L594 (‘X ; NO E.Of*££§7E§?£.. ' " /”" PE.§~:3~,.‘:.§' 2: s4~1 E 511; 3.‘ ’¥;}it ,‘[;.‘_['\§'§ WA 6": .3 W"! ""‘m « -. . . . . ~ \~ ' V ; .u "r..r;.,J4' 21 1; G sf ‘in’ *v-:_. — \‘».—,;- - gm : =:'-5~_ 3 =‘=:_'~ . . <-. .‘ L ‘ I . ‘J '7 .1 ; .,_ ~ _ A L Vx. 1.‘ - - “ ‘ ' r‘ Issue Brief "°" %LE£i;§i‘s:;’%_% ST. LG . .13 _..———-——g —u_A——1‘Z§l‘ .-.3 :; ~ I \ i \ -n . : .,,,...uu.uag..-.31." CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH W Uhiversit ofMiss§uri SERWCE * IIIIIMII "NH llllllllllll I 010-10394021 3 tIitH°i«II11§Ifii Ill! LIBRARY OF CONGRESS MUNICIPAL POLLUTION CONTROL: THE EPA CONSTRUCTION GRANTS PROGRAM ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB80049 AUTHOR : Copeland, Claudia Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CONGRESSIONAL REEARCH SERVICE MA JOR ISSUES SYSTEM DATE ORIGINATED 9_t_ug1_Q4§g_ DATE UPDATED §;_1_§g_8_9_ FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 287-5700 05 16 CBS-> 1 IBBOOI-I9 UPDATE-5/16/80 l§§!§..2§E.I.§.£1'.LQ! The EPA construction grants program represents the largest nonmilitary public works program since the Interstate Highway Systen: $40 billion has been authorized for it since 1972. The program is authorized under section 201 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-500), as amended in 1977 (P.L. 95-217, or the Clean water.Act). Through this program municipalities may receive Federal aid to construct wastewater treatment facilities in order to»meet the Act's performance requirements. Since established in itsjpresent form, the grants program has progressed slowly, and many persons continue to be disappointed with its accomplishments. Progress to date in water pollution cleanup mainly represents successful efforts by industry. while State officials seek continued Federal aid for municipal wastewater projects, other officials and some in Congress wonder if the program will ever end, questioning whether it should be funded at high levels year after year. Participants in the program generally conclude that it is workable, although fine-tuning may be desirable. EPA Administrator Douglas Costle has described the program as being "on the brink of major progress." In the current era of general pressure for budgetary restraint, much of the congressional concern with the construction grants program recently has ocused on the appropriations committees. Congress has followed those committees‘ recommendations for the last three years to reduce program funding below authorized levels. The Act has not been amended again to address the program's substance or procedures since major amendments were enacted in 1977. However, there may be~growing interest in doing so, since certain of the Act's provisions expire in FY80 and FY81. Federal law has authorized grants for planning, design, and construction of sewage treatment facilities since enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956 (P.L. 83-660). Originally the Federal share of vproject costs was limited to 30%, an amount gradually increased through subsequent amendments to 55% by 1968. F The 1972 Amendments to the FWPCA (P.L. 92-500) completely rewrote the Act, mandating requirements for municipal wastewater treatment in two steps. The first called for achieving by July 1, 1977, what is termed "secondary treatment" (removal of 85% of wastes), or better, if required by individual state water quality standards. The second step called for a more rigorous performance standard, termed "best practicable" (removal of more than 85% of wastes), by July 1, 1983. (Other provisions of the Act similarly required phased cleanup efforts by the Nation's industrial dischargers. In total the requirements for industry and municipalities aimed at achieving water quality ‘hat is suitable for fishing and swimming by mid-1983, where possible, and ero discharge of pollutants by 1985. See CBS Issue Brief 79091, Water Quality: Implementing the Clean Water Act.) The 1972 Amendments authorized $18 billion in municipal sewage treatment grants for the Fiscal Years 1973-1975 and increased the Federal share to 75% of eligible project costs. The Amendments survived a Presidential veto, but CRS- 2 IB80049 UPDATE-5/16/80 President Nixon later withheld one-half of the monies authorized in th legislation, fron concern that full funding would "bust the budget. Resolution of the issue-cane in February 1975 when the Supreme Court ruled that the iupoundment had been illegal, and the remaining $9 billion was released for allotment by the States. These funding delays are generally recognized as being largely responsible for the failure of more than one—half of U.S. municipalities to achieve the mid-1977 deadline for wastewater treatment. In 1977 congress amended the Act and authorized an additional $24.5 iabillion for this progran (P.L. 95‘217). This included $fl.5 billion for FY78 and $5 billion annually from FY79 through FY82. The allotment plan in the Act was revised, so that grant monies now are distributed to States under a complex formula based on need and population. The table below illustrates program authorizations, allocations, obligations, and outlays under P.L. 92-500 and subsequent amendments. Fiscal 1922 1973 197a 1975 1976(1) 1977(2) 1978 1979 1980 1981 CRS- 3 Table 1 FUND ING STAT US OF CONS TRUC TION GRAN TS P ROGR AM (3 million) Autaorizetien A;.1.9s;§.t.i.2I.1. 5,000 2,000 6,000 3,000 7,000 u,ooo o 9.000 1,uao 1,uao u,5oo u,5oo 5,ooo u.2oo 5,ooo 3,uoo s,ooo 3,7oo(n) IB800 49 3 ,600 (3) 5,100 (3) (1) Includes Transition Quarter (July-Sept. 1976). (2) Includes $480 million under Public works Employment Act (P.L. 95-369) (3) EPA projections, including effects of Administration's FY81 budget revisions of March 1980. (4) Requested in F181 budget. SOIIICQ 2 UPDATE-5/1 6/80 2,710 2,960 3,612 £1,250 (3) ll, 155(3) EPA data, including Clean Water Fact Sheet, December 1979. 1 '*».t' secondary and higher cns- u IB80O a9 UPDATE-5/1 6/80 By the start of FY80, $28 billion had been appropriated for this program, and $2fl.2 billion had teen obligated, or committed. While $13 billion had actually been spent, only 32.1 billion of that, invested in 1,862 projects, represented fully completed facilities which today are contributing to water quality improvement in the U.S. Another 10,613 projects were under planning, design, or construction. 1972, a Despite the obligations and outlays since significant backlog exists of projects "needing" Federal assistance in order to comply with the ‘law. The most recent statessurvey, conducted by EPA and completed in 1978, reports nationwide needs for municipal sewage treatment facilities of $54 billion for those traditional project elements (treatment plant and interceptor sewers) still required to complete secondary treatment facilities. secondary or higher than l§§EE§.£.§'.l-£Q.1.-.I_C.3;Y._QQ§2lQH§ Interest in the construction grants program and concern for its future raise three key questions: Are the water cleanup goals of the Act being achieved through expenditures under this program? what effect will shrinking appropriations, increasing need for funds, and inflation have on those goals? How should the sizable investments be weighed against competing national priorities? ‘ The 1972 legislation perhaps underestimated the magnitude of the water cleanup task mandated fbr municipalities and industries, in turn leading to underestimation of the time and resources necessary to achieve the ambitious goals of the Act. Despite the $2u billion obligated and $13 billion expended, the Nation is still a long way from reaching the objective in the Clean Water Act of restoring and maintaining "the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." Although there have been some notable local improvements -— largely due to combined industrial and ;municipal source cleanup -- the municipal sewage treatment program has not yet accomplished much nationwide. iLess than 10% of the projects funded actually are caplete and contributing to water quality improvement. In terms of the municipal sources which this program addresses, the EPA Administrator has said, "For every Federal dollar that is already at work cleaning up our water, another $11 have been invested in the construction of plants that have yet to process a single kilogram of wastewater." for constructing that is not the is'EPA's most recent estimated "need" than secondary treatment facilities, full.picture. Other categories of "need" for meeting all of the Act's requirements total an estimated $167 billion and include elements such as rehabilitation of old sewer lines, treatment of combined sewer overflows, and control of separate strmmwater flows. (The category of separate stormwater sewers is not eligible for Federal funding under the Act at this time.) Past estimates of nationwide needs have been as high as $500 billion. Public spending of the magnitude potentially required for municipal needs represent" substantial demand on the Federal budget, at a time of severe overal, pressure on the budget. While $59 billion Administration spokesmen have stated that the Presidentl is committed to spending 3&5 billion for wastewater treatment projects over the 10 years from 1978 to 1987. Over the remainder of this period, appropriations would have CRS- 5 IB800u9 UPDATE-S/16/80 to average 54.7 billion annually in order to meet that commitment. However, inflation rates in the construction industry are averaging 15% and are nearly that high in the economy as a whole, as measured by other economic indicators. Inflationary pressures result in a given number of dollars buying less and less pollution abatement. EPA has said that the added effects of inflation recently have consumed the entire annual