build a large regional shopping center because of this, this, and this. But you can spread retail space all down the road in strip development and those regulations wouldn't stop it. It would be the worst possible kind of development from a clean air point of view, from an esthetic point of view, from a planning point of view, and every other point of view. But it cannot be stopped by any of these regulations. So I am with you on planning, but I am against project-by-project review. For every goal in the Federal law there is another project-byproject review, frequently in conflict with that goal and usually counterproductive.

Senator MUSKIE. That result might be an argument against bad land use planning, not land use planning.

Mr. WALSH. I said what we have under the various ad hoc laws is bad land use planning. Even worse, it is not being done in the name of land use planning. It is being done under a variety of other names.

Senator MUSKIE. What would happen to your developments if we outlawed the automobile?

Mr. WALSH. Senator, if that is a serious question, I will attempt to deal with it seriously, but I don't think it is a serious question.

Senator MUSKIE. It is serious in this sense. You put the monkey on the automobile industry's back. They tell us that we are asking them to do the impossible. If the public health demands something that is impossible, then you have to consider an alternative.

I put the question in a dramatic way in order to highlight the point. But we may have to develop an effective program to move the country away from the automobile

Mr. WALSH. That is fine.

Senator MUSKIE [continuing]. In some dramatic way. The effect might be the same on you as outlawing it.

Mr. WALSH. I would agree on that, to move the country away from its increasing dependence on the automobile as a mode of transportation, particularly in both environmental and air polluted situation areas in the country. But I do not think the Federal Government or anybody else has really undertaken to do that. I think it is unfair and unacceptable to say we are going to relax enforcement against the automobile but we are going to place the burden on the physical location to which the automobile goes in the exercise of free choice of people. That is just not right.

Senator MUSKIE. Isn't it true we have done more to regulate the automobile in this field since 1970 than we have to regulate your activities?

Mr. WALSH. But the activities we are talking about in most regards do not themselves emit pollutants. To the extent they do, I would suggest they would be subject to regulation.

Senator MUSKIE. But you are relying on the automobile, which does emit pollutants.

Mr. WALSH. Not necessarily. Those developments can function adequately with public transportation if it exists.

Senator MUSKIE. Do you know anything about the Montgomery County area here? I have lived in it for 18 years. I came here with one automobile. I had to buy two because there was no way for my wife to shop and to move around the area, except by way of the auto

mobile. So I doubled my contribution to the air pollution load of Montgomery County when I came here.

Are you telling me that is exceptional?

Mr. WALSH. Senator, what do you suggest? The shopping facility not exist, or the car not exist, or isn't a better solution to find a better mode of transportation so your wife and my wife also

Senator MUSKIE. I am saying that is still another solution. You are not going to achieve that new form of transportation tomorrow. Mr. WALSH. No.

Senator MUSKIE. Another solution is to begin to look at the way we design our cities, provide facilities, including shopping centers. If we are going to just keep proliferating the present trend of providing shopping and parking and such, which increasingly depends on the automobile, when we finally do get a public transportation system, wouldn't we have overcomplicated the situation to the point where you cannot get adequate public transportation?

I remember Governor Warren, long before he died, when he was Governor of California, and I asked him once, "How did the Los Angeles freeway system get its start?" "Well," he said, "during World War II, highway construction was suspended, as it was in all parts of the country because of the shortage of materials. California, in common with every other State"-including my State of Maine"just piled up the highway dollars because highway dollars were dedicated then, as they still are, in most places. They piled up the highway dollars in the bank accounts and in the treasuries. When the war ended, materials were available again. We went on a highway construction spree across the country."

Warren was Governor of California at that time. He said "Before we embarked on this highway construction spree, I appointed a commission to study the Los Angeles situation because I could see what was going to come." He asked that commission to form a judgment as to whether or not it made sense to move in the public transportation field in Los Angeles rather than unleash the highway construction that would inevitably come if the prewar approach continued. At the end of a year the commission came back and told him, "Governor, there is no way now to move into public transportation, in the Los Angeles area." That was a conclusion they reached. They unleashed those highway dollars that were piled up. They began to do the freeway development in the Los Angeles area.

