SECTION 209-WASTE TREATMENT MANAGEMENT

This provision seeks to stimulate waste treatment management on a regional basis. The Administrator shall establish guidelines under which each Governor should designate waste management regions. Such regions should cover all sections of each State. An agency for developing the waste management plan for each region is to be similarly designated by the Governor. If the Governor fails to designate, the chief elected local officials in the area shall designate the agency.

Within two years of designation, all such agencies must develop waste treatment management plans consistent with Section 201. A six-month extension may be granted to individual regions. Such a plan must contain waste treatment construction priorities and information on waste treatment needs over 20 years, and create a regulatory program to implement the purposes of Section 201, with controls over industrial discharges and control over the disposal of pollutants onto the land or into subsurface excavation. The plan must also, if appropriate and to the extent feasible, provide for controls over pollution related to agriculture, minewater, construction, and salt water intrusion.

The Administrator shall help to finance development of these plans, and the Army Corps of Engineers is authorized, upon request of a Governor, to provide technical assistance to any waste management agency in the development of its plans.

States may request the Secretary of the Army to acquire lands for any needed treatment works.

Once a plan is completed, the Governor shall designate agencies in each region that shall implement the plan, build waste treatment facilities, and assess user charges.

After July 1, 1974, all grants will go to a designated agency, for projects that conform with the waste management plan.

Perhaps the principal cause of inefficiency and poor performance in the management of waste in the metropolitan regions is the incoherent and uncoordinated planning and management that prevails in many areas of the Nation. Adjacent communities and industries are under no mandate to coordinate land use or water quality planning activities. This results in poor overall performance and the proliferation of many direct and indirect discharge sources into receiving waters. Such diffuse and divergent programs not only intensify pollution problems but they prevent the use of economies of scale, efficiency of treatment methods, and, most importantly, coherent, integrated and comprehensive land use management.

Consequently, the Committee has included in the bill a mechanism that would establish planning and management capability throughout each State. The mechanism is initiated by the Administrator who would set forth definitive criteria on those interstate and intrastate areas for which regional waste treatment management plans are to be developed. The Governor, or Governors, after consultation with local elected officials, are required to designate regions for the purpose of developing regional waste management plans.

The agencies designated as planning agencies by the Governor, are entitled at their request to receive from the Administrator financial

and planning assistance in development of plans so that the alternative waste treatment methods may be examined and reviewed and the best one developed for each region. One hundred percent planning grants are available for the first two years and 75 percent grants will be available thereafter. The Governor then submits the plan, along with the designation of an operating agency (or agencies) to carry out such plan, to the Administrator for approval.

A regional planning mechanism will be ineffective if it does not provide an effective means of regulating all sources of pollutants within the region, and if it does not provide an overall management mechanism to assure implementation of any plan developed.

Section 209 requires that any regional plan developed pursuant to this Act not only establish construction priorities for treatment works and identify alternative waste management strategies, but also establish a regulatory program to implement those waste treatment management requirements, regulate the location, modification and construction of facilities in the region, assure that industrial and commercial wastes discharged into any treatment works meet applicable pretreatment requirements, provide for control of residual waste generated in the area, and provide for control over the disposal of pollutants on land or in subsurface excavation in the region.

These specific regulatory functions are in addition to requirements to establish processes to identify and control agriculturally related pollution, mine related pollution, construction related pollution and salt water intrusion. To the extent required to provide uniformity of regulation, a Governor may determine that these processes and procedures should be imposed by the State rather than at the regional level. Should a Governor make this determination and notify the Administrator, the Committee expects that any regional plan submitted for approval would include reference to these controls.

The magnitude of the task and the policy considerations implicit in that task make it essential that the planning operations be conducted under the supervision of regional agencies composed of elected officials. The regulatory functions proposed in this plan will require legislation in many regions. Ordinances and regulations will be required. Metropolitan area plans, land use requirements, and zoning decisions will all be affected by this plan.

The independent functioning of units of government in areas of population concentration without regard to the pollution related requirements of other areas of the same region will not be possible. Uncontrolled growth and expansion and competition among units of government will be reduced if effective environmental controls are to be imposed.

The Committee is cognizant of the impact planning and implementation of these requirements will have but the Committee also recognizes that in those areas of urban and industrial concentration any program which falls short of that defined by this section will be inadequate to protect an environment which is healthful to the people who live within those regions.

The Committee is concerned that adequate planning and preparation is not being given the location, construction, and operation of waste treatment facilities. There has been a tendency in the past to allow a proliferation of investment in waste treatment facilities be

cause local governmental jurisdictions have been unable or unwilling to work together to jointly construct and operate facilities.

While local jurisdictional differences may be the reason for potential waste inherent in such individual construction operation activities, the Congress cannot permit such practices to continue.

The new legislation provides a Federal contribution to the cost of construction of waste treatment facilities of up to 70 percent. In many instances the local community's share of a project's cost will be as little as 20 percent. This investment of State and Federal funds where made must be strictly regulated to assure that the best facilities are constructed in terms of effluent quality, public investment, population to be served and potential for best operation and maintenance.

The Committee does not have any preconceptions as to what the "best" is. The Committee is convinced that waste treatment methods which will most greatly reduce any discharges into the waterways while avoiding poisoning the land is preferable. However, the Committee also recognizes that many communities cannot apply available alternatives, such as land disposal, because of geographical or physical factors and must rely on improved conventional treatment methods.

The Committee believes that a positive instruction to work on a regional basis is essential to effective implementation of the goals and the deadlines established in this law. This may mean individual waste treatment plants for entire metropolitan areas and it may mean separate, independent treatment plants for each jurisdiction within the area. This decision is to be made as a part of the regional plan to be developed by the local elected officials to be approved by the State and by the Environmental Protection Agency. If this procedure is followed, the chances of success of the program are greatly enhanced. Section 202 malcer funds available for this program in the form of obligations. Five percent of the funds authorized in each fiscal year shall be available for the purposes of this section.

Without the guarantee of funding implicit in this provision the needed planning will not get under way immediately and approved plans to meet the requirements of Section 201 will not be completed. Failure to have an approved plan will result in ineligibilty for construction grants funds after fiscal year 1974.

Following the approval by the Administrator of a plan and a designated operating agency or agencies, all waste management in the described region must conform to the plan and any grants under this Act shall serve to carry out the plan. In order to assure effective plan implementation, the Governor is required to designate an operating agency (or agencies) within such region. To the extent that existing agencies (county, city, independent district or other) have the authority required and agree to carry out the plan, the Committee would expect them to be designated. Use of existing construction agencies will accelerate application of these regional plans.

It is possible that many of the entities that would be created under Section 209 would be without condemnation authority outside their specific geographical jurisdiction. Since any land-based disposal system will require major land acquisition, the bill provides that where necessary, and approved by the Administrator, the condemnation authority of the Secretary of the Army (acting through the Chief of Engineers) is available to secure land, providing that such land serves

an essential function in the treatment process or is necessary for the disposal of residual waste.

One of the most significant aspects of this year's hearings on the pending legislation was the information presented on the degree to which nonpoint sources contribute to water pollution. Agricultural runoff, animal wastes, soil erosion, fertilizers, pesticides and other farm chemicals that are a part of runoff, construction runoff and siltation from mines and acid mine drainage are major contributors to the Nation's water pollution problem. Little has been done to control this major source of pollution.

It has become clearly established that the waters of the Nation cannot be restored and their quality maintained unless the very complex and difficult problem of nonpoint sources is addressed.

It has been estimated that 700 times as much suspended solids reach the Nation's waters from surface runoff in any period as reach the waters in the discharge of sewage. The volume of such solids from land runoff has been estimated at 4 billion tons each year.

