Page images
PDF
EPUB

engineers and scientists to meet our needs. The most important proposals in President Johnson's February 23 message for the success of the overall water Appollution program was item 7, calling for expansion of training in this area. The most effective way of accomplishing this is through a program that provides direct support for full-time study similar to the current program at the FWPCA. This year's proposed budgetary increase of $343,000 is not adequate. The following suggestions are made to attack the present manpower shortage: 1. Expand the present FWPCA education program.-This program is established and is currently doing an excellent job. Increased expenditures in this program will bring more rapid results than establishing new programs.

2. Establish support for undergraduate students in the field of environmental engineering and environmental sciences.-It is realized that this is an extreme step to take in education; however, it would attract good students rapidly to the field at the undergraduate level. If we wait until students realize the shortage of manpower in this area which coupled with good wages are often the moving forces for selecting a field of study we will be short of qualified B.S. students for jobs and graduate study. The direct Federal support of undergraduate students is on the way. Why shouldn't the field of water pollution lead and be first.

3. Declare water pollution a critical area of national importance and make people working in this field exempt from the draft.-This is a radical recommendation; however, the situation is desperate and extreme measures need to be taken now. It is conservatively estimated that 50 percent of graduates at both the graduate and undergraduate level have been lost to the draft this year. This measure would provide the most immediate results for new manpower and encourage students participation on all levels.

Action needs to be taken now if men and women are to be available to design, build, and operate treatment plants; clean our rivers, lakes, and streams; make new water standards; and to enforce the new legislation.

I would be willing to offer testimony on this matter if it would be of any assistance.

Similar letters have been sent to the following:

Hon. Bradford Morse, Representative of Masschusetts;
Secretary Stewart Udall, Department of the Interior;

Subcommittee on Health, Education, and Welfare, House Appropriations
Committee; and

Subcommittee on Department of the Interior, House Appropriations Com

mittee.

Sincerely yours,

N. BRUCE HANES, Ph. D., Director, Environmental Engineering.

Senator MUSKIE. May I say the committee appreciates the concurrence of your views and your bill with the views and the legislation sponsored by this subcommittee. It ought to be made clear as a matter of record that you are cosponsor of the subcommittee bill as well as your own.

The inadequacy of the present law, I think, is highlighted by not only your testimony but the figures that are available for Federal participation in Massachusetts problems at the present time.

In your testimony you note that the cost of abatement facilities on the Merrimack, the Connecticut, and the Blackstone Rivers will be approximately $135 million. According to information which I have before me, Massachusetts will only be eligible for $3.5 million in Federal matching funds in 1967.

At that rate it would take more than 10 years for the communities on these rivers, not counting other communities in Massachusetts, to receive their Federal share of 30 percent.

There is one point with respect to your legislation that I would like to have clarified. You have in your bill, as does the subcommittee bill, a provision for an increase of the Federal share from 30 to 40 percent if the State provides a 30-percent matching grant. In addi

tion, you suggest the formula which you spell out on page 6 of your testimony and which you follow with this sentence:

Under my proposal, States which are willing to assist in cleaning our waters would be rewarded by receiving $1 of Federal aid for every $1 they appropriated for local pollution projects.

This sounds as though you were changing your 40 percent figure. Is that the intent of that provision in your bill?

Senator KENNEDY. No, it is not. When the States supply 30 percent of a project's cost to a municipality, the Federal Government will contribute 40 percent. If the State does not meets its obligations, the municipality will still be eligible for 30 percent from the Federal Government.

Now that would be out of the $250 million which is under the existing formula. What we have done is taken the basic appropriation under the Water Quality Act of 1965 and added $100 million to that while still adhering to the formula which has been used traditionally. Then we have proposed another $250 million appropriation which will be available for the States to dispense to the municipalities at their request.

The dollar-for-dollar matching grants would only be available when the States meet their obligation.

Senator MUSKIE. In essence, with respect to $250 million of the $500 million that you recommend for an annual Federal appropriation, the States which contributed of their own resources would get preferential treatment.

