July 13, 1966
Page 15585
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL AMENDMENTS AND CLEAN RIVERS RESTORATION ACT OF 1966
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the unfinished business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be stated by title.
The LEGISLATIVE: CLERK. A bill (S. 2947) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in order to improve and make more effective certain programs pursuant to such act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Louisiana?
There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill (S. 2947).
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, it is no accident that the Senate is considering major pollution abatement and control legislation for the second day in a row.
Yesterday, we approved -- by a vote of 80-0 -- amendments to the Clean Air Act. Today we are taking up amendments to the Water Quality Act of 1965 and the basic Federal Water Pollution Control Act. There are 48 sponsors on today's bill. It has the unanimous support of the members of the Committee on Public Works.
All of this is an indication of the importance the American people attach to the improvement of the quality of our environment. The President has called for action. Our constituents have called for action. And we have developed legislation designed to repair the damage of past and present waste and to upgrade the quality of our Nation's waters.
We can, as Members of this Congress, take pride in the legislation we have developed. It bears the fruit of many minds on both sides of this Chamber. I want to pay tribute to the late chairman of our committee, Senator Pat McNamara, who created the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution; to our distinguished chairman, the senior Senator from West Virginia, [Mr. RANDOLPH], who has challenged us to greater efforts; and to my colleague, the junior Senator from Delaware [Mr. BOGGs], who, as ranking minority member, has been a strong right arm in our efforts to eliminate harmful pollution from our air and waters. I want to express my thanks, also, to other members of the subcommittee and the full committee, to the committee staff and to the staffs of committee members who have worked long and hard to perfect the legislation developed by our committee.
In the early days of our work, I sometimes despaired of progress in this field. But in the last year we have seen a remarkable shift in opinion and support.
Industries who once opposed us are now eager to get on with the job. State officials who viewed our proposals with alarm want to coordinate their pollution control programs more effectively with other States and with the Federal Government. Federal officials who were open in their skepticism now find our legislation useful and challenging.
And behind all these changes is the voice of the American people, demanding an end to the waste of our resources, insisting on an effective program, supported by the needed funds to do the job.
Mr. President, we have a mandate from our constituents and from our posterity to get on with the job of protecting our water resources. We do not have much time. We do not have all the answers. But we know enough about our needs and about the magnitude of our problems to make a substantial beginning toward ending the burdens of inadequate and poor quality water supplies.
As an example of the demand for action we are receiving from our constituents, I ask unanimous consent to insert at this point in the RECORD a series of articles and editorials from Maine newspapers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, these are but a sampling, from one State -- a State which has an abundance of water resources. The problems of Maine can be multiplied a hundredfold for the Nation as a whole. The legislation we are offering today is designed to help answer these problems.
The bill pending before the Senate today, S. 2947, can be considered the first omnibus water pollution control act. It extends and broadens the existing program; it provides a new emphasis in the clean rivers concept; it strengthens other existing law, including the Oil Pollution Act of 1924; and it manifests the total commitment of the Federal Government to abatement of the pollution of one of the Nation's most vital resources.
Last year the Congress enacted the Water Quality Act, authorizing the establishment of water quality standards on all the Nation's interstate rivers. The Water Quality Act was a major step toward achieving the ultimate goal of control and abatement of water pollution.
That act recognized the States' primary responsibility in this area, by providing an opportunity for the States to adopt water quality criteria applicable to interstate waters or portions thereof, within each State. The water quality criteria, combined with a plan for implementation and enforcement of the criteria adopted, when approved by the Secretary, will be the water quality standards. It is important that this distinction be made. Water quality standards include both the criteria and the plan.
Following passage of the act, the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution held extensive hearings throughout the Nation and in Washington on the financial needs to support an adequate water quality program. On the basis of that information, S. 2947, cosponsored by 48 Members of the Senate, was introduced. The bill you have before you today is a modified form of S. 2947.
Several provisions are identical to those in the original bill, including authorization of $6 billion as the minimum Federal investment to provide adequate municipal secondary treatment for 80 percent of the population. This figure represents 30 percent of the committee's estimate of a $20 billion total cost of those facilities. That $20 billion does not include either treatment of industrial effluent or separation of storm and sanitary sewers, both of which will require multi-million dollar investment. I want to emphasize the fact that $20 billion is a conservative estimate; $6 billion is the minimum Federal share of an adequate program for the next 6 years.
S. 2947 also includes elimination of dollar ceilings on grants to State, local, and interstate agencies for the construction of sewage treatment works.
