Budget Bureau Circular No. A-81 (March 30, 1967), issued to guide the agencies in implementing the provisions of Executive Order 11288, requires each agency to establish a 5-year plan for completing the water pollution control projects at all installations under its jurisdiction by June 30, 1972, and to cooperate with the FWPCA.

LEADERSHIP OF FEDERAL AGENCIES (Recommendation 5):

Even where the wastes discharged from a Federal installation form only a small part of the total volume of pollution discharged to a body of water, the agency should fulfill its obligation of providing leadership and setting an example. The tendency of Federal agencies to delay or cut back on their requests for funds for pollution abatement works should be reversed.

Results. The Executive order, the Budget Bureau, FWPCA and the agencies have established guidelines for water pollution control programs at Federal installations, and the agencies are striving to fulfill their obligations in this area.

However, in the 3-plus years since the committee's report was issued, there was evidence that some of the agencies cut back on funds requested by their subordinate units and that substantial additional cuts were made by the Budget Bureau. The committee believes that expeditious and complete implementation of this recommendation is as important now as it was in June 1965.

BOB INSTRUCTIONS (Recommendation 6):

Agencies should follow the instructions in the Bureau of the Budget Circular A-11 requiring adequate waste treatment facilities in all new facilities constructed for Federal agencies. Results. Agencies have followed the Budget Bureau's instructions referred to above.

IMPACT GRANT PROGRAM (Recommendation 7):

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act should be amended and funds appropriated to HEW, beginning with fiscal year 1966, to permit a program of impact grants totaling $5 million per year for the next 4 years to assist communities near Federal installations in the construction of waste treatment facilities where the need for such facilities is due in part to the Federal installation. Results. Congress has not yet amended the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to authorize specific appropriations for an impact grant program as proposed by the committee.

However, Congress has removed a legislative restriction that for 4 years had barred any impact grants to assist communities whose water pollution problems are due in part to Federal installations. Twenty-four such impact grants, in seven States and Puerto Rico, were made from 1962 and 1963 fiscal year funds pursuant to section 8 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, which authorizes such impact grants from funds allotted to but not obligated by States for 6 months following the end of the fiscal year; that is, on and after

January 1. However, that provision had been rendered ineffective. after January 1, 1965, by a restriction which the Senate inserted in the Appropriation Acts for fiscal years 1964, 1965 and 1966 (Public Laws 88-136, 77 Stat. 236; 88-605, 78 Stat. 971; and 89-156, 79 Stat. 600). That restriction made unavailable any funds not obligated by December 31 following the end of the fiscal year. The committee's report criticized this restriction, and it was not reinstated in the Appropriation Acts for fiscal years 1967, 1968 and 1969 (Public Laws 89-787, 90-147, and 90-479). Hence, Federal impact grants could legally be made after January 1, 1968, from any funds allotted for, and not obligated within 6 months after the end of, fiscal year 1967. However, FWPCA, which now administers HEW's former functions concerning grants for contructing waste treatment works, made only the following impact grants in 1968 from 1967 fiscal year funds:

The committee believes that a specified and substantial impact grants program would encourage better cooperative action between municipalities and nearby Federal installations to jointly solve their related pollution problems.

In the meantime, the special need of a community whose waste treatment problems are in part due to the activities of Federal installations is also recognized by FWPCA in making its regular construction grants. Thus, a project is deemed eligible for a regular construction grant, aside from other criteria, if it involves pollution which is substantially affected by wastes from Federal installations. However, the priority of eligible projects within a State to receive such grants is determined by the respective State water pollution control agencies, not by FWPČA.

ACCELERATION BY FEDERAL AGENCIES (Recommendation 8):

The forward thrust developed by Federal agencies in the abatement of waste water pollution should not be lost. HEW should exercise its authority under section 9 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to continue and accelerate this forward thrust, by taking the following steps:

(a) Provide criteria for guidelines for waste disposal practices by Federal installations which will advance the principle that Federal agencies should provide leadership and set an example for improved control and abatement of water pollution.

(b) Maintain surveillance over the waste disposal practices of Federal installations.

(c) Keep a continuous inventory of waste disposal practices at Federal installations, which would show existing problems, progress made in resolving earlier problems, and new problems developing where waste disposal practices previously were considered adequate.

(d) Make an annual report to Congress on the status of waste water pollution practices of Federal agencies with recommendations for their improvement.

Results. (a) In August 1967, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration of the Interior Department, to which HEW's water pollution control functions were transferred by Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1966 (H. Doc. 388, 89th Congress), issued guidelines for waste disposal practices by Federal installations. These guidelines implemented the requirements of Executive Order 11288.

(b) This recommendation was included in section 1(4) of Executive Order 11288 which provides that "review and surveillance of all such activities shall be maintained to assure that pollution control standards are met on a continuing basis." However, the Executive order did not specify that FWPCA shall be responsible for such review and surveillance. Perhaps for this reason there has not been regular surveillance by FWPCA over the waste disposal practices of the Federal installations. The committee believes that any revision of the Executive order should amend section 1(4) to specifically designate FWPCA as the agency which should, in cooperation with the agency concerned, review and survey the waste disposal practices of Federal installations to assure their continuing adequacy.