Senator KENNEDY. Exactly.

Senator MUSKIE. This is on the assumption that the $500 million is adequate to meet all the need?

Senator KENNEDY. That is right. I think that is probably the bare minimum.

I also might add, Mr. Chairman, that, in respect to the $250 million which is not to be dispensed under the present formula, we would have to recognize that there are a number of large States that could probably swallow up all of this $250 million. Therefore, it is legitimate to question whether some formula might be necessary to prevent some one State with a crucial need from absorbing all the funds. However, with an appropriate sense of priorities, we could establish guidelines which would give the subsequent administrators sufficient discretion so that they could utilize their good judgment in achieving an equitable balance.

We want to provide a certain amount of funds without the restriction of the present formula. We feel that is why we have taken the dual approach, one of expanding the present formula, and the second, eliminating the present formula for the $250 million.

Senator MUSKIE. The subcommittee will give consideration to what I think is a thoughtful proposal, Senator Kennedy. May I ask whether you have had a chance to study the administration's bill, S. 2987?

Senator KENNEDY. Yes, I think the development of the river basins approach is worthy of consideration.

Yet it does not take a sufficiently long range view of our current needs. In several States, the needs are of such a pressing nature that

we must move in the direction outlined in your bill and suggested by this bill. Nevertheless I think there are worthwhile points in the message which did come down, although I am not satisfied that it meets today's very pressing needs.

I think the bill which you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the committee sponsored is more effective really in meeting the crucial needs, I know in my own State of Massachusetts. While the river basin approach is worthy of consideration, and while there are a number of features in there which are extremely worth while, I would certainly hope that this committee would move expeditiously and without delay along the lines that it is moving in the current legislation.

Senator MUSKIE. I have a number of questions about the administration's bill, which I have indicated in these hearings but one in particular on which I would like your reaction is the ultimate objective of the administration's bill to shift the total burden of construction of sewage treatment plants to local entities.

Senator KENNEDY. Concerning my own State's capacity, this would be an unrealistic policy. We would not meet the critical and crucial need for river pollution abatement. It cannot be done by shifting the total burden to local entities. Their tax resources simply are inadequate.

Beyond this, we have a very serious national obligation to assist these local municipalities and States to meet their needs.

I do not feel that the solution presented in the river basin program is realistic.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you, Senator. I hate to see you go because in looking at the audience I fear when you leave you will take a substantial portion of them with you.

Mr. Boggs.

Senator BOGGS. Senator Kennedy, I want to express my appreciation to you also for your presentation before the committee. This is a very valuable contribution to our consideration. Your interest in putting in your proposal, your testimony, and your long interest in the water pollution abatement problem is a real help.

You referred to 13 towns involved in the pollution of the Blackstone River. I was curious as to the size of those towns and whether they were industrial or residential.

Senator KENNEDY. In the Blackstone Valley, the communities are mill and industrial towns. Industrial wastes are quite significant. Senator BOGGS. Would you know at this time whether these towns, the 13 of them, would visualize operating independently or would there be a sort of central gathering and disposal?

Senator KENNEDY. I think it is probably the most realistic approach. It has been discussed, but nothing has been worked out.

A similar approach was proposed for the Merrimack Valley, including the various communities in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. However, little was done because there was not catalyst. Although extremely hard pressed and recognized as labor surplus areas, some of these communities like Haverhill drew up programs to act alone despite the fact that a single contribution would not be especially significant in view of the problem.

62-611-66- -11

That is why I am convinced that the committee's approach is so sensible. The stimulation by the Federal Government can really provide the impetus for the coordinated approach necessary.

Senator BOGGS. Would these 13 towns, for example, cover several counties?

Senator KENNEDY. Yes; they would.

Senator BOGGS. They would not all be located in one county?
Senator KENNEDY. They would cover different counties.

Senator BOGGS. Does the county government in your State take an interest in the water pollution problems?

Senor KENNEDY. I would say those governments are similar to those of the communities. They have not given it the sense of priority which many of us would hope for.

