All of these States have provided matching funds through such means as appropriations and bond issues. Senator MUSKIE. What percentage of the population of the country resides in the 31 States which participate? Mr. DOMINICK. We will make that available to you. Senator MUSKIE. We will put that in the record. (The information later furnished follows:) Using the 1970 population figures (see attached table), the popula. tion of the 31 matching grant States accounts for nearly 72 percent of the total population included in the 50 States and four territories. 3, 444, 165 302, 173 1, 772, 482 1,923, 295 19, 953, 134 2, 207, 259 3,032, 217 548, 104 756, 510 6, 789, 443 4, 589, 575 769, 913 713, 008 11, 113, 976 5, 193, 669 2,825, 041 2, 249, 071 3, 219, 311 3, 643, 180 993, 663 3, 922, 399 5, 689, 170 8,875, 083 3,805, 069 2, 216, 912 4, 677, 399 694, 409 1, 483, 791 488, 738 737, 681 7, 168, 164 1,016, 000 206, 024, Total_____ Mr. DOMINICK. The 31 States are, by and large, the larger popula States in the country. Senator MUSKIE. If we could get that population figure, we wo like to have it. Did you assume that some States would never part pate? Mr. DOMINICK. We have only been able to make a best gu Some States have made no move whatsoever to institute a match program. We have shown here that there are 31 States that ha matching program. There are six States in which programs are pending before their legislatures-Montana, Nebraska, Kansas, O homa and Texas. We have four jurisdictions on which we d foresee any action in the immediate future. Senator MUSKIE. I have used more than my time. I apologize. Senator COOPER. Go ahead, Mr. Chairman. Senator MUSKIE. Thank you, Senator Cooper. Do you exp therefore, Mr. Ruckelshaus, that after the 3-year period provide the administration bill, there will be no backlog requiring any fur Federal participation? Mr. RUCKELSHAUS. Mr. Chairman, we can't say that because reason for the 3-year program is because of the volatility of this w area. We felt that to project any further than 3 years, we would re be getting into speculation. So, what we are saying is that the estimate we can get right now is that this is what the need will b the next 3 years. We think this really will bring a lot of the comm ties in the country up to secondary treatment and with the sufficiency provisions in the bill, we may well get them going to point where they can start to fund their own needs into the fu but we cannot make a statement here that this will take care of local problem nationwide for the foreseeable future. Senator MUSKIE. Well, I really put the question as to the bac I understand for the foreseeable future you cannot expect it, a think all of us have been aiming at the backlog. In explaining the difference between your estimate and the mayors' estimates, one of the factors that you identified was the time frame. That suggested to me that your bill is not addressed to the total backlog but to that part of the backlog that you thought you could deal with in 3 years. That is why I put that question to Mr. Dominick. My bill has a 5-year time frame, and the mayors' estimate has a 5-year time frame. It is important to know whether we are talking about the same size problem. In analyzing the difference between your needs estimate and the mayors' needs estimate, you didn't identify how much of the difference was related to time frame. Do you have such a figure? Mr. DOMINICK. We would be able to give a tentative figure with some work and we will make it available to the committee on what projections could be made beyond fiscal 1974, but, as you know, the administration is committed to a total reevaluation of these needs in 1973 and we feel that this is the tightest and the most logical and realistic time frame in which we can make estimates. So, we certainly will be happy to go beyond that time frame and see what may be required. (Subsequently, the following was supplied:) The NLC/USCM report which appeared in the Congressional Record of July 8, 1970, covered a 6-year period, 1970 through 1976. The Water Quality Office data covered a period of 4 years, 1970 through 1974. Some communities reported needs for a much longer period for the NLC/USCM report. Our studies have indicated that the $6 billion of Federal funds through fiscal year 1974 will take care of all identified problems on which construction can be instituted before the end of fiscal year 1974. During this same period, Senator Muskie's bill, S. 1143, provides for $7.5 billion of Federal funds. This is a difference of $1.5 billion which we feel cannot be effectively utilized. Senator MUSKIE. Let me put a question that I put to you before in a little different way. Will the $12.5 billion take care of all of the present problems? Mr. DOMINICK. We believe that the $12.5 billion will take care of all of the identified problems on which construction can be instituted before the end of fiscal 1974. Senator MUSKIE. That is a slightly different answer, isn't it, than the one you gave to me before? Mr. DOMINICK. I think we have to take into account, Mr. Chairman, the practicality of getting all of these works under construction, funded. Senator MUSKIE. I understand, and that is why we prepared a 5-year time frame, anticipating that as time went forward, the present needs now unidentified and estimated would crop up. There is a difference. What you have tried to do is to estimate what is required to those needs that have been identified, and as to which estimates have been made. Mr. DOMINICK. That is correct. Senator MUSKIE. As to those, have you made your own independent estimate as to their validity and accuracy? Mr. DOMINICK. We have made that estimate by going to the States and going to the cities and asking what are the water quality trea ment needs that they can identify and when those needs will be m in order to meet water quality