Mr. AGNEW. Yes. Certainly it becomes of great assistance to any metropolitan effort if there are financial incentives involved. We recently formed in the Baltimore metropolitan area a council of governments to consider, on the primary level, cooperative efforts to reduce costs in many areas, and to attack our problems that we share because of the homogeneous aspect of our area. We find that there are many people who throw roadblocks into this metropolitan cooperative idea, because of particularly the lesser elected officials, if I may be completely frank, who are not responsible to the overall metropolitan entity.

These resistances can be overcome if they can be shown to be of financial advantage to the local tax structure.

Senator TYDINGS. I gather you feel that an increased percentage of some sort of incentive would be sufficient to overcome this political parochialism?

Mr. AGNEW. I think it would help a lot. I had the pleasure of testifying before a House subcommittee, for NACO again, on the problem of incineration as it affects air pollution. We need incineration very badly in our area, the Baltimore metropolitan area, but we are having a difficult time getting it because nobody seems to want to live anywhere near an incinerator, regardless of how adequately we can demonstrate that it is a very nice thing to live next to.

I think if we had financial incentives in this area it would be of assistance. Right now, we have only the demonstration grant to apply for.

Yes, I do believe that anything that affects the local tax structure exerts a profound influence on the local elected official and gives him a reason to do what might otherwise be an unpopular act in his own neighborhood.

Senator TYDINGS. He can use it as a justification for the act.
Mr. AGNEW. Yes.

Senator TYDINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Agnew. On behalf of Senator Muskie and the other members of the subcommittee we appreciate the effort you have made and the contribution that you have given us this morning. We wish you well-not too well, but we wish you well.

I might add parenthetically that Mr. Agnew will probably be a very fine candidate of the Grand Old Party for Governor of our State. He has my best wishes up to a point.

Mr. AGNEW. Thank you, Senator Tydings.

Senator TYDINGS. Mr. Harris.

Mr. Harris, we are delighted to welcome you before our subcommittee, particularly since you come from such a magnificent State in your great Northwest.

STATEMENT OF ROY M. HARRIS, DIRECTOR OF THE WASHINGTON STATE POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ASSOCIATION OF STATE & INTERSTATE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATORS

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you, Senator. I was hoping that Senator Muskie might be here because he made a very excellent speech in be

half of water pollution out in my State this last month. I would like to have you pass on to him that we appreciated his inspiring talk.

My name is Roy M. Harris. I am director of the Washington State Pollution Control Commission. Today I am appearing, at the invitation of your subcommittee, to present a statement on behalf of the Association of State & Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators, of which I am the president.

As our association is composed of the frontline assault troops in State and interstate water pollution control agencies we naturally have a big stake and a keen interest in any proposed legislation of the type you are considering, especially legislation that will result in a better and more effective program. For this reason I am pleased to appear before your subcommittee for the second consecutive year.

First, I would like to refer back to the Water Quality Act of 1965, which has not, as we all know, been implemented. Perhaps it will, and I might add I sincerely hope, come alive within the near future. For one reason, time is running out for we State administrators in establishing water-quality criteria prior to June 30, 1967, and many of us need certain guidelines from the administration before we can produce criteria with any real knowledge that they will be acceptable to the Secretary.

However, one disturbing new legislative proposal is in the inclusion of navigable waters in the water-quality criteria exercise, without mention of extending the June 30, 1967, date.

For some States this has very little significance, but in my State, and many others, this will multiply our task many fold.

I feel certain that we all hope and plan on doing a creditable job in establishing meaningful standards, but State agencies are presently not staffed to perform the additional project, which would include navigable waters, in the allocated time. We, therefore, request consideration be given to the extension of this deadline.

This brings me to comment on the program grant provisions in S. 2947 and S. 2987. S. 2987 might be of some aid to the State agencies in the criteria-setting phase, as it would make $5 million of additional funds available for fiscal year 1967.

However, the condition that this extra sum would be "made in accordance with such terms and conditions as the Secretary deems desirable" is not to clear as to intent. We therefore urge that at least $10 million be made available for fiscal year 1967 under the present formula for program grants. S. 2947, however, provides an additional $5 million for program grants under the existing formula, but this would not become available until fiscal year 1968 and would therefore be of no value to State agencies who must meet the June 30, 1967, deadline.

I wish at this time to invite your attention to my testimony before your subcommittee last May which included a resolution from our association to the effect that we recommended program grants to State and interstate water pollution control agencies be increased from $5 to $15 million per year.

At our annual meeting last December the association again reiterated its contention that program grants need to be substantially increased. Trained personnel are difficult to find and difficut to hold, and our State agencies are too frequently at a disadvantage in com

peting with private industry and with Federal agencies, and the increasing demand for Federal employees in this area of water pollution control.

I am firmly convinced that the greatest gains in achieving clean waters, for the least expenditure of Federal funds, can be secured through direct financial aid to State and interstate water pollution control agencies.

On this same subject of personnel and personnel training I am also quite convinced that the situation is more acute this year than last year, and no water pollution control program-either Federal, State, or interstate can succeed without trained and able people. Our association again went on record last December to favor a Federal grant program which would assist and stimulate undergraduate and technician level studies. This same thinking on intermediate training was presented to your subcommittee last May.

Our association has always favored the basin concept in preventing and abating water pollution, and the use of interstate agencies and compacts can be a valuable tool. Certain provisions in the basinwide concept of S. 2987 might, however, slow down pollution abatement temporarily because of the time required to develop and receive approval of basinwide plans. Also, there is the consideration that the Nation as a whole should share in any grant program rather than a few selected basins.

Title I of S. 2987 provides that consideration be given to the imposition of effluent charges. We believe that the basic responsibility for adequate waste treatment should remain with the polluter rather than being transferred to a regulatory entity which would assume the responsibility of treatment and disposal for a fee or an effluent charge.

