ENVIRONMENTAL MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT

A 10-point program dealing with oil spills in marine transportation; A program to bring to an end the dumping of dredge spoils in the Great Lakes and announcing a study of the problem of ocean disposal of wastes;

A $4.25 per pound tax on lead in gasoline; and

The reacquisition of 20 oil leases off Santa Barbara, Calif., leading to the establishment of a marine sanctuary in that area.

In his message on environment, the President stated that he was directing his Advisory Council on Execuitve Organization to study and report on the organization of environmental programs. The proposals now before Congress are the result of this Presidential initiative.

The United States is now committed-by statute, by policy, and by the awakened insistence of our citizens-to the goal of a high quality environment for human life. Such a goal calls for the dedication of major resources of personnel, time, and money. If these resources are not to be frittered away in scattered, piecemeal programs-if we are truly to mount a coordinated attack on the problems of the environment-then we must create an effective institutional base for sound environmenal management.

PROPOSED ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

I personally am convinced that the proposed Environmental Protection Agency is of crucial importance to the effectiveness of our pollution abatement efforts. The current dispersion of Federal programs involved in attacking pollution problems has developed piecemeal over the years, and we are not at present organized to mount the kind of sustained, coordinated, high-priority effort which we know is needed. Pollution has become everybody's problem but the responsibility for control is still divided. The President's proposal makes it the basic responsibility of a single agency. This will allow the President, the Congress, and the American people to expect and require unified management of our pollution control programs.

Legislation has been introduced in the Senate, with broad bipartisan support, based on the same concept as this reorganization plan. Although the bills differ from this plan in the details of what functions are included or excluded, they are based upon the same central concept of a unified independent agency to control pollution. Senator Muskie described in some detail some of the provisions of his bill and, as he requested, I will be glad to comment on some of the items which he has included in his legislation and which are not included in the President's proposal, and vice versa. Senator Scott also has introduced legislation similarly establishing a new, independent agency to manage our pollution and other environmental protection programs, and I believe both of these bills have a number of senators who have cosponsored them.

Reorganization inevitably produces its own stresses and strains and the current plan will doubtless prove no exception. However, careful attention is being given to minimizing such effects, and there is no reason for delaying now a reorganization which is long overdue. Indeed, continuation of the present fragmentation of Federal

antipollution responsibilities will only aggravate existing problems. The time to make corrections is now, not later.

DESCRIPTION OF REORGANIZATION

Reorganization Plan No. 3 would create the Environmental Protection Agency which will be independent of any Cabinet agency, similar to NASA or the Atomic Energy Commission. EPA would be headed by an administrator who would be compensated at a level comparable to the heads of NASA and AEC. It would take over certain pollution control responsibilities now located in six different departments and agencies and would have primary responsibility for control of air and water pollution and solid wastes and for controlling the environmental effects of pesticides and radiation. EPA would have an estimated fiscal year 1971 budget of $1.4 billion and approximately 5,800 personnel.

The following authorities and programs would be transferred to the new agency:

For air pollution control-the authorities contained in the Clean Air Act, as amended, and the National Air Pollution Control Administration now in HEW:

For water pollution control-the authorities contained in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended; the Federal Water Quality Administration now in the Department of the Interior; and the water hygiene program of the Environmental Control Administration, HEW:

For solid wastes disposal-the authority given to HEW in the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965, and the Bureau of Solid Waste Manage ment, HEW:

For pesticides-the authorities (mostly related to registering pesticides) contained in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, now administered by the Department of Agriculture; part of the authority of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife to conduct research on the effect of pesticides on fish and wildlife: the authority of the Food and Drug Administration to set pesticide tolerance levels on food; and the Gulf Breeze Biological Laboratory of the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries;

For radiation the authorities and functions of the Federal Radiation Council; the authority under the Atomic Energy Act to set standards for the emission of radiation to the general environment; and portions of the Bureau of Radiological Health in HEW; and, finally,

For general research purposes-the authority given to the Council on Environmental Quality by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 to conduct research on ecological systems.

The reasons for such a major reorganization are compelling.

REASONS FOR THE REORGANIZATION

The current organization of the Federal Government to deal with pollution suffers from two obvious problems. First, for many particular kinds of pollution a number of different Federal agencies have overlapping or closely related responsibilities. Three Federal depart

ments Agriculture, HEW, and Interior-are directly involved in regulating pesticides; and similarly a number of agencies have some responsibility for radiation problems. Second, the organizational basis for controlling pollution is not consistent or adequate. The two largest agencies, the Federal Water Quality Administration and the National Air Pollution Control Administration are organized on the basis of the media-air or water-through which pollutants travel. The other pollution control programs, on the other hand, generally are organized on the basis of particular pollutants-pesticides, radioactive materials, and solid wastes. Confusion results today, for example, about the extent to which air and water pollution control agencies are responsible for radioactive materials and pesticides when these materials appear in air or water.

The programs to deal with pesticides and radiation were developed in part because these two kinds of pollutants did not fit neatly into the categories of air and water pollution. Pesticides and radiation are found in both air and water and on the land. We expect pollution control problems of the future will increasingly be of this kind. They will involve toxic chemicals and metals which are found in all media and which run counter to the air and water pollution organization of the Government. The current problems with mercury and polychlorinated biphenols are an indication of what lies ahead.

Some pollution problems remain unrecognized because of gaps in agency jurisdiction or because no one agency has clear lead responsibility. With its broad responsibility for environmental pollution control, the Environmental Protection Agency would greatly improve our ability to recognize and to take action on newly recognized problems, such as noise. Pollution problems of the future will increasingly cut across the jurisdiction of existing departments, making the need for a unified pollution control agency ever more imperative.

