Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1975-04-29II BOARDS OF DIRECTORS County Sanitation Districts Post Office Box 8127 oJ Orange County, California 10844 Ellis Avenue Fountain Valley, Calif., 92708 Telephones: JOINT BOARDS SPEC JAL MEETING APRIL 29, 1975 -7:30 P.M. Area Code 714 540-2910 962-2411 AGENDA (1) Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation (2) Roll Call (3) Appointment of Chairmen pro tern, if necessary ( 4) DISTRICTS 1, 2, 3 & 7 (5) ·c-6) (7) Consideration of motion to receive and file minute excerpts from the following cities regarding elections of .mayors and appointment of alternates, and seating new members of the Boards: (*Mayor) CITY DIST. NO.(S) ACTIVE ALTERNATE Anaheim 2 & 3 Miriam Kaywood W. J. Thom* Cypress 3· Alice Frankiewich* Sonia Sonju · Fullerton 2 Frances Wood Robert Ward* 3 Robert. Ward* Frances Wood La Palma 3 Edward J. Byrne* Dan Collins Santa Ana ALL. DISTRICTS Report of the ALL DISTRICTS Report of the ALL DISTRICTS 1 & 7 2 & 3 Joint John Garthe* Vernon Evans Chairman General Manager Vernon Evans John Garthe* Consideration of proposed special clean water grant conditions regarding air quality impacts, and formulation of position to be presented at the May 12, 1975, hearing on said proposed grant conditions: (a) Report of Executive Committee (b) Consideration of action (8) ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of roll call vote motion approving Joint Operating .ROLL CALL VOTE ..... ......-accounts payable check register for signature of the Chairman of District No. 1, and authorizing payment of claim as follows: WARRANT NO. IN FAVOR OF AMOUNT 25741 J. Wayne Sylvester, Director of Finance $469.71 (Reimbursement for Petty Cash outlays ,1 ~~r travel, meetings & miscellaneous 4--tJ ~ ~~t-of-pocket expenses) (9) ALL DISTRICTS Consideration of motion to adjourn RESOLUTION NO. 75-61 OPPOSING ~LEAN WATER GRANT CONDITIONS RE AIR QUALITY IMPACTS AS PROPOSED A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE BOARDS OF DIRECTORS OF COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 AND 11 OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING CLEAN WATER GRANT CONDITIONS RE AIR QUALITY IMPACTS AS PROPOSED * * * * * * * * * * * WHEREAS, the State Water Resources Control Board has proposed special clean water grant conditions limiting the rate of new sewer connections in "air quality maintenance areas" for grant-funded water quality control projects; and, WHEREAS, said State Water Resources Control Board has set a hearing on said proposed regulations for 10:00 a.m., May 12, 1975; and, WHEREAS, said proposed regulations would greatly restrict local political decisions and considerations related to the prevention, abatement and control of environmental pollution which must be integrated with economic and regional development. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Boards of Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 of Orange County, California: Section 1. That the special clean water grant conditions regarding air quality impacts proposed by the State Water Resources Control Board are determined to· be unacceptable to these Boards of Directors in their present form, and said Boards of Directors do hereby adamantly oppose adoption of said regulations; and, Section 2. That these Boards of Directors do, however, recognize the need to resolve air quality problems and, therefore, direct the Districts' staff to meet with representatives of the State Water Resources Control Board to develop acceptable procedures with regard to the local sewerage agencies' role in the mitigation of air quality problems in the South Coast Air Basin. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a special meeting held April 29, 1975. STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURC[S AGENCY EDMUND G. BHOWN JR. STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD r--r>M 1015, RESOURCES BUILDING ,..,,,,,. NINTH STREET • SACRAMEi~TO 9.5814 TO: INTERESTED PARTIES SUBJECT: SPECIAL CLEAN WATER GRANT CONDITION REGARDING AIR QUALITY IMPACTS· J\RJQNM.OCJtOC~ Governor Th~ State Air Resources Board has designated the following eight Air Quality Maintenance Areas throughout the State: 1. South Coast Air Basin 2.· San Fr~ncisco Bay Area Air Basin, excluding Marin County 3. San Diego Air Basin 4. Sacramento metropolitan area 5.· Kern County 6. Fresno County 7. San Joaquin and Stanislaus Counties 8. Monterey County Air Quality· Maintenance Areas are those areas which have the potential to exceed adopted ambient air quality standards during the period 1975 to 1985. Protection of the State's water resources continues to be the State Water Resources Control Board's primary responsibility and goal. However, inasmuch as detrimental air quality impacts ·may be associated with new sewer connections facilitated by construction of treatment facilities with federal and state grant funds, the State Water Resources Control Board, State Air Resources Board and the Environmental Protection Agency have cooperated in the development of a proposed grant condition to be included in state grant contracts for projects in Air Quality Maintenance Areas. The condition is set forth in full in the attached public notice& --~ "'D J/02J£ Jj,A/ La~. Walker, Chief 7-r Division of Water Qualtty Enclosure EDMUND G. BROWN JR. STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY ~~. Govurnor -- ST A TE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD . ROOM 10l5, RESOURCES BUILDING 1416 NINTH STREET o SACRAMENTO 95814 NOTICE OF .PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE REGULATIONS OF THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the State Water Resources Control Board, pursuant to the authority vested by Section 1058 of the Water Code and Section 21082 of the Public Hesources Code, and to implement, interpret or make specific Chapters 13 and 14, Division 7 of the Water Code, proposes to adopt Section 2157 under new Article 13, Subchapter 7, Chapter 3, Title 23, California Administrative Code,-to read as follows: Article 13. Air Quality Impacts 2157. ~ir Quality Condition. The following special condition shall be placed on all grant contracts awarded on or before June 30, 1975, for projects to be constructed in Air Quality Maintenance Areas as defined by the Air Resources Board: (a) In order to limit detrimental air quality impacts associated with new sewer connections and in order to prevent significant economic hardship or social dislocation that might result from a moratorium on all new sewer connections before grantee and other public agencies have an opportunity to develop a program to mitigate the air pollution emissions associat~d with new sewer connections, grantee agrees that prior to December 1, 1976, grantee will authorize no new sewer connections outside the boundaries . of the area to be served by the project as defined in the grantee's approved project report as amended and as shown on the attached map.· Grantee further agrees that the aggregate average daily hydraulic flow from new sewer connections made or authorized within said area prior to December 1, 1976, shall not exceed ~~percent of the average daily hydraulic flow as of the date of execution of this contract. The state board will determine the average daily hydraulic flow. (b) In order to limit detrimental air quality impacts, grantee agrees that no new sewer connections shall be authorized after December 1, 1976, except pursuant to sections (c), (d), and (e) below. (c) Grantee agrees that not less than one year prior to the date grantee proposes to authorize new sewer connections in excess of those permitted under section (a) above, grantee shall petition the Air Resources Board to hold a hearing to determine the air quality related conditions under which grantee may authorize new sewe~ connections. The petition shall include such information required by gu~delines adopt~d by the Air Resources Board by July ;i, 1975. as· (d) Grantee understands that.within one year after petition, or by December 1, 1976, whichever is later, the Air Resources Board will hold hearings and make findings regarding required air quality related conditions under which grantee may authorize new sewer connections in excess of those permitted under section (a) above. Grantee agrees to abide by any such conditions specified by the Air Resources Board. Grantee understands further that grantee may authorize new sewer connections under this section if the Air Resources Board's findin~s are that: (1) Public agencies within grantee's service area have participated in and agreed to implement a state approved air quality maintenance plan; or (2) Public agencies within grantee's service area have ·adopted and are implementing mitigation measures in accordance with Air Hesources Board guidelines; or- (3) Emissions growth associated with new sewer connections in the air quality maintenance area or submaintenance area will not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of national primary or secondary ambient air quality standards or state ambient air quality standards. Grantee further understands that guidelines for mitigation measures to be adopted and implemented under (2) above will be adopted.by the Air Resources Board by December 1, 1975. (e) Grantee further understands that in the event the Air Resources Board fa~ls to make its findings within one year of grantee's petition under (c) above or prior.to December.l, 1976, whichever is later, as to the air quality related conditions under which grantee may authorize new sewer connections, grantee may authorize new sewer connections without regard to air quality impacts until such time as the findings are made. (f) Grantee further understands that the Air Resources Board will adopt petition guidelines by July 1, 1975, and will give grantee and affected local government leadership, guidance, and assistance for the development of air quality maintenance plans. (g) This condition does not affect grantee's authority (1) to connect existing unsewered discharges, or (2) to make new connections for which all necessary governmental sewer connection approvals have been obtained a~ of the date of execution of this agreement. -2- \ The State Water Resources Control Board has determined that there is no mandate for a new pr6gram br increased level of service on any unit of local government as a result of the a~ove addition in regulations. -NOTICE IS ALSO GIVEN that any person interested inay present statements or arguments orally or in writing relevant to the action proposed at the following hearings to be held at 10:00 o'clock a.m. on the 12th day of May, 1975: (1) Sacramento -Resources Building Auditorium, 1416 Ninth Street (2) Los Angeles -.Room 1138, 107 South Broadway Statements ~~y also be presented to the State Water Resources Control Board in writing at Room 1015, 1416 Ninth Street, Resources Building, Sacramento, California 95814, at or before 5:00 o'clock p.m. on the 12th day of May, 1975. The 'State Water Resources Control Board, upon its own motion or at the instance of any interested person, may thereafter adopt the above proposals substantially as above set forth without further notice. Dated: APR 8 1975 STA TE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD ~oG>w~~ k Bill B. DendyO / -· Executive Officer -3- April 12, 1975 AMSA LEGISLATIVE STRATEGY--PL 92-500 AMENDMENTS CONSOLIDATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM REGIONAL LEGISLATIVE MEETINGS AMSA has recently concluded a round of regional legislative meetings in which individual members were requested to recommend those modifications in PL 92-500 which they believe should be pursued on a priority basis during the 1975 Congressional Session. The material which follows is an attempt to consolidate the recommendations and sup- porting materials prepared by each of the regional membership groups. By and large, there was remarkable unanimity on which issues were of paramount importance for this year and, to a lesser extent, the specific detailed manner in which each of those issues should be addressed. In order to keep this summary reasonably brief, much of the excellent documentation prepared in each region has been omitted. Once an AMSA organizational position is agreed upon, however, much of that same material will be utilized in preparing legislative testimony and support- ing documentation. The material which follows is based on reports from meetings held in Regions I, III, IV, V, VI, IX, and X. The principal issues and the recommendations submitted are as follows: SECONDARY TREATMENT REQUIREMENT--SECTION 30l(b) (1) (B) There is virtual unanimity of opinion that the July 1, 1977, deadline for secondary treatment by publicly owned treatment works must be extended. The preferred mechanism is to give the Administrator of EPA the administrative discretion to extend the deadline on a case-by- case basis rather than by legislating a new date in the Act. Regions III, VI, and VI recommend that the criteria for extension be: (a) that -2- construction can't be completed prior to July 1, 1977; or (b) that adequate Federal funds under PL 92-500 are not available for construction. Regions I, V, IX and X recommended that the Administrator be given dis- cretion to approve some treatment standard other than secondary. Region I would have the Administrator approve alternate treatment processes if they were "cost effective", "adequate to protect adopted water quality classifications of the receiving water" and protective of the public health. Regions IX and X recommended a case-by-case balanc- ing of cost versus affect on receiving waters. Region V would add the additional caveat that if some systems are allowed to adopt treatment processes less expensive than secondary treatment, that those systems still required to meet the secondary standard should receive some com- pensating benefit, presumably a higher rate of Federal matching. USER CHARGES--SECTION 204(b) (1) and (2) There is virtual unanimity of support for amendment to the current strict interpretation of Section 204. Several different rec- ommendations were put forth on how this section should be amended. Region I proposes that local agencies be given the discretion to set user charges on the basis of a formula that will achieve "reasonably proportionate" sharing of costs .by classes of users. Region IX proposes a system whereby local agencies could use any combination of revenue sources which would: (a) achieve "substantial proportionality" among classes of users, and (b) assess additional surcharges to assure that each industrial user pays its proportionate share of cost on the basis of volume, strength, etc. Region VI proposes to eliminate entirely the "proportionality" requirement as well as the criteria for user -3- ~ charges set forth in 204(b) (2) (B). Regions IV and V also expressed strong support for introducing more flexibility into the user charge requirement. Neither proposed specific changes at this time, but Chicago has previously documented its position on numerous occasions. ALLOTMENT--SECTION 205(a) Although not all regions commented on this issue, among those who did there was general agreement that monies available for the con- struction grant program should not be allotted to the states solely on the basis of the recent needs survey. Regions IV, V, VI and X all thought this section should be amended and that at least some consideration should be given to population as a basis for distribution of at least part of the construction grant monies. Region X, for example, proposed a two track system to distribute a portion of the available funds on a formula basis related to population and to place the remaining portion of available funding in a discretionary fund to be allotted to areas with extraordinary treatment needs disporportionate to their population. Region V proposed alloting monies to the state on the basis of population only but then requiring by Federal law an intrastate distribution based on both state priorities and population. Under this proposal state priorities would be established pursuant to some national policy frame- work. Region VI would keep the needs survey as the basis for allotments but would adjust those allotments to account for considerations of the economic impact on municipalities of installing treatment works. (Section 516(b) (3)) INDUSTRIAL COST RECOVERY--SECTION 204(b) (1) and (3) (B) There appears to be considerable opposition to the industrial cost recovery requirements of the 1972 Act. Regions I, IV, V, VI and -4- IX have all commented on this issue and all but one preferred out- right elimination of any Federally mandated industrial cost recovery requirement. Short of elimination, two fallback positions were suggested as follows: (1) the grant recipient could contract with EPA at the outset of the grant to repay a fixed dollar amount representing 50% of the Federal share of the grant allocable to the treatment of industrial wastes. The payment would then be made on annual install- ments until the fixed amount had been liquidated. EPA would not, how- ever, impose constraints on the manner in which the municipality then collected those costs from industrial users. (~) Region I suggested that rather than having the Federal government grant money then recover it, that the initial grant should simply be scaled down to a lower level. That would give the municipality even more incentive to collect repayment from industrial users but would not tell the municipality how it had to do so. INFILTRATION/INFLOW ANALYSIS--SECTION 20l(g) (3) Regions I, III, IV and VI a-1 expressed concern over the current situation in which delays in the approval of the "I and I" analysis results in delaying grant approval itself. Regions I and VI recommended complete elimination of this provision as a condition precedent for grant approval. Region III suggested that Committee report language could direct EPA to not unnecessarily delay the grant application procedure on account of this provision. PLANNING REQUIREMENTS--SECTIONS 201, 208, 209, 303 Three regions expressed concern over delays and unnecessary complexity in the operation of the planning provisions of the 1972 legislation. Particular concern was expressed relative to regional -5- planning requirements of Section 208. Region IV recommends the elim- ination of Section 208, as does Region VI. Region VI also recommends the elimination of 209 and feels that the planning requirements of 201 and 303 are sufficient. Region V proposed to handle the problem by increasing the funding under 208 and putting an incentive in the funding mechanism to initiate the Section 208 planning process prior to June 30, 1976, thus hoping to avoid any delays occasioned by the interaction of Section 208 with other provisions of the Act. REIMBURSEMENT FOR PROJECTS INITIATED AFTER JULY 1, 1972--SECTION 206(f) Several regions thought some provision should be made for reimbursing those projects which could be approved and initiated during a fiscal year when all available funds had already been otherwise obli- gated. This would allow construction to go forward and place approved projects on a ladder of entitlements to be satisfied out of funds made available in the next fiscal year. Region V opposed a blanket reimburse- ment approach and expressed concern that it might become an excuse not to adequately fund the program in any given year. That region pro- posed instead that the granting of some reimbursement entitlement be at the option of the state in which the treatment facility was to be located. FUNDING--SECTION 202(a) Because there has been considerable discussion over the past several months about the possibility of decreasing the Federal grant percentage, a number of regions addressed this proposal. All regions which did not comment on it opposed any change in the grant percentage, with the exception of Region III which suggested that the Federal share could be decreased if and only if the states picked up the difference. -6- DELEGATION TO THE STATES--CLEVELAND :BILL Several regions also commented on the proposal of Congress- man Cleveland to allow for delegation of the grant making authority to state agencies. Regions IV and X support the Cleveland Bill in concept, but Region X thought that the delineation between the Federal and state rule was not sufficiently clear in the Bill as now drafted, and that further, as part of the delegation to the states, states should be given discretion to fund on a priority basis and at the same time issue extensions to the compliance deadlines for those projects of lesser priority. Region V, on the other hand, opposes the delegation concept insofar as it would apply to large municipal systems. They propose instead that EPA delegate authority to deal only with the smaller munci- pal systems. EPA would deal directly with large municipalities. PROPOSED REDEFINITION OF ELIGIBLE TREATMENT WORKS A number of proposals have been discussed in recent months to further delimit projects which Federal grant monies would be avail- able to support. For example, the staggering dollar requirements of the recent needs survey can be substantially reduced if collector systems are removed from eligibility and if the Federal share funds only current capacity requirements or a limited period of capacity growth. A variety of different propositions have come forth from the regional meetings. Region III would give top priority to funding of treatment works and major transmission facilities. Region I'II would be willing to limit the funding of growth to ten years for treatment works and twenty years for interceptor and outfall sewers. Region V, on the other hand, opposes any limitations on funding future capacity and believes that construction for ultimate needs will in most cases prove to be cost effective. Region V proposes instead that separate funding -7- authorizations and separate grant procedures be established for several different categories of project: rehabilitation of treatment works, rehabilitation of collection systems, design and construction of new treatment works (including interceptors), design and construction of new collection systems, and possibly storm water projects unless included in the definition of "treatment works". Region VI would fund current capacity requirements only unless the funding of future requirements could be shown to be cost effective, case-by-case. Region IX proposes to increase rather than decrease items eligible for Federal partici- pation, specifically adding site acquisition and operating expenses. Region X expressed its opposition to the elimination of funding for collector systems in the belief that it would discriminate against good regional waste treatment planning. CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER THE ACT--SECTION 309(c) (1) Two regions connnented in support of Jim Segreto's initiatives to amend the criminal liability provisions of the Act. Regions III and VI propose the following modifications in the alternative: (a) exempt government agencies from application of the criminal liability provision; or (b) keep criminal liability for willful violations only; or (c) keep criminal liability for willful and/or gross negligence violations only. No other regional reports specifically commented on this issue, but considerable support can probably be assumed. "CHANGING EPA REGULATIONS" Several regions expressed continued frustration with the inordinate delays in the construction grant approval process occasioned by the continuing revision in EPA requirements. Regions VI and IX specifically propose a method to "freeze the world'' at the time of grant application and concept approval respectively. Region VI would further -8- give the applicant the option to take advantage of subsequent changes if it so desired. THE "TWO BRAND NAMES" REQUIREMENT Although apparently not a part of any regional meeting discussion, the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners have suggested that the requirement of Section 204(a) (6) of at least two brand or trade names of comparable quality in bid specifications has proven to be an irritating and frustrating feature of the Act. This is offered as one of those illustrations of where PL 92-500 has gotten into such intricate detail as to be very nearly self-defeating of some of the large and laudable goals of the Act. The suggesti.on is that the pro- vision be amended to require a brand or trade name that may be used to demonstrate the quality and type of equipment needed with the provision that the particular name shall be followed by the phrase "or approved equal". Interim Staff Report of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Review Committee on Public Works and Transportation U. S. House of Representatives on the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500) Note: This report has not been officiallu adopted by the Subcommittee on Investi~ations and Review and ma9 not therefore necessarily reflect the views of its members. I !'l TR 0 DUCT I 0 /,' A~tcr stud~i~q the implementation of PL 92-50J for more thAn a ~:-"=',~! ~-~he staff o~.-th-::! Subcom:rii ttee O!l Ini··cstiyd =~o;J.s und c : ~ ::= r::; t h 2 t-o 1 ].. o :·,-i n q o b s e r \' '1 t i on s a n d j u d q mer. t s t o a s s i s t 0 -· th._! Sub.:=oumi ttee und the parent Cammi ttee. • Rei" i ew the membsrs This interi~ report is based on extensive field ~ark, hundreds of interviews, an exa~ination of the literature, and 10 days of formal ~e2rin~s held between February and August, 1974. It is anticipated th~t a ~ore detailed report can be issued after additional hearings ar-2 held. A Record of Disillusionment The administration of PL 92-500 has been beset with contro- v er s y an d di s i 11 u s i on men t . Some id t n es s es i n our ear 1 i es t he a r i n g .s suggested that Ph 92-500 was a net detriment rather than a net ben- afi t to the national water pollution abatement effort. Some of that comment undoubtedly was exaggerated and premature. It probably was u n fa i r to j u d g e a 1 a ~·1 so am bi ti o u s i n _i ts i n t en t on approx i ma t e 1 y on e ye~r of transitional, start-up experience. Bu t c r i t i c i s m of the 1 a to/ a n d t he En vi r on men ta 1 Pro t e c ti on Aqen2y's administration of it continues unabated to this day. Sane responsible spokesmen have advocated repeal of PL 92-500. In the opinion of the staff, this would be an extreme over- reaccion. The program, above all, needs stability, patience, and un~erst~nding. Some corrective legislation may be reauired in the months ahead. But in this regard the staff would offer one caution- ary note. The limited experience in amending the Act to date suggests changes do not always result in improvement. Proble~s can be exacer- bated, or new ones created. The overall aim should be to streamline and to simplify. It seems futile to try to deal legislatively with all of the socioe=ono~ic perm~tations present in abating water pol1ution in co~plex U. S. soci2ty. Th~re are priority considerations in the Federal law, and there C1. !. · e ;-; c r i p h c r a 1 o :i f' s . The s ta f .f r e s p e c t f u 11 y s u b n i t s t h i s n a y be t h 2 time to consider shedding some of the peripheral ones to improve the chJnc2s of success for those of ~ore obvious national consequence. A p :_: r c1 1 I (· 2 ob j e c: t i v e s h o u 1 d be to a ch i c t • e ma x i rn u n ~-1 a tt: r· c 1 ear. u. p :for e ._,-a r ti : n d c !' <! 