appropriation, leaving virtually no residual funds to reduce needs on a net basis. At current rates of appropriations and inflation, municipal treatment needs to comply with the statute never will be fully met, according to EPA. Even with zero inflation and no changes in rules or performance requirements, “some states estimate that at current authorized funding levels, it would take 20 years to complete the mandated cleanup process. Closely related to concerns about funding new construction is the fact that EPA's own data indicate that as many as 50% of the Nation's wastewater treatment facilities fail to operate properly, due to factors such as improper system design and installation, poor operator training, and inability in some cases to attract qualified personnel. There is vno effective inspection system, either Federal or State, reviewing the construction or operation of these systems. These problems have led some persons to question the value of investments already made in operating units. moreover, Federal expenditures under the construction grants program do not reduce the degrading impact of urban and rural stormwater runoff. These and other so—called nonpoint sources of water pollution are estimated to be 50% or more of total pollutant loads of lakes and streams. Estimates of the ‘ost of abating nonpoint pollution are rough; for urban runoff alone, estimates range from $70 billion to $500 billion. The Clean Water Act provides for local, State, or regional planning and implementation of measures to control nonpoint sorces. The Act does not authorize direct expenditures to abate those types of problems, however, as it does for municipal point source wastes. Thus, it is unlikely that all of the goals of the Act can be achieved solely by present. pollution control requirements affecting industries and municipalitieszand at the present level of Federal funding. The municipal construction grants program represents by far the largest Federal expenditure under this Act and, in fact, totals 70% of EPA's budget ($3.7 billion ot of $5.3 billion in FY81). Yet it is clear that the program is not working well: Federal and State program management have been widely yncriticized, while inflation consumes a larger portion of the annual appropriation, and estimated municipal needs are not decreasing. The water quality goals of the Act are far from being achieved, and some persons are concerned that the failures of the municipal program may wipe out other achievements of the entire clean water effort. In view of current fiscal pressures on this and other programs supported by government, Congress may choose to reexamine the municipal grants program and ask what should be done. In doing so, it might consider various options, including continuing the program as is, seeking new technological solutions to wastewater problems, stretching out the program's deadlines in order to improve technical. understanding of the causes and effectstof water pollution, or redirecting the Act towards nonpoint sources. / LE...G..I.§1-l.'1£.l.9£ Several basic questions about the municipal sewage treatment construction "treatment standards of the Act in "one-time need, or .,4- _\of j,most frequent use of such systems, where they have» CRS- 6 IB800u9 UPDATE-5/16/80 grants program have not been addressed by Congress, although future pressures to do so may be strong. These questions include, are the stringent sewage fact required uniformly throughout the country? Is the extent of Federal assistnace to municipal sewage treatment facility construction paying off in cleaner water? Is Federal assistance a will. demands continue? Can municipalities afford to operate and maintain the facilities being constructed? Instead, the congressional response has tended to focus on details and administrative fine-tuning, such as procedures to speed up grant application review and time spent in construction. ‘while administrative matters which result in delay do represent costs to pmogram participants, few persons have really asked,.is all that construction necessary? Similarly, few persons have asked if the type of construction being done is what is needed to improve water quality. Congress has tried to look at cost-effectiveness of the overall effort. But «Congress has not recently addressed how the municipal grants progran fits among othr legitimate national needs. one area which Congress has examined in the recent past is funding of Advanced Waste Treatment, (ART) projects. Yet this exemplifies the congressional non~reaction to the broader, overall issues. ANT systems are capital- and energy~intensive treatment facilities mainly intended to achieve the 1983 requirements of the law. During consideration of the FY79 ’fappropriations legislation for EPA (P.L. 95-392), EPA was criticized for funding unneeded ART systems. Language in the