of permits or of provisions of the bill requiring permits, the Administration bill would authorize civil and criminal penalties of up to $50,000 for each violation of a permit or of the Act or regulations issued thereunder, as well as appropriate injunctive relief.

S. 523 would prohibit firing of or other discrimination against employees who institute proceedings under the Act or supply information about violations of the Act. It would also prohibit Federal agencies from contracting for the procurement of goods or services with convicted violators of water quality standards or administrative orders, where the contract is to be performed at the facility at which the violation in question occurred. The bill would require all Federal agencies "to effectuate the purpose and policy of this Act" in making loans or grants or entering into contracts. These proposals have merit and deserve further consideration by the Congress and by the Administration.

Finally, S. 523 would require a study and report to Congress on the impact on water quality of uncontrolled agricultural run-off. We believe there is already adequate authority under section 5 of the Act to conduct such a study and, in fact, such studies are currently in progress.

The Office of Management and Budget advises that presentation of this report would be in accord with the program of the President.

Sincerely yours,

WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS,

Administrator.

The questions submitted to Administrator Ruckelshaus by Senator Boggs and subsequent responses by the Agency follow:

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON S. 523

Question 1. Section 8(e) (2), on lines 23 and 24 of page 13, requires that any river bess plan shall include a requirement that adequate reserves be set aside to offset the cost of future treatment facilities constructed in that basin. This would appear to be quite similar to the provisions in the administration proposal requiring future selfficiency in meeting water treatment needs. Would you agree that this language requires this local self-sufficiency in the future? Is a 60 percent grant a sufficient inducement to an area to sever itself from the opportunity to continue to qualify for construction grants in the future?

Answer. The language in section 8(e) appears to indicate that after fiscal year 1976, funding of waste facility construction is expected to be a non-Federal responsibility. Assuming this, the 60 percent grant is being made to assure that plans for reaching this self-sufficiency are completed. We would agree that local «f-sufficiency in the future is required by the language in the bill. If Federal financing for waste facilities were continued after fiscal year 1976, it is unlikely that the 60 percent grant would be sufficient inducement to forego the opportunity for additional Federal assistance in the future.

Question 2. How would you analyze the effect on the Federal water pollution control program of the differing definitions of "standards," "criteria," etc., in this bill compared with the administration's bill?

Answer. In present law, water quality standards consist of water quality criteria and a plan for their implementation and enforcement. S. 1014 defines water quality standards" so as to include water use designations and effluent himitations, as well as the criteria and the plan. Each of the four elements of the standards is then defined. S. 523, in proposed section 10(a)(1), refers to "water quality standards, including a plan, including compliance schedules and effluent requirements..." Water quality criteria are to be issued to the States for the purpose of standards adoption or revision but would not seem to be an element of the standards themselves. Thereafter, in proposed sections 10 and 11, the plan is treated in different places as an element of the standards and as separate from but related to the standards. Proposed section 11(a) refers to "water quality standards, ncluding plans, schedules, or timetables for compliance." We believe that the definitions and use of terms in S. 1014, the administration bill, are clearer and more precise than those in S. 523, and we recommend their inclusion in the legislation as reported. We believe that the intent is the same in both bills—that water quality standards are enforceable per se, and that a violation of an effluent limitation or a compliance timetable is a violation of the standards.

Question 3. Section 10(b)(3) requires, on page 24, line 10, that a Governor hold panic hearings and review water quality standards at least once every five years. Is this a helpful provision? Is it needed?

Answer. It is essential that water quality standards be revised from time to time if we are to enhance water quality and the quality of the environment. S. 523 approaches that need by requiring that a State review its water quality standards from time to time, at least once every five years, and, as appropriate, revise and adopt improved standards, with the Administrator to act, if the State fails to do so, and by directing the Administrator to issue water quality criteria and information on recommended pollution control techniques from time to time. The Adminstration bill, S. 1014, approaches that need by directing the Administrator to sue regulations governing water use designations, water quality criteria, and effent limitations, and to develop and publish recommended pollution control techniques from time to time after their initial issuance as advice to the States in the revision of their water quality standards. The bill directs the Administrator to act at any time on revised standards submitted by a State if he finds them consistent with regulations and requirements. We want to provide effective Federal

leadership but give the States the maximum opportunity to act to strengthen their water quality standards.

Question 4. Would you coompare the ocean dumping provision in this bill, Section 10(d)(2), with the provision of the Marine Protection Act of 1971?

