The White House
RURAL DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES
MAKING WATER & SEWER
PROGRAMS WORK
DECEMBER 1978
-------
" I want the government that I lead to be
the kind of government that will simply let
the greatness of the American people be
realized ... I grew up near a small town,
a town where people depended on the land for
a living. We shared the pleasures of a country
life. We want our children to have opportunities
even we did not enjoy, and we want to be sure
that future generations can see a nation that
is strong and free, decent, honest.
That is why when. I first came to Washington
as President I was determined that the federal
government would take certain stances, would
help rural development, would help to overcome
the problems that we share and make sure that
there is a full partnership between Washington
and the rest of the country in meeting the needs
of small town and rural America. "
Jimmy Carter
-------
WHITE HOUSE RURAL DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE:
MAKING FEDERAL WATER AND SEWER PROGRAMS WORI(
Contents Page
I. New Administration Initiatives to Make Rural
Water and Sewer Programs Work Better 1
II. Other Recent Rural Water and Sewer Initiatives . . 9
III. Background Comparison of Agency Programs . . . . 13
IV. Text of the Coordination and Service Delivery
Agreement 16
V. Text of the Job Training Agreement 31
VI. Letter from Charles Warren, Chairman of the
Council on Environmental Quality
-------
NEW ADMINISTRATION INITIATIVES TO MAKE RURAL
WATER AND SEWER PROGRAMS WORK BETTER
This year the federal government will spend about $2.5
billion to help small communities construct or upgrade
their water and sewer systems. This sum is administered
through a complex array of programs lodged in half a
dozen agencies. The level of federal commitment reflects
the acute need for improvement in the plight of the rural
American in this area of basic human need.
o 1.5 million rural Americans do not have running
water in their homes;
o 7.2 million rural people have dug wells or other
water sources which do not meet safe drinking water
standards;
o another 6.5 million rural residents are served by
community water systems which do not meet safe
drinking water standards; and
o more than 2.4 million rural Americans do not have
adequate sewage disposal facilities.
Over the past several months, the White House reached out
to public officials from small towns and rural counties, to
rural and public interest groups in Washington, to members
of Congress and others to seek help in defining a specific
action agenda for the Administration in dealing with those
rural concerns most on the minds of rural Americans - - not
just those in Washington, D.C. Jack Watson and other White
House and Administration representatives visited distressed
rural areas around the country to supplement and field test
what was heard from other sources. This outreach effort
revealed a striking concensus on where to begin. The five
areas requiring the most immediate attention were:
o rural health care
o rural water and sewer programs
o rural transportation
o rural housing
o rural economic development
On the basis of the advice received from around the country
specific action agendas were developed in each of these five
problem areas and the relevant agencies were convened to
implement theni. In each case the working groups were given
the mission of:
-------
2
o making federal programs more accessible and better
suited to rural communities which frequently lack
staff with “grantmanship” skills and the technical
and management cap city to implement water and sewer
systems;
o improving the coordination of programs administered
in different agencies;
o eliminating unnecessary paperwork, duplication, and
other federally imposed administrative burdens; and
o making limited budgets stretch further through improved
program efficiencies.
In collaboration with the Assistant Secretaries’ Working
Group and under the auspices of the Interagency Coordinating
Council, the White House convened a water and sewer working
group in June, 1978. The group was composed of representatives
from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Farmer’s
Home Administration (FmHA) in the Department of Agriculture,
the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the
Economic Development Administration (EDA) in the Department
of Commerce, the Department of Labor (DOL), the Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ), and the Community Services
Administration (CSA).
In the intervening months since they were first brought
together, the agencies have achieved some major agreements
which are now ready for announcement. Described below, these
agreements are directly responsive to the most frequently
expressed concerns about federal activities in the rural
water and sewer field. The new initiatives will:
o ensure that water and sewer facilities are well suited
to local community needs--in some cases this will mean
using low cost technologies appropriately scaled for
sparse populations; in others it will mean facilities
which are adequate to meet long—term residential,
commercial and industrial needs; in all cases it will
mean a greater federal responsiveness to local circum-
stances and local initiatives;
o save millions of dollars per year in reduced paperwork
and administrative burden for small town and rural
county applicants and recipients of federal assistance--
for example, by imposing only one set of compliance
requirements accepted by all funding agencies (rather
than one set for each agency) for NEPA, the Clean Air Act,
the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Endangered Species Act,
Davis-Bacon, and 11 other federal laws;
-------
3
o save millions of dollars per year in eliminated
administrative duplication among federal agencies--
f or example, it is estimated that FmI-IA alone can
save $1 million a year just by using EPA’S needs survey
data; and
o speed up the processing time for applications and the
time between applications and the completion of
construction--for example, EPA estimates the average
time involved in its three-step funding cycle in rural
areas (approximately three years) will be reduced by 15
months; based on estimates made in a Clean Water Act
Legislative report, this “speeding up” process resulting
from the combination of Steps 2 and 3 will result in a
savings of about $250 million annually.
o train 1750 workers in the water and wastewater treatment
field to meet critical rural shortages in this rapidly
expanding job market.
These outcomes are the result of agreements enacted regarding:
o Coordination and Service Delivery
o Job Training
o Funding for the National Demonstration Water Project
The main elements of these three closely related initiatives
follow.
Coordination and Service Delivery Agreement
The interagency agreement to coordinate and improve the
delivery of Federal water and sewer programs is far-reaching
and is expected not only to provide important efficiencies
in the administration of these programs but to make them
more accessible and better suited to small community and rural
needs. Major features include:
o Emphasis on alternative and innovative technologies
in rural areas .
Emphasis will be given to “alternative and innovative”
technologies in small towns and rural areas through
intensified efforts to provide technical assistance
and disseminate information about the technologies
available (e.g., land treatment resulting in agri-
cultural and silvicultural benefits, low cost vacuum
and pressure sewers for sparsely populated areas,
specialized systems such as mounds for disposing of
septic tank effluent, on—site package treatment units
for individual homes, aquifer recharge, reuse for
industrial and other non-potable purposes, anaerobic
digestion facilities to produce methane, and composting
of sewage sludge). EPA’s new “10% bonus” (85% grants)
-------
4
for such technologies is expected to provide an effective
incentive for their widespread utilization in rural areas.
Besides the advantages noted in the above examples,
alternatives to conventional treatment facilities can
produce benefits in the form of lower capital and
operating and maintenance costs.
o single determinations of compliance with federal laws .
During the review of plans and specifications and of
construction activities, communities are required
to demonstrate or assure compliance with many federal
requirements. Where communities are using funds from
more than one federal source, there is no need to
demonstrate compliance more than once. To fulfill the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969, the agencies agree to conduct a single environ-
mental review process, as allowed in the regulations of
the Council on Environmental Quality. The participating
agencies further agree to accept the demonstration or
assurance of compliance for the requirements of some
other 15 laws or executive orders of other agencies
when permissible by statute. When there is a statutory
basis for differences in agency requirements, agencies
will work together to ensure that all requirements can
be met through individual or coordinated review as
appropriate.
o Coordination procedures for facility plan reviews .
