Page images
PDF
EPUB

1.2r(2) House Committee on Public Works

HR. REP. No. 93–735, 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1973).

AMENDING THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL ACT

DECEMBER 14, 1973.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. BLATNIK, from the Committee on Public Works,
submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H.R. 11928]

The Committee on Public Works, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 11928) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to establish the ratio for allocation of treatment works construction grant funds, to insure that grants may be given for other than operable units, and to clarify the requirements for development of priorities, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.

The amendment is as follows:

On page 2, strike out line 21 and all that follows down through line 5 on page 3 and insert in lieu thereof the following:

"(d) Notwithstanding this Act or any other provision of law, the Administrator (1) shall not require any State to consider in the development of the ranking in order of priority of needs for the construction of treatment works (as defined in title II of this Act), any water pollution control agreement which may have been entered into between the United States and any other nation, and (2) shall not consider any such agreeement in the approval of any such priority ranking.".

GENERAL STATEMENT

Section 516(b) (2) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency to submit to Congress biennally a detailed estimate of the cost of construction

of all needed publicly owned treatment works in all of the States and in each of the States. The Environmental Protection Agency recently submitted their assessment of needs-"Cost of Construction of Publicly-Owned Wastewater Treatment Works," November 1973. Section 1 of H.R. 11928

[p. 1]

amends section 205(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to set forth a formula for allotment of treatment works construction grant funds during the fiscal years June 30, 1975, and June 30, 1976, based upon the "needs" report submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The Environmental Protection Agency "needs" report included a tabulation of the following eligible needs as set forth in table I of the House Public Works Committee Print No. 93-28:

(a) Provide treatment works to achieve secondary treatment,

(b) Achieve treatment "more stringent" than secondary treatment as required by water quality standards,

(c) Inspect and rehabilitate sewers to correct infiltration and inflow,

(d) Construct eligible new collector systems,

(e) Construct interceptor sewers, force mains and pumping stations, and

(f) Reduce combined sewer overflows.

The Environmental Protection Agency has, however, recommended that only the costs for the following needs which are set forth in table II of the committee print be used as a basis for allotment:

(a) Provide treatment works to achieve secondary treatment,

(b) Achieve treatment "more stringent" than secondary treatment as required by Water Quality standards, and

(c) Construct interceptor sewers, force mains and pumping stations.

The committee reviewed many possible allotment formulas. On the one hand, the clear intent of Congress as expressed in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act was that projects for infiltration and inflow, collector systems, and the reduction of combined sewer overflows be eligible for grants. On the other hand, the Environmental Protection Agency testified that there were inaccuracies in the determination of the needs for infiltration and inflow, collector sewers and reduction of overflows from combined sewers.

It would be unfortunate and unfair to turn back from the mandate of the act that all categories of authorized needs be considered in the development of an allotment formula. However, to give full weight for allotment to those categories of the needs evaluation which are subject to possible inaccuracies as pointed out by the Environmental Protection Agency would also be unfair. Thus, the bill as reported recognizes all needs while at the same time reducing the impact of the possible inaccuracies. H.R. 11928 provides a method for determining the basic allotment for fiscal years 1975 and 1976, 50 percent upon the total assessment of needs (table I of committee print 93-28) and 50 percent upon the Environmental Protection Agency's recommendation (table II of committee print 93-28).

The utilization of needs as a basis for allotment of construction grant funds as required by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and thereafter has resulted in a reduction of the water pollution control effort in certain States in the fiscal years ending June 30, 1973, and June 30, 1974, because the President did not allot all of the available grant funds. Section 1 of H.R. 11928 rectifies this reduction in effort by providing that

[p. 2]

the actual allotments to the individual States for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1975, and June 30, 1976, shall in no case be less than the allotment received in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972.

Table III of Committee Print 93-28 sets forth the actual allotments to the individual States of the $2 billion allotted for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972. No State shall receive an allotment less than that set forth in table III.