Answer. Section 10(d) (2) provides that no matter may be discharged into the territorial sea or waters of the contiguous zone, or transported from any U.S. port for discharge into the ocean, unless the Administrator has issued a permit for such discharge. The Administrator would be required to establish a system of permits, and would not be permitted to grant any permit without reasonable assurance that the discharge will not cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards. (However, the Muskie bill, unlike the Administration bill, would not provide for the establishment of water quality standards for waters beyond the contiguous zone.) There are no provisions for enforcement or penalties. The basic provisions of the Administration's proposal are the same as those contained in S. 523, i.e., no dumping or transportation of material for dumping without a permit issued by the Administrator. The coverage is broader-it would apply to the Great Lakes, and also to gulfs and bays and other coastal waters affected by the tides whether or not part of the territorial sea. The bill would supercede the Refuse Act within its area of applicability. The bill provides for civil and criminal penalties of up to $50,000 for each viloation of a permit or of the Act or regulations issued thereunder. In addition, civil actions for appropriate injunctive relief would be authorized.

Question 5. Under the provisions of this bill affecting construction of new facilities Section 10(e) (1), no construction of a facility may begin without certification that the facility will comply with water pollution regulations. Is such a certification procedur necessary? If so, why would it be helpful? If not, why not? How large a staff would b required to administer such a certification procedure?

Answer. Section 10(e) (1)—It is questionable that this requirement is necessary because now under the 1899 Refuse Act a permit is required before discharge o any material to navigable waters or their tributaries. The implementation of suc legislation would require more personnel. The number could be substantial EPA carried out the certification processes, or could be minimal if EPA worke through the appropriate State agencies. In the latter case, Federal financia assistance to the States might be required.

Question 6. Section 10(e) (2), encourages the Administrator to work toward th development of closed-cycle water-use systems. Such systems while they may be "avai able," may not be economically practical. Would this section be strengthened if th Administrator were required to make a cost-benefit assessment of such systems when publishes any findings to closed-cycle systems? Would you please suggest appropria language?

Answer. We understand the words "available or can be made available" they appear in section 10(e) (2) to mean "reasonably available." Accordingl any finding by the Administrator would necessarily be based on a comprehensi assessment, including the technical and economic aspects.

Question 7. Under this bill, the Administrator would appoint attorneys to represe EPA in court. Under the Administration's bill, the attorneys would be appointed the Justice Department. As a former Assistant Attorney General, would you give your view on which is the better procedure?

Answer. As Assistant Attorney General I held the position that the Attorn General, the principal law officer of the United States Government, shou represent the United States in matters before the courts, and that laws enact hereafter should not vest in other Federal officers the authority to bring co actions on behalf of the United States. The Clean Air Act Amendments of 19 (Public Law 91-604), as the committee is aware, vests in the Administrator the Environmental Protection Agency authority to represent the United Sta in court to enforce provisions of the Clean Air Act. New section 305 of the A directs the Administrator to request the Attorney General to appear and represe him in civil actions. If the Attorney General does not respond affirmatively wit a reasonable time, attorneys appointed by the Administrator shall appear a represent him. I have every expectation that the Attorney General and Department of Justice will respond promptly and vigorously to requests court action under the amended Clean Air Act, as they have responded to requests for actions under the Refuse Act of 1899, a statute which I do administer. My responsibilities differ from those I had in my former office, s I speak in my present capacity when I say that I am confident that the Attor

General and the Department of Justice would respond promptly and vigorously to my requests for court action to enforce strengthened provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

Question 8. On page 46, lines 17 and 18, a new Section (m) is added to Section 5 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. This new subsection requires the Administræer to conduct a study and investigation of the effect on water quality from “uncontrolled" runoff from agricultural lands and roads other than sediment." Would such a study be useful?

Answer. Waste from agricultural activities including crop land and rural areas already poses the major pollution problem in many areas of the country and will become relatively more important with the reduction of pollutant discharges from point sources. A great deal of work has been accomplished regarding sediment and ratoff control. Information on the fate and effect of the soil and water is embodied in numerous references. However, regarding the fate and effect of adsorbed (on sod chemicals and the chemicals (nutrients and pesticides) carried in solution in ricoff from non-point sources.