conference committee report directed the Agency to review, on a case-by-case basis, the need for these projects, an added review process which.has resulted in savings in a number of cases but has been faulted by State officials for unduly causing delay. Regarding the type of construction going on, the 1977 Amendments to the Act authorized a 10% Federal funding bonus to projects utilizing so-called innovative or alternative treatment technologies which have lower capital and ; energy requirements than conventional systems. If fully utilized, this provision could represent one possible means fo reducing outlays under the grants program, yet recent evidence indicates that little use is being made it. Most communities and their consultants still tend to favor conventional treatment equipment, rather than risk construction of facilities which may not ork we1l.or may lead to unforeseen operating problems. The been incorporated, has been land treatment technologies, which.are believed to be effective methods of treating many types of wastes. It may be appropriate to examine wadditional options for encouraging greater use by municipalities of these and ‘facets of the administration of the construction grants program, ,bills would establish a twoatier funding approach, other innovative methods, as well. with several including Legislation introduced in the 96th Congress is concerned the following: allocations made to the States are years, after which reallotment current procedures may actually Those states, thoughc they 1- AllQ£!§§§-B£Q§§§§- Under the 36C: generally available for obligation for two occurs. A number of persons contend that penalize States which spend grant funds.quickly. may be eligible at a later date for reallotment monies, incur costs of delai mwhile waiting for reallotment or the next annual allotment. Legislation tha .. would reward such States while penalizing cthers that lag behind in using up their allotments has been introduced (HLR. H113, H.R. anus. S. 1328). These making additional money available to States which obligate funds within F18 months of the annual cns- 7 IBBOO I19 UPDATE—5/16/80 allotment. The House Public Works Subcommittee on Water Resources held a hearing on H.R. 14113 on July 10, 1979. The bill was reported by Committee on Dec. 17 (H.Rept. 96-709) and was passed by the House Dec. 19, 1979. On the other hand, some see the two-year cutoff as encouraging spending on lower priority projects, when higher priority ones are not yet ready for funding. H.R. 3337, H.R. 4020, and S. 1313 would extend the time for States to obligate their allotted funds from 24 to 36 months, in order to forestall reallotment. These bi]J.s do not include two-tier funding. H.R. £1113, as vpassed by the House, contains a provision to extend the allotment period an additional 12 months. The Senate Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution of the Environment and Public works Committee held a hearing on extending the allotment period for grant funds on Mar. 19, 1979. 2. ;l_l9_tggg_t_f_g§gg_l_a. The formula in the Act which governs distribution of construction grants funds to the States expires at the end of FY81. There is concern that the present formula, which combines elements of population and need, is too complex and inflexible and fails to reflect actual priorities for types of facilities required by the law, such as secondary treatment or higher than secondary. Two bills that would revise the current formula have been introduced _(H.R. 6013, S. 1962). 3. g-_‘1_g§gg;g;_;g_ge_gt cg th_e__p;_:_9g_1_:__a_m. The 75% Federal funding in the grants program has been a substantial inducement to many communities. A number of them now are concluding, however, that the costs of operating and waintaining (081!) new facilities may represent 65-70% of total costs and place a harsh and unanticipated burden on local citizens. This is a particular problem with the sophisticated ART systems designed to meet the Act's 1983 deadlines. Legislation has been introduced in the 96th Congress to provide Federal funds for 0311 costs (H.R. 2309, H.B. 2636). EPA takes the position that under the Act 0811 costs are the community's responsibility and ordinarily are not a burden, compared with other municipal costs. Nevertheless, Administrator Costle testified that EPA recognizes that these costs are increasing and in some cases the costs are quite high. Despite the concern that some communities may need aid, it is feared that making Federal funds available for 08!! expenses would become a perpetual drain on the Federal budget. Sewage treatment systems may also impose direct expenses on local citizens f through the fees of hooking up a residence to new sewer lines. Such fees or charges can amount to hundreds of dollars. At present, Federal funding cannot be used to pay for these interconnection fees, but two bills (H.R. 3965, H.R.6088) would amend the Act to require the Federal government to pay for lateral sewer connections for low-income elderly persons. ll. _];n_d_g§§;:_i_a_;_g_g§_t_g_e_g9yg;y. The FWPCA of 1972 included industrial cost recovery (ICR) provisions to assure that industries discharging effluents into municipal treatment plants repaid their proportionate share of the , .