The appendix to this report sets forth the method for calculation of the allotments to the individual States.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act contains provisions similar to those in title 23 of the United States Code pertaining to the granting of funds for the construction of highway projects. Public Law 92-500 authorizes the Administrator to fund construction segments of a given overall treatment works construction project. This intent was embodied in section 212(1) which sets forth the definition of the term "construction" and section 212 (2) which sets forth the definition of the term "treatment works." It was intended that physical subparts of any treatment works construction program could be funded by in

dependent grants. It was not intended that grants be only for operable units.

The Environmental Protection Agency, in the implementation of the act, required in its regulations with exceptions for only a minimum number of circumstances, that each grant shall be for an "operable unit." Section 2 of H.R. 11928 which amends section 203 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act is intended to overrule the Environmental Protection Agency's erroneous interpretation of the law. It is and always has been the clear intent of Congress that the Environmental Protection Agency must make grants for projects which are otherwise eligible and not just those which are for "operable units."

Section 3 of H.R. 11928 is intended to rectify a problem which was brought to the committee's attention during our recent hearings on the Environmental Protection Agency's "needs" report. Certain States which border the Great Lakes and Canada and the States bordering Mexico have been pressured by the Environmental Protection Agency to give precedence in the development of the ranking, in order of priority, of needs within that State for construction of those waste treatment works required to meet international agreements of the United States with other nations. It was not and is not intended that such international agreements be a basis for the Administrator to require States in the development of their ranking of needed works in order of priority to consider these international agreements. As introduced, section 3 of H.R. 11928 would have precluded either the States or the Environmental Protection Agency from considering such international agreements in the development of their ranking priority. Section 3 was amended by the committee to provide that the Administrator shall not require any State to consider international agreements when they develop their ranking in order of priority of needs for the construction of treatment works. Further, section 3 provides that the Administrator shall not consider any such agreements in the approval of priority rankings submitted by the State. This means that if the States decide that it would be in their interest to

[p. 3]

consider international water pollution control agreements in the development of the ranking in order of priority of needs they may, but the Administrator is clearly precluded from requiring that international agreements be considered. However, if a State considers an international agreement in developing its priorities,

the Administrator is authorized to approve such priority ranking if it is in accordance with the requirements of the law.

APPENDIX

The following is the method for calculation of allotments to the several States in accordance with the provisions of section 1 of H.R. 11928.

1. Determine the allotment of 50 percent of the total sum being allotted to the individual States in accordance with the ratio of each State's needs to the total national needs as set forth in table I of Committee on Public Works Print No. 93–28.

2. Determine the allotment of the remaining 50 percent in accordance with the ratio of each State's needs to the national needs as set forth in table II of House Public Works Committee Print No. 93-28.

3. Determine the sum of the two determinations for each State calculated in steps 1 and 2.

4. Compare the sums for each State determined in step 3 with that State's allotment for fiscal year 1972 as set forth in table III of House Public Works Committee Print No. 93-28.

5. If the allotment as set forth in such table III for any State is more than that amount determined in step 3, the allotment to that State shall be that set forth in such table III.

6. Subtract the sum of allotments for those States for which allotments would be as set forth in such table III from the total sum being allotted to the individual States.

7. The remainder as determined by step 6 shall then be distributed 50 percent in the ratio of needs as determined by table I, not including needs for those States for which allotments were made under step 5 in accordance with table III, and 50 percent in the ratio of needs as determined by table II, not including needs for those States for which allotments were made under step 5 in accordance with table III.

8. If the allotments as determined in accordance with step 7 for any State is less than its allotments set forth in table III, the allotment for such State shall be that set forth in table III. If this occurs, iterations, as necessary, of steps 6 through 8 shall be made to determine each State's allotment.

Whenever all allotments as determined in accordance with step 7 are equal to or greater than the allotments given in such table III, the determination is completed.

COST TO THE UNITED STATES

Rule XIII (7) of the Rules of the House of Representatives

« PreviousContinue »