S. 2947, as amended, provides for an intensified basic research program by authorizing funds for research on water quality requirements for all water uses, for research into the handling and disposal of radioactive wastes, and for other research, including the problems associated with waste discharge from boats and ships, household or small waste disposal systems, eutrophication, -- which is the special problem of Lake Erie -- animal feedlot wastes, agricultural runoff, and numerous other specific pollution problems.
S. 2947, as amended, authorizes a research and demonstration program into advanced waste treatment and water purification and joint municipal-industrial treatment facilities.
S. 2947 provides for a vitally needed study of the pollution of the estuaries and estuarine zones and increases funds available for Federal program grants to State and interstate agencies from $5 million annually to $10 million annually.
The committee believes it is essential to accelerate our research and development effort, with special emphasis on contract research.
The bill also authorizes a loan program to aid communities in depressed areas where sewage treatment facilities are vitally necessary, but where the tax base is so eroded that the communities can neither levy taxes nor float bonds sufficient to meet the local share of the project's cost.
Other major provisions of the bill include a prefinancing provision whereby those States which are prepared to go ahead more rapidly to construct approved projects with State or local funds are authorized to use later Federal fund allocations to reimburse the State or local government for the Federal share of such projects. The reimbursement feature is limited to the life of the monetary authorization under S. 2947.
Metropolitan areas have special pollution control problems. The volume of sewage is great. Land costs are high. Multiple jurisdictions make coordinated planning and action difficult. To encourage such joint action, the committee offers an incentive of a 10-percent Federal grant bonus where the project is certified as consistent with metropolitanwide plans. This would improve programs and cut costs.
The committee also has applied to the problem of international pollution the authority provided in the act for abating pollution situations wholly within the United States; has expanded participation in the conference stage of the enforcement proceeding; has provided a method for the Secretary to obtain information necessary as to the character and extent of pollution; has provided for a study of the costs of an effective national pollution control program, presently estimated at approximately $100 billion; and has provided for a study of pollution from boats and vessels on the Nation's navigable waters.
S. 2947 amends the Refuse Act of 1899 to assure that its administration is consistent with the purposes of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and has amended the Oil Pollution Act of 1924, extending the enforcement provisions of that act and transferring its administration to the Secretary of the Interior.
The Clean Rivers Restoration Act was proposed by the administration and is included as title I of S. 2947. It authorizes planning, pollution control and abatement on a river basin basis and offers incentives for sewage treatment construction under such plans. In essence, the clean rivers program is an expansion of the concepts expressed in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1965 relative to water quality standards.
In my earlier remarks, I noted that water quality standards will more than simply set water quality criteria. In order to have standards, it is essential to have both the criteria and the plan for implementation of those criteria. The Water Quality Act was designed for application within the context of watersheds. But the committee did not specify either the organization of, or the formulation of, that plan of implementation in terms of construction plans and schedules.
The clean rivers restoration program, as provided in the committee version of S. 2947, carries the river basin oriented water quality program the next logical step.
Under the clean rivers program, the Secretary of the Interior, at the request of a Governor, or Governors, of a State, or states, will designate a planning agency with appropriate local, State, and Federal representation to develop necessary comprehensive plans for the control and abatement of pollution in a given river basin or portion thereof. This title provides that the designated planning agency will have 3 years in which to come up with an approved plan. The plan will include recommendations for the treatment works and related sewer facilities, joint municipal or municipal-industrial systems, where appropriate, and necessary steps to maintain and improve water quality standards, and an adequate financing program.
The planning agency has been deliberately given broad instructions by the committee so that it will not be forced to develop a plan which is inconsistent with a particular river basin or its existing political institution. The recommendations of the planning agency are subject to review by State, local and Federal interests and prior to acceptance of any plan. Approval by the Secretary is required if projects under the plan are to qualify for Federal assistance under this title.
As an incentive for the States to initiate planning on a river basin basis, title I provides that after designation of an appropriate planning agency, and if facilities proposed within the river basin involved meet the qualifications established under section 207 of title I of the act, the Secretary may make a grant in an amount not to exceed 50 percent of the total cost of a project.
In order to receive this grant, the States are required to pay 30 percent of the cost of the project, and the Governor must provide satisfactory assurance that statewide water quality standards consistent with section 10(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act are in effect or will be established.
In the original administration proposal, the clean rivers restoration plan included a "one shot" financing plan which was designed to shift the entire burden of financing pollution control to local bodies after an initial Federal investment. The committee rejected this approach as impractical and unwise.
