I would like to ask first whether those percentages relate to the billion that the administration proposes in new authorization and al whether the percentages relate to the $6 billion plus $1.26 billion unallocated funds which your charts indicate you are counting on meet the needs?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Mr. Chairman the allocation formula wo apply to the $6 billion figure. As to the $1.26 billion figure, of cour some of that money has already been allocated to the States. It v become eligible for reallocation, a portion of it in May of this ye another portion at the end of June of this year.

We have, as Mr. Dominick mentioned at the end of his testimo developed regulations for the reallocation of these moneys that become available this year and also for the discretionary money, million, which was a part of the $1 million figure appropriated fiscal year 1971.

Senator MUSKIE. Translating those percentages to dollars th 45 percent on the basis of population means $2.7 billion. Is t correct?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. I haven't done that but I assume that is rig Mr. Chairman.

Senator MUSKIE. Twenty percent to the States that provide a quate matching means $1.2 billion, 25 percent on the basis of o standing reimbursables means $1.5 billion, and 10 percent on basis of severity of the pollution problem means $100 million.

The $1.2 billion now unallocated I think can be used in part reimbursables, but the $1.5 billion figure which I have just u would be in excess of what is needed to meet the reimbursab wouldn't it?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. That reimbursable figure was as of Decem of last year and it may well be higher at this point and it may higher by the time this bill is finally enacted. And the billion also o for up to 20 percent for reimbursables so that if reimbursable fig were not that high, it could be that we could allocate it on the b of the remainder.

Senator MUSKIE. This leads to the question I was going to ask Is there provision in the bill for shifting funds that are unnecess in one of these four categories to another category?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. I think the provision, Mr. Chairman, w relate to the discretionary fund. It would be put into the discretion fund, if I read that section correctly.

Senator MUSKIE. For example, if you don't need $1.5 billion reimbursables, is there provision to use it for some other purpose Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. It is the intention of the bill to allow tha be put in the discretionary fund. I don't know that it spells it ou clearly as it might.

Senator MUSKIE. But in any case, as you developed these centages you estimated $1.5 billion for reimbursables. This w mean $4.5 billion in all for new projects.

Let me put that in the form of a question: Does that mean estimated $4.5 billion in new projects? I am not sure what your an would be.

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. I am not sure I understand the ques Mr. Chairman.

Senator MUSKIE. Using the percentages that you have set out here and applying them to the $6 billion, 25 percent allocated for reimbursables comes to $1.5 billion.

My question is whether that means the difference between $1.5 billion and $6 billion represents what would be provided for new projects?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Yes. It may not be new projects. It may be that there is an ongoing project that will become eligible for Federal matching funds as construction takes place which we do not carry in ir reimbursable category because it is not ahead of the Federal matching, but it would certainly be $4.5 billion would be eligible for those projects not covered under the reimbursable provisions of the 1965 act.

Senator MUSKIE. How does $4.5 billion relate to the $12 billion in Deeds?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. The $12 billion in needs includes the reimbursable projects.

Senator MUSKIE. Are you estimating, then, that in addition to the present backlog of $1.4 billion in reimbursables there will be another $1.5 billion?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. No; it is the same figure, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MUSKIE. I have a feeling that I am going around in a rcle. Let me get off.

When I started out, I asked you if the percentages here applied to the $6 billion or to the $6 billion plus $1.2 billion of unallocated funds. You said the percentages applied to the $6 billion. That being so

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. The whole $1.2 billion is not going to go into reimbursables, Mr. Chairman; $1.2 billion-we expect to have in the neighborhood of a half billion dollars left for reallocation in May and June of this year. That includes $200 million discretionary funds.

Senator MUSKIE. Let me put it this way. Let's start with the $7.3 billion figure.

Now, of that, there is $1.46 billion in reimbursables now outstanding or potential.

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. That is right.

Senator MUSKIE. Subtracting the $2, gives us something like $5.8 billion which is available for new projects. Is that right?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Subtracting that from

Senator MUSKIE. If you add $1.26 billion that is on hand, unbligated appropriations in your words, plus $6 billion in new authorizations, you get $7.26 billion. You have reimbursables of $1.46 billion. That leaves a balance of $5.8 billion available for new projects. Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. That is correct.

Senator MUSKIE. And that relates to the $12-plus billion of needs. Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. That is correct.

Senator MUSKIE. Does that come out to 47.5 percent?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Well, that isn't where we get the 47.5 percent Egure.

Senator MUSKIE. I know it isn't. That is why I asked the question. Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. The 47.5 figure is the present Federal share. Senator MUSKIE. On the last page of the chart at the end of your testimony (See p. 34), you said the Federal share of the total construc

tion needs up until June 30, 1974, at 47.5 percent of the needs com to $5.97 billion

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Well

Senator MUSKIE (continuing). I would like to have a reconciliat of those figures, but I don't want to take a long time now to do Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. I must say that I am thoroughly confus Senator MUSKIE. Sometimes figures put together backward do say the same thing as figures put together frontward. But let me you what I was really trying to lead up to.

