Page 11, Section 205(a), line 9. This section stipulates that grant assistance monies allotted to a State under this paragraph will be reallotted to some other State unless the funds are obligated within six months. The six months time limitation occurs in other contexts within this section. It has been found by experience in the administration of this program in the past that six months time period is simply not enough for all of the procedures to be carried out. There appears to be no reason why a full year should not be given. As a general comment, if a program such as this is to be carried out on a crash or panic basis as would be the implication of providing too short time periods, the quality of administration and decision making would necessarily suffer. Time is important, but time to do things right is also important.

Page 13, Section 209 (a), line 1, and, in fact, the whole section override the rights of a State or a group of States to determine the kinds of sewer systems and waste management systems deemed by those jurisdictions to be most suitable. There is no way that the Administrator, on a quality basis, can within 180 days make the determinations required of him by this section, nor is there any reason why the Administrator should have the power to make these determinations at all. If it is the intention of the Congress to take the States out of the business of governing their areas, this section goes a long way toward carrying out that wish.

This State initiated several years ago the idea that regional waste treatment management would be necessary if the problems of the future were to be solved We think we know more about the needs of the State, the ability of the State and the time required to put ideas into practice than any Administrator could possibly know on a quick study basis. Admittedly, Federal funds and Federal assistance may be highly desirable and arrangements should be made for this assistance to be forthcoming, but this section as written should be stricken in its entirety as a damaging intrusion into an area which should be the responsibility of State government.

Page 14, Section 210, beginning with line 39. The definition under this seetion have been considerably redrawn from definitions used in the past. In subparagraph (a), it appears that treatability studies and other laboratory or pilot plant studies necessary for the design of a treatment works may be included in the cost of construction. This would be desirable. If this interpretation is correct, it should be clearly so stated. If it is not correct, this also should be made clear.

In subparagraph (b) on Page 15, beginning with line 1, there is an implication on line 10 that the costs of site acquisition may be included in construc tion costs if necessary for the disposal of residues from treatment. There is no implication that the cost of the site of the treatment works itself may be included as a cost of construction nor, in fact, is there any hint that right-ofway costs in general may now be included. In the past, land costs of all kinds were clearly excluded from the basis upon which a grant was made. If this view is altered, there should be a clear statement going to all land costs.

Page 15, Section 301(b), beginning on line 41. This paragraph on the whole is a necessary and proper statement of Federal policy. Nevertheless, unless further restrictions are placed upon the Administrator, his interpretations under this power give him essentially total control of the size and design and even the objectives of a State water quality management program. There should be room for differences of opinion with the Administrator. The Administrator should be required to approve State implementation plans regardless of his dislike of them if they do represent forward steps by the State, or if in manners of the state's own choosing, the state's implementation plan will bring about reasonable control of water quality. It is a matter of continuing concern to us that a nominal statement by the Congress that State activities of one kind or another be reviewed and approved by a Federal representative be interpreted by the Federal representative as giving him complete control of the State program content.

TITLE III

Page 16, (d), line 8. It is unlikely that any mature consideration can be given within a 90-day period to methods and needs regarding the amendment of water quality criteria. The States and the Federal government and other interested persons should engage in a continuing project aimed at improving the manner in which water quality standards are written, but any project that says this can be done within 90 days is not likely to result in mature and thoughtful decisions. It is unclear in this paragraph whether the criteria published by the Admin

istrator are simply for scientific information or whether there is some compulsion that the States follow certain guidelines that may be included.

As stated in other parts of this letter, any reference to groundwater wherever found should be striken. There is such a reference in line 11 of this subparagraph (d). Scientific information will be valuable anywhere, whether for surface or groundwater, but any implications of Federal control of groundwater should be removed.

Page 16, (c), beginning on line 16. This subparagraph might clearly state that the dissemination of information does not imply an instruction to the States. Page 16, (f) (1), beginning on line 27. This subparagraph should clearly state that the dissemination of information is simply for its scientific value. It is very tempting for an Administrator to take a paragraph such as this and interpret it as giving him powers to control certain activities which he, in fact, has not been given the power to control. We are especially sensitive that subparagraph (D) and (E) may be construed as giving the Administrator or the Federal government powers over waste disposal by injection or any phase of groundwater management.