Another problem of present Federal organization should be noted. Agencies which have responsibility for promoting a particular resource or activity also have responsibility for regulating the environmental effects of this activity. The two clear examples of this potential conflict of interest are the Department of Agriculture's regulation of pesticides and the Atomic Energy Commission's regulation of radiation levels. Regardless of how good a job these agencies do, the public is increasingly questioning the vesting of promotional and regulatory powers in the same agency. The Environmental Protection Agency, by assuming these regulatory functions, should help restore public confidence in our ability to control pollution from these sources. The existence of a unified pollution control agency should also greatly clarify the Federal Government's relations with State and local governments and with private industry. More than half the States and many localities already have a single agency responsible for all forms of pollution. A number of others are considering establishing such an agency. In the cases where a unified agency exists, the differing Federal requirements are a significant source of irritation and inefficiency.

Industry pollution control efforts will also benefit from the creation of EPA. A manager responsible for controlling pollution from his firm must now go to several agencies to find out what action his firm must take. The standards and enforcement actions to which he is subject are uncoordinated and sometimes conflicting. The air pollution

agency tells him how to control air pollution, and the water pollution agency how to control water pollution. But nobody is in a position to consider the entire range of environmental standards that will affect a firm's operations. Since many types of plants can dispose of the same wastes in the air, the water, or as solid waste, this lack of coordination can result in significantly higher costs to the firm and to society as a whole.

FUNCTIONS OF THE NEW AGENCY

As you well know, a reorganization plan cannot create any new legal authorities or functions. Therefore, the functions of the Environmental Protection Agency, when it comes into being, will be the same as those of its constituent parts. However, the new agency will be able to perform existing functions better, and will also be able to undertake new activities which are not easily done under the existing structure.

The key functions in pollution control are standard-setting and enforcement. Standards provide the goals of the control program, the basis for enforcement actions, and the measure of the program's progress.

Standards should be based on the total amount of a given pollutant to which humans or some element of the environment are exposed, even though the standards apply to a particular medium. Lead, for example, may reach humans through the air or the water, but the key question is how much comes from all sources together? It is very difficult to deal with this problem under the current fragmented organization. As the pollutants of primary concern to the Government increasingly cut across media lines, this problem of setting standards will become more acute.

Even in those areas where the Government is not organized on the basis of air or water pollution, as for example in the case of pesticides and radiation control, the need to regulate the total allowable exposure from different sources is becoming apparent. This can only be done by a consolidated agency.

The enforcement function will also be improved in several respects. Perhaps most important, the way will be cleared for formulating and applying the best overall strategy for controlling particular pollution problems. The new agency will be able to examine the path of a polfutant through the total environment and determine at what point control measures can be most effectively and efficiently applied. For example, it may be that in some cases a pollutant can best be controlled by exercising control before it enters the environment, as is now done with pesticides.

Enforcement will also benefit from the more efficient relations with State and local governments and with the private sector.

Monitoring and surveillance will be improved and made more effective, for example, by simultaneously monitoring a river for pesticides, radiation, and other water pollutants. New hazards will be recognized more rapidly by a coordinated monitoring system.

Research will be similarly strengthened. Research on the health effects of pollution will be able to take into account the exposure to a given pollutant from all sources. Research on ecological effects must, almost by definition, consider the interrelated parts of the en

vironment, since ecology is to a great extent the study of such inter- · relationships. It will be far easier to conduct ecological studies in an agency which is not limited to one particular medium or pollutant.

ORGANIZATION OF EPA

The internal organization of the Environmental Protection Agency has not been finally determined and should not be until the head of the agency is named and has had an opportunity to weigh the various alternatives. An important part of the responsibilities of the Administrator of EPA will be to develop the most effective organization of

his resources.

One factor which will weigh heavily on the new administrator is the necessity of avoiding any delay or disruption of ongoing pollution abatement programs. We are taking every step possible to assure that such disruption does not occur. The new agency will be acquiring a large number of experienced personnel, which will ease the problems of transition. As Mr. Dwight Ink will describe in greater detail as a later witness, the administration has sent to the Congress legislation designed to facilitate the transfer of members of the Public Health Service Commissioned Corps to the new agency.

One other fact relevant to the problems of transition is worth noting. The major agencies which would be transferred to EPA are enthusiastic about the reorganization plan. Their personnel know that the plan represents recognition of the critical importance of the pollution control functions. I am confident that the reorganization will result in a substantial boost in morale. The independent Environmental Protection Agency will have a sense of purpose, of thrust, and of public commitment that is impossible to achieve under present circumstances.

NOISE POLLUTION

It should not be assumed that the proposed plan represents the final word on reorganization. In a field as rapidly evolving as pollution control, additional changes very likely will be needed. Noise pollution is a case in point. The President, in his message transmitting the reorganization proposal, noted that:

With its broad mandate, EPA would also develop competence in areas of environmental protection that have not previously been given enough attention, such, for example, as the problem of noise, and it would provide an organization to which new programs in these areas could be added.

The Council on Environmental Quality is currently examining new approaches and concepts of standards to deal with the noise problem, and at this early stage, it seems more appropriate to deal with such innovations through legislation than to try to anticipate them in a reorganization plan.

RELATION OF EPA TO CEQ

Our Council strongly supports the plan of reorganization. There is no conflict between the missions of EPA and the Council on Environmental Quality. Indeed, the two organizations will be mutually reinforcing.

The Council is essentially a staff organization. It is not intended to have operating responsibilities and its functions are to advise the