Let

Senator MUSKIE. I think we do want the Assistant Commissioner for Enforcement to have sufficient staff to perform this function. me read it again in the plan. It is the first function describedprepares and conducts technical surveys, studies and reports in preparation of Federal enforcement actions.

I want to be sure that he has the staff on call, on tap, subject to nobody else's approval or disapproval, too, as to time and number of people to do that job.

If they need technical advice that is available in the Cincinnati lab, service of that kind, that they can't have in their own shop, obviously you have to have some people to reach out and get it. So, I want to be sure that the Assistant Commissioner for Enforcement has that kind of staff assistance.

Is he going to get it under that plan?

Mr. QUIGLEY. Yes; he has to have the technical people that he needs to carry out his assignment.

Senator MUSKIE. Subject to nobody else's veto?

Mr. QUIGLEY. Subject to no one else's veto except here the Commissioner or the Secretary.

Senator MUSKIE. Yes, the superiors.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Yes.

Senator MUSKIE. We are not going to have to have the joint agreement of the Associate Commissioner of the Bureau of Technical Programs and the Assistant Commissioner for Enforcement before you can get the manpower to initiate an enforcement action?

Mr. QUIGLEY. An enforcement action is not going to be planned, programed, and scheduled by the leave of the technical people.

Senator MUSKIE. I suggest that some other artist go to work on that plan to more clearly say what you say it is supposed to say.

Mr. QUIGLEY. This is a proposed plan. I have asked for staff criticism and suggestions as to how it might better be put together. I think it is clear as to what I wanted to say here and wanted to draw but it is obvious from the record yesterday, from some of your questions, that it is not as clear as it should be.

I will make every effort to see that it is.

Senator MUSKIE. Let me ask you one other thing about the Assistant Commissioner for Enforcement, himself.

As I review again the description which I read in the record a few moments ago his three stated functions involve a lot of preparation. Does he actually carry out the enforcement action, himself?

Mr. QUIGLEY. He has up to now and I would assume that he will in the future. But I have to be quite honest with you, this is a determination that the Secretary makes if the enforcement authority is vested in the Secretary.

I have not had an opportunity to discuss with-to discuss this with Secretary Udall in any depth or detail how he will elect to carry out his enforcement authority. I can't say because I have not discussed it with him.

But in the past the practice has been for the Chief Enforcement Officer to be designated by the Secretary as the presiding officer of the conference. This has been the practice, custom, and tradition.

Senator MUSKIE. If that practice is continued he will need lawyers and other staff assistance of this kind.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Right.

Senator MUSKIE. I think the subcommittee would be interested in knowing how this question is finally resolved or how you consider finally resolving it before you actually carry it out because I think it is very important to the members of the subcommittee.

Mr. QUIGLEY. I will be happy to supply it to the chairman when we get it in final shape.

Senator MUSKIE. I think then that we have covered the questions that we have about the plan. We do appreciate your clarifying it. I think we have to some extent clarified it. We will be in a better position to evaluate it when we have the final plan.

Mr. QUIGLEY. Thank you.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

We will adjourn until next Tuesday at 10 o'clock.

(Whereupon at 12:50 p.m. the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Tuesday, April 26, 1966.)

(The following communication is in response to questions propounded to the Secretary of the Interior by Senator Muskie. The colloquy appears on p. 122.)

Hon, EDMUND S. MUSKIE,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., May 25, 1966.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, Committee on Public Works, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: Your letter of May 11, 1966, enclosed some questions concerning S. 2987, a bill "To provide a program of pollution control and abatement in selected river basins of the United States through comprehensive planning and financial assistance, to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, and for other purposes." The questions and my responses to them are as follows:

TITLE I

1. "Title I is not an amendment to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Would the Water Pollution Control Administration administer the Clean Rivers Program?"

Yes. It is the Department's intention that the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration will administer this new program.

2. "What role would the proposed River Basins Commissions have in relation to Federal, State and local governments and other regional bodies?"

The River Basins Commissions under the bill would be planning agencies only, with membership from all of these levels of government and other interested bodies. They would have no administrative functions; their role would be planning.

3. "Title I refers to 'selected' river basins. What is the reason for the use of the term 'selected'?"

As indicated in section 103(b) of the bill, the Secretary of the Interior would select river basins where the Governors of the affected States agreed in advance to seek the necessary legislation to implement a plan. Also, the Secretary would designate for planning purposes those river basins in which there was evidence of public support for this kind of planning. As the program gained momentum selectivity would become less of a factor.