Senator BOGGS. I think that is true generally. Thank you very much. I appreciate your coming.

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you.

Senator MUSKIE. May I ask one other question? Do you have any figures, Senator, covering the entire State of Massachusetts in terms of the estimated cost for bringing all sewage up to secondary treat

ment?

Senator KENNEDY. I believe $300 million figure is the best estimate which has been made.

Senator MUSKIE. It varies substantially from that; we would appreciate having the figure.

Senator KENNEDY. Fine.

Senator MUSKIE. Senator Fong.

Senator FONG. Thank you, Senator.

I regret I have not been here to listen to all your testimony, but I have quickly glanced over your prepared statement. Evidently the interstate rivers in your State are very dirty.

Senator KENNEDY. That is an understatement.

Senator FONG. They are not good for anything except for the disposal of sewage and waste and certain industrial uses. You believe that a ceiling of $1,200,000 presently in the bill is too low?

Senator KENNEDY. That is correct.

Senator FONG. In your statement you have referred to a 30 percent and a 40 percent and then later to a dollar-for-dollar grant. Will you please explain that to us.

Senator KENNEDY. For the appropriation which utilizes the per capita and income formula, I would increase the figure of $150 million by $100 million, to $250 million.

Then I would authorize another $250 million which would not be allocated with regard to the formula. These funds would be distributed to the States on a dollar-for-dollar basis, for grants to towns, after the first $250 million appropriation has been exhausted.

If a State were to make a contribution of 30 percent, the Federal contribution would move from 30 percent up to 40 percent. Seventy percent of the local project's costs would be financed. This additional incentive for the municipalities may encourage the State governments to be more responsive in meeting their obligations. That is really the principal reason why we are going to do it. If the State governments were not willing to do this, 30 percent would still be available to the municipalities attempting water pollution abatement.

Senator FONG. Do you anticipate there will be many projects in the State where the ceiling of the $1,200,000 is sufficient?

Senator KENNEDY. No, I do not.

Senator FONG. Thank you for a very fine statement.
Senator KENNEDY. Thank you, sir.

Senator MUSKIE. Thank you very much.

Our next witness is the distinguished mayor of Cleveland, who is here to represent the National League of Cities and the U.S. Conference of Mayors.

It is a pleasure to welcome an old friend who has appeared before committees on which I have served. It is good to have you here in Washington.

STATEMENT OF HON. RALPH S. LOCHER, MAYOR OF CLEVELAND, OHIO, IN BEHALF OF U.S. CONFERENCE OF MAYORS AND NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES

Mayor LOCHER. Thank you, Senator.

I would like to introduce this imposing array of experts accompanying me. To my left is Hugh Mields, associate director of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. To my immediate right is Walter E. Gerdel, commissioner of the division of water pollution control in Ohio. Also on my far right here is Donald A. Slater, legislative representative of the National League of Cities.

Senator MUSKIE. Before you begin, Mayor, as I told you earlier, I am trying to ride herd on another subcommittee and might have to leave in the midst of your testimony.

Mayor LOCHER. I understand perfectly.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution:

My name is Ralph S. Locher. I am the mayor of Cleveland, Ohio. I am a member of the advisory board of the United States Conference of Mayors and a member of the executive committee of the National League of Cities. I am appearing before you today on behalf of both these national organizations as well as on behalf of my own city of Cleveland. We appreciate the opportunity of appearing before you today.

Also, I have the privilege of serving as a member of Secretary Udall's ad hoc Local Government Advisory Committee on Water Pollution Control. The committee met with Mr. Udall last month to discuss the Nation's water problems and Interior's plans for the future.

In all candor, I must admit many local officials viewed the pending transfer of the pollution control program from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to the Department of the Interior with some misgivings, since Interior's past has been tied basically to agricultural interests and resources management, and its experience. in dealing with urban areas is quite limited.

Senator MUSKIE. May I say, Mr. Mayor, that I share that misgiving.

Mayor LOCHER. I think that I can say it safely and I hope you can now, Senator, that we were tremendously impressed with Secretary

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »