Metropolitan communities, as well as a number of principal cities in America have obtained waste collection and storm flow collection service from combined sewer systems for many years. While these systems provided satisfactory service they also contributed increased amounts of pollution as urbanization was accelerated.

Today these systems may be responsible for at least 3 of the pollution entering many of the streams in these urban centers. Equally important is the fact that alternatives studied to date give no simple inexpensive solution to this problem. Furthermore, because of the absence of alternatives the high cost contemplated has resulted in deliberate procrastination at all levels of govern

ment.

A major problem which must be faced by all responsible individuals and again of government is that the above condition will prevent a visible change in water quality from occurring even after tertiary, advanced waste treatment and industrial waste control are accomplished.

It is vital, therefore, that we reassess the water pollution abatement programs in light of the objectives desired. I submit that a high priority item deserving immediate attention is providing financial assistance through existing programs and framework for dealing with combined sewer overflow pollution problems.

THE PROBLEM

Most urban concentrations are drained by systems of combined sewers which spill to the open water courses when the sanitary intercepting sewers and treatment plants are overloaded.

While combined sewers have been estimated to carry approximately 3 percent of the annual sewage volume to waterways during storm overflow periods the annual pollutional load discharged can be much greater because of cleansing of sewer inverts during periods of high storm runoff. The result of such discharges to the stream can be extensive sludge deposits which have a significant oxygen demand and contribute substantially to the pollution of the stream.

THE SOLUTION

A number of alternatives have been studied for solving the problem of pollution caused by spillages from combined sewers. Such studies have included separation of sewers, storage in existing sewers, underflow and tunnel storage plans and outfall or overflow point treatment. All of these have significant capital and operating costs and a variety of advantages and disadvantages. The need for considering these problems now is demonstrated by the relationship between trading off future treatment plant capacity for additional storage facilities to help solve the combined sewer overflow problem as well as improve normal treatment results. This could be of equal significance to both elements of pollution control plant effluents and storm spillage) and probably more economical. In any case, as long as a program of non-recognition from a fiscal planning and assistance point of view prevails, very little progress will be made in relation to this problem.

There is a need in any forthcoming legislation specifically to spell out the eligibility of systems which solve the combined sewer overflow problems for construction grant aid. When inquiries on this subject have been made of the Water Quality Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, we have received the reply that such systems (that is, systems to intercept and treat combined sewer overflows) were ineligible.

From contact with personnel of the administering agency, it would appear that the decision not to fund such systems is an administrative one, based mainly upon the lack of funds which such programs would require.

In all our contacts with them, we have pointed out the utter inconsistency of preparing for higher degrees of treatment of flows entering plants, while at the same time neglecting the gross form of pollution implicit in uncontrolled storm overflows.

It is our opinion that such systems are eligible for participation in the Federal Construction Grant Program provided for in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. This act was amended by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendents of 1961-(Public Law 87-88), the Water Quality Act of 1965-(Public Law 89-234), the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966—(Public Law 89-753), and the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970-(Public Law 91-224).

The provisions of this act are administered by the U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency, Water Quality Office (formerly the Federal Water Quality Administration in the U.S. Department of Interior).

We take this position because of the broad nature of the provisions of Section 8 and the associated definitions:

Section 8. (a) The Secretary is authorized to make grants to any state, municipality, or inter-municipal or inter-state agency for the construction of necessary treatment works to prevent the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated sewage or other wastes into any waters, and for the purpose of reports, plans and specifications in connection therewith.

Section 23. (c) When used in this Act: The term, "treatment works," means the various devices used in the treatment of sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature, including the necessary intercepting sewers, outfall sewers, pumping, power, and other equipment, and their appurtenances, and includes any ex tensions, improvements, remodeling, additions, and alterations thereof.

The conclusion to be drawn from the above is that what is required for the solution of this problem is a recognition of its importance on the part of the Congress, the specific inclusion of methods to cope with the combined sewer prob lem in the definition of "treatment Works," and the provision of adequate funds to cover the cost of effective solutions.

The following change in the definition of "treatment works" as proposed by Senator Magnuson of Washington in S. 4105 which he introduced in the 91s Congress, is supported by AMSA:

Section 23. (c) The term "treatment works" means the various devices used in the treatment of sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature, including work necessary for the separation of combined storm and sanitary sewers, works fo the abatement of combined sewer overflows, intercepting sewers, outfall sewers pumping, power, and other equipment, and their appurtenances, and inc'udes an extensions, improvements, remodeling, additions, and alterations thereof.