4. "How does the comprehensive planning under Title I relate to the development of comprehensive programs for eliminating or reducing pollution provided for under Section 3A of the existing Act?"

62-611-66- -10

The comprehensive programs developed under section 3(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, are developed on a river basin basis. They, however, are developed by the Secretary. Title I is designed to encourage river basin planning by a non-federal entity with Federal participation. It contemplates participation by States, local bodies, interstate agencies, and, where appropriate, private interests. Where completed or in process the section 3(a) programs will be taken into consideration in preparing a river basin plan under title I of the Administration bill.

5. "If the Governors, who agree to seek legislation necessary to carry out the comprehensive plan under Title I, are unable to obtain enactment of that legislation, what would be the effect on the program?"

The bill provides that the Secretary cannot approve an application for a grant unless it substantially conforms with an approved plan, and unless approved water-quality standards are in effect for the area covered by the plan, and unless the applicant has adopted a financial program which adequately meets the requirements of the plan. Obviously, once a plan is approved and if legislation is needed to meet these requirements, the grant program under the bill for the area covered by the plan could not be initiated. It is difficult to conceive that a State legislature (or legislatures) would steadfastly refuse to enact implementing legislation.

6. (a) "Regarding the provision in Title I which provides that local communities assure expansion and replacement of treatment facilities without future Federal grants, what would be the financial effect of that restriction on a community if after the initial date of the grant water quality standards in the area were raised?"

Many of the larger urbanized areas of the United States (a few under Federal pollution abatement orders) are now engaged in construction programs for water pollution abatement. For such large communities the Federal financial assistance being supplied is nominal.

With more adequate authority and organization established as a precondition for Federal grants under title I, communities-both large and small-should have no serious financial difficulties in complying as water-quality standards are raised, although we recognize that such raised standards would probably create a new backlog. The financial strain, however, should not be as severe as the initial advance from "no water quality standards" to the standards authorized by the Water Quality Act of 1965. Title I of S. 2987, as now drafted, would provide financial assistance in meeting the initial standards-and as a pre-condition for such assistance, require that recipient communities be equipped and organized to meet future raising of standards. Our answer to question 6(e) discusses the problem of raising standards.

6. (b) "What would be the financial effect of that restriction on that same community in the event of an unexpected increase either in population of industrial concentration?"

Unexpected increase of population, by reason of new industrial or other establishments, is not uncommon in the United States. Such communities find that their public facilities are inadequate. The stresses and strains of providing such facilities create an atmosphere of crisis that attracts attention. Proposals for bond issues are hotly debated; tax rates or assessed valuations (often both) have to be raised. There is a general consensus to the effect that burdens of debt and taxation are a threat to the solvency of the community and its citizens. The record shows, however, that fast-growing communities have not been going into bankruptcy. The enclosed table I lists the 32 municipalities of the United States whose population increased by 60 percent or more during the 1950-60 decade. The listed cities do not include rapid-growing parts of larger metropolitan communities which could (and often did) provide assistance and support for their constituent rapid-growth areas. Median family income in these 32 cities increased within the range of 49 to 66 percent. The average for the United States as a whole was 84 percent.

Private affluence, of course, is not necessarily reflected in public financeeven though it is the principal basis for public revenue. But in the case of these cities, the public credit is also good (table 2). All are ranked by Moody's in the four highest of nine credit-rating categories. With the legal authority and

organization specified as a pre-condition for title I grants, we see no reason to expect that a future unexpected increase of population would have financial effects any different from those experienced by these 32 cities which had the largest percentage increase of population in the 1950–60 decade.

6. (c) "Would the 'without subsequent Federal grant' proviso apply if water quality standards were raised after making a grant under the provisions of Title I or Title II?"

The main purpose of grants provided for in Titles I and II is to eliminate the "backlog" of works and facilities needed to bring water quality up to prevailing standards. If standards were raised prior to accomplishment of that purpose, the grants would continue until the backlog (in terms of most recent standards) was eliminated.

7. "Sec. 104 (b) refers to effluent charges. What is the meaning of this term?"

The language referred to would direct the planning agency to give considerarion to "effluent charges". It implies neither endorsement nor rejection of effluent charges. Since S. 2987 was drafted, a Presidential Mission to the Federal Republic of Germany on Environmental Problems has had an opportunity to learn about effluent charges in the Ruhr-Enscher river valleys of Germanywhere the system had been reported to be operational. The whole concept is one which we thought was worthwhile exploring to determine if it is workable in a particular river basin. We view the idea not as a license to pollute, but as a system of charges to pay the cost of cleaning up pollution.