The construction grant program has always been of considerable interest to our association. We have witnessed an enormous surge in municipal sewage treatment facilities which has unquestionably been the result of this Federal aid. For this reason S. 2947 is of particular interest to the State and interstate administrators.

Our association has consistently favored an increase in grant funds, and we urge that consideration be given to increasing substantially the authorization for fiscal year 1967. Based upon the provisions and formula contained in the Water Quality Act of 1965 the States could easily and profitably utilize at least $250 million for construction grant projects during the next fiscal year.

We are not, at the moment, in a position to support or verify the total figure of $6 billion of construction grant aid required through fiscal year 1972 as proposed in S. 2947. However, we strongly support the need for a substantial increase over the present level, and support extension of the program and consideration of 50-percent grants in instances of demonstrated need.

We are aware that estimates of former backlog needs did not adequately consider a long-range program, and did not in most cases include tertiary treatment, overloaded treatment plants, sewage treatment needs for unsewered towns and suburban areas, and future interceptors.

State matching funds for construction are certainly desirable, and any State which can provide such funds will most certainly stimulate

62-611-6616

construction of treatment facilities. Of considerable concern to many of us is the fact that a majority of States are unable to provide the State-aid requirements of S. 2947. We recognize that some consideration should be given to those States which do aid construction to a significant degree with their own funds. However, it would not serve the cause of pollution control to deprive the States which are unable to manage such contributions from the receipt of all additional benefits. The source of local funds should be immaterial so long as pollution abatement is being accomplished.

Also, on this same subject of State matching funds, our association is in strong disagreement with a provision in S. 2947 which would remove the requirement for State approval and certification of projects in the event a State does not match at least 30 percent of a project's cost.

This would remove all local controls that are now applied to insure that funds are allocated on the basis of financial and pollution control need. We cannot disagree on the desirability of incentives for State participation, and the States which can provide 30-percent matching funds are to be commended. However, we believe that the ultimate objective of clean streams can better be obtained if each and every State water pollution control agency has the responsibility for establishing priorities on pollution abatement projects where Federal grants are involved, and that the satisfaction of these pollution control needs is of paramount importance.

We look with favor on the portion of S. 2947 dealing with grants for research and development. In particular, we agree with the need and urgency for additional research on advanced waste treatment, and for studying more satisfactory methods of better utilizing municipal sewage treatment facilities in the treatment of industrial

wastes.

Also, any incentive that can be given to the solution of the perplexing problem of separating storm and sanitary wastes is a positive step toward cleaner waters. This is a big, involved, and costly part of pollution abatement. For example, in my State alone we have estimated the ultimate separation cost to be $319 million.

Many of the provisions of both S. 2947 and S. 2987 are new and far reaching. We would hope that in view of the desirability of rapid progress in pollution abatement and control, the consideration of these new features will not delay the implementation and strengthening of the present programs, within the framework of existing

statutes.

This, Mr. Chairman, concludes my statement on behalf of our Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Administrators. With your permission, I would desire as a Washington State official to include a short resolution which was recently passed by the Washington Legislative Interim Committee on Water Resources. That committee resolved as follows:

(1) That the State of Washington desires to retain jurisdiction in pollution control, and intends to improve its enforcement program;

(2) That the committee is studying the State's pollution abatement program, and is considering legislation designed to increase the State's effectiveness; and

(3) That Federal activity under the Water Quality Act of 1965, should be evaluated before enactment of additional Federal legislation.

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to appear before your subcommittee. You may be assured that the objectives of your subcommittee and our association are compatible, and I offer you our continuing cooperation in meeting these objectives.

Senator TYDINGS. I gather that you are submitting the statement of the Washington Legislative Interim Committee on Water Resources without comment?

Mr. HARRIS. I am submitting it without comment, sir.

Senator TYDINGS. On top of page 4 of your testimony you indicated that you were not in a position to support or verify the total figure of $6 billion in construction grant aid required for fiscal year 1972. You are not opposing that, are you?

Mr. HARRIS. No, sir; we are not opposing it. We are not, at the moment, in a position to identify needs based on a 5- or 6-year look ahead.

I think it is probably a realistic figure but I did not want to say that before we verified it.

Senator TYDINGS. There has been considerable testimony before the subcommittee that it is not a realistic figure but it is substantially less than that which is needed.

You were commenting in your testimony on the need for personnel and personnel training is more and more acute.

Do you have any thoughts on how we should provide the incentives or what, if anything, we should do to encourage or to help train professionals in this field?

Mr. HARRIS. As I pointed out, last year the position of our association had been that the Federal Government had supported, quite substantially, graduate training in the field of sanitary engineering, engineering, and allied sciences. There have been some very good results that came from that.

We are concerned, and I think other agencies are, too, that are dealing with this problem, with the need for training at a lower level. We want to bring not only undergraduate training into the picture more significantly but there is a need for actual technician training. I heard previous testimony to the fact that many of our plants are not being operated at their peak efficiency, as Mr. Baxter indicated. We, too, find this is quite true in our State. This is basically because there is need for a level of training that is not being filled at the present time. Senator TYDINGS. To get into specifics, you may have heard me question Mr. Baxter about S. 2636, which is the amendment I proposed which would merely assist and encourage State and local communities to send their present personnel to these extension or short courses now being conducted by many universities lasting only for maybe a 3- or 4-week period, which would help their existing personnel, surely improve their efficiency and hopefully the efficiency of the plant. This does not really get to the problem that you are posing.

Mr. HARRIS. It gets to part of it. We certainly would support that type of proposal. We had considered that training grants be extended to undergraduate engineers, chemists, biologists, to put them in a position of being graduate students.