WSP01968 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

"'., ""A- u:> w such things as staffing and maintenance (204-a-4). The Act also requires: (1) a system of user charges to assure that each recipient of waste treatment services pays his proportionate share of the costs of operation and maintenance; and (2) that industrial users pay their proportionate part of the federal share of the cost of construction of such works. (204-b-l) 0 The Act places considerable emphasis on the process of fitting this type of controls into the broader picture just painted. Sections 202 and 208 address problems of making area-wide plans for the control of all point and non-point sources of pollution. Section 208 and 303 address state-wide planning process requirements (303-e) which will result in the development of plans to meet these and other requirements of the AcL It is important to note that the Act brings the element of implementation into the planning process. It is also important to note that while the Act provides both direct grants and financing assistance for "publicly" owned treatment works, it offers no financial support for control of industrial or natural sources of pol- lution. Indeed, it requires that industries connected to the public systems pay their own way. It is also important to note that we have built a strong cas e for action "in lieu of" point source control (eg. flow augmentation or control of natural sources) in certain cases. Such actions would benefit both municipal and industrial sources. It is logical that they should be cost.-shared on a comparable basis. For such cases, institutional means must be found to recover costs from those who would have been faced with stiff pollution control requirements if we had not taken some off-setting action. All of these considerations argue that the new institution should be able to raise and expend necessary construction funds. Thus, I think we can make a strong argument for creation of interstate institutions with the authority to implement state-federal water quality standards and effluent limitations. There are two keys to the succes s of such an institution: 1) It will be the ability to balance the needs for new water development against the need to protect the quality of water available to existing uses; and 2) the ability to raise and commit funds needed to achieve its goals. The funding process itself can become a strong deterent to those who wastefully deplete the water supply, or unneces sarily degrade it. Funding arrangements can also underwrite the process of meeting legitimate water needs in an environmentally sound manner. There are a number of institutional alternatives available to the States: (1). Defer to a coalition of Federal water development-quality control agencies; (2) Develop strong state institutions and affiliate across state lines via compact or interstate agreement; (3) Develop strong river-basin-commission type organiza- tions charged with the task of implementing state regulation; (4) Develop strong local-regional institutions which will negotiate with each other and with existing Federal and State inst itutions on issues concerning division of responsibility and funding. 7