committee that not more than half of the urban areas which are in need of regulatory control programs for air pollution control now have them, and of these the majority of them are operated at an inadequate level to do the kind of job you are inferring might be looked for. "On the State government level, it was only about 14 years ago, in 1952, that the first State set up a State air pollution control law and started operating a significant air pollution control program. In the intervening period, we now have about half the States that have significant laws on the books. But only a handful of these are operating programs that are at an effective level. So that I think what is lacking as related to this goal is not so much the technology as it is the development of the control programs on the State and local levels of government that would effectively see that the available technology is employed." The following provides additional details concerning the inadequacy of State and local governmental programs of air pollution control: For the most part, local and State agencies are still not equipped to meet their present responsibilities for the prevention and control of air pollution, let alone the potentially greater responsibilities that may be thrust upon them as the potential for air pollution continues to grow. In many important respects, the progress made during the past 21 years is not as impressive as raw statistics might indicate. To begin with, people in many parts of the country will not share fully in the benefits of the increase that has taken place in State and local spending. A major share of such spending is still concentrated in the State of California. Local agencies in California accounted for 38 percent of all spending for local air pollution programs in 1965. The Los Angeles County budget alone represented about 25 percent of the national total for all local agencies and, combined with the budgets of the next five largest local agencies, made up over half the national total. And at the State level, nearly half of the increased spending has been in California. This means, of course, that State and local governments elsewhere in the country are still not attacking their air pollution problems with resources commensurate with the numbers of people those problems affect. Though there are now 33 air pollution programs at the State level, many of them are scarcely more than nominal programs having neither the authority nor the resources needed to carry on effective control activities. In 19 States, some degree of abatement responsibility has been assigned to State agencies, but in most instances the abatement authority can be invoked only with respect to obvious nuisances or in response to complaints. Only a half dozen State agencies engage in more than nominal degree of abatement activity: the great majority are not even serving those communities which are too small to operate their own local programs but are nonetheless affected by serious air pollution problems, often from a single major source. There are many such communities in all parts of the country. For the most part, efforts at the local level are equally deficient, indeed, more so when measured against the greater degree of activity that is generally expected of local governments. In the air pollution field, it has been traditional to take the position that local governments should bear the major responsibility for practical control action. In actual fact, however, tradition and practice have seldom coincided. There has been some improvement in this situation in the past 2 years, but not nearly enough to take care of all instances of inadequate effort or total neglect of air pollution at the local level. Our most recent estimate indicates that only 58 percent of the urban population of the United States is served by local air pollution programs. Even where local programs exist, they frequently, indeed commonly, do not have adequate resources. On a per capita basis, annual spending for local programs has increased in recent years from a median figure of 10.8 to 15.2 cents. This increase is hardly adequate in the light of estimates that an effective local control program for a middle-sized city requires an expenditure of at least 40 cents per capita per year. In most communities, the actual increase has barely been sufficient to keep pace with the rising cost of operating an air pollution program. Only a handful of local agencies have adequate authority to deal with the complex modern problem of air pollution. These are agencies which have been given broad authority, either by local or State governments, to adopt rules and regulations for the control of all sources of air pollution. But many of these agencies have been slow to apply this authority to significant sources. And many others are still without adequate power to adopt and enforce control regulations applicable in any degree to important air pollution sources within their jurisdiction. As for regional activity, the improvement that has taken place in the past 2 years has barely touched the largest urban centers of the country. Only 5 of the 24 largest metropolitan areas are now served by a regional air pollution program. These 24 areas are the homes of some 69 million people-about one-half of the Nation's urban population-and, in general, tend to have the most serious air pollution problems. Though air pollution in such metropolitan areas is inevitably a regional problem, the authority to deal with it is usually fragmented among many jurisdictions. A number of devices short of establishing regional programs are being used to achieve some degree of regional activity, but since most of them depend purely on voluntary cooperation by the participating governments, they are of limited effectiveness. In brief, there are still many serious deficiencies in State and local air pollution programs in nearly all parts of the country. To achieve a really significant degree of improvement will require a much greater effort in the months and years ahead than has been made at any time. in the past. The inadequacy of the present pattern of control efforts means that a great deal of new local and State legislation will be needed; it means that more trained manpower will be needed, particularly since the lack of enough trained personnel is already keeping many local and State programs from keeping up with their scheduled expansion; it means that local and State agencies must not only redouble their efforts to develop and carry on technically sound and sophisticated control programs but, at the same time, must begin dealing more effectively with the many obvious sources of air pollution which remain uncontrolled in virtually every city and town; and, not least important, it means that an increased investment of public funds will be needed to achieve and sustain the high level of control activity that is so clearly called for by our knowledge of the present and probable future dimensions of the air pollution problem. INDEX OF AIR POLLUTION CONTROL EFFORTS IN THE UNITED STATES The following lists roughly index the geographical occurrence of air pollution problems in the United States and the efforts being made to control these problems. In compiling the lists several criteria were used. First of all, it was generally assumed that cities with a population of 50,000 or more had an air pollution problem (or the potential for one) that could be controlled at the local level of government. Therefore, all cities in the United States with a population of 50,000 or more are listed with an indication of whether or not they are served by a minimum or better local air pollution control program. A minimum program is arbitrarily defined as one spending no less than $5,000 a year. Supplementing this list of cities is a tabulation of local government agencies currently receiving Federal matching grant support, the amounts of these grants, and the amounts of current nonFederal budgets. Secondly, it was generally assumed that every State had smaller communities whose air pollution problems were serious enough to warrant control programs, but whose resources were not adequate to support the necessary effort. These communities, it was generally assumed, depend on State air pollution control programs. Therefore, all the States and the U.S. possessions are listed with an indication of whether or not they are served by a minimum or better State air pollution control program. A minimum program is again defined as one spending no less than $5,000 per year. Supplementing this list is a tabulation of State and possession agencies currently receiving Federal matching grant support, the amounts of these grants, and the amounts of current non-Federal budgets and budgets prior to receipt of Federal grants. Extent of local air pollution control efforts in cities with population of 50,000 or more |