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Contrdl
Act follows below.  This summary is supported by a detailed paper
which has been prepared for" presentation at the Environmental
Protection Agency's June 25, 1976 public hearing.

PAPER NO. 1 - REDUCTION OF THE FEDERAL SHARE

      The Virginia State Water Control Board does not support  the
proposed amendment for the reduction of the Federal share from 75
percent to 55 percent.  Any reduction in the level of Federal  '
funding should be tempered by a change in the dates to meet the
goals of the Act  (which is not recommended), since such a reduction
will delay construction and "bog down" the overall program.  Federal
participation should be continued for all categories in the 1974
Needs Survey until the goals and objectives of PL 92-500 are met.

      The Virginia State Water Control Board is convinced that the
long-term solution rests with adoption of sound financial management .
practices by sewerage utilities.  Waste treatment works are a  public
utility the same as water works, telephones and electricity and
should be managed as such, with service charges reflecting the true
costs of the provided service.  Such an approach would ultimately
lead to a termination of the construction grant program and place  the
responsibility for providing adequate treatment, while maintaining
water quality, in the hands of the local community.  The Board be-
lieves that EPA and/or the Congress should make a detailed investi-
gation of all measures which could be taken to assure adoption of
sound financial management practices by municipal sewerage operations.

Paper No. 2 - LIMITING FEDERAL FUNDING OF RESERVE CAPACITY TO  SERVE
              PROJECTED GROWTH

      Past practices observed by the Virginia State Water Control
Board in the administration of the construction grants program has
not resulted in excessive reserve capacity of Virginia's municipal
sewage treatment plants.  The graph presented below depicts the
combined total flow volume from the 37 largest plants in Virginia
(representing approximately 80 percent of the total flow of all


                                     717

-------
municipal sewage discharges within the State) versus the summation
of the Board-approved flow capacities for these plants during the period
from May 1974 to May 1975.  The reported flow data indicates that,
of the total approved design capacity which averaged approximately
390 MD6 during this recent 12-month period, only 59 M6S or 15 per-
cent of the total approved capacity represents unused or reserve
capacity.  During periods of peak flow, the reserve capacity is  re-
duced to only a few percent.

      The realistic reserve capacity levels can largely be attributed
to the Virginia State Water Control Board's careful evaluation of each
construction grant project to ensure that the "needs" to be served
are correctly identified and that the treatment plant is appropriately
sized to serve these "needs".

                     Yearly Flows of Major Plants
     Flow (MGS) - Combined total  of all majors 2.00 MGD & Greater
      The Virginia State Water Control  Board has  concluded that
limiting Federal funding of reserve capacity to serve project
growth should be determined on a case-by-case basis.   This approach
best provides the technical felxibility needed to determine the
amount of reserve capacity to be considered eligible for construction
                                      718

-------
grant funds.  In most cases, growth  reserves woyld be limited to ten
years, but in others, especially  small  communities, individual judg-
ments would be based upon  financial  status,  "related needs" and
necessary "sufficient reserve  capacity."   Criteria for defining these
elements can be determined using  sound economic principles with the
goals of PL 92-500 in mind.

PAPER NO. 3 - RESTRICTING  THE  TYPES  OF PROJECTS ELIGIBLE FOR GRANT
             ASSISTANCE

     The Virginia State Water Control Board's past performance in
the "grants" program clearly demonstrates the ability of States to
judiciously and beneficially exercise the administrative flexibility
provided by the existing broad eligibility structure.  The Virginia
State Water Control Board's discriminating approach to the approval
of construction grant funds for publicly  owned treatment works, is
illustrated in the following table.

             COMMITMENT OF FUNDS FOR STEP III PROJECTS
                          FY  '73  thru '76
                                 Number
                              of Projects
 I.  Secondary Treatment Plants     40
 II. Tertiary Treatment Plants      15
 III.A.  Correction  of Infiltration/  1"
       Inflow
 III.B.  Major Sewer Rehabilitation • 0

 IV. A.  New Collector Sewers         8
 IV. B.  New Interceptors            42
 V. Correction of  Combined          1  •
    Sewer Overflows
 VI. Stormwater Treat,  or Control    0

    TOTALS   ;                     107
% of Total  Federal Grant % of Tot-
  Number
    37
    14
     n
     7
    39
     1%

     0
 Dollars
$150,000,000
 250,000,000
     300,000

           0

   3,600,000
  60,000,000
   5,000,000
al Grant
   35%
   53%
    1%
   13%
    1%
           0     0

$468,900,000
      The present Priority List includes correction of combined sewer
overflows.   The  305(B)  Report identifies 13 municipalities where
combined sewers  exist.   In the future, money will have to be spent
and grants  recommended  to correct the water quality problems associated
with combined  sewer overflows, if water quality standards are to be
met consistently.
                                        713

-------
      It is the Virginia State Water Control  Board's position to
oppose any amendment of PL 92-500 which would eliminate the eli-
bility of any projects (other than stormwater treatment or control)
presently authorized for construction grants  funding.  The Virginia
State Water Control Board believes that it should have the option
of recommending grant funds for projects that are necessary to meet
water quality standards.

PAPER NO. 4 - EXTENDING THE JULY 1, 1977 DATE FOR COMPLIANCE BY PUBLICLY-
              OWNED TREATMENT WORKS WITH SECONDARY TREATMENT OR WATER
              QUALITY STANDARDS	

      The Virginia State Water Control  Board  asserts that it will be
impossible for each publicly-owned sewage treatment plant within the
Commonwelath to be put into compliance with Section 301(b)(l) of the
Act by July 1, 1977.  Accordingly, action is  required.

      The Virginia State Water Control  Board  has filed, with the
approval of the Governor, a suit against EPA  in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia  which seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief.  The Board seeks judicial declara-
tion that
      "Each publicly-owned sewage treatment plant that cannot be
      put into'compliance with the July 1, 1977, deadline under
      Section 301(b)(l) of the Act shall not  be required to comply
      with applicable limitations under the Act shall not be re-
      quired to comply with applicable limitations under the Act
      until such time as Federal grant funds  are available in an
      amount sufficient to underwrite 75 percent of the eligible
      costs of construction and a reasonable  time has been allowed
      to complete the necessary construction."

      The Virginia State Water Control  Board  has further asked for
a court order enjoining enforcement of the express terms of Section
301(b)(l) by the Administrator.

      None of the five alternatives contained in EPA's Issue Paper is
adequate to remedy this crisis situation.  Some safety valve must be
provided.  The Virginia State Water Control Board supports, and urges
your favorable consideration of, its suggested amendment to Section
301 of the Act which is attached to this statement as an Appendix A.
This amendment is perfectly consistent with the intent of the
Congress to provide grant funds for every project which must comply
with the Act.  In offering this amendment, the Board in no way waives
any part of its claim in the suit referred to above.

PAPER NO. 5 - DELEGATING A GREATER PORTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF THE
              CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM TO THE STATES

-------
      The Virginia State Water Control Board and EPA have been
coordinating their efforts to attain the goals established in
PL 92-500 since  its enactment in 1972.  Because of the massive
responsibilities established in the Act, it has been necessary to
proceed with the utmost caution in administering its requirements.
As time progresses, however, the State becomes more and more adept
and capable of assuming sole responsibility in reviewing and approvinh
construction grant applications.  The justification for the caution
expressed in the redundant review process of the past is dissipating
as the States become capable of efficiently processing grant appli-
cations without sacrificing environmental concerns.  Further, it is
becoming increasingly necessary to develop a more efficient construc-
tion grant review process in order that the goals of the Act be
attained in a timely manner.

      The Virginia State Water Control Board wholeheartedly supports
the concepts of the Celveland-Wright Bill (HR 2175).

      To accomplish a smooth transition of processing responsibilities
the Virginia State Water Control Board feels that a deliberate phasing
process should be employed to insure that the State will be able to
adequately assume each particular responsibility assigned to it.  Each
State should be evaluated with respect to its capabilities for ade-
quately assuming each given management or review responsibility.
                           APPENDIX A

             "TITLE III-—STANDARDS AND ENFORCEMENT

                      "Effluent Limitations

      "Sec. 301. (a) Except as in compliance with this section and
sections 302, 306, 307, 318, 402, and 404 of this Act, the discharge
of any pollutant by any person shall be unlawful.
      "(b) In order to carry out the objective of this Act there
shall be achieved—
           "(1)(A) not later than July 1, 1977, effluent limitations
for point sources, other than publicly owned treatment works, (1)
which shall require the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available as defined by the Administrator
pursuant to section 304(b) of this Act, or (ii) in the case of a
discharge into a publicly owned treatment works which meets the
requirements of subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, which shall
require compliance with any applicable pretreatment requirements


                                      111

-------
and any requirements under section 307 of this  Act;  and
      "(B) for any publicly owned treatment works,  effluent limita-
tions based upon:                                            '       v -
           "(i) secondary treatment,  as defined by  the Administrator'
      pursuant to § 304 (d)(1)  of this Act; or,
           "(ii) any more stringent limitation, including those
      necessary to meet water quality standards,  treatment standards,
      or schedules of compliance, established pursuant to-any State
      law or regulations (under authority preserved  by section  510)
      or any other Federal  law  or regulation, or required to imple-  "
      ment any applicable water quality standard established pursuant
      to this Act.
      "Such effluent limitations and  other limitations shall be
set forth in a schedule of compliance established by the  State  pursuant
to § 303(e)(3)(H) of this Act,  and notwithstanding any other provision
of law to the contrary, shall be achieved not later  than  a reasonable
time required to complete construction after such time as federal
funding, in an amount sufficient to pay 75 per  centum of  the costs
of such construction, is made available by the  Administrator in
accordance with §§ 201(g) and 203 of this Act.
      "(C) not later than July  1, 1977 any more stringent limitation
for point sources, other than publicly owned treatment works, including
those necessary to meet water quality standards,  treatment standards,   .
or schedules of compliance, established pursuant  to  any State law or-
regulations (under authority preserved by section 510) or any other
Federal law or regulation, or required to implement  any applicable
water quality standard established pursuant to  this  Act.
      "(2)(A) not later than July 1,  1983, effluent  limitations  for
categories and classes of point sources, other  than  publicly owned
treatment works, which (i) shall require application of the best
available technology economically achievable for such category  or
class, which will result in reasonable further  progress toward  the
national goal of eliminating the discharge of all pollutants, as
determined in accordance with regulations issued  by  the Administrator
pursuant to 304(b)(2) of this Act, which such effluent limitations
shall require the elimination of discharges of  all pollutants if the
Administrator finds, on the basis of information  available to him
(including information developed pursuant to section 315), that such
elimination is technologically  and economically achievable for  a
category or class of point sources as determined in  accordance  with
regulations issued by the Administrator pursuant  to  section 304(b)(2)
of this Act, or (ii) in the case of the introduction of a pollutant  into
a publicly owned treatment works which meets the  requirements of
subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, shall require compliance with any
applicable pretreatment requirements  and any other  requirement  under
section 307 of this Act; and

-------
      "(B) not later than July 1, 1983, compliance by all publicly
owned treatment works with the requirements set forth in section 201
(g)(2)(A) of this Act.
      "(c) The Administrator may modify the requirements of subsection
(b)(2)(A) of this section with respect to any point source for which
a permit application is filed after July 1, 1977, upon a howing by
the owner or operator of such point source satisfactory to the
Administrator  that such modified requirements (1) will represent the
maximum use of technology within the economic capability of the owner
or operator; and (2) will result in reasonable further progress
toward the elimination of the discharge of pollutants.
      11 (d) Any effluent limitation required by paragraph (2) of
subsection (b) of this section shall be reviewed at least every five
years and, if appropriate, revised pursuant to the procedure established
under such paragraph.
      "(e) Effluent limitations established pursuant to this section
or section 302 of this Act shall be applied to all point sources of
discharge of pollutants in accordance with the provisions of this
Act.
      "(f) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act it shall
be unlawful to discharge any rediological, chemical, or biological
warfare agent or high-level radioactive waste into the navigable
waters.

-------
                             July 1, 1975

                                 Reply to:  Mr. Lewis E. Ritter
                                            Environmental Division
                                            Gilbert Associates, Inc.
                                            P.O. Box 1498
                                            Reading, Pennsylvania  19603
Director
Grants Administration Division (PM 216)
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C.  20460
                                 Re:  Municipal Waste
                                      Treatment Grants
Dear Sir;
The Water Pollution Control Association of Pennsylvania is offering
additional comment on proposed EPA regulations.

We oppose reduction of the Federal construction grant share to a
level below 75 percent.  The funding delays and impoundment, during
a most inflationary period, allowed construction costs to escalate
to a very high level.  This necessitates that the Federal share re-
mains at 75 percent so that approved projects that are awaiting grants
are feasible to construct.  Many small  communities are faced with
excessively high sewer rates even though they are scheduled to re-
ceive a 75 percent Federal grant.  A reduction of the Federal share
will destroy the confidence of the governments of the local muni-
cipalities in P.L. 92-500 and the Federal Government.  This will
eliminate cooperation and further delay many necessary water pollu-
tion problems.

It is obvious that P.L. 92-500 funding is not adequate to satisfy
estimates of municipal needs.  That should initiate prompt action
on the part of the Federal Government to provide some additional
funds - not withdraw funding or attempt to spread appropriated
monies over a greater number of projects.

We oppose changing the types of projects that are eligible for grants.
We suggest that Pennsylvania's priority system be used to direct funds
to the most urgent projects.

-------
It is recognized that Section 301 of the Act, which requires  treatment
levels equal to NPDES requirements, will not be met in all  cases.
We suggest that Pennsylvania coordinate compliance through  their
priority system and be permitted to extend compliance deadlines
based on Federal funding availability.

We strongly recommend that more authority be given to Pennsylvania
for management of the construction grant program.

                                 Very truly yours,

                                 WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ASSOCIATION
                                          OF PENNSYLVANIA

                                 LEWIS E. RITTER
                                    President

LERtdls

cc:   Senator Hugh Scott
      Senator Richard S. Schweiker
      Members of Congress  (Penna.)
      Mr. Glenn A. Marburger
                                     72 b

-------
                 STATEMENT OF SAM L,  HARRINGTON
                            PRESIDENT
                WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FEDERATION
            BEFORE EPA PUBLIC HEARING PANEL CONSIDERING
             POSSIBLE ADMINISTRATION  AMENDMENTS TO THE
                FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
                         WASHINGTON,  D.C.
                          JUNE 25, 1975

      Gentlemen.  I am Sam Warrington, Chief Engineer, Certification
and Registration Division of Environmental  Engineering, Texas State
Department of Health.  It is a pleasure to  be here today in my capa-
city as President of the Water Pollution Control  Federation to present
the views of the Federation on possible Administration amendments to
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act relating to the municipal
waste treatment construction grants  program.  Present with me is  Robert
A. Canham, Executive Secretary of the Federation.
      The Federation represents some  25,000 full-time water pollution
control specialists, mostly professional, whose objective is to at-
tain and maintain clean water in the  most rational  and economical
way possible.  Many of our members participated actively during the
formative stages of development of Public Law 92-500 and, although
they supported its enactment with reluctance owing to some obvious de-
ficiencies in the statute, they worked hard during the past two and
one half years to make that ambitious law an effective vehicle for the
purpose of combating water pollution.
      Before discussing the issues at hand, I would like to point out
that many of our members have expressed dissatisfaction with the  way
in which the Act has been administered since October 1972.  To better
grasp the nature and extent of their  dissatisfaction, the Federation
sponsored a series of ten regional workships during 1972 and 1973 to
provide them with an opportunity to  publicly air their grievances and
recommend ways to improve the administration of the law.  The culmina-
tion of this effort was the publication of  the attached report en-
titled: "P.L. 92-500:  Certain Recommendations of the Water Pollution
Control Federation for Improving the  Law and Its Administration."
The report is a digest of recommendations made at the workshops and
stresses the need:  (1) to provide adequate federal funding for both
construction grants and state programs; (2) to establish realistic dead-
lines and goals, particularly for issuing and complying with permits;
(3) to avoid administrative confusion occasioned by changing guidelines
and regulations; and (4) to eliminate onerous layers of red tape  and
paperwork.
      More concisely, the report underscores the need for both stability
and flexibility in the implementation of the law.  We believe, and I am
sure you would agree, that this makes sense.  For over two years, the
people directly involved in water pollution control activities at the
state and local levels have witnessed vacillations in the federal

-------
obligation rate; the development of a voluminous and ever-changing re-
gulatory mechanism; and the formulation and implementation of stringent
nationwide policies, guidelines and regulations which fail more often
than not to take into account local differences.  Clearly, we cannot
allow this situation to continue.  We appreciate the recent efforts
of the Environmental Protection Agency in addressing these problems,
but believe that much more needs to be done to achieve stability and
flexibility in program administration.
      Quite frankly, we do not believe that these hearings on possible
administration amendments to the Clean Water Act will assist us in our
efforts to achieve this objective, but rather will serve only to instill
even more disillusionment and dissatisfaction at the grassroots than
currently exists.  This is not to suggest, however, that we are un-
alterably opposed to the enactment of all of the possible amendments
under discussion.  We do support two of the five.
      We strongly support an extension of the 1977 deadline by which
publicly owned treatment works are to achieve compliance with the secon-
dary treatment requirements of the Act.  At the same time, we believe
that such obviously needed relief is necessary and appropriate not
only for municipal dischargers, but industrial dischargers as well, and
not only with respct to the 1977 compliance deadline, but also with
respect to the December 31, 1974 deadline for the issuance of section
402 permits.  We therefore favor the enactment of amendments designed:
(1) to provide protective relief to both municipal and industrial dis-
chargers unable to meet the July 1977 effluent limitations deadlines
provided, of course, such dischargers demonstrate "good faith" efforts
to the satisfaction of the EPA Administrator; and (2) to extend the
permit issuance deadline to allow for the orderly issuance of meaning-
ful municipal and industrial permits, based on a compatibility with local
conditions, as well as to remove potential legal liabilities for "good
faith" permit applicants who have not yet been issued permits.
      With regard to the compliance deadline issue, we would like to
suggest the consideration of certain approaches that can, we feel,
serve to ease the administrative burden that would no doubt be oc-
casioned by an extension of the deadline.  The Federation recommends,
for example, that EPA re-evaluate the definition of secondary treatment
with a view toward relating post-treatment disinfection to public health
purposes.  Such an approach would not only place more municipal dis-
chargers in compliance with the 1977 requirements without undercutting
environmental goals, but also would save valuable federal, state and
local resources.
      The Federation also recommends, as a means to encourage program
continuity and the achievement of statutory compliance deadlines, the
reinstitution of reimbursement authority and the utilization of exist-
ing prefinancing authority.  This approach would go a long way toward
salvaging available state and local funds, which have been hit hard
by inflation and debt service, and encouraging the utilization of

                                    727

-------
these funds as a balancing wheel  to smooth out the peaks and valleys
inherent in federal funding.
      In addition to recognizing  the need to extend certain compliance
deadlines, the Federation also recognizes the historical and continuing
state experience in controlling water pollution control.  As a result,
the Federation supports the increased delegation of authority and re-
sponsibility to the states so that they may, subject to federal  audit,
assume primary responsibility for implementing appropriate provisions
of the Act relating to the construction grant as well  as the permit
programs.  The certification program envisioned by H.R. 2175 represents
an effective mechanism for achieving this objective.
      This is not meant to suggest, however, that we view H.R, 2175
as a panacea for all of the problems that have and continue to a certain
degree to beset the implementation of the construction grants program.
We believe, for example, that legislation such as this can have a posi-
tive impact on the future course  of the program only to the extent that
it is implemented in a spirit of  mutual trust between  the federal and
state water pollution control partners, in such a way  so as to eliminate,
to the maximum extent practicable, the red tape and duplication of ef-
fort  that has hindered the administration of the program to date.   We
have some reservations concerning the use of title II  funds for this
purpose because of the precedent-setting impact this may have on the
future use of title II monies for other equally laudable objectives.
Assuming the appropriateness of using these as opposed to other funds
for this purpose, a long-term funding commitment on the part of the
federal government to the title II program is necessary to allay what-
ever fears the states may have about participating in  this effort as
well as to stimulate all of us, working together, to achieve the goals
of the Act.
      The administration proposals with regard to the  compliance dead-
line and state certification issues would inject some  stability and
flexibility into the construction grants program, and  we therefore
support them.  We cannot say the  same for the other proposals that are
under discussion today.  The proposals to reduce the federal  share,
to limit federal funding of reserve capacity, and to restrict project
eligibility, taken singly or in package form, represent yet another
example of the interest the federal governmentapparently has in
throwing the already shaky clean  water effort into turmoil.  While we
recognize and appreciate the magnitude of the problem  that the admin-
istration is attempting to address through these proposals, we have
not lost sight of the stringent federal clean water goals mandated by
Public Law 92-500, the attainment or unattainment of which will  be
determined not here in Washington, but at the grassroots.
      We oppose a reduction of the federal share of eligible project
costs from 75 percent to a level  as low as 55 percent.  As discussion
paper number 1 points out, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 completely revamped our approach to water pollution
control, imposing stringent standards and deadlines, not to mention

                                           728

-------
complex and comprehensive planning requirements, on both municipal and
industrial dischargers.  Congress recognized the increased burden it
was placing on all governmental levels, particularly the state and
local levels, and raised the federal share to 75 percent.  Under these
circumstances, it would be most inappropriate to reduce the level of
federal participation in the program unless, of course, there was a
concommitant relaxation of the requirements of the Act.
      This, however, is not the thrust of this particular proposal.
The thrust of this proposal is to ease the federal financial burden with
respect to the achievement of the goals of the Act, thus increasing
the financial burden of the states and local communities.  We appreciate
all too well the magnitude of the price tag associated with accomplish-
ing the clean water objective and believe that alternative courses
of action must be considered, but to assume that the states and local
communities can afford a larger share of the burden, particularly at
this time when we are all facing a severe economic situation, strikes
us as sheer folly.  Many communities, for example, are finding it
hard to raise 25 percent of the cost of a project, including some located
in states with matching loan or grant programs.  Increasing this local
share for federally associated grant projects increases the competition
for dollars available in the money market for municipal projects.  As
a result, either a change in local priorities or increasing interest
rates attracting additional capital would be required if local communi-
ties were required to assume a greater financial commitment.  Inasmuch
as these are not "realistic" possibilities, an increased local share
would serve only to retard the already lagging program effort as well
as the eventual achievement of the goals of the Act.
      The states face the same budget problems the federal government
faces.  While some states may have the ability to assume a larger share
of the grant program, providing there is a corresponding increase in
state control over the program, they must consider the priority given
to the construction of wastewater pollution abatement facilities in
relation to other priorities requiring the expenditure of state monies.
Funding the program "up to 75 percent" and thus allowing the states to
allocate money at a lesser amount, however, would give them the pre-
rogative of satisfying greater needs based on their priorities.
      This proposal, moreover, fails to take into account a problem
which has not received the attention it deserves but which relates
to the increasing burden that local communities will have to shoulder
in the not too distant future.  I am referring to the rapidly rising
operation and maintenance costs that have begun and will no doubt con-
tinue to accompany the new requirements of the law.
      In effect, the manpower and energy costs associated with properly
operating and maintaining the sewerage treatment facilities we are
planning for the future may increase the current average cost of sewer
service of $30 to $70 per year to $300 to $500 within a few years.
                                        723

-------
Since there is no federal subsidy to blunt the impact of such an anti-
cipated increase, it will fall entirely on local  taxpayers.  This
additional cost, coupled with added expense that would be imposed by
a reduction in the federal share, would certainly be too much to expect
those communities to bear.
      The complex and far reaching clean water program envisioned by
Public Law 92-500 mandates the continuation of the status quo with re-
gard to the funding of waste water treatment facilities. This approach
would guarantee a modicum of program stability and ensure equitable
treatment for local governments which have not yet received a federal
grant award.  Considering the slowness with which the program was
implemented, we do not need consideration of a proposal  to reduce the
federal share, but rather consideration of a proposal, if the goals of
the Act are to be met, designed to provide long-term funding through
1983 to meet documented and anticipated needs.
      We also oppose the possible administration  amendment to limit
federal grant assistance under title II of the Act of design capacity
for treatment works and interceptors sewers.  I do not wish to dwell
on this issue at length because the Federation's  position is adequately
reflected in the attached January 2 letter to the Administrator of
EPA.  This letter lists the Federation's specific comments on the CEQ
study entitled "Interceptor Sewers and Suburban Sprawl" and expresses
our views on the issue under discussion, which the study ostensibly
triggered.  It points out that, stripped of its control  of land use
guise, such a proposal would represent a retrenchment in the degree of
federal assistance available to communities for the construction of
treatment facilities and involve, in practice, the disruption of the
design, construction, and bonding of sewage treatment facilities.  Such
a reevaluation of the federal funding role may be appropriate consider-
ing the results of the latest needs survey, but such a reassessment
should address the financial limitations of not only the federal govern-
ment, but the states and localities as well.  Furthermore, an approach
which envisions a more realistic federal funding  level must also account
for the integral relationship between federal financing and the Act's
deadlines and goals.  Bu disregarding these ramifacations, a proposed
amendment in this area would constitute a piecemeal solution to an es-
sentially multi-faceted problem.  As such, it would wreak additional  .
havoc on a construction grants program that is just currently coming
into its own, hamper current planning efforts, and ensure the continued
pollution of our waters.
      Finally, we oppose the restriction of the types of projects
eligible for construction grants funding.  If we  are sincere in our
desire to achieve the ambitious goals of the Act, we need flexibility
at the state and local levels of government to tailor the requirements
of the Act to local conditions.  The Congress recognized this when it
expanded the scope of eligible projects in October 1972 in order to
provide an increased incentive for the development of economically


                                        730

-------
efficient projects.  Any modification of this approach, especially
limiting federal financial participation to treatment plants and inter-
ceptor sewers, would discourage broad options, impact cost efficiency,
and impede our efforts to attain our clean water objective.
   v   We believe that it is necessary to give federally-dictated prio-
rity planning ample opportunity to accomplish an end result.  Placing
restrictions on projects eligible for federal financial assistance
at thisitime would interfere*'with the accomplishment of this objective
inasmuch as it would encourage states to reshuffle their priorities
and .lead to inevitable delays.  While communities have adequate incen-
tives to invest in certain types of facilities without federal  assis-
tance, such as in cases where local health related matters dictate the
construction of collection systems, in cases where a "complete" facility
is needed, a relatively large investment would be required, an  invest-
ment that the community could not afford to make.
      While each of these proposals has the potential for throwing
hurdles in the path of our clean water efforts, one can only appreciate
the entire picture if they are considered as a package, a possibility
that is not discounted by .the EPA discussion papers.  Viewed as a
package, these proposals would lower the federal share of project
costs from 75 percent, not to 55 or 50 percent,, but to approximately
5 percent'based on total needs of $350 billion associated with meeting
the goals of the Act.  Discounting.the $235 billion in estimated storm-
water control needs and limiting our analysis to a consideration of
categories I through V of the needs survey, communities would receive
a federal share.of 17 percent5of eligible project costs.  A federal
share of 39% would result if we considered only the costs associated
with the construction, of treatment works and interceptor sewers.  Com-
pared to the existing local share of 25 percent, these proposals would
require a local share ranging from a little over 60 to 95 percent.  And
this does not take into account that, in reality, many communities
do not receive 75 percent because that amount is tied to "eligible"
projects costs or the anticipated increase in operation and maintenance
costs which I alluded to earlier.
      These proposals, in the final analysis, are money-saving  measures
for the federal government which fail to address the requirements of
the Act.  We believe that there are alternatives which would serve not
only to save valuable resources over the long-term, but also enable us
to continue our efforts to clean the nation's waters.  In this  regard,
we recommend an agressive national research program and a pool  of
skilled personnel to conduct research, to install pollution control
equipment and to operate such equipment properly.
      We are spending today one-third of what we were spending  in 1967
on municipal research and development.  This represents an abandonment
of a real national research effort and is indefensible in view of the
obvious needs and potential savings involved.  The attached Federation
position paper entitled "Research and the Quest for Clean Water"
highlights representative areas where important questions remain un-
answered, areas that must be addressed if we are to meet our clean water

                                           731

-------
goals.  As this position paper points out, it is the Federation's
position that the "limited present federal research effort in water
pollution control represents little more than a surrender with regard
to the nation's goal of clean water."
      During the past three years, moreover, the Federation has pointed
to a decline in EPA's efforts in the manpower training field as herald-
ing future shortages of trained personnel, both professionals and oper-
ators.  Federal support of academic training is slated for elimination,
operator training is pegged at a meager level and the specialized train-
ing program, the sole mechanism by which the results of federal re-
search efforts are disseminated to states and localities, has been put
on fee basis, with the result that fewer persons will  be sent to reap
the benefits of this training program.   We believe that a higher level
of commitment to this aspect of water pollution control  would ensure
the proper maintenance of facilities once they are constructed.  We
cannot accept the spectacle of a nation embarking  on a massive program
to clean its waters while systematically reducing its efforts to
provide skilled manpower to manage and  operate the program.
      These are the types of alternatives we believe EPA and the admin-
istration should be considering here today because they represent posi-
tive approaches to the problems inherent in providing the nation with
clean water.  Proposals to reduce the federal share, restrict eligibi-
lities and limit federal funding of reserve capacity represent nega-
tive approaches to these problems, approaches that will  only serve
to interfere with the achievement of our water pollution abatement
goals.