A considerable portion of this runoff is in the form of particles of soil, which may not have any direct impact on the chemical or biological integrity of the waters. Yet the effect of this sediment on water quality can be severe, damaging the esthetic value of lakes and smothering fish spawning grounds.

Land runoff also carries into the Nation's waters animal wastes and fertilizers, which may contribute to eutrophication, as well as pesticide residues and other chemicals that may damage fish or other aquatic organisms.

For the first time, the Committee bill provides a mechanism to establish a program to control the principal nonpoint sources of water pollutants. Section 304 requires that the Administrator develop, in conjunction with other appropriate Federal agencies, information regarding nonpoint sources and their control. Following the publication of this information, each State or regional planning agency under Section 200 is required to develop plans for nonprofit source pollution control after public hearings, and submit that plan, by a time certain, to the Administrator. Specific nonprofit sources must be included within such plan and in each instance the State must identify and each of the specific sources within each category.

The Committee recognizes, at the outset, that many nonpoint sources of pollution are beyond present technology of control. However, there are many programs that can be applied to each of the categories of nonpoint sources and the Committee expects that these controls will be applied as soon as possible.

For instance, in the construction of buildings, parking lots and highways, it is possible to install catch basins or holding ponds for the purposes of settling out silt or sediment before runoff water reaches either storm sewers or the natural drainage system. Also, methods of excavation and storage of fill are available to reduce the susceptibility to

erosion.

Another perplexing nonpoint source problem is pollution from mining strip, surface, and underground. The control of pollution originating from such activities involves regulating mining practices, including where practicable, total elimination of the practice în certain areas because of soil and geologic factors.

The bill requires identification of nonpoint source activities and development of methods and procedures to control them to the extent possible. The bill also directs the Administrator to perform and support additional research to control these very serious problems.

The present Federal water pollution control program does not consider degradation of water caused by reduction in fresh water flows which produce the intrusion of salt or brackish waters into estuaries and rivers. Salt water intrusion, no less than point sources of discharge, alters significantly the character of the water and the life system it supports. Salt water intrusion often devastates the commercial shellfish industry. It must be accounted for and controlled in any pollution control program. It makes no sense to control salts associated with industrial or municipal waste point sources and allow, at the same time, similar effects to enter the fresh water as a result of intrusion of salt water. Fresh water flows can be reduced from any of a number of causes. The bill requires identification of those causes and establishment of methods to control them so as to minimize the impact of salt water intrusion.

SECTION 210-DEFINITIONS

For the purposes of Title II a number of terms are defined. In addition to the term "construction", present in existing law, definitions are added for "treatment works", "replacement costs", "industrial user", and "grant".

The term "treatment works" includes any device or system for storing, treating, recycling, or reclaiming municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature. And in addition to the elements included in existing law, "treatment works" would include acquisition of land to be used in the treatment process (as in land disposal by spray irrigation) or for the ultimate disposal of sludge and other residues.

The term "treatment works" also includes any pipelines that would convey sewage sludge a reasonable distance from a treatment plant. to any publicly owned facility constructed for further treatment of those wastes by methods such as composting, or for ultimate disposal on land.

Included within the definition of "treatment works" is "any land that will be an integral part of the treatment process or is used for ultimate disposal of residues resulting from such treatment." By lands which are an integral part of the treatment process, it is intended to refer only to those lands which physically interact with the wastewater or pollutants removed therefrom. Lands which are merely a site for the placement of buildings or equipment are not considered to be a part of the treatment process, and are not included in the cost of construction.

"Another change in the definition of 'treatment works' recommended by the Committee would include facilities for preventing or abating storm water overflows among those eligible for construction grants. Although the existing definition of treatment works' could be interpreted to include such facilities, the EPA and its predecessor agencies have mare no construction grants for such facilities." The Administrator has suggested that the cost of constructing facilities to eliminate the combined sewer problem that exists in numerous cities throughout the Nation would be prohibitive. The Committee believes,