094426 -- United States General Accounting O f f i c e ~ Washington, D.C. 20548 -'yz For Release on Delivery Expected at 10 AM EST May 25, 1971 STATEMENT OF ELplER B. STAATS, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS fl Yo" HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE REVIEWS OF FEDERAL WATER POLLUTIOPJ CONTROL PROGRAM 7 M r . Chairman and members of the Committee: We are pleased to appear before this Committee today to discuss the work that the General Accounting Office is 'doing at the Water Quality Office of the Environmental Pro- / 1 tection Agency, (EPA). In view of congressional interest in the water pollution control program, we have endeavored to keep the staffs of the appropriate Committees informed as to the nature of our ongoing work. In this regard, we have met with the staff of this Committee on several occasions since November-1968. We also appeared before this Committee in March 1969 to discuss the work we were doing at that time in the water pollutfon area. Since 1968, we have issued 11 reports on the results of our work including four reports to the Con- gress, three reports to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Air\ and Water Pollution, Senate Committee on Public Works, and four reports to agency officials. We have attached to this statement, a list of these reports. - - 14-4- 1 094426 REPORTS TO THE CONGRESS Our reports to t h e Congress dealt with the following areas. 1. The effectiveness of the construction grant program f o r abating, controlling, and preventing water pollution. 2, The award of Federal grants to construct waste treat- ment facilities which benefit industrial users. 3. The need f o r improved operation and maintenance of municipal waste treatment plants. 4. The progress and problems in controlling industrial water pollution. 2 .. Effectiveness of the construction grant program In November 1969, we issued a report to the Congress on the effectiveness of the construction grant program for abat- ing, controlling, and preventing water pollution. We con- cluded that the benefits obtained from the expenditure of about $5.4 billion for the construction of more than 9,400 waste treatment projects were not as great i?s they could have been because many waste treatment facilities had been constructed on waterways where v a j o r industrial and munici- pal polluters located nearby continued to discharge untreated or inadequately treated waste i n t o the waterways. We found that the construction grant program had been administered for the most part using a f'shotgun''approach, that is, awarding grants on a first-come-first-served or readiness to proceed basis with little consideration being given to the benefits to be attained by the construction of individual waste treatment plants. We recommended that the Water Quality Office, in approv- ing grants give consideration to (I) the benefits to be de- rived fron the construction of the facilities and (2) the actions taken, OF planned to be taken, by other polluters of the waterways. We recommended also that the Water Quality Office consider utilizing systems analysis techniques in the planning for and implenenting of water pollution control pro- grams. The agency agreed that a more systematic means should be used in awarding construction grants, and i n July 1970, issued regulations requiring that grants f o r the construc- tion of new waste treatment p r o j e c t s be in accordance with 3 comprehensive river basin programs and metropolitan and re- gional plans for pollution abatement. Under its policy, the Water Quality Office generally re- quired secondary treatment facilities for inland waters. W e recognized that the requirement of secondary treatment may be desirable as the ultimate objective; but, in view of the niagnitude ofthe problem and the limited Federal funds avail- able, we expressed the belief that, as an interim measure, consideration should be given to less than secondary treat- ment when such treatment would result in enhancing water quality or in attaining the States' water quality standards. The agency stated, however, that interim goals should not be established and that providing less than secondary treatment would ;lot be acceptable except on some coastal wa- ters. Since issuing our report we have given this matter further consideration, and we remain of the view that less than secondary treatment should be considered under certain circumstances, Section 8(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act provides that the States establish priorities f o r Federal construction grants on the basis of financial and water pol- lution control needs, We reported that the requirement that financial need be a factor in establishing priorities could result in the Water Quality Office's awarding grants for the construction of projects which provide little benefit in terms of appreciably improving water quality or uses, Ac- cordingly, we recommended that the Congress consider amend- ing section 8(a) of the act to provide that priorities for grant awards be established on the basis of benefits to be realized. 4 Waste treatment facilities which benefit industrial users In May 1970, we reported.that a large amount of Federal grant funds had been awarded by the Water Quality Office to municipalities for the construction of facilities to treat significant quantities of industrial wastes. We identified seven grants totaling about $503,000 which had been awarded for the construction of facilities to treat industrial wastes only. Also, a partial Water Quality Office list of waste treatment facilities in which industrial wastes represented 50 percent or more of the total volume of wastes treated showed that Federal grants of about $81 million were awarded €or the construction of 381 facilities. The Water Quality Office was not requiring industrial plants to finance any part of the cost of constructing waste treatment facilities. We expressed the belief that if the trend .., toward municipal treatment of industrial wastes con- tinued, it might well be that much of the cost for con- structing industrial waste treatment facilities, which was industry's responsibility, might become eligible for Fed- eral assistance and result in a heavy demand on future con- struction grant funds. We suggested that the Congress (1) clarify its intent as to whether Federal grants were to be awarded to munici- palities for the construction of facilities for the treat- ment of industrial wastes only, and (2) consider alterna- tives for financing the costs associated with the construc- tion of facilities for the treatment of industrial wastes. 5 The agency concurred i n t h e need t o examine e x i s t i n g p o l i c i e s and t o develop new p o l i c i e s where a p p r o p r i a t e . In J u l y 1970, t h e agency issued r e g u l a t i o n s which provide t h a t a Federal g r a n t may be made f o r a waste treatment p r o j e c t designed t o t r e a t i n d u s t r i a l wastes i f t h e p r o j e c t provides f o r i n t e g r a t e d waste d i s p o s a l f o r a community, metropolitan area, o r region. The r e g u l a t i o n s a l s o r e q u i r e t h a t t h e ap- p l i c a n t a s s u r e t h e Commissioner of t h e Water Quality O f f i c e t h a t it h a s , o r w i l l have i n e f f e c t when t h e p r o j e c t i s placed i n o p e r a t i o n , an e q u i t a b l e system of c o s t recovery. I n February 1971 i n t h e Senate and March 1 9 7 1 i n t h e House, l e g i s l a t i o n was introduced t o r e q u i r e grantees t o make provision f o r t h e f u l l recovery from i n d u s t r i a l u s e r s of t h a t p o r t i o n of t h e estimated reasonable c o s t of construc- t i o n a l l o c a b l e t o t h e treatment of i n d u s t r i a l wastes. The c o s t t o each i n d u s t r i a l user s h a l l be e q u i t a b l e based on the proportion which t h e volume and s t r e n g t h of such u s e r ' s wastes bear t o t h e volume and s t r e n g t h of a l l wastes being t r e a t e d by t h e p r o j e c t . Revenues derived from such c o s t re- covery, t o t h e e x t e n t apportionable t o t h e Federal share of e l i g i b l e p r o j e c t c o s t s a l l o c a b l e t o t h e treatment of indus- t r i a l wastes, s h a l l revert t o t h e Treasury of t h e United States, u n l e s s t h e grantee has a u s e r charge system and o t h e r l e g a l , i n s t i t u t i o n a l , managerial and f i n a n c i a l capa- b i l i t y t o a s s u r e adequate o p e r a t i o n , maintenance, expansion, and replacement of t r e a t m e n t works throughout t h e g r a n t e e ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n , i n which case such revenues may b e r e t a i n e d by t h e grantee. 6 Operation and maintenance of municipal waste treatment plants In September 1970, we reported that operation and maintenance problems for municipal waste treatment plants had been witlespread f o r many years and had resulted in in- efficient plant operations. These problems resulted from a lack of qualified operating personnel, inadequate con- trols over industrial wastes, and inadequate plant design or lack of adequate equipment. Our review of 69 plants in s i x States showed that: --40 of the plants had operational, mechanical, or structural problems, --28 of the plants bypassed some sewage without treat- ment, and, --59 of the plants did not meet fully the minimum pro- visions for personnel, laboratory controls, or rec- ords recommended by a 1963 Conference of State Sani- tary Engineers. We recommended that the agency (1) establish, in cooper- ation with the States, comprehensive guidelines for use by municipalities, States, and the Water Quality Office in de- termining the provisions necessary for ensuring proper and efficient operation and maintenance of municipal waste treat- ment plants and (2) gather and disseminate information to help the States identify, develop, and implement more effec- tive procedures f o r the prevention, detection, and correc- tion of plant operation and maintenance problems. The agency agreed substantially with our findings and stated that certain actions then underway, along with 7 a d d i t i o n a l planned a c t i o n s , should a i d i n the s o l x t i o n of operation and maintenance problems. In J u l y 1970, t h e Water Quality Office amende6 i t s reg- u l a t i o n s t o r e q u i r e (1) assurances from grant a p p l i c a n t s t h a t possibly harmful i n d u s t r i a l wastes w i l l receive pre- treatment p r i o r t o discharge t o t h e municipal senage system and ( 2 ) assurances from t h e State water p o l l u t i o n c o n t r o l agencies t h a t newly completed f a c i l i t i e s would be inspected a t least annually f o r t h e f i r s t three years and p e r i o d i c a l l y thereafter. The agency a l s o prepared guidelines d e a l i n g w i t h p l a n t design and operation and maintenance, and estab- l i s h e d an operation and maintenance function i n each region t o assist t h e States i n developing t h e i r own programs. 