burden the Committee with the details of this measure except to note that it will be under the Secretary of the Treasury, have a specific Board of Directors, function in an effort to finance the non-Federal share for the individual community and even though the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency must certify that the community cannot obtain funds on a reasonable basis, before such community is eligible under the Environmental Financing Act of 1971, it occurs to us that this is an elaborate, ponderous effort which might better be achieved by a formula change, or a forgiveness period for the states' share for a period of time, or a direct offering of Federal loans rather than the establishment of a new authority.

Part of our difficulties at the present time is due to the great variety of programs and, in part, overlapping responsibilities of existing Federal agencies. The monies for the establishment of sewage systems are essentially under the Department of H.U.D.

From every evidence there is, cooperation between EPA and HUD, especially in terms of guidelines for river basin analyses and development, there nevertheless is a complex determination of authority and there is always the chance that present rapport is the result of individuals and not necessarily inherent in the statutes or in the agencies per se.

Additionally, the resurrection of the Refuse Act of 1899 was seized upon by many as a ray of hope to effect environmental action that many did not feel was embraced by any on-going program.

The fact must be faced, however, that this action is the responsibility of the Corps of Engineers and while this may be cheered in some circles as giving the Corps other things to do than build dams, it is hardly the best of all possible worlds in administering a program that has become highly integrated and complex. Those of us who admire and appreciate the restraint and simple language of the Refuse Act are also aware of the fact that it was a measure created in the 19th Century, and while we would be upset at undue tampering with such an incisive directive, the administration of the measure by the Corps must present problems for both the Corps and EPA.

At the outset it was indicated that we could not hope to duplicate the efforts of the agency or this committee in the completeness of our analyses. We have not commented, though we heartily approve, on the limitation of hazardous substances, the extension of enforcement to intrastate waters, the establishment of specific effluent administration standards, and other areas of concern that are of major importance.

It is our general attitude that the proposals of the administration and those recommended by the Chairman of the subcommittee are not widely divergent but for the most part seek solutions essentially in the same general areas.

As always, we are flattered at the opportunity to offer our views before this distinguished committee and we hope that we have been helpful.

If there is any specific undertaking which would benefit the subcommittee, we would, of course, be happy to comply within our capabilities. Senator EAGLETON. Our final witness is Mr. Clapper.

STATEMENT OF LOUIS S. CLAPPER, DIRECTOR OF CONSERVATION, NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.

Mr. CLAPPER. I am Louis Clapper, and my organization is described in the statement.

We are pleased, Mr. Chairman, to note that this committee is considering this comprehensive legislation and we think it is particularly appropriate in view of the fact that several grants authorizations are expiring and that EPA has just been created.

We would like to extend our congratulations to the subcommittee for its fine nonpartisan approach to these problems. To those interested in water pollution control, this has been one of the fine things throughout the years.

We are especially heartened to note that the subcommittee proposal and administration proposals are pretty close together, as pointed out

by the chairman in his opening statement earlier this week, and we hope these agreements can result in early approval by both the Senate and House of legislation which is urgently needed.

We consider this one of the top priority items among many items of business facing this Congress. We have long considered water pollution to be one of the primary objectives of our organization from the very beginning of our existence, and even this year we adopted resolutions which related to this topic.

This year, we stated our belief that the Federal Government must take an increasingly significant role in control of water pollution through greater grants for construction of municipal waste treatment plants, to strengthen enforcement of laws preventing contamination of navigable waters, and research designed to enhance the quality of American waters.

While it would be difficult to say more than one phase of the hearings is more important than another, I shall try to concentrate perhaps a bit on the law enforcement section and things of special interest to

us.

We believe that vigorous and impartial law enforcement will be necessary in both the existing water quality standards and for those which would be promulgated under provisions of this new legislation, as well as the particular and specific requirements when effluent regulations are established.

In this connection, it is our opinion that law enforcement thus far has been weak and ineffectual, due at least in part to cumbersome procedures which make it difficult to bring violators in compliance. The procedures are so difficult that we have enforced general concepts of the permit system set out in the Refuse Act of 1899 on the assumption these will be vigorously and effectively applied.

As we understand it, S. 523 would apply basic enforcement law procedures of the Clean Air Act amendments of 1970 to water pollution control. It would add a new section 11 to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Under this bill, the Federal Government would be authorized to enter any situation when the State enforcement appears to be inadequate.

The Administrator of EPA would be authorized to bring civil action if necessary and this is built upon water quality standards and comments that we made earlier in our statement.

