The $20,000 will provide for 2 attorneys and 1 secretary for this additional workload. Mr. WILLCOX. The water pollution amendments enacted very recently are expected to lead to a marked step-up in enforcement activities. Mr. THOMAS. You want $20,000 for water pollution and $20,000 for your other recently passed activities dealing with social security. Mr. WILLCOX. Yes, sir. ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL Mr. THOMAS. How many new jobs do you want? Mr. THOMAS. You have on hand how many employees, 162? Mr. WILLCOX. 148 on the rolls at the present moment. Mr. THOMAS. You have appropriated funds for 162, though. Mr. WILLCOX. For the coming year, Mr. Chairman, we have not yet been able to fill up. LOCATION OF STAFF Mr. THOMAS. Where is your staff located between the field and the central office? Are these all? The Washington office? Mr. WILLCOX. No, sir. There are attorneys in each of the nine regional offices. The OASI Division is in Baltimore. The rest of the staff is here in Washington. Mr. THOMAS. How many of your staff is in Washington? Mr. SILEARGY. Seventy-two out of a total of 174 are outside of Washington; 102 in Washington. Mr. THOMAS. 102 out of your 174? Mr. SILEARGY. Yes, sir. Mr. THOMAS. Do you intend to get young lawyers, seasoned lawyers, or what type will you get? Mr. WILLCOX. We are asking Mr. KELLY. Two grade 12's, one 11 and one 9, sir. Mr. KIRWAN. I have no questions. JUSTIFICATION OF THE ESTIMATE Mr. THOMAS. Let us put pages 7 and 8 in the record. (The pages referred to follow :) BUDGET JUSTIFICATIONS The $40,000 increase is for the following: 1. Increases due to H.R. 6441, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1961: 2 attorneys and 1 secretary. 2. Increases due to the Social Security Amendments of 1961-Public Law 87-64: 2 attorneys and 1 secretary--- $20,000 20,000 Total 40, 000 PUBIC HEALTH DIVISION The following positions and related costs are requested: Net personal services (3 positions). 1 GS-12 attorney 1 GS-9 attorney 1 GS-5 secretary Retirement-- Travel Other miscellaneous expenses such as telephones and equipment included in activity. "Supervisory and general legal services". $14,000 1,000 3,000 2,000 Total request‒‒‒‒‒‒‒ 20,000 The amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act which would be made by H.R. 6441 will have a significant impact on the level and kind of legal services required to service the program. Of principal concern from this aspect are the amendments which (1) expand the scope of the enforcement jurisdiction, (2) increase authorized construction funds, (3) authorize projects involving more than one municipality, (4) provide for additional grants to communities affected by Federal installations and construction activity and (5) make applicable the Davis-Bacon Act (40 U.S.C. 276(a)—(a)(5)) requirements to construction of municipal treatment works. 1. Expansion of enforcement jurisdiction Under section 8 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (prior to amendment) the Surgeon General is authorized to abate the pollution of interstate waters which endangers the health and welfare of persons in a State other than that in which the pollution originates. The first step in the enforcement proceeding is the calling of a conference. Preparation for a conference requires legal analysis of the preliminary evidence of pollution and a determination whether such evidence indicates the existence of pollution subject to abatement. Since the recommendation of the Surgeon General for remedial action following the conference limit and determine the scope of further proceedings, legal review of the form and substance of such recommendations is required. In preparation for a hearing, the second step in enforcement, the nature of the evidence required to establish a case is developed, the scientific and technical aspects of the case are prepared for presentation with legal assistance, and the legal basis for recommended remedial measures determined. These procedures are time consuming. The hearing itself, which is held before a specially appointed board, is conducted as a judicial proceeding, with all the parties represented by counsel. The Surgeon General is represented by a member of the Office of the General Counsel. The hearing held at Sioux City, Iowa, beginning March 23, 1959, which involved as parties the city of Sioux City, the States of Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska, Kansas, and South Dakota, and 11 industries, took 5 days of trial. The hearing at St. Joseph, Mo. (July 27, 1959) which took 4 days of trial, involved as parties the States of Missouri and Kansas, the city of St. Joseph, and 18 industries. The hearing at Kansas City, Mo., June 13-17, 1960, involved Kansas City, Kans., Kansas City, Mo., the city of North Kansas City, Mo., and 13 additional parties. The 1961 amendments extend the enforcement jurisdiction to "interstate or navigable waters" and authorize enforcement proceedings at the request of local authorities when only intrastate effects exist. Under the present statute, a total of 15 conferences have been called since 1957, 2 in 1960, and 1 in 1961. A total of three hearings have been held in this period, as already indicated. Under the amendments the enforcement activity will be greatly expanded and it is estimated that 24 conferences will be called in the first year of operations. 2. Construction grant appropriations Under section 6 of the act, Federal grants are authorized to assist municipalities in the construction of treatment works. Such grants were limited to 30 percent of the estimated cost of construction or $250,000 whichever is smaller. The construction grant program presents a wide variety of legal problems arising out of a large number of individual projects. These involve conditions of eligibility, application of Federal criteria, problems of municipal law and financing, and questions relating to allowable costs. At the $50 million authorized level of appropriations for construction grants, approximately 550 applications are received annually. The amended level, $80 million for 1962, $90 million for 1963, and $100 million for the ** Mr. JONAS. I have a question, Mr. Chairman. Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Jonas. NEED FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL Mr. JONAS. We have had a water pollution control on the books. How many people are working on that now? Mr. WILLCOX. No one is working full time on it. One attorney has been spending part of his time on it. Mr. JONAS. How could you get by with all of the legal problems? How long have we had that kind of legislation on the books? Mr. WILLCOX. The last major amendment was in 1956. I had not been in the office until this term. The demand in our office has been pretty heavy. One man has handled as much of the work as he could. Mr. JONAS. We have had a law of this nature on the books for 4 years. If you could get by with your regular staff handling that it would seem to me you could handle the amendments with the same group that has been handling the legal affairs in the past. Mr. WILLCOX. The point I wanted to make is that the emphasis under the new amendments is expected to be much greater on the enforcement activity, which is the most time-consuming work that our office participates in. Mr. JONAS. What kind of enforcement activity? Mr. THOMAS. Bacon-Davis and what else? Mr. WILLCOX. There is a rather complex machinery set up in the statute, leading to judicial action ultimately for the abatement of pollution by court decree. It starts with a conference. If that does not produce satisfactory results there is an ad hoc board empaneled and before that board is a formal hearing. The recommendations of that hearing are then published to the parties and if the recommendations are not adopted, then we ask the Department of Justice to go into court. It is a rather long drawn out, elaborate procedure to deal with a very complex situation. Mr. JONAS. Have you had any enforcement cases in the past? Mr. WILLCOX. I think there is only one case in court. There have been several hearings. There is every effort to get voluntary compliance, of course, in these situations and in considerable part that has been successful. I think there is only one case that has actually gone into court. Mr. JONAS. That is all. Mr. Bow. Let me ask this question, if I may, Mr. Chairman. JURISDICTION OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Mr. Bow. How does the Federal Government come into the enforcement? Mr. WILLCOX. By virtue of this statute, sir, the Federal Government is authorized Mr. Bow. In other words, you could come into Ohio and enforce pollution in streams in Ohio? Mr. WILLCOX. You go into a district court. Up to now it has been only if pollution originating in Ohio was harmful in other States. Mr. Bow. Mr. Kirwan and I who sit on this committee both have the Mahoning River go down through our districts. Could you come in and enforce compliance with pollution on the Mahoning River? Mr. KELLY. If that is a navigable stream. Mr. WILLCOx. I assume it is. Mr. Bow. I think under the rules we have now anything you can float a chip of wood on is navigable. Mr. THOMAS. A log. Mr. Bow. I do not think it has to be a log. I think you can get a chip off anything and it becomes a navigable stream. Mr. WILLCOX. Let me point out this goes into a court of equity. Mr. Bow. This is the Federal Government now coming into local enforcement within the States, is that correct? Mr. WILLCOX. Yes. That can happen under the amended law. Mr. WILLCOX. Yes. I think almost all of them do, if not all of them. Mr. Bow. That is the point I was getting to. In Ohio we have a good enforcement group on pollution. Is this something that you are going to take over from the States? Mr. WILLCOX. No, sir. Mr. Bow. But you can supplement the States? Mr. WILLCOX. You can. No action can be taken in Ohio, for example, as I understand the law, unless it affects other States or there is a request from the State of Ohio that the Federal Government come in. Mr. THOMAS. Which court has jurisdiction, Mr. Bow? Mr. Bow. Is there Federal court jurisdiction? Mr. WILLCOx. District court. Mr. Bow. It cannot go into the State courts? Mr. WILLCOX. There is nothing in the statute to permit that. Mr. THOMAS. That is the U.S. attorney's job. Mr. WILLCOX. That is quite right. Our job is preparatory. When we get into the courts the case in court is handled by the U.S. attorney but all the preliminary work and the assistance of the technical agency, the legal aspects of all that is our responsibility. NEED FOR ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL Mr. Bow. How many lawyers do you have now! Mr. WILLCOX. Only one. Mr. Bow. You have only 1 working in the entire United States out of 160. You want to add one or is it three to this? Mr. WILLCOX. Two attorneys. Mr. JONAS. Six people. Mr. THOMAS. Two stenographers and four lawyers. Mr. WILLCOX. Two lawyers for this assignment and one stenographer. Mr. KELLY. The other two lawyers and stenographer are on the social security amendments. Mr. Bow. I want to ask you one further question. Give me a typical day and what will he do. Let's say he comes to work bright and early in the morning. What does he do that day? Mr. WILLCOX. It depends on what the administrative unit is doing that day. If they are considering grant applications as they will be doing every day and they have legal problems in connection with those, some of which are rather complex, he may be asked to work on those. If there is a conference or hearing in preparation, he is likely to be spending his time on that. I anticipate that if we are allowed these two lawyers, the greater part of their time will be spent in connection with the preparation of enforcement activities. Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Bow, one of your heavy workloads here will be the legal aspects of your construction program. You have got a lot of money involved here. Mr. WILLCOX. That is right. Mr. THOMAS. Do you have any man-hours set aside for BaconDavis work in conjunction with the Labor Department? Mr. WILLCOX. We have not tried to break down the man-hours of these two positions we are asking for, Mr. Chairman. They will embrace Bacon-Davis work, they will embrace the legal aspects of the grant program which have been made a little more complicated by this amendment, particularly in connection with the multicityMr. THOMAS. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. WILLCOX. If this program goes on as anticipated the next few months will be very important in tuning up. Mr. THOMAS. You do not think you could wait until January to see exactly what your workload will be? Mr. WILLCOX. If you gentlemen say we will have to wait, we will wait. Mr. THOMAS. We will work with you. Mr. WILLCOX. I really think in terms of getting an effective start on this new program in which there has been a great deal of in terest Mr. THOMAS. How long have you been with the Department? Mr. WILLCOX. This time since January. I was with the Department previously. Mr. THOMAS. You know your way around. We thank you very much. Come back to see us. It is always a pleasure to do business with you. |