8 Controlling industrial water pollution In December 1970, we reported that some progress had been made in abating industrial water pollution, but that much more needed to be done. Our review in five States showed that the approach, emphasis and achievements attained varied from State to State. In some States, action by the ' State government had spurred industry to action, while in other States, few tangible results could be seen. We found wide variances in the level of financing and staffing of the five State pollution control agencies. Effective planning had been hampered by such problems as the lack of'data on the types and extent of pollutants being dumped into the waterways by industry and the lack of knowledge of the effect of certain pollutants on the water. In addition, enforcement action against polluters had been hindered by a lack of (1) information on trends in water quality and progress being made to meet State implementatiod schedules, (2) authority to enforce specific effluent re- strictions, and (3) authority to enforce dates set for im- plementing abatement measures without also having to show a violation of water quality standards or endangerment of health and welfare--a procedure which could be costly and time consuming. We recommended that the agency (1) encourage the States to strengthen their staffs, (2) develop an inventory of industrial polluters, and (3) obtain data on trends in water quality and progress being made to meet abatement target ' dates. 9 The agency has initiated action in accordance with these recommendations. Also, in February 1971, in the Senate and March 1971, in the House, legislation was intro- duced to substantially increase the funds available for State administrative grants over the next four years, The proposed legislation provided that factors to be c onsidered in awarding additional grant funds to the States include whether a State is providing adequate manpower to implement its program and is instituting measures for recruiting and developing personnel. Guidelines for the preparation of State implementation plans are currently.being revised. The proposed revisions require that the plans include a time-phased schedule of construction to attain water quality standards. At least quarterly the States shall submit status reports identifying polluters not in compliance, reasons f o r non-compliance, and the nature of State enforcement actions. The agency plans to develop an industrial waste inven- tory through two sources., Information on industries dis- charging into navigable waters will be obtained through the Corps of Engineers permit program in accordance with Execu- tive Order 11574. In addition, information from other in- dustries will be obtained through questionnaires. The Water Quality Office is attempting to obtain water quality data from the States to be used i n its water quality information system. Since we found such information gener- ally lacking at the State level, however, it appears to us that it will be some time before the system will be fully operational. 10 CT- REVIEW EFFORTS With the exception of our report on controlling indus- trial pollution, our past audit effort was directed p r i m a r i l y toward the grant program for constrxting municipal %Taste treatment plants. Currently we are reviewing certain aspects of several other programs and activities in the Water Quslity Office : 1. Effectiveness of the research and development, and demonstration grant proe- orams. 2. Effectiveness of the enforceEent program. 3. Problems relating to combined storm and smitary sewer systems. 4. Effectiveness of EPA's efforts to meet water pollu- tion control manpower and training needs. I would like to emphasize that we have not completed our reviews of these matters, and consequently, our observations at t h i s point i n time are tentative and subject to change. Of course, at the completion of our reviews, ocr findi_rgs and conclusions will be available to the Cong,ress. 11 Effectiveness of the research, development and demonstration grant program Since 1956, the Congress has appropriated about $300 million for the research, development, and demonstra- tion grant program, The objectives of our review of this program are to examine into: 1. The in-house research program including the utiliza- tion of laboratory facilities, equipment, and per- sonnel. 