When facility plans for communities less than 10,000
population are received by an EPA regional office for
review, it will direct the facility plan to the relevant
FmHA state office for review in terms of its financial
impact and appropriateness for the community in
question; FmHA will forward its comments to the EPA
regional office within 30 days so that EPA can complete
its review (technical, cost—effectiveness, environmental
assessment, conformance with approved 208 plans). EPA
and HUD may choose to review a facility plan and the
FmHA/EPA comments on it as part of their project
review and selection processes. Not only will these
arrangements provide needed assistance to EPA in
providing an overall review of facility plans it receives,
but they will also facilitate and speed up joint funded
projects. Communities will be encouraged to contact
FmHA during the early development of their facility
plans for comments prior to formal submissions.
-------
5
o Common criteria for identifying high cost projects .
EDA, EPA, and FrnHA will utilize common criteria to
evaluate the financial impact of a proposed system
on a community--criteria that define user costs in
terms of projected operations and maintenance costs
as well as debt service costs. For example, under the
agreed upon criteria, a project will be regarded as
“high cost” for communities whose median income is under
$6,000 when the average household user cost is more
than 1.5% of the median household income. The adoption
of common criteria for estimating high cost projects
will facilitate coordination in joint funded projects
and enable the agencies to work with communities to
design systems that they can afford. FInHA is considering
these criteria as a replacement of its modified one
percent rule used to determine grant eligibility.
o Establishment of a joint agency data base for needs
assessments .
A universal or joint agency data base for wastewater
and drinking water treatment needs will facilitate the
estimation of dollar needs for publicly-owned treatment
facilities. The EPA biennial Needs Survey will be used
as the initial data base for all agencies involved in
funding rural facilities. From this Needs Survey, EPA
will, upon request and with the assistance of the other
agencies, separate data showing facilities that may be
eligible for their programs. Agencies that request
such data will reimburse EPA for the costs of listing,
summarizing, and reportingthe data. For future needs
surveys (including those designed to assess the need
for drinking water quality improvements), agencies may
choose to work with EPA in developing criteria to
record needs for facilities eligible for their programs.
A common inventory of facilities will be an additional
benefit of the joint agency data base.
o Demonstration of other administrative simplification
and reform measures .
Since EDA and FmHA have the closest affinity in the
methods used for project selection, funding and monitoring,
the two agencies will conduct a six-month pilot demon-
stration in eight states of the following innovations
and simplifications:
- adoption of a single application and project
profile form;
- consolidation and streamlining of reporting and
auditing requirements;
-------
6
— utilization of the letter of credit as a
payment method;
— adoption of standard requirements protecting
communities in contracts with engineering and
architectural firms;
— designation of “lead agency” arrangements for
construction monitoring and inspections; and
— collaboration to assist communities in a pre—
application conference to put together joint
funding packages best suited to their particular
needs (on behalf of HUD and EPA as well).
o More efficient use of the A—95 process .
The federal agencies will promote the use of the A—95
process as an additional means of identifying projects
that may be eligible for funding under their programs.
Provisions will be made for applicants to indicate
at the time of submission their intention to apply
for joint or combined funding from several federal
agencies at specified steps. This will not only enable
the concerned federal agencies to coordinate their
efforts, but will also make it possible for the A-95
agency to conduct only one review of what are now
treated as separately funded project elements.
o Periodic regional meetings of water/sewer agencies .
At least 120 days before the beginning of a new fiscal
year and as often as needed, the agencies will meet
regionally (through the Federal Regional Councils) to
review the status of projects jointly funded, discuss
potential future projects for joint or collaborative
funding, exchange information, and review respon-
sibilities and procedures for executing this interagency
agreement.
o Manual on available assistance and how to apply .
A manual has been prepared by the working group
describing the water and sewer programs that are
available and the procedures to be followed by
communities in applying for assistance. Copies have
been printed and are available for immediate dis-
tribution to all rural communities. This manual is
not a substitute for actual application for grant
-------
7
and loan funds; rather it is intended to draw the
interest of those small towns that may have water and
sewer needs but have been reluctant or unable to
determine which program or programs may be helpful to
them.
o Joint agency training seminars .
Regional workshops for federal field personnel, state
agencies, and other organizations involved in the
delivery of water and sewer services will be held under
the auspices of the Federal Regional Councils during
the winter months of 1979. The purpose of these work-
shops is to implement the initiatives contained in the
interagency agreement and to upgrade the skills of
personnel involved in the delivery of programs at the
regional, state, and local levels.
o Implementa tion of the Interagency Agreement
Where agencies have adopted procedures to implement
the Joint Funding Simplification Act or 0MB Circular
A-ill, they will seek out projects that will be
suitable for joint funding and use those procedures.
Other actions such as policy guidance to regional,
district, or field offices; interagency agreements
between corresponding district, regional, or field
offices; and promulgation of additional procedures
by Headquarters offices to support agreements contained
in the agreement will be taken as appropriate
for each agency’s program. Where agency determinations
and funding authority have been delegated to a state,
the conditions of this agreement will be reflected
in that delegation and the state will assume the
responsibilities of coordination and cooperation
outlined in the interagency agreement.
Job Training
The interagency effort also produced an agreement between
EPA and DOL to conduct a pilot program for training 1,000
new workers in water and wastewater treatment occupations,
and to upgrade the skills of approximately another 750
workers presently employed in the field. The agreement
is significant not only because it provides job training
for rural residents in an area of rapidly expanding
employment opportunities, but also because the availability
of a skilled work force is essential for the adequate operation
of facilities. EPA recognizes that the shortage of a skilled
work force to operate water and sewer facilities is a primary
cause of non-compliance with environmental and health standards
in many areas of the country.
-------
8
Twelve states will be selected for the pilot training
program based upon EPA projections of the amount of unmet
demand for rural water and sewer employees. One thousand
(1000) unemployed and disadvantaged rural residents in these
states will receive new skill and on—the-job experience.
P nother 750 workers who have had some exposure in the
relevant occupations through full or part-time employment
will receive technical assistance and training to upgrade
their skills.
EPA will contract with appropriate institutions within the
states, the National Rural Water Association and the
National Demonstration Water Project, to train these workers
and provide needed technical assistance. DCL will transfer
funds to EPA to support the effort. Under an existing
contract from DOL, the National Governors Association will
assist in the coordination and institutionalization of these
pilot programs. In addition, the agreement calls for the
placement of Job Corps graduates from rural areas into
trained positions in rural water facilities in their home
states. DOL wi .l subsidize the salaries of the work experience
trainees for up to 26 weeks under the Job Corps/industry
work experience program and other programs under the Com-
prehensive Employment and Training Act. The total federal
training expenditure for these purposes will approximate
$5 million annually.