2 do .1 i .:i r ;-:; p ,~ n t . -2 - There are a number of lessons to be learned from the admin- istration of PL 92-500. First and foremost, in the opinion of staff investigators, is recognition of the fact that there are limits to th~ rate at which changes can or should be incorporated into any federal program. PL 92-500 sought to force a timetable of change onto federal, state and local officials that seemed to go beyond human and institutional adaptive capability. Th~ result has often been chaotic. Not surprisingly, serious questions about the program's cred- ibility have been raised. They grow out of its inherent contradic- tions--idealistic goals regarded as unachievable, timetables that underestimate the capital investment and construction that is needed, a level of funding that is inconsistent with "needs'' and goals, and growing difficulties in raising non-federal revenues. At the same time, the law mandates severe penalties for noncompliance. It is impossible to fit all of the pieces together in a logical way. Time and time again, experienced professionals have expressed a sense of confusion. In large part this has been due to the blizzard of deadlines, regulations and guidelines that followed passage of PL 92-500 and kept everyone off-balance. It has been difficult for personnel in the Environmental Pro- tection Agency and the states to cope with the massive new require- ments. EPA has not had enough trained people to handle the workload placed on it by the passage of PL 92-500. The states, too, have been short an estimated 3,400 positions in their water pollution _agencies. In spite of their very substantial personnel problems, the states are being encouraged to assume additional duties. More than half of the states are now responsible for reviewing plans and speci- fications for waste treatment facilities. About a third of them are managing the permit program mandated under the National Pollution ~ischarge Elimination System. Needless to say, there are very troubling questions as to how well this work is being done. The complexity of PL 92-500 has not been fully comprehended. In some respects, the law sought to redesign the world to meet water quality objectives. Unfortunately, at some point the massive new federal requirements lost their identity and became a legalistic blur. And tvhen competent public servants cannot comprehend or under- stand, cannot identify parameters and benchmarks, cannot detect underlying logic and reasonableness, they tend to' become immobilized. ''As one of those who had some part in writing the new latv," Chairman Jim Wright said at one point in the Subcommittee hearings, "I v1ould like to think that it is an improvement. But with all its flaws and imperfections, the old system worked. Things got done and construction went forward and streams were being cleansed of pol- ....., lution. But in the last couple of years they just have not been, have they?" -3 - The staff believes it is essential ln contemplating changes in PL 92-500 to keep these words in mind. Also, to remember that for all of its ~eficiencies, PL 92-500 has now become the "old system." The previous one has been replaced, and the nation's water pollution abatement program will hinge on how well PL 92-500 can be made to work. We believe it can be done. Ultimately, the success of PL 92-500 rests on instilling con- fidence and enthusiasm among responsible officials at all levels and on creating a better public understanding of what the water pollution program is all about. It would help greatly if ambiguity and disagreement that exists as to "congressional intent" could be removed. In administering certain key sections of the law, EPA frequently finds itself befuddled as to what the Congress really wants. Specifically, why has the program foundered? What has caused the National Governors' Conference to warn that this highly-publicized example of federal-state cooperation is now "in serious jeopardy?" How can the program be righted and steered along a course that will be of maxiDum benefit to the nation? As always, the answers are not simple. History of the Act To truly understand the problem, it is necessary to recall the historical context in which the Act was passed. T~e nation had dis- covered environmental awareness in the late 1960's. The issue had tremendous emotional appeal, especially among the young and the af- fluent upper middle class. Serious questioning of large, Washington-centered attacks on America's so-called "social problems" had not yet emerged on any large scale. Inflation was treated as a relatively minor problem. The natural response was to "pass a law" pouring federal dollars and federal manpower into water pollution abatement. PL 92-500 was enacted over the veto of President Nixon in October, 1972, by over- whel~ing margins in both the House and Senate. FL 92-500 probably can be regarded as a classical example of two phenomena that have plagued governmental programs, and particu- lar federal programs, in the past decade. They are underestimation and overexpectation. ~ On this score, an observation in a 1972 report by the Brookings Institution on "Setting National Priorities" is appropriate: -4 - "The simple transfer of resources is not ... a suf- ficient response to the new concerns that were thrust on the federal government in the 1960's: the provision of more effective social services ~nd the improvement of the environment in which people live. Satisfying ·these new concerns requires finding ways of changing the behavior of individuals and of institutions ... " The magnitude of the task set out in PL 92-500 has been dras- ticall·y underestimated. Even today, many individuals responsible for ~mplementing major portions of the program do not seem to realize that the Act renders invalid some of the basic socio-economic assump- tions that have prevailed in this nation for 150 years. Waterways no longer can be regarded as a relatively free economic resource. There is no right to dump or pollute, even if specific site pollution has become deeply internalized in the functioning of a city or a factory. Pollution cannot be justified on grounds that it is essential to protect the production of goods or farm crops, jobs, or the economic vitality of any community. The 1972 law is a disruptive law. It is written that way. The thrust of the Act is that systematically, through a compli- cated, interrelated series of actions, and by certain key dates, the tolerance of dirty water shall end. It is a harsh mandate, carrying a high price. Overexpectations Because the magnitude of the task has been underestimated, the program has suffered from public and official overexpectation. Many Americans have become captive of a kind of "crash program" mentality, symbolized by the man-on-the-moon project and, more recently, by the declaration of Project Independence to achieve energy self-sufficiency. This is not to judge the merits of those programs. Rather it is to point out, as Emerson did many years ago, that there is a price attached to every benefit for man. Crash programs depend upon a kind of tunnel vision, focusing on a single goal, and a presumed willing- ness to accept certain trade-offs, side effects, environmental and social costs, to reach that goal. Too frequently, the staff fears, PL 92-500 "crash program" to clean up the nation's waters. patience in early 1975 that the benefi·ts are not all. Hence, the occasional voices to repeal the p~ogram entirely or to start over. is regarded as a Hence, the im- readily apparent to law, to scrap the ~ To achieve the goals of the 1972 water pollution amendments, or e·,·en revised goals that might be set after the report by the National - 5 - Study Commission, a price will have to be paid. It will be a sub- stan~i~l price, extracted over a period of many years, and in a way th3t touches the lives of all Americans. Any expectation of recognizable benefits from the 1972 Act in ear2y 1975 is unrealistic. Mr. Wright noted during the course of the hearings that money spent is not necessarily an accurate gauge. Neither are new bureaucracies created, new people hired, new reports issued. There is only one measure, and that is improved water quality. Ironically, where that is being achieved, along Lake Erie beaches, in the Hudson River, the Willamette River, and other lakes and streams, it is the result of earlier state and federal legislation, and partic- ularly the 1965 federal act. In fact, the first several months of experience under the 1972 Act actually resulted in a diminution of some on-going state effort. One state official testified that the increase in paperwork under the new law resulted in field investigations in his state dropping from 6,100 to 2,000 in comparable 12-month periods. Another state official said he had to reduce the inspection of discharge sites from three times to once a year, because his work force was needed to comply with the new federal requirements. A~ong environmentalists, state and municipal officials, and the mass media, the eyebrow raiser in the 1972 Act was the price tag. The large amount of money authorized suggested a relatively high priority for cleaning up the nation's waters. One half of $18 billion authorized for construction grants was immediately impounded by the President. Only in the past two months has the second $9 billion been made available for obligation by the states. Funds that were available could not be easily obligated as the transition from the old law to the new one proved to be arduous, with literally hundreds of projects "in the pipeline" turned back because they failed to meet newly evolving federal requirements. In some states, project approvals were stopped completely for a year or more. The three-step construction grant process established three discrete phases in the construction of a waste treatment facil- ity, with approved plans and specifications required for each step. At least 10 major categori~s of requirements apply in a Step I facil- ities plan alone. They range from making environmental assessments to meeting a variety of planning requirements and making cost effective- ness determinations. The result has been bureaucracy epitomized. It is not surprising that some project applications shuttle back and forth--or lie dormant--for months, waiting for the last tiny require- ment of the lat~, or EPA's implementing regulations, to be met. ~ Impoundments and red tape have not been all. Simultaneously, construction costs have escalated at a rate of 15 percent annually, -6 - project bids and borroiving costs have far exceeded estimates, contro- versies have swirled at the local level over earlier conceived projects, '-"" and the nation's "needs" have expanded to a betvildering estimate of $350 billion. (See footnote on page 24.) As the new year begins, there is mounting evidence of a changing u. s. economic picture, with attention spreading f~om the fighting of inflation to simultaneously finding measures to combat a deepening ~ecession. Unused construction grant monies loom as a formidable resource to bolster the nation's sagging economy. There is evidence, too, that EPA and the states are overcoming some of their administra- tive problems and that the program is proceeding on a more orderly basis. EPA has expressed the belief that the flow of construction funds can be speeded up, at the same time acknowledging that a new set of problems are inherent in overzealous contract approvals. The staff believes there is more reason for optimism about the municipal water pollution abatement program than has existed in the past two years. Still, the words of one witness serve as a pungent reminder that problems will not be easily erased: "We are faced on all sides by local officials who are extremely skeptical of any prom- ises or suggestions," he warned. Judgements, Not Proven Answers PL 92-500 contains 89 pages of detailed requirements which not only create a massive administrative workload, but also give rise to another major area of concern. In the minds of some, this specificity represents a fundamental contradiction to sound environmental action and poses a counterforce to environmental progress. The goal of environmental programs is to achieve compatibility in the relationship between man and nature. Decisions, theoretically, are made on the basis of what serves most people and the total eco- system in which we live. The decision-making framework is almost always fuzzy and imprecise. Actions which are considered environ- mentally damaging can, by application of a different yardstick, almost always be seen as beneficial. There are generally explainable econ- omic or social reasons for pollution. The technique of adversary confrontation, so fundamental to the functioning of our legal, economic and political systems, is not readily adaptable to environmental issues. They are essentially matters of judgement. Solutions rest more on an analytical weighing of risks and benefits, costs and benefits. Inputs, are needed from a variety of disciplines and viewpoints so they can be synthesized into a course of action. There are few clearcut answers. The "proper" course of action depends to a very large extent upon a person's point of view, his values, and, particularly, the impact that may result on him person- .._, ally and directly. Because PL 92-500 carries EPA so aggressively into these judgemental areas, it is no wonder the Agency currently is - 7 - i~volved in more than 160 separate lawsuits, with the list growing e'lery day. Some observers predict the whole industrial control program could bog down in a legal morass. This threat would exist, in partic- ~lar, if EPA actions were to be remanded because of the procedures followed in developing effluent guidelines or wat~r quality waste 2o~d allocations. A related consideration is the impact of pollution abatement investments in a period of business retrenchment. How many plant closings and how many job losses will be blamed, at least in part, on the rAquirements of PL 92-500? In the real world, when water pollu- tion objectives are in conflict with other socially desirable objec- tives, whose judgements shall prevail? In our hearings, a number of EPA's decisions have been challenged. Hardly ever has the challenge been on the basis of incontrovertible scientific fact. More likely, the interest group looking at the same incomplete and fragmented data that EPA had evaluated questioned the decision on the basis of judgement. In short, so many of the differences over the administration of ?L 92-500 are matters of opinion. This, it seems, must be recognized above all. It is E?A's judgement versus the judgement of the paper .industry, or the electrical power companies, or state officials, or Hhomever. Hard and fast answers to most environmental issues just co not exist. Unchallenged "proof" is almost always lacking. At a recent national convention of water pollution officials, an official of a major u. s. city, who admitted he was becoming frustrated by detailed planning and environmental requirements, pleaded that federal water pollution dollars be used more for "concrete and steel" and less for what he considered to be these less consequential activ- ities. But, almost simultaneously, another speaker was appearing at another session of the same conference and using an almost identical figure of speech. Decisions to build waste treatment facilities must be carefully made, he cautioned, with emphasis on planning and environ- mental assessments, "because debts and concrete survive ,for genera- tions." Two opinions, about the same program, obviously at variance with one another as to what should be emphasized in the environmentally beneficial construction grants program. Writing about environmental decision-making in an issue of .3 i o sci enc e ma g a z i n e , La t'1 re n c e B . S 1 ob o d kin obs er v e d : " I hope th a t I ha7e demonstrated that there are, in fact, gaps in necessary infor- ~ation. There are legitimate differences of opinion on all levels ... These gaps ~nd differences arise from a multiplicity of sources and are not legitimately the 'fault' of any one particular person or class ....._, o:: per sons . rv i tho 11 t th i s re a 1 i z a t .i on fur the r a t temp ts a t f i n ding r2al solutions are alrr:ost impossible." -8 - And in a paper given before a symposium of the American Society of Bioloyical ChAmists, Philip Handler and Alexander Zucker state the i s sue th i s '-"'a y : " ..