2. The extramural research and development program in- cluding both research grants and contracts (Sec- tion 5) and demonstration grants (Section 6 3 . Our review indicates that in some cases, the in-house re- search program has been hmpered, and laboratory facilities underutilized, because laboratory researchers have devoted considerable time to managing extramural grants and contracts, which limited the time they had available f o r in-house re- search. At one laboratory the research staff spent about 40 percent of its time monitoring extramural grants. ’ Our review at the laboratories showed a need f o r labora- - tory management to direct increased attention to the identi- fication of underutilized and excess equipment within the laboratories. We found a number of items of equipment that were excess to current needs or that could be better utilized through the use of equipment pools or other sharing arrange- ments. In our review of research grants and contracts, we are examining into such things as cost overruns, timeliness in completion of projects, adequacy of monltoring, fulfillment of project objectives, and dissemination of results. 12 With regard to the demonstration grant program, the Fed- eral Water Pollution Control Act states that no grant shall be made for any project unless the project is to serve a use- ful purpose in the development or demonstration of a new or improved method of treating municipal and industrial wastes or otherwise preventing pollution of waters by industry through methods which shall have industry-wide application. hring fiscal years 1966 through 1971, appropriations for the demonstration grant program totaled about $132 m i l - lion. Our review indicates that a significant amount of demonstration grant funds have been used for projects which have not demonstrated new methods of treating wastes but rather, were essentially modifications of conventional treat- ment practices and appeared to benefit primarily the recip- ient of the grant, Substantial portions of the grants were for the construction of waste treatment facilities and the subsequent operation and maintenance of such facilities. ' For example, a fruit processing company's existing treatment facilities were inadequate and a State water pol- lution control agency ordered the company to treat the wastes so as to remove suspended s o l i d s and 90 percent of the organic conteni of the wastes. The company subsequently requested a demonstration grant t o determine the most econo- mical method of removing 90 percent of t h e orginic waste from its effluent. Prior to award of the grant, the proposal received sev- eral reviewsbywater Quality Office personnel. Someofthe re- view comments indicated that the project was n o t w i p e and had little technical merit, and that the probability of success was assured. Nevertheless, the Water Quality Office awarded 13 the company a demonstration grant of $374,669 or 7C percent , of the eligible project cost of $ 5 3 5 , 2 4 2 . The Research and Development Office, in awarding the grant, stated that the project would provide f o r (1) an evaluation of the effectiveness and ecoxomy of variou oper- ating procedures for use in reducing pollution, and ( 2 ) in- formation which would have applicability to other similar wastes from the food canning industry. Based on the Federal Government's financing 70 percent of t h e estimated project costs, the grant funds were to be used as f o l l o w s : Construction $275,339 73.5% Operation and Maintenance 71,330 19.0 Research and Development Studies 28,000 7.5 Total $374,665 100.0% Our review showed that only conventional construction was used on this project. The equipment used was available from a number of suppliers and was not new or unique. The treatment process, according t o the final project report, ''is not a new concept but has been tried quite extensively on pulp and paper waste streams and somewhat in the fruit and vegetable processing industry." 14 Effectiveness of the enforcement program The principal objectives of our review of the enrorce- ment program are to (1) examine into the extent and effec- tiveness of Federal and State water pollution enforcement activities; (2) ascertain the problems encountered by the States and EPA in their enforcement activities; and ( 3 ) con- sider the adequacy of existing legislation as it relates to enforcement. Historically the States have had the primary responsi- bility €or abating and controlling water pollution. Federal enforcement action has been considered as "back-up" to the States to be taken when the States either failed to act or requested Federal assistance. Federal enforcement action has been initiated by EPA, the Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Attorney's Offices, Our review has shown that s m e of these actions have been taken independently, without coordi- nation, and without consultation with the appropriate State agencies, State officials have told us that this situation has caused a good deal of confusion among industrial personnel in that they did not know which Federal or State agency had responsibility for the water pollution program. There appears to be a need for greater coordination among the Federal agen- cies with regard to the water pollution enforcement program. State officials have indicated that there is a need