Funding for the National Demonstration Water Project
EDA, EPA, HUD, and FxnHA have agreed to provide $2.8 million
for fiscal year 1979 to support the National Demonstration
Water Project (NDWP). NDWP is a network of 75 organizations
working in 25 states to improve the delivery of water and
sewer services to low-income rural residents.
The affiliated organizationsinclude community action agencies,
rural electric cooperatives, small town governments,
neighborhood health centers, housing development groups,
research and communications centers, and others. The NDWP
grant will provide an opportunity for the several federal
agencies involved in rural water and sewer projects to
field test the kinds of reforms included in this initiative.
NDWP has reorganized itself--hiring a new executive director
and an in-house staff--to facilitate this experimental role
and improve its feedback and evaluative capabilities.
-------
9
OTHER RECENT ADMINISTRATION RURAL WATER
AND SEWER INITIATIVES
In addition to the initiatives announced today, numerous
other steps have recently been taken by the Administration
or by the Congress in response to Administration proposals
to improve the delivery of water and sewer programs in
small towns and rural areas. Some of the most significant
of these are summarized below:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA )
o For the first time, the Clean Water Act recog-
nizes the construction of alternative and
innovative treatment works for individual
residences as an eligible purpose for con-
struction grants funds; moreover, municipal
bodies may undertake grants for these purposes
to serve small nonprofit or commercial
institutions as well as residential users.
o EPA is in the process of preparing technical
assistance training packages for elected
officials and citizens involved in Step I
facilities planning. These packages will
provide local decision—makers the background
necessary to assess the costs and benefits of
various wastewater treatment options. They
will also include information on water con-
servation, wastewater treatment processes,
operation and maintenance problems, cost—
effectiveness analysis, and innovative and
alternative wastewater treatment systems.
These technical assistance training packages
will be available for use in rural communities
from appropriate State and EPA offices by FY 80.
o Under Section 205(g) of the Clean Water Act
the State delegation provision -- up to 2
percent of a State’s allotment may be set
aside for management of the Construction
Grants Program by the State. Part of this
set-aside can be used by the States to manage
grants for small communities if it so specifies
in its delegation agreement. So far delegation
agreements have been signed for Illinois,
Texas, California, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin;
New York is pending.
-------
10
o Grants for Steps 2 and 3 can be combined into
one grant for communities of 25,000 or less
population if the total estimated Step 3 cost
is $2 million or less ($3 million in States with
unusually high construction costs).
o Rural States must set aside It percent of their
allotment for alternatives to conventional treat-
ment for communities with populations of 3,500
or less, or the sparsely populated areas of
larger communities. Other States have the
option of setting aside up to It percent of their
allotments for this purpose.
o Two EPA clearinghouses have been established:
one on technology for small community systems
and one on alternative and innovative technology.
The Farmers Home Administration (FinHA )
o A plan has been implemented to restructure field
operations to relieve the county office of the
responsibility for the processing loans and
grants in the community facilities, water and
sewer, multi—family housing, and business and
industry programs. FmHA districts within States
are being realigned to correspond to sub—State
planning and development districts to the degree
feasible, and to enable FmHA to work in closer
harmony with local goals and exercise greater
local leadership in rural development. These
district offices will have responsibility for
processing the agency’s water and sewer loans
and grants.
o The Agricultural Credit Act of 1978 increased
the maximum allowable grant for FmHA water and
waste disposal projects from 50 percent to 75
percent of grant eligible project development
costs. This change will enable FmHA to provide
higher levels of ssistande to the most
financially needy communities.
o On July 13, 1978, FmHA and EPA signed a Joint
Policy Statement relative to implementation
of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Act author-
izes EPA to set and enforce national drinking
water standards but did no provide funds to
help water suppliers meet the standards. Most
of the communittes that will need additional water
-------
Li
treatment to meet the standards are in rural
areas. Therefore, FmHA has agreed to give
priority to applications for loan and/or grant
assistance from such communities as part of
its financial assistance programs for promoting
orderly development in rural communities.
The Economic Development Administration (EPA )
o EDA will change its regulations to enable a com-
munity to receive up to 80 percent total Federal
funding for a jointly funded project. Existing
EDA regulations restrict the total amount of
Federal involvement f or a project in which EDA
participates to the percentage allowed by EDA
for the redevelopment area (a percentage ranging
from 50 percent to 80 percent). This change
will enable communities to receive a larger
Federal dollar amount for a project when EDA
is involved.
o Effective October 1, 1978, EDA has delegated
approval authority for Title I Public Works
project under $500,000 to the Regional Office
Directors. This delegation will shorten the
time involved for the Federal government to
make a funding decision on a project and make
EDA more responsive to local government needs.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD )
o In July, 1978, a HUD Task Force on Rural and
Nonmetropolitan Areas recommended numerous adiniflis—
trative changes in the areas of housing and com-
munity development, which are now being considered
for implementation. Demonstration projects are
being conducted in the States of North Carolina
and Washington to field test some of the Task
Force’s recommendations.
o The Housing and Development Act of 1977 —- the
Administration’s first initiative in community
development —— modified the use of discretionary
balances for nonentitlement cities by creating
the Small Cities Program. Funds under this
program are used for community facilities, often
water and sewer systems. Of particular benefit
to small cities was the introduction of the multi-
year commitment provisions which provide small
-------
12
cities of an assured source of funds over a three
year period to deal with their community develop-
ment needs. Also of particular benefit wa the
Single Purpose Grants, with simplified application
requirements, to permit smaller communities to
deal with particular needs requiring comprehensive
treatment. The Department also moved to sub-
stantially increase the size of individual grants
to permit communities to deal with their needs
in a substantive manner.
Federal Funding of Rural Water and Sewer Projects
These recent initiatives by Congress and the Administration
have resulted in the flow of substantial —— and increasing ——
dollars for water and sewer development in small towns
and rural areas. The fiscal year 1979 budget for FmHA’s
loan and grant program for water and wastewater facilities
in communities with populations of 10,000 or less is nearly
$1.2 billion. HUD’s Small Cities budget is over $800 million
(as compared to $1 120 million in FY 1977 and $600 million
in FY 1978). EPA is expected to award grants with a 75
percent Federal share totalling $827 million in fiscal
year 1979 to communities less than 10,000 population
(assuming the current average grant level of $3110,000 per
community —— a level that is conservative in view of the
85 percent grants now authorized for alternative and innovative
technology). EDA’s Title I funding for rural water and
sewer projects has approximately $1lL million for each of
the last three years. In all the Federal government will
spend about $2.5 billion in fiscal year 1979 on rural water
and sewer projects.
