WATER POLLUTION CONTROL-1966

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 20, 1966

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AIR AND WATER POLLUTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 4200, Senate Office Building, Senator Edmund S. Muskie (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Muskie, Randolph, Moss, Tydings, and Boggs. Senator MUSKIE. The committee will be in order.

Before we begin, Senator Boggs would like to make a brief statement.

Senator BOGGS. Mr. Chairman, I take this opportunity to apologize and express my regrets to our distinguished witness this morning and to my colleagues on the committee and ask permission to be excused for a little while because this is one of the mornings where I have three committee meetings, all at the same time. One of the meetings is an executive session passing on some bills. It is essential to be there to make a quorum. I will be back as soon as I can. I certainly ask your indulgence.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you, Senator Boggs.

This morning the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution continues its 1966 water pollution legislative hearings with an examination of the bill which I introduced on behalf of the administration, S. 2987. Yesterday Senate witnesses and subcommittee members concentrated on congressional proposals.

The subcommittee is interested in learning from the witnesses we shall hear today and tomorrow how the administration believes S. 2987 will help us attain the objectives we all seek.

Although there are some disagreements on detail, I believe our goals are the same. Both the bill drafted by the administration and the subcommittee bill, S. 2947, which I and 47 other Senators introduced are designed to abate existing pollution, to prevent further pollution and to enhance the Nation's water resources.

S. 2947 grew out of 3 years of work by the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution and is based on our subcommittee report, "Steps Toward Clean Water."

S. 2987, on the other hand, is the result of the President's message to the Congress on "Natural Heritage" which focused on a program of cleaning entire rivers from their source to the sea.

I think the subcommittee will rapidly identify the areas in which these measures are similar; in general, there can be a great deal of compatibility.

81

Yet there are several significant areas in which it is not clear how these two bills will relate. To a degree, the bills as written suggest two separate programs and two different approaches; this in itself can raise questions of conflict.

The subcommittee must have a great deal more information regarding S. 2987 in order to ascertain how these apparent conflicts can be resolved into a more effective pollution control program.

I hope today and tomorrow we will receive adequate and complete explanation of some principal questions which I feel essential to raise at this point.

The subcommittee must determine what role the proposed river basin commissions would have in relationship to the Federal, State, and local governments and regional bodies.

The subcommittee must determine the effect of allowing a "permanent body" such as a river basin commission, other than the Federal Government or a State government, to enforce water quality standards and to what extent, if any, enforcement might be delayed by this procedure.

The subcommittee must determine to what extent application of water quality standards to navigable waters will affect the early establishment of those standards.

The subcommittee intends to fully explore the proposal included in title II which, as a precondition to a waiver of dollar limitation provides for establishment of "statewide" water quality standards. It is hoped that adequate explanation of the reference to "effluent charges" will be made available during the discussion today and to

morrow.

Most importantly the subcommittee must determine the effect of the administration's proposal that all recipients of grants under title I and II must, as a precondition to such grants, agree to provide a method for future financing of additional treatment facilities without further Federal assistance.

This provision is extremely disconcerting in light of the subcommittee findings that, while a national investment of $20 billion is required to meet minimum standards by 1972, perhaps as much as $100 billion will be necessary by the year 2000 to provide wholly adequate treatment of all waste to a point where water may be safely reused especially in areas of water shortage.

Confronted with a massive treatment problem far beyond present Federal commitments, the subcommittee must closely scrutinize these and other ramifications of the administration bill.

I sincerely hope that today and tomorrow these questions will be fully answered so that the subcommittee can develop the most feasible and practical legislation to implement and expand the national policy set forth in the Water Quality Act of 1965 and President Johnson's message to the Congress on "Preserving Our Natural Heritage."

At this point I would like to welcome both Secretary Gardner and Secretary Udall, two men who have provided outstanding leadership in this field, whose dedication to our objectives is unquestioned and whose continued support either in their present roles or in their pro

jected roles will be most important to the success of our program and the achievement of our objective.

I would like to commend both of these gentlemen for their efforts. I am sure that, should the proposed transfer of the Water Pollution Control Administration become effective, Secretary Udall will prove as effective as has Secretary Gardner in administering this vital program.

Senator Moss.

Senator Moss. I have no comment at this point, Mr. Chairman. Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much. I think we ought to hear Secretary Gardner first since he is presently in control.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN W. GARDNER, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE; ACCOMPANIED BY HON. JAMES A. QUIGLEY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY

Secretary GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to express my view on the further expansion of our national effort to combat water pollution as called for in the legislation now being considered by this subcommittee.

Today, we near a major turning point in the history of the Federal program. During the next few weeks, we will be transferring the executive responsibility for water pollution control to the Department of the Interior. At the same time, President Johnson has requested broad new authority to deal with this problem-authority that will provide a new direction and a new focus. The legislation before you builds on the past but looks to the future.

It is the next logical step in the development of a creative FederalState-local partnership to restore our waters.

Mr. Chairman, we have come a long way from that first cautious dip into the polluted waters of America that was taken by the Federal Government 18 years ago. The members of this committee have helped guide this progress, some since the beginning. I am a newcomer to the program but I have studied its history. With your permission I should like to recount it briefly.