Page 17, Section 302 (a) (1) on line 13. As with other time factors set forth in the Act, it is unlikely that the Administrator can, within three months, maturely and carefully make the various determinations required throughout the nation. Further, for the States to respond within three months may well be completely impractical. Further study should be given to the time requirements of States where changes are required of them. As a side issue, there has always been disagreement as to the precise definition of "interstate" waters.

Page 18, (b), beginning with line 7. For the first time, by statute rather than regulation, this subsection seeks to establish Federal powers over the states own intrastate waters. This should not be allowed, however desirable in theory it may be. Texas long ago enacted intrastate standards and we should not now be subject to the Federal power on a matter which should be reserved to the states.

Page 18, (c), beginning on line 29. With regard to this subparagraph, the comments above on subparagraph (b) apply.

Page 19, Section 302 (2) on line 4 is opposed in principal not only because there should be no Federally established minimum standards, but because the procedures under Section 301 for developing and reviewing basic technical data are inadequate. Can you imagine requiring under law that the Houston Ship Channel should provide for the protection within the major industrial portion of the Ship Channel of shellfish, fish and wildlife, and recreational activities. The United States is too large and too varied and there are too many special cases for a blanket statement like this to be workable.

Page 19, Section 303 (a) (1) (A), on line 14. In this section the attainment of national minimum water quality standards is incompatible with our comments above that national minimum water quality standards cannot yet be set on a workable basis. With regard to (b) of this same section and subsection, effluent limitations should be set by the State rather than by the Administrator or Federal law. In subparagraph (C), the reference to groundwater should not be construed as giving the Federal government or the Administrator any jurisdiction.

With regard to (C) and also (F), the judgment with regard to monitoring should be reserved to the state.

Page 20, (H), line 14. In this subsection, the degradation of any present water quality is over-idealistic. In small streams everywhere no waste can be put into a stream without some amount of degradation. An absolute policy statement of this kind paints everyone into a corner. Accordingly, this statement should be removed.

Page 20, (J), line 20 gives the states some flexibility for continued changes in their inventory and priority ranking of waste treatment needs. In the past, a requirement of this kind has been used over-rigidly.

Page 21, Section 304, beginning with line 27, is an objective towards which this state and other states has worked and will continue working. It is unlikely, however, that non-point sources can be brought under realistic control or that plans can be completed for their control of any predictable time schedule. The whole field of overland runoff is sufficiently complex that investigation and evaluation should go on for a considerable period of time before there is established a blanket requirement that a firm plan be made. As a matter of fact, the problem may well be worked on in bits and pieces and controlled in bits and pieces long before a complete plan is possible.

59-068 0-71-pt. 4-17

Page 22, (F), line 18, should be stricken in its entirety until this matter can be evaluated further. The entire question of the Texas Water Plan and the use of fresh water generally in a water-short state would be severely hampered by placing controls in the hands of the Administrator of this kind. The whole question of navigation and navigation dredging would be placed in a status of uncertainty. We do need to think about these things and work for their cotrol, but to place them into this bill at this time would be damaging in this State and would subject the state to the control of the Administrator on a far-ranging basis.

Page 24, Section 306, beginning on line 8 should be stricken in its entirety. Water quality management and effluent control is not susceptible to this coos book type of approach.

Section 307 (a) and (b) on Page 26, beginning with line 1 should be carefully studied. This could be a case of overkill, even though the materials listed should be discharged with extreme care. For example, bromine is not greatly different from Chlorine and some persons recommend its use as a disinfectant in preference to chlorine. The discharge of chromium in appreciable levels is unwise, but to specify no discharge at all may be unwise in view of its wide use in industrial cooling towers. In short, this section, or at least subparagraphs (a) and (b) should be given public distribution and scrutiny to determine, in fact, if absolute prohibition is feasible.

Section 308 on Page 27, beginning with line 10 is a necessary paragraph insofar as the subject matter is concerned, but the section should be rewritten to lessen the direct involvement between the entity discharging the waste and the Administrator. We note that subparagraph (b) (1) on line 39 provides for the state to carry out the procedure, but as specified elsewhere, the Administrator has too much power in determining what suitable state procedures are.