Thank you.
                                           732

-------
              RESEARCH AND THE QUEST FOR CLEAN WATER
                                 A
                         POSITION PAPER
                             OF THE
                WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FEDERATION

                WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FEDERATION
                  3900 WISCONSIN AVENUE, N.W.
                 WASHINGTON, D.C., U.S.A.,  20016

The Water Pollution Control Federation was established in 1928 as a
non-profit, technical membership organization.  Its objectives are to
advance the fundamental and practical knowledge of all aspects of
water pollution control by the  dissemination of technical  knowledge
through publications, technical conferences, improvement of the pro-
fessional status of those working in the field, promotion of public
understanding and participation, and encouragement of the adoption
and implementation of sound regulations aimed toward effective water
pollution control.
                         1974-75 OFFICERS

Sam L. Warrington 	 president
Victor G. Wagner 	 President-Elect
Horace L. Smith, P.E	Vice-President
Elmer E. Ross	 .Treasurer
John D. Parkhurst	Past President
Robert A. Canham 	  Executive Secretary
             RESEARCH AND THE QUEST FOR CLEAN WATER

                 PREPARED BY THE RESEARCH COMMITTEE
            OF THE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FEDERATION
                      AND APPROVED BY THE
                        BOARD OF CONTROL
                        OCTOBER 10, 1974
Forward
      Since its formation in 1928, the Water Pollution Control  Federa-
tion has stressed the importance of research in water pollution con-
trol.  Its official monthly publication, the Journal Water Pollution
Control Federation, has been a leader in disseminating research results,
and its Annual Literature Review issue represents a principal resource
document on research.
                                       I vj \J

-------
      Accompanying this effort to monitor trends, the Federation has,
through its Research Committee, also indicated areas where additional
research is needed.  Fundamentally, all  environmental research deals
with the interrelationships of our air,  water and land resources.  The
Federation, however, believes that increased public interest in en-
hancing the quality of waters has generated a need for those in the
water pollution control field to pinpoint critical areas where more
research is required if the hope of clean water is to be realized.
Comprehensive discussions of research needs are available in the techni-
cal literature, and the National Academy of Sciences and the National
Academy of Engineering have identified research needed for setting
water quality criteria.  However, nowhere has this information been
distilled into a manageable document accessible to those interested
in water pollution control.  This brief  document endeavors to meet
this need by highlighting representative areas where important ques-
tions remain unanswered.

Introduction

      The decade of the 70's was inaugurated by a rising global concern
for environmental quality.  Within many  nations, this concern has
been translated into landmark legislation designed to protect and en-
hance the quality of the environment.
      The 1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control  Act
(Pub. L. 92-500) represent part of the United States' response to this
world-wide concern for the environment.   In establishing the ambitious
goal of restoring the chemical, physical and biological  integrity of
the nation's waters, Pub. L. 92-500 pinned a large part of its hopes
for success on an aggressive, far-reaching research program.
      This statement of research needs is based on the growing convic-
tion of the Water Pollution Control Federation, which comprises 23,000
public officials, scientists, professional engineers, and treatment
plant operators and managers, that the nation and the objectives of
Pub. L. 92-500 are being poorly served by present water pollution
control research efforts.  The Federation has felt an increasing need
to call on its broad-based technical expertise to provide a concise
discussion of those problems requiring urgent attention if the nation's
pursuit of clean water is to have a chance of success.  Although this
statement of research needs has chosen Pub. L. 92-500 as a convenient
focal point, it bears noting that the global character of water pollu-
tion gives this listing of research requirements an international appli-
cability that varies only in some of its particulars.
      The Federation's sense of urgency  over the state of water pollu-
tion control research has its origin in  the convergence of conflicting
social demands on our water resources.  On one side, population and

-------
economic growth have jnade Increasing demands on the waterways to car-
ry off the by-products of our affluent, industrialized society.  On
the other side,, citizens have been demanding improvements in water quali-
ty for public health, recreational, commercial, and aesthetic reasons.
Since the availability of water is finite, the convergence of these
conflicting social demands presents a critical challenge in reconcil-
ing these environmental and economic demands.  The ingredients of
such a reconciliation include:  (1) development of analytical tools
for measuring and assessing the problem;  (2) development of improved
and more cost-effective treatment technologies; (3) development of en-
vironmentally more acceptable methods of  disposing of pollutants
removed from our waters; and (4) development of management policies
that assure optimum and equitable implementation of control strategies.
      Unfortunately, the technical and analytical tools available for
this reconciliation are severely limited.  Although substantial tech-
nological progress has been made over the years, achieving the full
range of the nation's commitment to clean water requires continued
advances and new approaches.  The purpose of this document is to iden-
tify representative technical and analytical shortcomings and to
indicate where research advances are needed.  With the passage of Pub.L.
92-500 the American public established its financial and emotional
commitment to clean water; it is now time for the scientific and
technical commun.ity to fashion the additional tools needed to honor
this commitment.
      It is also worth stressing that any failure to close the gap bd-
tween the nation's financial and emotional commitment to clean water,
and the availability of technological tools to do the job poses sev-
eral hazards. One possibility is that the expense and inadequacy some-
times associated with today's approaches  may cause second thoughts
about water pollution control efforts.  The public and private sectors
today are spending billions of dollars annually on treatment facilities,
many of which are not cost-effective and  often are incapable of effect-
ing levels of pollutant removal  that protect our waterways.  A fail-
ure of today's massive capital outlays to bring desired results could
lead to retrenchment.
      A secondary possibility is that the high cost and difficulty of
the task will lead to endorsement of seemingly attractive solutions
without considering their full side effects.  The Federation has recent-
ly issued policy statements warning of the potential risks with regard
to the movement of toxicants and viruses  associated with land disposal^
and water reuse.  Water reuse and land disposal techniques are often
endorsed as possible solutions without sustained scientific scrutiny.
      Given this compelling case for an ambitious national research
program* the Federation has viewed with dismay the apparent lack of
direction in and short-sighted cost-cutting of the federal research
program.  Policy makers have apparently ignored the fact that the in-
creased demands on the nation's finite water supply from economic growth
                                            735

-------
and the quest for environment quality have ushered in a new era in
water pollution control.  The nation can no longer afford to rest on
its laurels if it hopes to have continued growth accompanied by
environmental quality.  The contention often made by policy makers
that technology is available, and need only be applied, is only par-
tially true, and is actually harmful because if serves to induce a
sense of complacency unwarranted by the facts.  Dispelling this com-
placency is one of the goals of this document.

              Research and the Quest for Clean Water

      The new era brought on by Pub. L. 92-500 demands a fresh look
at the entire structure of water pollution control  technology.  Needed
advances will not come from minor tinkering with existing treatment
practices.  Instead, major revisions and innovations are needed through-
out the entire framework of the nation's water pollution control  ef-
fort.  From the scientific basis of analyzing and treating contaminants
to the more subjective realm of policy formulation  and implementation,
water pollution control programs need to be revamped.  The framework
of this paper will be to first examine research needs with regard to
analytical techniques, and then proceed sequentially to discuss waste-
water treatment, assessment of environmental effects, and finally,
management strategies.

1.    Analytical Techniques

      Fundamental to any water pollution control effort is the avail-
ability of adequate analytical tests for measuring  water quality.
Unfortunately, the type of data needed for current  programs often is
beyond the capabilities of existing analytical techniques.  The need
for advanced analytical methodology applies jointly to chemical,  biolo-
gical and physical parameters in the following areas:

           - Levels of Contaminants
           - Nature of Contaminants
           - Transport and Transformation of Contaminants
           - Interaction and Effects of Contaminants
           - Reliability of Measurements
           - Rapid and Inexpensive Real Time Data Acquisition
                                                                      i

      The need for advanced analytical methods has  many ramifications.
More emphasis is needed on the development of simplified and multipara-
meter techniques that save time and money.  New and improved tests are
also needed for determining the nature and amount of contaminants,
particularly tests which would be capable of providing reliable data
at extremely low concentrations.


                                           736

-------
      Improved analytical  techniques are essential to establishing more
complete and accurate monitoring and surveillance systems, which in
turn form the basis for enforcing compliance with effluent requirements
and stream quality criteria.   More refined and sophisticated analyti-
cal procedures are also a  prerequisite for conducting detailed surveys
to document ecological and water quality improvements resulting from
discharge reductions.  This need also includes information on the total
nature of contaminant composition to assess possible long-term chronic
health and environmental effects which then must be fed into the criteria
setting process and, ultimately, into the development of advanced
treatment systems.
      Although considerable attention has been given to the design of
systems for measuring stream quality, little has been done to develop
systems for measuring effluent quality on a continuous and real time
basis.  Such information is not only essential for accurately assess-
ing compliance but also for implementing effective waste treatment
process control.
      Chemical characteristics.  Specific information is needed on the
exact chemical nature of substances emanating from wastewater treatment
plants.  To date, the specific nature of trace complex organic substances,
many of which are non-biodegradable, that persist in wastewaters remains
unknown.  Such compounds pose a spectrum of problems, ranging from acute
or chronic toxicity to taste and odor nuisances, in down stream re-
ceiving water or ground water supplies.  These problems may result
either directly from the organic compound itself, or indirectly through
conversion to other chemical  species by reaction with other compounds
such as the disinfection agents chlorine and ozone.
      The issue of clearly distinguishing organic species is inte-
grally tied to the concern over and measurement of heavy metals.  Not
only are many of the analytical questions concerning speciation and
transport similar but also the nature of their interaction with organic
compounds must be determined if the health and environmental effects
of low levels of lead, cadmium, mercury, and other metals are to be
identified.  The identification of chemical species is important in
interpreting toxicity data as well as any investigation involving the
cycling of chemical elements in the environment.  These research areas
demand reliable analytical procedures capable of providing information
as to speciation, transformation, and delineation that is well beyond
the nonspecific determinations in use today, which generally give
measurements only of total organic carbon.  The new techniques must be
sensitive to low concentrations, but, at the same time must not
be prohibitively expensive for widespread use in monitoring and sur-
veillance programs.  It is here that rapid multi-elements analysis pro-
vides some promise.
                                           737

-------
      Increased interest in disposing of wastewater and sludges on
land also presents new challenges with regard to the chemistry of or-
ganic materials, trace metals, and nutrients, as well as their trans-
formation, transport, and ultimate fate.  Advances in analytical metho-
dology are also required here if the use of land disposal  techniques
is to be in accord with protection of the public health,
      Biological characteristics.  Waterborne disease outbreaks asso-
ciated with drinking water, aquatic recreation,  and the consumption
of seafoods may often have their origin in the discharge of treated
or untreated domestic wastewaters, and continue  to occur in the United
States and elsewhere.  Diseases that may be transmitted by contaminated
water include infectious hepatitis, cholera, gastroenteritis,  dysen-
tery, amoebic meningeal encephalitis, and leptospirosis.  The number
of outbreaks of disease in the U.S. related to contaminated drinking
water averaged two per month during 1971-1972.  Preventing the re-
currence of such incidents requires both basic research and additional
epidemiologic investigations to determine the causes and sources of
infectious agents.  Specifically, the role of water in transmitting
virus-caused diseases needs clarification.
      Much of the ignorance with regard to viruses stems from the con-
tinuing need for a reliable method of concentration and enumeration.
After the development of an acceptable methodology, there  will  be a
need to study the removal and inactivation of viruses by treatment
processes, including disinfection.  The coliform test is generally
used today to indicate the presence of bacterial pathogens.  However,
much is yet to be learned regarding the adequacy of using  coliform
organisms as indicators of pollution.  For instance, it is known that
many waterborne enteric viruses have a higher resistance to chlorine
than do bacterial pathogens and coliform organisms.  For this reason
the coliform test is not a satisfactory means of determining the viral
quality of water or even of chlorinated effluents.  The methodological
difficulties presented by viruses demand the identification of new
Indicators and the development of new methods of virus detection.
      The virus problem also extends to the use  of land disposal.
Assessment of the potential health hazards associated with land appli-
cation of wastewaters and sludges requires information on  the fate of
viruses and other disease agents in the soil.
      Physical characteristics.  The measurement of physical parameters,
such as suspended solids, is currently the most  developed  area of waste-
water analysis.  However, with the exception of  temperature, these
measurements are generally nonspecific, and yield only gross response
parameters.  To a large extent, this reliance on non-specific physical
measurements has evolved because of the lack of reliable and rapid chem-
ical and biochemical tests noted in the preceding sections.
                                          738

-------
      Information given by these gross physical parameters is becoming
of limited value.  Concern has now been extended to organic compounds,
heavy metals, and viruses, and traditional properties such as volatile
solids are becoming less important.  Physical properties must be inter-
related with biochemical and chemical measurements.  Furthermore,
physical measurements must be standardized because such measurements
as solids and turbidity are subject to wide variation according to the
technique employed.  Turbidity measurements, for example, depend upon
the lightscattering properties of suspended matter.  Measurements on
a simple sample by two different methods, both of which have been
calibrated with the same turbidity .standard, may vary by as much as
400 percent.
      Along with turbidity, taste and odor are sensory responses that
have historically been evaluated by the inherently imprecise mechanism
of human perception.  While turbidity is now more commonly evaluated
by instrumental means, taste and odor remain subject to "human" detec-
tors for evaluation because of an incomplete understanding of taste
and olfactory response mechanisms.
      Measurement of color also remains an analytical problem.  In
natural waters it is evaluated visually by a procedure entirely in-
appripriate for industrial wastes.  The present method for evaluating
industrial waste color is a tedious, time-consuming procedure, the
results of which are of dubious value from both an analytical and legal
point of view.
      Accordingly, it is apparent that many traditional physical mea-
surements, despite their widespread use, are of limited utility.  A
new era demands new tools.

2.    Wastewater Treatment
      —^—^—-• «- T"-P^^—^^™^—»^^^—                                                   - }

      The entire cycle of municipal and industrial wastewater treat-
ment, from collection through disposal of residual sludges, presents
an area ripe for further research.  Existing technology has been
successful in eliminating waterborne disease epidemics such as typhoid
fever.  However, it remains inadequate for protecting existing water
quality already badly degraded in some areas against the pressure of
economic and population growth, let alone satisfying the public's desire
for cleaner water.  The cost of meeting the full panoply of the legal '
standards now approaches $350 billion.  Improving the cost-effectiveness
of treatment has itself become a fertile field for investigation.  The
treatment area demands fresh insights, particularly in the following
areas:
           -  Improved Systems Integration
           -  Real Time Process Control
           -  Design Performance Correlation
           -  Reclamation and Reuse
           -  Energy Conservation and Environmental Effects,

                                        739

-------
      It should be stressed that these research needs apply to the
entire treatment sequence of collection,  treatment,  and residual  dis-
posal.

      Collection Systems.  The proper design,  construction, and main-
tenance of sewerage systems are important elements in the overall  ef-
ficiency of a water pollution control  system.   More  information is
needed in areas such as pipe joining materials, bedding inspection
techniques, inexpensive methods for controlling roots in sewers,  and
the value of using long lengths of pipe versus short sections.  Exist-
ing information indicates that a large percentage of watewater eventual-
ly reaching treatment plants originates as infiltration of highly vary-
ing quality.  Significant improvements in treatment  plant operation may
be achievable by reducing or eliminating  infiltration into waste-
water collection systems.  A great deal of research  and demonstration
has been performed in the past ten years, but  the problem of quantifi-
cation and reduction of pollution from either  combined or separate
storm water collection systems still continues.  Information on the
composition of urban and agricultural  runoff and its effect on  the en-
vironment is extremely limited.
      Non-point sources (in contrast to point  sources) have recently
drawn the attention of many investigators, and are now recognized as
significant contributors to pollution. Since  they are presently  un-
controlled, and subject to severe seasonal and other short term fluc-
tuations, they represent a unique challenge, a challenge that must be
met if water quality goals are to be met.  Meeting the challenge,
however, requires information, and until  the information base is  vast-
ly improved in this area, positive regulatory  action will  be very diffi-
cult.

      Contaminant Removal.  The critical  task  in any treatment cycle  is
the removal of contaminants.  The purpose of well-planned collection
systems is to transport wastes to treatment facilities for treatment.
But this planning will be for naught if the treatment facility fails
to remove the contaminants.
                                                             7
      Municipal Systems.  Research is needed to specifically determine
if the efficiency, reliability, and economics  of existing municipal
treatment plants can be improved and what administrative and techno-
logical changes should be made to implement these improvements.  The
development and use of continuous monitoring systems, diagnostic
methods of evaluating plant performance,  and new design or performance
parameters must be emphasized.
      All too often a wastewater treatment plant receives little  atten-
tion  after it is designed, constructed, and put into operation.  The
performance of treatment plants is rarely analyzed in a systematic
manner to generate information that could be helpful in designing,

                                           7'iO

-------
constructing, and operating new plants.  Such a systematic approach
is presently hindered by the unavailability of a standard method for
comparing actual plant performance with design specifications,  A
"diagnostic" method or other well-defined means of analyzing plant
performance is lacking.
      A standardized approach to treatment plant monitoring very prob-
ably would improve present-day design concepts.  Such an approach would
reduce the apparent discrepancy that exists between design specifica-
tions and actual operation.  Such information would also be useful
in modifying existing treatment plants to attain greater reliability
and efficiency.  A longer range goal would be to determine the signi-
ficance of measuring various pollutants discharged in the final ef-
fluent.  As noted in the section on analytic methods, it is likely
that the familiar and most-used design parameters, biochemical oxygen
demand and suspended solids, will have to be supplemented by more
exacting and pertinent measurements.
      Many unit operations and processes in use today for the treat-
ment of municipal wastewater could benefit from additional research.
For example, considerable data exist on the efficiency of the activated
sludge process in removing biochemical oxygen demand and suspended
solids, and the resulting concentration of each in the final effluent.
However, little attention has been directed to the efficacy of the
different modifications of the activated sludge process in removing
and accumulating toxic materials such as persistent organic substances,
inorganic compounds, and heavy metals.  There is need for more extensive
data on the performance of current biological and physical-chemical
treatment methods in terms of day-to-day variability of the raw waste-
water, maximum removal of various pollutants, and cost-effectiveness.
      Now more than ever, the means of disinfecting wastewater effluents
needs further study.  For a variety of economic and technical reasons,
the most widely used disinfectant is chlorine which, at its present
level of application, leads to the formation of chlorinated compounds
such as chloramines.  These are toxic to many biological species in
receiving streams.  While further studies on the formation of persis-
tent, toxic chlorinated organic compounds are needed, existing informa-
tion should be a warning that alternate disinfectants also should be
evaluated for their tradeoffs in terms of effectiveness,cost, and the
eventual impact of their reaction products on the environment.
      Eutrophication of lakes and the pollution of confined fresh water
bodies has generated interest in the removal of the nutrients nitrogen
and phosphorus from wastewater.  There have been many studies on the
removal of nitrogen from wastewaters, but there are yet to be established
clear-cut design parameters that permit the application of treatment
processes without difficulty.  Pilot or large-scale studies are now
required to demonstrate the efficiency and reliability of available
processes and attendant operational problems and their remedy.  Re-
search results rarely present a completed solution for immediate use,
instead it provides the ingredients of a potential solution.  Putting

-------
all the ingredients together in a viable process often requires as much
energy, thought, and money as generating the original ingredients.
      Implicit in this discussion of improving treatment processes is
the need for cost-effectiveness.  Many sophisticated processes for re-
moving contaminants would present extreme cost problems if widely em-
ployed.  To say, as many critics of water pollution control research
do, that technology is readily available to provide higher levels of
treatment is to ignore the fact that processes that are too expensive
to be widely employed can hardly be said to be readily available.  Af-
fluence has its limits, and the costs of some new treatment technolo-
gies may approach these limits.
      Certainly, the expense of today's technology has been one of the
factors that has generated an interest in disposing of wastewater on
land.  (See WPCF Policy Statement, "Use of Land for Wastewater Treat-
ment and Disposal," Jour. Water Pollution Control Fed., 45, 2594 (1973)).
There are, however, a number of unknowns associated with this practice.
The biological health effects which may potentially exist should be
fully evaluated.  For example, there is a void in information regarding
the removal, movement and persistence of viruses in the soil  that may
result from the application of wastewater to land.  The removal of
heavy metals and other elements and their buildup and movement in soil
also needs investigation.  Methods of applying wastewater in land dis-
posal, including methods based upon percolation, overland flow, ridge
and furrow operation, and subsurface injection, need to be thoroughly
evaluated.  Of particular importance are the biological and physical-
chemical alteration, transport, and_ fate of nutrients, heavy metals,
refractory materials, gases, oxidation-reduction products, micro-
organisms, and viruses.  Loading rates and/or optimum rest periods
should be defined in relation to climatic, topographic, geologic,
hydrologic, and ground water conditions as well as the effects on cover
crops.  Each of these problems for land disposal of wastewater also
exists with regard to the land application of sludges.
      Coupled with the treatment and discharge of municipal wastewater
is the question of the use of potable water supply sources that con-
tain treated wastewater effluent.  Associated with this question is
direct wastewater reclamation or reuse.  It is generally accepted that
the entire spectrum of public health implications of reuse needs to be
delineated.  In this respect, both the chemical and biological quality
of treated wastewater must be considered if reuse is to be consistent
with protection of the public health and the environment.  (See "WPCF
Adopts Water Reuse Policy, "Jour. Water Pollution Control Fed., 45,
2404, (1973)).  The question of reuse may involve the development and
use of dual water supply systems, one for potable supplies and the other
for secondary uses.

      Industrial Systems.  Industry is having particular difficulty
complying with the standards established under Pub. L. 92-500.  Many
of the observations made regarding research needs associated with

                                       71*2

-------
municipal wastewaters and sludges apply equally to industrial wastes.
Very often, however, industries are confronted with more severe toxi-
city problems, for example, wastewaters with excessive amounts of heavy
metals such as lead, hexavalent chromium and mercury, all of which
merit special attention.  In this respect, many industries are still
faced with the development of more economical, efficient treatment
systems.  Further, more efficient methods of treatment specific indus-
trial wastes are needed, such as those containing prohibitive concen-,
trations of sulfates or nitrates.
      Research on the application of conventional as well as new and
innovative treatment methods is needed if industrial effluent stan-
dards are to be met.  In formulating solutions to industrial waste
problems, more attention should be given to implant process changes
to reduce the quantity or strength of the waste or to change its char-
acter to make it more amenable to treatment.  This principle of actually
reducing the amount of discharges to waterways is one that warrants
greater application in both the industrial and municipal sectors.   Pro-
mising research avenues with both economic and ecological payoffs
include closed-loop recycling systems and recovery of chemical bypro-
ducts from process wastewaters.  Such studies must be performed both
in the laboratory and on a pilot scale.  Better information is needed
on the scale-up factor associated with many unit operations and pro-
cesses used in the treatment of industrial wastes.  Inadequacies in
nutrient removal, oil separation, sorption applications, resource  re-
covery, energy conservation, waste reduction, toxicity impact evalua-
tions, and overall waste management are only a few examples of the
magnitude of the problems associated with industrial wastes.