Job Creation
Not only will these expenditures result in dramatically
improved conditions of health and sanitation in many com-
munities, they will also provide many new jobs. FmHA
estimates that its fiscal year 1979 expenditures for water
and sewer facilities will produce 16,318 year—long jobs
during the construction of these facilities. For the con-
struction of facilities that will be financed from funds
provided by all the agencies, the total number of new jobs
will run in the neighborhood of 35,000. When completed,
these facilities will provide many permanent jobs as well.
-------
13
BACKGROUND COMPARISON OF AGENCY PROGRAMS
Many of the differences in program administration addressed
in these initiatives reflect the differing agency philosophies,
program missions, legislative constraints and field structures
which affect the implementation of water and sewer construction
projects. In order to make clear the context in which these
fundamental reforms have been crafted, the similarities and
differences among agency water and sewer programs are summarized
below.
Program Purposes
o EPA’s construction grants program, authorized by Section
201 of P.L. 92—500, provides money for the construction
of municipal waste disposal systems primarily for munic-
ipal rather than industrial uses. These disposal systems
are designed for the achievement of the goals of the
Clean Water Act.
o EDA’s grant and loan programs applicable to water and
sewer needs are designed to provide long-term economic
development by attracting, retaining and/or expanding
commercial and industrial activities in economically
depressed areas.
o FmHA’s Water and Waste Disposal grant and loan program
is designed to benefit residential and small commercial
users——in many instances to provide water/sewer services
for the first time. Its Small Industrial Development
Grant Program provides money for industrial water and
sewer development.
o HUD’s programs serve multiple development purposes. Its
Small Cities Program is designed to help communities of
low and moderate income to meet their needs in part by
funding new water and sewer transmission facilities (not
treatment plants). The Urban Development Action Grants
(UDAG) program for smaller Cities is primarily to stimulate
private, commercial and industrial development and must
be matched by larger amounts of private dollars.
-------
14
Program Delivery
o EPA relies almost entirely on its state counterparts to
select and rank projects as well as to monitor the dis-
tribution of funds. This special relationship with the
state is mandated by P.L. 92-500 (Clean Water Act).
Associated with the project selection is a three—step
application procedure involving planning, design and
construction grants. However, a two-step procedure for
small communities has recently been authorized when grants
of $2 million or less are involved. While EPA does retain
review authority of the state priority list and controls
certain financial activities, the major responsibility
rests at the State level.
o In contrast, FmHA, HUD, and EDA work directly with local
communities through their regional offices and field
representatjves. These representatives--called County
Supervisors and/or District Directors by FrnHA, Economic
Development Representatives by EDA, and Community Development
Representatives by HUD--have frequent contact with the
communities they serve.
o While EDA does require that projects must conform with
overall economic development plans, both FmHA and EDA
generally tend to react to projects on a case-by-case
basis as opposed to EPA’S planned step-by—step basis
and HUD’s annual competitive selection process of
scoring and ranking proposals. Of the four agencies,
EDA and FmHA are most similar in the methods used for
project selection, funding, and monitoring.
o HUD’s programs place much greater reliance on the local
communities to identify needs and to design a program to
meet those needs. Once a grant is awarded for the projects
selected, the communities spend the money and monitor the
activities with little oversight responsibility from HUD.
Other Similarities and Differences
o HUD and EPA operate exclusively through grant programs
whereas FInI-IA and EDA both have grant and loan authorities
to fund water and sewer construction. However, while EDA
rarely uses this loan authority, FmHA relies on it for the
majority of its assistance.
o EPA and HUD cannot directly fund non-profit groups whereas
EDA and FmHA can.
o EPA does not use a preapplication form because of the
State role but relies instead on a preapplication conference.
By contrast, HUD, FmHA, and EDA all use the standard 0MB
preapplication form.
-------
15
o HUD uses a preapplication form for ranking and selecting
projects and therefore obtains considerably more information
for project selection than the other agencies.
o EPA cannot fund water transmission lines or water treatment
facilities whereas the other three agencies can. HUD
cannot fund wastewater treatment facilities.
o The grant rate for EPA funding is set at 75 percent (or
85 percent for innovative or alternative facilities);
EDA’s ranges from 50 percent to 80 percent (with some
waivers up to 100 percent); FmHA’s limit is 75 percent,
with loans available up to i O percent; and HUD’s is
100 percent.
-------
16
INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT
TO IMPROVE THE COORDINATION AND DELIVERY
OF FEDERAL WATER AND SEWER PROGRAMS
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this interagency agreement is to improve
planning of water and sewer projects for rural areas in
the United States while yet allowing and promoting the
continuation of agriculture and other rural land uses.
Such planning should take Into account the smaller
service areas, fewer governmental entities and greater
opportunities for innovative and alternative solutions
present In rural areas. It should recognize that
agriculture is the mainstay of many of these areas and
encourage solutions that will not threaten farmland with
urban sprawl or lengthy and costly capital facilities but
will Instead recycle nutrients and other resources back
into agricultural operations. It should recognize the
complementary nature of urban and rural concerns, and as
such this agreement will further the coordination of
national rural and urban policy.
The Federal agencies most active in providing grants or
loans to small, rural communities for the development of
water and sewer facilities are agreed that duplication and
repetition of administrative and programmatic requirements
are obstacles to achieving their respective program goals.
They are also agreed that funds can be distributed more
efficiently and better project selection can be achieved
by coordinating and streamlining application procedures and
project review or monitoring requirements. Finally, they
are agreed that greater Interagency coordination and more
active programs of information and technical assistance
will make more rural communities aware of the funding
opportunities and other forms of assistance available
to them for the development of water and sewer systems.
To achieve these goals, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Farmers Home Administration (FmHA), Economic
Development Administration (EDA), Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD), and Community Services
Administration (CSA) agree to implement in the manner
described below measures for coordination and streamlining
the review and approval of water and sewer grants or loans
to small, rural communities.
-------
17
II. ACTIONS
A. Rural communities, by nature of their size, density,
and activity patterns, have different requirements for
water and wastewater treatment facilities than urban
communities. Alternatives to conventional treatment
facilities that may have lower per capita capital and
operating costs and require less sophisticated technology
and skill to operate will be encouraged by EPA, FmHA, EDA,
BUD, and CSA .
1. Information and technical assistance In the area
of innovative and alternative technology and it
applicability to a small community’s needs will be
disseminaj ed. Specifically, the use of land treat-
ment as an alternative technology to promote agri-
cultural land uses will be emphasized. Similarly,
technologies which will promote recreation—oriented
development in rural areas will also be emphasized.
Also, water conservation techniques and low cost
on—site disposal methods will be promoted as solutions
to rural water and sewer problems.
2. EPA will encourage the application of eligible
projects for the 85 percent grant permitted for such
projects under section 202(a)(2) of the Clean Water
Act.
3. FmHA, EDA, BUD, and CSA will also, where appropriate,
encourage such projects over more conventional solutions.
B. A regular exchange of information between all
agencies involved in funding a project can be beneficial
to applicants and agencies. EPA, FmHA, EDA, CSA, and BUD
agree to meet perigdically during each year using the
Federal Regional C uncila, .
