In this new context, much of the work of the old enforceme conference will already have been accomplished through the standar setting process. We should be in a position to move effectively whenever we det mine a violation of standards is occurring. We propose an enforcement system that capitalizes on the admin trative regulatory procedures which have matured in the Americ legal system. Its key elements are: Initial administrative determination of a violation followed instructions for appropriate remedy. Issuance of an administrative order and assessment of fir administratively. Provision for administrative hearing at the option of the alleg violator. All of this would be accomplished in a short time frame and act would be taken by those specially equipped and knowledgeable in t complex area. We would be able to advance a long way toward achievi compliance at the administrative level, without any sacrifice of equity and fair play and full hearing required by due process. We would need to address the issues judicially only as a last res and then with a full hearing record which would be conclusive as the facts. Consistent with our proposal that water quality standards extended to all navigable waters, whether interstate or intrastate, propose that Federal enforcement authority be coextensive with standard-setting authority and not limited to cases of interst effects. Of course, the primary responsibility for enforcement remains v the States. Our proposals are in no way intended to diminish that r But we must be able to act swiftly if the States fail to do so. Again, Mr. Chairman, it appears that we are in basic agreemen to needed improvements of our Federal enforcement authority in areas of information gathering, injunctions, and citizen suits. The inability to secure adequate information and data concer pollution has inhibited truly effective enforcement. We propos give EPA broad authority to obtain information and data, to subj witnesses and records, and to require monitoring and reporting consistent with the due process requirements of law. We would authorize EPA to move immediately when an emerge presents an imminent and substantial danger to human healt welfare or to water quality, by seeking temporary or permanen junctions in Federal court. Citizen suits would be authorized to enable private groups and viduals to compel compliance with the law and to assure that gov mental inertia need not be tolerated where the law provides a duty and remedy. CONSTRUCTION GRANTS In order to combat water pollution and enhance water quality program must have many elements-realistic criteria, practical I vigorous enforcement, and imaginative research. But of parti significance in the achievement of our objectives is the constructi treatment facilities. At the present time, substantial Federal participation in financing of waste treatment plant construction still is essential. In recognition of that central fact, our legislative proposal, S. 1013, was structured as a solution to the problem presented by these key questions: What is the cost of waste treatment facilities needed by municipalities through fiscal year 1974 if water quality standards are to be met? What was the cost of needed facilities constructed by States and municipalities since 1966 without the benefit of the full Federal share? How can Federal-grant moneys be most expeditiously and effectively distributed to the States and municipalities? How can we prevent a backlog of needed construction from recurring; that is, how can we best assure that plants will be enlarged, improved, replaced and new plants built as needed? We realize that there are various possible answers to some of these questions. Our bill represents our answer. It is our best answer. It represents exhaustive study and analysis. It represents our experience in coping with the problem. It reflects our close and continuing consultation with the States and municipalities. Any answer to the first question-what is the cost of needed waste treatment facilities-is subject to change because of a series of variables which preclude any completely sure answer. Inaccuracies in assessments of needs reported by States and municipalities; inflation; refinements in cost determinations for particular projects as they proceed from planning through construction; reassessments of needs by States and municipalities in the light of changing Federal, State, or local regulatory requirements and changing levels of Federal support; rescheduling of construction starts-all of these factors singly and in combination affect our estimates of needs and costs. However, we must make an assessment-and we have made the best assessment we can, realizing that we are aiming at an elusive and moving target. Our best estimate of the Federal funds needed for the construction program through fiscal year 1974 to meet water quality standards is $ billion. I would like to explain that figure with the aid of a table. The table referred to follows:) Estimate of Federal fund needs Ttal construction needs, December 1, 1970, to June 30, 1974.. Federal share (estimated 47.5 percent of $12.56 billion) Net Federal fund needs (Dec. 1, 1970, to June 30, 1974)..... Federal share.. Billion $12.56 5.97 1.46 7.43 . 317 .945 1.26 6. 17 6 Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. The first element is the assessment of munici waste treatment needs through fiscal year 1974. That need has b determined to be $12.56 billion. We arrived at that figure throug detailed reassessment of needs, which included information furnis by all of the States, through direct contact with most of the ma cities, and through our own studies and statistical analyses. Senator MUSKIE. May I ask one or two questions at this point You say that this is the estimate of the need. What is meant need? Does it mean the amount that can be spent in that time does it mean the amount of work the States and municipalities th they can schedule within that time? What relation does your fig bear to the cost of eliminating the backlog? Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Mr. Chairman, I think we can answer al these problems. At the end of my statement, I propose to have Dominick go through a detailed description of how we arrived that figure and the basis of this figure in terms of need, so you have all of the information before the committee on exactly how arrived at that figure. Senator MUSKIE. All right. Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. The second element taken into account is so-called reimbursable balance. The total amount of that balance all underfunded and unfunded projects is $1.46 billion. The third element to be considered in the calculation is the Fed share. The range of Federal participation in a project varies bety 30 and 50 percent of the cost of construction depending on a nur of factors, such as State matching, adoption of water quality st ards, and consistency with comprehensive planning. The eligib for increased Federal shares has been going up steadily. The ave eligibility is now at approximately 47.5 percent. The fourth element to be considered is the amount of Federal f from previous appropriations which are as yet unobligated. figure is $1.26 billion." On the basis of the foregoing, we reach a figure of $6.17 bil The last consideration that must be taken into account is the nece to make the program as cost effective as possible. We endeav achieve cost effectiveness to the fullest extent possible by requ that projects be included in river basin and regional or metropo plans. These are essentially waste treatment cost-effectiveness pl We have also developed treatment facility design, operation, maintenance criteria and intensive review procedures to achiev maximum benefit for our investment and to preclude constructi excess capacity. Through these cost-saving practices, required by administration, we believe we can reduce further the Federal in ment as well as offset inflationary increases. We have concluded that $6 billion in Federal funds will be ne over the next 3 years to support the program of needed constru and to deal with reimbursables. S. 1013, which calls for $2 billion for each of the next 3 fiscal J is our best estimate of what is needed to do the job. As to that troublesome question of "reimbursables," we pr a straightforward solution: All will be honored and receive thei Federal share. This is what we propose in S. 1013. In our assessment of needs, we studied the problem of stormand combined sewers. We concluded that in most instances m lities have a long way to go in assessing their storm-water and bined sewer problems and in devising practical solutions. The technology needed to deal with this problem is only now rging, largely as a result of research and demonstrations supported the Water Quality Office. The adaptation of that new technology ndividual municipal situations requires a great deal of study, plan2. and preparation. In most cases this has yet to be accomplished. One significant difficulty that we have experienced with the proim stems from the fact that under our present authority, Federal ds are initially distributed among the States according to popun, a factor that does not, when taken alone, adequately reflect true needs of the various States. This occasions a delay of 18 months fre unused funds can be redistributed to areas that have immediate eds. To remedy this situation, we propose in S. 1013 to revise the allocac. formula as follows: Forty-five percent on the basis of population; Up to 20 percent to States that provide adequate "matching" funds; Up to 25 percent on the basis of outstanding "reimbursables"; and Ten percent on the basis of the severity of the pollution problem, in the discretion of the Administrator. We have studied many variations and alternatives to the allocation la and have determined that the formula we propose in S. 1013 des for the most effective distribution of funds. The new formula tides for a close correlation between the amount of funds distributed the need for and ability to use such funds. Our purpose is to maximize the effectiveness of the initial allocathereby minimizing the need for reallocation, with the result that are eliminated and the funds are put to work where they are 14 needed. enable municipalities which would otherwise be unable to pate in the construction grants program because of an inability arket their bonds on reasonable terms, the administration proin S. 1015, an Environmental Financing Authority. The Enmental Financing Authority would be authorized to purchase ipal bonds and to issue its own obligations to finance such ses. We understand that Secretary Connally will appear this committee at a later date to testify concerning this pro Chairman, you can see that we have endeavored, as you and Lembers of the committee have endeavored in other proposals, ove and refine our existing mechanisms to support the conon of needed facilities. We believe this to be necessary to meet with immediate needs. Those needs include a backlog of stracted and unfunded projects which evidence a fundamental acy of the present system. elieve a much more efficient and workable system should be ed. We believe that we should now begin to structure into and into the life and pattern of this program the concept e realization of "self-sufficiency." self-sufficiency," we mean the ability of a community to and pay for the operation, maintenance, and replacement of its waste treatment facilities and to meet the future treatment n of the community. We believe strongly that all communities sh operate waste treatment systems on a "utility" basis with each paying a fair share of the cost. We have addressed this concept in a number of ways in our prop S. 1013. We would require every grantee as a condition of receivi grant to assure that it is taking measures to establish or aco adequate legal, institutional, managerial, and financial capability meeting foreseeable future needs with respect to operation, m tenance, expansion, and replacement of the treatment works. The grant would support community efforts to acquire capability. The possession of such capability including a user charge sy would be an acceptable alternative to a State matching progra the basis for eligibility for increased Federal support. EPA would be obliged to administer its authorities so as to enco such community self-sufficiency. As a further assist toward the realization of self-sufficiency, gra would be obliged to recover from industrial users of a waste treat plant that portion of the total cost of the plant attributable t dustrial waste treatment. Retention of the Federal portion o amount so recovered would be permitted to communities establi self-sufficient systems with user charges. If communities were self-sufficient in this regard-and clearly can be with some initial assistance they would recognize nee they grow, make plans to deal with them and construct new fac as needed. We would then never again have to be faced wit backlog of needed construction we now face with all the pollutio water degradation it represents. Mr. Chairman, let me again emphasize that we recognize th are dealing here with a vast problem, the complexities of whi crease constantly. We continue to reassess the situation, to abreast and endeavor to project and anticipate the growing sc the problem. We know that this is an area where reasonable mer differ. Hopefully, we will agree. My staff and I stand ready to work with you and the comm STATE PROGRAM GRANTS Another proposal, S. 1012, would, over a 4-year period, trip authorizations for Federal grants to support State and interstate pollution prevention and control programs. Increased support of programs is essential if State and interstate agencies are to me creased responsibilities under our water quality standards and er ment proposal, our waste treatment facilities construction pro and the Refuse Act permit program. A phased increase from the $10 million authorized for fisca 1971 to $30 million for fiscal year 1975-for a total of $90 mil new authorizations over a 4-year period-will provide funds to the administrator to award grants for specific program improve and to sustain such improvements. New Federal funds will be di to programs with demonstrated effectiveness. This is a differen in our view, a superior approach to the usual one of simply incr support for the same old programs. |