-deral construction cost of treating the industrial wastes. The ICR policy was intended to prevent taxpayers from subsidizing industrial waste treatment, and the charges were in addition to other sewer charges paid by , the industry for 081! or local debt service on the municipal plant. CRS- 8 IB800'-l9 UPDATE-5/16/80 Industrial users criticized the ICE program, claiming that the additional cost was forcing shutdown and relocation of plants. Municipalities ‘ complained about the administrative burden of the program. As a result, the i 1977 Amendments modified the ICE provision to exempt industries discharging less than 25,000 gallons per day equivalent of sanitary waste and imposed an 18-month moratorium on collecting ICR charges, so that EPA could conduct a study of the efficiency and need for the program. Congressional committees determined that the report subsequently produced provided insufficient basis for legislation to modify or eliminate the ICR program. Consequently, after several months of consideration, Congress agreed to legislation (3. 901) to extend the moratorium until June 30, 1980:. The President signed 5. 901 on Dec. 18, 1979 (P.L. 96-1118) . The current moratorium still represents a temporary action, pending further consideration of the entire IQ? issue. Two pending bills would repeal the ICE provisions of the Act:' I-'I.Rw. 6667, introduced after passage of 1.3.1.. 96-1118, and H.R. 1959. at £1.13. 6667 also contains provisions to reauthorize certain research, training, and planning portions of the Clean water Act which expire in FY80. The House Public Works Subcommittee on Water Resources held a hearing on this bill on Mar. 12, 1980. On April 23 the Committee approved H.R. 6667*, including the provision to repeal ICR. ‘ p The Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution of the Senate Environment and ’ Public Works Committee held hearings on the ICE issue on Mar. 18, 20, and 31, 1980. on Hay 8 the Committee approved an original bill with a provision U repeal the ICR requirement. L§§I§LA1£Q!.'. H.R. 50.9 (ucclory) Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize the Environmental Protection Agency to provide legal and technical assistance in: (1) the enforcement of contracts dealing with treatment works and (2) actions involving a serious question of effectiveness of a treatment system, posing a potential threat to intervene in any civil action involving the enforcement of such contracts. Introduced Jan. 15, 1979; referred to Committee on Public works and Transportation. H.R. 550 (ncclory) Amends the Federal water Pollution Control Act to provide that the civil and criminal contempt powers of Federal courts shall not extend to disputes involving the overall effectiveness of a treatment system where an officer or employee of a State or local government is exercising good faith discretion in an official capacity. Introduced Jan. 15, 1979; referred to Committee on Public Works and Transportation’. 11.12. 1959 (Heckler et al .) Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to repeal certain grant and loan conditions for construction of publically owned treatment works Introduced Feb. 8, 1979; referred to Committee on Public Works an. Transportation. [see also 3. 901, H.R. 14023, $1.13. 6667, and S. 2579.] H.R. 2287 (Nowak) Amends the Internal Revenue Code to allow an income tax deduction for cBs- 9 1B3oon9 UPDATE-5/16/80 the portion of real property taxes which is allocaole to the construction, xaintenance, or finance-costs of sewage plants. Introduced Feb. 21, 1979; referred to Conmittee?xm ways and Means. [See also H.R. 2639.]x H.R. 2309 (Nowak) Anends the Federa1.water Pollution Control Act to provide grants, under specified conditions, for the costs of operation and maintenance of publicly owned treatment works. Introduced Feb. 21, 1979; referred to Committee on " Public Works and Transportation. [See also H.R. 2630.] H.R. 2636 (Downey) Amends the Federa1.Water Pollution.Control Act to authorize grants to any State, municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency for the costs of operation and maintenance of publicly owned treatment works. Introduced 6 Mar. 6, 1979; referred to Committee on Public Works and transportation. [See also H.R. 2309.) H.R. 2639 (Downey) Anends the Internal Revenue Code to allow an income tax deduction for the portion of real property taxes which are allocable to the construction, maintenance, or financewcosts