• the know 1 edge ba s e i s imperf e c t . . . man y of the better answers to environmental questions are, as yet, abstract ... relatively little is known about messy practical iss.ues, at least in part because science, understandably and properly, has concentrated on tha central, the simple, and the beautiful." The 1972 Act contains several simple, beautiful objectives: The 1977 deadline of best practicable control technology for industry (BPCTCA). A uniform minimum level of secondary treatment for all municipalities. The 1983 goal of fishable/swimmable waters. The distribution of construction grant money according to a national "needs" survey. The issuance of permits to all municipal and indus- trial dischargers by December 31, 1974. Industry-wide effluent standards. All of these objectives are laudable and capable of fusing environmental thinking into the nation's consciousness. But their actual achievement represents a mosaic of millions of "messy practical issues." The specificity of the law and the implementing regulations amount to a resolution of many of these practical problems by fed- eral fiat. Communities are being told in intricate, interrelated detail exactly what they must do and how they must do it. This specificity is causing no end of trouble. From the stand- point of total energy environmental sanity, some of the actions taken can be wasteful of natural resources, economically inefficient, and socially disruptive. In some cases, actual environmental degradation can occur in other than the narrow water quality account. For example, while the Act encourages recycling and conserva- tion to reduce the volume of sludges and residues for which there must be ultimate disposal, it provides little leeway for considering this ultimate disposal. There is bias toward land disposal. And yet ecologists argue that in some cases ultimate disposal, depending upon local circumstances, actually should occur in fresh or salt water bodies. Any "no discharge" requirement can hat."e major air and solid waste implications. Section 311, which contains stiff pen- alties for oil spills or other accidental discharges of hazardous substances, may be creating a bias from water transport to land transport of these substances. Land transport, in the opinion of some, is riskier and potentially more dangerous environmentally. Wise environmental decisions ultimately are matters of informed judgement based upon the best available information. Both national ~nd local factors--plusses and minuses--must be considered and "traded ..,,.,:ff." But EPA has not been particularly responsive to local circum- stances, except through infrequent variance and waiver clauses. Its reaso~s dre threefold: - 9 - (lj The underlying principle of any technology standard (BPCTCA and Best Available Treatment) is to treat everyone alike. Th i s cl i ff c rs from t he o 1 d program , vi hi ch s tar t e d w i th ~'a t e r qua 1 i t y a r. d vi o r i:. e 6. ba ck t'l a rd , vii th gr ea t di ff i cu 1 t y , to the ~ o u r c es of po 11 u - tion. People could be treated differently. (2) The administrative burden that would be placed on EPA and the states if, e.g., effluent limitations for industry were determined on a plant-by-plant rather than category-by-category basis. (3) The series of deadlines in the law. The plea made over and over again in talking with state and municipal officials, and even acknowledged by conservation and en- vironmental groups, is for "flexibility." It is virtually unanimous a~ong people close to the messy practical problems that more flex- ibility is needed in the administration of PL 92-500. Social critic Paul Goodman has written: "In social organiza- tion, deciding in headquarters means relying on information that is cumulatively abstract and irrelevant, and chain-of-command execution applies standards that cumulatively do not fit the concrete situation. By and large, it is better, given a sense of the whole picture, for those in the field to decide what to do and to do it." The Subcommittee hearings and the staff's field work confirm that the inability to apply local/field judgement because of the preemptive nature of PL 92-500 has become a serious impediment to balanceri environmental programming. And while there is a growing awareness that more flexibility is needed, there is still the temp- tation, apparently based upon years of preconditioning, to turn to Washington for the resolution of thorny, real-world questions. Strangely, this seems to occur even when there is good reason to suspect that EPA's involvement might create more co~fusion than clarity. In this respect, the Subcommittee staff can anticipate at lea3t one new pressure point in tHe water pollution program for an enlargerl federal presence. It is worthy of brief discussion. A recent federal study questioned EPA's policy of approving large interceptor sewers that serve to encourage sprawling residential 2nd commercial development. Simply stated, the issues are whether the EPA is not (1) unwittingly, becoming a partner in suburban en- vironmental degradation, and (2) sometimes paying for unrealistic growth projections. The answer is yes, the EPA may very well be doinq both of these things. But in the absence of a clearly defined federal land use ~policy, and r~·i th obvious public a mbi va 1 ence over economic and en- v i ronmen ta l issues, how can EPA be expected to make local growth -10 - and non-growth judgements? In a discussion of this type, one gener- ally haars references to limiting interceptor sizes to those compatible w i th " or d c r 1 y gr o tv th . " The s ta ff ha s ye t to hear an a cc e pt ab 1 e definition of what constitutes orderly growth. The optimum situation would seem to be that local citizens, those most affected by the interceptor size and location, have the best information possible to ~ake the decision themselves. This would include information on a national policy regarding growth and land use. The staff sees the basic task to be how to achieve greater flexibility within the framework of PL 92-500 without totally re- writing that piece of legislation. But achieving such flexibility within the law has become a major dilemma. A few examples may help to explain the difficulty. Why Flexibility is Difficult The law requires EPA to define secondary treatment. It then adds that all publicly-owned treatment works must by July 1, 1977, have in place facilities that are providing a minimum of secondary treatment. Knowledgeable experts agree that this national deadline cannot be met. For a variety of reasons, the flow of federal construction money has been nowhere near the level anticipated. Economic uncertain- ties make it extremely difficult to predict funding levels into the future. Even though there is an apparent growing consensus for stimulative public spending, such spending could be expected to increase the national budget deficit, itself a destabilizing and inflationary influence. The three-step construction process mandated in the law ordinarily takes 4 or 5 years. Additionally, shortages of needed materials, manpower, and even trained operators once plants are built have impeded progress. But even if all of these constraints did not exist (and there· has been some amelioration due to the changing economic picture), honest environmental and public health professionals question the wisdom of requiring a single level of secondary treatment for every community everywhere. They ask: Why require it for certain municipalities discharg- ing directly into the ocean, where natural forces ~ay quickly dissipate BOD and non-toxic suspended solids? Is it not environ- mentally wiser to spend the limited amount of money available on inland, upstream municipal facilities, where pollutants discharged into waterways may course their way hundreds of miles to the sea? They ask: Why chlorinate discharges into dry stream beds or during the winter months when pathogenic bacteria pose a substan- ~ tially lessened danger to human health? Do the costs of such -11 - chlorination, with chlorine in recent short supply and its manufacture energy-intensive, outweigh the limited benefits achieved? Indeed, are there benefits achieved under sucl1 circumstances? l.t t'lh:it point may advanced tvaste treatment to· meet 11ater quality stand~~~s, treatme~t that may demand inordinate amounts of energy and cher.zicals, become a net environmental "minus'' rather than a plus? This question can arise, in particular, where the additional removal nay have only a minute impact on stream quality or where waste load allocdtions to meet water quality standards rest on a shaky scien- tific footing. In an article in the August 1974 Public Works magazine, a Univer- sity of California professor noted that even in small communities "it is clear that there is no 'best' process (in waste treatment) that can be applied universally. What is required is consideration of a variety of alternative processes. Because of the budget limitations fa~ed by most small cities, special attention must be given to oper- ation and maintenance requirements." So much of the dismay in the field is because honest, well- ;~otivated people see the limited number of federal water pollution dollars being spent for projects that their informed judgement con- siders to be wasteful and inefficient. The staff cannot help but agree with an observation in a recent statement by the president of the 25,000-member Water Pollution Control Federation: "A little trust would go a long t.,ay to solving many of the law's current problems. Without it, we are wasting our breath." Unfortunately, as soon as the Environmental Protection Agency begins displaying "trust" and flexibility in its relationships with the states, municipalities, and affected industries, it leaves itself vide open for those who insist upon a strict interpretation of the law. For example, EPA sought to modify its original interpretation of the law that prohibited municipalities from using ad valorem tax revenues to pay for the operation and maintenance of waste treatment plants. Testimony heard in the Subcommittee's hearings demonstrated the r.zassive amount of disruption that could occur in uniform compli- ance with this provision. EPA changed its policy, permitting ad valorem taxes to be used. The new interpretation ~as questioned by certain members of the Congress, and the Comptroller General was asked for a ruling. Rule he did. Ad valorem taxation was adjudged an improper method of assessing user charges, for it was not "proportionate" to the use of such facilities--a tvord taken from the law itself. ~Indeed, ::;0;71e tax exempt establishments (churches, institutions, public buildings) pay no real estate taxes at all. -12 - Hence, EPA is back to square one. Unless the law is modified, several states and literally thousands of municipal jurisdictions ~ill have to change their laws and ordinances. Paperwork and bureau- cracy will multiply profusely. All of this in the name of proclaimed e~vironmental enhancement. A corollary issue relates to the distribution of that share of the construction costs of a waste treatment facility that is recovered from industry. The law says the industrial repayment must be based on the extent that industry uses the facility, and the repayment divided, according to a statutory formula, between the local agency and the U. S. Treasury. According to testimony of the Chicago Metropolitan Sanitary District, where industry contributes about 20 percent of the total wasteload, a federal grant of $20 million results in an annual return to the U. S. Treasury of $66,666. One of the requirements to achieve this distribution is 30 years of bookkeeping by all jurisdictions and industries benefiting from the construction grant. The concept seems absolutely sound. No industry should get a free ride at the expense of the federal taxpayer. Everyone should be required to pay his fair share. But the specific requirement mandated