Particular problems have been encountered because this lack of data has all but halted many prevention and control efforts where (1) the relative effect of rural runoff pollution versus that from other sources is not known, and (2) defirtion of the existance and magnitude of problems due to runoff are nearly nonex.stent. Unfortunately, this circumstance exists on all but a very few, highly instrumented, research watersheds, or "virgin" parks or forests. Consequently, control programs (such as those of the USDA) have been based almost wholly on the concept of "conserving a natural resource."

The need for "effects" studies is highlighted in the Report to the President, "Control of Agriculture-Related Pollution", Office of Science and Technology, 1909, and more recently in an unpublished report to the Working Group on Pollution in the Great Lakes Basin regarding agricultural, forestry, and conservation sources. In both cases, recommendations for programs to control runoff poilution were based upon subjective analysis and were subservient to recommendations for research monitoring, behavior, fate and effect studies of pollutants from rural runoff.

Only after such studies are completed will it be possible to fully and effectively prescribe water quality criteria, the need for and type of control measures, and ¡proved land and water management concepts.

Question 9. On page 47, a new Subsection (g) is added to Section 23 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act requiring a biannual report to Congress on "measures taken toward implementing the purpose and intent of this act." Would the statutory requirement that such a report be issued prove useful to you and the public?

Answer. Yes. A biannual report of this nature could serve a beneficial purpose.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON S. 1012

Question 1. On page 2, line 19, reference is made to allotments based on the "extent of water pollution." What criteria would be used to judge the extent of water pollution? In the same line of the bill, reference is made to financial need. What criteria would be used to judge a State's financial need?

Answer. The criteria used to judge a State's "financial need" are expected to remain unchanged from those described in the regulations relating to the allotments of funds to the States and interstate agencies (Subpart A-Grants for Water Pollution Control Programs 18 CFR 601). These regulations use population density and the number of wet industries as the basis for determining the "extent of pollution" and the reciprocal of each State's average per capita income to reflect "financial need".

EPA has formed a joint Federal-State group to review the regulations relating to “extent of pollution" with a view toward recommending modifications of this aspect of the allotment formula. Examples of criteria which might be used, based upon preliminary discussions, include: urbanization, reported municipal and industrial water use, and age of existing sewers and water pollution control systems.

Question 2. Also on page 2, line 21, the payment to the States appears to be a permissive one, as the word "may" is used. Why is this permissive, rather than mandatory?

Answer. The word "may" places the burden properly upon the States to come forward with an acceptable State program plan.

Question 3. In Subsection (g)(1)(a) appearing on page 6, a maximum Federal share is set, but there is no minimum Federal share. Would you object to a minimum of 40 percent, for example? What approximate ranges in the percentage of the Federal share are likely to occur in this rather complicated formula? Could you tell us, for example, how the State of Delaware would rate?

Answer. Setting a minimum "Federal share" of 40 percent would affect only three States (Connecticut 38.08%; Delaware 39.98%; and the District of Columbia 33.34%) on the basis of the FY 1971 computations of allotments and shares. The "Federal share" is a percentage which is used to determine the required "State share" or matching funds. The "Federal share" affects the Federal grant allotment only when a State or interstate agency's budget provides less than the required State matching funds, which are in turn set by the Federal share formula. Setting a minimum "Federal share" would not increase the funds allotted to the States and interstate agencies under the formula, but would permit reductions in the State budgets for water quality management for the above States as shown in the following tabulation based on FY 1971 allotments:

At the present, the range of the "Federal share" is from 33.34% to 66.67%

Question 4. Throughout this bill, as well as several other bills before the Subcom mittee, several references are made to population figures based on "the latest figure furnished by the Department of Commerce." Does this mean only decennial Censu figures, or would this include interim annual estimates of State's population? Answer. The annual estimates of a State's population would be used. Question 5. Under Subsection (g) (5), an interstate agency would be eligible receive planning funds for water pollution control. Such an agency, I assume, woul be the Delaware River Basin Commission. Could you tell us if any planning fund that would go to the Delaware River Basin Commission would be subtracted from th funds paid to the States of Delaware, Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey Or would payments to DRBC be over and above the States' allowance?

Answer. The allotments for States are not reduced by the amounts granted interstate agencies of which States are members.

The Delaware River Basin under currently applicable regulations was allotte $133,500 for FY 1971 which is matched by State funds as follows:

In a similar manner under the regulations the DRBC States were allotted

FY 1971:

Delaware

New Jersey.

New York..

Pennsylvania..

Total_.

$85,9

311,

650,

488,

1, 536,