of these measures by executive branch action. While unfortunately there was no action on my water quality proposals, we moved ahead to make effective use of existing authorities through the Refuse Act water quality permit program announced in December. New air pollution control legislation, which I signed on the last day of 1970, embodies all of my recommendations and reflects strong bipartisan teamwork between the administration and the Congress-teamwork which will be needed again this year to permit action on the urgent environmental problems discussed in this message.

We must have action to meet the needs of today if we would have the kind of environment the nation demands for tomorrow.

I. STRENGTHENING POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAMS

The Clean Air Amendments of 1970 have greatly strengthened the Federal-State air quality program. We shall vigorously administer the new program, but propose to supplement it with measures designed to provide a strong economic stimulus to achieve the pollution reduction sought by the program.

AIR POLLUTION

Sulfur Oxides Emissions Charge

Sulfur oxides are among the most damaging air pollutants. High levels of sulfur oxides have been linked to increased incidence of diseases such as bronchitis and lung cancer. In terms of damage to human health, vegetation and property, sulfur oxide emissions cost society billions of dollars annually.

Last year in my State of the Union message I urged that the price of goods "should be made to include the cost of producing and disposing of them without damage to the environment." A charge on sulfur emitted into the atmosphere would be a major step in applying the principle that the costs of pollution should be included in the price of the product. A staff study underway indicates the feasibility of such a charge system.

-Accordingly, I have asked the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality and the Secretary of the Treasury to develop a Clean Air Emissions Charge on emissions of sulfur oxides. Legislation will be submitted to the Congress upon completion of the studies currently underway.

The funds generated by this charge would enable the Federal Government to expand programs to improve the quality of the environment. Special emphasis would be given to developing and demonstrating technology to reduce sulfur oxides emissions and programs to develop adequate clean energy supplies. My 1972 budget provides increased funds for these activities. They will continue to be emphasized in subsequent years.

These two measures the sulfur oxides emissions charge and expanded environmental programs-provide both the incentive for improving the quality of our environment and the means of doing so.

Leaded Gasoline

Leaded gasolines interfere with effective emission control. Moreover, the lead particles are, themselves, a source of potentially harmful lead concentrations in the environment. The new air quality legislation provides authority, which I requested, to regulate fuel additives, and I have recently initiated a policy of using unleaded or low-lead gasoline in Federal vehicles whenever possible. But further incentives are needed. In 1970, I recommended a tax on lead used in gasoline to bring about a gradual transition to the use of unleaded gasoline. This transition is essential if the automobile emission control standards scheduled to come into effect for the 1975 model automobiles are to be met at reasonable cost.

-I shall again propose a special tax to make the price of unleaded gasoline lower than the price of leaded gasoline. Legislation will be submitted to the Congress upon completion of studies currently underway.

WATER QUALITY

We have the technology now to deal with most forms of water pollution. We must make sure that it is used.

In my February 1970 special message to the Congress on the Environment, I discussed our most important needs in the effort to control water pollution: adequate funds to ensure construction of municipal waste treatment facilities needed to meet water quality standards; more explicit standards, applicable to all navigable waters; more effective Federal enforcement authority to back up State efforts; and funds to help States build the necessary capability to participate in this joint endeavor. Municipal Wastes

Adequate treatment of the large volume of commercial, industrial and domestic wastes that are discharged through municipal systems requires a great expenditure of funds for construction of necessary facilities. A thorough study by the Environmental Protection Agency completed in December 1970 revealed that $12 billion will be required by 1974 to correct the national waste treatment backlog. The urgency of this need, and the severe financial problems that face many communities, require that construction of waste treatment facilities be jointly funded by Federal, State, and local governments. We must also assure that adequate Federal funds are available to reimburse States that advanced the Federal share of project costs.

-I propose that $6 billion in Federal funds be authorized and appro

priated over the next three years to provide the full Federal share

of a $12 billion program of waste treatment facilities.

Some municipalities need help in overcoming the difficulties they face in selling bonds on reasonable terms to finance their share of construction costs. The availability of funds to finance a community's pollution control facilities should depend not on its credit rating or the vagaries of the municipal bond market, but on its waste disposal needs.

-I again propose the creation of an Environmental Financing Authority so that every municipality has an opportunity to sell its waste treatment plant construction bonds.

A number of administrative reforms which I announced last year to ensure that Federal construction grant funds are well invested have been initiated. To further this objective:

-I again propose that the present, rigid allocation formula be revised, so that special emphasis can be given to those areas where facilities are most needed and where the greatest improvements in water quality would result.

-I propose that provisions be added to the present law to induce communities to provide for expansion and replacement of treatment facilities on a reasonably self-sufficient basis.