in the law, in the minds of many, boils down·to a meaningless, complicated exercise involving relatively insignificant sums of money. Caught in the Middle In our February 1974 hearing much of the testimony was critical of the slow rate at which EPA was obligating construction grant money and actually making cash disbursements. Members of the Subcommittee and .outside witnesses deplored the impact this was having on munici- palities that considered themselves ready to go. Particularly irritating is the fact that inflationary pressures have resulted in a given number of dollars buying less and less in pollution abatement. EPA tried to speed up the process. One of its tactics was to approve, simultaneously, Step II (design) and Step III (construction) grants. This procedure makes it possible for money to be obligated in larger chunks and for construction to get underway faster-- ~inimi zing losses to the inflationary spiral. Again, however, EPA ran into an adverse ruling by the General Accounting Office. It was forced to forego a practice that suited one segment of the Congress but offended another, more literal, segment. The same dichotomy exists as EPA seeks to comply with the pro- visions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. One group would streamline and speed up all NEPA-related actions. Another requires more rigorous conformance. Indeed, iris strict conformity ~wit·h NEPA that probably best inculcates the public and its elected/ -13 - ~ a pp o i n t i v e off i c i a 1 s v! i th true en vi r on men ta 1 th i n k i n g . Bu t the pr i c e - - going b~ck to Emerson aqain--can be delay, loss of purchasing power, and federal dominance of state and local decision-making. Ironically, it can a-1so mean that certain actions may never be taken--if economic and social considerations subsequently converge to. overpower ecological ones. Th9 S~bcommittee has heard about the implications of EPA's guidelir.es for the chemical and thermal pollution of steam electric powe~plants. The utility industry maintains the average customer's electric bill will increase substantially by 1983 to pay for the cost of water pollution abatement alone. Additionally, the industry raises valid environmental questions about water loss from cooling towers (BPCTCA) in water scarce areas, noise pollution, the increased energy consumption associated with cooling towers, and the industry's growing difficulties in raising money for capital investment. The industry would prefer that deadlines be extended and that exemptions under Section 316 be liberalized. EPA says the increase in the average electric bill growing out of water pollution controls ~ill be only 1.5 percent in 1983, and that it, EPA, will be as liberal as it can within the language of the law in granting exemptions. Aqain, a series of judgement calls. In no sense would the staff advocate that the EPA's basic statu- tory authority to regulate discharges from power plants or other industrial categories be lessened. It seems necessary that the author- ity to make these kinds of judgements remain centralized, with the possible delegation of functions to regional ofrices. Transfers of industrial activity from one region of the country should not be per- missible because one group of local citizens, or the administrator of one EPA regional office, are willing to "accept" environmental degra- dation of national consequence in return for local economic or social benefits. But it is essential to view EPA's regulatory function as a series of high level judgements based on often fragmentary and inconclusive data. A substantial part of the regulatory task is to improve the quality of these data. The burden of proof for relief from EPA's requirements should remain with the affected industries for, to return to the basic premise of the law, no one has the right to pollute. Another example of the difference of opinion that exists over the question of flexibility centers around EPA' s 'decision to issue effluent guidelines for animal feedlots (cattle, hogs, sheep, etc.) only larger than a certain minimum. It has established a minimum of 1,000 bee~ animals, or equivalent. This interpretation has been challenged in a critical report prepared by another House subcommittee. That group declares the law intends controls on animal wastes in feedlots of any size and, expressing unassailable environmental logic, ...,.. urges the return of manure to the land as fertilizer. -14 - E?A has found itself in the middle. Its willingness to forego the regulation of small lots in the name of administrative expedience (or farm yard practicality) has been challenged because of the speci- ficity of the law itself. While a good deal of attention in our hearings to date has been on the complaints by affected states, municipalities and industries teat the EPA has ·been too rigid and demanding, it is important to point out that the Agency has been taken into court at least six times bu the National Resources Defense Council, a watchdog environmental g;oup. Essentially, the NRDC maintains the EPA has been dilatory and lax in carrying out the precise letter of the law. So far, it has achieved more success than failure in the judicial system. The "Needs" Survey In the minds of many state and local .observers, nothing more dramatizes some of the more counterproductive aspects of the federal program than two years of experience with the so-called "needs" method of allocating construction grant money. Two "needs" surveys have been made to date. The latest estimate of gross national needs--$350 billion--has been described by EPA as inflated and unreliable. But other knowledgeable persons warn that actual needs as defined by the law itself may be even higher. The two needs surveys have preempted the time of state, local and professional personnel when other substantive parts of the' national proqram were being geared up. Subcommittee investigators have heard from some state peqple that the first survey, in 1973, represented 10 to 25 percent of the total manhours expended in all program areas during that calendar year. The second survey generally was given less effort. Aware as to the implication for their future allotments and, combined with the fact that they were working against an extremely short deadline, some states obviously were inclined to submit big numbers, often on the basis of no documentation at all. In one major state, two college boys calculated the "needs" of several cities and towns. In another state, not one community sub- mitted estimates of needs to treat stormwaters--a category specified in a December, 1973 amendment (PL 93-243) to the 1972 Act. This experience is not surprising. Generally, only the, largest metropol- itan areas have the expertise to understand and comply with a com- plicated needs survey. One of the underlying reasons the needs survey concept has been difficult to administer is the strong philosophical disagreement with it. If there were unlimited dollars to meet all needs, this argument would be somewhat blunted. As it is, some states believe they are paying for waste treatment facilities in other states. Public -15 - officials become vulnerable to criticism if they do not work to see tr. 1 t t (1 •:! :i. r s ta t e gets a " fa i r share " of av a i 1 ab 1 e f .ad er a 1 mo n e y . A l~ttcr tc a congressman from a large metropolitan sanitary clistL·ict aptly describes the probler.i: ''The nc:eds survey method actual] y rewards 1 ocal gov- er~men ts and states for a lack of concern and lack of action in the past, and .penalizes the citizens of states ... who spent local funds and received extremely small amounts of federal funds to accomplish facilities construction." Coupled with this is the fact that the federal grant percentage is now 75 percent, instead of a maximum of 50 or 55 percent as under the earlier program. Not only has the increased percentage served to reduce the reach of federal dollars, but it has also made water pol- lution everywhere Washington-centered. The incentive now exists for "nothing to happen" unless federal money is available. A state or community must have an extremely serious problem, or extremely brave public officials, to opt for building waste treatment facilities out of the pockets of local taxpayers alone. Recognizing the paradoxical elements--expanding "needs," pres- sures to hold down or expand federal spending, local inertia, and unrealistic statutory deadlines--pressures are mounting to make two major changes in PL 92-500: (1) reduce the federal grant percentage and (2) limit eligibility to certain needs categories, such as secon- dary and advanced treatment plants and interceptor sewers. Some changes in that direction may eventually be needed. But the staff would caution that any fundamental changes now would only introduce new trauma into the construction grant program. The resul- tant side effects and reverberations can not fully be predicted. What, for example, about the project now in the pipeline for which local taxpayers have raised the 25 percent local share and who would be told, in effect, to ante up another substantial percentage? Or, what if EPA ~~ere forced to order the further segmenting of projects because the government had changed its ~ind about what it would pay for? Project applications would inevitably be subjected to further re- cycling. State priority lists would have to be altered. The fact that the new law is now the operative system, and, slowly and painfully, adjustments are being made to it, suggests caution. There seems to be little margin for further disillusionment. Unrealistic Deadlines The staff is convinced that another reason the national program has faltered and experienced a credibility problem is the existence in the 1972 law of target dates and deadlines that informed persons -16 - recognize dS impossible to achieve. the Act. They are sprinkled throughout On the first day of the Subcommittee's oversight hearings-- February 5, 1974-~EPA Deputy Administrator John R. Quarles, Jr., i den ti .f i e d one s u ch de a d 1 i n e a s t he b a s i c prob 1 em in a d mini s tr a ti on of tlle construction grants program: "I think the single most important issue relates to Section 301, which requires that ~econdary treatment require- ments be met by 1977. This standard certainly will not be met in a great many instances. Moreo~er, in some respects the orderly development of schedules for projects is made more difficult by the presence of such an impossible legal requirement." Mr. Quarles was not overstating the issue. The 1977 and 1983 dates are two deadlines which form the superstructure of the law. The rest of the program must be coordinated with these two dates. The series of unattainable deadlines establishes an aura of un- reality that has hampered the national program. Almost every meeting that brings water pollution officials together produces the admission that this or that deadline in the Act cannot be met. EPA already has missed several of the deadline? imposed on the agency. On some occasions it has sought deliberately to stretch out compliance where substantial research was needed for major program actions. Such was the case in the issuance of effluent guidelines and standards for industrial dischargers under Sections 301 and 304. Again, however, the agency ran afoul of a rigid interpretation of the Act and was put on a court-ordered schedule for issuing effluent guidelines for 27 affected industries. The guidelines undoubtedly were destined to be a matter of con- tention, whatever the methodology, for again, they are essentially matters of environmental judgement. But the problem has been aggra- v a t e d by the " short f u s e " w i th tv hi ch the a gen c y ha s ha d to rr-1 or k . Th~ staff has met with representatives of several affected industries and virtually all are critical of the "numbers" that have been promulgated for them under Sections 301 and 304. More than 60 companies and industrial trade associations have filed lawsuits against EPA over the administration of these two sections alone. A statement provided the Subcom~ittee by the National Association of Manufacturers says one "common thread" of complaint among industry is the belief that there was "inadequate sampling (of industrial ~concerns) coupled with mi sin terpre ta ti on of the data that tvere a vai 1- a ble." -17 - ~ It adds: "This relates back to the fact that the study con- tractors were given inadequate time and money to do thorough industry studies. In turn, this relates back to the fact that Congress gave EPA an impossible deadline of one year in which to formulate these g'.lidelines." Likewise, the deadline of December 31, 1974, for at least 50,000 point source dischargers to be issued NPDES permits caused SPA and the states to be caught up in a massive "numbers game," in which compliance with the letter of the law, rather than with its spirit, became the overriding objective. There is evidence of grave deficiencies in the permit program. It has been virtually impossible for EPA or the states to monitor compliance with permit conditions because so much emphasis has been placed on getting the permits issued. Where spot checks have been ~ade, noncompliance with permit provisions--a punishable offense under PL 92-500--has been found in two out of every three cases. Said one EPA regional administrator: "Everyone is having a hell of a time keeping track of permits ... the resources are nowhere near the task." A state official expressed dismay at even approach- ing the job, now or in the future. Nor is much help expected from the Department of Justice, already laden with a broad range of enforce- Dent responsibilities. An added element of uncertainty is the report of the National Study Commission, originally due by October 1975 but recently deferred until early 1976. The Commission's mandate is to evaluate "all aspects of the total economic, social and environmental efforts of achieving or not achieving the