for EPA to define its policy in terms of when, and under what circumstances EPA wouldinitiateenforcement action, They have stated that advance public knowledge as to the circum- stances under which the Federal Government would take 15 enforcement action would in e f f e c t force polluters, State agencies, and State Courts to act within specific time con- straints to avoid Federal intervention. EPA enforcement action under the procedures introduced ' in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956 has gener- ally been slow and cumbersome. Such action involves a three stage process- (1) a conference to identify poiluters and to decide on corrective action, ( 2 ) a hearing involving a spe- cific polluter not following the agreed-upon correction plar!, and (3) Federal court action, as a final resort, against a polluter not making reasonable efforts at abating pollution. A m i n i m of 58 weeks is required under law Eetween the time EPA decides to call a conference and the date EPA can refer the case to the Attorney General for court action. Between 1956 and 1970, fifty-one enforcement conferences were called, four public hearings held, and one court action taken. Stateand local officials told us that the conferences have been beneficial to the extent that they have focused attention on pollution problems, identified the major sources of pollution, and provided an opportunity for Government and industry to plan a course of action and establish implenen- tation schedules for abating pollution. Unfortunately, how- ever, many of the actions agreed to by the conferees were never taken and, in the opinion of the officials, the con- ferences 'nave not been very effective as an enforcement pro- cedure, The Water Quality Act of 1965 provided EPA with another enforcement tool--the 180 day notice. Under this act, the the Administrator of EPA can initiate court action--without 16 need for a formal conference or hearing--where the discharge of matter into interstate waters reduces the quality of such waters below the established State water quality standards. Before initiating court action, however, the Administrator is required to give the alleged polluter 180 days to take or agree to take action voluntarily to abate the pollution so as to meet water quality standards, A s of Yay 1, 1971, EPA had issued twenty 180 day notices--8 to municipalities and 1 2 to industries. Our review indicates that the 180 day notice policy sometimes contributes to additional delay in enforcing water quality standards implementation plans in that such notices have been issued to a number of polluters who have failed for long periods of time to abate their pollution in accordance with Federal and State implementation schedules. Vnder such circumstances it appears to us to be unreasonable to give polluters an additional six months to take, or agree to take, long overdue abatement action. . Our review indicates that the Federal Vater Pollution Control Act has additional limitations which have hindered EPA enforcement efforts. Under the present Act, EPA cannot enforce specific effluent standards. Kor can it enforce im- plementation dates without showing a3 impairment of water use o r a danger to health and welfare--which can be a lengthy @ and costly process. Also, EFA cannot move unilaterally against a polluter unless the pollution is interstate in nature. For EPA t o act in cases of intrastate pollution 17 the consent of the Governor is needed, or there must be sub- stantial economic injury from the inability to market shell- fish. Thus, EPA can act under the present law, only after water pollution is already a problem. The use of specific effluent standards would permit the setting of treatment requirements for municipalities and industries before pollu- tion becomes a problem. Under such a system, enforcement actions would also be easier, Showing that there is a fail- ure to meet the established effluent standards, rather than showing that the polluter’s discharge causes a violation of the water quality, would constitute sufficient grounds to act, At present, it may be difficult to show impairment of water quality because tests must be made over an extended period to show water quality trends. Even then it is diffi- cult to relate a change in water quality to a specific munic- ipal or industrial discharge. Consequently, a polluter may delay putting in treatment facilities by claiming that its discharge is not lowering the water quality. 