In summary, then, the clean rivers restoration program approaches the pollution abatement problem on a river basin basis. It provides incentives to encourage the States to participate in river basin planning; and in keeping with the precept of the law that the States bear the primary responsibility, the States must agree to assume additional responsibilities. The Federal presence is available to insure the achievement of our national goals, but not to centralize control of the Nation's water resources.
Mr. president, yesterday during debate on air pollution, I referred to the philosophy of the subcommittee on air and water pollution regarding exploratory efforts on matters which affect the public health and welfare.
During the hearings on water pollution the subcommittee took the opportunity to enlighten itself and the public on potential hazards associated with exposed uranium mill tailings piles in the
Colorado River basin. These piles -- slag heaps resulting from the uranium milling process -- are being eroded by the waters of the Colorado and other natural forces, thereby depositing quantities of radium 226 and thorium 230 in the river.
The Colorado is used for both agricultural and domestic use and any contamination of it can adversely affect the public health. Witnesses from the Federal Water pollution Control Administration and the Atomic Energy Commission disagreed as to the potential hazard from the tailings piles. The committee was inclined to accept the judgment of Mr. Murray Stein, chief enforcement officer of FWPCA, and his technical experts, who testified that a long-term hazard does exist from erosion of the pilings.
The committee feels that the Atomic Energy Commission has not satisfactorily discharged its responsibilities toward the prevention of radioactive pollution in the Colorado River basin. The AEC has a clear obligation to protect the public from radioactive hazards generated by activities it licenses, regardless of the traditional regulation of radium by the States. Further, through its licensing procedures and title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, part 20 regulations, the AEC has the authority necessary to control radioactive releases from tailings piles of operating and closed mills. In view of the concern of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration and the Public Health Service, the committee believes the AEC has not fulfilled its regulatory function or exercised its authority to prevent radioactivity from the tailings piles in the Colorado River basin.
The counsel for the AEC testified that the AEC could require stabilization of the tailings piles if the pile represented a risk to the public health and safety. The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration testified that the piles did represent such a risk. I suggested that the president's Executive Order 11258, dealing with prevention and control of water pollution from Federal activities, contained a section which provided the AEC with more general regulatory authority.
This section 1, subsection (3) states:
Pollution caused by all other operations of the Federal Government such as water resources projects and operations under Federal loans, grants, and contracts shall be reduced to the lowest level practicable.
This order was issued after the committee, and especially the Senator from Delaware [Mr. BOGGS], urged prompt steps to abate pollution from Federal installations, and from facilities of recipients of Federal grants and contract funds.
Although the AEC's counsel offered a legal opinion to the contrary, the committee feels that this Executive order confers upon the AEC sufficient regulatory authority to control the pollution from the uranium mill tailings piles of operating mills under contract to the Government, and that the AEC can provide direction for those owners of nonoperating mills -- which operated under Government contracts -- to provide adequate control of the tailings piles.
The committee recommended that the FWPCA move expeditiously to establish responsibility for control of the tailings piles, and to provide the Congress with adequate assurance that any control measures applied would be sufficient to achieve long-term protection of the health of the people who live within the area, or depend upon the use, of the Colorado River and its tributaries.
The committee is also concerned with the more far-reaching problem of release of radioactivity associated with nuclear powerplants. We intend a much deeper examination of this problem in future hearings. The committee is concerned that standards promulgated with reference to a statistical average man and that an average dose concept may not be satisfactory to protect persons in the population who may have peculiar exposure situations or may adversely react to lower levels of exposure.
Mr. President, the legislation we present to the Senate today represents a substantial advance in the war against water pollution. More importantly, it opens wider the door to improved water quality -- to the chance for adequate supplies of water for our citizens to drink, to use in their homes, to enjoy for recreation, and to use in industry and on the farms. It is imaginative, but sound. It represents a reasonable compromise with the administration on its proposals. The bill is meaningful, and one of which the Senate can be proud. I urge its passage.
EXHIBIT 1
[From the Portland (Maine), Sunday Telegram, July 3, 19661
COASTAL POLLUTION PROBLEMS -- AND PROGRESS -- IN MAINE
... From the rolling, sometimes choppy sea, we view a panorama of rugged coastline ... gracious towns nestled here and there within sheltered bays; of dories, yachts and lobster buoys bobbing in the sun; of islands favoring us with views on all sides; of forested hills gently sloping to the sea ... a granite mountain rising swiftly, majestically above it . . ."
Is this a come-on for the tourist dollar from Maine's Department of Economic Development? Is it a Chamber of Commerce salute to the glories of the Maine Coast?
Not exactly.
