health? Or, to put it another way, is not the human being or the human body, the human anatomy, better able to thwart, or resist the hazards of water pollution than other organisms such as fish? Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, if you take my very broad definition of public health and well-being of people, we, of necessity, must also consider the total ecology that surrounds what man has to live with and do with. Certainly, there will be situations in which the protection of other living things in the environment require more stringent standards than perhaps the human health effects, but I would say and say very strongly that we do not know what is really required in terms of our living environment to protect the human health at this time. We do not know this simply because we have not addressed ourselves to the problem. There are many new kinds of insult and impacts on the environment that have both short- and long-term effects that have not been investigated and indeed might dictate more stringent requirements than are now contemplated in terms of either our air or water or our land environment. I would say that, in many respects, the indirect human health benefits for more stringent requirements for other living organisms are not to be discounted. The harvesting of fish, for instance. Fish is a very important item in a nation where the nutrition has been suspect. We would not want to do something that would suggest that we can discount this kind of a problem as not being consequential to human health. I think it is very much tied into our human health needs. There are others. Recreation. Mental health is very much tied into recreational pursuits. And the requirements may be more stringent for recreational purposes than direct cause or relationships between health and well-being. Senator EAGLETON. Let me ask this one final question. Do you have any observations, and I am posing this in a general way, on how basic water quality research has been carried out in the past? Has it been effective when it has been carried out, or has it been worthless? What is your general summarization of efforts in water quality research to date? Mr. JOHNSON. Having been in this area for over 25 years, having administered the water hygiene program for the last 22 years, I would be the first to say that (1) I do not necessarily believe that the water research effort has been carried out at its most efficient and effective manner. I would say further that neither has there been the kind of support either in terms of manpower or budgets that are required to do the job in the way that it ought to be done. I think there is much that can be done, that needs to be done, that must be done, if you are really going to develop meaningful water quality standards in terms of protecting fish, people or any other thing in our water environment. Senator EAGLETON. Senator Bentsen? Senator BENTSEN. I would like to congratulate Mr. Johnson on his thoughtful statement and I think it makes a contribution. Have you given a thought to the level of appropriations that you think would be feasible for this type of research? Mr. JOHNSON. Yes, sir; I have. I would not like to say that these would be final. I think a great deal more needs to go into the kind of system that you set up and the kinds of priorities that you set in this area. I do believe that we are talking in an area of $30 million to $40 million to begin to do the kind of program job that would really support the expenditure somewhere between $12 billion and $25 billion. I think that we are talking about a quality control on a product, and I think that we ought to put this in the neighborhood of 3 to 5 percent of the cost of developing the product. When we do this, then we can maybe assure the American public that they are getting what they are paying for. I defy anyone at this point in time to say that what we are doing is really sufficient and is going to do something for us, but what is it going to do? I don't know and I don't think the committee knows and I don't think that the public knows. Senator EAGLETON. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. I, too, have voiced the sentiments of Senator Bentsen. Your statement is helpful. Mr. JOHNSON. I thank you again for allowing me to appear. Senator EAGLETON. That concludes the hearings this morning. Further hearings will be held tomorrow in this room at 10 a.m. (Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of the Committee on Public Works recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, March 18, 1971.) (Appendix for this day, March 17, follows.) APPENDIX-MARCH 17 Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE, ASSOCIATION OF STATE AND INTERSTATE Chairman, Senate Public Works Committee, DEAR SIR: A growing problem has been called to the attention of the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators. This problem is directly identifiable with the matter of securing Federal grants under the conditions of the Water Pollution Control Act as amended and the procedure presently existing for securing these funds. At the present time, it is necessary that the local agency, having responsibility for the construction of the Sewage Treatment Plants, put up the entire amount of funds necessary for construction of the plant and subsequently be reimbursed from the Federal Government after construction has commenced and has progressed. This poses an extreme hardship on the agency responsible fo rconstruction because in many instances it requires extensive bond