(c) The FWPCA has been working to set up a computerized inventory system to replace its previously inadequate inventory of waste disposal practices at Federal installations. As of the end of 1968, FWPCA had not yet completed its computerized inventory.

(d) Section 3(b) of the Executive order requires all agencies to submit annual reports to the Budget Bureau concerning their water pollution abatement programs. Since the FWPCA has not furnished regular annual reports on the details of these programs to the Congress, this committee has continued its surveys of water pollution control at Federal installations and issued several reports thereon.

COOPERATION OF FEDERAL AGENCIES (Recommendation 9):

All Federal agencies should continue to cooperate with PHS to help it accomplish its mission under section 9 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

Results. The Federal agencies have, in general, followed this recommendation by cooperating with the FWPCA, to which the water pollution control functions of PHS were transferred by the Water Quality Act of 1965.

AGENCY SCHEDULING AND REPORTING (Recommendation 10): The committee requests the head of each agency listed in table VI as having installations which have taken no action to clear up pollution conditions

(a) To develop, after consultation with PHS, a vigorous program and schedule of early action to effect such cleanup; (b) To report to this committee not later than November 1, 1965, as to—

(i) The agency's plans for controlling the untreated wastes from each such installation under its respective jurisdiction, and

(ii) The agency's schedule for accomplishing such plans. Results. (a) The committee's report entitled "1965 Survey on Disposal of Sewage and Industrial Wastes by Federal Installations" (H. Rept. 1644, 89th Cong., 2d sess.-noted below) showed that all but 2 of the 68 installations listed in table VI as having taken no cleanup action as of December 31, 1964, had taken some action in the following year. (One of the two was scheduled for deactivation.)

The cleanup action was accomplished in consultation with PHS (and its successor agency, the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration), as recommended by the committee.

(b) Agency reports, as outlined in (i) and (ii), were transmitted to the committee.

HEW REPORT TO THE COMMITTEE (Recommendation 11):

The committee requests HEW to report to this committee not later than November 15, 1965, concerning its efforts to aid the various agencies to develop a vigorous program and schedule of early action for abatement of water pollution, its appraisal of the adequacy of each agency's plans and schedule, and its recommendations for any improvements which HEW deems necessary in such plans and schedules.

Results. Since HEW's report to the committee did not provide sufficient detail on the points included in the recommendation, the committee instituted a further survey of progress made the following year in abating and controlling water pollution at Federal installations.

[H. Rept. 1330, 89th Cong., first sess.]

VIEWS OF THE GOVERNORS ON TAX INCENTIVES AND EFFLUENT CHARGES (WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AND ABATEMENT)

Twenty-First Report by the Committee on Government Operations

(Submitted to the Speaker March 16, 1966)

This report summarized the replies of the Governors of 47 States' Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands to a questionnaire by the subcommittee asking for their views on the use of tax incentives and/or effluent charges to stimulate industry to control water pollution.

The report contained no direct recommendation, but clearly showed a need for further study of tax incentives and effluent charges as possible means of hastening abatement of industrial water pollution.

Results. The Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966 (Public Law 89-753, Nov. 3, 1966, 80 Stat. 1252) added a new section 18 to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 466n) requiring the

Secretary of the Interior to make a full study of methods for providing incentives to industry to reduce or abate water pollution, and to present his findings and recommendations to Congress not later than January 30, 1968.

On March 7, 1968, the Secretary of the Interior transmitted to Congress three reports, as follows:

1. Economic Analysis of Industrial Incentives for Pollution Control: Implications for Water Quality (December 1967).

2. Water Pollution Control, 1969-73, the Federal Costs. (January 1968).

3. The Economic Impact of the Capital Outlays Required to Attain the Water Quality Standards of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (January 1968).

These reports supplemented a multi-volume report entitled "The Cost of Clean Water" transmitted to Congress in January 1968. (Vol. I, the Summary Report, was reprinted as Senate Document 65, 90th Cong.).

The Secretary's letter of March 7, 1968, stated:

We do not recommend the enactment of legislation to provide additional economic incentives to industry for water pollution control. We do recognize, however, that the institution of pollution abatement measures could create hardship in some instances. The President, in his message to the Congress on the environment, stated that he was directing the Secretary of Commerce and the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to give special attention to the use of ongoing economic development and small business programs within their respective areas of responsibility to provide assistance in those cases in which a community or a small business would be hard hit by the institution of pollution abatement measures. Clean water and a viable economy are mutually supportive, not conflicting, goals.

[H. Rept. 1644, 89th Cong., second sess.]

1965 SURVEY ON DISPOSAL OF SEWAGE AND INDUSTRIAL WASTES BY FEDERAL INSTALLATIONS (WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AND ABATEMENT)

Thirty-First Report by the Committee on Government Operations

(Submitted to the Speaker on June 22, 1966)

This report was a followup of the subcommittee's 1964 study of waste water discharges from Federal installations (H. Rept. 555, 89th Cong., 1st sess., described above). The report outlines significant developments in water pollution control and abatement since the previous report and evaluates progress achieved during 1965 in waste disposal practices at 341 Federal installations.