      Special Systems.  Septic tanks continue to provide treatment for
a significant portion of the nation's households, small commercial en-
terprises, highway rest areas, and motels.  In fact, the homes of  40
million Americans are still served by septic tanks.  While it is gen-
erally conceded that their use poses environmental and public health
management problems  for local communities, it must be admitted that
often they present the only alternative to no treatment at all. What
is needed are working criteria for when septic tanks are acceptable or
when their disadvantages should rule out their use.  However, the  con-
tinued use of septic tanks is assured, and thus their operation and
design could benefit from additional scrutiny.  The same is true of
the chemical systems used by pleasure boats and some isolated commer-
cial establishments.  Reliability and the production of disinfected,
nutrient-free effluent are two areas deserving attention.  There is al-
so need for a procedure to indicate how well these specialized systems
are functioning.  Such systems represent a prime example of where
small incremental research efforts promise major returns.

-------
      Ultimate Residue Management.  The growing problem of the disposal
of increasing quantities of treatment residues is one result of success
in other portions of the treatment cycle.  Better collection and con-
taminant removal systems mean more residues.  Furthermore, as contami-
nant removal techniques become more permeated with heavy metals, organic
matter, nutrients, and viruses.  This problem is particularly acute
for industries that carry the major burden of reducing the discharge
of heavy metals.  Thus, in the last analysis, the new era of water
pollution control entails not a final solution of today's problems,
but a trading of water pollution problems for  the problem of growing
quantities of highly polluted sludges, solids, and brines.  It should
be noted that while the focus here is on residues from municipal and
industrial wastewaters, this is but part of the larger issue of residue
management, with other components in the areas of solid waste and resi-
dues from air pollution control efforts.  To a large extent, the pub-
lic's quest for improved environmental quality will  eventually in-
volve the development of new technology to handle the residues generated
by the clean-up effort.
      For the municipal and industrial wastewater residues, the first
needed stop is a better characterization of their physical and chem-
ical properties.  This is a prerequisite to evaluating the potential
impacts of residues and the development of improved  design criteria
for residue treatment and disposal facilities.
      Many of the problems associated with the treatment and disposal
of residues involve removal of water from sludges to reduce their
volume and make subsequent treatment, transport, and disposal  more
economical.  Research into the fundamental aspects of sludge condi-
tioning, prior to dewatering, to make it more of a science than an art
would greatly enhance the effectiveness and economics of sludge dispo-
sal.  New techniques in sludge disposal technology are needed to pro-
vide methods that are more environmentally acceptable.  One of the
most promising techniques for processing sludge prior to land disposal
is chemical fixation.  This involves the meshing of  sludge with organic
and inorganic binders to reduce the mobility of environmentally offen-
sive compounds.
      Traditional techniques of disposal such as ocean dumping and
incineration, as well as, the newer techniques of land disposal and
partial treatment and energy recovery all need reevaluation in light
of present economic and regulatory constraints.  All have environmental
costs that make the choice of any option an exercise in evaluating
comparative tradeoffs rather than the choice of a truly environmentally
sound method.  In terms of tradeoffs, the energy requirements of all
wastewater treatment and sludge disposal processes,  should be evaluated
along with possible methods of conservation.  Aside  from reclamation
of materials from a few homogeneous industrial sludges and productive
utilization of some,municipal sludges on agricultural land, the lack
of effective reclamation of materials contained in sludges clearly

-------
emphasizes the need for development of techniques for recycling and
resource recovery.

3.    Environmental Effects

      The ultimate objective of a wastewater treatment cycle, from
collection to residue disposal, is protection of public health and the
integrity of the environment.  For purposes of simplicity (to avoid a
potentially endless list of specific problem areas) concerns in this
area can be placed under the broad categories of ecological  effects,
aesthetic effects, and public health effects.
      Admittedly, an individual agent or an event which places stresses
on the environment usually cannot be confined to one of these categor-
ies.  Despite this shortcoming, they provide us a convenient framework
for considering these complex areas.

      Ecological Effects.  It is incumbent upon those in the water pollu-
tion control field to gain a greater understanding of the differing
consequences of discharges from point and nonpoint sources.   A given
total mass flow into a particular system may have entirely different
results depending on whether the inflow is from a point discharge or
from diffuse nonpoint sources.  Such considerations also determine to
a large extent the feasibility of treatment and control strategies.
An example of this need to distinguish between the different sources
of a contaminant is the phosphorous control issue.  In cases where non-
point sources are the major source of phosphorous for algae growth in
a fresh water body, the removal of phosphorous from municipal waste-
waters may be an expensive and futile gesture.  Also, where algae
growth is prevented by a lack of light penetration, phosphorous re-
moval again would be unnecessary.  These examples serve to point out
the need for fully evaluating an environmental system and its problems
to insure that control strategies are not only successful, but do not
squander precious resources.
      Areas where additional eutrophication studies are needed include:
(a) quantification of nutrient loading rates to lakes based on land
use patterns and simple measurements of flow; (b) delineation of the
role of sediments in recycling nutrients to lake waters, for example,
the importance of internal recycling nutrients from sediments relative
to external sources (this may have a great impact on the recovery of
lakes after wastewater effluents are no longer being discharged into
a lake); (c) demonstration of effective and economically feasible lake
restoration methods such as chemical treatment with alum or fly ash,
sediment consolidation, and hypolimnetic aeration-destratification.
      The environmental effects of thermal discharges also represent
a continuing challenge to researchers.  The water temperature

-------
requirements for important aquatic species should be identified with
respect to:  time-temperature relationships for survival  at upper and
lower temperature extremes; determination of optimum growth rates at
various temperatures; and the temperature necessary for successful
spawning, survival, and egg and larvae growth.  Biological  changes that
are most often observed in the laboratory, such as thermal  tolerance,
growth, and metabolism, are not necessarily reflected in changes in
population.  For mobile organisms, such as fish, this is often caused
by behavioral patterns of attraction and avoidance.  Research should
be directed to relating laboratory assays to population effect.  Fur-
ther, intensive field studies are required to confirm laboratory obser-
vations under "real world" conditions.  Temperature rarely  constitutes
a single stress factor on organisms; more often the effects are pro-
duced by combinations of pollutants in some temperature regime.  Little
is known about the interactions between temperature and other  pollu-  '
tants of potential ecological damage, and whether they are  synergistic,
additive or antagnoistic.  Laboratory and field studies require that
more attention be given to standardizing bioassay, sampling, and other
procedures and to a uniform method of reporting data.  The  research
needs in this general area may be summarized by simply pointing out
that the effect and fate of various pollutants in the natural  environ-
ment must be more completely identified and that analytical  techniques
must be available to perform such studies.  Certainly, the  expense of
reducing thermal discharges, estimated in the tens of billions of
dollars, makes this an important area requiring further study so that
cost-effective abatement strategies may be developed.
      Superimposed on the above considerations is the need  to clearly
delineate the difference in response to stress between freshwater,
marine and estuarine systems.  A change in any one of these environments
may not affect permanent resident populations, but may have a dramatic
impact upon migratory species.  There is a preliminary need in this
area of the interrelationship between freshwater, ocean,  and estuarine
systems to carefully define the problems.  This requires  not only study
by but cooperation and coordination between such traditionally isolated
groups as oceanographers and water pollution control  policy makers.

      Aesthetic Effects.  Aesthetic effects generally accompany any
ecological changes.  The principal question is whether these aesthetic
Impacts should be ameliorated or simply be tolerated as an  inevitable
cost of an industrialized society.  This is basically a cost-benefit
question that demands economic and sociological research to generate
Information.  The present state of the art is quite primitive.  Economic
impacts can be computed readily for shell fish and commercial  and
sports fishing industries, but aesthetic impacts, because of their
subjective nature, remain largely unquantified.  Because of this, they
are often ignored in cost-benefit calculations, an oversight that de-
mands redress.

-------
      Public Health Effects.  Public health effects are more identifiable
than either ecological or aesthetic effects but have been studied in
the past only in terms of direct or acute effects.  Recent work on the
biological accumulation, transformation, and magnification of such
contaminants as pesticides, heavy metals, and plasticizers has opened
up entirely new areas of concern.  The long-term chronic effects of
low levels of chemical pollutants in conjunction with natural and waste-
water treatment chemicals and disease producing agents remains largely
an unknown area of significant concern.  Water reuse, land disposal
(wastewater and sludges) and ground water recharge all have served
to highlight the fact that our continued ignorance in this area carries
potential risks.  Furthermore, not only must the health effects of
these substances be studied, but their impact upon aquatic species must
also be assessed.  With respect to human health, the greater exposure
of wastewater control personnel to many pollutants remains a largely
ignored area of research.
      It bears emphasis that reuse is not merely a future option under
consideration.  Both direct and indirect reuse are being employed as
man's need for water out-strips available supplies.  The question is
not whether reuse will be employed, but, as with land disposal, whether
it will be employed in a manner that does not imperil public health
and the environment.

4.  Water Pollution Control Management

      In its broadest sense, water pollution control is a problem in
public policy determination.  As such it is a proper area for research
in law, economics, sociology, systems analysis and modeling, and
other disciplines related to decision making.  Although research of
this type has already proven valuable in decision making.  Although
research of this type has already proven valuable in solving pollution
control problems, perhaps its greatest impact has been in uncovering
and emphasizing areas in which further work is needed.  It is important
to note that there are two distinct kinds of research needs related to
public policy:
           -  Policy Formulation
           -  Technological and Socioeconomic Relationships in Policy
      Just as today's analytical techniques, treatment methodologies,
and assessment capabilities all need upgrading to meet the challenge
of higher expectations, so do current techniques for policy formulation
need improving to deal with the complex and multiple social objectives
associated with water quality systems.                                 ,
      Such water quality problems are exceedingly complex.  Solving
them means coming to grips with physical, chemical, biological, social,
political and economic interrelationships, some of which can only be
described in a probabilistic manner, if at all.   Early policy modeling


                                      Ikf

-------
efforts have generally oversimplified the problem so that manageable
models could be obtained.  More recent efforts have demonstrated a
trend towards greater complexity as improved mathematical techniques
for solving the models have become available.  This trend does, presum-
ably, lead to solutions that are closer to reality; but, inevitably,
it also leads to models that are difficult for the decision-maker to
understand.  The result is that sophisticated models are often left
on the shelf because potential  users simply find them overwhelming.
      The ability to link a number of simple, readily understood models
to provide an overall solution which is adequately realistic would
be an important step forward.  In addition, although techniques for
dealing with problems where the underlying probability distributions
are known continue to be developed, there is little theoretical frame-
work for decision-making in the face of uncertainty, that is, when
the probabilities of possible outcomes are not known.
      Public policy in water pollution control can be characterized
by many objectives, not all of which are compatible.  A long-standing
and well-known shortcoming of optimization techniques is the require-
ment that the objective be stated in terms of a single measure.  For
most water quality problems there is no way of expressing the various
objectives in a common measure.  Some efforts directed towards solving
multiple-objective problems have begun but a great deal  of additional
work is needed.  Until such work is completed, the process of rational-
ly reconciling our economic and environmental goals will remain one
of educated guesswork, a form of decision-making that leaves few sat-
isfied.
      Many of the policy formulation techniques involve the use of
mathematical modeling, which requires a sufficient understanding of
the underlying technical processes to permit their description in
the form of equations.  In recent years it has become increasingly
necessary to model and predict ecological  phenomena, such as eu-
trophication.  Although some progress in this area has occurred, there
is still a dearth of adequate data and a very limited understanding of
the relationships between pollutants, nutrients, hydrodynamics, and
ecosystem models which permit analysis of alternatives for correcting
systems after an insult has occurred as well as predicting the effects
of alternatives for preventing insults.  An additional need has been
to generate suitable models of industrial  discharges that allow for
equitable, yet comprehensive controls.  The lack of precision with
which the policy making process is currently being undertaken has con-
vinced many of the need for renewed efforts in this area.
      There are other phenomena of importance in water pollution con-
trol policy formulation which require a better understanding of the
underlying natural processes.  These include the interactions between
groundwater quality and the quality of surface water supplies, the
identification and^prediction of non-point pollution sources, and the
consequences of land disposal of liquid wastes.  In particular the control

-------
of nonpolnt sources presents a difficult data-gathering and decision-
making task, but the substantial contribution of diffuse sources to
water pollution poses a problem that can no longer be ignored.
      The objectives considered in current policy models are frequently
microeconomic in nature, dealing with cost minimization or income
maximization.  On the other hand, the goals of decision-makers often
involve much broader concepts including equity, income redistribution,
and trade-offs between non-quantifiable entities which are frequently
poorly defined.  Perhaps the major research need for policy modeling
is a clearer understanding of the linkages between technology and micro-
economic phenomena on the one hand and macro-economic, social  and
ethical considerations on the other.  Until policy models are able
to explicitly consider such goals, their use by decision-makers will
be severely limited.

Conclusion

      The new era inaugurated in the United States with the enactment
of Pub. L. 92-500, and in other countries of the world with similar
legislation, poses a variety of challenges for those in the water pol-
lution control field.  Unfortunately, the technological and analytical
tools presently available to respond to these challenges are limited.
The analysis and treatment of the complex organic and heavy metal com-
pounds that have appeared since World War II continue to present ex-
treme difficulties.  The ability to conceptually handle viruses is
primitive at best.  Today's treatment technologies on which the private
and public sectors are spending billions of dollars annually are ex-
pensive and often incapable of effecting levels of pollutant removal
that protect water quality. Sludge disposal, continues to be the Achilles'
heel of the treatment cycle as municipalities have increasing diffi-
culty in disposing of growing mounds of sludge in an environmentally
acceptable manner.
      This backgrop of growing problems and new challenges serves to
bring us full circle to the original concern that is the fundamental
reason for this paper -- the woeful inadequacy of the present federal
research effort.  Municipal wastewater treatment technology offers an
example.  Today, spending for municipal technology research is one-third
of. what was being spent in 1967.  For sludge disposal alone, which
many municipalities rank as their top priority in water pollution
control, funding has declined from $2.6 million in fiscal year 1968
to $668,000 in fiscal year 1973.  The fact that almost 40 percent
of the cost of municipal wastewater treatment lies in sludge
handling and disposal costs, and the fact that cost-effective techniques
are still unavailable makes such cuts ill-advised,
      According to the Environmental Protection Agency's own estimates,
it will take 30 years at current research funding levels to reach
program objectives that Pub. L. 92-500 envisions being completed by

-------
the latter part of this  decade,   Furthermore, the disparity between
funding and goals does not account  for  new problems that may come
to the fore that could make priority  claims on future research dollars,
      The Federation believes  that it is not unreasonable to contend
that the limited present federal  research effort in water pollution
control represents little more than a surrender with regard to the
nation's goal  of clean water.
                                        750

-------
Jaunary 2, 1975

The Honorable Russell Train
Administrator
U.S. EPA
1200 Waterside Mall, West Tower
401 M Street
Washington, D.C.   20460

Dear Mr. Train:

This letter represents the sequel to our December 3, 1974 letter in
which the Water Pollution Control Federation indicated that in response
to the CEQ study on "Interceptor Sewers and Suburban Sprawl", it had
initiated a review of the report.

Prior to listing our specific comments on the report, we think it im-
portant to stress that the issue now transcends the implications of
the report itself.  The report's conclusions have ostensibly served
as the basis for a proposed legislative amendment that would limit
federal grant assistance under Title II of Public Law 92-500 to ten
years of design capacity for treatment works and twenty years for in-
terceptors .

The implications of this amendment are enormous.  Stripped of its
control of land use guise, the amendment represents a retrenchment
in the degree of federal assistance available to communities for the
construction of treatment facilities needed to cleanse the nation's
waters.  Moreover, while, while the intent of the amendment may be
to limit the federal financial commitment, its implementation would
involve, in practice, the disruption of the design, construction,
and bonding of sewage treatment facilities.

A reevaluation of the federal government's role in funding water
pollution control facilties may be in order in light of the recent
needs surveys estimate of $350 billion.  However, such a reassessment
should explicitly address the financial limitations of not only the
federal government, but also states and localities.  Furthermore, any
provision for a more realistic level of federal funding must also
account for the integral relationship between federal financing and
the Act's deadlines and goals.

The proposed amendment, by failing to account for these ramifications,
constitutes a piecemeal solution to an essentially multi-faceted
problem.  As such, it threatens to wreak additional havoc on an al-
ready beleaguered construction grants program, hamper current planning

                                      751

-------
efforts, and leave the nation's waters polluted.  Accordingly, we
have added to our comments on the CEQ study a section of comments on
the proposed amendment.

I.    Comments on "Interceptor Sewers and Suburban Sprawl"

      The following comments represent a review of the executive summar-
y of the report by the Federation's membership.  The full report has
not been available.  At a minimum, the announcement and rapid trans-
lation into draft legislative language of the conclusions of such an
extraordinary report should hve been preceded by a thorough review of
the full report by the technical  community concerned.

      A.   Interceptor Sizing

           The fundamental contention of the study seems to be that ex-
cess interceptor capacity has induced undersirable suburban sprawl.
Accordingly, the study recommends that interceptor capacity be limited
to twenty-five years (and that federal funding be available only for
present population needs).
      This recommendation raises several distinct  issues. The first
concerns whether land use decisions should be made by agencies respon-
sible for providing water and sewage services.  Traditionally, local
officials and zoning authorities have been responsible for local  land
use decisions, while those in charge of water and sewer services have
been responsible for accomodating those decisions.  Without explicitly
saying so, the CEQ report urges a reversal in roles.   The report even
goes so far as to imply that federal officials should overturn local
decisions.  For example, in the report's case history on Tulsa, Okla-
homa, the report notes that "the attitude of local officials - including
land use planners - is that sewer service provision should not be used
to shape or limit residential housing patterns, and that low density
suburban housing patterns are not undesirable per se".  (CEQ report
pp. 27-28).  The report then proceeds to chide EPA since "they re-
fused to face the land use implications of unnecessarily large inter-
ceptors"; the intimation being that EPA should have overturned the
local decision (CEQ report pp. 28).*  Without wishing to belabor the
point, the Federation believes that federal instructions into local
land use decisions by control of sewage facilities is a course at odds
with established precepts of intergovernmental relations.  It would
seem more appropriate that federal incursions into local land use
decision-making should be made on the basis of explicit statutory man-
dates, not indirectly through federal pollution control authorities.
      A second related issue is the more practical question of whether
federal limitations on sewer services can effectively limit growth.
Here the general answer is no.  The Federation's membership was nearly
unanimous in its comments that sewer unavailability, rather than halting
growth, inevitably spawn septic tanks or developer package plants.
In fact, Federation commentators noted that much sewer construction

-------
is aimed at mopping up after the adverse consequences of unsewered
growth.
      Ironically, the CEQ report itself supports this view.   The
study notes that "the absence of federally financed interceptors is
unlikely to prevent low-density housing construction" - (CEQ report
pp. 2).   A review of the report's case histories demonstrates that
many of- the studied sewers are actually catch-up measures.  For exam-
ple, in the Madisonville, Louisiana, case history, the report states
that "Madisonville is a major polluter of a nearby river, and sewage
runoff from inadequate septic tanks is created a definite health haz-
ard in many sections of the town" (CEQ report pp. 25).  Of the eight
case histories, seven clearly evince catch-up motivations as a princi-
ple ingredient.
      The CEQ report also indicates that past efforts to prevent growth
by restraining the availability of sewers holds little prospect of
future success.  "Without effective, comprehensive land use planning
and controls, developers will continue to respond to the great demand
for single family housing..." (CEQ report pp. 2).  Regrettably, having
recognized that local land use planning, not sewer availability, is
the critical point of leverage in controlling suburban sprawl, the
report then proceeds to ignore this fundamental insight by proposing
interceptor design limits.  The conclusion is at odds with the premises.
Where comprehensive land use planning is present, interceptor capacity
will not induce undesirable growth.  Where such planning is absent,
and growth will occur regardless of sewer availability, additional cap-
acity serves to provide a buffer for our waters against the adverse
consequences of unplanned growth.  Either way, land use controls, not
sewer sizing, is the key.
      An element of the equation ignored by the report is the role of
sewers in promoting residential density.  The report, in its haste to
prove "excess" interceptor capacity that villain in promoting suburban
sprawl overlooks the actual zoning requirements of many municipalities.
For instance, in the greater Twin Cities area of Minnesota, dwelling
unit  density is limited to one unit per 2.5 acres in unsewered areas.
Sarasota, Florida, imposes a one unit per acre limit where sewers are
unavailable.  In both cases, dwelling units per acre can be increased
to three units when sewers become available.  In some areas, the
"density zoning" that accompanies sewers also requires developers to
deed a portion of the land to open spaces.  These cases highlight the
degree to which available sewer capacity serves to mitigate against
sPrawl and to insure reasonable development.

      B.   Cost Effectiveness

           As an added argument for the twenty-five year design limit
on interceptors, Mr. Peterson [pp. 8 of his Oct. 8, 1974 speech) and
the report (CEQ report pp. 7) claim that building two parallel

                                      753

-------
interceptors at twenty-five intervals is cheaper than building one
fifty year interceptor.  The Federation's members,  many of whom build
interceptors for a living, were highly critical  of  this contention.
      The major costs in laying interceptors are labor, equipment,
and administrative costs in breaking ground; the cost of pipe is but
a fraction of these costs.  For example, attachment A gives a cost
comparison provided by New York City between the cost of laying a 48"
pipe and a 66" pipe of twice the capacity.  As can  be seen, a 66"
pipe adds only a 17.5% increment in cost.  This  is  in contrast to the
doubling of cost assumed by the report as the cost  for laying a paral-
lel pipe twenty-five years hence.   Furthermore,  the assumption that
construction costs only double every twenty-five years is suspect at
best given today's rate of increase in the construction index of al-
most 2% per month.  Even if these are considered unusual  times, how-
ever, the historical record does not bear out the report's assumptions.
In the Midwest, sewer costs have gone up 400%, not  doubled, in the
past twenty-five years.  These costs also ignore the fact that building
a sewer is not only environmentally disuptive, but  often requires a
re-routing of expensive electric,  gas, and water lines where the
area has been developed.  Insuring the right of  way for future con-
struction poses further problems.   Also ignored  by  the CEQ study is
the increase in interest rates, on long-term bond issues.   In 1950, bonds
in Bergen County New Jersey sold for 2%.  By 1971,  this had increased
to 7%.  Such in increase raises annual costs for a  forty year bond
by over 100%.  The cost effectiveness argument is favor of a twenty-
five year design limit for interceptors is without  merit.

      C.   Per Capita Water Consumption

           The report urges the employment of current use figures in
sizing interceptors (CEQ report, pp. 7).  In offering this recommen-
dation, it is contended that actual average per  capita use is ap-
proximately 60-80 gallons per day and that engineers are overdesigning
for 100-125 gallons per day flows.
      This suggestion has at least two shortcomings.  First, it is
prudent not only to design for average use, but.also peak daily, and
hourly uses.  Second, the report's number had limited validity.  While
they may be valid for some smaller communities in arid states, they
clearly have no relevance for most of the country's major metropolitan
areas.  Appendix "B" shows average per capita consumption for eleven
major cities as 186.9 gallons per day.  The lowest  of these, 137
gallons per day for San Fancisco, is well above  the "excessive"
100 gallon per day design limit cited by the study  (CEQ study pp. 7).

      D.   National Design Limits

           The preceding discussion on gallons per  day highlights
the difficulties of using national averages in attempting to prescribe
national design limitations.  An 80 gallop per day  design, perhaps

-------
satisfactory for some parts of Texas, would be unrealistic for St.
Louis where use averages 293 gallons per day.  The issue of parallel
sewers also serves as an example.  Assuming that there may be some
marginal worth to this suggestion in a sprawling suburban community,
it would clearly be impossible to lay parallel sewer lines in our
more developed metropolitan areas.  Federal design limits are no sub-
stitute for an empirical examination of the problem at hand coupled
with design of the most cost-effective solution applying sound engineer-
ing principles.
      A major failure with the proposed national design limitation
is that it fails to account for the avowed nature of the study; that
is, an examination of land use patterns in suburban fringe areas.
The report simply provides no basis for extrapolation to a national
standard.

II.   Comments on EPA Proposed Draft Amendment

      Despite its shortcomings, the CEQ study is apparently providing
a technical basis for a proposed legislative amendment.  The amend-
ment limits federal financial participation in Title II projects to
the extent of a ten year life for treatment plants and a twenty year
life for interceptors.  Time is marked in computing these intervals
from the initiation of construction.

      A.   "Useful Life"

           As presently written, .the amendment contains one particular-
ly pernicious feature. This is the definition of "useful life" of a
treatment works as meaning ten years (twenty for an interceptor) "fol-
lowing initiation of construction of such works".  This is patently
absurd.  Such a definition is tantamount to planned obsolescense.  For
large projects, many of which require a construction period of more than
ten years,such a definition of "useful life" would preclude use follow-
ing completion.  Obviously such a result is unintended.

      B.   Design Capacity

           The main thrust of the amendment purports to limit federal
financial participation to design capacity for ten and twenty years
respectively for treatment plants and interceptors (10/20).  Again
the clock starts with the "initiation of construction", giving rise
to the prospect that a large plant may be overloaded (rather than
falling apart) when completed.  Despite our objections to the proposal
as a whole, as specified below, certainly the completion of construction
rather than its initiation should be the starting point in calculating
federal financial support.

