WSP08207 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0025~! ,,~ >;;~;i~ -'\'-..;1;': ~rt~ . - 14 - data, it is not possible to present a complete picture of the industrial waste situation. It is probably safe to estimate tpat industrial waste discharged separately into streams is over twice as much as municipal waste and that only about half the industries provided treatment. In reporting their needs, a quarter of the municipalities and almost half the industries reported that they needed treatment facilities, and approximately 10 per cent of each category reported that they needed to replace existing plants. .. Both the President's Water Resources Policy Commission and the Missouri Basin Survey. Commission recommended legislation to expedite abatement programs and to assist municipalities in financing necessary treatment facilities. The Missouri Basin Commission further recommended that the whole program of pollution control be coordinated with water supply and storage problems from the first planning for a project and carried out and maintained as an integral part of the program. More recently, Progress Report No. I of the Joint Federal-State Action Com- mittee, released last month, emphasized the need for state and local initiative in developing waste treatment facilities. The Committee recommended that the states strengthen pollution control programs as needed, provide such financial assistance for waste treatment.facilities as may be necessary, and improve municipal capacity to finance waste treatment works. They recommended that federal grants for local waste treatment facilities be discontinued. The pollution control and abatement needs in the Missouri Basin at the state level seem to relate primarily to program execution rather than to administrative organization or broad authorizing legislation. Some administrative coordination may be desirable and certain additional legislation may be necessary, but the broad framework is there. What is needed is the active and forceful execution of a program that will appreciably decrease pollution as rapidly as possible. Admittedly, there are a number of problems that must be faced. Requirements for treatment have to be kept within economically feasible and reasonable limits. Time has to be allowed for the financing and construction of necessary facilities. However, these considerations should not be allowed to pro- tract undUly the execution of the necessary measures. The states' responsibility is two-fold. Not only must an active enforcement program be maintained but, also, the state must be prepared to provide technical and perhaps economic aid to assist in satisfying the demands of the enforcement procedures. Many of the specific needs parallel those indicated for water supply projects. The states need to provide enabling legislation to allow municipalities, counties and other units of government to cooperate in developing facilities. The formation of special districts needs to be authorized. Again, proliferation of special dis- tricts with limited powers and financing should be avoided. Broad general purpose or multiple purpose districts, encompassing sewage disposal along with water supply and other functions, may be the answer. Some states have made loana and grants available to localities. Those states that have not heretofore offered such assistance may find that this will be necessary if they want. to establish an effective pol- lution abatement program in the state within a reasonable period of time.