1. They will review the status of projects being
jointly or concurr-ently funded, discuss future
potential projects in common, and exchange informa-
tion on current and new administrative or substantive
procedures or requirements.
2. They will also review action items such as one—
year priority or project lists to identify combined
funding possibilities, exlstthg project lists to
identify overlapping projects or funding, and con-
struction and inspection schedules to identify areas
for coordination.
-------
18
3. One of these meetings will take place at least
120 days before the beginning of a new fiscal year.
I. They will also encourage regular meetings between
their respective State level agencies for similar
purposes of coordination.
C. In addition to facilitating application and
disbursement of funds for rural water and sewer projects 7
EPA, FmHA, EDA, HIJD, and CSA recognize the need for continued
efforts to inform communities of the range of funding and
other assistance available to them .
1. A manual describing how to obtain Federal grants
for water and sewer facilities has been prepared and
will be distributed by the agencies. The purpose
of the manual will be to introduce communities to
the opportunities for assistance available to them
at an early stage and to allow communities to explore
the potential applicability of these programs before
they progress too far in development of a project
on their own.
2. Joint training seminars for Federal field personnel,
State agencies and other organizations involved in
the delivery of water/sewer services will be held
under the aegis of the Federal Regional Councils to
inform participants of these steps to promote coor-
dination and streamlining of delivery of funds, and
to encourage other formal and informal efforts to
achieve these goals.
D. The establishment of a universal data base for
national wastewater disposal and treatment needs to be
used by EPA, FmHA, EDA, HUD and CSA .
1. A universal data base for wastewater treatment
needs will facilitate the estimation of dollar needs
for planning and construction of’ publicly—owned
wastewater treatment facilities. The EPA biennial
Needs Survey will be used as the initial data base
for all agencies involved in funding rural facilities.
2. From the Needs Survey, EPA will, upon request
and with assistance of the other agenices, separate
data showing facilities that may be eligible for
their programs. Agencies that request such data will
reimburse EPA for the costs of’ listing, summarizing
and reporting the data.
-------
19
3. For future Needs Surveys, agencies may choose
to work with EPA in developing criteria to record
needs for facilities eligible for their programs
that can be used in the collection of data. These
agencies will share the costs for survey development,
data collection and analyses and information dis-
semination based upon the number of added facilities
and data elements included in the Needs Survey as
a result of their eligibility determinations.
E. The A—95 process- of review by clearinghouse agencies
will be more efficiently used by communities and the funding
agencies of EPA, CSA, FmHA, EDA and HUD .
1. When notification of intent to apply for grant
funds is submitted to the clearinghouse(s), it should
also indicate at that time the intention to apply
for joint or combined funding of the project at
specified steps and identify the prospective
assisting agencies.
2. When more than one agency is funding a project,
the A—95 agency need conduct only one review of the
actual project for each step which will meet the
A—95 requirements for all agencies involved.
3. Federal agencies will promote the use of the
A-95 process and the Water Quality Management Planning
process under section 208 of the Clean Water Act as
an added means of Identifying projects that may be
eligible for funding under their programs.
4. Federal agencies will encourage clearinghouses
to use the A—95 process to evaluate the rural and
urban impact of projects developed under the frame-
work of this agreement.
F. A pilot demonstration program designed to improve
coordination and upgrade the assistance provided to rural
communities for water’ and sewer needs will be initiated
by FmHA and EDA .
1. For purposes of this pilot program, the States
of Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma,
Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas will be involved.
The program shall cover a six month period starting
with the date of execution of this agreement and will
apply to projects funded by FmHA and EDA together
through loans, grants or a combination of these funding
sources and/or in cases where advisory services to
communities are provided by FmHA and EDA.
-------
20
2. FmHA and EDA will, when appropriate during their
initial consultation with local communities, involve
the expertise and resources of EPA, of its State
counterpart, and HUD. This involvement will include
the use of EPA’S Needs Survey where appropriate, and
consideration of the consistency of the proposed
project with an applicable approved 208 plan or
ongoing 208 planning at the State or local level,
as may be appropriate.
3. The funding source and participation rates of
the respective agencies for projects will be determined
on a case—by—case basis based on the relative needs
of the area and on the merits of the project to be
assisted in accordance with existing FmHA and EDA
rules and regulations and relevant agreements between
the agencies.
14• The lead agency responsibility for a project will
be determined on a project-by—project basis but will
generally follow the principles set forth and agreed
to by FmHA and EDA in existing memoranda of under-
standing.
5. The implementation of this demonstration program
will cover both the project planning and selection
phase as well as construction and monitoring phase.
6. FmHA and EDA will adopt and use a new project
profile format which will provide a screening
procedure for project selection. This profile will
also identify the potential for use of CETA sponsored
employees on the operation of the facility.
7. FmHA and EDA will use one application form.
8. FmHA and EDA will help control project costs by
a) agreement to a fixed price or cost ceiling for
engineering fees and b) requirements that any
additional design work by the engineer required
because of errors or omissions by the engineer shall
be at no additional charge to the community.
9. FmHA and EDA will consolidate and streamline
reporting and audit requirements associated with
their programs where feasible.
-------
21
10. The primary responsibility for implementation
of this agreement will be at the field level between
FmHA’s District Directors and State Directors and
EDA’s Economic Development Representatives and
Regional Directors.
11. FinHA and EDA will continue their cooperative
efforts in the areas of construction monitoring and
inspection, audits and disbursements. EPA and HUD
will monitor the results of these efforts to determine
the advisability of applying them to their own
programs.
12. A summary of the procedures to be followed by
FmHA and ED4 in implementing this demonstration
program is attached.
G. In the review of proposed water and wastewater projects
the same criteria will be used by EPA, EDA, and FmHA to
evaluate the financial impact of’the proposed system upon
the community .
1. A project shall be identified as a high—cost
project when the projected debt service and operation
and maintenance portions per average household user
cost are:
1.5 percent — median household income is under $6,000.
2.0 percent — median household income is
$6, 000—$l0 ,000.
2.5 percent — median household income is
over $10,000.
2. In combined funding projects, the identification
of a project as high—cost will be made by EPA in the
review of facility plans if EPA is involved or else
by FmHA if it is involved in latter stages. These
agencies will inform the community and other partici-
pating agencies of this determination.
3. Agencies will work with the community to either
change the scope or redesign the project to achieve
lower user costs or until they are assured that the
community is aware and willing to undertake the
costly project.
-------
22
H. EPA and FmHA will coordinate with each other on
the review of facility plans. These facility plans will
also serve to the extent possible as the feasibility report
required by FmHA in their grant or loan reviews. However,
FmHA may under these provisions receive facility plans
to review prior to receiving a formal application for
their grant/loan program or even from communities in
rural areas who will not be applying for any FmHA
assistance. EDA and HUD may choose to review a faoility
plan and the EPA—FmHA comments on it as part of their
project review and selection processes . The procedure
to incorporate review by EPA and FmHA will be as follows:
1. Communities will be directed to contact FmHA during
the development of their facility plan to receive
informa’l comments before the plan is finalized and
submitted for review.