In recent communications sent the Water Quality Office, some of our response included, at their request, estimates of expenditures needed for appropriate sys tems. It is evident that the Federal agencies are gathering information in orde to be able to estimate the total cost of such programs.

Needless to say, this alternative as well as others, also must qualify for financia assistance in construction grant programs if they are to be pursued seriously It is recognized that this is going to cost money but the cost estimates of neede work which were previously furnished by AMSA included the works necessary t solve the combined sewer problem for many of the larger cities and also reflecte the information submitted by the National League of Cities and further empha sizes the need for priorities-spending the money where it will do the most goo rather than on an arbitrary and uniform basis throughout the country.

APPENDIX

AMSA LEGISLATIVE GOALS

Provide the mix of facilities which will best clean up waters:

Treat waste discharges.

Eliminate combined sewer overflows.

Apply funds to priority needs.

Authorize incentive grants on future projects:

Spread pollution abatement costs fairly.

Strengthen capacity of cities to pay local costs.

Maintain Federal Policies which will:

Encourage experimentation.

Recognize local differences.

Permit local decisions on local problems.

Encourage local initiative.

Senator EAGLETON. Thank you, Mr. Sosewitz.

Mr. KAISER?

STATEMENT OF CHARLES B. KAISER, JR., SECRETARY-TREASURER AND DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE AGENCIES, AND GENERAL COUNSEL, METROPOLITAN ST. LOUIS SEWER DISTRICT

Mr. KAISER. Mr. Chairman, Senator Eagleton, first I would like to thank you for the role you rave played in helping us pass our $100 million bond issue before you were a Senator as Lieutenant Governor of our State and know that we are in friendly hands when we talk about doing something about water pollution when we are before you. I would like to start by saying that we think it might be time for Congress and us who are in the water pollution field and have been in it for some time to say that tremendous progress has been made in abating water pollution in this country in the last 10 years. Much credit for this can be attributed to increased Federal funding and in recent years to some State funding.

However, most of the cost of treatment facilities in the last 10 years has been paid for by metropolitan areas of this country. From 1956 to 1968, 27 of our agencies represented by ASMA constructed $1.5 billion in treatment works. Only $84 in Federal Public Law 66 grants were constructed, or less than 5 percent.

ASMA originated in a joint effort to develop a legislative program to correct a serious discrimination against the metropolitan areas in the Federal water pollution control construction grant program. Research showed that a representative group of 26 large cities, most of them over 500,000 in population and serving 32 percent of the Nation's sewered population, accomplished 24 percent of the pollution control work in the entire Nation but received only 6 percent of the Federal dollars spent under Public Law 60 grants program. A table is attached, and again we are briefing our testimony here. First of all, we strongly support the increased Federal funding provided in all of the pending bills, the administration's bill, Senator Muskie's bill, and your bill, Senator Eagleton.

The prior grant discrimination was contained in much of the law and then in the limited funding and since 1956, Federal grants have helped many small cities catch up with backlog needs.

But the more pressing needs of the large metropolitan areas have been largely left to local resources.

Again from 1956 to 1969, municipalities of over 250,000 population which contain 35 percent of the sewered population of the United States received less than 8 percent of the Federal grant dollars for waste treatment.

During the same period, cities under 50,000 in population with less than 35 percent of the sewered population of the United States received more than 70 percent of all Federal waste treatment dollars. Again, a table is attached to illustrate that.

The large city needs are great. A sample of only 27 large metropolitan complexes in the United States showed a need of almost $11.7 billion worth of treatment needs in the next 10 years for their waste treatment works including costs necessary for solving the combined sewer problems in some of those cities where the combined sewer overflows we feel create some of the most serious problems, as Mr. Sosewitz has pointed out.

Again we have a table 3 which illustrates this data.

It is our feeling that Congress should establish a new system of incentive grants. In order to enable metropolitan areas to solve water pollution problems, we must compensate for the fact that past constraints have greatly diminished the financial ability of many large cities to provide solutions to their pollution abatement problems.

By new additional compensating grants, we can restore a strong capacity to perform.

We recommend that a special 20 percent incentive grant be authorized for new construction of pollution abatement works by any muncipality or agency which has built sewage projects since 1956 that qualified for Federal assistance at the same time they were built but did not in fact receive the minimum 30 percent Federal grant authorized.