The Administrator could act to enforce compliance with standards. either through court action or by abatement order which would be followed by court action. Severe financial penalties and imprisonment would be provided for first and subsequent offenses.

S. 523 would retain present law enforcement procedures only for international situations.

We are pleased that S. 1014 would make a somewhat similar approach but also adopting a strengthened enforcement framework.

The Administrator would be authorized to ask the Attorney General to bring enforcement action directly or he could issue abatement orders. In the latter case, the admiinstrative procedure appears to be somewhat complex and confusing with respect to hearings and onthe-record determinations. We like the procedure under S. 532 whereby the Administrator of EPA could take legal action with his own legal staff rather than invoking the Attorney General as under S. 1014.

S. 1014 establishes civil penalty fines comparable to those in S. 523. We note with interest that under the administration bill, the Administrator would be authorized to impose fines up to $25,000 per day for violations of administrative procedures, a provision not covered in S.523.

Most certainly we believe that anything that can be accomplished through administrative procedures rather than require court action would be helpful for gaining sufficient water control enforcement.

We also know that water pollution control programs have been handicapped by inability to secure adequate data concerning pollution. Therefore, we hope and trust that ÉPA will be given broad authority to obtain this information, including power to subpena witnesses and records.

We think this is one of the advantages of the Refuse Act permit system to require information on discharges.

The federation also is pleased that both of these bills would allow citizens to bring action to enforce requirements of the act.

We recently have initiated the employment of a legal staff for resources defense and we hope to be able to move more rapidly in this direction in the future.

With respect to hazardous substances, we like the provision in S. 523 which provides that discharge of any substance designated as hazardous is prohibited.

S. 1014 calls for limitations of dischargers even though it deals with possibly a broader spectrum of hazardous substances.

I would like to attach a copy of a resolution adopted at the annual convention of our organization held in Oregon earlier this month.

To conclude, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that the federation believes the maximum authorization of $22 billion per year for 5 years provided in S. 523 should be recommended by the committee, and we realize from our efforts with the "Citizens Crusade for Clean Water" how difficult it may be to get this amount appropriated.

However, we think that these two proposals by the administration and by the subcommittee in S. 523 are not nearly as far apart as they would seem to be with relation to the amounts of needs upon which these are predicated.

I would like to make one final comment about one proposal or one aspect of the administration proposal whereby it recommends a plan for "self-sufficiency" on the part of local communities. We believe that a community should have the ability to manage and to pay for operation, maintenance, and replacement of its waste treatment facilities and to meet any future needs it may have.

We also believe that all communities should operate as a utility with each user paying a fair share of the cost. This includes industry which uses municipal systems as well as individuals.

It has always been our opinion that industries and individual homeowners should be assessed for waste treatment facilities in the same manner they pay for other services such as telephone service, electric power, et cetera.

I have been interested in this problem personally and recently looked into a situation which exists in Montgomery County, Md., where I reside. I have been told by the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, homeowners are presently charged 232 cents per thou

sand gallons on a domestic sewage usage rate. However, WSSC has proposed that the rate be increased to 272 cents per thousand gallons effective in the 1972 fiscal year.

This agency recently held a public hearing on the proposal and there was no opposition to this increase expressed by 90 persons who attended. This indicates to us that members of the public are willing to pay for their services in this regard.

WSSC has developed projections which indicate that this cost per family would amount to $27.50 per year based on annual usage of 100,000 gallons, which is perhaps a high figure. If assistance in the form of Federal grant is provided, the cost would be close to $34.50 per household without grants.

Projected to 1976 when this organization is trying to attain advanced waste treatment, the rate might go as high as $53.50 per year with grants or $118.50 per year without grants.

However, it is our opinion, Mr. Chairman, that even at the highest these rates do not compare with paying for telephone service or electric lighting and other services. We hope this will be given consideration more in the future.

We would like to conclude by commending the committee for conducting these hearings, and we do hope that you can act speedily to bring a bill to the Senate and to the House.

Thank you.

(Mr. Clapper's prepared statement follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LOUIS S. CLAPPER

Mr. Chairman, I am Louis S. Clapper, Director of Conservation for the National Wildlife Federation. Ours is a private organization with national headquarters located at 1412 Sixteenth Street, N.W., here in Washington, D.C.

The National Wildlife Federation has affiliates in all 50 States and the Virgin Islands. These affiliates, in turn, are made up of local groups and individuals who, when combined with associate members and other supporters, number an estimated 22 million persons.