In 1948, a year that predates the arrival on the Federal scene of all of us here and now concerned with the problem, the Congress passed the Water Pollution Control Act, the first Federal legislation in this field. It was a temporary measure.

It authorized the Public Health Service to study the problem and it set up a cumbersome, almost unworkable, enforcement procedure. But for all of its inadequacies, it did do certain important things. It clearly indicated that Congress recognized that water pollution was a growing, serious problem; that it was a problem national in scope; and that it was a problem that would require effective Federal action.

Eight years later, in 1956, Congress enacted the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, firmly establishing the role of the Federal Government in water pollution control. This law considerably

streamlined the enforcement procedure, expanded the research effort, and adopted for the first time, the concept of grants in aid to the States to assist local communities in meeting the cost of building needed sewage treatment plants.

Again, in 1961, the Federal Act was strengthened and improved; and last year, after a long and often bitter struggle, major improvements were made, and the principle of water quality standards was firmly riveted into the law.

I must pause at this moment to pay tribute to the Members of Congress who contributed so much to the development of this program. The Senate select committee, under the leadership of the late Robert S. Kerr, and the House Public Works and Government Operations Subcommittees, led by John Blatnik, of Minnesota and Bob Jones of Alabama, laid the foundation and kept the issue alive through the difficult early years. Senator Muskie and this subcommittee took up the cause with great vigor and statesmanship, and have developed strong support among the people of this country for our efforts.

As I read the record, the water pollution control program is a classic example of congressional initiative. It was conceived here on the Hill, and every important improvement in the law was designed by the Congress. You may be well proud of your contribution.

Initially, the authorized amount for Federal construction grants was $50 million a year. The total amount of a grant that could be made to any community was 30 percent of the total cost of the project, or $250,000 whichever was less.

In the intervening years, these amounts have been raised. For the current year, our total grant authority is $150 million, and the individual project ceiling is now up to $1.2 million.

Since the inception of the grant program, we have made grants exceeding $757 million. This amount has aided in the construction of 6,789 treatment plants and/or interceptor sewer in every State in the Union, as well as in Puerto Rico.

We estimate that for every Federal dollar that has been spent under this program, approximately four local dollars have been expended. Largely as a result of the Federal seed money provided under our construction grant program, the annual rate of waste treatment construction rose from $201 million in 1955 to $500 million in 1965.

Since the enactment of the enforcement provisions of the law, we have instituted 37 actions involving many of the great rivers and lakes of the Nation.

Ten comprehensive pollution control programs have been initiated to develop programs in complicated systems such as the Great Lakes and the Hudson-Champlain area.

We have assembled a group of dedicated, able, and professionally qualified engineers, scientists, and administrators whose ability and experience in this field is unmatched. The Congress has provided us with authority to construct 2 national laboratories and 10 regional facilities. These are now being built.

Our research program has been steadily improving. Last year, we awarded 320 grants for water pollution research and demonstrations

amounting to $8.2 million, from a total research budget of $13.9 million. Scientists at the Taft Center in Cincinnati are engaged in a number of intramural projects, and a limited number of research contracts have been let.

The President's budget this year calls for a substantial expansion of this effort to $18.2 million.

Yet for all that has been accomplished as a result of this program, there is a clear recognition that-considering the growing dimensions of the problem-we have probably done little more than hold our own. Much more has to be done.

This recognition is clearly reflected in the legislation you are now considering. The truly challenging question is how to devise the most effective approach. Our 10 years experience has clearly demonstrated that Federal grants will stimulate the construction of sewage treatment facilities. However, just more and more Federal money is not the answer.

In retrospect, it is probably true that, in a few instances, some of the treatment plants we helped finance were built in the wrong place or, with better planning, could have been built at a better place, designed for greater capacity, and organized to serve larger areas. We need to organize the program to maximize the amount of pollution control we are able to buy with the Federal investment.

Congress recognized this problem and was also searching for an answer when it designed provisions to permit a number of communities to consolidate their separate grants in the construction of one multimunicipal treatment facility and, again, when it wrote in the bonus provision for projects which conform to an approved regional or metropolitan development plan.

Desirable as both of these provisions are, they have not yet accomplished the kind of organized, planned, and coordinated approach that the problem demands in many areas of our country.

Title I of S. 2987 sets forth the administration's recommendation as to how such an approach might be effectuated. Certainly, before any decision is made to substantially increase the amount of Federal moneys to be spent for water pollution control, it is the responsibility of all of us to make every effort to devise a formula, and a system, which will assure the taxpayer a maximum return on his dollar.

The challenge we face is to devise an approach which will assure a wise expenditure of Federal dollars in assisting in the construction of sewage treatment facilities, and to further strengthen the action of Congress last year when it determined that water quality standards should be set for the interstate waters of this Nation. I am happy to say that already 23 States have certified their intent to develop water quality standards.

Such standards are not intended to be a substitute for a vigorous enforcement program. But inherent in the concept of standards is the recognition of the limitation on our present enforcement authority. The 37 enforcement actions that have been brought under the Federal water pollution control law have resulted in substantial pollution abatement. However, if we continued with this approach