2. The regional offices of’ EPA receive facility plans
to review after review by the State water pollution
control agency. A copy of’ all facility plans for
communities with less than 10,000 population will,
upon receipt by EPA regional office, be sent to the
appropriate FmHA State office.
3. FmHA will review these facility plans in terms
of:
a. financial impact of the selected alternative
upon the community;
b. their experience with small alternative
systems.
1 L FmHA will review the plans within 30 days and
will return their comments to the EPA regional office.
5. EPA will do the in—depth technical review of the
facility plan as well as review for other EPA require-
ments such as cost—effectiveness, environmental effects
and conformance with applicable approved 208 water
quality management plans.
6. EPA will incorporate FmHA comments into its own
review and when appropriate convey them to the
community in the official EPA response to the facility
plan.
-------
23
7. For projects that are receiving funding from EPA
and FmHA, EPA shall be determined the lead agency
for assessing environmental impact and determining
whether an environmental impact statement (EIS) under
the provisions of the National Environmental Policy
Act is required. If’ an EIS is required, it will be
the responsibility of EPA to have one prepared.
8. This agreement will expedite the review of grant!
loan applications by both agencies. However, review
by FinHA under these provisions does not guarantee
the approval of a grant or loan and does not preclude
additional review by FmHA during formal review of
an application. The review is for the purposes of
assisting EPA and in no way does it assign respon-
sibility for EPA funded projects to FmHA.
I. During the review of plans and specifications
and of construction activities, communities are required
to demonstrate or assure compliance with many Federal
requirements. Where communities are using funds from more
than one program that may have identical compliance require-
ments, there is no need to demonstrate compliance more
than once. To fulfill the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, EPA 7 FmHA, EDA, HUD
and CSA agree to conduct a single environmental review
process, as allowed in the regulations of the Council on
Environmental Quality. The participating agencies agree
to accept the demonstration or assurance of’ compliance
for the requirements of the following laws or executive
orders when they apply in an identical manner to the programs
of each agency as permissible by statute. When agency
regulations differ in requirements for compliance, agencies
will work together to ensure that all requirements are
through individual or coordinated review as appropriate .
1. Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act of’ 1970;
2. Civil Rights Act of i96L , Civil Rights Act of’
1968, Executive Order No. 11246;
3. Davis-Bacon Fair Labor Standards Act;
I. The Contract Work Hours Standards Act;
5. The Copeland (AntL-Kickback) Act;
-------
24
6. The Hatch Act;
7. The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972;
8. The Historical and Archaeological Data
Preservation Act;
9. The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 as
amended by the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973
and regulations and guidelines Issued thereunder;
10. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968;
11. The Endangered Species Act of 1973;
12. The Clean Air Act;
13. ExecutIve Order No. 11988 on floodplalns
management;
111. Executive Order No. 11990 on wetlands
protection;
15. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
and Executive Order No. 11593;
16. The Safe Drinking Water Act of 19711.
III. IMPLEMENTATION
A. EPA, FmHA, EDA, HUD, CSA and DOL shall take a
variety of actions to Implement this agreement in the most
direct manner .
1. Where agencies have adopted procedures to Implement
the Joint Funding Simplification Act, or 0MB Circular
A—ill, they will seek out projects that will be suitable
for such joint funding designation and use those
procedures.
2. Other actions such as policy guidance to regional,
district or field offices; interagency agreements
between corresponding district, regional or field
offices; and promulgation of additional procedures
by Headquarters offices to support agreements contained
herein will be taken as identified appropriate for
each agency’s program.
-------
25
3. Where agency determinations and f unding authority
have been delegated to a States the conditions of’
this agreement shall be reflected in that delegation
and the State will assume the responsibilities of’
coordination and cooperation outlined within this
agreement.
-------
26
Douglas Costle Juanita M. Kreps
Administrator Secretary
Environmental Protection Agency Department of Commerce
Robert S,. Bergland Patricia R. Harris
Secretary Secretary
Department of Agriculture Department of Housing and
Urban Development
Graclela Oliverez F. Ray Marshall
Director Secretary
Community Services Administration Department of Labor
Witness :
Charles Warren
Chairman
Council on Environmental Quality
-------
27
IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES FOR DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM
FOR RURAL WATER AND SEWER ASSISTANCE
This section will briefly describe the procedures to be
used by FmHA, EDA, EPA* and HUD for assisting rural com-
munities in identifying their water/sewer needs and
funding projects to meet those needs. These general
guidelines will be supplemented by more detailed procedures
which the individual agencies will develop. The partici-
pating agencies feel that the following procedures will
allow for a thorough examination of the overall opportunities
and problems of rural communities from both a residential
and economic development standpoint. This will include
involvement between FmHA and EDA with the support and
cooperation of HOD and EPA in the initial application stages
and more effective use of the resources and expertise of
all agencies to assist rural communities.
It was agreed that EDA and FmHA have the most administrative
flexibility in terms of project selection and the most
similarity in dealing with rural communities on water and
sewer projects. The commonality of FmHA and EDA programs
concerning rural communities is reinforced when one recognizes
these two agencies have a 12—year history of working together
to improve the economic, commercial and residential health
of rural America. Therefore, although EPA and HUD provide
substantial assistance to rural America, it was felt that
FmHA and EDA should assume the lead role in working closely
with rural communities in the initial stages of water and
sewer construction assistance.
The implementation of these procedures will take place
in the following demonstration area for initial testing
purposes - Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma,
Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas. The demonstration effort
shall cover a 6-month period beginning 15 days following
the date of execution of the preceding agreement.
A. Eligible Applicants : The special procedures
developed for joint assistance apply to projects proposed
by entities which are eligible to receive funds under all
agencies programs (initially for those States identified
for the demonstration effort). Therefore, this initiative
will apply only to local governments with jurisdictions
of less than 10,000 population and only for water and sewer
construction.
-------
28
B. Initial Inquiries : Inquiries for funding assistance
from either FmHA and EDA are first directed to the local
Federal representative of those agencies. Upon receiving
an inquiry from an applicant for a water or sewer project,
the field representative of either agency will discuss
o the needs of the community;
o the purpose of proposed project as presently
defined;
o the funding sources identified to date; and
o the relationship to the State EPA plans and
requirements.
From this discussion with the local government official
the Federal field representative will complete a Profile
for Water and Sewer Assistance (Attachment 1). This form
has been developed as a common FmHA/EDA form.
C. Agency Review : When a field representative from
either agency has a completed profile, the representative
will forward it to his/her counterpart in the other agencies
and the Economic Development District.
Each agency will review the profile in accordance with
their programmatic requirements and expertise, organizational
structure and procedures. The resulting comments will
set forth the views of the respective agencies on the proposed
project including an opportunity to
o offer advice on the scope of proposed project
and its ability to meet all of a community’s
residential, economic development, and environ-
mental needs, both present and future;
o determine the appropriate funding source or
sources and define the dollar amounts; and
o suggest modifications and alterations to the
proposal to better meet regional needs.
The review of the project profile by the various agencies
will be completed within three weeks and if appropriate
a preapplication conference scheduled.
-------
29
D. The Preapplication Conference For Jointly Funded
Project :
A. Purpose :
The preapplicatlon conference Is an extremely Important
step in the process for it is here that the Federal
agencies and the applicant meet together in order
to discuss the project in detail. The result will
be to define a specific facility which reflects the
needs of the area In terms of its residential, com-
mercial and economic development growth potential.
This discussion will focus not only on the particular
project but also the immediate and long-term needs
of the community and may Include such areas as use
of waste disposal for agricultural purposes and
expanded recreational opportunities. It is also
important at this time to discuss the environmental
factors associated with the proposed project. At
least one week before the scheduled preapplication
conference, EDA’s environmental information form
will be filled out and reviewed by the regional
environmentalist from EDA who will also participate
in the meeting if necessary. This involvement will
not only provide for a more comprehensive discussion
of the project, but also will allow for an early
indication whether or not an Environmental Impact
Statement will be necessary.
The participants of the preapplication conference may
include
o Representatives of the proponent, e.g. the local
government officials, the Architect/Engineer,
and the attorney.
o Representatives of’ the Federal agencies, EDA
(including regional environmentalist as
appropriate), FmHA, HUD and EPA.
o Economic Development District staff where relevant.
During the conference, the following topics will be discussed;
o Scope of’ the project
o Financing
o Lead agency determination
0 Other appropriate items
-------
30
E. Authorization of Application : Unless there are
any major problems identified, an application will be
authorized during the preapplication conference. In order
to reduce the time and steps involved the Preapplication
form will not be used since the Profile review will obviate
the need for that step.
The standard 0MB Circular A—l02 Application form for con-
struction projects, as printed by FmHA, will be used by
EDA and FmHA. The applicant will complete only one appli-
cation for these two agencies.
However, because each agency has unique statutory require-
ments, supplemental information will be requested of the
applicant by each agency as necessary.
The applicant will then submit a copy of the joint application
to the A-95 clearinghouse for a single review.
Each agency will review and process the application and
any additional materials, and within 60 days of receiving
a complete application, make a final decision to approve
or disapprove the project. The two agencies will notify
each other of their decision prior to making official
announcements.
F. Environmental Impact Statement : Once an application
is authorized, but prior to its acceptance, the environ-
mental review must be completed. If this review determines
that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is needed,
the applicant will be notified. The application will not
be accepted until the EIS is completed. The applicant
will be made aware of any modifications to the project
that may be necessary depending on the analysis and findings
contained in the EIS.
G. Approval Announcement : It is important for the
purposes of this demonstration program and for the par-
ticipating agencies that the announcement of the project
approval be coordinated. Therefore, the lead agency will
prepare a joint press release to be approved by the other
agency and coordinated by the respective Congressional
liaison offices and public relations staff.
H. Project Construction and Monitoring : Once a
project has been approved, it is incumbent upon both agencies
to continue their cooperative efforts in the area of con-
struction monitoring, audit reports and construction in-
spections. Therefore, procedures will be adopted to ensure
that the appropriate post construction activities are
coordinated and streamlined including reporting requirements
and disbursement procedures.
-------
31
INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT
Between
The U.S. Department of Labor
and
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
I. Purpose
The purpose of this Interagency Agreement is to
provide for a cooperative relationship between the
U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), in order to offer job opportu-
nities and training for 1,000 rural disadvantaged and
underemployed persons, and 500 currently employed rural
water/wastewater treatment operators, to meet workforce
needs in the water/wastewater industry, and to provide for
the transfer of funds from DOL to EPA.
Underemployment is a chronic problem in many rural
areas across the Country. The Department of Labor is
leading a search for job opportunities in industries in
rural areas.
The water/wastewater industry in rural areas provides
opportunities for jobs in public and private drinking
water and wastewater treatment facilities. Nationally,
most of the water utilities are located in rural areas.
Recent Federal legislation under the Safe Drinking Water
Act of 1974 and the Clean Water Act of 1977 will require
substantial improvements of performance of water facilities
to protect the public’s health and Nation’s environment.
The DOL job search and EPA’s legislative mandates can
be mutually enhanced through this Interagency Agreement.
-------
32
Nationwide rural areas presently employ 105,000
water/wastewater operators in approximately 74,000 treat-
rnent facilities. As a result of new plant construction,
increases in the workforce due to facility performance
requirements and employee turnover, it is estimated
13,000 to 15,000 job openings will be available Nationally
in the water/wastewater industry, in rural areas.
II. Scope of ,Work
In cooperation and consultation with the DOL, EPA
will develop and manage a special rural water/wastewater
operator and technician training program. The program
will provide jobs and training for 1,000 rural disadvan-
taged or underemployed people in the water/wastewater
industry. In addition the project will provide training
and technical assistance to 500 water/wastewater operators
currently employed to improve their operating skills and
the performance of rural water/wastewater facilities.
This special project will be conducted in at least
twelve (12) States, including where possible, Vermont,
Wisconsin, New York, Missouri, Washington, New Mexico,
North Carolina, Kentucky, Maryland, South Carolina,
Mississippi and Georgia.
Program Benefits
The twelve (12) State special projects will provide
the following benefits to rural disadvantaged and under-
-------
33
employed persons and to the water industry.
- 1,000 jobs for rural disadvantaged.
— Rural water utilities will have 1,000 people
with CETA funded salaries for six months to
operate facilities under guidance of project
instructors.
- Upgrade training for 500 current employed
operators in rural water/wastewater utilities.
— Eaucation/skills for all trainees to meet
certification requirements.
- Technical assistance from the instructor to
solve operation problems for water/wastewater
utilities participating in the Special Project.
- Improved plant performance.
- Improved water quality in rural areas.
Job opportunities, recruitment, and training will
be provided through State training institutions and
agencies designated by DOL and EPA in the twelve States
selected for the Special Project. EPA will provide
training program guidance curricula, courses and tech-
nical assistance. Job development and recruitment will
be coordinated with DOL and designated Agencies and
Institutions. At the National level, the project will
be monitored jointly by DOL-EPA.
-------
34
III. Provisions
The foundation of this workforce development and
training effort is a cooperative working relationship
between the U. S. Department of Labor, the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency and State Environmental
Agencies. Each will have an impact on successful imple-
mentation of this project. As such, the major areas of
activity and the participant roles and responsibilities
will be outlined, and are attached as Appendix A. In
addition, EPA will follow appropriate DOL-CETA regulations.
