"(C) are planned, constructed, or reconstructed, and equipped, operated, and maintained in a manner that utilizes available up-to-date treatment technology and trained personnel; and

"(D) discharge only treated wastes into such waters and provide for the pretreatment, when necessary, of industrial wastes before entering such treatment works.

"(2) There is authorized to be appropriated annually the sume of $150,000,000 for such increased grants for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1972, through June 30, 1975.

“(c) (1) The Administrator shall provide technical and financial assitance. in accordance with an application approved of all or part of any public fresh water navigable lake located in such States. In addition to controlling effluent discharges, the program should include a description of means and measures to be employed to improve water quality using all available technology including but not limited to, the use of safe chemical process, the dredging of lake buttoms near shore to remove decaying sludge and other pollutants; the recovery of overgrowths of algae, the recovery of trash and other materials from the wastes and shorelines, and the grading of shorelines and planting of grass, trees, and shrubs to protect banks and improve the scenic beauty.

"(2) The Administrator shall annually approve any application submitted under this subsection by a State which

"(A) puts forth the programs, policies, and methods to be followed, consistent with water quality standards established for such lake, in carrying out such programs;

"(B) provides that such State or political subdivision thereof has, or will have within eighteen months after the effective date of this subsection, adopted enforcible laws to control industrial, agricultural, and municipal sources of effluents discharged into such lakes and to require persons developing land areas near or adjacent to such lakes or waters tributary thereto for commercial purposes to control soil erosion;

"(C) provides such fiscal control and fund accounting procedures as may be appropriate to grants to the States under this subsection;

"(D) contains assurances that such grants will supplement, not supplant, existing water pollution control programs of a State;

"(E) provides that such State will make reports to the Administrator in such form and containing such information as the Administrator may from time to time require; and

"(F) meets such additional conditions as the Administrator deems appropriate to effectuate the purpose of this section.

"(3) The amount granted to any State for a fiscal year under this subsection shall not exceed 80 per centum of the amounts expended by such State in such year for carrying out such a program. There is authorized to be appropriated $150,000,000 for fiscal year 1972; $200,000,000 for fiscal year 1973; $250,000, for fiscal year 1974 and $30,000,000 for fiscal year 1975, for grants to States under this subsection which sums shall remain available until expended. The Administrator shall provide for an equitable distribution of sums appropriated for such grants to the States where there is an approved application. Applications for grants under this subsection shall be filed at least sixty days prior to the beginning of such fiscal years.

"(4) In addition to such technical and financial assistance, the Administrator may, at the request of a State, enter into agreements with the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary of the Army to provide personnel, services, and facilities to the State in carrying out such a program including the constructing of water impoundments or other facilities designed primarily to improve water quality or control pollution for any fresh water navigable lake for which the Administrator has approved an application under this subsection, or the Administrator may provide such personnel, services, and assistance, may enter into contracts with public or private agencies, organizations, and individuals and may acquire by purchase, lease, donation, or exchange lands or interest therein and transfer such acquired lands to such State as part of any grant made to a State for any fiscal year.

(d) (1) In case of any public fresh water navigable lake for which an application for a grant is approved under subsection (c) of this section in any fiscal year, no person shall thereafter discharge waters from any public, commercial, or industrial facility of any kind into such lake or waters tributary thereto in violation of established water quality standard or in violation of any other applicable provision of this Act.

"(2) In addition to any other provision of this Act or other law providing for the enforcement of water quality standards for such lake, any person who knowingly violates paragraph (1) of this subsection shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $10,000 for each violation, or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both, and one-third of said fine shall be paid to the person giving information which leads to a conviction. Each occurrence of a violation may constitute a separate offense.

"(3) The Administrator may also institute a civil action for relief, including a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or any other appropriate order in the district court of the United States for the district in which a person subject to the provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection is located or resides or is doing business whenever such person violates the provision of said paragraph. Each court shall have jurisdiction to provide such relief as may be ap propriate, except that such court shall have jurisdiction only with regard to the issue of relief being sought pursuant to this paragraph. Temporary restraining orders shall be issued in accordance with rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, except that the time limit in such orders, when issued without notice, shall be seven days from the date of entry. In actions under this section, subject to the direction and control of the Attorney General, as provided in section 507 (b) of title 28 of the United States Code, attorneys appointed by the Administrator may appear for and represent him."

PHOSPHATES GET CLOTHES CLEAN BUT DAMAGE LAKES

Phosphates are not poisons. Phosphorus is a normal, indeed vital, component of all living things. It is part of every cell and fluid of the human body. For green plants, it is a fertilizer. That is precisely the problem.