18 u -a ., Combined storm and sanitary sewers Discharges from combined s t o m and sanitary sewer sys- tems are a major source of water pollution in some regions of the United States. Conbined sewers carry municipal and/or industrial wastes at all times and, during storm or thaw pe- r i o d s , also carry stormwater runoff from streets and other sources. The normal flows in the systems are relatively low and slow moving, which permit a buildup of solids in the sys- tems. During storms, the high flow and fast movement create a flushing effect that washes the buildup of solids out of the sewers. Waste treatment plants usually provide some excess ca- pacity but are not designed to handle the increased flows of waste water than>can occur during a storm. Accordingly, so as not to overload the treatment plants, combined systems generally include by-pass facilities which allow a part of the storm period flow to be diverted directly into receiving waters, These by-passed flows consist of a mixture of munic- ipal sewage and stormwater runoff and constitute untreated, polluting discharges into receiving waters. Even in those cases where all or a significant part of the storm period flows are routed through the treatment facilities, the effi- ciency of the plants is severely reduced and the resultant effluent is of lower quality than under dry weather conditions. A 1967 report by the American Public Works Association indicated that nationwide about 54 million people lived in municipalities partially or wholly served by combined sewer systems, and that there was a total of 55,000 miles of com- bined sewers. Nationwide separation of combined sewers was estimated to cost as much as $48 billion. 19 municipalities (including most newer communities) have separate storm sewers to eliminate the problem of com- bined sewer overflows. The separate storm sewer discharges are seldom treated and generally had been regarded as non- polluting. Recent Water Quality Office studies, however, have shown that untreated stomwater can be a significant source of water pollution. Stormwater sewer discharges con- tain high concentrations of organics, inorganics, bacteria, and floatable solids. These pollutants result in the lower- ing of dissolved oxygen, bacterial contamination, aesthetic nuisances, and other adverse impacts on water quality with attendant curtailment of water use. Thus , separation of combined sewers without treatment of the stomwater is not necessarily the best solution t o the combined sewer pollu- tion problem, Because sewer separation was estimated to cost $48 bil- lion, and is not now considered in many cases to be the b e s t solution to the problem, the Water Quality Office is attempt- ing,to develop alternative solutions. As of May 19, 1971, the Water Quality Office, under its research, development and demonstration program, had awarded 100 grants and contrasts totaling about $33 million to develop and demonstrate methods to control combined sewer problems. Ten of the grants were for $1 million or more. Non-federal funds for the projects totaled $40 million. We recently initiated a review of this area. Our objec- tives are to examine into the extent of the combined storm and sanitary sewer problem; and EPA, State, and local efforts and progress in solving the problem. We will look into: $ 'I 20 1. The significance of the problem in terms of costs, sources, and pollutional effects of untreated com- bined sewer discharges or separated stormwater dis- charges. 2. EPA, State,and local planning to overcone the combined-sewer problem . 3. The extent and adequacy of coordination within EPA; with other Federal agencies having programs which involve sewer construction including the Departments of Housing and Urban Development and Transportation, the Economic Development Administration, and the Farmers Home Administration; and with State and local agencies. 4 . The consideration given to the problem in establish- ing water quality standards, including State imple- mentation plans. 5. EPA's research, development and demonstr.ation program as it pertains to combined sewers. In view of the magnitude of the problem and the limited funds available, we believe that priorities for solving the problem should be established on the basis of benefits to be attained or expected improvement in water quality or water use. 21 Effectiveness of EPA's efforts to meet water Dollutior! control manpower and training needs Rapid expansion of environmental protection efforts at all levels of Government, and in the private sector, has placed critical demands UPOR manpower available to do the work. In recognition of the critical nanpower need, the Congress has authorized several manpower development and training programs including Federal financial and technical assistance to States, local governments, and others. The legislation has required the Environmental Protection Agency to submit reports to the Congress covering manpower and train- ing needs and means of using existing Federal programs to train the required personnel, with particular emphasis on State and local government needs. The objectives of our review in this area are to eval- uate the effectiveness of EPA's efforts to meet water pollu- tion control manpower and training needs including its pro- gram planning efforts, in-house training programs, extramural grant program, and assistance to State and local governments. This review was initiated only recently. We plan to ex- amine into the following areas: 1. The adequacy of EPA's efforts to a s s e s s manpower needs. 2. Progress in implementing the agency actions proposed in Senate Document 49, dated August 2, 1967 for meet- ing manpower and training needs of State and local government. 3 . The possible need for more emphasis OR the training of technicians and plant operators 4 . The extent of State and local manpower training ac- tivities and the possible need to clarify Federal, 22 S t a t e and l o c a l t r a i n i n g objectives and r e s p o n s i b i l - ities. 