effluent limitations and goals set forth for 1983 •••• " Knowledgeable persons already are assuming--rightly or wrongly-- that the Commission will recommend a pullback from the 1983 goals. Industries being required to go to zero discharge of certain pollu- tants, even where EPA has made the judgement this is "practicable" for 1977, have gone into the courts on grounds such a requirement is illegal since the National Commission is yet to be heard from. The Tyranny of Words In spite of the specificity of requirements· in the law itself, there is a great amount of controversy that grows out of the intended neaning of certain critical statutory words and phrases. There is a paradoxical overtone to all of this. While the law contains much subjective, imprecise language, EPA must at some point in time freeze a certain body of information into regulations that are published in the Federal Register and become a largely unyielding declaration of how things will be done. -18 - Section 307 is a good example. That section requires EPA to act against the discharge of certain toxic pollutants that are con- sidered particularly dangerous to aquatic life and, only by inference, human health. Once regulations are published, affected industries are given one year to comply. The section uses such phrases as "preponderance of evidence" and "ample margin of safety" and "the importance of the affected or- ganisms." These are subjective phrases, and mean different things to different people. Regulatory action, including the issuance of national standards, must proceed on the basis of incomplete and even conflicting scientific data. There are obviously beneficial uses in the nation's industry and agriculture for such substances as cadmium, mercury, PCB's, cyanide, and aldrin-dieldrin, all of which are on the Agency's initial list of "toxic" substances. But there are risks and hazards involved in their use. No one is quite sure how much emphasis to give these risks. And yet, massive capital investments may be required in an extremely short period of time to prevent these substances from finding their way into the nation's water~. The affected industries ask for scientific proof, for explicit identification of the "risks." It is not there, for, as Handler and Zucker declare, the weighing of risks and benefits is a "facile phrase rather than an established science." And, in the end, such determin- ations "even h'ith adequate data i-1ill usually turn on value judgements." The best that can be expected is that they be informed jqdgements, based on the best information available. It seems, too, that to the maximum extent possible such value judgements should be made by the elective officials of those most directly affected, again recognizing the need to protect the "national" interest. The 1972 law contains other undefined words and phrases that have become stumbling blocks in its administration. Undoubtedly, some of the vagueness may stem from the difficulties faced by the two houses of Congress in resolving disagreements among themselves as the legislation moved through them andinto a protracted conference period. EPA and affected industries are involved in scores of lawsuits essentially over the meaning of the word "practicable" as used in the Section 301 requirement that industry, by 1977, be treating its wastes with "the best practicable control technology currently available as defined by the Administrator .... " Likewise, Section 316, providing for exemptions for electrical power plants from the construction of costly cooling towers, says the exemption shall be based on a finding that the plant's discharge is not harmful to a "balanced, indigenous population of shellfish, fish ~ a·nd wildlife in and on that body of water." This language opens the -19 - door, unavoidably, to intense, inconclusive debate among biologists, geneticists, limnologists, and a whole array of other scientific discplines as to what is a "balanced, indigenous population." Even semanticists have become involved. They claim "population" is the :·,· r on g h' or d i n th i s con t ext , th a t i t sh o u 1 d be " comm i.r n i t y . " The National Study Commission has had difficulty establishing the para~eters of its study growing out of ambiguity revolving around two wo:ds used in the first sentence of PL 92-500. The two words are "biological integrity." ~vhat do they really mean? To a layman, virtually nothing. To a marine biologist concerned about aquatic species, some of them microscopic in size, that are vital to the chain of life in rivers and estuaries, the phrase has complex, highly sig- nificant meaning. And to ridicule or belittle the significance of his interest is to repudiate the very essence of scientific inquiry and ecological thinking. As the nation currently grapples with fundamental questions related to uncontrolled urban growth, deteriorating central cities, rising transportation and housing costs, pressures have grown for land use controls. A federal land use bill was narrowly defeated in the 9Jrd Congress. Section 208 of PL 92-500, which provides for areawide waste treatment management, requires state plans to "set forth proce- dures and methods (including land use requirements)" to control agricultural, mine, construction site and other nonpoint pollution. Section 208 program planning is only now being seriously addressed by EPA and the states. Predictably, the "land use" stipulation is becoming an area of controversy and disagreement. Again, what do those words really mean? How many people are willing to accept EPA's view of what they mean? Public Skepticism Adding to the difficulty in making the 1972 Act work is what the staff would describe as an undercurrent of ambivalence about the na~ion's air and water pollution cleanup programs. In a recent New York Times article, William v. Shannon decried resistance to environmental programs that is based on the perceived economic costs to those who must pay them: "To talk about cost-benefit analysis and environment- versus-economy trade-offs is to show a fundamental mis- understanding of what is involved. The environment is -20 - not yesterday's 'crisis'already superseded by new, more fashionable crises. Neither is it just one more factor to be considered along with dozens of others in mqking social and economic decisions. "The environment is not a crisis or a problem at all. Rather, it is the context in which all crises and problems have to be analyzed and judged. The fundamental truth is that the industrial civilization developed in the last 250 years is steadily poisoning the biosphere--the precious envelope of air and water in which human life exists. Unless our industrial civilization is fundamentally altered and its prophecies of change subjected to moral and scien- tific control, human life will cease to exist perhaps even in the lifetime of our children." It would seem that the Environmental Protection Agency could, and must, do a better job in counteracting what the staff perceives to be creeping negativism and skepticism about the nation's water pollution program. Many of its requirements have the appearance of dogma, and the Agency often seems incredulous that knowledgeable persons could ask the reasons for certain actions. Time and time again, the staff has encountered the argument from EPA officials that the logic and rationale for such and such an action was inherent in the language of the 1972 law and, therefore, there was no need to explain why, from an environmental standpoint, a proposed standard or regulation was important. It would appear that EPA is operating on a false assumption. Its overall program, and the component parts, can be realized only to the extent that the public, the Congress, and the media under- stand the benefits to be received from the financial costs and the institutional upheaval involved. At the very least, all affected parties, including the public, should have a better idea of precisely what is at stake. It would be helpful, for example, when proposing effluent standards for a segment of industry, to quantify the pollution that is involved and the environmental significance that this pollution appears to have. A rational basis would thus be established for the action--outside of the law itself. Somehow, as well, these technical and scientific issues must be expressed in understandable Englis.11. Even among consulting engineers and public servants with long experience in waste treatment there is a need for expanded environ- mental awareness. In the minds of too many professionals, PL 92-500 -21 - is a law to build waste treatment facilities in the same manner that they have always been built. It is vital that they seek to apply the visionary concepts of PL 92-500 without repudiating the practicality of the past. Waste treatment facilities should, to the maximum extent pos- sible, incorporate the recycling· of potential pollutants, the reclam- ation of waste water, the int~lligent disposal of sludge. They should be operated in a manner that is consistent with total environmental prot8ction. Conventional thinking must be altered. To many persons, environmental protection is still equated with "protecting fishes," setting aside nature preserves for endangered species, and doing things that are really not very important in the big scheme of things. The National Environmental Policy Act and other environmental laws are regarded by some, anp actually used, as mech- anisms to thwart industrial and residential development. The often fragile interrelationships of the earth's ecosystem, and the consequences of abuse, have not permeated the national con- sciousness in a truly meaningful way. At best, the public often has only "impressions" about water pollution, impressions that may be easily dispelled. The stated objective of PL 92-500 is "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation's waters." The public has to be educated, continuously, as to why this is an essential, valid national goal, ranking along with, if not ahead of, national defense, law enforcement, education, health care, and other concerns of government. Social critic Lewis Mumford has said: "Man himself is the wild spec~es that is threatened, and it's time we recognize where the threat comes from: not from our enemies, but from ourselves." And Slobodkin: "There is an extremely dangerous possibility that the full complexity of the interaction between ecological thought and the practical business of mankind's survival will not be realized soon enough and with sufficient clarity by any of the decision- makers involved ... I am convinced that while ecology ~ay, in fact, must continue to develop as an intellectual discipline, there must also be an increasing interaction between ecology and public affairs ir. the broadest sense." Another thoughtful observer advocates the development of an "international ecological conscience." Some ~vould say that recent developments related to energy, laws of the sea, hunger and drought, ~ay be converging in that direction. But before planetary ecological issues can be understood by the average citizen, he must be able to perceive the wisdom of ecological/environmental actions at the national, state, and, perhaps most importantly of all, his local level. -22 - ~ If nothing else, the turbulence that the 1972 Act has created has caused serious thinking about the environment to occur among previously uninvolved municipal and state officials, the captains of industry, and federal agencies. But "thinking" is not tantar.10unt to being educated. Studies still show a high degree of public support for environ- mental programs--at least in an abstract sense. But there is a vast difference between supporting the abstract concept a~d paying the price--in the marketplace, in changing life styles, in examining basic attitudes about economic growth and rampant technology. The staff is convinced that in the absence of a better under- standing of environmental programs, and a more conscious attempt to establish equity in paying the cost of environmental gains, that so-called pocketbook considerations may well overpower environmental ones whenever they come into conflict. Scenarios that have unfolded in Duluth, Minnesota, the Mahoning River Valley in Ohio, and even involving public and private decision- making when confronted t1ith the reality of paying the price of auto- related air pollution abatement, show the fragile nature of much environmental "support." SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Where does a discussion like this lead? What specific actions-- or nonaction--will help internalize the objectives of the 1972·Act in decision-making throughout complex u. S. society? It is, after all, the objectives of the Act that should become the overriding aspir- ation and where attention should be focused. But this can only happen by the resolution of hundreds of thousands of "messy practical issues." How best to establish the framework and structure in which these issues can be addressed with confidence is really the task at hand. The basic vehicle remains PL 92-500. The staff believes that caution should be the watchword in making changes in it. The inter- locking pieces of this very complicated legislation are only now being fitted together in a way that is understandable to officials in EPA, the states and local communities. To make major alterations could be disruptive to the point of demoralizing on-going effort. Well-intentioned law changes could become a boomerang that only created a new generation of problems--or exacerbated old ones. Eagerness to change the basic concepts in the law easily could be interpreted by others-as a weakening in the congressional commit- ment. This danger lurks as the nation undergoes a period of severe economic decline. Environmental and safety programs already have come under attack from a variety of sources. The staff would suggest ~that this has occurred for two basic reasons: -23 - ~ (1) The benefits from many environmental programs are not yet readily apparent to the public. (2) In the absence of discernible benefits, environmental pro- g'!:ams may take on the appearance of irrelevant "do good" undertakings that siphon off public and private funds that could be better used elser.