of sewage treatment plants. Introduced Bar. 6, 1979; referred to Committee on Ways and Means. [See also H.R. 2287.] vH.R. 3337 (Green et al.) Amends the Pedera1.Water Pollution Control act to extend the period from 2a to 36 months that funds allotted to a State for construction of treatment 1 works shall remain available for obligation by the State. Introduced Mar. ‘9, 1979; referred to Committee on Public works and Transportation. [See ( also n.n. 4020 and s. 1313.] .H.R. 3518 (Downey) Anends the Internal Revenue Code to allow an incne tax deduction to individual taxpayers for costs incurred in connecting a residential sewer line to a public sewage system. Introduced Apr. 9, 1979; referred to Committee on Ways and Beans. H.R. 3965 (McDade) ’ Amends the Federal.Hater Pollution.Control Act to require the United States to pay for lateral sewer connections between any single family residence of a low—incone person 65 years of age or older and a sewage collection system which has received any grants under such Act. Introduced may 7, 1979; referred to Committee on Public Works and Transportation. [See also 3.3. 6038.] H.R. #020 (Johnson, H. (by req.)) Amends the Federa1.fiater Pollutionxcontrol Act to allo sums allotted to the States under the treatment works construction grant program for fiscal ]-year 1978 and subsequent years to remain available for the fiscal year authorized and for the period of the next succeeding 24 months. Introduced May 9, 1979; referred to Committee on Public Works and Transportation. [Identical to S. 1313. See also H.R. 3337.] H.R. 4021 (LaFalce) Amends the Federa1.Water Pollution Control Act to require the United States to pay for that portion of the operating costs of a municipality's treatment works made necessary in order to comply with an international agreement which sets standards for the discharge of pollutants exceeding those otherwise requried by such Act. Introduced may 9, 1979; referred to CBS-10 IB800u9 UPDATE-5/16/80 Committee on Public Works and Transportation. H.R. £1023 (Roberts et al.) _ - Amends the Clean Water Act of 1977 to extend from 18 months to 42 months the moratorium on recovery of treatment works construction costs attributable to industrial users. Introduced May 9, 1979; referred to Committee on Public Works and Transportation. Reported June 25 (H.Rept. 96-315), with amendment. Measure passed House, amended, June 26. Measure laid on table June 26; S. 901 passed in lieu. [See also H.R. 1959, H.R. 6667, S. 901, and S. 2579.] H.R. #113 (Cleveland et al.) n Amends the Federal.Water Pollution Control Act to provide an additional allotment of funds to certain States for the construction of publicly ,owned waste treatment works. Introduced May 16, 1979; referred‘ to Committee on Public Works. Reported.by the Committee Dec. 17, 1979 (H.Rept. ,35§709). Passed by House, [Identical to H.R. 4049. See also S. 1328.] H.R. uuu9 (Obey) 1 ‘Q Amends the Federal.Hater Pollution.Control act to provide an additional allotment of fuds to certain States for the construction of publiclY»;owned waste treatment works. Introduced June 13, 1979; referred to Commitdee on Public Works and Transportation. [Identical to H.R. 4113. See a~:3l.so S. 1328.]‘ I H.R. 6013 (Beard) Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to revise the allotment formula for grants for construction of treatment works. Introduced. Dec. 4, 1979; referred to Committee on Public works and Transportation. Qldenticaf to S. 1962.] 0 H.R. 6086 (Downey) Amends the Federal Water Pollution.Act to require the United States to pay for certain lateral sewer connections for low—income elderlyv persons. Introduced Dec.. 11, 1979; referred to Committee on Public Works and Transportation. i[See also H.R. 3965.] H.R. 6u91 (Mathis) Makes a supplemental appropriation to the Environmental Protection .Agency for reimbursement for the City of Bainbridge, Georgia, pursuant to section 206(a) of the Federal water Pollution Control Act. Introduced Feb. 7, 1980; referred to Committee on Appropriations. H.B. 6667 (Roberts, et al.) Amends the Federal water Pollution Control Act to extendmw the authorizations for specified programs through fiscal years 1981 and 1982. Repeals specified provisions of such Act and of the Clean Water Act of 1977 relating to payments by industrial users for specified portions of treatment 9 works construction costs. Introduced Feb. 28, 1980; referred to Committee on Public Works and Transportation. Hearing held Mar. 13, 1980. [See also H.R. 1959, H.R. 4023, and 3.901.] S. 901 (Chafee et al.) Amends the Clean Water Act to repeal certain grant and loan condition” for construction of publicly owned treatment works. Measure passed House, amended, June 26, 1979, in lieu of H.R. #023. Conference bill agreed to in Senate Nov. 30, 1979, and in House Dec. 3, 1979. Signed by President