DISTRIBUTION OF NEEDS ON THE BASIS OF NEEDS CRITERIA USED IN TH DECEMBER 1970 ASSESSMENT

a/BASED ON EPA-WQO ASSESSMENT OF NEEDS,

DECEMBER 1970 -- TOTAL 12. 56 BILLION

Mr. DOMINICK. The other category here represents the project through the end of our time frame, through the end year 1974, population growths, replacements, obsolescence, et so that we do not find ourselves running to catch up from be we have over the past 50 years.

In other words, we are seeking to keep current with ne during this time frame as they present themselves.

This gives you some indication of the total pie as it is broke water quality standards requirements represent 44 percent of needs; specific enforcement conference recommendations, 17 separately identified State requirements, 7 percent; and repl growth obsolescence, 32 percent for a total of $12.56 m total needs to meet our water quality objectives by the end year 1974.

REASONS FOR VARIATIONS BETWEEN THE DECEMBER ASSESSMENT AND PREVIOUS FWQA ASSESSMENTS

REASONS FOR VARIATIONS

Updating of estimates.

Identification of new needs.

Better definition of requirements.
Better input at municipal levels.

Upgrading implementation schedule and water quality standards requirements. Increase in average Federal share.

Mr. DOMINICK. The logical question to be answered in this whole process is, what have been some of the reasons for the variations in the estimates? In the up-dating of estimates, we found that by going directly to municipalities or to State agencies on a person-toperson basis, we were able to update some old estimates which had been on the books for many years.

Some communities had simply not submitted their treatment requirements and, in this process in July and December of last year, we identified a number of new needs. Through our regulations, through our planning process, through our cost effective program, we have been able to give better definition to the communities of what would be required to meet water quality standards. This better definition of requirements is a further cause for variation in the estimates.

Significant increases have arisen by virtue of the upgrading of implementation schedules. Two years ago, many implementation schedules for water quality standards did not call for the installation of treatment in some cases until as late as 1958. We have attempted to meet those implementation schedules much earlier and have for the most part, agreements from the States and municipalities that the installation of needed treatment would be accomplished in most cases by 1975.

So, this compressing of the implementation schedules as well as a definition of additional water quality standards requirements-such as the installation of secondary treatment in all of the Florida communities, such as the agreement on the part of Passaic Valley in New Jersey to install adequate treatment-situations such as these have contributed to an increase in total estimate of needs. From the Federal point of view, of course, we have identified the need to contribute a greater Federal share by virtue of the very significant increase in the number of States that have established State matching programs over the past year.

(The chart follows:)

AN ANALYSIS OF THE DECEMBER 1970 RESULTS AND A CALCULATION OF TOTAL FEDERAL FUNDS NEEDED

Summary-Waste treatment construction needs

Total construction needs, to be committed Dec. 1, 1970 to June 30, Billion 1974..

Federal share (estimated at 47.5 percent).

$12.56

5. 97

Total reimbursement balance as of Dec. 1, 1970-

1. 46

Total Federal fund needs, Dec. 1, 1970 to June 30, 1974..

7. 43

Unobligated Federal funds as of Dec. 1, 1970:

Fiscal year 1970_.

Fiscal year 1971.

Total....

. 317

.945

1. 26

Net Federal fund needs (Dec. 1, 1970 to June 30, 1974)----

6. 17

Mr. DOMINICK. To summarize, this is the same summary whi appears at the back of the Administrator's testimony.

The construction needs to be committed from December 1970, 1 base point for our last and most refined study, until the end of fis year 1974, amounts to $12.56 billion. Taking an average Fede share for that total national need of 47.5 percent, that amounts $5.97 billion. Taking the total potential reimbursement balance as December 1, 1970, we see a figure of $1.46 billion for a total of $7 billion.

Again as of that date, unobligated Federal funds, for both fi year 1970 and 1971, amounted to $1.262 billion. Subtract that fr $7.43 billion, and we arrive at the total Federal funds needed for t period of approximately $6 billion; 6.17 billion, to be exact. (The chart follows:)

REASONS FOR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NLC/USCM AND WQO (FWOA) SUR IN JULY 1970

NLC/USCM SURVEY

Differences due mainly to: Different time frame, tertiary treatment in cases, storm and combined sewers, ineligible costs.

NLC/USCM adjusted to WQO criteria: Adjusted to $11.5 billion (vs. $ Mr. DOMINICK. Taking a look at the National League of and U.S. Conference of Mayors survey, we found that the differ between the cost estimates developed within the Water Quality ( and those developed by the National League of Cities were due m to a different time frame. Many of the cost estimates that came the National League of Cities survey were apparently open-end nature. Some communities reported needs on up to the year 200

The survey form which was transmitted to mayors and local of asked the cost of tertiary treatment but did not address itself to wh tertiary treatment would be required to meet water quality objec

Tertiary treatment costs were reported in a number of cases we have since had discussions with those cities and have been u to identify, for our immediate purposes, the need to install such te treatment within the next 4 years.

The inclusion of storm and combined sewer costs in the Na League of Cities estimate has been noted by many and, unfortu the figures here are made more confusing because the survey for in that study did not differentiate between interceptor sewer storm sewer costs, and combined sewer costs.

In separating out those figure, we attempted to separate the and oranges, so to speak, and we will speak to that point in a m If we take the National League of Cities survey and adju survey to the criteria that has been used by the Water Quality C cooperation with the States and cities, we estimated that th needs addressed by the National League of Cities in July of la amounted to about $11.5 billion.

(The chart follows:)

Mr. DOMINICK. This shows graphically the differences between 1 National League of Cities survey and the Water Quality Office e mates. Again, extrapolating out the ineligible costs which are 1 presently funded under our program, we have estimated that needs represented by the National League of Cities is approximat $11.5 billion.

Going back to our summary, we have estimated the needs to greater than that and we have identified a number of needs which w not identified in the National League of Cities study. For instance, District of Columbia was not identified there as requiring terti treatment. We have made commitments in the District of Columbi install treatment costing at least $350 million. We have found a nun of other cases where such treatment had not been called for and study as of December this year shows a total need of approxima $1.56 million with a Federal share of approximately $6 billion. (The chart follows:)

Summary-Waste Treatment Construction Needs

Bi

Total construction needs, to be committed Dec. 1, 1970 to June 30, 1974 $1 Federal share (estimated at 47.5 percent)__

Total reimbursement balance as of Dec. 1, 1970.

Total Federal fund needs, Dec. 1, 1970 to June 30, 1974

Unobligated Federal funds as of Dec. 1, 1970:

Fiscal year 1970__

Fiscal year 1971..

Total___.

Net Federal fund needs (Dec. 1, 1970 to June 30, 1974) - - -

I think we might discuss, very briefly, the reimbursable qu which has been the subject of intense interest on the part committee.

The origin of the problem of reimbursables came in the Water Restoration Act of 1966, and reimbursable balances, t those balances on projects which had not received full Federal f or less than full Federal funding, started in 1966, by virtue of t that the amounts authorized in previous legislation had not bee appropriated, and many communities had proceeded on their order to achieve the necessary treatment required to clean u

waters.

The Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970 had a te amendment which made it clear that allocation of preallotted for States for reimbursements could be made. Our 1971 Approp Act provided for the allocation of $200 million from the t billion appropriated for States, for reimbursable purposes severe local and basinwide problems as identified by the Admini (The chart follows:)