-------
      A possible response to criticism of the amendment is that
while federal participation may be limited, states and localities
can augment federal  participation to any degree they desire in order
to build truly cost-effective treatment facilities.   Unfortunately,
the possibility of state and local augmentation ressurects several  of
the key problems that served as the original  justification for federal
intervention into the control of water pollution,  particularly that of
the limited state and local resources available to build expensive
treatment facilities.  State and localities are as fiscally hard
pressed today as they were in 1948.  Moreover, if  state and local aug-
mentation is voluntary, the amendment would effectively divorce the
law's secondary treatment requirement from its planning provisions,
Section 208, in conjunction with sections 303(e) and 201,'is geared
towards providing the long-term planning needed to "restore and main-
tain" (section 101(a)) the integrity of the nation's waters.  Accord-
ingly, section 208(b)(2) requires twenty year  plans designed to achieve
the Act's goals.  If states and localities, as may be realistically
anticipated, limit their participation along  with  the federal  government
to ten year facilities to meet the secondary  treatment requirement,
then the twenty year plans of section 208 become an  idle exercise.
      In the alternative, if state and local  augmentation is to be  man-
datory, the amendment constitutes a de facto  reduction in the  percen-
tage of the federal  share available under Title II.   Such a reduction
may well be in order because of the needs survey.   However, federal
retrenchment demands a reevaluation of the Act sothatmore realistic
goals may be charted in light of the reduced  federal effort.  The
federal establishment should not, in good conscience, after mandating
the ambitious goals of Public Law 92-500 and  promising commensurate
federal financial support, unilaterally reduce its commitment  without
also reexamining the feasibility of achieving the  Act's requirements.
      Beyond the issue of whether state and local  agumentation is to
be voluntary or mandatory, the amendment also would  create a problem
for all those projects presently in the pipeline.   One of the  frustra-
tions that has beset the construction grants  program the past  two years
has been that of changing guidelines that have kept projects in the
pipeline on an unending treadmill.  This amendment,  with its June
30, 1975 date, has all the potential of the March  1, 1973 user charge
requirement for stalling the program.  It hardly seems rational for
the same legislative package to offer a solution to the user charge
question and at the same time to contemplate  such  a  major revision
in the nature of federal funding for new grants after June 30, 1975.
      If in fact revisions in the mode of federal  financing are called
for, then other alternatives should be examined.  For our own part, the
Federation's Board of Control has approved a  recommendation that Congress
fix Title II appropriations through 1983 to give the program some
programmatic continuity and stability.  Other alternatives are obviously


                                        756

-------
available.  But regardless of which is chosen, the criteria of con-
tinuity and stability must be met if the existing chaotic condition
of the program is to be overcome.  The present 10/20 proposal fails
such a test.  Rather than producing certainty it would:

      (1)  make the level of federal participation a subject of con-
           tinuing arbitration between the concerned parties:
      (2)  lead to an overhaul of fifty state priority lists;
      (3)  affect such fundamental engineering decisions as designing
           for 100 year floods;
      (4)  increase debt service by providing a shorter "useful life"
           over which to amortize; and
      (5)  provide disincentives to regionalization, and long-term
           staging at a single site.

      In  contrast to what we believe is the straightforwardness of
our recommendation, the 10/20 proposal raises the spectre of new
problems  whose full dimensions remain uncertain.  The Federation res-
pectfully urges that the 10/20 proposal be deleted from your legisla-
tive package.

                                 Sincerely yours,

                                 Robert A. Canham
                                 Executive Secretary

RAC/bel
                                             757

-------
                           EXHIBIT "A"

                ESTIMATED COSTS OF 66 INCH DIAMETER
                               AND
                48 INCH DIAMETER INTERCEPTING  SEWERS
                                                    UNIT BID
                                        66"  R.C.P.	48"  R.C.P.

1.  Unload & Drive Soldiers                $110                $110

2.  Install Logging, Bracing In-            480                420
    eluding Excavation,  Trucking,
    Disposal

3.  Dewatering including Installa-           120                110
    tin, Removal

4.  Pipe, Concrete Cradle           .        240                170

5.  Backfill                                 15                  12

6.  Restoration                              25                  20
                          TOTAL             $990/L.F.          $842/L.F.

CONCLUSION

Although the 1-48" R.C.P.construction  would cost  the  City  approximately
85% of the 66" R.C.P.,  it can be seen  that  the  cost of  the 2-48"
R.C.P. would exceed the 66"  R.C.P.  by  70% based on current prices.   It
does not appear to be an economical  move.

      NOTE:  The above comparison is based  on today's cost with iden-
             tical conditions.   To  a sewer  to be  built  25  years hence,
             we would have to add the  relocation  and  support  of utili-
             ties, and possibly  other  sewers, since the intercepting
             sewer is always at  the lowest  elevation.  Also,  other  in-
             conveniences to a built-up  community vs  a  developing com-
             munity.  And, of course,  the heavy construction  index  is
             always a factor in  the City of New York.
                                      750

-------
                                                       EXHIBIT "B"
CONSUMPTION IN VARIOUS AMERICAN CITIES DURING 1973
~^l
cn
•e
Baltimore
Chicago
Cleveland
Detroit
Los Angeles
New York City
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh
San Francisco
Seattle
St. Louis
Estimated
Population
1,568,600
-4,554,000
1,800,000
3,938,900
2,870,400
7,932,000
°1, 948,609
520,000
+1,750,000
° 919,000
600,000
Total Average
Corns umpt ion
M G D
260.1
1,041.0
365.0
673.9
511.1
1,448.9=
369.9
90.0
248.0*
125.6
175.9
Average
Consumption
GPD Per Capita
166.0
228.0
200.0
171.0
178.0
182.7
189.3
173.1
138.0
137.0
293.0
Meters in Use
at end of
Year
299,961
163,106
400,000
362,465
615,982
182,492
522,165
87,000
162,384
159,011
19,000
Per Cent
of
Taps Metered
84.8
32.0
100.0
99.0
100.0
19.6
99.2
95.0
100.0
100.0
18.0

=Includes 65.2 M.G.D. supplied by 2 private Co.s
'Includes 1,187,000 suburban pop.
*Includes water supplied to private companies
•(•Includes 1,035,000 suburban consumers
°1970 census table

-------
                           June 30,  1975

Mr. David Sabock
Environmental  Protection Agency
Room 1033 West
401 M Street,  S.W. (W.H.-556)
Washington, D.C.  20460

RE:  Town of Wheatfield, New York

Dear Mr. Sabock:

This letter is sent to you in  lieu of an appearance  by  the  Town  of
Wheatfield, New York, at the public  hearing which your  agency  held
on June 25, 1975, regarding priorities for grants under Federal  bill
92-500.

The Town of Wheatfield, New York, has been involved  in  a sewer project
for the last 8 years, attempting to  install sewers throughout  the Town.
We have created a townwide sewer district to  provide lateral sewers
on every street in the Town of Wheatfield and we are a  participant  in
the Niagara County Sewer District #1  which is constructing  the sewerage
treatment plant together with  inceptors throughout a 6-town area in
Niagara County.  At present, the Town of Wheatfield  has no  sewers and
relies on septic systems.  We  are located between the City  of  Niagara
Falls, New York and the City of North Tonawanda, New York,  along the
Niagara River.  We are one of the polluters of  the Niagara  River, an
international  waterway.

New construction has been halted in  our Town  by the  Niagara County
Health Department, since we can not  get peculations sufficient  to
install proper septic systems.  The  Town Board  of the Town  of  Wheatfield
wants sewers and has demonstrated that fact by  prefinancing the  original
engineering plans for the entire Niagara County Sewer District #1 which
cost the Town in excess of $350,000.   We have also installed sewers in
a heavily populated area of the Town and constructed a  temporary
treatment facility which cost the residents of  the Town of  Wheatfield
in excess of $1 million.

These steps were done without any federal or  state aid.  Thus, I think
you can see that tte.Town Board is committed to  provide  proper  waste
water treatment in the Town of Wheatfield. However, we can no longer
continue with the sewer project since the costs have risen  so  dramat-
ically.  When the original sewer was planned  in 1970, the cost for
both the lateral within the Town and the treatment plant with  inceptors
was estimated at $24.5 million.  The estimate cost presently for just

                                  760

-------
the construction of the inceptors and the treatment plant within the
Niagara County Sewer District #1 is $57.6 million.  The estimated
cost for laterals within the Town has risen not to $14.5 million.  For
a Town with a 10,000 population, there is no way that sewers could be
provided without federal or state assistance.

We have applied to the Farmers Home Administration for a 50% grant
and a 50% loan at 5% interest.  They have told us that they have
referred the project to the Department of Environmental Conservation
to be funded under Federal Bill 92-500. .This is the only way that
our Town will be able to provide for proper sewers.

Therefore, we strongly urge you that even though construction costs
throughout the country have risen tremendously for the construction
of sewer systems, you continue to include within your priorities aid
for laterals as well as major inceptors and sewer treatment plants.
If laterals can not be constructed, we will be left with a treatment
plant with little or no sewerage to treat and a huge debt for a non-
functioning white elephant.  We are grateful that the Environmental
Protection Agency has seen fit to fund our Niagara County project under
this bill so that it could be constructed.  However, the County
informs us that our share of financing this project is in excess of
$460,000 per year for the amorization of the bonds, which are 40 year
bonds.  This exceeds our annual Town budget.  Therefore,! feel that
you can see that to assume an additional $14% million for the cost
of laterals at this time would be absolutely impossible.  I hope
that you will consider our plea and develop a program whereby communi-
ties like ours, can obtain federal aid so that the much needed sewers
can be constructed throughout the Country.

I am sure that a formula can be worked out so that waste water
construction and grants can either be phased or cover the period of
time that bonds are amortized so the initial cost to the federal
government will not be as so overwhelming.

In closing, we urge you to continue federal funds for the construction
of local lateral sewers and if there is anything you can do to help
us, the Town of Wheatfield, New York, it will be greatly appreciated.

                                 Yours very truly.

                                 FINDLAY, HACKETT, REID & WATTENGEL

                                 BY Glenn S. Jackett
                                 TOWN OF WHEATFIELD ATTORNEY '
GSH/fnc
CC:  Ogden Reid
                                           (ol

-------
                           July 2, 1975

Mr. James L. Agee
Assistant Administrator for
  Water and Hazardous Materials
United States Environmental Protection
Waterside Mall
4th and M Streets
Washington, D. C.  20460

           Comments by the Western Oil  & Gas Association on
           the Environmental  Protection Agency Issue Papers
           on Potential  Amendments to Federal Water Pollution
           Control Act _

[tear Mr. Agee:

The comments which follow are in response to the notice published by
EPA in the May 2, 1975,  Federal  Register (40 Fed.  Reg.  19236), re-
questing public comment on the five proposals for amending the Federal
Water Pollution Control  Act Amendments  of 1972 considered most critical
by OMB.  We request that these comments, submitted on behalf of the
Western Oil & Gas Association, a trade  association composed of
petroleum companies conducting operations in the seven western states
be included in the record of the hearings on this matter.  Our comments
are directed to the three proposals dealing with federal funding of
publicly owned treatment works under Title II of the Act, which will
be addressed jointly, and the proposal  to extend the compliance date
for achievement of effluent limitations established for public treat-
ment works under § 301(b)(l)  of Title III of the Act.

Preliminarily, we wish to point out that all four of the above pro-
posals for modifying the Act are a response to certain unavoidable
economic realities—that, no matter how laudable the goals of the
Federal Water Pollution Control  Act, inflation, recession and an
unrealistic timetable for achieving those goals have combined to
make attainment of Phase I treatment capability by July 1, 1977,
impossible.  The unlikelihood that the  Phase I deadline would be met
has never really been in doubt.   EPA's  own estimates indicate that
at least 50 percent of all communities  in the United States will be
without any secondary treatment capability in 1978.  EPA Deputy
Administrator John Quarles addressed these hard facts when he stated
to reporters on July 10, 1974, that fifteen to twenty years would be
required before secondary treatment capability could be achieved by
all municipalities.

-------
Industrial dischargers are, of course, confronted with similar obsta-
cles to achieving compliance with 1977 standards.  To cite only a
few indicators of the financial strain which the attempt to attain
Phase I effluent limitations is imposing on the private sector:
The Department of Commerce reports that industry invested over $5
billion in new air and water pollution control facilities last year
alone.  The figure is estimated  to be in the neighborhood of $6
billion this year.  The petroleum industry, by itself, spent $700
million on such facilities in 1974, and it is projected that this
figure will rise by at least 36 percent in 1975.  At the same time,
inflation has rapidly eroded the pollution abatement benefits to be
attained as a result of such dramatically increased spending.  To
cite only one example, the cost of sewage treatment plant construc-
tion rose at an annual rate of 18,6 percent nationally between April
of 1974 and April 1975.  All of this, while industry has been laboring
under the weight of a recession economy with its attendant tight
money market and high interest rates.

Administrative problems with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
have also had their impact on achieving the 1977 goals.  The federal
construction grant program is, of course, a prime example.  But
there have also been serious administrative problems experienced
with the NPDES permitting program.  First, there have been substantial
delays in issuing effluent guidelines for most point source cate-
gories.  This is true in the case of the petroleum industry.  Two
examples will suffice:  (1) effluent guidelines for the petroleum
refining category were issued in May of 1974, some seven months
after the dealine specified in § 304 (a) of the Act, were challenged
in the courts, and have been revised as recently as May of this year
(pretreatment guidelines for refineries have still not been promul-
gated); and (2) guidelines for the petroleum extraction category
have not yet been proposed, even in draft form.  The delays and other
problems which have developed in promulgating the guidelines have,
in turn, generated further administrative problems:  something on
the order of 250 separate actions by various industrial, govern-
mental and environmental groups challenging EPA's administration of
the Act, permit appeal numbering in the thousands and a resulting
staggering expenditure of professional talent in efforts to arrive
at appropriate limits for individual  discharge points.

Because of this slow start, in large part caused by a congressional
desire to move toward the goals announced in the Act at a velocity
totally out of step with technological and administrative capability,
the financial, engineering and construction resources that will be
required to now move forward and meet the July 1, 1977, goal do not

-------
exist, either within the federal  government,  at the state or local
level, or within the private sector.   The question is not can the
1977 deadline be met, but rather, how many years must the deadline
be extended.

The point is that OMB, EPA and the Congress should not ignore the
obvious fact that industry is confronted with the same immutable
barriers to achieving Phase I treatment capability as public treat-
ment works—insufficient capital, inadequate  lead time and the shortage
of design and construction resources.  To ignore such realities is to
invite further delay, cost inefficiency and uncertainty,  the price
of which must ultimately be borne by the same persons who are paying  .
fom'mproved municipal treatment works—the public.

We now comment on the specific proposals:
                                                                   *
                    Federal Funding of Public
                         Treatment Works	

We believe it is unrealistic to assume that,  if the federal  share of
funding for treatment works is reduced, state or local governments
will fill the void.  If the federal government is unable  to  assume
the burden of financing such costly improvements, which primarily
benefit downstream users, state and local jurisdictions,  whose
budgets have already been strained to the limit and are experiencing
growing resistance to new funding proposals from already  overtaxed
constituencies, cannot be expected to carry the load.  The only viable
solution is a new timetable for achieving secondary treatment which
that extension of the Phase I deadline to 1983, coupled with limitation
of federal funding to only those projects which will  maximize pollu-
tant reduction benefits in relation to cost,  is theoptimum manner in w
which to accomplish the broader goals of the  Act.

To assist in generating the funding needed to carry out this less
ambitious but more realistic program, we further recommend that the
grant payback concept now embodied in the Act only for industrial
users be expanded to include all  types of users.  There is no rational
or equitable basis for discriminating against industrial  dischargers
by requiring them to repay the cost of constructing new facilities
needed to handle their effluent,  without imposing similar obligations
on commercial and residential dischargers.

Finally, progress toward the goal of cleaning up the nation's water
can be most effectively maximized by discarding the cost-ineffective
concept of uniform effluent limitations.  The limited federal and
                                      IBh

-------
resources available to achieve the clean water objective make it
imperative that those funds be spent where maximum benefit can be
achieved.  This can only be done by tailoring the level of treatment
required at each discharge point to such individually varying
factors as the type and quantity of pollutants being emitted, the
sensitivity of the receiving waters and their downstream uses, and
the point on the curve where further treatment becomes only marginally
beneficial in relation to cost.  Such an approach makes sense for
both the federal government and for industry and is consistent with
the mandate of § 304(b)(l)(B) of the Act that effluent limitations
taken into account "the total cost of application of technology in
relation to the effluent reduction benefits to be achieved from
(its) application."

                         Extension of the
                       July 1. 1977 Deadline

As discussed in our preliminary comments, the issue is not should the
Phase I deadline be extended, but for how many years.  As stated
above, we believe an extension to 1983 is realistic and reasonable,
although the adequacy of any extension will ultimately have to be
determined by actual experience.  The problem with the extension
proposal as presently drafted is that it totally fails to address
the compliance problems of industrial point sources.  Both municipal
and industrial dischargers require across-the-board relief if the Act
is to have any credibility.  Equity and probably even constitutional
constraints require such evenhanded treatment.  To retain the existing
July 1, 1977,deadline for industry is to foster a situation in which
a substantial percentage of all types of point sources will, through
no fault of their own, be in violation of the law.

There are other obvious reasons for according such relief to indus-
trial dischargers.  The pretreatment requirements imposed by the Act
on dischargers to public treatment works is one.  Aside from the issue
of equitable treatment, only marginal benefit is obtained from requiring
industrial dischargers to pretreat to secondary levels while the systems
to which the discharges are made are only capable of treating other
effluents, including those from commercial and residential sources,
to primary levels.  It's self-defeating.  It's also terribly cost-
ineffective.  Furthermore, the result of such a dual standard would
be to require industrial sources to individually install costly
sophisticated secondary treatment facilities which would be unneeded
within a period of only a few years when public treatment works
bring their units on stream.   It makes no practical sense to require
dischargers to a common system to each set up their own separate  •
                                         76

-------
secondary treatment facilities where such treatment can be accomplished
much more efficiently, and at a tremendous savings in capital expendi-
tures, through a common municipal  facility.  It makes even less
sense where the separate facilities would have such a short useful
life.

To illustrate the waste of pollution abatement resources which
could result, one need only look at the refineries discharging into
the Los Angeles County sanitation system.  Costly physical-chemical
treatment facilities designed to achieve waste reduction have already
been installed.  It would be an extravagant commitment of financial
resources to now install secondary biological  treatment units which would
become redundant when the county installs its  own secondary treatment
facilities within the next few years.

There are other reasons for an across-the-board extension of the
1977 deadline.  At least one authoritative study of the impact of
storm water runoff on urban water pollution loads has concluded
that such runoffs offset much of the removal efficiency which can be
achieved through secondary treatment.   If the  Phase I program is
to accomplish its purposes, corrective action  with respect to urban
storm water runoff must be taken.   This will  require time.  There
are also indications that non-point source discharges must be con-
trolled if the program is to move forward on the most cost-effective
basis.  It makes little sense for point sources to spend billions
of dollars to achieve only marginal gains in pollutant removal while
non-point sources continue to discharge pollutants essentially un-
controlled.  As a national water pollution control strategy, it is
inefficient and inequitable to require the industrial section to
over spend on pollution control while more urgent and more effective
control measures are overlooked in other areas.

                         Recommendations

We urge OMB and EPA to seek the following amendatory relief:  (1)  an
extension of the July 1, 1977 deadline for achieving § 301(b)(l)
treatment capability to July 1, 1983,  for both publicly owned treatment
works and industrial point sources; (2) realignment of the construction
grant program to assure that federal funds are expended on only those
projects which will achieve the maximum pollutant reduction benefits
in relation to their cost; (3) recognition of urban storm water run-
off correction and non-point source control as priority objectives
under the Act; and (4) the assignment of a preeminent role to cost/bene-
fit analysis in establishing effluent limitations for individual
point sources.

-------
We appreciate this opportunity to comment  on  the proposals which
have been made by OMB.

                                 Very truly yours,

                                 HARRY MORRISON
                                 Vice President & General Manager
                                       767

-------
                            July 1, 1975

Mr. Russell  E.  Train,  Administrator
U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington,  D.C.   20460

Dear Mr. Train:

This letter is  directed to you in response to the five  "issue"
papers on potential  legislative amendments to the Federal  Water
Pollution Control  Act  that appeared in the May 28,  1975 Federal
Register.

We feel you and your staff are to be complimented upon  the depth
to which each topic is addressed and the timeliness  of  each issue.
However, we do  have concern that many of the issues,  such  as  the
reduction in funding level, cannot be considered outside the  context
and provisions  of the  total act.  To reduce federal  support without
relaxing requirements  predicated on such support would  further  com-
pound the endless  problems encountered in administering the complex
and interrelated provisions of the act.

Review by our staff members has produced the attached comments.   We
request that these comments be included in the hearing  record related
to the issue papers and be fully considered.   We hope they will be
helpful to you.

We appreciate the opportunity to have reviewed and  commented  upon
the amendments  which you propose.

                                 Sincerely,

                                 John F.  Spencer, Assistant Director
                                 Office of Water Programs

JFS:bj
Enclosure
                                     766

-------
      COMMENTS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY

                               TO THE

                    POTENTIAL LEGISLATIVE CHANGES

                               TO THE

          FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT (P.L. 92-500)

          AS PUBLISHED IN THE MAY 28, 1975 FEDERAL REGISTER

Amendment I - Reduction of the Federal Share

Grant support to eligible municipal facilities in the State of
Washington is 75 percent federal and 15 percent state.  When com-
paring our total construction needs to available grand funds, it
becomes obvious that the demands far exceed the supply.   Reduction
of the federal share is not logical when the demand is the result
of stringent treatment requirements for municipal facilities.

A reduction in the federal share of grants for municipal waste treat-
ment systems cannot be isolated from consideration of the stringent
treatment requirements and accomplishment dates Congress established
for municipal systems.  Recognizing that the cost of municipal facili-
ties exceeds the combined abilities of federal, state and local
financing, a reduction in federal assistance without a commensurate
change in treatment requirements would seriously jeopardize this
program.  There is no evidence that greater financing is available
at the local levels of government to justify a shift in the construc-
tion financing burden to local government.

A slight deduction in the federal share of funding will  not increase
local accountability and project management.  With a very strong
state and federal interest in these projects, local participation
is dependent upon financial assistance to conduct proper management,
and not dependent upon a reduction in construction assistance.

If the percent of grants is to remain the same and there is no  change
in treatment requirements, an extension of the 1977 deadline is  the
most reasonable course of action dealing with the high cost of
municipal facilities.

-------
Amendment II - Limiting Federal  Funding of Reserved Capacity to
               Serve Projected Growth

We concur with and support the spirit and intent of the California
"10/20" program.  We do feel  that the scope of this program shoilild.
be broadened to encompass existing sources in service areas which are
not connected to the system but will  be connected during the planning
period of the project.  Also, we feel that components 3, 5 and 6 of
your definition of "reserved capacity" must be included as essential
design factors and that'component 4 is measured under the 10/20
plan rather than being correlated with the life of the project, which
may be considerably longer.

The present trend of utilizing environmental  legislation such as
P.L. 92-500 as a vehicle for establishing and enforcing land use
controls must be terminated if not reversed.   We now see instances
at a disturbing frequency where the adage of "the tail  wagging
the dog" has application.  The construction grants program must be
placed in the context of conforming with existing or proposed land
use plans rather than dictating such plans.

It appears that 10/20 program is a positive step towards alleviating
overdesign, mimimizing the secondary environmental impact of influencing
population growth and bringing the grants program into closer harmony
with land use planning.  This program would also bring about a more
equitable distribution of available funds and direct their expenditure
to correction of immediate problems.

However, any change in requirements for sizing facilities must consider
the impact on local financing which usually involves bonding for 20
to 30 year periods.

Amendment III - Restricting tye Types of Projects Eligible for Grant
                Assistance

We recommend no change in the existing eligibility criteria.  The
flexibility now provided states and regional  administrators in deter-
mining eligibility through the priority rating system should be con-
tinued.

Other federal grant and loan programs supportive of sewerage facility
construction, such as were administered by HUD and FHA, have been
discontinued in deference to P.L. 92-500.  Thus, the FWPCA has basically
become the total funding program for sewerage works.  Restricting the
types of projects eligible for grant assistance under P.L. 92-500 would


                                        77Q

-------
place many needed and/or required projects in the position of re-
ceiving very limited or no federal support.

Amendment IV - Extending 1977 Date for Publicly Owned Treatment
               Works j to meet Water Quality Standards

Based upon the progress to date under the Act in municipal facility
construction, the federal and state governments have little recourse
but to operate a "tolerance policy" with respect to the 1977 com-
pliance date.  Enforcement is not practical where a lack of funds
precludes compliance.  From the state viewpoint, this is a highly
undesirable situation which should be corrected through amendment
of the Act.

The 1977 date should be reevaluated and changed based upon an analysis
of the progress made in the grants program to date and the anticipated
levels in the near future.  The 1977 goal has provided emphasis to
the program but cannot be enforced as a practicable requirement for
all municipal systems.

Amendment V - Delegating A Greater Portion of the Management of the
              Construction Grants Program to the States

We strongly support total delegation of the program to the states.
However, delegation without implementation capability will do little
to improve performance or assure program success.

Delegation of additional responsibilities must be accompanied by a
federal commitment of predictable state program funding under at
least a five year period.  If this funding is to be tied to a per-
centage of the state construction grant allotment then the allotment
amount must be stabilized from year to year.

It is our belief- that the present dual system of federal/state
management of the construction grants program is highly inefficient.
Coupled with the complexity of the program, this inefficiency has
resulted in inexcusable delays in project funding.   Further dele-
gation with in fact program responsibility and authority would, in
our view, expedite the flow of funds into needed construction
projects thereby obtaining both economic and environmental benefits.
                                        771

-------
                           June 23, 1975

Environmental Protect!n Agency
Office of Water & Hazardous Materials
(W.H. 556) Room 1033, West Tower,
Waterside Mall
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.  20460

Gentlemen:

I concur with the testimony of John L.  Maloney given at the public
hearing, San Francisco, California on June 19, 1975.  Attached is
a copy of his address.