Dec. 18, 1979 (P.L. 96-1H8). [See also H.R. 1959, H.B. H023, H.R. 6667, and S. 2579.] * - cns-11 IB80049 UPDATE—5/16/80 S. 1313 (uoynihan et al.) Amends the Federa1.Water Pollution.Control Act, as amended. Introduced June 12, 1979; referred to committee on Environment and Public Works. [Identical to H.R. 4020. See also H.R. 3337.] S. 1328 (Hatfield et al.) Amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide an additional allotment of funds to certain States for the construction of publicly owned waste treatment works. Introduced June 13, 1979; referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. [See also H.R. 4113 and H.R. 4449.] .T':a§ £5 .11’; ’ s. 1962 (Pell) Amends the Clean Water Act to revise allotment formula for wastewater treatmeéfht project grants. Introduced Oct. 31, 1979; referred to Committee on Environment and Public Works. [Identical to H.R. 6013.] S. 2579 (Chafee et al.) Amends the Clean Water Act to repeal specified industrial cost recovery provisihnsvfor treatment works construction grants. Introduced Apr. 17, 1980; referred to Committee on Environment and Public Works. [See also H.R. 1959, H.R. 4023, H.R. 6667, and S. 901.] EEABIEEE U.S.°‘ Congress. House. Committee on Public Works and Transportation. subcommittee on Investigations and Review. Implementation of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (municipal construction grants program and related issues). Hearings, wh95th Congress, 2d session. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. ~Off., 1978. 1u35 p. #°~Hearings held July 11-13, 1978. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Public Works and Transportation. Subcommittee on Oversight and Review. Implementation of the ,Federal Water Pollution Control.Act (nonpoint pollution and mithe areawide waste treatment management program). Hearings, <96tm.Congress, 1st session. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 1049 p. Hearings held July 11-18, 1979. ---;*».-’“‘l"o extend the moratorium on industrial cost recovery; aspects of funding for construction grant program. Hearings, 96th Congress, 1st session, on H.R. 4023, H.R. 4113, and “ H.R. 4020. Washington, 0.5. Govt. Print. off., 1979. 327 p. v Hearings held June 14, July 10, 1979. A B§E9.§.1I§J...2-§Q!§B.§§§l9..1!£.L-P.QQQ!§1l.'1I§ 0.5. Congress. House. Committee on Public Works and Transportation. Industrial cost recovery moratorium; report to accompany H.R. 4023, including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget 0ffice. 6 p. (96th Congress, 1st session. House. Report no. 96-305) cRs- 12 113300 a9 mam TE-5/16/80 ----- A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to provide an additional allotment of funds to certain States for the construction of publicly owned waste treatment works; report to accompany ~H.R. 4113. 7 p. (96th Congress, 1st session. House. Report no. 96-709) U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Environment and Public Works. The Clean Water Act, shwing changes made by the 1977 amendments and the 1978 amendments to sections 10% and 311. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1979. 126 p. ‘“"Serial no. 96-1" A legislative history of the Clean Water Act of 1977, a continuation of the legislative history of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, together with a sectjion-by-‘*se*cti‘onz;r.i index. V. 3 and 11. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print.~Off.., ~ 1978. 1505 p. A head of title: 95th Congress, 2d session- Comm‘ittee4::~:p1:§;nt. "Serial no. 95-14" -----= Industrial cost recovery; report to accompany S. 901. 6 p. (96th Congress, 1st session. Senate. Report no. 96-200) A22IT.I;Q11AL_B§E§R;§HCE.§0URSE5 Feliciano, (2.17. A51‘ 8 AWT: fitting treatmentito needs. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, v. 51, no. 7, July 1979: - 1787-1798. Tayl;or,‘,Rona1d A. Cle‘an—aater campaign springs some leaks. _-11.5. News 5 World Report, Dec. 2ll, 1979: 59-61. 11.5. Environmental Protection Agency. Office‘ of Water Program: 9, . Operations. 1978 Needs survey: cost estimatesfor 1.cons’tre.ncti+aI‘I+’ of publicly--owned---r vastevater treatment facilities. Washington-gs: 1979. 1 v. (various pagings) "FRD-1" U.S. General Accounting Office. Water quality management“plann-infgixn is not comprehensive and may not be effective .for:~e‘na.ny_xyea~rs.‘ Washington 1978. "CED-78-167, Dec. 11, 1978" ---- An Executive Summary: 16 air and water pollutiaonrissueas‘=8 facing the nation: report to the Congress by the ~ Comptroller General of the United States. Washington 1978. ° £13 p. "CED-78-1ll8A, Oct. 11, 1978" constructionggprojects to correct combined sewer ’ ov"e"r:El*oifisHare too costly. Washington» 1979. "CED-80-I-I0, Dec. 928, ”'1L‘9"'l9" if , (‘N55 g; wars =3 U'§%§3‘J’EF%%3!“€"Y I ~°‘~- * '7“ "r-- -H5 619?. §...’iJU:‘.11, - N-253.. ':f ..1‘.IB‘&1'. zr