standards, in order to meet enforcemen conference recommendations, in order to meet State requiremen on intrastate streams. Senator MUSKIE. In the record of the hearing before this subcon mittee last August, the mayors' report is found. Would it be possible for you to take the detail of that report a indicate to the subcommittee the changes that you made of the es mates from the various cities and States covered by the report? Mr. DOMINICK. Yes; we can do that, and do that very rapidly you, Mr. Chairman. Senator MUSKIE. For instance, you gave a figure in your book $1.7 billion for New York State. The mayors' needs were $4 bill for New York State. Can you reconcile those two figures? Mr. DOMINICK. We will do that. Senator MUSKIE. New York City is estimated-well, if I st going into the details here, we are going to be a long time. If you will do that, we may have a basis for further questi and I think it would be better to wait until you give it to us be we raise those kinds of questions. (Mr. Dominick later provided the following:) The differences in the needs estimates can best be explained breaking down the needs estimate into the July and December W components. NLC VS. WQO: JULY ESTIMATES There are differences in attempting to compare the results at NLC/USCM study as reported in the July 8, 1970, Congressi Record with similar data in WQO files. The differences can be at uted to the following factors: 1. General Time Frame: The NLC/USCM report covered 6 y 1970 through 1976; whereas, WQO data covered 1970 through 2. Sources: a. The NLC/USCM report drew upon information obtained b National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, an some extent, the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies erally through a brief questionnaire sent to the cities. b. WQO derives its data from information obtained regularly State agencies. During the July and December 1970 assessments tain larger cities were also contacted directly. 3. Scope: The NLC/USCM report included storm sewer needs ently ineligible for WQO construction grant funds. Separatin these costs is difficult as the NLC/USČM data combines ine storm sewer needs with eligible interceptor sewer needs. 4. Definition: Many communities reporting primary and seco treatment needs in the NLC/USCM survey showed costs of a planned facility which included required interceptors; others rated interceptor costs as was intended in the survey. 5. Coverage: The NLC/USCM report has a large city_bias. calculations indicate the average population served per WQO is 38,000 compared to estimate of 89,000 per project in the USCM report. 6. Project Time Frame: In a number of instances, the NLC/USCM report included construction costs beyond 1976. It is difficult to prorate these costs within the 1970-76 reporting period. 7. Tertiary treatment needs: The question posed in the NLC/USCM survey was: "If you were required by some regulatory agency to provide tertiary treatment, what would your needs be?" The question does not seek an answer which is necessarily related to plans for installing tertiary treatment facilities by 1976 to meet water quality standards. In addition, no guidelines were stated for defining tertiary treatment. 8. Duplication: A review of the NLC/USCM data indicates that some communities were listed separately when, in fact, treatment for them will be accomplished through a regional system. 9. General comments: a. The primary and secondary treatment needs shown for many communities were within the range in which general agreement exists. As table 1 indicates, in the July 1970 comparison, estimates of 93 of the 1,008 NLC/USCM projects differed from WQO needs estimates by more than 50 percent. These 93 projects accounted for $1.25 billion or about 60 percent of the total difference between the two needs estimates. In December, 115 projects differed by 50 percent or more, and these accounted for $2.18 billion or 58 percent of the total difference. However, in some of the large metropolitan areas, the costs appear to be high. The high costs shown for the full combination facility (tertiary treatment plant, interceptor and storm sewers) might be more in order if the time frame was 10 to 20 years instead of 6. b. The average cost per project according to the NLC/USCM report is almost $20 million ($19.7 billion for 1,008 cities). This compared with an average cost of $1.2 million for 10,000 projects assisted by WQO since 1956 appears to be inordinately high. It is assumed that the NLC/USCM figures include a substantial amount of storm sewers, which are currently ineligible under the WQO construction grants program, as well as tertiary treatment needs in excess of foreseeable Federal and State water quality requirements. c. The ratio of interceptor sewer costs to plant costs for cities with populations of 50,000–100,000 have been found by WQO experience to be approximately 1.5:1. Applying this ratio to these communities (which listed costs for both plants and interceptor storm sewers) tends to indicate further that the greater part of many of the sewer costs in the NLC/USCM survey were for storm sewers, rather than for interceptors. NLC VS. WQO: DECEMBER ESTIMATES In December 1970, WQO conducted another assessment of the construction needs for sewage treatment works. The assessment, timed to coincide with the preparation of the administration's new legislative and authorization proposals, was confined to cities whose construction needs totaled $5 million or more. The total costs of these projects represented approximately 75 percent of the total construction cost of all projects in the WQO pending needs file. Therefore, by validating 75 percent of the costs, considerable confidence could be placed in the total needs figure. Four hundred and nineteen cities-having nearly 1,000 projectswere contacted directly to ascertain the cost of planned and/or |