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 ade quate 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)(1) 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 1965. 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 re quired 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

insure that polluters do not delay court action in the hopes of a negotiated, therefore, lower fine. This minimum could be keyed to corporate assets so that those who pollute in a large scale way are forced to "pay their own way." Civil fines must also be established to make action by the Administrator credible in the eyes and pocketbooks of polluters. Fines should also be levied on a daily basis until the polluter proves his violation is corrected.

(6) Citizen participation.-Citizens must have the right, as they do with the Clean Air Act of 1970, to go to court and force administrative or industrial action if the law is not enforced. It is only with the public acting as a watchdog that the law will be fully enforced. This right is the rock-bottom minimum. We also ask that citizens be allowed to collect part of any fine levied if their information leads to conviction of a polluter. Such a statutory qui tam would allow the citizen to collect part of what the government should have assessed in the first place.

(7) New sources.-All new sources of pollution should be required to conformi to the latest available pollution control technology. They must be required to conform to national performance standards before construction and during operations. If we do not require national regulation of this matter, industry will engage in "pollution plea bargaining" at the local level to insure the cheapest location for their plant.

(8) Hazardous substances.-There are certain substances whose discharge into our waterways are so dangerous to human health and welfare that their dumping must be regulated to zero. The Administrator must be required to set such discharge limits and enforce them with strict penalties and damages assigned to those affected.

(9) User fees.-Under the present system the Federal Government is actually subsidizing the pollution of industry in their waste treatment grant programs. This billion dollar subsidy program comprises more than 90 percent of the annual federal water pollution control budget. Present law requires only that a treatment facility be publicly owned in order to qualify for a grant. Industries and cities often join together to treat their wastes in order to get the 55 percent federal subsidy of the construction costs. The city retains nominal ownership. According to the Nader Task Force Report on Water Pollution, "Water Wasteland" (1971). "The federal Water Quality Administration's best estimates show that somewhere around half and possibly a great deal more of the (organic) wasteload in the nation's municipal treatment plants comes from industry. This means that it is likely that somewhere around half and possibly more of the annual $1 billion (fiscal 1970 appropriation) in municipal grant subsidies-i.e., somewhere around $500,000,000 and more is currently being funnelled through municipal middle men to pay the cleanup costs of private industry." These subsidies actually increase the production of industrial wastes. It is cheaper to run wastes through the city waste treatment plant a cut rate costs than alter the means of production to decrease those wastes or install pollution control equipment. Although economies of scale point to economic efficiency in joint municipal-industrial plants, industry must begin to pay its share. User charges administered at the local level are presently woefully inadequate and do not reflect the true cost. A system of user fees must be instituted whereby industry pays back to the federal government their share of the waste treatment grant. This fund could be established as a revolving loan fund at the federal level to insure future waste treatment grant monies. Not only should such charges be levied for the construction, but they should also be instituted for the operation of the plant as well.

(10) Federal facilities.-Federal facilities and sources of pollution should be required to comply with the law. Sanctions should be instituted which the Administrator would be required to use. In addition, the Federal Government should be forbidden from contracting with any firm violating water quality laws.

(11) Review.-To insure a continual upgrading of the quality of our rivers and lakes, states should be required to conduct a public review of water quality. uses and standards every 5 years.

(12) Jurisdiction.-Present law only requires the regulation of interstate waters. This restriction of federal water quality laws does not conform to the roader jurisdiction of the Refuse Act of 1899, an extremely important tool in >nforcing water quality. It is necessary that present law be brought up to date in requiring the applicability of standards and enforcement mechanisms to all nterstate, intrastate and navigable waters.

W

NATIONAL GOVERNORS' CONFERENCE

Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.

MAY 11, 1971.

DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: At your request, we have compiled governors' responses to questions you suggested would contribute to the work of the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution in constructing effective water pollution control programs. The replies we received, herewith enclosed, offer a concise statement of state efforts in abating water pollution. They do demonstrate a consistency which should assist your committee in resolving certain issues that have been raised in the course of hearings recently completed. It would appear that the principal cause of delay among those states whose programs are not fully operational is lack of funds. There is also a strong indication that additional consideration should be given to the problem of national effluent standards and their efficacy in promoting federal, state, and local efforts to clean up our nation's waterways.

The following is a brief summary of the responses to the questions you have asked:

(1) Have you identified all sources of discharge into interstate, intrastate and coastal waters? If not, how long would it take to do it? How much would it cost? Reply. In general, most sources of discharge have been identified from indus trial and municipal points. A problem still exists with regards to agricultural and natural sources.

(2) Have the nature and quantites of effluent from each source been identified? If not, how long would it take and how much would it cost?

Reply. The nature and quantity of effluents from these sources have also been generally identified with the exceptions noted in Question 1. In addition, newly discovered toxic materials will require review of discharges in many instances. (3) Do you have water quality standards for the receiving waters into which each of these sources discharge? If not. How long? And how much? Do standards for intrastate and interstate waters differ?

Reply.—All responding states have established water quality standards for interstate waters. Those who have not done likewise for intrastate waters are in the process of so doing. There appears to be no difference between the standards set for intra or interstate waters.

(4) Do you have effluent standards or limitations for each individual source of discharge? Are your standards or limitations quantified as to specific amount and specific pollutant? Do you have a permit or similar system? Is the performance of such sources monitored? If not, how long and how much?

Reply.-Responses to the question of effluent standards manifest a divergence of opinion regarding the efficacy of such standards even at the state, let alone national, level. It would seem that the general consensus of experts presently engaged in pollution abatement programs raises serious questions with regard to the approach suggested in S. 523 and other measures presently being considered by your committee. Specific commentary on this point is included among the enclosed documents.

Almost all states do have permit systems. In this regard, serious consideration must be given to the federal permit system recently established under the 180 Refuse Act. Inherent in current administrative procedures for implementation of this resuscitated program is the potential for such intergovernmental chaos as may well evoke a counter-productive reaction ill-suited to achieving our common purpose.

The degree to which pollution sources are monitored varies and here again the major impediment to adequate monitoring programs is lack of funds. (5) Will these effluent limits maintain, enhance or achieve water quality standards?

Reply. All states indicate that their water pollution control programs are designed to enhance or, at the very least, maintain water quality.

T

I