through low-cost waste treatment. The economies of scale still favor municipa treatment even though industry will no longer be subsidized under the propose legislation. Those industries that treated their own waste usually did so becaus their wastes were too potent or too great for the municipal system or no municipa system was available at a lesser cost than treatment by the industry. These indus tries will continue to do so.

Equitable systems for assessing appropriate charges are being developed in th form of guidelines. The guidelines are intended to provide specific tests to revie the municipalities taxing or charging procedures to attain a corresponding per centage of charge levied and percentage of costs involved. The review of the pro cedures will be a part of the general review of the municipality's application fo Federal assistance in the construction of the treatment facility.

REFUSE ACT

Question 9. Under the Refuse Act and the pending programs to implement that Ac there is an exception for those discharges of municipal sewage-Do you feel this e ception should be eliminated and municipal discharges also be the subject of a Feder Permit?

Answer. No, not at this time.

Although the Refuse Act generally does not apply to municipal discharge EPA has expressed the intent to continually vigorously exercise existing authoriti to deal with municipal violators of water quality standards. These actions a pursuant to Section 10 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amende Legislative proposals such as S. 1014, have been submitted to strength EPA's capability to deal with municipal, as well as industrial discharges.

Examples of the Section 10 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amende approach are the Federal suits against three major cities by the EPA Administrat to the effect that legal action will be taken unless adequate corrective measur are pursued in the immediate future.

The Refuse Act applies to all direct and indirect discharges or deposits includi those made by municipal facilities (except flowing from streets and sewers in liquid state).

APPRAISAL OF EXISTING STATE PROGRAMS

Question 10. You have proposed in S. 1012 a large increase in assistance for St programs. Could you give us an appraisal of existing State programs? Their size a quality, including manpower; their authority to do what would be necessary under proposals before us. Is there any movement in the State to parallel the organization ΕΡΑΙ

Answer. Notwithstanding their major efforts and considerable strides in vironmental protection activities, the States and interstate agencies continue be understaffed and operating on curtailed budgets. According to EPA's "Dig FY 1971 State Program Plans" the States assigned 2,936 man-years and budge $32,051,045 for water pollution control. EPA is currently studying the staf requirements of these agencies for the conduct of their authorized functions duties. State programs are directed toward water quality standards attainme refinement, and enforcement. The States of Arkansas, Florida, Maine, Minnes Mississippi, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washing have environmental protection units, generally paralleling the EPA concept.

PART A

MAN-YEARS ASSIGNED BY STATE AGENCIES BY SPECIFIC PROGRAM ELEMENTS

This Part summarizes by Program Element the manpower allocations by States for FY 1971.

The elements and man-years assigned were extracted from the Budget docur submitted with the FY 1971 State Program Plan.

Since FY 1968, reported manpower allocations have increased by 57 per with the bulk of the increase in those activities related to pollution control veillance and enforcement. Time spent in training, likewise has increased nificantly.

Figure 2 depicts the national manpower allocations reported by the State FY 1971 which total 2935.95.

FUNDING BY STATE AGENCIES FOR SPECIFIC PROGRAM ELEMENTS

This Part summarizes by Program Element expenditures of funds by the St for FY 1971.

The elements and monetary data were extracted from the Budget docum submitted with the FY 1971 State Program Plan.

Figure 3 depicts the national allocation of funds reported by the States for 1971 which totals $41,443,451.

FEDERAL-STATE EXPENDITURES (FY 1971 ESTIMATES)

As in the preceeding Part, the figures in this part were extracted from the FY Budget document submitted by the State agencies. It compares the reported State and Federal funds allotted for water pollution control by each State agency as well as providing a combined total of funds reported to be expended.

Figure 4 shows the Federal, reported State, and Total Program of water pollution control expenditures for FY 1961 through FY 1971.