development. However, none of these processes is yet in large-scale use and the costs are not yet known. Some of the stack control processes recover sulfur or a sulfur byproduct, which can be sold to help offset costs. Some are also being evaluated for their potential in reducing pollution from nitrogen oxides.

Research and Development

A number of technological and research gaps in controlling air pollution still exist. NAPCA carries on an extensive research, development, and demonstration program in its own facilities and through grants and contracts. The fiscal year 1970 budget contains $59.3 million in budgeted funds for research and demonstration. The fiscal year 1971 budget requests call for $63.3 million.

Two principal areas hold high priority. One is the development of technology for the control of stationary sources. Currently, a comprehensive program is underway in NAPCA, working with the Bureau of Mines and TVA, aimed at perfecting techniques for controlling sulfur oxides. A similar program is getting underway for nitrogen oxides. The second prime priority is the development of new lowemission power systems for motor vehicles. This program aims to develop at least two unconventional vehicle prototypes and to demonstrate commercial feasibility by 1975. Initial research will center on gas turbine, steam, and hybrid systems, with continued work on electrical systems. The 1971 Federal Budget sets aside $9 million for this program. The Council on Environmental Quality has worked closely with the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, which is the lead agency for this program, and with other Federal agencies to assure that the widest range of Federal talents is enlisted in the low-emission power program. The Council has also appointed a committee to advise it on this program, headed by Dr. Ernest Starkman, of the University of California at Berkeley.

Air Quality Monitoring

Collecting and evaluating data on air pollutant emissions and air quality require a joint Federal-State-local effort. NAPCA is now engaged not only in operating its own air monitoring network but also in supporting State and local monitoring activities. NAPCA's own air monitoring program involves operation of more than a thousand air sampling devices at stations across the country, including six continuous monitoring stations in major cities. Over the past year,

mechanized devices for measuring various gaseous pollutants were put in operation at 145 sites. This expansion of NAPCA's network reflects the increased stress on gathering data for air pollutants which have been or will be the subject of air quality criteria documents.

State and local governments, which have the primary responsibility for monitoring air quality, operate over 2,000 stations. Most of them, however, monitor air quality only intermittently.

State and Local Programs

With one major exception-new motor vehicles, whose control the Clean Air Act preempts to the Federal Government—primary responsibility for the control of the sources of air pollution is assigned to State and local governments. An assessment, then, of State and local air pollution control programs is a useful measure of the current efforts to cope with the problem.

A March 1970 Department of Health, Education, and Welfare report to the Congress, "Progress in the Prevention and Control of Air Pollution," traces the considerable increase in State and local budgets for air pollution control, stimulated in large part by the Federal matching grants program initiated in 1963. However, of the 55 State and territorial programs being financed by the grants program in 1970, only six have reached an annual per capita expenditure of 25 cents, which is generally considered the minimum expenditure needed for State programs. Only 23, including the six, are spending as much as 10 cents per person per year. At the local level, the situation is better: 64 of 144 grantee agencies are spending at least 40 cents per capita per year, which is generally considered the minimum needed for local programs.

Table 3, also from the March 1970 HEW progress report, shows the accelerated pace at which States have been adopting air pollution control regulations during the last several years. Prior to passage of the Clean Air Act in 1963, only nine States had adopted air pollution control regulations. By 1967-68, 30 had. By the end of 1970 it is expected that all States will have established the legal basis for controlling the sources of air pollution.

No detailed survey has been made of the adoption of air pollution regulations at the local level of government. However, local agencies set up to deal with the problem have proliferated-from 85 agencies in 1962 to more than 200 today.

Budgets of State, Local and Regional Air Pollution Control Agencies, Fiscal Years 1961-69

*Number of Agencies: Totals for 1961 represent all agencies in existence at that time; Totals for subsequent years represent all agencies receiving Federal grant support.

Source: National Air Pollution Control Administration, HEW.

Perhaps the most significant indicator of the adequacy of State and local air pollution control programs is manpower. The 1970 HEW report to the Congress, "Manpower and Training Needs for Air Pollution Control," indicates that in general control agencies are inadequately staffed. Fifty percent of State agencies have fewer than 10 positions budgeted, and 50 percent of local agencies have fewer than seven positions budgeted. Further, during 1969 the vacancy rate for all agencies was 20 percent. Recruitment of competent personnel is difficult. The report estimates that by 1974 State and local agencies will need 8,000 personnel if they are to implement the Clean Air Act properly—a jump of 300 percent over the number of persons currently employed in these programs.

The chief difficulty is the low salary rates paid by State and local agencies. The HEW report cites a study which indicates that State and local median salaries fall 20 to 50 percent below the median paid by industry for comparable positions.

EVALUATION

In evaluating the effectiveness of air quality efforts, it is useful to separate stationary from mobile sources, since the methods of control and the implementing institutions are so different. It is also useful, for purposes of perspective, to compare air quality and water quality efforts on stationary sources, since many aspects of the Federal legislation are similar.

Stationary Sources

Congressional and public concern focused on water pollution many years before air pollution. The first permanent water pollution legislation was enacted in 1956, the first permanent air pollution legislation not until 1963. There are currently standards and implementation plans for almost all the interstate and coastal waters of the United States, covering most forms of water pollution. Water quality criteria have been developed, and Federal, State, and local governments and industry are beginning to commit themselves to abatement programs. In contrast, only five air pollution criteria have been issued; only 10 State standards have been approved; and no State implementation plans have yet been approved. There is currently no basis for enforcing standards, because enforcement must await approval of implementation plans.

The air pollution effort is not as advanced as water pollution in terms of stationary sources for three major reasons. First, there is no available technology for a number of air pollutants, although most forms of industrial water pollution are amenable to control. Second, State water pollution control agencies have existed for many years in the United States and have developed capabilities, although often limited. Until enactment of the Air Quality Act of 1967, air pollution control was largely conducted by local agencies. Few States had adequate manpower and resources. Finally, the Air Quality Act of 1967 is no longer an adequate tool to cope with current pollution problems. Procedures for development and implementation of air quality standards are too slow and place an inordinate burden on both the States and the Federal Government.

The current enforcement authority is also inadequate. As with water pollution, the Federal Government has no jurisdiction if the pollution from one State is not endangering health and welfare in another State, unless the Governor of the State in which the pollution occurs requests help. The current conference-hearing procedure is unduly cumbersome and time consuming. The only court action that can be requested by the Government against a polluter is a cease-and-desist order, and the only available remedy in the case of noncompliance is to hold the polluter in contempt of court. The current act does not provide for fines to compel compliance.