Section 309 on Page 28, beginning with line 13 is necessary subject matter, but the section is written with too much emphasis on Federal enforcement powers. In short, the state's ability to determine for itself the method of obtaining compliance and when to prosecute and when not to prosecute is rather clearly set aside by this section. The Federal government should be concerned with the overall attainment of reasonable objectives, but this paragraph makes it appear that the Federal government is eager to get into the enforcement field.

Section 17 on Page 32 is too complex for a quick review. Some legislation along this line is undoubtedly necessary, but as we have commented throughout this letter, the paragraph gives essentially no latitude to the states for independent judgment. In this connection, subparagraph (2)(A) beginning on Page 32, line 32, might give the Administrator more power and jurisdiction than is intended. Section 19 for most purposes is about the same as the present section on the same subject matter, i.e., the control of sewage from vessels. There is a clear need for Federal requirements relative to the control of sewage from oceangoing ships and from tugs and barges in interstate traffic. There is also a need for uniformity where cabin cruisers are carried from state to state as might be true when people travel on vacation. Nevertheless, the state is almost prevented. except with the permission of the Administrator, from controlling pleasure craft pollution on streams and lakes within the state. Some of the regulatory power on pleasure boats should be returned to the states.

Section 402 on Page 37 is questioned as a whole and seeks, I believe, to replace the permit system under the 1899 Refuse Act. Even though subparagraph (d) (1) on Page 40, line 4, authorizes the Administrator to delegate his responsibility to a state, the Act as a whole would set aside the state's own permit system by requiring that the content of the state permit be the same as that which would have been required of the Federal government. The State should be free to determine for itself the nature and content of waste discharge permits issued by it. Further, in this State of Texas, because of the magnitude of the task, we combine a mandatory permit system with a rule or regulation system and this subparagraph considers only a total mandatory permit system.

Subsection (e) on Page 40, beginning on line 18 is a policy matter best left to the states.

Section 403 on Page 40, beginning with line 26 is opposed on the basis of other comments made on the unsuitability of minimum standards.

Section 504 on Page 44, beginning on line 5, gives emergency powers to the Administrator as though the states simply did not exist. This paragraph should be rewritten to re-establish the state as having an opportunity to deal with any problem prior to any intervention by the Administrator.

Section 505 on Page 44 on line 20 is too complex for a simple comment, but on the whole this state opposes unlimited civil action by private persons or citizens' suits as they are sometimes called. The Texas statutes have ample protection built into them so that citizens do not lose their essential rights with regard to combatting water pollution.

Section 510 on Page 48 beginning with line 46, seeks to preserve certain states' rights, but, in fact, only allows the state to operate within the framework of Federal decisions. The statement with regard to state authority in the existing Act is far better than this present proposed statement.

As a closing comment to a degree similar to my opening comment, this proposed statute is too detailed, too rigid, vests too many powers in the Administrator, and removes from the states their basic responsibilities.

Sincerely,

HUGH C. YANTIS, Jr.,

Executive Director.

Hon. JENNINGS RANDOLPH,

STATE OF VIRGINIA

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

GOVERNOR'S OFFICE, Richmond, Va., August 2, 1971.

Chairman, Public Works Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR RANDOLPH: The proposed Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act concern me because, as presently printed, a new enforce ment system would be set up without first considering the merits of the existing state procedure.

I completely agree that we must require a discharge certificate that clearly defines the pollution load entering the receiving waters. We in Virginia have such a certification procedure, have had it for some time, and think the rest of the nation should follow suit.

Our certificate has merit and defines specific limits that may not be exceeded without penalty. It is enforceable, and has allowed us to take very positive and firm action.

We can, and have, effectively policed our own state. We believe our already established procedures accomplish the intent of your bill, and that the creation of a dual system is both unnecessary and wasteful.

I feel that it is essential to rewrite the Committee Print so that responsibility for cleaning up our waters is clearly defined. Accordingly, I suggest a rewrite to

(a) clarify the intent to recognize and support existing, approved state enforcement procedures;

(b) establish specific minimum requirements for standards and permits; and

(c) consider assigning "lowest practical value" language to the effluent requirements.

I appreciate the opportunity to communicate my feelings on this most important matter, and trust you will find the suggestions helpful.

Best wishes.

Cordially,

LINWOOD HOLTON.