                                 Sincerely,

                                 Line Ward

Attachment

cc:   Mr. J.O. Maloney
      Industrial Association
       os San Fernando Valley
      P.O. Box 3563
      Van Nuys, California  91407
                                         111

-------
July 7, 1975

Russell E. Train, Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
401 "MV Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.   20025
                            In re:  Potential Legislative Amendments to
                                    the Federal Water Pollution Control
                                    Act
Dear Mr. Train:
I am enclosing for inclusion in the record of the public hearings con-
ducted by the Environmental Protection Agency on June 25, 1975, at
the Civil Service Auditorium in Washington, D.C., the position of the
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission.

The Commission's position is addressed particularly to the five dis-
cussion papers originated by EPA to encourage discussions of the var-
ious issues.  Although not specifically framed within the five papers,
EPA might consider proposing the suspension of the tertiary treatment
process required to achieve water quality standards,  in certain
select cases where design and other considerations would permit it,
until after adequate secondary treatment facilities have been placed
into operation.  It may well be that secondary treatment in combination
with other point and non-point source pollution controls, would achieve
the desired water quality standards without incurring the extra-
ordinary capital costs and operating expenses tertiary treatment would
require.

I think you for the opportunity to have our remarks included in the
hearing.

                                 Very truly yours,


                                 Paul T. Sisson
                                 General Counsel

PTS/dbc
Enclosures

cc:   Mr. David Sabock
                                         773

-------
 STATEMENT OF THE WASHINGTON SUBURBAN SANITARY COMMISSION FOR THE
 RECORD OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ON "POTENTIAL LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS
 TO THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT"      JUNE 25, 1975
            AT THE CIVIL SERVICE AUDITORIUM, WASHINGTON, D.C.

The Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission is a public and municipal
corporation created and existing under the Laws of the State of Maryland
with the legislatively imposed duties of providing inter alia water and
sewer services within the Maryland counties of Montgomery and Prince
George's.  These counties make up the Washington Suburban Sanitary
District and, with the Potomac River, combine to form the northerly
borders of the District of Columbia.   The Potomac boundary also separ-
ates the Sanitary District from Northern Virginia, the remaining portion
of the Washington Metropolitan Area.

The Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission is a participant with the
District of Columbia and certain sections of Virginia in the Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant at Blue Plains in the District of Columbia
and is in the Section 208 Federal Water Pollution Control Act planning
area of the Metropolitan Council of Governments (COG).

In addition to participating in the Blue Plains Sewage Treatment System
the Commission owns and operates several plants of its own providing
a high degree of treatment to sewage within its area of responsibility.
The expanding needs of the Sanitary District are being provided for
by a large additional sewage treatment plant presently under design.
The Commission also has had occasion to participate, and is participa-
ting, in various Adjudicatory Hearings pertaining to the terms of per-
mits issued under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
Program (By EPA and Maryland) under the program for discharge elimina-
tion within the Sanitary District.

The Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission would, in as briefly
a manner as possible, like to present its position with reference to
the proposals as contained in the Discussion Notices published in the
May 28 Federal Register, Volume 40, No. 103.

Paper No. 1 — REDUCTION OF THE FEDERAL SHARE

The Commission would oppose a reduction of the Federal share of contri-
butions below the present 75% within the Washington Metropolitan Area
for the following reasons:

      a.   The Federal presence in the Metropolitan Area has had a
great impact on the adoption of water quality standards for the

-------
 "Nation's River", the  Potomac  River,  that  has  dictated  the  need for
 advance waste treatment  plants within the  area.

      b.   Public Law  92-500 has  fostered  the  advanced  wastewater treat-
 ment concept within the  Metropolitan  Area  and  the  Commission is committed
 to the construction of such plants.

      c.   For the Federal Government,  in  the  Metropolitan Washington
 Area at least, having  played such a major  role in  raising water quality
 standards requiring advanced wastewater treatment  in expanded facili-
 ties to then, when the program is underway and committed to the highly
 expensive advanced wastewater  treatment based  on a 75%  contribution,
 to reduce its contribution to  55% would amount to  a breech of trust.
 The expensive concept  of advanced wastewater treatment  based on water
 quality standards would  not have  been so readily accepted in the area
 without the Federal Government's  proffered carrot of a  high percentage
 contribution.

 In our opinion, a reduced Federal share within the Metropolitan Area
 would inhibit, delay or  even stop the construction of needed facilities.
 If required to proceed in these days  of increased costs with a lesser
 Federal share, the impact on the Commission's  already accelerating
 rate structure may be  disastrous.  Rate increases for water and sewer
 when combined with the soaring power  rates and other burgeoning costs
 might reach the saturation point and  add even  greater inflationary
 pressures in the price-wage spiral.

 We also happen to believe a reduction of the Federal share could lead
 to an increase in the  cost effective  design accountability but here
 again, its impact on our user  rates might  approach the disastrous.

 The proposal, advanced at the  open hearing, that the Federal  Government
 guarantee the construction bonds for  facilities construction is a
worthy one.   Any savings possible in  interest payments makes more funds
 available for construction or  reduces the overall cost,

 Paper No. 2 — LIMITING FEDERAL FUNDING OF RESERVE CAPACITY TO
               SERVE PROJECTED GROWTH

Because of the Commission's unique relationship with the counties
embraced within the Sanitary District,  both of which have charter form
of government, and the other planning authorities within the area, many
of the matters discussed in Paper 2 would be more appropriately addressed
by those authorities rather than the Commission.   Suffice it to say,
though,  that a ten year limitation on treatment plants appears un-
realistic and shortsighted.   Our experience is that it may take that

                                            Fi

-------
long (with a 6 to 8 year minimum)  for new plants  from conception to
operational performance.  Therefore,  there would  be little,  if any,
lead time within which to provide  new facilities.   A ten year re-
serve capacity for expandable plants  would appear  to be reasonable.

Paper No. 3 — RESTRICTING THE TYPES  OF  PROJECTS
               ELIGIBLE FOR GRANT  ASSISTANCE

The Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission recommends that  the
types of projects presently authorized by Public  Law 92-500  continue
to be authorized for funding.  In  the event, however, that economic
or other reasons would dictate the deletion of projects from the list
of those eligible for funding, the Sanitary Commission would suggest
those listed in the Notice as V -- Correction of  combined sewer over-
flows; and, VI - Treatment or control  stormwaters.   In our opinion
these are more readily excluded by definition alone, from the municipal
waste treatment process than those others listed,  all of which have
direct relationship to the collection and treatment of sewage.

Paper No. 4 — EXTENDING 1977 DATE FOR THE PUBLICLY OWNED PRE-
               TREATMENT WORKS TO  MEET WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

Of the five alternatives proposed  in  Paper No.  4,  the Commission would
urge that alternative number 3 be  adopted.  It is  extremely  important
to maintain the integrity of the original enactment of Public Law 92-
500 and as many of the reasonably  obtainable dates  therein as possible.
We can do this best by maintaining the 1977 date  for publicly owned
works to meet water quality standards and providing the Administrator
with discretion to grant extensions on an ad hoc  basis based on good
faith performance.  This is an extremely practicable approach.  Further-
more, the Federal Water Pollution  Control Act,  itself, will  be weakened
materially to the point of ineffectiveness, or destroyed altogether,
if slippages and lack of good faith are permitted  to permeate the Act.
Indeed, the great strides of the environmental  movement in cleaning
the air, water and to an extend, the  land, will suffer if we allow
time schedules, once regarded as attainable goals,  to slip by, be
ignored or extended merely to delay facing the problem of finances.

Paper No. 5 — DELEGATE A GREATER  PORTION OF THE MANAGEMENT OF THE
               CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM TO THE  STATES

The Commission would be in favor of delegating a  greater portion of
the management of construction grants program to  the States  if effec-
tive costs savings can thereby be  demonstrated.   If supervisory and
and approval staffs could be reduced  on an Environmental Protection
Agency level with EPA's role mainly that of monitoring the


                                       776

-------
enforcement of the grants program and the State assuming the enlarged
role of management without materially increasing its staff or expenses,
then the delegation should be made.  Also, project review time could
be materially reduced if responsibility for grants was assigned to
the States.

The Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission wishes to take this oppor-
tunity to thank the Administrator for providing the opportunity for
the Commission to express its position on a subject of vital interest
to it.  We especially appreciate the workmanlike approach and prepara-
tion that has gone into setting up these hearings and providing a forum
for all to express their opinions.  We look forward to seeing the
type of legislation proposal that will emerge from these hearings
with great hope for the future which can only be realized by maintain-
ing the continued viability of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act.
 JEC/dbc
 July 3, 1975
                                          777

-------
      PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE SEWAGE TREATMENT GRANT PROGRAM

            OF THE U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

The Department of Planning & Development of the Township of Woodbridge
has reviewed the proposed changes in the Sewage Treatment Grant Program
with respect to its potential  affects not only on Woodbridge, but on
other communities in various stages of development.   It has become
clear that a severe insufficiency exists in the amount of available
Federal monies to assist municipalities in the construction of sewage
treatment facilities.   This has resulted in a far-reaching proposal
to decrease the Federal  share of funding for such projects and to
change the eligible activities to a degree that may  affect most
future development in this country.  Woodbridge, as  most older munici-
palities, experiences certain insufficiencies with its existing sewage
treatment facilities.   These include inadequate treatment facilities,
sewage lines in need of rehabilitation and/or replacement, and finally,
a complicated interrelationship between sanitary and storm water
runoff aggravated in Woodbridge's case by the presence of both
riverine and tidal flooding.

Sewage treatment facilities have traditionally been  designed to
accommodate not only existing but proposed development and subseuqnet
flow characteristics.   These projected flow characteristics have
normally taken into account Master Planning and Zoning factors of
those lands undeveloped at the time of the preparation of the calcu-
lation.  This is a vital consideration particularly  in those munici-
palities which are far from 100% developed.  With increasing emphasis
being placed on environmental  impacts, many municipalities are taking
a closer look at the side effects of future development.   Woodbridge
Township, for example, has adopted local environmental controls which
take into account such factors as storm water runoff and sanitary
sewer capacities.  No major land use development will  be permitted
in this municipality until the decision-making bodies  are convinced
that adequate physical facilities exist to accommodate the development.
In less developed municipalities where adequate sanitary facilities have
not been either designed or constructed, the proposed reduction in
Federal funding for sewage facilities may well result in the effective
prevention of future development.  If the provision  of sanitary sewage
facilities is shifted to the municipality or the particular developer
of a major land use, the financial  burden may prove  to be too great to
permit the development to take place at all.  This could have far-
reaching effects on the future land development pattern of this country.
This policy decision may result in a concentration of new development
in those areas which can readily provide sanitary sewage treatment at
little increased expense to the specific developer or municipality
involved.  This may result in an increased density of  'population in
those areas already partially developed rather than  to open up new
areas.                               778

-------
While no one can object to the Federal Government's position with
respect to "excessive" population projections or "excessive" per
capita flow rates, it would appear that projected flows from future
commercial and industrial establishments as well as wet weather
flows, runoff infiltration, inflow etc. are viable factors to consider
in designing a comprehensive sanitary sewage treatment system.  It
would also appear that not considering these factors would be a
short-sighted approach to Federal funding of local projects.  With
the rise of construction costs in recent years, the designing of
sanitary sewage systems to accommodate those expansions of popula-
tion which can be reasonably expected to take place would still
appear to be sound practice.  The costs for revamping or expanding
a recently constructed system, which proved inadequate a few years
after its completion, would appear to constitute an inappropriate
expenditure of monies.  The problem may be avoided by clarification
of these proposed funding criteria to better deal with likely future
development.

                                 RICHARD E. LAPINSKI, Director
                                  Department of Planning & Development
                                  Township of Woodbridge, New Jersey
 REL:mj

 cc:   John  J.  Cassidy,  Mayor
      Municipal  Council
                                779

-------
                           June 23, 1975

Mr. David Sabock
Water Side
Mall Building
Water Planning
(W8 454)
Washington, D. C.  20460

Re:  Environmental Protection Agency's Proposed Changes
     in Sewage Treatment Grant Program

The 1974 needs survey reveals that the $260 billion previously allo-
cated in the federal budget would not allow the government to con-
tinue with its present funding program of 75% Federal  and 25% State
and Municipal and at the same time be able to satisfy  the pollution
control requirements of PL 92-500.

The Environmental Protection Agency, therefore, proposes to reduce
the percentage of federal funding and encourage more State and local
participation by limiting eligible funding programs to:

      1.   Secondary Treatment
      2.   Tertiary Treatment
      3.   Interceptor Sewers and eliminate federal aid to the
           foil owing pro grams:

      1.   Correction of sewer infiltration/inflow
      2.   Major sewer Rehabilitation
      3.   Collector Sewers
      4.   Correction of combined sewer overflows
      5.   Treatment or control of storm waters

The aforementioned eliminations represent an enormous  cost to any
municipality and we believe it will be impossible for  any Municipal
Agency to obtain the funds required through its own bonding capacity
and taxing capabilities to comply with the Environmental Protection
Agency requirements for pollution control within the required time
limits.  As a matter of fact, without further federal  assistance in
this matter, many older cities, which are presently in decay will
never be able to obtain the required controls.

The proposal further intends to limit federal funding  by not paying
for reserve capacity such as:
                                     78 U

-------
      1.    Excessive population projections
      2.    Projected flows from future commercial and industrial
           establishments
      3.    Excessive per capita flow rates
      4.    Wet weather flows - Runoff-infiltration-inflow.

We do agree that excess flow rates and projections of population  should
be eliminated.  However, for a municipality to attract future com-
mercial  and industrial  establishments to their undeveloped land
which can only be used for commercial or industrial developments
it would be unreasonable to design either the collector system or
the treatment plan and not take these future conditions into account.

As indicated by the 1974 need survey, wet weather flow, runoff,
infiltration and inflow are a tremendous problem and as mentioned in
the previous paragraphs it would be unrealistic to expect municipalities
to be able to fund the construction required to correct these conditions.

Since the Environmental Protection Agency has realized that it is
impossible for all municipalities to meet the required PL 92-500
by 1977, we believe they should formulate a revised program which
will extend the funding over and above the existing $260 billion
over a longer period of time and not try to initiate any stop-gab
measured at this point by giving dispensations to either municipal
or privately owned industrial treatment systems.

We would like to see the Environmental Protection Agency delegate more
of its responsibility to State and local agencies, so long as the
State Agencies are prepared to process these applications quickly
without duplication by various interstate agencies.

With the Environmental Protection Agency retaining its policymaking
authority, supervision over State activities, review of Environmental
Impact Statements and final approval of construction plans and speci-
fications operation and maintenance manuals.

                                 Very truly yours,

                                 Eugene 0. DeStefano, P.E.
                                 Division Head
EJD/lm

cc:   Mayor John J. Cassidy
      James J. Maloney
      Arthur Burgess
      Charles Beagle
      Richard Lapinski
                                           r 81

-------
June 18, 1975

Mr. James L. Agee
Assistant Administrator for Water Hazardous Materials
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C.

The Directors of the West Sacramento Sanitary District wish to comment
and to have recorded their feelings reference the five specific areas
on which you are holding a hearing on June 19, 1975 in San Francisco,
California.  Comments on the specific items are as follows:

      a.   A reduction of the federal share in the Clean Water Grant
           Program is opposed by this District.  Any change in the
           percent of the federal share^of the grant program would
           unduly restrict the program, unless the goals and objec-
           tives were also reduced.  Influencing the funding capa-
           cities of the various participants by reducing the amount
           of federal participation would adversely effect those pro-
           jects presently in planning and/or being considered for
           approval within the State.  It is especially important
           that improvements that have been projected by many small
           agencies, such as ours, continue to be based on federal
           participation to the extent of 75% funding to .preclude an
           adverse financial impact on the smaller communities.  This
           federally mandated program, establishing the objectives
           and requirements of the Clean Water Grant Program has read-
           ily been accepted because of the federal grant promised.
           To reduce the federal share at this time would be break-
           ing faith with the participants of the program, unless
           the objectives are also reduced.  This is not recommended,
           as we feel the goals and objectives of the program are in
           the best interest of the nation.  We recommend that there
           be no reduction in the federal share of this program.

      b.   Limiting Federal Financing to Serve Present Population.
           The District is opposed to this method of reducing fed-
           eral participation.  Such a consideration is inconsistent
           with established engineering practices for long range  plan-
           ning and such action would be detrimental to the future of
           all communities.  This approach does not provide for the
           normal growth within an area by individuals who presently
           reside in that vicinity.  We should use other parameters
           such as present flow.
                                      1Q2

-------
      c.    Restrict the Types of Projects Eligible for Grant Assis-
         !  tance.   It would appear that the logic discussed in  the
           first item of the agenda applies equally to this.  Also,
           it would indicate that to reduce or restrict the types of
           projects eligible for assistance would be to apply a
           restriction on those smaller agencies which are at the
           present time being considered for grant eligibility. It
           would show a discrimination in favor of the large cities
           or metropolitan or regional type activities versus the
           smaller Sanitation Agencies.

      d.    Extending the 1977 Date for Publicly Owned Pretreatment
           Works to Meet Water Quality Standards.  This District
           wholeheartedly concurs in the idea to extend the 1977
           date for meeting Water Quality Control Standards.  We re-
           commend that extending this date to 1980 or 1985 would be
           a more feasible way of reducing the immediate federal bur-
           den by projecting the cash flow over a longer period of
           time, thereby reducing the cash outflow in any one parti-
           cular year.

      e.    Delegating A Greater Portion of the Management of the Con-
           struction Grants Program to the States.  The West Sacramen-
           to Sanitary  District wholeheartedly concurs that the State
           of California does have the expertise to adequately  ad-
           minister and supervise a greater portion of the management
           of the construction programs consistent with that authority
           which is available to the administrator of EPA to be dele-
           gated to the various states.

Further,  we wish to record our feelings on two other aspects of this
program as  detailed in Public Law 92-500.

      a.    We feel that all projects meeting the criteria of Public
           Law 92-500, which had been previously funded prior to the
         '  Clean Water Grant Program, should be reimbursed to the com-
           plete total authorization which was contained in said Law
           passed by the Congress.  Should there be a requirement for
           additional funds, those additional funds should be solicited
           from the Congress.  It is respectively suggested that the
           EPA prepare such statistical data and present these  facts to
           the Office of Management and Budget for consideration and
           submission to the Congress for appropriation of additional
           funds.
                                       78J

-------
      b.   User Charges - The provisions of existing Public Law
           92-500 should be amended to permit the use of User
           Fees and Ad Valorem Taxes in any manner deemed neces-
           sary by the local  operating agency.

For the Board of Directors,

WEST SACRAMENTO SANITARY DISTRICT

RICHARD SENITTE,
President

RS/ds

-------
June 13, 1975

Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials
Washington, D.C.

Attention:  Mr. Edwin J. Johnson,
            Acting Assistant Administrator

Subject:  Paper No. 4 - Extending  1977 Date for the
          Publicly Owned Pretreatment Works to meet
          Water Quality Standards

Gentlemen:

This letter is in response  to a notice published in the Federal Regis-
ter Volume 40 - Number 103  on Wednesday, May 28, 1975 - page 23111.

We would request that Item  #5 - To seek a statutory extension of the
1977 deadline to 1983 to be the alternative for this particular
paper.

Federal funding for a disinfection system has been approved and con-
struction will be completed in June 1975; therefore, to meet the 1977
requirements this operation will not have been operating long enough
to produce the desired effluent and stream standards.  By extending
the time to 1983, sufficient time will have been allowed to make com-
petent studies and to evaluate the operation of a completed plant.
These studies will be necessary to determine the effluent quality
and quantity to be discharged by this operation.
        *
Major industries have announced plans to increase their volume of
wastewaters that will have  to be treated by the present wastewater
plant; therefore, studies will have to be made to determine the
impact of increased volumes and increased load to the wastewater
facilities.

By extending the time, the  wastewater facility can be evaluated and
additions necessary can be  properly designed.

                                 Yours very truly,
                                 M.S. Wickersheim, Superintendent
                                 WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PLANT
MLW:mk
cc:   Mayor Leo P. Rooff
     Mr. J.W. Kimm, Veenstra & Kimm

-------
            WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

                  Comments on Proposed Changes
            In the Federal Construction Grants Program
My name is Oliver D. Williams.  I am the Administrator of the Division
of Environmental Standards in the Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources.  My observations today reflect comments received from two
sources.  First, and probably most important, are the comments of
local officials and their consultants.   The second source is the staff
of the Department which has worked to implement the amendments to the
Federal Water Pollution Control  Act.

If I have a major message to bring to this hearing, it is a call for
program stability.  Predictability of funding levels is critical to
budgetary and program planning.   Uncertainty at both the State and
local levels concerning which projects  can be financed, and when,  has
resulted in loss of credibility for the pollution control program.
The changes in the construction grants  program brought about by  the
1972 amendments created chaos.  Only now, nearly three years later,
are we beginning to achieve some public understanding of the new re-
quirements.  And here we are, discussing further proposed changes.

Announcements of Federal initiatives have raised false expectations
about how quickly there would be visible results from these efforts.
I am sure that all Wisconsinites share  the national awareness that
environmental quality problems are urgent.  On the other hand, we
know that major changes take time.  Nowhere has this become more evi-
dent than in the administration of municipal waste treatment grants,
where the gestation period -- from conception of a project, through
facilities planning and design,  to awarding of a contract and final
construction — can easily stretch out  to the full five-year life of
an NPDES permit.

This problem has become particularly acute in the public perception of
the 1977 deadline.  The national pollution control effort will suffer
drastic credibility problems when it hits home to the taxpayer that
the release of the impounded money, despite the great publicity which
it has received, will scarcely dent the construction needs in this
country.   While the issues being discussed here today are important,
it is regrettable that the paramount question — how much is Congress
willing to authorize for Fiscal  Year 1977 grants and beyond -- apparently
is not being discussed in this or any other national forum.
                                        • 0

-------
The simple fact is that the Congress, in the bold enactment of the
1972 amendments, assumed a major Federal responsibility for clean-
ing up the nation's waters.  Without any significant prod from the
States that I am aware of, Congress opened the Federal purse in mag-
nanimous fashion — offering guaranteed 75 percent grants for munici-
pal projects, with almost unlimited eligibility.  The warnings of those
experienced in the municipal grants program, if heard at all, went un-
heeded.  As a result, Federal appropriations at seemingly generous pro-
portions are, when combined with rampant inflation, producing far less
in tangible results than the relatively modest appropriations accom-
plished in pre-1972 years.

Now, after a handful of high-priority communities have shared in the
75 percent bonanza, the suggestion is put forth that this be cut back
to 55 percent so that the Federal dollar will stretch further   This
smacks of a bail-out.  If, as the position paper  introduction states,
"the magnitude of this indicated need appears to be beyond the fund-
ing capability of the Federal budget," how is the pressure to be eased
by shifting the burden to State and local budgets?  The same taxpayers
are footing all of the bills, and it is no easier for clean water
advocates to win the battle of the budget at State and local levels than
it is in Congress.

What is needed, in my view, is a clear Federal statement that it intends
to get out of the construction grants business after specified objec-
tives are met.  These objectives might be the attainment of BPT, BAT or
water quality related effluent limitations through the construction
of necessary waste treatment facilities, on a one-time-only basis.
By limiting the use of Federal funds to treatment facilities and those
interceptors and sewer rehabilitation projects identified as necessary
to insure the integrity of those facilities, there is some hope that
the plant owners will become more cognizant of their management respon-
sibilities.

Further, by limiting Federal funding to treatment facilities, the
question of the sizing of interceptors or the extension of collection
systems will become relatively academic.   These decisions -- related
to land-use determinations and the intrinsically local judgments of
whether or not to seek and encourage community growth ~ can be made
in the framework of local and regional planning, with whatever involve-
ment State agencies feel they need to make.

The regulatory arm of PL 92-500, the permits program, can never be made
to function effectively in the municipal sector if the permittee can
                                         787

-------
effectively raise the issue that his compliance is predicated upon
a pending State or Federal grant.  Which brings us to the issue of
whether the 1977 date should be extended.

There is de facto  recognition that the 1977 deadline has already been
extended.  A vast majority of municipal permits have been issued on
an "operation and maintenance" basis, recognizing that existing faci-
lities cannot achieve the defined secondary standards, let alone some-
thing better to assure compliance with water quality standards.  If the
priority system under which Federal construction grants are distributed
is to have any significance at all, there must be recognition that en-
forcement will be geared to availability of funding for the initial de-
sign period.  To select an alternative deadline date, such as 1983, is
useful only if it becomes the deadline for Congress to carry out its
end of the bargain.  If selection of a, target date is not geared to
this theory, then alternatives 3 or 4 are the only logical choices.
Those familiar with administrative law should, however, review this
decision carefully.  If ad hoc extensions will not protect permittees
against civil suits, then another direction should be taken by Con-
gress.  The penchant for citizen or environmental group lawsuits is
increasing, and administration of the clean waters program is not
enhanced when a substantial portion of staff time is tied up in legal
actions.

I have already touched on Paper No. 3, dealing with restricting the
types of projects eligible for grant assistance.  These should, in
my opinion, be limited to secondary and tertiary treatment plants and
correction of sewer infiltration/inflow, and those interceptors which
have traditionally been eligible.  At some later date, should studies
moving forward under 208 planning so indicate, special funding for
correction of combined sewer overflows and treatment or control of storm-
waters might be considered.  Point-source pollution, because of the
regulatory relationship to the permit program, should be funded separ-
ately from control of non-point sources such as stormwater runoff.
Our experience has shown that one of the greatest drains on the Federal
grant program may be construction of collector sewers.  These have
traditionally been a local responsibility, and I strongly encourage
return to that basis.