-1here. The public needs to be better educated about the benefits and costs of environmental programs. The staff believes strongly that the water pollution abatement program can be strengthened if the mechanisms can be found to encourage more local flexibility. At the same time, there should be no compromise with the "nation- al" interests in PL 92-500, for example, protecting downstream com- munities from out-of-state pollution or preventing states or metropol- itan areas from becoming "havens" for industries seeking to avoid pollution controls. But in instances where flexibility will permit environmental benefits to be maximized, and federal dollars to achieve the maximum return in pollution abatement, such flexibility should be encourdged. With these thoughts in mind, it is the judgement of the staff that certain limited changes in the law still merit serious consider- ation. Primarily, such adjustments would be aimed at simplifying administration and extending unachievable deadlines. The specific suggestions the staff offers at this time are to: (1) Authorize the Administrator to extend the July 1, 1977 effluent limitations deadline for municipal dischargers who, for good reason, will be unable to comply with the deadline. A new compliance deadline should be set on an individual basis. (2) Authorize, under conditions that still recognize selective differences among classes of users, construction grant applicants to utilize a user charge system based upon ad valorem taxation to pay operation and maintenance costs. (3) Eliminate the December 31, 1974 date in section 402k so that NPDES permit applicants, acting in good faith, could not be taken to court while administrative action is being ·taken relative to their applications. (4) Extend the 30-day deadline for hearings on toxic standards. Extend from one to a maximum of three years industry compliance deadlines--both as recommended by EPA. (5) Provide authority to the Administrator to discharge certain of his responsibilit.ies in connection with the construction grants -24 - program by accepting certification of the State agency under certain conditions (Cleveland-Wright bill). As directed by the Subcommittee, the staff plans to continue its inquiry into the administration of PL 92-500, with emphasis on problem areas that have persisted more than two years after passage of the Act. ### (Footnote: EPA reports that far the period from October 1972 to December 31, 1974, approximately $3.9 billion in construc~ion grant funds had been obligated, construction had started on about $2 billion worth of projects, and $427 million had been disbursed to the states for completed work.) MEETING DATE April 29 , 1975 TIME 7:30 p.m. DISTRICTS 1,2,3,5,6,7, & 11 DISTRICT 1 l DIEDRICH). ····BATTIN····· _lL ---- EVANS) • · • · • • • GARTHE· • · • • -1L: ---- RIMA .••.. ·~--__ (SHARP) •••••..• SALTARELLI· _l,L" ___ _ DISTRICT 2 le' ''NG)········ CHAPUT·····~ --- L~NS) ········CALLAHAN···~ ---- DIEDRICH)····· CLARK······ ~ ---- GARTHE) ·······EVANS • • · · · _\.L'.' ---- THOt1) · • ·······KAYWOOD···· ----\..L.: ---- (FOXJ-• ········MAC KAIN··· =:z-__ -- PERRY· • · · • • _1).L:_ ---- !SVALSTAD) ·····SCOTT······ ~ ---- PEREZ)· • · • • • · ·TEMPLE· · · · · ~ ----DUNN~)······· ·WINN·······~ ---- (WARD)········· WOOD······· _L ---- (GRAHAM)· · • • • · ·YOUNG· • · • • • -L ---- DISTRICT 3 (MAC KAIN)····· FOX········ ~----AMO········~ ---- (COLLINS)····· ·BYRNE······ __L ---- (HOMRIGHAUSEN) ·COX········~ ---- CULVER· • · · · __.L. -· --- !GRIFFIN) ·····DAVIS······ _L ---- SONJUJ · • • • • ·FRANKIEWICH <.l.; ---- GARTH!:)······· EVANS • · · • · ~ ----!NEVI l-) • ·······GRAHAM····· ---? ---- THOM) • • • • • • • · ·KAYWOOD· · · · ------ B LAC l<MA N) · • • • · MC KNEW • • · · _JJ:L. ---- (WOOD)·· • • • • • • ·WARD • • • • • · · _L ---- (DI EDR I Cti) ·····SCHMIT····· ~ ---- !STANTON)····· ·SVALSTAD· • · ~ ---- ARB ISO)······ ·WEISHAUPT·· _L __ -- COEN)········ ·WIEDER····· 2'---- DISTRICT 5 I (RYCKOFF)· ·····MC INNIS···~ ---·- (DIEDRICH) • · · • · RI LEY· · · · · · ~ ---- ROG ER S · · ·· · ~ ---- DISTRICT 6 RIMA·······~---- (DIEDRICH) •.. ··BATTIN····· -v---- (MC INNIS) •.•• -~··.··· ------ DISTRICT 7 (SHARP)······ ··SALTARELLI· (ANTHONY)····· ·BURTON····· (DIEDRICH)··· ··CLARK······ (MC INNIS)···· ·DOSTAL····· (EVANS) ·•· · ·· ·GARTHE· •·· · GLOCKNER··· (Tr-'~PLE) ·······JACKMAN···· DlsfRICT 11 ~--~-- __lL == == ~-- ,/ ----~-- !COEN)········· DUKE ······· J?:S.. ---- COEN)········· GIBBS······~ DIEDRICH)···· ·SCHMIT····· _lL'.:_ == == DISTRICT "8 MITCHELL··· (JOHNSON)······HOLM · · •·· · (DIEDRICH)··· ··RILEY······ 4/2 9/75 JOINT BOARDS (DUNNE)······· -WINN .••.•.• AMO •••..••. DIEDRIC~) ••••• BATTIN ••••• ANTHONY .•••.• BURTON ..... COLLllS .••••• BYRNE ••. •·· L VONS .•....•. CALLAHAN •.. EWING •.. ··· .• CHAPUT •.••• DIEDRICH). ····CLARK •.. ·•· HOMRIGHAUSEN).cox ••...... CULVER····· !GRIFFIN) .• ····DAVIS······ MC INNIS)···· ·DOSTAL ... •·· COEN) ..•• •••• .DUKE-······ GARTHE) •••• ··-EVANS-····· !MAC K~IN). ····FOX········ SONJU) • • • • · · ·FRANKIEWICH EVANS) .•.• · ···GARTHE· · ·•· COEN) •....•... GIBBS······ GLOCKNER··· !NEVIL) •. ······GRAHAM····· TEMPl-E) ••••••• JACKMAN ·· ·· THOt1) •••.••. ···KAYWOOD···· FOX) ..•.••• ···MAC KAIN··· (RYCOFF). ······MC INNIS··· (BLACKMAN)···· ·MC KNEW···· PERRY······ (DIEDRICH)···· -RILEY······ RI MA. • • · · • · ROGERS •• • · · Woon) ...•.•.. -WARD ••••... SHARP) ..•..... SALTARELLI· DIEDRICH) ....• SCHMIT····· SVALSTAD) · . · •. SCOTT· • · • • · MC INNIS) .• ···STORE······ STANTON) ....•• svALSTAD··· !PEREZ) ...••. ··TEMPLE····· ARBI1o) ..... ··WEISHAUPT·· COEN ·········WIEDER····· .WARD · ········WOOD······· (GRAHAM).···· ··YOUNG······ OTHERS HARPER SYLVESTER LEWIS CLARKE TAYLOR BROWN NISSON EWING HOHENER HOWARD HUNT KEITH KENNEY LYNCH MADDO X MARTINSON PIERSALL STEVENS MEETING DATE Ap r i l 29 , 1 97 5 TIME 7 :30 p .m. DISTRICTS 1 ,2 ,3 ,5 ,6 ,7 , & 1 1 DISTRICT 1 -(DIEDRICH)· •••• BATTIN..... I (EVANS) • • • • • • • GARTHE· •••• -..;----- RIMA •••... -./----- (SHARP).······. SALTARELLI. -.;----------- DISTRICT 2 IF'·'tNG)· ·······CHAPUT ·····_..;_ ---- 6-o"NS) • ·······CALLAHAN··· _f__ ---- DI EDR I CH) • • • • • CLARK· · · · · • _1_ __ __ GARTtJE) • • • • · • ·EVANS • · · · • _../_ --__ TH0~1J • • · · • • • • • KAYWOOD · • • • _/ _ ---- (FOX)·········· MAC KAIN··· _...;_ ---- PERRY· · • • · · a._, ISVALSTAD) ·····SCOTT······ / == -- PEREZ)· • • • • • • ·TEMPLE · • · · • _L_ __ == DUNN~)······· ·WINN······· I WARD)········· WOOD ······· -.;----- GRAHAM)······· YOUNG······ -r == == DISTRICT 3 (MAC KAIN)····· FOX·.· ••.•• _L_ ---- AMO· · • • • • • • _./_ ---- (COLL I NS).···· ·BYRNE······_./_ ---- (HOMRI GHAUSEN) ·COX· •••.••• _I ____ _ CULVER·····_/_ ---- (GR I FF IN) • • • · • DAV I S · · • • • • _:L_ __ __ (SONJU) • • · • · ·FRAN KIEWICH ~ ---- (GARTHE) .. • .. ··EVAN S • • • .. -~----- iNEVIl.) ········GRAHAM ····· _L_ ---- THOM) • • • • • • · • ·KAYWOOD · • • . _/ ____ _ BLACKMAN)· • • ··MC KNEW· • • · --12L_ ___ _ (WOOD) •••••••• ·WARD . • • • • • • I (DIEDRICti) ·····SCHMIT ·····--:;----- !STANTON)····· ·SVALSTAD· • · / == == ARB ISO)·····~ ·WEISHAUPT·· _L_ COEN)········ ·WIEDER····· _/_ ~ == DISTRICT 5 (RYCKOFF)· ·····MC INNI S · ••. _/ ____ ._'_· (DIEDRICH)·····RILEY··· ·•• I ROGERS· • • · · ./ == == DISTRICT 6 (SHARP)········SALTARELLI· (A NTHONY)· • · • • ·BU RTON· · • · · (DIEDRICH)·····CLARK··· •·· (MC INNI S )···· ·DOSTAL····· (EVAN S ) •·•• ·• ·GAR THE· ••· • GLOC KNE R··· (TF MP LE) ·······JA CKMAN···· Dfs1 RICT 11 ./ ------_L_ __ -- .; _/ ____ _ ../ ./ == == _L ___ _ i ~g~~~::::::: : : g~~~s : : : : : : _lL ---- ) _L_ __ DIEDRI CH ·····S CHMIT····. ~ ___ _ DISTRICT ··g MITCHELL··· (JOHN SON) ••• • ··HOLM · • • •• • (DIEDRICH) ••• ··RILEY······ 4/29 /7 5 JOINT BOARDS (DUNNE).·.·· ••• WINN ••••••• AMO ••••..•• DIEDRICi) .•.•• BATTIN •••.. ANTHONY •..•.• BURTON .•••. COLLI~S •••••• BYRNE ••.••• LYONS •••••.•• CALLAHAN ••. EWING •••.•••• CHAPUT •.•.. DIEDRICH) ••.•• CLARK······ HOMRIGHAUSEN) .cox ••••.•.. CULVER··· .. !GRIFFIN)·· ····DAVIS ·····. MC It.JN IS) ••.• -DOSTAL ...... COEN)· .. ••••· ·DUKE ••••••• (GARTHE) .•• ····EVANS ·····. !MAC K~JN)·····FOX··· ••••• SONJU / · • • • · • ·FRAN KIEWICH EVANS).··· ····GARTHE· .••. COEN) ••••••... GIBBS······ GLOCKNER ••• !NEVIL) •• •••• ··GRAHAM ··.·· TEMP~E) •.••••• JACKMAN·· •· THO~) ••.•••••• KAYWOOD·· .. FOX).······ ···MAC KAI N··· (RYCOFf) ...•.• ·MC INNIS ··· (BLACKMAN) .. · ··MC KNEW···· PER RY· • • • • · (DIEDRICH) •••• ·RILEY······ RI MA. • • · • •. ROGERS ••••. WOOD) · • • • • ••• ·WARD •.••••• SHARP) •.•.• ···SALTARELLI· DIEDRICHj··· •• S CHMIT ··· •• SVALSTAD ·····S COTT·· ..•• MC INNIS ·····STORE··· •.. STANTO N) .••.•• svALSTAD··· !PEREZ) •.•.•• ··TEMPLE····· ARBISO) ·······WEISHAUPT ·· COEN) .• ••···• ·WIEDER····· WARD)········ ·WOOD· ..••.. (GRAHAM) .. •· ···YOUNG······ OTHERS HARPER SYLVESTER LEWI S CLARKE TAYLO R BROWN \,Vn~11.v11 m-s-s-Cm-~D EWIN G HOH ENER HOWARD HUNT KEITH KENNE Y LYNCH MADDO X MARTINSON PIERSALL STEVEN S 4/29/75 SPECIAL MEETING ~ ) Chairman Winn introduced the new General Counsel , Tom Woodruff, and h e said a few words. (5 ) Report of the Jo i nt Chairman Winn rep o rt ed on meeting in Washington, D.C . re grant monies . Said they met with from Chicago and Congressman Patt erson sat in o n our behalf. AMSA made s u gge sted amendme n ts r e PL 92 -500 . Copies will be available for Di rectors if they g ive their names to Rita after meeting . Also mentioned th e Interim Staff Re port of the Subcommitt ee on Investigat i ons and Review on the Federal Water Pollution Cont rol Act Amendments of 1 972 (PL 92 -500) and said report was very interesting. Said we would make cop i es ava il able if Directors wanted to r e a d through it . Said one of the ma i n things coming out of the meeting was that we could expect help if problems were common to all agencies and not just an is olated case. Also met ·with JPL re garding their system and deadlines involved. Ad vis ed t hat NASA has a special ce n ter conducting some tests on a flash pyrolosis system . The unit has been tested in Irvine, Califo r nia a nd in the Minneap olis -S t . Paul area. FAH and staff hope to meet with these pe o ple to see some o f the problems they mi ght have encountere d . Mr. Lewis & Mr. Hunt visited th e I rvine project today and wi ll report on it later in the meetin g . Winn also reported that he attended a meeting last F r iday of the CWPCA. From the discussions with EPA and State people on a ir qualit y impacts, they i ndicat ed th e r e is an open line prior to hearing on May 1 2th . This is r easo n f or our meeting tonight . EPA stated the y have also (or almost??) concluded an agreement with the SWRCB to have so l e authority on grant approvals and issuance of money. Winn said the more e le c ted officials that become involved directly, the better. Feel we shou ld be there when they make these statements. As a resul t of the meas ure we are cons i dering , Mr . Winn advised he is send i ng a l etter to Mr . Adams of the SWRCB . Said what has happened on th e amendments is t hat fo r some reason or anothe r they we re bypassed by TRI TAC (Technical advisory committee composed of CASA , CWPCA and the California League of Cities). The letter to Mr . Ad a ms requests t he SWR CB to consider th e formulation of locally elected o fficials representin g the TRI TAC organization for the purpos e of review i n g p roposed regulations involving po li cy matters affecting local e n tit i es . Suggested that one or more State members sit i n on this Committee t o encourage cooperation and part i cipation of l ocally e l ected offici a ls including supervis ors . Ho p e to g et some response on this and wil l keep Directors i nformed . (6) Repor t of the General Manager FAH r eported t hat they had a breakfast meeti ng i n Washing t o n an d t ~e issue l ooked very much alive from representatives fr om Haw aii, Alask c , West Coast and East Coast . Interest is in BOD issue . Are go i n g t o ask SCCWRP g r oup to make formal statement to submit t o Hou se S u b c o mmi tte e that will be holding hearings the end of this mont h . FAH advised that another issue was on energy costs . Tremendous amounts of energy are required to go to secondary treatment . Will be presen ting this t o t h em . Said h e received an interesting phone cal l today from a gentleman who was in Washington with him . He spoke of Gordon Woods on House Comm i ttee. He had said everybody in Ca l ifornia was going to secondary treatment and Mr. Woods said no, we are going to change that. Agreed with Chairman Winn that they were rece i ved very well by EPA in discussing situation wi th JPL process and they fe l t that things were moving in the right direction . (Ba) REL reported on visit to Irvine f l ash pyrolosis system. Said NASA is working on MUS system . Completely enclosed system whereby utilities are comp l etely recycled and water is reused and waste is destroyed or converted to energy . One of the contractors with NASA has recently been transported to Irvine . They have been working with the County Road Department on Alternate Fuel Source Committee to develop different method of disposing of solid waste in the County at this time. They have not come up with pos i tive recommendation to Board of Supervisors . Minneapo l is -St. Paul group recently submitted a grant application for $19 million. Pyrolosis system is incorporated with solid waste syste m. Ou r systems are similar but they are interested in producing a fuel to be utilized and energy source and in our process we are trying to develop a carbon and use that as activated carbon for p u rification of wastewater. Said he and Mr. Hunt v i sited facility today and was very interesting . Advised that our technical people were now in Springfield, Ohio, testing some pyrolosis produced in JPL process . Next week will go to New Jersey to test some mate rial there . Have been receiving very good cooperation from State and EPA . Some people from Washington are planning on being in New Jersey nex t wee k also. We are finding more people with expertise in this area . 