5. The employment s t a t u s of i n d i v i d u a l s whc received Federal t r a i n i n g g r a n t s , '3 GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE REPORTS ON WATER POLLUTIOE Reports to the Congress 1. Examination Into the Effectiveness of the construc- tion Grant Program For Abating, Controlling and Pre- venting Water Pollution, November 3, 1969. B-166506 2. Federal Grants Awarded for Constructing Vaste Treat- ment Facilities Which Benefit Industrial Users-- May 8, 1970. 5-166506 3. Need for Improved Operation and Maintenance of Mu- nicipal Waste Treatment Plants--September 1, 1970. B-166506 4 . Controlling Industrial Water Pollution--Progress and Problems,December 2, 1970, B-166506 Reports to Chairman, Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, Senate Cormittee on Public Works 1. Personnel, Staffing, and Administration of the Fed- eral Water Pollution Control Administration-- April 11, 1969. E-166506 2. Operation and Maintenance of Municipal Waste Treat- ment Plants--July 3, 1969. B-166506 3. Administration of the Construction Grant Program for Abating, Controlling and Preventing Water Pollu- tion--July 23, 1969. B-166506 Reports to Agency Officials 1. letter Report on Questionable Award of a Construc- tion Grant to the Oglala Sioux Tribe--October 2 5 , 1968. 2. Report to the Secretary of the Interior on Review of Allocation of Indirect Expenses by the Rand Deve-lop- ment Corporation--December 9, 1969. B-163507 24 3. Letter Report to Secretary of the Interior on Fed- eral Water Quality Administration's Decision to Retroactively Increase Certain Federal Grants-- August 7, 1970. B-166506 4 . k t t e r report to the Conmissioner, Federal Water Quality Administration on the Settlement of Accounts of Disbursing Officer, September 14, 1970. 25 HISTORY OF FEDE TROL PRO - 1948 DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ESTABLISHED IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE. SHORTLY THEREAFTER, THE DIVISION WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE BUREAU OF STATE SERVICES OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE. 1954 - DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL WAS REDUCED TO A BRANCH’ AND WAS CONSOLIDATED WITH OTHER DIVISIONS INTQ THE E l . DIVISION OF SANITARY ENGINEERING SERVICES. - 1959 WATER POLLUTION CONTROL BRANCH AND OTHER WATER POLLUTION RESEARCH AND TECHNICAL FUNCTIONS BECAME THE DIWISION OF WATER SUPPLY AND POLLUTION CONTROL. - 1960 DIVISION OF WATER SUPPLY AND POLLUTION CONTROL WAS GROUPED WITH OTHER DIVISIONS TO FORM THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SEGMENT OF THE BUREAU OF STATE SERVICES, PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE. - 1961 RESEARCH AND TRAINING GRANTS RESPONSlBlLlTlES UNDER THE CONTROL Of: THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE DIVISION OF WATER SUPPLY AND POLLUTION CONTROL. - 1965 DIVISION OF WATER SUPPLY AND POLLUTION CONTROL. BECAME THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CQNTRO L ADMINISTRATION, A SEPARATE ADMINISTRATION WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE. 1966 - FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTWAT.!QBU WAS TWAMSFBRRED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 2. 1967 - FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION WAS REORGANIZED. 1968 - FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATIOW WAS REORGANIZED. 1970 - FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION BECAME THE FEDERAL WATER QUALITY ADMlNlSTRATlON. 1970 - FEDERAL WATER QUALITY ADMINISTRATION WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, IN .ACCORDANCE ITH REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 3, AND BECAME THE WATER QUALITY OFFICE. 1971-WATER QUALITY OFFICE BECAME THE OFFICE QF WATER PROGRAMS AND WITH THE OFFICE OF AIR PROGRAMS WAS PLACED UNDER THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR MEDIA PROGRAMS. 0 WATER QUALITY OFFICE e AUTHORIZATIONS AND APPROPRIATIONS D O L L A R S IN FISCAL YEARS 1 9 5 6 - 1 9 7 1 D O L L A R S IN MILLIONS M I L L \Is 1,500 ,500 Id21 1,400. ,400 1,300 r 300 1,200 ' 1191 ,200 1,100 ,100 1,000 ,000 900 900 800 800 700 700 600 600 500 ' 500 400 400 300 300 200 2011 100 100 0 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 FISCAL Y E A R AUTHORIZATIONS APPROPRIATIONS 0 WAT E COMPAR I SON BETWEE A U T H O R I Z E D AND ACTUAL PERMANENT EMPLOYMENT F. I SCAL YEARS 1 9 5 6 - 1 971 F I S C A L YEAR AUTHOR I Z E D POS I T I OMS ACTUAL 1956 157 157 1957 355 355 4 958 430 430 1959 425 425 1960 406 406 1961 636 636 1962 930 930 1963 1,138 1,138 1964 1,326 1,275 1965 1,594 1,384 1966 2,335 1,735 1967 2,840 2,057 1968 3,236 2,261 1969 2,775 2,160 I970 2,416 2,318. 4 971 2,976 2,855" *ESTIMATE Y. . . RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMON STRATIOM PROGRAM EXPENDITURES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1970 TOTAL EXPENDITURES: $46,475,000.00
GAO Reviews of Federal Water Pollution Control Program
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1971-05-25.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)