Page images
PDF
EPUB

plats unless the water supply and sewage facilities provisions conform to the plan.

6. STATE FINANCIAL AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND INCENTIVES FOR

COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF FACILITIES PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION

The Commission recommends State legislation to (a) provide grants for capital development, supplementing Federal aid ; 20 (6) provide incentives for comprehensive development and appropriate organization on watershed, drainage basin, or metropolitan area bases 21 with sufficient discretionary authority vested in the State administrators to discourage uneconomical investment in water and sewer utilities; (c) expand State technical assistance programs for waste disposal planning and construction; (d) liberalize debt limits and referenda requirements for water and sewage facility financing; 2o and (e) permit joint action by units of local government in meeting area water and sewage needs.23

The most fruitful approaches to the problem of inadequate local investment are the provision of incentives in the form of matching grants from the State and Federal governments, more rigorous State and Federal enforcement of public health and pollution control requirements, and improved service area organizations offering economies of scale.

Other State activities that might be undertaken to insure adequate long-term urban water supplies include use of State loans or grants for urban water projects and support for efforts aimed at solving urban water problems in a comprehensive and coordinated manner; provision of improved and expanded water supply technical services by the State to urban areas; State support or stimulation of planning and research, including economic and demographic studies, and wide dissemination of the findings: the extension or development of State technical engineering services for the development of regional, basinwide or staterride surveys to establish future water needs and to provide a broad framework for cooperative development of water sources and transmission facilities to urban centers. State participation and assistance is justified when the local jurisdictions involved cannot agree on solutions for providing water services. State programs should proride incentives for comprehensive development of waste treatment facilities and should insure against uneconomical investment in small community facilities. New York's recently enacted State sewage treatment program is one of the few that recognizes comprehensiveness as a criterion in the administration of sewage treatment grants.

State development of urban water sources is best illustrated in New Jersey and California. Other States are likely to expand their water lation growth, competition for types of water use, and the urbanization of all or large parts of States. Experience in New Jersey and California suggests that when the State develops water supplies, the urban areas are willing to relinquish considerable control over their individual water supplies in return for the benefits of the State's greater capability for planning and financing a comprehensive program.

See “State Financial Assistance and Channelization of Federal Grant Programs for Urban Development," ACIR 1966 State Legislative Program (Washington, D.C. : October 1965), pp. 226-236.

11 A suggested State act. "State Assistance for Interlocal Cooperation,” providing for increasing the share of State financial assistance for joint projects is included in the ACIR 1966 State Legislative Program (Washington, D.C.: October 1965), pp. 357–359.

22 A suggested State constitutional amendment and implementing act to allow contract. ing of debts for public works subject only to a permissive referendum decided by a simple majority, is included in the ACIR 1966 State Legislative Program (Washington, D.C.: October 1965), pp. 84-98.

» See "Interlocal Contracting and Joint Enterprises," ACIR 1966 State Legislative Pro. gram (Washington, D.C. : October 1965), pp. 398-406.

7. PROMOTION OF METROPOLITANWIDE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OF

SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES

The Commission recommends that Federal grants for sewage treatment plant construction be consistent with comprehensive drainage basin and metropolitan area planning, and that existing programs be amended to provide an additional matching incentive for the development of sewage disposal systems on a regional or major subregional basis. The Water Quality Act of 1965 includes a provision permitting the increase of basic grants for sewage treatment plants by 10 percent if the project conforms to a comprehensive plan for the metropolitan

area.

8. DISCOURAGE FRAGMENTATION AND SHORT-TERM ANTICIPATION OF NEEDS

IN COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS AND ENCOURAGE AREAWIDE
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OF WATER AND SEWERAGE SYSTEMS

The Commission recommends that the Congress amend the statutory authority for the public facility loans program of the Housing and Home Finance Agency to permit (a) communities of 50,000 population or more to qualify for sewer and water project loans, and (b) the joining together of communities with an aggregate population exceeding 50,000 for purposes of such loan assistance.

The present 50,000 population limitation of the Public Facilities Act has several major disadvantages. First, it directly discriminates against communities of 50,000 population or more by not permitting them to receive public facility loans. Second, it encourages fragmentation, duplication, and inadequate long-term facilities by prohibiting bond action by a number of communities within a metropolitan area to meet water and sewer needs. For example, several communities each having a population of less than 50,000 may desire to join together to provide a water or sewerage disposal system. Individually, each of the communities would be eligible for loan assistance under the public facility loans program, but when acting jointly (through the establishment of an instrumentality serving the entire area) they would be ineligible for Federal loan assistance because their aggregate population exceeded 50,000.

This limitation, while still in the legislation, is of less significance with the passage of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965 which adds authorization for a new grant program for water supply facilities to the existing grant program for sewer facilities. The new grant program has no population limits and requires construction to meet foreseeable growth needs.

Sound areawide planning and development of domestic water supply and sewerage systems is essential to assure the availability of an

METROPOLITAN AMERICA: CHALLENGE TO FEDERALISM

147

adequate supply of safe water, and to encourage economical and orderly development of land for residential, industrial, and other purposes since the type and location of water and sewerage facilities is a critical determinant of land use. The suggested act, referred to on page 144 above, provides a framework for such planning by communities and relates the planning process to an enforcement program.

9. USE OF FEDERAL ENFORCEMENT AND FEDERAL INCENTIVES FOR INDUS

TRIAL POLLUTION ABATEMENT

Strong Federal enforcement powers and financial incentives, or both, are needed for industrial pollution abatement. The Commission recommends that the President direct the appropriate Federal departments and agencies to evaluate present enforcement powers and financial incentives in order to determine how their effectiveness may be improved through changes in procedures, policy, or statutory revision, and to determine the roles of State and local governments in such a program. A report on the use of industrial incentives for pollution control prepared for the Public Health Service, reviews, describes, and evaluates present practices and possible approaches for Federal and State governments.24

Federal water quality control activities are extremely important to the continued effectiveness of State and local pollution abatement programs. The underlying objectives of Federal research and enforcement efforts

to strengthen State water prorgams so that problems can be resolved without Federal intervention is sound. The Federal role is vital if States and localities are not to be penalized, particularly by industry, for developing and enforcing effective water quality programs.

It may be fruitful also to explore the possibility of a Federal tax based on water use, more particularly on the quantity of pollution it carries into the rivers and streams, with the proceeds of such a tax used to finance part of the cost of water pollution control. Closely related is the question of whether to offer special corporate income tax treatment of business investment in pollution control facilities. A number of States (Arkansas, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin) currently provide tax benefits for industrial pollution control. A somewhat different approach for use of Federal taxes to foster investment in waste treatment facilities has been offered by Marion Clawson and Irving K. Fox; they recommend a Federal tax on all municipal and industrial water with tax rebates commensurate with city or industry funds spent on pollution abatement or control.25

10. RECOGNITION OF WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS IN FEDERAL WATER

PROGRAMS

Future Federal water resources planning and development should give as much attention to urban needs as to other water requirements. National policies for urban water supply and pollution control must change to meet the impact of population growth, increased per capita consumption, and industrial use. A comprehensive and well-understood national goal for urban water supply and sewage disposal is needed, within which gaps in programs can be filled and individual activities coordinated. A national policy should be established by the President and the Congress covering the provision of adequate water supply and pollution control in a broad framework of promoting sound development of the Nation's urban areas, including assistance to State and local governments to accomplish this purpose.

ats. Public Health Service. Industrial Incentives for Water Pollution Abatement (Washington :V'.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1965).

* Marion Clawson and Irving K. Fox, Your Investment in Land and Water (Washing: ton : Resources for the Future, 1961), p. 20.

An important Federal responsibility, in cooperation with the States, is the development of comprehensive river basin policies that will give full consideration to urban needs. Federal activity has been crucial to comprehensive multipurpose river basin development in the past; it is likely to remain so in the future. The Federal Government should insure that water resource planning and development by each of its water agencies, and on each river basin in which the Federal Government has an immediate interest, take into account the needs of urban areas as well as the needs of agriculture, power production, industry, recreation, fish, and wildlife.

