oversight

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)

                                                                  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