I intend to leave to municipal officials and their consultants the
burden of response to Paper No. 2.  We will, with support from EPA,
administer this aspect of the grants program in whatever fashion Con-
gress or EPA, through its regulations, might determine to be in the
national interest.  This is an area in which state-by-state consistency
appears highly desirable.


                                        780

-------
With respect to Paper No. 5, Wisconsin has mixed emotions.  We have
had an excellent working relationship with the EPA grants staff in
Region 5 and find that we can be mutually supportive in achieving the
objectives of the Federal regulations — both those promulgated by
EPA and by other Federal agencies.  Wisconsin is already reviewing plans
and specifications and operations manuals, and is certifying I-I  re-
ports and environmental assessments.  While we believe that we can
assume full responsibility for the construction grants program and
carry it out successfully, there are some functions which might better
be left at the Regional level.  We would suggest flexibility in working
out these arrangements.

As to the source of funding for these administrative responsibilities,
our preference would be a beefing up up of the Section 106 program
grants rather than a skim-off of the construction grants funds.  It
scarcely makes sense to cast about for mechanisms to stretch the con-
struction grants dollar and, at the same time, hitch new administrative
costs to the same wagon.

One other topic I believe worthy of consideration in this legislative
package is a realistic appraisal of the 208 program.  It is already
abundantly evident that the budgeting, and the time schedules, for
effective planning in designated areas are unrealistic.  Even more
critical is the prospect that State agencies, with no financial sup-
port, must provide 208 planning in non-designated areas.  In Wisconsin
at least, this cannot be accomplished in any meaningful way at present
budget levels.  Certainly the admonition of Judge John Lewis Smith,
Jr. to complete this process by 1976 is not feasible, and this should
be addressed in Congressional oversight hearings.

In summary, although I believe that the Congress should not have been
so generous in electing to finance 75 percent of eligible project
costs in the 1972 Amendments, I now feel that the Federal government
has a responsibility to live up to that commitment and to fund the
program at a level communsurate to the need.  That need can, however,
be reduced by cutting back on the types of projects considered eligible
for Federal grants, such as collection systems, stormwater controls,
etc.  A funding level of $5 billion per year — which is less than 2
percent of the Federal budget -- would not be inappropriate for this
effort.  At this rate, treatment facilities should be upgraded to secon-
dary or better by 1983 or sooner.

The 1977 deadline for compliance with secondary standards is totally
unrealistic and must be extended.  Permit issuance and enforcement must
be geared to the priority system for distribution of these grants-if


                                          78J

-------
it is to have any validity.  Congress cannot now duck the clear
responsibilities stated  in  the 1972 Amendments, but it should have
learned from that experience that it would be a mistake to establish
a new deadline without shouldering full responsibility for its achieve-
ment.
                                       730

-------
APPENDIX TO THE RECORD

The following are lists of the witnesses and attendees at each hearing,
plus the names and addresses of the people and organizations who sub-
mitted statements for the record.  Although the hearing record official-
ly closed on July 7, 1975, all statements received by EPA in Washington,
D.C. headquarters as late as July 15, 1975, are included.
                                       791:

-------
      PUBLIC HEARING
Atlanta, Ga., June 9, 1975
Witnesses

Julian Bell
City Hall (204)
Chattanooga, Tenn.

Linda Billingsley
The Georgia Conservance
3376 Peachtree Rd. NE, Suite 414
Atlanta, Ga.

T.P. Calhoun
P.O. Box 2207
Hollywood, Fla. 33022

Howard Frandsen
Fulton Co. Public Works Dep't
165 Central Av., SW
Atlanta, Ga. 30303

J. Leonard Ledbetter
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
270 Washington St. SW
Atlanta, Ga.  30334

Jim Longshore
B.P. Barber & Associates, Inc.
Box 1116
Columbia, S.C. 29202

Jim Morrison
Georgia Wildlife Federation
Woburn Drive
Tucker, Ga. 30084

Harold Pickens, Jr.
Carolinas Branch Associated General
  Contractors
P.O. Box 854
Anderson, S.C.  29621
                      Philip Searcy
                      Florida Institute of Consulting
                        Eng.
                      7500 N.W.  52nd St.
                      Miami, Fla.  33166

                      Robert Sutton, Jr.
                      Board of Commissioners, Cobb
                        County
                      P.O. Box 649
                      Marietta,  Ga.

                      Jim Tarpy
                      Metro Dep't of Water and Sewer
                        Services
                      Stahlman Bldg. 8th Floor
                      Nashville, Tenn.   37201

                      Dale Twachtmann
                      Water Resources Coordinator
                      Tampa, Fla.

                      W. Edward  Whitfield
                      Sewerage and Water Works Comm.
                      101 N. Main St.
                      Hopkinsville, Ky.  42240

                      John Wilburn
                      Louisville and Jefferson Cty.
                        Metro Sewer District
                      400 South  6th St.
                      Louisville, Ky.

                      Wes Williams
                      P.O. Box 1010
                      Georgia Water Pollution Control
                        Ass'n
                      Duluth, Ga.  30136
                79,

-------
David Presnell
Vollmer-Presnell-Paulo, Inc.
100 East Library St.
Louisville, Ky.  40202

Howard Rhodes
Florida State Dep't of Pollution
  Sontrol
2652 Executive Center Circle
Tallahassee, Fla.
Maury Winkler
Dep't of Water and Sewers
DeKalb County
P.O. Box 1087
Decatur, Ga.

Andrew Gravino
President, Consulting Engineers
  of Ga.
210 Bona Allen Bldg.
133 Luckie St.
Atlanta, Ga.  30303
                                      79 J

-------
                         Atlanta, Georgia
                           June 9, 1975
                            Attendance
Barbara Abromowitz
1472 Willow Lake Drive
Atlanta, Georgia  30329

J.R. Arnold, Mr.
96 Poplar Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
(Representing Robert & Co. Assoc.)

Dale H. Baker
P.O. Box 207
Sylacauga, Alabama  35150
(Representing Sylacauga Utilities Bd.)

John M. Bass, IV
P.O. Box 4386
Jackson, Mississippi 39216
(Representing Earth & Assoc., Inc.)

J.H. Bauer
96 Poplar Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia  30303
(Representing Robert & Co., Assoc.)

Robert G. Betz
151 Ellis, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia
(Representing DeLeuw, Gather & Co.)

Hoyt H. Bilbo
121 Pacific Avenue
Bremen, Georgia  30110
(Representing City of Bremen)

Jack Boxley
P.O. 628
Hopkinsville, Kentucky  42240
(Representing City of Hopkinsville)

Theron Bracey
P.O. Box 530
Shelbyville, Tennessee 37160
(Representing Shelbyville Water &
  Sewer System)
 Harvey R. Brown
 210 Bona Allen Building
 Atlanta, Georgia 30303
 (Representing Consulting Engineering
   Council of Georgia, Inc.

 Thomas Burke
 1211 N.W. Shore Boulevard
 Tampa, Florida
 (Representing Greely and Hanson)

 Russell Burns
 P.O. Box 1751
 Rome, Georgia  30161
 (Representing Williams, Sweitzen
   & Barnum)

 Arthur Bryngelson
 2600 Bull Street
 Columbia, South Carolina
 (Representing S.C. DHEC)

 Ken Castleberry
 Dixie Engineering Corporation
 P.O. Box 607
 Stevenson, Alabama 35772
 (Representing Dixie Eng.)

 Al Chambers
 1776 Peachtree Street
 Atlanta, Georgia 30304
 (Representing Lockwood Greene
   Engineers)

 Jack Chapman
 Box 1419
 Thomasvilie, Georgia
 (Representing Davis Water & Waste)

 Charles R. Chappell
 221 Courtland Street, N.E.
 Atlanta, Georgia
 (Representing U.S. GAO)


79^4

-------
James 0. Clark
2015 Neyland Dr. P.O. Box 33
Knoxville, Tennessee
(Representing City of Knoxville-
  WWLS)

R.A. Corbitt
2751 Buford Highway
Atlanta, Georgia  30324
(Representing Consulting Engineers
Council of Georgia)

Jerry Conner
1365 Peachtree Ave. Suite 125
Atlanta, Georgia
(Representing Russell and Axon
Engineering)

James Cox
17 Executive Park Drive
Atlanta, Georgia  30329
(Representing Union Carbide)

J.P. Cramer
1646 Tazwell
Lexington, Kentucky  40504
(Representing Kentucky Division
of Water)

Howard Curren
1821 Richardson Place
Tampa, Florida  33606
(Representing City of Tampa)

Russell C. Davis
City Hall
Jackson, Mississippi
(Representing Mayor-City of Jackson)

Jack Dean
West Palm Beach
Florida
(Representing Assoc. of General
Contractors)

Richard Dixon
P.O. Box 4607
Jackson, Mississippi  39216
(Representing Goddis Engineers)
                                 795
David Ziegler
EPA Headquarters
Washington, D.C.
(Representing EPA)

George Fleming
EPA Headquarters
Washington, D.C.
(Representing Water Planning)

Joseph Franzmathes
1421 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, Georgia
(Representing EPA)

R.L. Gensel
P.O. Box 649
Marietta, Georgia  30061
(Representing Cobb County)

F.C. Gibbs
P.O. Box 9871
Jackson, Mississippi  39206
(Representing A.G.C.)

William C. Giles
147 Harris Street
Atlanta, Georgia  30313
(Representing Assoc. General
  Contractors)

Elliott Grosh
1606 Hughes Drive
Plant City, Florida
(Representing City of Tampa)

Dan Guinyard
EPA, Region IV
Atlanta, Georgia
(Representing EPA)

J.S. Grygiel
P.O. Box 1459
Charlotte, North Carolina  28232
(Representing Carolina Branch/AGC)

Bill Gunter
EPA, Region IV
Atlanta, Georgia           ~
(Representing EPA)

-------
Earl  J. Ham
P.O.  Box 207
Sylacauga, Alabama
(Representing City of Sylacauga)

J.D.  Harris
305 Stardust
Shelbyville, Tennessee
(Representing Shelbyville Power,
Water and Sewage System)

John Harvanek
EPA, Region IV
Washington, D.C.
(Representing EPA)

Joseph Hezir
OMB
Washington, D.C.
(Representing OMB)

R.S. Howard, Jr.
6A EPD
 Atlanta, Georgia
(Representing EPD)

Don T. Howell
P.O. Box 567
Concord, North Carolina  28025
(Representing City of Concord)

E.G. Hubbaid
5510 Munford Rd.
Raleigh, North Carolina  27612
(Representing Preison and Whitman
Inc.)

Bob Humphries
P.O. Box 4545
Atlanta, Georgia  30303
(Representing SAVE)

Franklin J. John
P.O. Box 49443
Atlanta, Ga.  30329
(Representing Thomer Construction
Inc.)
J.W. Johnson
1212 American National Bank Bldg.
Chattanooga, Tenn.  37402
(Representing Hensley-Schmidt Inc.)

Joe W. Johnson
P.O. Box 1562
Houston, Texas  77001
(Representing City of Houston)

E.W. Jones
1957 E. Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20006
(Assoc. General Contractors)

William Douglas Jones
Suite 210, Brentwood House
Brentwood, Tennessee  37027
(Representing E. Roberts Alley Assoc.)

Vivien Jones
Region IV, EPA
Atlanta, Georgia  30309
(Representing EPA)

J.L. Kilroy
2524 Manchester
Kansas City, Missouri  64129
(Representing Dickey Company)

Ken Kirk
3900 Wisconsin Avenue
Washington, D.C.  20016
(Representing Water Pollution Control
  Fed.)
George M. Kopecky
Rayburn Building
Washington, D.C.
(Representing D.C,
Committee)
20515
 House
Public Works
John B.. Kincaid
P.O. Box 33
Knoxville, Tenn.  37921
(Representing Knoxville, Tenn.)
                                       73*

-------
Jim Zack
2600 Bull  Street
Columbia,  S.  C.  29201
(Representing South Carolina Dept. of
Health and Environmental Control)

W.E. LaGrone
Rt. 1 Box  377
Johnston,  South Carolina 29832
(Representing National Clay Pipe
Institute)

W.H. Lamkin
250 Oak Street
Lawrenceville, Georgia  30245
(Representing Gwinnett Co.)

Thomas Leslie
Suite 910
100 Peachtree Street
Atlanta, Ga.
(Representing Atlanta Regional
Council)

Jim Longshore
Columbia,  S.C.
(Representing B.P. Barber and Assoc.,
Inc.)

Skip Luken
2800 Adamsville Rd.
Washington, D.C.   20009
(Representing Counsil on Environ-
mental Quality)

E.O. Marlow
1  Call away Square
Decatur, Ga.   30031
(Representing DeKalb Co. Water and
Sewer)

J.C. Meredith
2345 Greenglade Rd., N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia  30345
(Representing Water Pollution Control
Section Georgia W&PC Assn.)
 Edwin Mitchell
 P.O. Box  5404
 Spartenburg, S.  C.   29301
 (Representing  Spartenburg  Sanitary
   Sewerages)

 A.C. Monrue
 1823 Walthall  Drive, N.W.
 Atlanta,  Ga.   30318
 (Representing  DeKalb Co.)

 Troy Norris
 1405 Pinecrest Rd.
 Corinth,  Mississippi
 (Representing  Dickey Co.)
Patricia O'Connell
401 M Street EG-335 RM.
Washington, D.C.
(Representing EPA)
1121
Charles Pou
Region IV, EPA
Atlanta, Georgia  30309
(Representing Public Affairs)

T.W. Pugh, Jr.
1308 South 58th Street
Birmingham, Alabama
(Representing Alabama Utility Con-
tractors Assn.)

J.M. Rail
152 Laguna Drive
Palm Springs, Calif.  92262
(Representing League of Women Voters)

Donald Ray
1776 Peachtree
Atlanta, Georgia  30304
(Representing Lackwood Greene Eng.)

Warren Rhoades
P.O. Box 806
Selma, Alabama  36701
(Representing Dallas County Comm.)
                                    79

-------
Bill Riall
270 Washington St. S.W.
Atlanta, Georgia  30334
(Representing Georgia Environmental
Protection Division)

Lowell Robinson
Box 600
Buchanan, Georgia   30114
(Representing Haralson Company)

William Rogers
P.O. Box 11640
Lexington, Kentucky
    Hugh Teaford
    2500 Mt.  Moriah
    Memphis,  Tennessee 38118
    (Representing MATCOO)

    Hagen Thompson
    1421 Peachtree Street
    Atlanta,  Georgia  30309
    (Representing EPA)

    John Toman
    1261 Spring Street
    Atlanta,  Georgia
    (Reprenting Black, Crow,  and
(Representing Assoc. General  Contractors) Eidsness)
Milton R. Rose
1700 Congress
Austin, Texas  78701
(Representing Texas Water Qaulity
Board)

J.B. Rushing
City of Hollywood
Hollywood, Florida
(Representing City of Hollywood)

John Smith
P.O. Box 827
Jackson, Mississippi
(Representing MAWPCC)

Gene Smithson
Hickory, North Carolina
(Representing G.E. Smithson Inc.)

Jay Soul is
P.O. Box 607
Stevenson, Alabama  35772
(Representing Dixie Engineering Corp.)
                         *
John Tapp
1421 Peachtree St.
Atlanta, Georgia  30309
(Representing EPA)
Calvin Taylor
1421 Peachtree Street
Altanta, Ga, (Representing EPA)
79
    Larry Turner
    P.O.  Box 9187
    Jackson, Mississippi   39206
    (Representing Clark Dietz and Assoc.)

    Ajeya Upadhyaya
    Suite 1900-404 Parkway Towers
    Nashville,  Tennessee
    (Representing Consoer. Townsend  and
    Assoc.)

    David VanLandingham
    250 Oak  Street
    Lawrenceville, Georgia
    (Representing Gwinnet,Co.)

    Joe Waggoner
    P.O.  Box 53
    Jackson, Mississippi   39205
    (Representing Pearl River Basin
    Development District)

    David C. Weaver
    P.O.  Box 4850
    Jacksonville, Florida   32201
    (Representing Florida  Institute
    of Cons. Engrs.)

    Leon Weeks
    P.O.  Box 649
    Marietta, Georgia  30064
    (Representing Cobb Co.)
                                       0

-------
Don Wells
96 Poplar Street
Atlanta, Georgia  30301
(Representing Robert & Co. Assoc.)

Bill White
EPA Headquarters
Washington, D.C.  20460
(Representing EPA)

Bruce Widener
Suite 125 3009 Rainbow Drive
Atlanta, Georgia  30034
(Representing Georgia Utilities Con-
tractors Assoc.)
 Wesley B.  Williams
 1918 Hebron  Hills Drive
 Tucker,  Georgia  30084
 (Representing GW&PCA and Hensley-
 Schmitt Engrs.)

 Harry E. Wild, Jr.
 P.O. Box 607
 Ormond Beach, Florida
 (Representing Briley, Wild and
 Assoc. and Florida  Institute of
 Cons. Engrs.)

.James Wilson
 5510 Munford Rd.
 Raleigh, North Carolina   27612
 (Representing Peirson and Whitman,
 Inc.)
                                     793

-------
                        PUBLIC HEARING
                   Kansas City, Mo. June 17
Witnesses
Frank Weaver
Region VIII Contractors, A6C
1130 Cheyene
Kansas City, KS 66105

Robert Elsperman
Municipal Utility Contractors
Associated General Contractors
of America
424 Nichols Rd., Suite 200
Kansas City, Mo. 64112

Frank Eaton
Consulting Engineers of Kansas
803 Merchants
Topeka, Kansas  6612

Ken Karch
Missouri Dept of Natural Resources

Bruce Gilmore
Nebraska Consulting Engineers Ass'n
P.O. Box 565
Columbus, Neb.  68601

R.W. Grant
Iowa Consulting Engineers Coundil
4931 Douglas, Suite C
Des Moines, Iowa  50310

Paul Haney
Black Veatch Consulting Engineers
1500 Meadow Lake Pkwy
Kansas City, Mo. 64114

Horace L. Smith
City of Houston
City Hall Annex
600 Bagby
Houston Texas

Charles B.  Kaiser, Jr.
Metropolitan Sewerage District
200 Hampton St.
St. Louis Mo.  63139
Sue Hoppel
Natural Resources Comm. of Nebraska
Terminal Bldg.  7th Floor
Lincoln, Neb. 68508

Paul Trout
Container Corp. of America
500 E. North 10th St.
Carol Stream, 111. 60187
F. L. Endebrock
City Hall (204)
St. Joseph Mo. 64501

Melville Gray
Kansas Division of Environment
Topeka. KS.   66620

Richard Cunningham
League of Kansas Municipalities
Kansas City, Mo.

Esther Woodward
MO-KAN Coalition for Water Quality
League of Women Voters
2209 W. 104th St.
Leawood, KS  66206

David Snider
City Hall
Springfield  Mo. 65804

Oliver D. Williams
Wisconsin Dept of Natural Resources
P.O.  Box 450 Univ. Ave.
Madison Wise.  53701

James Shaffer
Little Blue Valley Sewage Dist.
1700 Traders Bank Bldg
1125 Grand Ave.
Kansas City Mo. 64106            QQQ

-------
Dan Drain
Nebraska Dept of Environmental  Control
P.O. Box 94653, State House Station
Lincoln, Nebraska.   68509
                                       801

-------
Name
Robert J Abild
Charleen Aggeler
Hearing - June 17, 1975

      Address

      P.O. Box 392
      Atlantic, Iowa  50022

      9206 Marsh
      Kansas City, MO
Representing

Abild Engineering Co.


EPA - Rg. VII
Alek Alexander

David Allen


Paul L. Andrews


Joseph J. Ban


George Barbee


James A. Beck


James Bills


Clark Binkley


G.W. Bloemker


Kay C. Bloom


William A. Bloombero


Carl Blomgren

John Bosserman


Robert Buss
      EPA-K.C.  MO.

      168 S. 295 Place
      Redondo, Wash.

      10529 Askew
      K.C. MO  64137

      3601 Kansas Ave
      K.C. KS

      803 Merchants
      Topeka, Kansas 66612

      Memorial Bldg.
      Chanute, KS. 66720

      4832 Woodson
      Mission KS.

      1218 Massachussets Ave.
      Cambridge, Mass 02174

      2524 Manchester
      K.C.  MO 64129

      6183 Paseo
      Kansas City, MO

      551 Spring St.
      West Burlington, IA 52655

      EPA -Rg. VII

      8803 Crystal Lane
      Apt. 101
      K.C.  MO  64138
      Centerville IA
EPA
Weyerhaeuser Co.
Burns & Me Donne!
Engr. Co

Fairbanks Morse Dump
Division

KS Consulting Engrs.
City of Chaunte
Johnson Co.
Urban Systems .Res. &
Eng. Inc.

W.S. Dickey Clay Co.
Bucher & Willis
West Burlington
EPA
A.C. Kirkwood &Assoc.
Hall Engineering Co.

-------
Name

Charles Burke

Robert Caldwell


Ronald Capshaw


Adrian Carol an  .


Thomas M. Carter

David Chambers
Hearing June 17, 1975

      Address
      City Hall
      Pittsburg, KS.

      4801 Classen Blvd.
      Okla. City, OK  73118

      1977 Spruce Hills Dr.
      Bettendorf, IA.

      EPA - Rg. VII

      1320 J
      Lincoln, NE
Robert E. Crawford
      P.O.  Box 28
      Salina, KS  67401
Bernadine Christensen   EPA - Rg. VII
Carl Clopeck


David Curtis


Stephen H. Davis


R.K. Dickerson


A.M. Doepke



Charles W. Douglas


Frank Drake
      306 Park Bista
      Lincoln, NE  68510

      315 First Avenue
      Rock Rapids, IA

      5828 Jasmine Dr.
      Dayton, OH  45449

      8600 Indian Hills Dr.
      Omaha, NE

      12500 Mission Rd.
      Leawood, KS
      5 W. 12th
      Parkville, MO  64152

      13001 W 95
      Lenexa, KS
Representing

Independence Examiner

City of Pittsburg
Assoc. of Central
Okla. Govts.
Cull en, Kilby Carol an

EPA

League of NE
Municipalities

Wilson & Co. Engrs.


EPA


EPA

DeWild Grant Reckert
& Assoc.

Water Refining, Co.
NE Consulting Engr.
Assoc.

Browning Ferris Ind. of
K.C.  Inc.
Platte County Univ.
of MO Extension C.

The Asphalt Inst.
                                       80J

-------
Name

Don Draper
Richard Duty
L.R. Duvall

C.T. Engel


Thomas Eneal


T.A. Filipi
Hearing - June 17, 1975

      Address

      EPA - Rg. VII
      Ks. Dept. of Health &Envir.
      Topeka, KS  66620

      6021 W. 99th Terr.

      P.O.  Box 39
      S.M.  KS.

      20 W. 9th
      K.C.  MO

      1701 First Nat'l Bank
      Bld-lincoln, NE.
Joseph W. Fitzpatrick   615 E. 13th St.
                        K.C.  MO
George Fleming


Irene Fletcher


Max Foote



David M. Fox


Richard Frank


Donald A. Franklin


R.A. Frederick


Dwaune Garger

Glenn C. Gray
      401 M St. S.W.
      Washington, D. C.

      19300 E. Truman
      Indep., MO  64056

      Suite 200 Plaza Estranade
      424 Nichols Rd.
      K.C.  MO  64112

      P.O.  Box 759
      Marshall ton, IA

      5648 W. 92 Place
      Overland Park, KS 66207

      3601 Kansas Ave.
      K.C.  KS

      417-1 Ave. S.E.
      Cedar Rapids, IA

      Marshall town, IA

      9233 Ward Pkwy
      Suite 300
      K.C. MO  64114
Representing

EPA

Div. of Envir.

EPA - Rg. VII

Jo. County, KS
Mid-America Regional
Council

Olsson & Assoc.
Mo. Dept. of
Natural Resources

EPA
Tri-County LWV
Municipal-Utility
Contractors of the Assoc.
Gen. Contractors of Am.

Clappsaddle
Garber Assoc,
EPA


Fairbanks Morse

H.R. Green Co.


Clapsaddle-Garber

Larkin & Assoc.

-------
Name

Baudee Greif


lynn Harrington

Larry Haugsness


Frank Hawkins


William I. Hess



Paul T. Hickman


Ervin E. Hodges


Roy L. Jackson


Westin Jacobson


H.A.  Janzen



J.  A. Johnson


Harvey A. Jones


James E. Kelly


J.  L. Kilroy


Ken Kirk
Hearing - June 17, 1975
      Address

      811 Grand Ave.  Room911
      K.C.  MO

      EPA - Rg. VII

      515 KS Ave
      Atchison, KS

      7221 W. 79th
      Overland Park,  KS

      900 Walnut St.
      K. C. MO
      801 S. Glenstone
      Springfield, MO

      P.O.  Box  708
      Lawrence,  KS

      5th Floor  City Hall
      K.C.  MO

      1409 Summit
      Marshall ton, IA

      4120 Twilight Dr.
      Apt. #104,
      Topeka, KS   66614

      2161 Rence Dr.
      Middletown, OH

      908 N. Osage
      Independence, MO

      424 Nichols Rd.
      K.C.  MO

      2524 Manchester
      K.C. MO  64129

      3900 Wise. Aye
      Washington, D. C. 20550
Representing

Office of Sen.
Thomas Eagleton

EPA

City of Atchison,
KS

Hawkins Brothers Little
Blue Valley Sewer Dist.

Linde, Thomson, Fair-
child, Langworthy
& Kohn

Hood-Rich  Engrs
City of Lawrence
Pollution Control
Dept.

City of Marshall town
Water Refining Co., Inc.
Little Blue Valley
Sewer Dist.

Heavy Constructors
Assoc.

Dickey Co.
Water Pollution Control
Federation
                                         805

-------
Name
Hearing June 17, 1975

      Address
Philip K. Kline, P.E.


Edwin D. Knight


G. Carlos Knight

Gyula F. Kovach


Charles A. Krouse


Mike Kyser


Robert Lemberger


Dennis Lessig


George N. Lundy, Jr.