On the basis of these first-hand observations, we have no objection to deletion of subsection (b) section 104 of S. 2987.

8. "Section 107(a) of Title I refers to water quality standards approved by the Secretary. It is the intent of the legislation that the Secretary use the standards authorized by section 10(C) (3) of the existing Act?"

The Water Quality Act of 1965 provided procedures for the establishment of standards for interstate waters. S. 2987 recommends that such standards be required for navigable waters as well. We intend that water-quality standards in the case of interstate or navigable waters will be developed and approved as provided in the Water Quality Act of 1965. Standards for other waters, if any, would similarly be approved by the Secretary.

9. "Section 108 of Title I, which provides for waiver of limitations on grants, does not require matching funds. Is that the intent? If so, why is state matching required for waiver of limitations under Title II?"

Section 108 refers to the existing construction grant program. If a river basin plan is approved, the Secretary could waive the dollar limitations in that program. State matching funds are not a prerequisite to such waiver. Title II is effective only where there is no river basin plan. The conditions for waiver are different. This title is designed to obtain State participation.

10. "In the definitions under Section 113, 'water supply' is included. What is the justification for including water supply facilities in this Act?"

Water supply facilities can affect pollution control needs in a river basin. For the purposes of planning only, consideration should also be given to these facilities.

11. "What is the purpose of including private agencies as part of the definition of local or interstate bodies? Would not private agencies under this section include private industry?"

In some areas, private agencies (including private industry) build and operate waste treatment works, and water and sewer facilities. These agencies and their existing and future works should be included in the planning only. We recommend, however, that the bill make it clear that grants will not be made to private agencies.

12. "Does Section 112, by implication, mean that all future sewage construction grant funds will be made available only under this openended authorization?"

No. This section is an authorization for construction of waste treatment works in connection with a river basin only. Other sewage construction grant programs would continue to be funded under their particular authority.

TITLE II

1. "What do you feel will be the necessary amount of funds to meet the Federal commitment for matching grants beginning in Fiscal Year 1968? Why does Title II not contain provision for specific Federal monetary authorization beyond Fiscal Year 1967?"

As we indicated earlier to your Committee in our report on S. 2947, we are not yet prepared to recommend what the level of appropriations should be for the existing construction grant program after June 30, 1967. We will, however, make recommendations for extending that program at the beginning of the next session of Congress.

We wish to emphasize that should your Committee choose to disregard our recommendation to delay the extension of the existing program until next year, we would be strongly opposed to any change in the existing program which has the effect of making the river basin approach recommended by the Administration largely ineffective. We firmly believe that the Federal Government cannot hope to control and reduce water pollution with large sums of money alone. Money is only part of the answer. We must also manage the resource effectively and on a coordinated basis. The present program does not encourage the management of the resource or the management of pollution control activities on a whole river, lake, or other body of water. We believe that the continuation of the present program with some increases is necessary and desirable, but it should not be increased to an extent that would dampen or handicap the river basin approach.

TITLE III

1. "Would the extension of the enforcement provisions to include navigable waters adversely affect early implementation of water quality standards?"

No. We are strongly opposed to any suggestion of delay for the establishment of water-quality standards for interstate waters. We would not, however, oppose an extension of one additional year to implement such standards for navigable waters not included in the interstate waters category.

2. "What do you interpret the term 'sufficient quantity' which appears in Section 305 (d) (1) to mean?"

We interpret this term to mean the amount of pollutants that are endangering the health or welfare of persons, fish and wildlife or impairing recreational and aesthetic values of waters. In some situations, such as in the case of pesticide runoff, a very small amount of the pollutant might be sufficient to warrant Federal action.

3. "The 'water pollution control agency of the municipality', referred to in section 305 (2) is not recognized in existing law. What was the reason for including this reference?"

The reference is incorrect. The provision should be changed to refer to the "water pollution control agency of the State".

4. "Section 305 (2) was apparently lifted verbatim from Section 105 (C) (1d) of the Clean Air Act. However, the reciprocity provision and the reference to the International Joint Committee which appear in the Clean Air Act were not included. Why were these provisions left out of S. 2987?"

The Department of State recommended this approach. We, however, would not object to the reciprocity provision or reference to the International Joint Commission, United States-Canada, or to the International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico.

Sincerely yours,

Secretary of the Interior.