issues and other funding devices in order to put up the Federal Share of the contract cost so that bids can be taken and a contract can be awarded. A more suitable and far more desirable arrangement would be to have a procedure established wherein the Federal funds could be made available to the responsible agency at the time that the contracts are advertised and subsequently awarded. This procedure would eliminate the need for "over" bond or to impose additional “interest charges" in order to provide for the Federal Government's share of this construction work. We believe that the Senate Public Works Committee should review this matter and determine if such an arrangement is possible without additional legislation and request the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to effect such a procedure. If it is necessary for additional legislation to be enacted in order to carry out such procedure, we feel it would be in the public's interest to have such legislation adopted as quickly as possible so that the funds can be made available in time for early construction. Yours very truly, ROBERT A. LAFLEUR, President, Association of State and Interstate NEW ENGLAND INTERSTATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION, Senator EDMUND S. MUSKIE, DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: I have been asked by Mr. Robert A. Lafleur, President of the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators to review legislation presently under consideration by your committee and to submit comments reflecting the views of the administrators. Unfortunately, the legislative documents were received at a late date and the committee hearing schedule did not allow adequate time for the review of this complex and far-reaching legislation. We are, however, submitting our views and would like to reserve the opportunity of submitting further comments at a later date. The Association supports the following provisions of S. 523 : 1. Periodic revisions of standards. Such periodic revisions are highly desirable to enable pollution control officials to keep abreast of developing and improved technology as related to stream use. 59-068 0-71-pt. 1-38 2. Expanded federal support. The question of adequate federal aid has been much discussed. The higher level of grant assistance proposed in S. 523 should substantially accelerate the level of construction of waste treatment facilities. Reallocation of unused funds after six months should also increase the number of construction starts in those states that are ready to proceed but lack financial assistance. 3. Regulation of ocean uses. The nature and volume of interstate commerce and international traffic on the seas essentially mandates that the Federal Government exercise jurisdiction over ocean waters. 4. Violation penalties. State officials generally concur that penalties for violations of water quality standards should be substantial so as to make it economic ally unfeasible to continue to pollute. 5. Change in enforcement conference procedure. Administrators concur that the enforcement conference procedure should be changed. The initial hearing concept proposed in S. 523 should expedite pollution abatement where legal action is required. The proposed legislation should provide for joint state-federal sponsorship of enforcement hearings. Such a proviso would contribute much to improved state-federal relations and would offer the public an example of cooperative allout pollution abatement efforts. Past enforcement activities have too often resulted in unilateral actions which contributed to a serious breakdown in statefederal relations. 6. Treatment plant operation. The legislation as proposed does not provide incentives for optimum operation of waste treatment facilities. It is recommended that some form of grant mechanism be incorporated in the bill to make operation and maintenance grants to municipalities whose treatment facilities achieve specific levels of efficiency. The adoption of requirements that treatment plants be staffed by trained and certified operators is also recommended. The Association opposes those sections of the proposed legislation which bypass state authority and control. The Declaration of Policy of Public Law 660 addresses itself to the recognition, preservation and protection of the primary responsibilities and rights of the states in preventing and controlling water pollution. Many sections of the proposed legislation authorize unilateral action by the Administrator to the complete exclusion of state consideration. The Association is strongly opposed to such sections. The provisions that program grant funds may be curtailed at any time by the Administrator jeopardizes the entire pollution abatement structure of state and interstate agencies. Due process of court appeal in the event of curtailment of program grant funds could result in extensive delays and a complete cessation of pollution abatement activity by the agency concerned. It is recommended that remedial measures be considered as part of the subsequent program plan approval. The establishment of effluent standards as relates to the establishment of numbers for specific waste constituents is not favorably considered. In general, the requirement of secondary treatment could be interpreted as an effluent standard in that a percentage of solids and BOD removal is specified. Some states have indicated that experience with broader effluent standards have not proven particularly successful. From the language of section 10 of S. 523, one could anticipate that presently approved water quality standards would be nullified due to the absence of such requirements as effluent standards. Such action would create confusion and would undoubtedly contribute to delays in water pollution abatement. It should be noted that after two and one-half years of effort not all state standards have received federal approval. There is no reason to believe that a new round of approvals would be any different. All administrators subscribe to the concept of anti-degradation; however, such action should remain a state responsibility. Many state-federal agreements on anti-degradation have been finalized and these should be allowed to stand. Although the above comments are general in nature, they do reflect the concern of state and interstate administrators relative to pollution abatement programs. To supplement the above comments, I am enclosing a letter received from the State of Indiana which addresses itself to specific sections of the proposed legislation. We would appreciate having the letter considered a part of the Association's comments to the subcommittee. On behalf of the Association, may we express our appreciation for the opportunity of submitting comments on pending legislation. Sincerely, ALFRED E. PELOQUIN, Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE, STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL Board, Chairman, Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: The California State Water Resources Control Board and the California Department of Water Resources have given careful consideration to S. 523, S. 1011 and S. 1015. During the time of our consideration, the Corps of Engineers has begun to implement the procedure under the Refuse Act of 1899. The proposed legislation and this permit procedure threaten to reverse by bureaucratic confusion what have been the recent significant strides toward clean water. California believes that there is an appropriate role for the federal government in the field of enforcement and regulation particularly when states do not have adequate programs or in individual cases where states have not insisted on compliance with standards or requirements. The attached statement outlines a constructive program for a strong, coordinated state-federal effort in the field of water quality control. It allows flexibility of judgment on the part of federal agencies and yet assures that effective state programs will not be duplicated. In a related, but important, matter, I urge you to consider in this year's water quality control legislation a transfer of the responsibility for administering the Refuse Act of 1899 to the Environmental Protection Agency so that program can be dovetailed with the matters referred to in legislation you are now considering. As one example, the City of Los Angeles has an effective detailed program regulating industrial waste discharge to its storm drainage system. Our state program reviews each of these regulations for appropriateness and issues a separate state authenticating document. This program, which could be described as duplicatory, is now to be augmented by a third level of permit by the Corps of Engineers. Corps procedures do not allow for acceptance of state documents even though they may be adequate. We are proud of California's record in pollution control, and we have cleaned up San Diego Bay and Los Angeles Harbor and are on the way toward elimination of pollution from San Francisco Bay, which has been markedly improved in recent years. Our enforcement record of the last two years speaks for itself. We are in full support of efforts to provide more effective water pollution control and greater assistance, both for program and construction grants. Sincerely, Enclosures: (20). KERRY W. MULLIGAN, Chairman. STATEMENT ON PROPOSED FEDERAL LEGISLATION ON WATER POLLUTION CONTROL1 Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: This statement is presented by the California State Water Resources Control Board and the California Department of Water Resources. We appreciate the opportunity to express our views on the important legislative proposals on water pollution control which are now before this subcommittee." Section 1 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act declares the policy of Congress to recognize primary responsibility of the states to prevent and control pollution and to provide federal technical assistance and financial aid. None of the pending bills expressly amend Section 1, but they have the cumulative effect of piecemeal preemption of state law and responsibility in several important areas of water pollution control. California recognizes that there may be portions of the country where pollution control programs are inadequate, however, we feel that it is imperative that those states which do have strong and effective programs not be restrained in their efforts by federal pre-emption. California's vigorous and accelerating program is resulting in many positive effects throughout the state and should be expanded not duplicated. California recognizes that there is a need to amend the FWPC Act, to make it more readily enforceable in portions of the United States where state laws are ineffective or are not enforced. The pending bills, however, make no allowance for states with effective programs, but would stifle such programs with federal Presented before the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of the Senate Committee on Public Works, Washington, D.C., April, 1971. * S. 523 and S. 1011 to S. 1015, inclusive. |