4/29/75 SPECIAL MEETING (7) Chairman Winn reported that Mr. Paul DeFalco had met with the Executive Committee prior to the Special Meeting to present some his views on mitigation. He then ask~d Mr. Harper to review this in detail. FAH advised he received in the mail a copy of Air Quality Maintenance Areas formed by SWRCB. There are two hearings-- one in LA and one in Sacramento--to consider proposed action. Said essentially what this proposes is no new sewer connections in outside areas. Do not define outside areas but for us would mean areas outside of our boundaries. This is a grant condition if we accept a grant between now and June 30. Also, they show a blank percentage of average daily hydraulic flow. EO population increase. 18 months times l~, divided by 10. In our case, our estimate of ,~N '0 this would be an increase of flow--5,000,000 gallons. We have been _!!j__ averaging 7,000,000. Essentially, there would be a slow-down i n /bll'f} number of connections to be made. In discussing this with the State, first of all, they have received a tremendous amount of flack. They have been trying to talk to people but really not explaining what they have in mind. FAH talked to Mr. Dendy this morning and he says this will not be what will be presented at public hearing and asked FAH to ask the Board to give him authority ~o meet with State Board people and help them develop a proposal. Dendy did not talk about deferring hearing. The State has some 39 grants that are waiting to be consid ered in California. Half of which do not have EIS's prepared. Mr. DeFa lc o said he cannot give these grants without some type of mitigation instruction. Th e agencies accepting this grant condition are saying they will get withthe local entities and put together an air qualit y maintenance plan , but no one t~lls us how to do this. We don't know what kind of plan we could put together that would be acceptable to the Air Resources Board. Said California may lose some construction grant money this year. Didn't discuss about political situation but would be hard to believe that we would lose some construction monies in a situation where we would have employment problems, etc. We don't know what will happen but think there has to be some political pressure brought to bear. Said recommendation of Executive Committee would be to oppose this provision as it has b een submitted and sugg est that the State submit something that appears to b e more workable that what this is . We do not know what this p e rcentage is. If it were 10%, may not have a problem but has been left blank and we do not know what they have in mind. It was then moved to strongly (vehement ly) oppose this and that the staff be directed to work with the State . Motion was seconded and unanimously carried. Kaywood then advised that her council had just instructed her to oppose and ur ge formation of committee to be composed of e lected officials to formulate a more sensible plan . She also asked if the Joint Chairman thought the individual cities should be repre- sented in LA at the May 12th hearing or will th e District be th e only one ther e? Winn answered that it may be exp anded to cities but prima ry conc ern is Sanitation problems ri g ht now. Is a b e liever in repres e nt a tion of elected o fficials though. Winn added that he had been asked if he would appoint committee and he said, certainly not . Would be made up of officials throughout the State and hopefully County supervisors. Said this should be done before announcement of pub l ic hearing . Mr. Harper added that if any of the cities or agencies would be meeting before the May 12th hearing and pass some type of action opposing this , i t certainl y would support our position. Kaywood said their action cou ld be p u t in the form of a reso l ution i f we wished and Mr. Harper sai d anything sent to the State Board wo ul d be very h el pful . Ward then stated that the purpose of the proposed grant conditions is to attempt to limit growth so that auto omissions are somehow curtai led i n the region. Rather than oppose the mot i on, he said he would just l ike to make his position c l ear and that was that he thought the Sanitation Distr icts, as well as the cities , do have a responsibi l ity to cooperate with Federal government and the State for a i r qual i ty maintenance . Think air quality is l i ke the weather-- everybody talks about it but nobody does anything about it . Think we should take a cooperative attitude . Think the Sanitation Districts who do have some control over growth patterns and transportation patterns would be very wel l advised . Said he hoped that whatever is done in that regard is done i n the spiri t of wanting to work to somehow improve air quality i n our basin . FAH responded that the information from Mr . DeFalco indicated very clearly that without something other than whitewash conditions, these new construction grants are not going to be authorized . We recognize that we do have to come up with some implementation p l an for air qua l ity. This ·is what we will attempt to do . State Board now recognizes they are going to have to come back with something other than they have here . We do recognize that we have to come up with plan but need to work something out with State . (Motion was voted on & carried again) HA COUNTY SA NITA TION DISTRIC TS NOS . 1, 2 , 3, 5, 6, 7 , AND 11 OF ORANGE c ou~~JTY , CALIFORNIA MINUTES OF CrECIAL MEETING April 29, 1 97 5 -7:30 p .m. 10844 Ellis Avenue ·Fountain Valley, Ca lifornia A sp ecial meeting of the Boards of Direc t ors of County Sanit ation Districts Nos . 1, 2 , 3 , 5, 6, 7 , and 11 of Oran ge County , California, was held at the above hour and date . The Chairman called the mee ting to order at 7:30 p.m. Following the Pledge of Alleg i ance and invocation~ t he roll was called , and the Secretary re p orted a quorum present for each District 's Board. DISTRICT NO . l Dir ector s pre s ent: Dir e ct ors absent: DISTRICT NO . 2 Directors present: Directors absent : DIS'l1 RICT NO. 3 Directo rs present : Directors absent : DISTR ICT NO . 5 Dir ectors pre s ent : Dir ectors a bs ent: ROL L CALL Robert Battin (Chairman), John Garthe, Kerm Rima , and Donald Saltarelli None Dale Chaput (Chairman), Michael Callaha n, Ralph Clark, Vernon Evans , Miriam Kaywood, Leonard MacKain , Geor ge Scott, Joe Temple, Donald Winn, Frances Wood, and Robin Youn g Bob Perry Donald Fox , Lowell Amo , Ed ward Byrne , Phillip Cox > Norman Culver , Jesse Davis , Vernon Ev ans , Beth Graham, Miriam Kaywood , Robert Ward , Laur ence Schmit , Bernie · Svalstad , Martha Weishaupt , and Harri ett Wieder Ali ce Frankiewich and Thomas McKnew Donald Mclnnis (Chai rma n), Thomas Ri l ey , and Howard Rogers None #1,2,3,5,6,7 & 11 l~/29/75 DISTRICT NO. 6 Directors present: Directors absent: DISTRICT NO. 7 Directors present: Directors absent: DISTRICT 11 Directors present: Directors absent: STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: OTHERS PRESENT: Kerm Rima (Chairman), Robert Battin, ~ and Donald Mcinnis None Donald Saltarelli (Chairman), John Burton, Ralph Clark, Milan Dostal, John Garthe, Francis Glockner, and James Jackman None Laurence Schmit (Chairman pro tern) and Norma Gibbs Henry Duke (Chairman) Fred A. Harper, General Manager, J. Wayne Sylvester, Secretary, Ray Lewis, William Clarke, and Rita Brown Director Carolyn Ewing, Thomas L. Woodruff, Harvey Hunt, Milo Keith, and Mike Swan * * * * * * * * * * * * DISTRICT 11 Appointment of Chairman pro tern of Chairman Duke. DISTRICTS 1,2,3 & 7 Excerpts re Board Appointments received and filed Moved, seconded, and duly carried: That Director Schmit be appointed Chairman pro tern in the absence Moved, seconded, and duly carried: That the minute excerpts from the Cities of Anaheim, Cypress, Fullerton, La Palma, and Santa Ana be received and ordered filed; and that the following representatives be seated as members of the Boards: CITY DIST. NO. ( S) ACTIVE ALTERNATE Anaheim 2 & 3 Miriam Kaywood w. J. Thom Cypress 3 Alice Frankiewich Sonia Sonju Fullerton 2 Frances Wood Robert Ward 3 Robert Ward Frances Wood La Palma 3 Edward J. Byrne Dan Collins Santa Ana 1 & 7 John Garthe Vernon Evans 2 & 3 Vernon Evans John Garthe -2- ALL DISTRICTS Report of the Joint Chairman #1,2,3,5,6,7 & 11 4/29/75 The Joint Chairman introduced Thomas Woodruff, the Districts' newly-appointed General Counsel, who briefly addressed the Boards. Chairman Winn reported on his recent trip to Washington, D.C. in connection with the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies' (AMSA) meeting with Congressional members, including Orange County's Jerry Patterson, regarding proposed amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (PL 92-500). Congressmen indicated their support if the proposed amendments were applicable nationwide. He advised Directors that copies of AMSA's Legislative Strategy Re PL 92-500 Amendments and an Interim Staff Report of the Subcommittee on Investigations and Review, .. C.ornmit.te.e .... on .Public Works and Tran~:P.Qrtation, tfouse of Representa~ives on the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of ·1972.,, .would be made availabl.e to interested Directors. While in··washington, Mr. Winn and Mr. Harper also met with Environmental Protection Agency official.s regarding the JPL reactivated carbon treatment system process development work and the· progress therefor . . Chairman Winn also reported that he attended a session of the -California Water Pollution Control Association's annual ~ conference in Los Angeles on the State's proposed special clean water grant conditions concerning air quality impact to be -considered by the.Boards later in the meeting. The Chairman advised that as a result.of actions by the State Board such as their proposed air mitigation regulations, he had drafteda letter to the Chairman of .the State Water Resources Control Board recommending that the Board consider formulation of a committee of locally elected officials representing the TRI-TAC organiza- tions (League of California. Cities, California Water Pollution Control Association, California Association of Sanitation Agencies) and the County Supervisors' Association for the purpose of reviewing proposed regulations involving policy matters affecting local entities, and stated wi~h the·Boards' concurrence he would formally submit said recommendations to the State Board. ALL:DISTRICTS Report of ·the General Manager The Gener~i·Manager reported further on matters attended to by the Joint Cha:i_,rman and himself while on their ·recent visit to Washington, D.C. regarding proposed amendments for the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and the JPL reactivated carbon treatment system. -3- #1,2,3,5,6,7 & 11 4/29/75 ALL DISTRICTS Adopting position oppo~ing_ SWRCB's proposed g~ant ·: conditions regarding air quality impacts Chairman Winn reported that the Executive Committee had met with Mr. Paul DeFalco, Region IX Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), immediately preceding the joint meeting and asked the General Manager to review the discussion and positiop presented by EPA on the State Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) proposed special clean water grant conditions regarding air quality impacts. Mr. Harper reviewed the impact of the proposed regulations and their implications on the Districts and the local agencies within their area of influence. The regulations would limit the rate of new sewer connections in "air quality maintenance areas'' for grant-funded water quality control projects and greatly restrict local political decisions and considerations related to the prevention, abatement and control of environ- mental pollution. The State Board has scheduled a hearing on the proposed regulations for May 12, 1975. EPA's position is that they cannot approve clean water grants without some type of air mitigation conditions attached to the grant. These conditions would require the grantee to formulate air quality maintenance plans with the local agencies within the area. Following a lengthy discussion concerning the proposed regula- tions and their implications, it was moved, seconded, and duly carried: That the Boards of Directors adopt Resolution No. 75-61 adamantly opposing clean water grant conditions regarding air quality impacts as proposed by the State Water Resources Control Board, and recognizing, however, the need to resolve ~.. air quality problems, and directing the Districts' staff to meet with representatives of the SWRCB to develop acceptable procedures with regard to the local sewerage agencies' role in the mitigation of air quality problems in the South Coast Air Basin. ALL DISTRICTS Moved, seconded, and duly carried: I Approval of check register That the Districts' Joint Operating accounts payable check register be approved for signature of the Chairman of District No. 1, and that the County Atiditor be autho~ized and directed to pay $469.71, in accordance with the claim listed below: Warrant No. 25741 In Favor of J. Wayne Sylvester, Director of Finance (Reimbursement for Petty Cash outlays for travel, meetings & miscellaneous out-of-pocket expenses) -4- Amount $469.71 ..... ALL DISTRICTS Adjournment #1,2,3,5,6,7 & 11 4/29/75 ~oved, seconded, and duly carried: , That this meeting of the Boards ef Directors of County Sanitation Districts Nos." 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 11 be adjourned. The Chairman then declared the meeting so adjourned at 8:15 p.m., April 29, 1975. -5- s of Directors, on Districts Nos. 1, & 11 ..