What I am saying is that if at some point somebody does not begin to move us in a different direction we still have the problem. It was private enterprise that conceived the shopping center idea, it was real estate developers. It wasn't a Government mandate. It was you out there, geniuses in the free enterprise economy who developed that. I do not know why you geniuses out there cannot make some contribution to the development of an idea that moves us in a different direction. Instead, when we try to prod you in that direction, you say clean up the automobile and everything will be well.

Mr. WALSH. We are not saying that, Senator. I said at the outset we do not say that there should not be better planning on a State and regional and local level, but I do not think anybody at this table thinks the Federal Government ought to get involved in local planning decisions.

Senator MUSKIE. I surely don't view that possibility with much enthusiasm.

Mr. WALSH. I would submit to you when you get to a project-byproject view by a Federal agency, the Federal Government is getting involved in local planning decisions in the worst possible way, at the bottom of the stick at the project level. We simply feel that clean air regulation of real estate development should be applied at the State rather than the Federal level and it should be mandated by EPA only to the extent that the other control mechanisms provided in the act are insufficient to meet the national primary ambient air quality standards. In addition we feel such regulation should be required to be implemented only under circumstances where it can be shown to be effective in limiting air pollution over the long term and on a regional basis. That has not been true of the regulations heretofore promulgated by EPA in many cases.

Mr. MAEDER. May I comment briefly?

As Mr. Walsh said, we are not trying to avoid responsibility. In fact, we accept the responsibility of doing our share. We have opposed legislation that would have eliminated land use and transportation controls from the Clean Air Act within the industry and in Congress. We have supported land use legislation.

I think the problem is that these regulations do not work. In fact, there are indications that they produce urban sprawl and increased air pollution. And they do this at a high cost. The Harbridge House study prepared for EPA, indicates that the delay cost involved in review under the Federal indirect source regulations of a $14 million shopping project would be more than $1 million and that the cost of design changes could be several million dollars.

I am not arguing that these things are not going to cost or that we shouldn't bear some burden. But when you pay a high cost for regulations that produce dirty air and urban sprawl, I suggest we all would agree that this is what you characterize as a disproportionate cost.

The solution we are supporting provides that the NAS sit down and do a study to find out what kind of regulations that could be imposed on us would have a beneficial effect on air quality. The study would give some guidance to EPA as to what indirect source regulations are effective and work. This proposal also provides that such regulations be put in only where necessary after assuming that the auto has been cleaned up as required by the 1970 act and that all practicable transportation controls and all feasible stationary source controls have been implemented. This will alleviate some of the stringency that has been imposed on indirect sources as a result of the adjustment of other parts of the act.

The reason we are supporting this proposal is not to avoid responsibility. We have looked at the regulations that have been suggested by EPA and found that they are expensive, and, more important, that they really do not do the job. I think that is why there has been so much. concern and trouble surrounding this kind of regulation.

Senator MUSKIE. We have had lists of means and methods. The lists have grown and we have scratched everywhere and there is always a reason why none of the proposals will work. That is one way, of course, of blocking progress. We do not need to be in outright opposition to something to stop it. You can slow it down and effectively stop it if

you never find something that will work. I enlist your support in finding something that will work, something that is more than a band-aid, something that is more than another study, something that is more than shifting the burden to somebody else. Because gentlemen, I am not going to be around here forever. I don't have to breathe this air. You aren't, either, to the same degree other generations will. You have the burden as well as we do to do something about this job. Another study is not going to do it. You better recognize that for what it is. It is further delay, in the hope that somehow, somewhere, somebody will come up with some ingenious idea that does not cost anything, that does not involve any regulation, does not involve any more forms, that would painlessly and comfortably just produce clean air.

your

I had better move to the next witness. I appreciate very much. testimony. May I say that members of the committee may have questions that they would like to submit. If you receive them, the record will close on February 15. We would appreciate it if you could meet that deadline in the event questions are submitted.

Thank you very much.

Our last witness of the morning, Mr. Donald M. Manzelli, treasurer, Donald M. Manzelli, Inc., for Associated General Contractors of America.

STATEMENT OF DONALD M. MANZELLI, TREASURER, DONALD M. MANZELLI, INC., ACCOMPANIED BY JOSEPH P. ASHOOH, DIRECTOR, MUNICIPAL UTILITIES DIVISION, AND ERNEST W. JONES, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MUNICIPAL UTILITIES DIVISON, TESTIFYING FOR THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA

Mr. MANZELLI. Good morning, Senator.

Thank you very much for allowing our testimony here this morning. I am treasurer and general manager of Donald M. Manzelli, Inc., a general contracting firm from Woburn, Mass. Our firm specializes in most types of general building construction, such as offices, apartments, warehouses and other commercial facilities. We work throughout the metropolitan area of Boston. I appear before you today on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of America, of which I am a member of the national environment committee.

I am accompanied to the witness table by two gentlemen from our staff. Joseph P. Ashooh and Ernest W. Jones, Jr.

The Associated General Contractors is a national trade association representing approximately 8,500 general contractors engaged in all aspects of general construction. Our member firms perform about 60 percent of the annual construction volume in the United States. The construction industry employs approximately five million workers, approximately 3.5 million of whom are employed directly on construction job sites. As such, we have a broad appreciation of, and an interest in, the legislation now being considered by this committee, and we hope the committee finds our views useful in its deliberations on the issues.

Gentlemen, aside from being the Nation's largest industry, I think it important to note that construction is also a leading, if not the lar

gest consumer of raw materials in this country. U.S. Department of Commerce statistics show that the construction industry is the principal user of lumber and wood products, stone and clay products, paint, heating, plumbing, and structural metal products, primary nonferrous metals, fabricated metal, and electrical industrial equipment. In addition, our industry ranks as one of the top three users of iron and steel, rubber and miscellaneous plastics, and glass.

These facts are important because they help emphasize our great concern about all matters that affect potential growth, development, and the appropriate use of our lands and natural resources.

Perhaps it is our size or the very nature of the business, but the same Federal, State and local laws and regulations often affect construction quite differently than other industries such as manufacturing or retailing. For example, a building setback requirement may cause the owner to allow for more land at the facility, thus increasing eventual costs to the consumer; yet the construction costs are relatively unaffected by such requirements. In other cases, such as the clean air act amendments, building itself is inhibited, thus affecting the owners, the construction industry, and eventually the consumer.

Gentlemen, we view the protection of air quality as extremely important. It is a problem that has been building for 200 years, continues today, and unless appropriate clean air regulation is maintained, it will be a problem for future generations. No one enjoys the air pollution of Los Angeles, you have heard that here this morning, or wishes to see the air quality of Grand Canyon National Park polluted by industrial emissions. The point we are trying to make is that the Clean Air Act, as legislated, interpreted, and implemented, has the power to be the Federal Government's foremost tool for national land use control.

We do not question the original intent of Congress, but we do, as an industry, have grave concern over the result of its implementation. Population and industrial growth are unavoidable facts of the real world, and thus must be provided for at a cost that is economically realistic.

Environmental concerns need not be neglected, but they should be compatible with, and balanced against the current social and economical welfare of the Nation. It is the growth, development and land use implications of clean air legislation that we fear. Without getting into specific amendment proposals, we will briefly outline the issues of maior concern to the construction industry.

Considering the true power of the proposed legislation on the future of this Nation, we believe it deserves your complete and concentrated consideration. The issue quite simply is growth.

Due to the reasons stated earlier, AGC finds itself in basic disagreement with the court-interpreted, EPA implemented nondegradation policy. In dealing with rules to "protect and enhance" ambient air quality, a great distinction must be made between the air of Gary, Ind., and that, for example, of the Great Plains States. It is our firm belief that the original thrust of this legislation was directed toward those metropolitan areas which are in violation of national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards. A realistic priority should be given these areas.