Joe L. McCoy


Ron McCutcheon

John D. McEnroe


W. Scott McMoran

Carol McNevin

Ray Manning



Bob Mason
      6900 W. 80th St.
      Overland Park, KS.  66204

      135-B Brookdale
      Jefferson City, MO

      701 N. 7th St.
      K.C.  KS
      701 N. 7th
      K.C. KS

      House Public Works Comm.
      Washington, D. C.

      Achlup, Becker, Brennan
      401 Fairfax, Trfw.

      P.O.  Box 13
      Roll a, MO.  65401

      7041 Starv
      Lincoln, NE  68505

      8913 W. 89th St.
      Overland Park, KS  66212

      County Courthouse
      Atchison, KS

      EPA  Rg VII

      1012 Baltimore
      K.C.  MO  64108

      EPA - Rg. VII

      EPA - Rg VII

      903 Main
      City Hall
      Blue Springs, MO

      4525 Downs Drive
      St. Joseph, MO  64507
Representing

Shafer, Kline
& Warren

Mo. Div. of
Envir. Quality

K.C.  KS

City of K.C.  KS
MO Engineering Co.
State Dept.
Envir. Control

U.S.  GAO
Atchison County
EPA

Little Blue Valley
Sewer Dist.

EPA

EPA

City of Blue
Springs
Univ. of MO
Estension
                                        80G

-------
Robert C. Mattaline


Rosalie Michel son

Clarence A. Monday


Howard Moore, P.E.


Gerald Neely


Haze E. Nickols


Gary Nodler


J.S. Noel


Judy Novosel


M.G.Nuncio   .

Ms. Edward Nunnally


Patricia O'Connell


Mary O1  Donnell

Paul R. Ombruni


Duane Pearce

Henry L. Ponzer


A. E. Reiss,  P.E.
P.O.  Box 516
ST. Louis, MO  63166

EPA - Rg. VII

8519 Lowell
Shawnee Mission, KS  66212
McDonnell Douglas


EPA - GRAD

Johnson County, KS
2122 S. Stewart             HGMCO.  Inc.
Springfield, MO  65804
20 W. 9th St. 3rd f 1 .
K.C.  MO.  64105

Rt. 4, Box 102
Richmond, MO  65085

302 Federal Bldg.
Joplin, MO.  64801

5th Floor City Hall
K.C. - WO

701 7th St. Rm. 426
K.C.  KS

EPA - Rg. VII

3522 W. 98th St.
Overland Park, KS  66206

1804 3 F St. N.W  .
Wash., D. C. 20007

EPA Rg. VII

8404 Indian Hills Dr.
Omaha  NE

EPA Region VII

P.O.  Box 704
01 a the, KS

2160 E. Douglas
Wichita, KS
MARC
City of Independence
MO.

Congressman Taylor
Pollution
Control Dept.

Water Pollution
Control Dept.

EPA

League of Women
Voters Env, Qua!
Chapter, KS

EPA

EPA

NE Consulting
Engr. Assoc.

EPA

Ponzer, Sears,
Youngquist

Reiss  &
Goodness, Engr.
                                        807

-------
Name

Bruce D.  Remsberg


Ralph Rhea

James J.  Riskowski


Ronald Ritter

R. S. Roper


Joseph C. Roth


Mike Rukagaber


Robert Schaefer


Alan K. Schilling


Ivan F. Shul!


Jerry Shell berg
Address

1500 W. Main #109
Chanute, KS.
Representing

City of Chanute
Unity Village, MO 64065     Unity Village
5612 Weir St.
Omaha, NE

EPA Rg VII

100 %S. Sterling
Sugar Creek, MO

1401 Fairfax Trfy.
City Hall, City Engr.
Burlington IA

2550 S. Collinson
Springfield, MO  65804

4529 S. 169 Hwy.
St. Hoseph, MO  64507

2038 N.H.
Lawrence KS

P.O.  Box 449
Red Oak, IA
Lawrence D. Sheridan    1735 Baltimore
George D. Simpson


Ella Shook


C.B. Simmons


R.H. Sorber
K.C.  MO

1220 Leader Bldg.
Cleveland, OH

3301 Maywood
Independence MO  64052

414 Wlm
Republic MO

P.O. Box 4388
Gage Cneter
Topeka, KS  66604
Dana Larson
Rouisal & Assoc.

EPA

Sugar Creek, MO
Schlup, Becker
And Brennan

Burlington, IA
City of Springfield
MO-KAN Regional
Council
Self

H.Gene McKeown &
Assoc,

EPA
Havens & Emerson


Tri. Co. LWV


same as address
Rich Sober &
Assoc.
                                    808

-------
Name
Address
Representing
J. R. Stall ings
2910 Topeka Ave.
Topeka, KS
Van Doren, Hazard
Stall ings
Donald E. Steck


Howard Stegmown

J. C. Stevens



Charles A. Stiefermann


Lyle Strahan


Jerry Svore

Lyle G. Tekippe


Morris 6. Tucker

Jan Tupper


Gloria Vobejda

Brooks Wade


Paul Walker

Warren Welch

Kenneth White


John Wiley


J. Brad Willett
P.O.  Box 39
Shawnee Mission, KS

Marshall town,  IA

909 University
P.O.  Box 671
Columbia  MO 65201

P.O. Box 1368
Jefferson City, MO 65101

P.O. Box 6
Pittsburg,  KS

EPA Rg. VII

115 S.  Vine
W. Union, IA   52175

EPA  Rg VII

P.O.  Box 2277
Joplin, Mo.

901 N.  8th
K.C.  KS  66101
3200 S. M 291
Independence MO  64055

EPA Region  VII

103 N.  Main
Independence MO
P.O.  Box 26 area
Salina, KS  67401

K.C.  Star
 P.O.Box 901
 Hannibal  MO  63401
               803
Jo Co Sewer
Dist.

City of Marshall town

J. C. Stevens
& Assoc.
MO Dept of
Natural Resources

Dickey Co.
EPA

Berr B. Hanson
And Assoc.

EPA

Allegier, Martin
And Assoc.

The Kansan

Crowley,  Wade,
Mil stead, Inc.

EPA

City of  Indep.  MO

White  Hamele  &
Hunsley

Energy & Env.
Reporter

Crane  & Fleming

-------
Name

W. T. Williams

Dayle Willianson


Alan Wimpey

C. V. Wright

Joseph V. Yance



Eugene K. Yeokum

Arthur Zago



Amy Aiegler


David S. Ziegler


Victor Ziegler
Address

Clay Como, MO

Terminal Bldg.
Lincoln  NE

K.C.  Mo

EPA  Rg VII

EPA
401 M St. S. W.
Washington, D. C.

Raytown MO

1613 E. 68 PI W.
K.C.  MO   '
8347 Del mar
Shawnee Mission, KS 66207

401 M St. S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20640

EPA  Rg VII
Representing

Ford Motor Co.

Ne. Nat'l Res.
Comm.

EPA

EPA
City of Raytown

U.S. G.A.O.
Citizens Envir.
Council

EPA
EPA

-------
                         PUBLIC HEARING
                 SAN FRANCISCO  June  19,  1975
Witnesses
Robert Mendelsohn
Supervisor, City and County
  of San Francisco
Hotel Clarmont
Berkley Calif.

Wendell McCurry
Nevada Dept. of Human Resources
1209 Johnson St.
Carson City, Nev. 89701

Ralph Bolin
President, Bay Area Sewage
  Agency
Hotel Clarmont
Berkley Ca.

Layton Landis
Mayor
City of San Leandro, Ca

John Lambie
Ventura Regional Sanitation District
181 S. Ash St.
Venrura, Ca.

Arnold Joens
City Hall
Salinas, Ca  93901

Fred Harper
Orange County Sanitation Dist.
P.O.  Box 8127
Fountain Valley, Ca. 92708

John Harnett
General Manager, East Bay
Municipal Ut. Dist.
2130 Adelaine St.
Oakland, Ca. 94603

Michael Herz
Oceanic Society
Bldg.  240
Fort Mason
San Francisco, Ca. 94123
George Hagevik
Environmental Resources Div.
  Ass'n of Bay Area Gov'ts
Hotel Clarmont
Berkley CA  94705

Walter Garrison
Calif. Ass'n of Sanitation Ag.
1955 Workman Mill Rd
Whittier, Ca.

Peter Gadd
2302 Sunset Dr.
Visalia, Ca  93277

Robert Fleming
Texas Water Quality Board
11510 Whitewing
Austin, Texas  78753

Donald Evenson
Consulting Engr. Assoc. of Ca.
710 South Broadway
Walnut Creek, Ca. 94596

Lila Euler
Livermore/Amadore Valley Water
  Management Agency
8787 Bandon Dr.
Dublin, Ca. 94566

Henry Eich
Chairman, Conference of Local
 Environmental Health Admins.

Bill Dendy
California State Water Resources
 Control Board
1416 9th Street
Resources Bldg.
Sacramento, Ca.

Peter Zars
Sierra Club
2410 Beverly Bldg                  8U
Los Angeles Ca.

-------
Mayor Stan Daily
Camarillo Sanitary Dist.
Camarillo, Ca.

Bob Burt
California Manufacturers Ass'n
P.O.  Box 1138
Sacramento Ca. 95805
Gordon Bowman
County of San Diego
5555 Overland Av.
San Diego, Ca. 92123

Jack Beaver
Redland, Ca.

Herman Alcalde
City and County of San Francisco
770 Golden Gate Av.
San Francisco, Ca. 94102

Jerry Wager
E.P.A.
P.O. Box 2999
Agana, Guam 96910

Edward Bohm
The Planning and Conservation Leag.
200 N. Spring St.
Los Angeles, Ca.

Edward Simmons
California Water Resources Agency

Jack Port
Contra Costa County
64 Administration Bldg.
Martinez, Ca. 94553

Connie Parrish
Friends of the Earth
529 Commercial St.
San Francisco, Ca. 94111
Alinda Newby
Municipalities fo Metropolitan Seattle
600 First Ave.
Seattle, Wash.  98104
Donald Miller
Councilman, City of Livermore
City Hall
Livermore, Ca.

Gordon Magnuson
Engineering Sciences, Inc
600 Bancroft Way
Berkely, Ca.  94710

E. L. MacDonald
North Bay Water Advisory Council
City Hall
Ridgemond, Ca
Lawrence Taber Hergert Stone
Canners League of Calif.
1007 L St.
Sacramento, Ca.

Donald Tillman
City of Los Angeles
Los Angeles, CA
                             812

-------
Herman Alcalde
770 Golden Gate Ave.
San Francisco, Ca. 94102
(Representing City Engineer-Is
 Office, City and County of
 San Francisco)

David Atkinson
67 Palm Drive
Camarillo, California  93010
(Representing Camarillo, Sanitary
 District)

Jack A. Beaver
603 Palo Alto Drive
Redlands Ca.
(Representing President's
 Advisory Board)

Jonathan Bendor
3101 Benvenue
Berkley Ca. 94705

Clark Binkley
1218 Mass. Ave.
Cambridge, Mass.
(Representing Urban Sustems
 Research and Engr.)

L. Birke
555 116 Ave. N.E.  #266
Bellevue, Washington
(Representing N.W. Wood Products
 Industry)

Frank C. Boerger
324 The Alameda
San Anselmo, Ca 94960
(Representing West Contra Costa
 Wastewater Mangmt. Agency)

Ralph Bolin
Bay Area Sewage Services Agency
Hotel  Clarmont
Berkeley, Ca.
(Representing Bay Area Sewage
 Services Agency)

Granvilie Bowman
555 Overland Ave.
San Diego, Ca. 92123   .
Richard Bradley
1709 llth Street
Sacramento, Ca. 95814
(Representing Air Resources
 Board, Sacramento)

William P. Gragda
P.O. Box 65
San Pablo, Ca. 94806
(Representing San Pablo
 Sanitary District)

Larry Browne! e
KYA Radio
San Francisco, Ca.

Robert 0. Brugge
P.O Box 802
West Sacramento. Ca. 95691
(Representing West Sacramento
Sanitary Dist.)

Robert Burd
1200 6th Ave.
Seattle, Washington
(Representing EPA  Region X)

Robert Burt
P.O. Box 1133
Sacramento, Ca. 95805
(Representing Ca. Manu. Assoc.)

Ken Christensen
1195 Sutter Street
Berkeley, Ca.
(Representing Grand and Christensen
Envir.  Management Analysts)

Lee G. Cordier
4013 Cresta Way
Sacramento Ca.
(Representing Campbell Soup)

James Cornelius
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento Cal.
(Representing State Water
Resources Control Board)

-------
Kevin Dahi
6916 E. Mariposa Drive
Scottsdale, Arizona 85251

Mayor Stan Daily
Camarillo  Calif
(Representing Camarillo Sanitary
 District)

Earl L. Darrah
OMB
17th and Penn.
Washington, D. C.
(Representing OMB)

Gerald F. Davis
3031 Redemeyer Rd.
Ukiah, Ca. 95482
(Representing Mendocino County
 Health Dept)

Bill Dendy
1416 9th Street
Resources Bldg.
Sacramento, Ca.
(Representing Ca. State Water Res,
 Board)

Ray Dennis
611 Janey Drive
Austin, Texas
(Representing Tesas Water
 Quality Board
Martin DeVries
Main Street
Mil pitas, Ca.
(Representing Ford Motor Co)

Richard W. Dickenson
Courthouse
Stockton, Ca.  95202
(Representing San Joaquin County
Flood Control and Water
Conservation Dist.)
Roger DoIan
Box 24055
Oakland Calif.
94623
William Edgar
200 Bernal Ave.
P.O. Box DWRC
Pleasanton, CA  94566
(Representing City of Pleasonton)

Joseph Edmiston
2410 Beverly Blvd.
Los Angeles, Cal
(Representing Sierra Club)

Mrs. Morse Erskine
233 Chestnut St.
San Francisco, Ca.
(Representing People for
open Space)

Li la Euler
8787 Bandon Drive
Dublin, Ca. 94566
(Representing Liversmore Amadore
Valley Water Management Agency)

Donald E. Evenson
710 Broadway
Walnut Creek-  Ca.  94596
(Representing Counsulting Engr
 Assoc.  of  Ca.)

Patrick Faiai
Pago Pago
American Samoa  96799
(Representing American Samoa)

Frank F. Farley
100 Bush Street, Rm. 601
San Francisco, Ca.
(Representing Shell Oil Co)

George Fleming
401 M Street, S. W.
Washington, D. C.
(Representing EPA)

Robert G. Fleming
11510 Austin, Texas  78953
(Representing Texas Water Quality
Board)
                                                                      81**

-------
Jeanne Duncan
925 L Street, Suite 850
Sacramento Cal
(Representing Ca. Assoc.
of Sanitation Agencies)

Richard L. Foss
1671 The Alameda
San Jose, Ca.  95126
(Representing Consoer Townsend
and Assoc.

Jonnie L. Freilich
600 S. Commonwealth
Los Angeles, Ca.  90005
(Representing So. Ca. Assoc.
of Govts.)

J. Douglass Foale
P.O.  Box 52339
Houston Texas
(Representing Texas Water
Quality Board)

Peter R.  Gadd
2302 Sunset Drive
Visalia,  Ca. 93227

E. James  Ans
5857 East Flamingo Ave.
Las Vegas, Nrvada
(Representing Clark County,
Nevada)

Carol Garber
2316 San  Juan Ave.
Walnut Creek, Calif.
(Representing J. M. Montgomery
 Engineers)

Greg Garber
1900 N. California Blvd.
Walnut  Creek, Ca.
(Representing J.M. Montgomery
Engineers)
  Ed Gladback
  P.O.  Box 111
  Los Angeles, Ca. 90051
  (Representing Los Angeles Water
   and Power)

  Kenneth H. Glantz
  P.O.  Box 4437
  Stockton, Georgia  95204
  (Representing City of Jackson)

  William R. Gionelli
  P.O.  Box 1187
  Pebble Beach, Ca.
  (Representing National Comm.
  on Water Quality)

  George Hagevik
  Chief,Environmental Resources
  Division, Claremont Hotel
  Berkeley, Ca.  94705
  (Representing Assoc, of Bay
  Area Govts.)

  David W. Hansen
  P.O.  Box 66
  Gilroy, Cal
  (Representing City of Gilroy)

  John Harnett
  2130 Adeline St.
  Oakland, Cal.  94623
  (Representing East Bay
  Municipal Utility Dist.)

  Fred Harper
  Orange County Sanitaion Dist
  P.O.  Box 8127
  Fountain Valley, Ca. 92708
  (Representing Orange County
  Sanitation Dist,  and V.P. of
  Metro. Sewerage Agencies)

  Eveleth E. Hayden
  Bay Area League of Industries Assoc.
  3640 Grand Ave.
  Oakland, Ca. 94610

818

-------
Jerome B. Gilbert
1101 R. Street
Sacramento, Ca.
(Representing TRI-TAC Commit.)

Paul V. Hennessy
555 E. Walnut Street
Pasadena, Ca.  91101
(Representing J.M. Montgomery
 Consultant Engineers Inc.)

George H, Henson
4013 Wallace Lane
Nashville, Tenn,
(Representing Profit Systems
 Consultants)

Paul S. Henson
301 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, Ca.  95814
(Representing Assoc. General Contr.
of California)

Michael Herz
Oceanic Society of San Francisco
San Francisco, Ca.
(Representing Oceanic Society of
San Francisco)

Fred Hopper
P.O.  Box 8127
Fountain Valley, Ca. 92708
(Representing Orange City Sanit,
Dept. of So. Ca.)

Robert Horil
Room 800, 200 N, Spring
Los Angeles, Ca. 90012
(Representing City of LosAngeles)

H. Harvey Hunt
1990 N, Califronia
Walnur Creed, Ca.
(Representing John Carollo)

W. S. Hyde
Water Quality Division Dept of
 Public Works
Sacramento, Ca.                01  ?.
     <:  5                       O I 0
Stana Hearne
5931 Rincon Drive
Oakland Ca.  94611
(Representing League of Women
Voters of the Bay Area)

Charles A. Joseph
500 Davidson St.
Novato, Ca. 94947

Duane Kahne
3290 Godfrey R.
Gilroy, Ca.  95020
(Representing Penisula
Manu. Axxoc.)

Roy J. Kelly
P.O.  Box 54153
Los Angeles, Ca. 90054
(Representing Metro. Water
District of So. Ca.)

Ken Kirk
3900 Wisconsin Ave, N.W.
Washingotn D. C. 20024
(Representing Water Pollution
Control Federation)

George Kopecky
Washington, D. C.
(Representing House Public
Works Comm.)

Sanford Koretsky
1485 Bayshore Blvd.
San Francisco, Ca. 94124
(Koretsky King Assoc, Inc)

John A. Lambie
181 S. Ash Street
Venrura Ca.
(Representing Ventura Regional San.
Dist.)

E. L. MacDonald
City Hall
Richmond, Ca. 94804
(Representing North Bay Water
Advisory Council)

-------
Arnold Joens
City Hall
Salinas California
                     93901
Lynn E. Hohnson
1416 9th Street
Sacramento, Ca.
(Representing Ca. SWRCB)

Gordon Magnuson
600 Bancroft Way
Berkeley, Ca. 94710
Doug Mackay
EPA
Region IX
100 California Street
San Francisco, Ca.
(Representing EPA)


Alinda E. Norton
2500 Navy Drive
Stockton, Ca.
(Representing City of Stockton)
John L. Maloney
P.O.  Box 3563
Van Nuys Ca. 91407
(Representing Civic Organizations  of  th
                                      Theo Novak
                                      855 Archibald Ave.
                                      Cucamonga, Ca.
 San Fernando Valley)

Wendell D. McCurry
1209 Johnson Street
Carson. City, Nevada  98701
(Representing Nevada Dept. fo Human
Resources)
                                        ^presenting Chino Basin Munic.
                                      Water District)

                                      J. Warren Nute
                                      907 Mission Ave.
                                      San Rafael, Ca.
                                       Patricia  O'Connell
                                       1804  37th St.  N.W.
                                       Washington,  D.  C.  20007
                                       (Representing  EPA)
Eileen McKeon
455 Capital  Mall
Sacramento,  Ca.
(Representing Pacific Legal Foundation)
                                      George T. O'Hara
                                      12000 Vista del Mar
                                      Playa del Rey, Ca. 90291
C. A. Mehl
3381 Hoi den Circle
Los Alamitos, Ca.
(Representing Mobil Oil Corp.)

Tom Merle
348 World Trade Center
San Francisco, Ca.
(Representing Bay Area Council)

Donald G. Miller
City Hall
Livermore, Ca.
(Representing City of Livermore)

Robert E. Moore
7150 Brockton Ave.
Riverside California 92506
(Santa Ana Watershed Proj A.)
                                      (Representing City of Las
                                      Angeles)

                                      Jum Pankratz
                                      1416 9th Street
                                      Sacramento, Ca.
                                      (Representing State Water Resour.
                                      Control Board)

                                      Bob Parent
                                      360 Pine Street
                                      San Francisco Ca. 94611
                                      (Representing CHZM Hill)
                                                           •
                                      Connie Parrish
                                      529 Commercial St.
                                      San Francisco, Ca. 94111
                                      (Representing Friends of the  Earth)
                                   817

-------
818

-------
Robert A. Morrow
Corps of Engineers
South East District
100 McAllister Street
San Francisco, Ca. 94109
(Representing Corps of Engineers)

Austine W. Nelson
P.O. Box 19226
Washington, D. C. 20036
(Representing National Commission
of Water Quality)

Jack Port
64 Administration Bldg.
Martinez, Ca. 94553
(Representing Assistant
of Public Works Director, Environ
mental Control, Contra Costa Co)

James Powell
9401 San Leandro Street
Oakland Ca.
(Representing Gerber Products)

R. M. Rade
100 Cali from'a Street
San Francisco, Ca.  9411
(Representing EPA.- Region  IX)

Michael Rancer
Alameda County Olanning Dept.
399 Elmhurst
Hayward, Ca. 94599

Nereus L. Richardson
10500 Ellis Ave.
Fountain Valley, Ca.
(Representing Orange County
 Water District)

George Schmidt
3201 S Street Sacramento, Ca. 95825
(Representing State of Ca.)
Peter R.  Perez
100 California St
San Francisco, Ca.  94111
(Representing EPA,  Region  IX)

P. Stanley
42- Madison
San Francisco, Ca.
(Representing Safeway)

Lawrence Taber
1007 L Street
Sacramento, Ca.
(Representing Canners League
of California)

John R. Stratford
P.O.  Box 1449
Eureka, Ca.  95501
(Representing Humbolt Bay
 Wastewater Authority)

Leif Syrstad
504 Oak Park Way
Redwood City, Ca. 94062
(Representing Peninsula
Manu. Assoc.)

Preston B. Tack
P.O.  Box D
Belleyue, Wash.
(Representing AMSA)

Karl a Taylor
1185 Coleman Ave.
Santa Clara, Ca.
Representing FMC Corp.)

E.H. Thourey
406 Heather Lane
San Mateo, Ca.

Donald  Tillman
200 N. Spring St.
Los Angeles, Ca.
(Representing City of L.A.)
                                    819

-------
Robert Schneider
P.O.  Box 1029
Tracy Ca.
(Representing City of
Tracy)

John T. Schulte
180 Harbor Drive Rm. 208
Sausalito, Ca. 94945
(Representing SMSSA)

Frank Sebastian
3000 Sand Hill Rd.
Menlo Park, Ca.
(Representing Envirotech Corp.)

Scott C. Sellers
100 McAllister St.
San Francisco, Ca.
(Representing U. S. Army
Corps of Engineers)

Jerry Wager
Box 2999
Agana, Guam
(Representing Guam Environmental
 Protection Agency)

Richard H. Ward
City of San Leandro
835 E. 14th St.
San Leandro Cal
(Representing the City
of San Leandro)

Theodore R. Weller, Sr.
717 Market Street
San Francisco, Ca.
(Representing Wine Institute)

Linda Whipperman
100 Califronia Street
San Francisco, Ca.
(EPA)
Janet E. Todd
455 Capitol Mall #465
Sacramento, Ca.
(Representing Paicifc Legal
Foundation)

Compton I Vester
Santa Cruz Co. Public Workd
701 Ocean St.
Santa Cruz, Ca.
(Representing Santa Cruz
 Co. Sanitary District

Edward Vine
(Representing the Planning
 and Conservation League)

Richard Wolfer
P. 0. Drawer "V"
Aroata, Ca.
95521
(Representing Simpson Timber)

Hal Wood
255 Mendolino Ave.
Santa Rosa, Ca. 95401
(Representing Sonoma County)

Joseph V.  Yance
5508 Ascot Ct.
Alexandria, Va.
(EPA)

Pete Zars
Mill Towers
San Francisco, Ca.
(Representing Sierra Club)

David Ziegler
401 M Street, S. W.
Washington, D. C. 20460
(EPA)
                                    820

-------
                            Public Hearing

                    Washington, D. C. June 25, 1975
Witnesses
Mayor Frederick Knox
411 Ridgedale Avenue
East Hanover, New Jersey 07936

George Tomko
45 Canfield Road
East Hanover, New Jersey 07936

Robert Davis
Virginia State Water Quality Board
P.O. Box 11143
2111 N. Hamilton St.
Richmond, Va. 23230

Richard Dougherty
Metropolitan Waste Control Comm.
350 Metro Square Bldg.
7th and Roberts Sts.
St. Paul, Minn. 55101

Alfred Peloquin
New England Interstate Water
   Pollution Control Commission
607 Boylston St.
Boston, Mass 02116

Seymour Lubetkin
Passaic Valley Sewerage District
600 Wilson Av.
Newark, N.J. 07105

Bill Marks
Dep't of Engineering
Room 408 City Hall
Newark, N.J.