We appreciate the invitation and opportunity to comment here today on various proposals to strengthen the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and to offer added assistance to the States and local communities in a coordinated endeavor. We are exceptionally pleased, Mr. Chairman, to note that the Subcommittee is considering comprehensive water pollution control legislation which is especially appropriate at this time. Not only is the authorization for appropriations for the Federal construction grant program expiring at the end of Fiscal 1971, but the Federal Government now has reached the point where it can take a good look at developments which have occurred since the Congress made highly significant changes in the Water Pollution Control Act of 1965.

We believe that this legislation also is particularly timely because of the recent transfer of the Federal water pollution control program from the Department of the Interior to the new independent agency, the Environmental Protection Agency.

Before commenting about details in the specific bills, we would like to extend our congratulations to the Subcommittee upon its fine non-partisan approach to these problems.

In reviewing these items of legislation, the Federation has been especially heartened to note the general agreement between the Subcommittee's bill and the various proposals of the Administration. This was very capably pointed out by the Chairman in his opening statement earlier this week and we most certainly hope that these agreements can result in early approval by the Senate and. subsequently, by the House. It is our opinion that this is an urgent matter which merits top priority among the many items of business facing this Congress.

Control of water pollution, Mr. Chairman, has been an objective of the National Wildlife Federation throughout its existence. A resolution on water pollution control was adopted at the first annual meeting of this organization and this year we

expressed our opinion and belief that contamination of the environment by water and air pollutants, by toxic chemicals, by solid waste, and by noise constitute the major resource problems of the age. As an organization which seeks to attain conservation goals through educational means, we are hopeful of being influential in helping alert the American public to these difficulties.

By specific resolution adopted earlier this month, our organization listed the major conservation issues of 1971 and stated its belief that "the Federal Government must take an increasingly significant role in control of water pollution through greater grants for the construction of municipal waste treatment plants, in strengthened enforcement of laws preventing the contamination of navigable waters by industrial wastes, and in research designed to enhance the quality of America's waters."

Now, Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to say that one phase of the legislation currently before the Subcommittee is more important than another. The establishment of water quality standards sets out the goal which this country must attain; yet they can be attained only through the help and encouragement offered through waste treatment plant construction grants and through program grants backed up by efficient law enforcement. As a consequence, the program is multi-faceted and there is no intent on our part to emphasize one effort unduly above another.

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS

We long have felt that the standards of water quality are the key to any successful water pollution control program. If the standards are sufficiently high, they indeed can set out means whereby the quality and value of our water resources will be enhanced. If the standards are low, however, they can become mere licenses to pollute. Of course, our organization has been seeking standards of the highest feasible quality.

Section 10 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act provides that the States must develop and adopt water quality standards which are acceptable to the Federal Government (Environmental Protection Agency). If the States adopt approved regulations, they become effective. If the States do not adopt approved standards, the Federal Government can set suitable standards for the States and the second effort in this direction is scheduled in Alabama next month. In addition, the Federal Government is requiring anti-degradation or non-degradation statements which, in effect, would set as a floor the current existing condition of a body of water.

Mr. Chairman, we make no secret of the fact that we have been disappointed over the lack of success in establishing high standards of water quality. As previous testimony has indicated, the state standards have many inconsistent "exceptions" and several states have not adopted suitable anti-degradation statements. And, there are gaps between standards applicable to interstate waters and intrastate waters. As a consequence, we are hopeful that the Subcommittee will act speedily to strengthen the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

As we read it, S. 523 would amend Section 10 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to set up a revised standard-setting framework. We like the procedure to call for standards and a compliance plan and the declared purpose of “protecting and enhancing the quality of the Nation's waters..." We also are pleased that the proposal lists fish, shellfish, wildlife, and recreational purposes among the legitimate use of water, as well as provision for public participation in the process of standards development, revision, and enforcement.

S. 523 also requires that the Administrator, shall, within 90 days, develop and publish criteria of water quality which the States are to use in drafting their own standards affecting all navigable waters, as well as timetables for compliance, and effluent requirements. The Administrator would have 90 days to determine whether or not the State's standards and plan are consistent with the criteria. The States then would have three years to comply. If the States do not cooperate, after such a finding, the Administrator could (within 180 days) substitute his own standards and implementation plan. We think well of this procedure and are particularly pleased that the bill has an anti-degradation statement: that no standards shall be approved which would allow degradation of the present quality of any water. We also believe that water quality standards should be made applicable to the contiguous zone and see merit in requiring a permit for discharging into it, or the territorial sea, although this procedure will be difficult to police. It is encouraging to note that the proposed regulations would provide for making use of the most effective control techniques, including recycling.