IV. Duration of Agreement
Except as modified or amended, this agreement shall
be in effect for a period of 18 months from December 1,
1978 to April 30, 1980.
V. Reports
EPA will submit to DOL the following reports:
1. A copy of all Training Grants/Agreements,
as projects are approved, which will contain:
a. Job Development and Training Plans
b. Site Locations
c. Water/Wastewater Industry Occupations
d. Number of Trainees (Entry/upgrade)
e. Estimated number of Rural Disadvantaged
to be placed in Job Opportunities.
2. Monthly status reports on project activities.
-------
35
VI. Project Officers
Department of Labor Federal Representative
Rodger Coyne, Supervisor
Program Operations
Division of National Training Programs
U.S. DOL-ETA-ONTP
Washington, D.C. 20213
(202) 376—7615
For Environmental Protection Agency
CO—Project Officers
Kenneth Hay
Training & Certification
Support Section
U.S. EPA - OWPD (WH-596)
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 426—8706
John B. Mannion
Special Assistant for
Communication & Training
Office of Drinking Water
(WH—550)
U.S. EPA
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202) 426—8877
VII. Funds (see Appendix B)
DOL funds will be obligated against the Comprehensive
Employment and Training Act of 1973, as amended.
Upon execution of this agreement the U.S. EPA will
request a transfer from DOL of $533,000 via SF 1080.
Unexpended funds remaining upon completion or termination
of the project shall be returned to DOL. The SF 1081
shall be returned to:
Rodger Coyne
Room 6122
Department of Labor
601 D Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20213
DOL funds will be obligated against:
Interagency Agreement #99—9-1975—07—2
-------
86
VIII. Authority
Comprehensive Employment and Training Act
of 1973,
Section 104 of the Clean Water Act as Amended
Lamond Godwin
Administrator
Office of National Programs
U.S. Department of Labor
Thomas C. Jorling
Assistant Administrator
Office of Water & Hazardous Materials
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
37
Appendix A
Interagency Agreement for Rural Training Program
Participants, Activities, Responsibilities
A. EPA, Drinking Water/Water Quality Hqtrs. Staff with assist-
ance of Regional Workforce Coordinators will be responsible
for:
1. Guidance, technical assistance for:
- Identification of rural water facilities requiring
training/technical assistance.
- Identification of specific training and technical
assistance requirements.
- Identification of education/training resources and
institutions.
2. Training curricula to meet job education/skills
requirements and to prepare trainees for State
operator certification requirements.
- Basic water supply/wastewater technology
- Process control for Level I water supply/wastewater
plants.
- Basic maintenance training primarily in pumps and
motors.
- Instructor training for specialized technical
assistance and course planning.
A basic schedule of instruction for each entry level
training will include the following:
— Classroom/workshops 80 Hrs.
— OJT - Technical Assistance 10 Hrs.
- Self study - correspondence
course modules - assisted
by instructor 200 Hrs.
Instructor schedules will be modified to meet needs of
upgrade trainees as required.
3. Training Materials suggested for this Program:
— Sacramento State Correspondence Courses for Wastewater
Plant Operations/Collection Systems (Appropriate Modules)
- WPCF module on package plants.
- Charles County Community College objective for Level I
wastewater plants.
- AWWA - principles and practices of water supply
operators - (Appropriate Modules).
- Charles County and EPA NPDES lab training modules.
-------
38
B. Two National Grantees/Contractors will be responsible .for:
1. Management/overview of 12 State programs.
2. Development of capabilities for identifying job
opportunities and placing rural disadvantaged in
water industry jobs, in cooperation with DOL-EPA
designated agencies.
- Identification of names and addresses of public
and private water industry employers.
- Systematic collection of data on job opportunities.
- Systematic placement of rural disadvantaged in job
opportunities.
3. Develoiiment of State Training/Technical Assistance
Programs
C. Twelve Grantee/Contractors at the State/Local level will
be responsible for:
1. Providing assistance for job developrient and program
administration.
2. Course Planning and Training Delivery
- Classroom training and workshops for basic technology
and specialized courses as appropriate.
- On-the-job training in process control techniques.
- On—site technical assistance to identify and resolve
plant operating problems.
3. Contacting the Bureau of Apprenticeship and Training
(BAT) or State apprenticeship agency representatives
in each State to seek assistance in developing apprentice-
ship programs where possible.
D. DOL will be responsible for:
1. Subsidizing the wages of 500 work experience trainees
for up to 26 weeks under the Job Corps Industry Work
Experience Program.
2. Obtaining funding for an additional 500 training posi-
tions from CETA Balance-of-State Prime Sponsors through
an existing contract with the National Governors
Association.
-------
39
APPENDIX B
Estimated Budget - Twelve (12) State Special Project
I. Project Management Grant
Job Development
Totals
Personnel
Contractual Personnel Services
Materials
Travel
$ 50,000
25,000
5,000
20,000
$ 100,000 (EPA)
II. Training Grantb
Personnel (Admiri. - Job Development)
Personnel - Instructors
Materials
Travel
Per State
10,000
20,000
6,000
7,000
120,000
240,000
72,000
84,000
$ 516,000 (DOL)
III. EPA In-House Overview
Materials
Travel
IV. No. of Trainees
$ 2,000
15,000
$ 17,000 (DOL)
1,000 Entry Level
Estimated Average Salary for 6 mos.
500 Upgrade
No Salary Support
V. Total
VI. Cost Distribution
$4,300 $4,300,000 (DOL—CETA)
$4,933,000
EPA — Item #1
DOL — Item #11, III
DOL - Item #IV
100,000
533,000
4,300,000 (DOL—CETA)
$4,933,000
-------
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
722 JACKSON PLACE, N W
WASHINGTON, 0 C 20006
December 1, 1978
Mr. Jack Watson, Chairman
Interagency Coordinating Council
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
The Council on Environmental Quality is pleased to witness
the Interagency Agreement on Water and Sewer Projects.
Water and sewer projects for rural areas cannot simply be
scaled replicas of conventional urban systems. The costs
in dollars and energy are too high. Recognizing this problem,
the water and sewer agencies are agreeing to promote
“innovative and alternative” technologies that will improve
the delivery of services, cut costs, and protect the
environment. We are pleased to see that good design, sound
economics, and environmental values will be fully reflected
in project decisions.
Through the Agreement, the water and sewer agencies will
establish a common environmental review process, which is
allowed by our new regulations implementing the National
Environmental Policy Act. Common policies and procedures,
including those for environmental assessments and environmental
impact statements, will reduce paperwork and delay. An
Environmental Review Task Force has been established to
assist in developing these common procedures by May 1979.
The Council looks forward to working with the Interagency
Coordinating Council to improve federal assistance programs
in rural America.
Dear Jack:
CHARLES WARREN
CHAIRMAN
------- |