Martin Lang
New York City Environmental
   Protection Administration
2364 Municipal Bldg.
New York, N.Y. 10007

Eugene Seebald
Dept. of Environmental Conservations
50 Wolf Road
Albany, N.Y: 12233
James Huffcut
New York State Water Pollution Control
  Ass'n
1405 Canal Road
Lockport, N.Y. 14094

Wesley Gilbertson
Deputy Secretary for Environmental
  Protection and Regulation, Dep't of
  Environmental Resources
P.O. Box 2063
Harrisburg, Pa. 17120

William Markus
McCandless Township Sanitary Authority
Allegheney County
Pennsylvania

Robert Martens
Deputy Commissioner, Dept of
  Environmental Quality
134 West Eagle Street
Buffalo, N.Y.

Larry Snowhite
New Jersey Governor's Office
419 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, D.C.

Sam Warrington
Water Pollution Control Federation
3900 Wisconsin Av NW
Washington, D. C.

J.G. Speth
Natural Resources Defense Council
917 15th Street NW
Washington, D. C. 20036

Lynn Goldthwaite
Tourne Valley Coalition
One Sunset Road
Mountain Lakes, N.J. 07046

-------
Peter Gadd
Kings River Water Association
2302 Sunset Drive
Visalia, Cal.  93277

Peter Inzero/David Shevock
815 15th St. NW
National Utility Contractor's Ass'n.
Washington, D. C.

Billy Sumner
American Consulting Engineers Council
1155 15th St.  NW
Washington, D. C.

Warren Gregory
National Solid Wastes Management Ass'n
1730 Rhode Island Avenue, NW
Suite 800
Washington, D. C.

Tom Walker
Browing-Ferris Industries
Suite 800
1730 Rhode Island Av. NW
Washington, D.C.

H. Neal Troy/L.S. Watson
National Ass'n of Manufacturers
1775 F St. NW
Washington, D. C. 20006

Bart Lynam
Lee White
Association of Metro Sewer Agencies
1156 15th St.  NW
Washington, D.C. 20005

Jay Lehr
National Water Well Ass'n
500 West Wilson Bridge Rd.
Worthington, Ohio 43085

Richard Rosen
Energy Resources Co., Inc.
185 Alewise Book Pky
Cambridge, Mass 02138
Morris Wiley
American Petroleum Institute
P.O. Box 509
Beacon, N.Y. 12508

James Romano
National Society of Profession
  Engineers
2029 K St. NW
Washington, D. C.

Clem Rastatter
Conservation Foundation
1717 Massachusetts Av. NW
Washington, D. C. 20036

Charles Samowitz
Commissioner, New York City dep't
  of Water Resources
                                          82.

-------
                                                                   6/25/75
                                                                   Wash., D.
                                Attendees
Mr.  Morris  Altschuler
EPA, 401  "M"  Street,  S.W.
Washington, D.  C.   20460

Mr.  Duane Anderson
1935 West County Road, B-2
Rosenville, Minnesota  55113

Mr.  J.P.  Ashoolt
1957 "E"  Street, N.W.
Washington, D.  C.   20006

Mr.  B.R.  Barrett
Main Commerce Building
Washington, D.C.

Mr.  Perry T.  Beaton
1935 W.  3rd., B-2
Minneapolis,  Minnesota

Ms.  Kathleen  M. Bennett
1619 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20036

Mr.  Bob  Borchardt
P.O. Box  2079
Milwaukee,  Wisconsin   53201

Mr.  Raymond B.  Bosler, Jr.
23C  Brookside Drive
Lansdale, Pennsylvania

Mr.  Phillip Brunn, Jr.
McCandless  Township Sanitary
  Authority
Allegheny County,  Pa.

Mr.  Philip  G. Brunn,  Jr.
9600 Perry  Hull
Pittsburgh, Pa.  15237

Mr.  Victor  B. Buckstad
Box  509,  Tr.  17M
Orange Co.  Dept. of Public Works
Goshen, New York  10924
Mr. Daniel W. Cannon
1776 "F" Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20006

Mr. Louis Cascino
Orange County DPW
Goshen, New York

Mr. Joseph V.F. Clay
191 New Road
Churchville, Pennsylvania  18966

Mr. J. Eugene Cleary
4017 Hamilton Street
Hyattsville, Maryland  20781

Mr. John Cleary
Washington Surburban Sanitary Commission

Mr. John E. Cleary
4017 Hamilton Street
Hyattsville, Maryland  20781

Mr. George Col ing
1525 - 18th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036

Mr. Jack L. Cooper
1133 - wpth Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C.  20036

Mr. John B. Cox
U.S. Dept. of Commerce
Washington, D. C.  20230

Mr. Earl Darrah
OMB, New Executive Office Bldg., Rm. 8222
17th and Pennsylvania Ave.,  N.W.
Washington, D. C.  20503

Ms. Maryann Dean
1720 Rhode Island Ave., N.W.
Suite 800
Washington, D.C.
                                          823

-------
                                  - 2 -
Mr. Lewis Debevee
65 So. High Street
Akron, Ohio  44308

Mr. Richard Deringer
EPA, 401 "M" St., S.W.
Washington, D.C.  20460

Mr. Thomas G. Dolan
176 Washington Road
Sayreville, New Jersey

Ms. Cathy Dombrowski
Box 1067, Blair Station
Silver Spring, Maryland

Ms. Diane Donley
917 - 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.

Mr. Maurice Dorton
Metropolitan Waste Commission
St. Paul, Minnesota

Ms. Patricia 6. Drake
710 Enderby Drive
Alexandria, Virginia  22302

Mr. H. Ben Falknew, Jr.
NSPE-PEPP
Mr. David Ference
New York State Div. of Budget
State Capitol
Albany, New York

Mr. Jerome Fine
169 Lackawanna Avenue
Parsippany, New Jersey  07054

Mr. George Fleming
EPA, 401 "M" Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.  20460
Mr. W.L. Flinn
2009 No. 14th Street
Arlington, Virginia  22201

Mr. Alfred A. Fusco, Jr.
16 James Street
Middletown, New York

Mr. A.F. Giek
168 So.idgedale
East Hanover, New Jersey

Mr. L.E. Gottstein
8800 West H.W. #7
Minneapolis, Minnesota  55426

Mr. W.R. Hager
EPA, 401 "M" Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.  20460

Ms. Sharon L. Harvill
EPA, 401 "M" Street, S.W.
Washington, D. C.  20460

Mr. Raymond Herod
EPA, 401 "M" Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.  20460

Mr. Joseph Hezir
OMB, New Executive Office Bldg.
17th and Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20503

Mr. William D. Hickman
400 National Press Building
Washington, D.C.
Mr. Alan C. Hill
EPA, 401 "M" Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.  20460

Ms. Marcia M. Hughes
1908 Florida Avenue, N.W., Apt. 233
Washington, D. C.  20009
                                       824

-------
                               - 3 -
Ms. Mary W.  Humbert
1011 Glen Lake Blvd.
Pitman, New Jersey 08071

Mr. Alan Hunter
925 - 15th Street
Washington,  D.C. 20005

Mr. Mike Italiano
Syracuse, New York

Mr. Henry Jaked
EPA, Waterside Mall,  S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460

Ms. Carol Jolly
1730 "M" Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036

Mr. E.W. Jones
1957 "E" Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.

Mr. Charles B. Kaiser, Jr.
2000 Hampton
St. Louis, Missouri

Mr. John T.  Kane
845 - 4th Avenue
Coraopolis,Pennsylvania 15108

Mr. Robert Kee
356 Main Street
Matawan, New Jersey

Mr. Raymond J. Kipp
608 Bel Air Circle
Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Mr. Ken Kirk
3900 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W.
Washington,  D.C. 20024

Mr. Arnold M. Kuzmack
EPA, 401 "M" Street,  S.W.
Washington,  D.C. (PM-223)
                        ^

Mr. J.W. Lanham
11253 Jerrier Lane
St. Louis, Missouri
                                 825
Mr. Harold Levy
1305 Potomac Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006

Ms. June Lobit
EPA, 401 "M" Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460

Mr. Robert D. Lunt
1619 Massachusetts Avenue
Washington, D.C.

Mr. William H. McDowell
NRDC - 917 - 1st Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.

Mr. Robert McGenve
1801'"K" Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006

Mr. Vincent Leo
56 Gail Drive
East Hanover, New Jersey

Mr. Jack McKee
2029 "K" Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006

Mr. Hugh McMillan
100 East Erie Street
Chicago, Illinois 60611

Mr. Louis L. Meier, Jr.
1625 Eye Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.

Mr Alan Miller
1346 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Apt 620
Washington, D.C. 20036

Mr. John J. Moyne
Rahway, New Jersey

Ms. Ronna Neumann
Governor Carey's Office
1612 "K" Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006

Mr. E.G. Newbould
1130 - 17th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.

-------
                              - 4 -
Mr. Charles H.  Miles
EPA, 401 "M" Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.  20460

Mr. John Noble
EPA, 401 "M" Street- S.W.
Washington, D.C.  20460

Mr. Erwin J. Odeal
801 Rockwell
Cleveland, Ohio 44114

Mr. John W. Ongman
1730 Pennsylvania,  N.W.
Washington, D.C.

Mr. Ron Outen
917 - 15th Street,  N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20005

John J. Palnulie
76 Samuel Street
East Hanover, New Jersey

Mr. M. Veronica Parry
417 Cannon Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C.  20515

Mr. Myron R. Perry
City Hall
Middletown, New York

Mr. Robert R. Perry
3900 Wisconsin  Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.

Mr. W.V. Peters
Cleveland Regional  Sewer District
Cleveland, Ohio

Mr. Charles W.  Phillips
50 Canterbury Lane
Fairfield, Connecticut

Mr. Robert Phillips
401 "M" Street, S.W. EPA
Washington, D.C.  20460
Mr. John M. Rademacher
Dept. of Natural Resources
Annapolis, Maryland

Mr. Burke Reilly
815 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.

Mr. William W. Rogers
P. 0. Box 11640
Lexington, Kentucky 40511

Mr. Barrett Russell
New York Conference of Mayors
6 Elk Street
Albany, New York

Mr. Charles Samowitz
Dept. of Water Resources
2455 Municipal Building
New York, New York 10007

Mr. John Scheer
7900 Westpark Drive, Suite 304
McLean, Virginia

Ms. Diane F. Schorr
136 Walnut Street
Lexington, Kentucky

Mr. Robert M. Schule
1612 "K" Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006

Ms. Kathy Senior
EPA, 401 "M" Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460

Mr. J. Thomas SIiten
1730 "M" Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.

Mr. Larry Spiller
1155 - 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.

Mr. Darold W. Taylor
1130 - 17th Street, N.W.-
Washington, D.C.

-------
                               - 5 -
Mr. R. W. Thieme
EPA, 401 "M" Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460

Mr. Barry Thompson
3001 Douglas Turn
Cornwells Heights, Pennsylvania 19020

Mr. Jim Tozzi
Office of Management & Budget
New Executive Office Bldg, Rm. 8222
Washington, D.C. 20503

Mr. Anthony Trelewicz
C.O.B. - 148 Martine Avenue
White Plains, New York 10601

Mr. Charles R. Velzy
350 Executive Boulevard
Elmsford, New York

Mr. Henry R. Verdini
Box 750
Bound Brook, New Jersey

Ms. Sally Walker
United States Senate
Committee on Public Works
Washington, D.C. 20515

Mr. K. S. Watson
1209 Canterbury Lane
Glenview, Illinois 60025

Ms. Geri Werdig
EPA, 401 "M" Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460

Mr. Lee C. White
1156 - 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460

Mr. William P. White
1927 Biltmore Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.

Mr. Ned E. Williams
1382 Cambridge
Columbus, Ohio
Mr. Joseph Yance
401 "M" Street,  S.W.
Washington, D.C.

Mr. James R. Yeager
9004 Longbow Road
Oxon Hill, Maryland 20022

Mr. Kirk F. Young
5515 Cherokee Avenue
Alexandria, Virginia

Mr. Dave Ziegler
EPA, 401 "M" Street,  S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460

-------
               LIST OF STATEMENTS RECEIVED FOR THE RECORD*
Ernest Mueller
Commissioner
Department of Environmental  Conservation
Pouch 0
Juneau, Alaska 99811

James R. Anderson
James R. Anderson & Co.
6842 Van Nuys Blvd.
Van Nuys, CA 91405

Robert A. Allsion
4299 MacArthur Blvd.
Suite 104
Newport Beach, CA 92660

E. M. Allgeier
Allgeier, Martin & Associates
2820 Range Line
P. 0. Box 2277
Joplin, Mo. 64801

David A. Kirk
Butler Area Sewer Authority
125 Pittsburgh Road
Butler, Pa. 16001

A. P. Black
City Administrator
P. 0. Box 362
Barnwell, S.C. 29812

F. A. Eidsness
Black, Crow & Eidsness, Inc.
1700 S.W. 12th Ave, P. 0. Box 1300
Boca Raton, 'Fla. 33432

Joseph Bouquard
Bouquard Engineering Co., Inc.
Third Floor, Park Tower
117 East Seventh Street
Chattanooga, Tenn. 37402

Paul Clark
Department of Public Works, Streets
  and Airports
Chattanooga, Tenn. 37402

*In addition to those witnesses
appearing in person
Steve Cloues
Associate Director
Central Midlands Regional Planning
  Commission
Dutch Plaza, Suite 155
Dutch Square Blvd.
Columbia, S.C. 29210

Mayor Connie Smith
715 Washington St.
Chillicothe, Mo. 64601

Donald Canney
Office of the Mayor
3rd Floor City Hall
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401

Michael D. Curry
3 Shady Lane
Herrin, 111. 62948

R. Marvin Townsend
City Manager
302 South Shoreline
P. 0. Box 9277
Corpus Christi, Texas 78408

William D. Engler, Jr.
Office of City Attorney
102 N. Madison St.
Chi 1 ton, Wis.

John D. Parkhurst
County Sanitation Districts of
  Los Angeles County
1955 Workman Mill Rd.
P. 0. Box 4998
Whittier, CA 90607

Lowell Weeks
General Manager
Coachella Valley County Water District
P. 0. Box 1058
Coachella, CA 92236

Henry J. Graeser
Dallas Water Utilities
500 S. Ervay
Dallas, Texas 75277

   828

-------
                                 - 2 -
Ms. Penelope J.  Evans
1262 Bordeaux Dr.
Lexington,  Ky.  40504

Mayor Wesley Cox
P. 0. Drawer 700
El Reno,  Okla.  73036

Stan Weil!
President
Georgia Water and Pollution
  Control Ass'n.

Julian Bell
Tennessee Municipal League

A. B. Anderson
6M Assembly Division
GMC
Van Nuys, CA 94109

Kazu Hayashida
Chief Engineer
Department of Public Works
City and  County of Honolulu
650 South King St
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Ervin Brenner
Board of  Supervisors
County of Humboldt
Eureka, CA 95501

Lee C. Kruase
Howell, Howell  & Krause
Honesdale, Pa 18431

Ralph Pickard
Stream Pollution Control Board
1320 West Michigan St
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206

M. L. Forrester
Department of Public Works
220 East  Bay St
Jacksonville, Fla 32202

Stuart Pyle
Kern County Water Agency
1415 18th St Rm. 418
Bakersfield, CA 93301
Finely Laverty
1400 Cresthaven Drive
Pasadena, CA 91105

H. W. Stokes
General Manager
Las Virgenes Water District
4232 Las Virgenes Road
Calabasas, CA 91302

Mrs. Julian Hall
League of Women Voters of Missouri
2133 Woodson Rd.
St. Louis, Mo. 63114

Rex Layton
City Clerk
Rm. 395 City Hall
Los Angeles, CA 90012

Mayor Robert Smith
Lake View, S.C.

William Meadows
1025 Turkeyfoot Rd.
Lexington, Ky. 40504

Mayor Marion Reed
P.O. Box 10570
Midwest City, Okla. 73110

Warren Ringer
Massachusetts Construction Industry
  Council
One Gateway Center, Rm. 416
Newton Corner, Mass. 02158

Governor Brendan Byrne
New Jersey

David Bardin
Department of Environmental  Protection
P. 0. Box 1390
Trenton, N.J. 08625

Resolution
U.S. Conference of Mayors

Bob Fuller
Milwaukee River Restoration  Council,  Inc,
461 Hi 11 crest Rd.
Grafton, Wis. 53024
                                     829

-------
                                - 3 -
John B. Daly
Assemblyman
138th District
New York

John Kemper
Office of the Director of Utilities
City Hall
Norfolk, Va. 23501

Louis S. Clapper
National Wildlife Federation
1412 16th St, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036

George Bentley
New Bedford Industrial Wastewater
  Committee
c/o Continental Screw Co.
New Bedford, Mass.

K.W. Riebe
City Manager
City Hall
Newberry, S.D. 29108

E. 0. Pendarvis
Mayor
P. 0. Box 641
Orangeburg, S.C. 29115

John Karanik
Department of Drainage and Sanitation
125 Elwood Davis Rd.
North Syracuse, N.Y. 13212

Congressman Richard Ottinger
U. S. House of Representatives
24th District, New York

Mayor Patience Latting
200 North Walker
Municipal Building
Oklahoma City, Okla. 73102

Charles Newton
Oklahoma State Department of Health
Northeast 10th St. & Stonewall
Oklahoma City, Okla. 73105

L. W. Maxson
01 in Brass
East Alton, 111. 62024
Arthur Berger
7 Richmond St.
Painesville, Ohio 44077

Sanford Paris
1880 Century Park East
Los Angeles, CA 90067

Jon Olson
District Manager
Sanitary District of Rockford
3333 Kishwaukee St.
P. 0. Box 918
Rockford, 111. 61105

William Korbitz
Rocky Mountain Water Pollution Control
  Ass'n.
3100 East 60th Ave.
Commerce City, Colo. 80022

S. Friedman
Spaulding Fibre Co., Inc.
Tonawanda, N.Y. 14150

Charles Schimpeler
1429 S. 3rd St.
Louisville, Ky. 40208

Edwin Mitchell
Spartanburg Sanitary Sewer District
200 Commerce St.
Spartanburg, S.C. 29301

Dick Brown
Board of Supervisors
County of San Diego
1600 Pacific Highway
San Diego, CA 92101

R. W. King
City of San Diego
202 C St.
San Diego, Ca. 92101

Donald Tudor
Santee-Wateree Regional Planning
  Council
4th Fl. City-County Bldg.
P. 0. Box 1837
Sumter, S.C. 29150

   830

-------
                             - 4 -
John Jenkins
South  Carolina  Dep't of Health
  and  Environmental  Control
2600 Bull  St.
Columbia,  S.C.  29201

R. A.  Boege
Union  Sanitary  District
4057 Baine Ave.
Fremont,  Ca.  94536

Lincoln Ward
5400 Van  Nuys Blvd.
Van Nuys, Ca. 91401

Richard Senitte
West Sacramento Sanitary District
1951  Sotuh River Rd.
West Sacramento, Ca. 95691

M. L.  Wickersheim
City Hall
715 Mulberry St.
Waterloo, Iowa 50705

Paul Sisson
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission
4017 Hamilton St
Hyattsville, Md. 20781

Ralph Purdy
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Stevens T. Mason Bldg.
Lansing,  Mich. 48926

John Spencer
Department of Ecology
State of Washington
Olympia, Washington 98504

Mary O'Dell
Chairman, Metropolitan Denver  Sewage
   Disposal District No.  1
3100 East 60th St.
Commerce City, Colo. 80022

Paul Gleason
Business Administrator
Borough of Lincoln  Park
Municipal Bldg.
34 Chapel Hill Rd.
Lincoln Park, N.J.  07035
Governor Michael S. Dukakis
Evelyn F. Murphy, Executive Office
  of Environmental Affairs
Commonwealth of Massachusetts

Harry Morrison
Vice President
Western Oil and Gas Ass'n
609 South Grand Ave
Los Angeles, Ca. 90017
Jane 0. Baron
Water Resources Division
Northern California Regional
  Conservation Commission
Mills Tower
San Francisco, Ca. 94104
E. J. Weathersbee
Department of Environmental Quality
1234 S.W. Morrison St.
Portland, Ore. 94205

Brain Landergan
National Association of Home Builders
15th and M Streets, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005

David Goldberg
New Jersey Alliance for Action
219 East Hanover St.
Trenton, N.J.

Bob Bruton
President
Consulting Engineers Council of  Okla.
P. 0. Box 51186
Tulsa, Okla. 74151

David Hansen
Director of Public Works
7377 Church St.
P. 0. Box 66
Gilroy, Ca. 94020

Carl Carlson
Howard G. Moore Co.,  Inc.
2122 South Stewart
Springfield, Mass. 65804

Donald Ringler, Director
Oakland County Dept of  Public  Works
Pontiac, Mich. 48054
                                      831

-------
*™ \J —
Thomas Kirkwood
Missouri Society of Professional Engineers
210 Monroe St.
Jefferson City, Mo. 65101

Duane Kiihne
Peninsula Manufacturing Ass'n
3921 East Bayshore Rd.
Palo Alto, Ca. 94303

Charles Goodwin, Jr.
Chairman, Humboldt Bay Wastewater Authority
P. 0. Box 1449
Eureka, Ca. 95501

Metropolitan Council
Leagues of Women Voters - St. Louis
  and St. Louis County
5600 Oakland Ave, Rm. G330
St. LOuis, Mo. 63110

Donald Hi 11 bricks
President, Nebraska Water Pollution
  Control Ass'n
P. 0. Box 565
Columbus, Neb. 68601

William Konrad
Envirex
Water Quality Control Division
P. 0. Box 1067
Waukesha, Wis. 53186

Dean Hunter
Lexington Fayette Urban County Gov't
136 Walnut St.
Lexington, Ky. 40507

Stephen Leeds
69 Mountain Heights Ave
Lincoln Park, N.J. 07035

Frank Farminella, Jr.
President, New Jersey Builders Ass'n
P. 0. Box M
Ramada Inn
East Brunswick, N.J. 08816

Ronald Beckman
Public Works Administrator
1200 Elm Ave
Carlsbad, CA 92008
                                    832
            William Kane
            Associated General Contractors of
              Massachusetts Inc.
            220 Boylston St.
            Chestnut Hill, Mass. 02167

            Adrian Fondse
            Chairman, Board of Supervisors
            222 East Weber Ave, Rm. 701
            Stockton, CA 95202

            Donald Evenson
            Consulting Engineers Association of
              California
            1308 Bayshore Hwy
            Burlingame, CA 94010

            C. D. Hudson
            Illinois Environmental Protection
              Agency
            2200 Churchill Rd.
            Springfield, 111. 62706

            Jack Cooper
            National Canners Association
            1133 - 20th St, N.W.
            Washington, D.C.

            Art Vondrick
            Water and Sewers Director
            215 E. McDowell Drd.
            Phoenix, Arizona 85004

            R. N. Line
            City Manager
            1000 Throckmorton St.
            Ft. Worth, Texas 76102

            Don Busch
            City Manager
            830 Booneville Ave.
            Springfield, Mo. 65802

            Carmen Guarino
            Commissioner, Water Department
            1180 Municipal Services Bldg.
            Philadelphia, Pa. 19107

            V. H. Sussman
            Director, Stationary Source Environmental
              Control, Ford Motor Co.
            One Parkland Bldg.
            Dearboard, Mich. 48126

-------
                                - 6 -
Laurence  Brennan
6009 West 90th  St.
Overland  Park,  Kansas 66207

Mayor John Hutchinson
P. 0. Box 2749
Charleston, West  Virginia 25330

Hal Wood
Sanitation Department
County of Sonoma
Rm 117A Administration Bldg
2555 Mendocino  Ave
Santa Rosa, CA  95401

E. Cedroni
Acting Director
Detroit Metro Water Dept
Water Board Bldg.
Detroit,  Mich.  48226

Howard Hoffman
No Address

Glen Hackett
Town of Wheatfield New York
P. 0. Box 726 Falls Station
Niagara Falls,  N.Y. 14303

Peter Gove
Executive Director
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
1935 West County Rd.  B2
Roseville, Minn.  55113

William Adams
Commissioner
Maine Department of Environmental
  Protection
State House
Augusta,  Maine  04330

Edward Treat
Secretary-Myerstown Borough
515 South College Street       ~^
Myerstown, Pa.  17067

F. C. Gibbs
Associated Constructors, Inc.
Box 9871
Jackson,  Miss.  39206
Louis Allen, Jr.
Assistant Executive Director
Association of California Water Agencies

Neil Cline
Secretary-Manager
Orange County Water District
10500 Ellis Ave.
P. 0. Box 8300
Fountain Valley, Ca 92708

Frank Meyer
Chairman, Vista Sanitation  District
P. 0. Box 188
200 W. Broadway
Vista, Ca. 92083

J. A. Chittenden
National Independent Meat Packers  Assn
734 - 15th St, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005

William Pitstick
Executive Director
North Central Texas Council  of Govts
P. 0. Drawer COG
Arlington, Texas 76011

Lewis R. Martin
Director, Division of Environmental  Mgmt
North Carolina Department of Natural  and
  Economic Resources
Box 27687
Raleigh, N.C. 27611

David Howells
Water Resources Research Institute
University of North Carolina
124 Riddiek Bldg
Raleigh, N.C. 27607
George Miller
U. S. Congressman
Seventh District,
California
Lewis Ritter
President, Water  Pollution Control
  Ass'n of Pennsylvania
P. 0. Box 587
State College,  Pa.  16801

-------
                               -  7 -
Herman Maskell
Utility Contractors Assn  of
  Connecticut, Inc.
416 Highland Ave
Cheshire, Conn. 06410

Water Fritz
Vice President
Michaels-Stiggins, Inc.
3025 South St
Orlando, Fla. 32803

John Hornbach
City Engineer
Grand Rapids, Mich. 49502

Stanley Dolecki
Harland Bartholomew and Associates
165 N. Meramec Ave.
St. Louis, Mo. 63105

Ronald Gori
Chairman, Board of Commissioners
Township of Bethlehem
2740 Fifth St.
Bethlehem, Pa. 18017

Karl Rothermund
Executive Vice President
Ohio Contractors Ass'n.
                              *U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1975-631-977

-------