Depending on where you live, the detergents you wash down your drains eventually flow through sewers into the ground or streams. Ultimately, they dump into lakes or the ocean. In the ocean (which receives the sewage of roughly half the U.S.) phosphates seem to cause less problem, but when they flow into lakes, they help kill them by overfertilization.

Aging and death are normal processes for lakes: as millennia pass, they become choked with plant life and finally turn back into dry land. Scientists call the process "eutrophication." Over the past several decades, man has vastly accelerated the process. His pollutants fertilize the growth of algae and other plants, which eventually die and decay, using up oxygen that fish need for survival. It has been estimated that Lake Erie has aged the equivalent of 15,000 years in the past 50.

The 200 million pounds of detergent phosphorus the U.S. pours into its water each year are not wholly responsible, but they make a major contribution. Algae and other plants found naturally in lakes need a balanced diet of 15 to 20 different nutrients. Some of these elements-carbon, oxygen-are so ubiquitous they are impossible to control; others are so rare they are impractical to remove. The critical element is usually phosphorus or nitrogen. Ecologists have zeroed in on phosphorus because it is the easiest element to control, and in most lakes it is the crucial, limiting factor.

The International Joint Commission, a U.S.-Canadian agency which spent six years studying pollution of the lower Great Lakes, concluded that phosphates are the important factor in Lakes Erie and Ontario and, furthermore, that detergents are the largest single source of phosphates. About 67% of the phosphorus going into the lakes comes from municipal sewage: 70% of the phosphorus in this sewage is from detergents. In its final report, released in January, the commission recommended "complete replacement of all phosphorus in detergents... by December 31, 1972." This report set off the spurt of local antiphosphate legisla. tion.

Yet a controversy continues among ecologists over the precise role in other bodies of water of phosphates versus nitrogen and other nutrients. Two scientists from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution recently showed that coastal marine waters already contain excess phosphorus. Thus nitrogen has become the limiting factor. Switching away from phosphates in coastal areas, they believe, would have little effect on ocean eutrophication.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS

This statement is submitted on behalf of the National Association of Home Builders with respect to the hearings your Subcommittee has held on S. 523, the National Water Quality Standards Act of 1971, and related legislative proposals. The National Association of Home Builders is the trade association for the American home building industry. Its membership totals over 54,000 persons who belong to 494 affiliated state and local associations in the 50 states and Puerto Rico. We estimate that our members build two-thirds of all the apartments and houses produced by professional builders.

NAHB supports the provisions of S. 523, calling for an appropriation of $2.5 billion for each of the next five years. An absolute essential element to meeting the 10-year housing goal of 26 million units as established in the Housing Act of 1968 is an adequate supply of water and waste treatment systems. NAHB has long supported the various programs to eliminate water pollution and to provide adequate sewere facilities as a necessary part of the production of housing for the American people. Such production is being increasingly thwarted by problems relating to inadequate facilities and increased pollution.

The problem of development of water and treatment systems is one of such magnitude that local communities and states are not capable of solving it without massive financial assistance. This assistance should be broad enough and provided over a sufficient time period in order for local agencies to undertake necessary long term projects.

We should be pleased to furnish the subcommittee with any additional required information with respect to our position on this matter.

Sincerely,

(1444)

JOHN A. STASTNY, President.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS

(By DANIEL W. CANNON, Director of Environmental Affairs)

The limited purpose of this statement is to comment on proposed new subsection 8(a)(2)(I) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as contained in S. 1013 being considered by the Subcommittee on Air & Water Pollution. This subsection provides as follows:

"(I) No grant shall be made for any project which will treat industrial wastes of a liquid nature unless the grantee makes provisions satisfactory to the Administrator, in accordance with regulations promulgated by him, for the full recovery by the grantee, from the industrial users of the project, of that portion of the estimated reasonable cost of construction of such project (as determined by the Administrator) which is allocable to the treatment of such industrial wastes. The amount of estimated reasonable project costs recovered from each industrial user shall be equitably based on the proportion which the volume and strength of such user's wastes treated by the project bears to the volume and strength of all wastes treated by the project. Revenues derived from such cost recovery, to the extent apportionable to the Federal share of eligible project costs allocable to the treatment of industrial wastes, shall revert to the Treasury of the United States, unless the grantee has, or, in accordance with regulations to be promulgated by the Administrator, makes satisfactory provision for developing, a user charge system and other legal, institutional, managerial and financial .capability to assure adequate operation, maintenance, expansion and replacement of treatment works throughout the grantee's jurisdiction, in which case such revenues may be retained by the grantee to assist in providing the financial capability referred to in this subparagraph."