The total of these incentive grants for new construction would be limited to the total amount of Federal grants for which such municipalities were short-changed over the period since 1956.

The incentive grant concept not previously considered by Congress was included in Senate bill 3688 as introduced by Senator Muskie on behalf of the National League of Cities and U.S. Conference of Mayors during the last conference.

If provisions of incentive grants that we are asking for or contained in Senate bill 4105 of the 91st Congress are enacted, total additional amount of Federal money ultimately required to fund these provisions will be approximately $500 million. This would reduce all grants discriminations for both large and small cities which have occurred since the passage of Federal Law 660.

In terms of fiscal impact of this provision, since it is keyed to a maximum of 20 percent of any project to be constructed in the future, total amount could not be used up in 1 year or 2 or even 3. It may take several years.

The impact in fiscal year 1972 will be less than 5 percent of the 2.5 billion appropriation and the impact will continue at a declining percentage of subsequent appropriations.

In our State alone, or our city, we passed and built in the last 10 years since 1960, over $100 million worth of facilities and received less than $10 million in Federal grants and we presently have approximately $80 million outstanding in bonds, so you can see that our bonding capacity has been used pretty severely and any incentive grant program would help us very much.

We urge the Congress to consider legislative language which would insure that the funds to be made available will be allocated somewhat on a population basis. There is no rational excuse for not directing the funds to where the problems are most severe and where people of the country live.

Some States have compounded the difficulty by discriminating against the large cities within their boundaries and though they sub scribe to the philosophy of States being better able to determine their own needs than the Federal Government, some protective language is essential to prevent some of the abuses that have occurred in the past programs.

One of those, the Mayor of Cleveland, has cited that in the past 10 years he has received, I think, almost zero from Federal grants be

cause of State priority systems. I think this could be looked into by Congress.

In closing, we strongly urge the increased funding that is talked about now by Congress and the Administration, and there is one other problem and that is the making available of the Federal funds would help all of us, particularly in States like Missouri where before we can let a contract to construct these works, we must certify that funds are available.

You can see if we are bidding a job, let's say $50 million treatment plant or $20 million treatment plant, and we only have one-fourth of that in cash, 25 percent in State money, and 50 percent in Federal money, we would like Congress, if possible, to set up a procedure whereby a contractor bidding that job and we as an agency letting the contract be assured of a procedure whereby money would be made available during the construction of that project so that the contractor could be paid.

It would save considerable interest cost to the contractor and to the local agency because we feel that the Federal Government can borrow money cheaper than a contractor who is building a plant or even we as a municipal agency.

So, if you could maybe take a look at how the highway program funds, they are 90 percent grants, and then pattern it somewhat in an effort to make these funds available during construction so that we can let these contracts with a set policy of making Federal funds available during construction, we would surely appreciate it.

Thank you very much.

Senator EAGLETON. Thank you, Mr. Kaiser.

(Mr. Kaiser's prepared statement follows:)

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES B. KAISER, JR.

AMSA originated in a joint effort to develop a legislative program to correct the serious discrimination against metropolitan areas in the Federal water pollution control construction grant program. Research showed that a representative group of 26 large cities, most of them over 500,000 in population and serving 32% of the nation's sewered population accomplished 24% of the pollution control work in the entire nation but received only 6% of the Federal dollars spent under the public law 660 grant program. (See Table I attached).

Discrimination also resulted from the shortage of total Federal appropriations which caused pro-ration of available funds and lowered the Federal share much below the 30% maximum authorized prior to 1966. Cities of all sizes which worked to clean up their waters received much less federal help than those who waited until today to start.

Federal assistance for the massive pollution abatement needs of the large metropolitan areas, in particular, has been badly neglected.' Although dollar reilings on grants were removed in 1966, a decade of serious Federal discrimination against the heavily populated areas has left serious gaps in their financial capacity to clean up some of the nation's dirtiest waters. A comparison of small rities and large metropolitan areas as to sewerage needs, financial capability and Federal assistance revea's the serious disparities that have developed and the necessity for corrective action.

PRIOR GRANT DISCRIMINATION AGAINST LARGE CITIES

Since 1956 Federal grants have helped many small cities catch up with their backlog needs, but the more pressing needs of the large metropolitan areas have been largely left to local resources. From 1956 to 1969, municipalities of over

Ellis J. R.. "Federal Grants for Municipal Waste Treatment-The Need for Policy Change", Journal of Water Pollution Federation, Vol. 42, p. 679 (May 1970).