1.2r(3) (b) Dec 18: Considered and passed House amended in lieu of H.R. 11928, pp. H 11628-H 11633

(d) Construct eligible new collector systems, (e) Construct interceptor sewers, force mains and pumping stations, and

ommendation-table II of committee print 93-28.

The utilization of needs as a basis for allotment of construction grant funds as

(f) Reduce combined sewer overflows. The Environmental Protection Agency has, however, recommended [p. H11628] that only the costs of providing treatment works to achieve secondary required by the Federal Water Pollutreatment, of achieving treatment "more stringent" than secondary treatment as required by water quality standards, and of constructing eligible new interceptor sewers, force mains and pumping stations be used as a basis for allotment.

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.

tion 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 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. This provides an interim solution for those States

which were severely affected by the changeover from population to needs in fiscal year 1973. This will permit these States to continue their program at a reasonable level until they are able to more accurately assess their true needs.

Section 2 of H.R. 11928 amends

section 203 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act so as to overrule an erroneous interpretation of that section by the Environmental Protection Agency. The Environmental Protection Agency has limited grants for portions of treatment works to "operate units." This was not the intent of the Congress and section 2

clarifies what was intended.

Section 3 of H.R. 11928 is intended to rectify a problem which was H.R. 11928 provides a method for brought to the committee's attention determining the basic allotment for fis- during our recent hearings on the cal years 1975 and 1976, 50 per- Environmental Protection Agency's cent upon the total assessment of needs report. Certain States which needs-table I of committee print border the Great Lakes and Canada 93-28 and 50 percent upon the En- and the States bordering Mexico have vironmental Protection Agency's rec- been pressured by the Environmental

Florida

Louisiana
Maine
Maryland

Protection Agency to give prece-Delaware
dence in the development of the rank- Dist. of Columbia
ing, in order of priority, of needs Georgia
within that State for construction of Hawaii
those waste treatment works required | Idaho
to meet international agreements of
the United Sates with other nations.
It was not and is not intended that Kansas
such international agreements be a Kentucky
basis for the Administrator to re-
quire States in the development of
their ranking of needed works in Massachusetts
order of priority to consider these
international agreements. If it is the
desire of the administration to have
the international agreements imple- Montana
mented as a priority item, we would Nebraska
suggest that they submit appropri-
ate legislation authorizing the con-
struction and providing a source of
the
appropriations for

works.

necessary

Michigan

Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri

Nevada

Illinois

Indiana

lowa

New Hampshire
New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

In concluding, I would point out that the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 mandated the allocation of $7 billion in fiscal year 1975. However, in view of the fact that the administration has released only $5 billion of the $11 billion authorized for fiscal year 1973-74, I would caution all of my colleagues Vermont that the release of the $7 billion in 1975 is not assured.

I would ask permission to include in the Record at this point a table which would show the allotments to each State based upon H.R. 11928. This table indicates the amounts each State will receive, should $3, $4, or $7 billion be allotted.

ALLOTMENTS OF FEDERAL SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT GRANT FUNDS, BY STATE, FOR FISCAL 1975 [in millions]

South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah

Wyoming
Guam

Territories
Wake Island

1 Based on 1972 allocation.

Note: The 3 columns indicate the amount each State would receive depending on how much the administration ultimately allocates.

Mr. JAMES V. STANTON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROBERTS. I will be pleased to yield to the gentleman from Ohio, a member of the committee.

Mr. JAMES V. STANTON. Mr.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distinguished chairman of the committee.

Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, I want to join my colleague and friend from Cleveland, Ohio, in his question. I appreciate the responses being made by the very able and respected chairman of the subcommittee on water resources (Mr. ROBERTS).

tus of all of the five Great Lakes and of the St. Lawrence River. In some areas, a great deal ought to be done, to improve the quality of the water, in other areas we must maintain the existing high quality of the water.

Speaker, I am concerned about sec- Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, will tion 3 of H.R. 11928 and its imple- the gentleman yield? mentation relating to the carrying out of our international agreements. Recently, the Governments of the United States and Canada agreed to undertake actions which would eventually restore the quality of our international waters, specifically the Great Lakes. I would ask the gentleman from Texas, is it not correct that section 3 of H.R. 11928 was amended by the committee so as to preserve the authority of the State to grant Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a priority to waste treatment works further that the committee was not which would implement the agree- unmindful of the obligation of the ment with Canada? Federal Government in its agreeMr. ROBERTS. The gentleman ment with Canada-with its friends from Ohio is quite correct. The ori- from the north—to improve the staginal provision in H.R. 11928 may well be described as a classic case of overkill. The committee was confronted with a situation where the Environmental Protection Agency has been pressuring the Great Lakes States to put their top priorities in those projects which might implement the agreement. In many cases a State was willing to go along with certain of the projects but also recognized problems which existed in other parts of its State which also needed to be corrrected with similar high priorities. However, in drafting the original bill to correct this situation, the language of section 3 went a little too far-it precluded a State from considering such international agreements in the development of their ranking priority. This was not intended. What was intended was that the Environmental Protection Agency could not insist that a State must determine its ranking of priority on this basis. The amended section 3 permits a State if it decides that it would be in its interest to consider international water pollution Therefore, we are going to pound control agreements it may do so. If a few doors downtown at the soit does not want to do it, it does not called OMB-it is getting to sound have to. like a mysterious organization in

But, to arbitrarily tell the people in a given sovereign state, "You must give first priority to the Great Lakes basin regardless of the needs of the remaining areas in the various States. I am very much familiar with the waters of the Great Lakes and of the St. Lawrence River, but I would like the record to show that our committee authorized $11 billion for the program of giving grants for waste treatment works to municipalities who cannot carry this enormous multibillion dollar program alone. For the Federal Government it is proper objective to assure that funding of projects are justified; but the Federal Government has no justification whatsoever for allocating only $5 billion for 1973 and 1974 when this Congress authorized $11 billion for that period.

a