Joint solutions to wastewater problems can achieve economies resulting from efficiency of scale and can also achieve certain technical advantages. In addition, they make possible a coordinated area-wide approach to these problems. Therefore, national policy should encourage such joint solutions rather than discourage them.

This provision apparently disregards completely the role which industrial companies play as major taxpayers and providers of employment in the communities and areas where their plants are located. As major taxpayers, these companies perforce bear a proportionate share of the construction cost (including the Federal grant) and operating and maintenance cost of municipal treatment plants. As providers of employment, they make possible other sources of tax revenue for municipalities and for the Federal Government. Equitable arrangements have been worked out between industrial companies and municipalities, including treatment of industrial wastewater in municipal treatment plants, treatment of municipal wastewater in industrial treatment plants, and industrial re-use of treated municipal wastewater. Such arrangements should be encouraged rather than discouraged.

We believe that the municipalities and the industrial companies should have a great deal of freedom and flexibility to work out equitable arrangements based on the facts of local situations, no two of which are the same.

We submit that it would be a serious error for the national government to lay down a rigid and inflexible formula to apply to these arrangements, and would greatly reduce the present encouragement to participate in these joint solutions. Therefore, we strongly urge that this subsection be deleted from any legislation recommended by the Subcommittee on Air & Water Pollution.

59-068-71-pt. 3—19

STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL FARMERS UNION

(By WELDON V. BARTON, Assistant Director of Legislative Services)

We appreciate this opportunity to express the views of the National Farmers Union on legislation to extend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 196 As the Subcommittee begins executive sessions on this legislation. I wish to reiterate the support of Farmers Union for the "Plan for Clean Air" transmitted to members of the Public Works Committee earlier this year by a coalition of Environmental Action, Farmers Union, and other groups. A strong water pollution abatement bill, containing the basic provisions of the "Plan for Clean Air." is absolutely required.

I want to express special concern that provision for citizen suits, as outlined in the "Plan," be included in any bill reported by the Subcommittee. The bill should provide the right of citizens. as under the Clean Air Act of 1970, to go to court and force administrative or industrial action if the law is not enforced. Only if the public can act as a watchdog in this way will the law be effectively enforced.

Farmers Union urges the Subcommittee to report a bill providing the federal water quality standards, monitoring devices, and enforcement procedures required to come to grips with the water pollution crisis in America.

COMMENTS

(1) Deadlines.-It is vital to include in the legislation deadlines for the setting of state water quality standards and deadlines for the achievement of those standards. Without statutory deadlines polluters will continue to delay the enforcement process for their own profit. Pollution is cheap from their point of view. Probably the most effective deadline is three years for the attainment of the standards outlined by the state implementation plans.

(2) Burden of proof.-Legislation must reflect the assumption that it is up to the polluter to prove that his effluent will not damage the quality of the water. The public should not have to prove damage to water quality; our rivers and streams belong to the public. The presumption must be that any dumping is unlawful until proven otherwise.

(3) Water use.-Present law requires the states to designate the use of all bodies of water within their jurisdiction (major categories include recreational, industrial, agricultural, etc.) and then devise standards of water quality sufficient to protect that use. Environmentalists feel that no body of water should be used as the dumping grounds of industry as is presently often the case. The following restrictions should be put on the state's right to designate water uses: no use set can degrade the present quality of the water; no use can adversely affect the downstream uses of the water; all uses should conform to a national minimum water quality. Such a national minimum should aim for the protection of humans, fish and wildlife. Some waters in the United States, such as Lake Michigan, Lake Tahoe, etc., are particularly sensitive to ecological change and should be protected with a "no dumping" policy right now. Citizen participation must be insured in the setting of water uses. Citizens should have the right to petition for change in water use designations.

(4) Mandatory actions.-Enforcement in past water quality legislation has been less than casual. The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (formerly Secretary of the Department of the Interior) has never been required by the legislation to enforce anything for anybody. It is vital that legislation this year require the Administrator to act upon a pollution violation when that is discovered. He must also be required to establish a monitoring system to insure that officials know what industrial polluters are discharging into our waters. Such authority has been granted the Administrator, but not used in the large scale manner that the situation requires.

(5) Penalties.-Penaltes for failure to comply with state and federal water quality law must match the crime. A mandatory criminal fine is necessary to