The Water Supply Act of 1958 was a major step forward in recognizing Federal responsibility to help meet urban water supply requirements. It provides authority for the Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation to include municipal and industrial water supply capacity in reservoirs under their jurisdiction to meet immediate and anticipated future demands. The Water Resources Planning Act of 1965 establishes a Federal Water Resources Council and provides a procedure for establishing river basin commissions to develop plans on a comprehensive and coordinated basis for the optimum use of water and related land resources. The Council is to review plans with special regard to the effect "on the achievement of other programs for the development of agriculture, urban, energy, industrial, recreational, fish and wildlife, and other resources of the entire Nation." Senate Document No. 97, 87th Congress, 2d session, May 24, 1962, which was prepared under the direction of the President's Water Resources Council (the predecessor of the statutory council), establishes executive branch policies and standards for Federal water resource projects which emphasize comprehensive, multiple-purpose planning and development with concurrent provision for the various uses including municipal water supply.

Another important Federal responsibility is a strengthened program of assistance to States for assuring adequate long-term urban water supplies. This program of technical assistance would supplement the traditional Federal-State relationships that already exist in water quality programs. To accomplish this objective, the appropriate Federal departments and agencies should aid States and interstate agencies in planning for the development and use of water resources for domestic, municipal, and industrial purposes. The States should be able to tap the extensive facilities, technical knowledge, and trained personnel of the various Federal agencies for help in developing new methods, improved technology, and economic research to meet the problems of water supply and quality for urban areas.

RELOCATION OF PEOPLE AND BUSINESSES DISPLACED BY GOVERNMENT

At present, as described in chapter IV, the financial aid and services arailable to people and businesses displaced by public projects vary greatly depending on the program causing the displacement and the level of government with primary responsibility for tlie program. The recommendations of the Commission provide another illustration of methods to attain coordinated and equitable approaches to problems arising from actions by all levels of government.

1, UNIFORMITY OF FEDERAL AND STATE RELOCATION ADVISORY ASSISTANCE

AND PAYMENTS

The Commission recommends that the Congress establish and executive agencies implement a uniform policy of relocation payments and advisory assistance for persons and businesses displaced by grantin-aid or direct Federal programs and that States similarly establish and implement a uniform policy.26

The most dramatic instances of the effects of inconsistencies in relocation assistance provisions occur in urban areas where different Federal programs displace neighboring properties. Relocation payments may range all the way from total actual moving expenses for a business owner who is displaced by a federally aided renewal project, to no payment at all for a homeowner whose property is taken by the General Services Administration for an office building. Similar variations exist with respect to advisory assistance given to displacees. These deficiencies are most serious in urban areas where property takings most frequently displace those in need of assistance--low income and underprivileged groups, the elderly, and the marginal small businessmen. The social and economic side effects of displacement bring such federally aided programs as housing, public assistance, emplovment security, and Small Business Administration assistance into play. These other programs would be better able to serve displaced persons and businesses if the programs causing displacement followed consistent relocation policies.

A uniform policy of relocation payments should take account of the various types of expenses incurred by those displaced. For families and individuals these include the cost of moving household and personal effects, miscellaneous expenses such as utilities connection and disconnection, and advance payments of rent. For businesses that can move to a new location and continue to function as before, relocation costs involve the interruption of business operations, looking for a new location, moving, and settling in the new location. Those that are forced to close down-mainly small retail or service businesses that depend on a neighborhood trade-suffer loss of the “going concern value" of their business and may incur the cost of temporary unemployment and retraining—the cost of developing a new livelihood.

Advisory assistance is essential to help displacees meet the costs of displacement–tangible and intangible. Such assistance is particularly needed by the poor, minority groups, the elderly, and the small businessmen who are most disrupted by a forced move. To help own

See "Uniform Relocation Assistance," ACIR 1966 State Legislative Program (Washington, D.C.: October 1965), pp. 263–274.

« PreviousContinue »