-I propose that municipalities receiving Federal assistance in constructing treatment facilities be required to recover from industrial users the portion of project costs allocable to treatment of their

wastes.

Standards and Enforcement

While no action was taken in the 91st Congress on my proposals to strengthen water pollution standard setting and enforcement, I initiated a program under the Refuse Act of 1899 to require permits for all industrial discharges into navigable waters, making maximum use of present authorities to secure compliance with water quality standards. However, the reforms I proposed in our water quality laws last year are still urgently needed.

Water quality standards now are often imprecise and unrelated to specific water quality needs. Even more important, they provide a poor basis for enforcement: without a precise effluent standard, it is often difficult to prove violations in court. Also, Federal-State water quality standards presently do not apply to many important waters.

-I again proposed that the Federal-State water quality program be extended to cover all navigable waters and their tributaries, ground waters and waters of the contiguous zone.

-I again propose that Federal-State water quality standards be revised to impose precise effluent limitations on both industrial and municipal sources.

These two measures-the sulfur oxides emissions charge and expanded environmental programs-provide both the incentive for improving the quality of our environment and the means of doing so.

Leaded Gasoline

Leaded gasolines interfere with effective emission control. Moreover, the lead particles are, themselves, a source of potentially harmful lead concentrations in the environment. The new air quality legislation provides authority, which I requested, to regulate fuel additives, and I have recently initiated a policy of using unleaded or low-lead gasoline in Federal vehicles whenever possible. But further incentives are needed. In 1970, I recommended a tax on lead used in gasoline to bring about a gradual transition to the use of unleaded gasoline. This transition is essential if the automobile emission control standards scheduled to come into effect for the 1975 model automobiles are to be met at reasonable cost.

-I shall again propose a special tax to make the price of unleaded gasoline lower than the price of leaded gasoline. Legislation will be submitted to the Congress upon completion of studies currently underway.

WATER QUALITY

We have the technology now to deal with most forms of water pollution. We must make sure that it is used.

In my February 1970 special message to the Congress on the Environment, I discussed our most important needs in the effort to control water pollution: adequate funds to ensure construction of municipal waste treatment facilities needed to meet water quality standards; more explicit standards, applicable to all navigable waters; more effective Federal enforcement authority to back up State efforts; and funds to help States build the necessary capability to participate in this joint endeavor. Municipal Wastes

Adequate treatment of the large volume of commercial, industrial and domestic wastes that are discharged through municipal systems requires a great expenditure of funds for construction of necessary facilities. A thorough study by the Environmental Protection Agency completed in December 1970 revealed that $12 billion will be required by 1974 to correct the national waste treatment backlog. The urgency of this need, and the severe financial problems that face many communities, require that construction of waste treatment facilities be jointly funded by Federal, State, and local governments. We must also assure that adequate Federal funds are available to reimburse States that advanced the Federal share of project costs.

-I propose that $6 billion in Federal funds be authorized and appro

priated over the next three years to provide the full Federal share

of a $12 billion program of waste treatment facilities.

Some municipalities need help in overcoming the difficulties they face in selling bonds on reasonable terms to finance their share of construction costs. The availability of funds to finance a community's pollution control facilities should depend not on its credit rating or the vagaries of the municipal bond market, but on its waste disposal needs.

-I again propose the creation of an Environmental Financing Authority so that every municipality has an opportunity to sell its waste treatment plant construction bonds.

A number of administrative reforms which I announced last year to ensure that Federal construction grant funds are well invested have been initiated. To further this objective:

-I again propose that the present, rigid allocation formula be revised, so that special emphasis can be given to those areas where facilities are most needed and where the greatest improvements in water quality would result.

-I propose that provisions be added to the present law to induce communities to provide for expansion and replacement of treatment facilities on a reasonably self-sufficient basis.

-I propose that municipalities receiving Federal assistance in constructing treatment facilities be required to recover from industrial users the portion of project costs allocable to treatment of their

wastes.

Standards and Enforcement

While no action was taken in the 91st Congress on my proposals to strengthen water pollution standard setting and enforcement, I initiated a program under the Refuse Act of 1899 to require permits for all industrial discharges into navigable waters, making maximum use of present authorities to secure compliance with water quality standards. However, the reforms I proposed in our water quality laws last year are still urgently needed.

Water quality standards now are often imprecise and unrelated to specific water quality needs. Even more important, they provide a poor basis for enforcement: without a precise effluent standard, it is often difficult to prove violations in court. Also, Federal-State water quality standards presently do not apply to many important waters.

-I again proposed that the Federal-State water quality program be extended to cover all navigable waters and their tributaries, ground waters and waters of the contiguous zone.

-I again propose that Federal-State water quality standards be revised to impose precise effluent limitations on both industrial and municipal sources.