What I am trying to establish is the relationship between th percentages, the allocation formula, and the actual needs. I do pretend to understand at this point how the $33 billion to $37 bill that the U.S. Conference of Mayors estimated as the needs, shrank $12.5 billion. That is something I am going to have to dig into. Th are some questions I would like to ask to help me in the proces don't expect we are going to see it fully explained in this morni hearing. We are going to have to pursue it. Your analysis on the in vidual needs indicates in general, what you did to shrink $33 and billion to $12.5 billion. What I would like to ask about the $1 billion is this: When this investment is made, will we take care of backlog of unmet needs for treatment of sewage from munic waste for the entire country? Is that what it means?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. The answer to that is yes, Mr. Chairma your question refers to the reimbursables that we owe as of this d we will cover all of those unmet needs for reimbursement plus needs for sewage treatment as best we can determine them from analysis presented by Mr. Dominick.

Senator MUSKIE. No; that doesn't get to my question.

If we accept $12.5 billion as a target, for example, you have el nated tertiary treatment from your estimate.

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. There is a different time frame, also.
Senator MUSKIE. That is what I am getting at.

Now, if we take secondary treatment as the standard-and I it only for the purposes of this hypothesis-will the $12.5 bi provide secondary treatment not only for 80 percent of the popula that is sewered at the present time but also for the other 20 pers and will it do so in a 3-year time frame?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Yes.

Mr. DOMINICK. Yes, Mr. Chairman; the answer is yes. Our estimate is that the commitment of $12.56 billion within the frame between now and end of fiscal year 1974, will meet the w quality standards and other regulatory requirements that have identified. That will include some tertiary treatment principall the Great Lakes and here in Washington, D.C.

Senator MUSKIE. What will be New York State's share of th billion of Federal money available for that purpose?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. We have a State-by-State breakdown of share, Mr. Chairman, which we would be glad to submit to committee.

Senator MUSKIE. Do you have it here?

Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Yes; we do.

Mr. DOMINICK. The identification of needs for New York has been presented to us thus far shows $1.721 billion of constru needs out of $1.256 billion.

Senator MUSKIE. New York qualifies, I take it, for the full 55 percent?

Mr. DOMINICK. In most instances; yes, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. At least New York qualifies for 50 percent in all

cases.

Mr. DOMINICK. That is correct.

Senator MUSKIE. And an additional 5 percent in most cases.

Mr. DOMINICK. That is correct.

Senator MUSKIE. So, of the $1.7 billion of need, New York would receive about $900 million of the $6 billion authorized for the whole country?

Mr. DOMINICK. Yes, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. With respect to States that do not yet qualify for the 50 percent, does the $6 billion make provision for them in the event they should come into the program? Those States now qualified for 30-percent Federal funding, if they should qualify for the full 50percent Federal funding, would the $6 billion provide for them?

Mr. DOMINICK. We have attempted to project the number of States which will become eligible for increased Federal funding, namely, those States that have matching programs, and that projection has led us to the 47.5 percent.

Senator MUSKIE. I thought 47.5 percent was your present experience. Mr. DOMINICK. That is what we would project for the next 3 years. Senator MUSKIE. Then it is not the present experience?

Mr. DOMINICK. The present experience is somewhat less than that. Senator MUSKIE. Do you have that percentage?

Mr. DOMINICK. We don't have that here today.

(Mr. Dominick later supplied the following:)

The fiscal year 1972 State-by-State allocation under proposed $2 billion appropriation is based upon the proposed revised allocation formula and is explained in the exhibit 2. Proposed allocations for fiscal year 1973 and fiscal year 1974 (including a total of $4 billion) cannot be shown at this time because they depend upon the number of States with matching grant programs and the amounts of reimbursement balances not yet satisfied.

Estimated State allocations for fiscal year 1972 based on a proposed appropriation of $2 billion and a proposed revised allocation formula:1

1 Proposed revised allocation formula: 45%-to all States based on population of each State to total population. 20%-to States with matching grant programs on basis of relative populatio matching grant States.

25% to States with reimbursable grant needs based on each State's total bursable amount to total reimbursable amount of all States.

10% discretionary funds to be allocated by administrator to meet serious v pollution control problems.

10% or $200 million discretionary funds excluded from total.

Senator MUSKIE. How many States do now participate?

Mr. DOMINICK. We have 31 States that have matching progr on the books. All but a few of those States are now funding t programs. We have a list of those and could make those availab you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MuSKIE. We would like to have it.

(The information subsequently supplied follows:)

As of April 14, 1971, 31 States have a matching grant prog including: