Senator TUNNEY. I will tell you frankly what worries me about the setup as it now exists. The EPA is going to have responsibility of establishing standards.

It does have that responsibility now, but under this legislation it would have a more sharply defined authority. Yet the funding of the pollution control systems is in another agency. I wonder whether or not it would not be a good idea to have the agency which establishes the standards also be the agency responsible for parceling out the money to make sure they are achieved.

Mr. Howe. You mean within another element of EPA?
Senator TUNNEY. Yes.

Mr. Howe. The grants program would be in EPA as well as the enforcement program; right?

Senator TUNNEY. I am just throwing that out as a question.

Mr. Howe. I tend, by and large, to favor retaining the present authorities of EPA within EPA, the difficulty being the separation of pollution control functions themselves from industry cultivation and development functions and the vigor with which a grant program is handled. The vigor with which the grant program's sponsors will go to the Congress to keep the grant money coming in has a relationship, too, to the enforcement program and process. Enforcement procedures must have some reasonable relationship to the availability of Federal money to fulfill Federal commitments to local waste treatment plant construction.

I feel that a total divorce of these would raise more problems than it would diminish, sir.

Senator TUNNEY. We heard earlier in these hearings from some mayors of cities that had been cited by the agency as polluters. As I recall, Atlanta was one of them, and Detroit was another. Both mayors came before this committee and said there is absolutely no way that they can clean up their effluent in the time period of 180 days.

Mr. Howe. Within the time period in sight

Senator TUNNEY. They said it is absolutely impossible. Let's say 180 days go by and they have not cleaned up their effluent to the standards established be EPA. Then what happens?

Mr. Howe. I can hardly answer you, sir, except to assert my feeling that enforcement action must have some reality in relation to the availability of Federal funds. You could not expect a municipality to proceed without the funds that it has a legitimate share of from Federal program.

Senator TUNNEY. Of course, that is the thing that concerns me. There should probably be a more realistic assessmen of what standards could be lived up to if you had EPA funding the programs.

I think your argument is quite persuasive, in that it might be better to have a separate enforcement agency to keep steam behind Congressmen and Senators to vote more funds for pollution control systems so that the standards can be met.

Mr. Howe. I would like to say, sir, one of the worst things that could possibly happen would be a continuation of the gap between enforcement authorities and expectations of the public for clean up, on the one hand, and inadequate appropriations on the other. The dribble of funds has made a mockery of enforcement. If this were to

continue, and the Congress were to pass some very strong legislation and to authorize funds, and then not have money follow, it would be a very serious setback.

Senator TUNNEY. I could not agree with you more. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.

Senator EAGLETON. Senator Cooper

Senator COOPER. No thank you.

Senator EAGLETON. Thank you, Mr. Howe.

We appreciate your presentation.

Senator EAGLETON. Our concluding witness this morning is Mrs. Donald E. Clusen, environmental quality chairman, League of Women Voters of the United States.

STATEMENT OF MRS. DONALD E. CLUSEN, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY CHAIRMAN, LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF THE UNITED STATES

Mrs. CLUSEN. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

In the interest of time I would like permission to have the full text of the statement inserted in the record and I will summarize briefly the major points we would like to make.

Senator EAGLETON. Your statement in its entirety will be printed in the record, following your oral summary.

Mrs. CLUSEN. In the 6 years since the Water Quality and Clean Water Acts were passed by Congress, my organization has steadily supported the remedies which these two legislative measures applied to the problems of water pollution abatement, but I am sorry to say at this time that we are hearing from our members and the general public that we and they are dissatified with the results and we are convinced there must be major changes in the Federal attack on water pollution.

In essence we find the present program too small, too slow, too weak and too disorganized. We want to see it augmented and strengthened to correct the shortcomings and we are sure, from the bills before the committee, that the members of the committee have the same goal.

We think the Federal program must commit more of the Nation's resources to the fight for water quality, must put those resources to work without delay, must enforce the standards, shorten the time allowed for compliance and develop a more concentrated and systematic attack on the problem.

I would like to speak briefly about the question of money because there has been considerable comment on that in the dialog this morning between the members of the committee and the other witnesses and this is probably the league's primary interest in appearing here this morning-to press for a greater commitment. We have confidence in the principle of Federal help to States to increase their effectiveness in the matter of Federal financial and technical assistance for the construction of treatment plants and interceptor sewers and we certainly want this continued.

We think an effective Federal effort for clean water will require about four major things, a substantial increase in the total Federal dollars invested in the improvement of State programs and municipal facilities, some increase in the Federal share of project cost of treat

ment facilities receiving plants, a much more reliable commitment of Federal financial aid so that States and localities can make definite plans, and user charges levied on all waste treatment in jurisdictions to which Federal funds supplied part of the capital costs of the waste treatment plant. I would like to say that we consider more money for facility construction absolutely essential if setting standards is to have any value.

We have all learned the hard way that standards do not really improve a single stretch of waterway. Money is unfortunately again the crux of the problem. While we have been working for State matching funds, we think the strategy of shared finances for construction of treatment plants and interceptor plants will fail unless there is substantial increases in Federal funding.

We see before this committee proposals of a varying nature from $2 billion a year for 3 years or $2.5 billion a year for 5 years.

We think that this is in no way too much in either case. For 10 years we have seen local governments put off building plants in the hope that next year there would be more but procrastination of this type is not a convincing argument against the construction grant program.

At the same time it is evident that experience with this program over the last 5 years has left local governments, as was indicated in the remarks made here earlier about the plight in which some mayors of large cities find themselves, with the feeling that they have been betrayed.

We know this committee does not control appropriations but we think you must recognize the harm done by promises which cannot be fulfilled and be both realistic in the amount you authorize and be willing to work for appropriations of the full sum.

We think a State's allotment should be increased if the State applies additional funds itself for municipal sewage facility construction. We are glad to see the proposal that 20 percent of the annual appropriations be allotted to States that put up 25 percent of project costs. We think a community which has an unusually severe pollution problem should get a larger percentage of Federal aid and we favor a part of the annual appropriations going directly to such places, whether they are States, cities, interstate or intermunicipal agencies. The basic 30 percent aid which municipalities get is less help than they get for other programs. If the Federal commitment to clean water is serious, the time has come for Federal Government to contribute a larger extent of municipal waste treatment cost without having that increase depend on what the State does.

Again, I would emphasize the need for a more reliable commitment of Federal funding by saying that delays in the construction of facilities comes as much from uncertainty about whether Federal help will be forthcoming as from low percent presently given.

If a State could know now the Federal allotment it will receive. over a longer period such as 4 or 5 years, it could give its municipalities a better idea of what to expect.

We would like to see some less uncertain process than the present one where a State's allotment depends on vagaries of the appropriations process.

I would like to comment briefly on user charges. We think that user charges should be levied on householders, industries, and com

59-068 0-71-pt. 2- 4

mercial establishments that discharge through municipal facilities. We think user charges should be high enough to provide reserves for facility maintenance and replacement.

The levying of user charges throughout the jurisdiction should be a prerequisite for Federal aid for capital cost of treatment facilities. This strategy we think is not employed at present time as extensively and intensively as it could be.

At the Federal level the construction of joint municipal-industrial plants has been encouraged by the grant program. Through joint municipal-industrial treatment, companies benefit from economies of scale and from Federal grants for construction of plants which they are using.

Thus they are able to avoid the large capital outlay they would have to have if they had to construct their own treatment plants. So we support the proposal that each company putting its waste water through M and I plant should pay user charges, its full share of the total cost of construction rather than simply its share of the local commitment as the regulations now require.

In the past we have spoken in support of Federal guarantees for loans to industry and guarantees for repayment of local bond issues, where without such guarantees, the borrowers would not get facility construction funds in the investment market.

The proposed purchase, by a Federal authority, of bonds issued by municipalities which are unable to borrow money at good rates on the open market we think seems a logical arrangement. The difference is in the method and not in the principal involved as far as we are concerned.

We have also had reference this morning to the fact that all of the money allocated in the past is not being spent and the need for reallotment of unused construction moneys. We do think that unused State allotments routed more quickly to States who can use them is highly desirable.

We think the reallotment should come after no longer than 12 months rather than 18 months as it does at the present time.

We think this can be done more speedily if reallotments and part of the original distribution are made directly to State, cities, interstate, and inner-city agencies when the administrator finds that these are more serious problems.

Of course we would like to comment on the desirability of swifter enforcement of standards and schedules. We think the enforcement conference must be replaced by a less cumbersome way of arriving at compliance of schedules.

We would like to see the administrator given the power to issue abatement orders and to do this in a much shorter time than 180 days.

In fact, in the case of hazardous substances, the administrator should be able to do this without delay when there is a threat to health and welfare.

We think the time has come to extend the scope of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act strategy of enforcing standards to all navigable waters, ground waters, contiguous zone parts of the high seas and tributaries to all of these waters.

I would like to comment briefly on the matter of effluent limitations also. From the time standards were first discussed by the committee,

we have found it difficult to see how stream standards could be reached without setting effluent standards and without monitoring the outfalls. We think standards should include effluent limitations as is being proposed and that it should be made clear in the legislation, and in the legislative history that the purpose of setting the regulations for the minimum standards is to protect and improve the public health and welfare, and enhance water quality, not to justify the use of rivers as waste disposal conductors nor to permit degradation.

We would like to see process changes and closed cycle re-use of water emphasized in control techniques to achieve effluent limitations which the bills propose that the administrator develop and publish.

Present penalties for violation of water pollution abatement laws seem unduly light scarcely more than an inconvenience, and certainly not enough to bother financial officers of large corporations.

To demonstrate its seriousness about water pollution, the Federal Government will need to provide much stiffer penalties for those who violate standards.

I will not go now into the matter of citizen involvement because, of course, Mr. Howe and I are basically within the same reference with regard to this and my organization believes as he does that public participation should be built into the development of the revision of the enforcement of standards and that provision should be made for funding the community support programs as has been the experimental case in the air pollution legislation.

We are not in sympathy with those saying citizens should not be able to sue in the courts because of overcrowding nor those who would have the Government preempt the right to take violators to court as is the case at the present time.

We don't want frivolous suits but we think the citizens right to use the courts as a final protection must not be breached.

We are glad to see that the administration and members of the committee are proposing that the conference procedure be abandoned, but we hope that some of the good things about the procedure, such as its public education values, its news value, and so forth, will be retained under the proposed provisions for public hearings.

We think the law should encourage and assist citizen participation and provide more support for citizen education and involvement. There is one other matter never really used that we think might give a tremendous lift to the whole program.

This is the matter of the systematic attack which has been touched on to some degree today. We have raised the question of what could be accomplished if all the possibilities in all of the Federal programs were utilized on the same river or the same river basin.

If EPA strategy were to achieve maximum improvement in one place using every tactic at their disposal, would people be able to see a change?

We think this would have a great value. If Lake Erie got better, if we could stop saying Lake Erie is dead or dying, if people could hear every week that some step forward has been made, we think there would be enormous support for the water quality program, including funding.

Under the present method, where effort is scattered like buckshot, it is difficult to show that anything has happened and this is frustrating to our system.