The mildly poetic paragraph above is found in a Maine Water Improvement Commission 1962 classification study of Maine tidal waters.
But none of the publicity puffs directed to potential tourists of the Maine Coast by the DED and every local chamber of commerce along this great granite threshold of the Atlantic would likely include other, less poetic observations from this WIC Study in their pages.
For publicity pieces obviously don't mention the raw sewage and industrial wastes that those "gracious towns'' are pouring into "the rolling, sometimes choppy sea."
Nor will they describe the resulting pollution of most of the harbor waters on which those "dories and yachts" are bobbing -- or the numerous, tremendous clam flats and their multimillion dollar harvests closed down by health authorities for pollution or the public bathing beaches where pollution has produced obvious but unadmitted swimming hazards.
Tourism, of course, is an economic mainstay of many Maine coastal towns and they must promote their attractions whether their waters have pollution problems or not.
15596
Senator MILWARD SIMPSON then Governor of Wyoming, hired a sanitary engineer and told him he would back him to the fullest in a program to clear up the river.
As a result of this Governor's determination, and the cooperative support behind his determination, the people of Wyoming are now enjoying their river. Bottomland has risen in value from $240 an acre 10 years ago to $1,500 an acre now, Some of the companies which spent a great deal of money on pollution control are discovering long-range benefits, financial and otherwise, which they had not expected.
My point in mentioning this project is that is demonstrates what can be done when there is leadership, public understanding, and broad cooperation by everyone concerned.
It is the same combination which will produce results elsewhere in the country. The money we provide is important, but it is not the whole answer by any means.
Since the Federal Government is active in encouraging pollution control, I think it is well to emphasize again that in assuming leadership the Federal Government also assumes the responsibility for making sure that its own house is in order.
I am reminded of this responsibility because of a situation in my own State of Delaware at Dover Air Force Base. Water pollution from the base has been a problem for many years. Funds have been provided to correct one source of pollution from the base, but a serious pollution problem remains. Understandably there is not enough money to get everything done at once, but this matter of pollution is of such vital importance that we must be sure the Federal Government lives up to its responsibility.
Mr. President, I commend again the efforts of the junior Senator from Maine and the other Senators who have contributed to improvements in S. 2947. It is a significant piece of legislation dealing with an urgent problem. I hope that it will be quickly approved.
I thank my colleague for yielding me the time.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the distinguished Senator from Delaware for his committee work and for his excellent statement. The Senator has been a strong right arm and has helped make this subcommittee and committee effort a cooperative one. This cooperative effort has produced some excellent legislation.
TRUTH IN WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
Mr. BARTLETT. Mr. President, I support in its entirely -- I support strongly -- the bill S. 2947 now before the Senate, which amends the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, strengthening, improving, and making it more effective:
The Senate has reason to be thankful for the dedicated and intelligent leadership which the junior Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] has provided. The Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution has held full and comprehensive hearings. It has received evidence from representatives of government, labor, and industry, and from public-spirited organizations. Twenty-seven Senators from both parties also presented statements to the subcommittee on the bill.
In his opening statement, the junior Senator from Maine outlined the provisions of the bill, the programs authorized, and the new authorities that would be granted to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to insure truly effective water pollution control policies.
I have a particular interest in the bill, Mr. president. I have interest particularly in section 212, on page 30, starting at line 8. This section would authorize the Secretary of HEW, whenever he would have reason to believe that a person's activities are resulting in "discharges causing or contributing to water pollution or whose activities may affect the quality of the waters involved," to require that person to file a report giving full information on the extent of the pollution, its cause, and the steps needed to reduce it.
This section would be important to the Secretary in his struggle to reduce the pollution of our Nation's rivers and streams. All too often in the past it has been difficult, if not impossible, for the Secretary to obtain all the information he requires from private sources, as well as public. This section would give him the authority of law with which to acquire this information.
This section would be helpful to Congress -- for Congress has had as much difficulty as many administrative agencies have had in obtaining the full facts on the pollution of our environment.
Congress has had difficulty in this regard not only from private industry but from Federal agencies as well. To show the importance of this matter, I call the attention of the Senate to one instance:
As I pointed out in a speech on June 23 of this year, several of the tributaries of the Colorado River during the late 1950's and the early 1960's received substantial unwarranted amounts of radioactive contaminants from uranium mill pilings, the refuse of uranium mining processes. The uranium mills had been in operation since 1945. Reports of varying accuracy and detail of this contamination have been current for several years. And yet not until the report by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration was released in March of 1966 did we have a comprehensive survey of the extent of the hazard, the efforts which have been made to bring about its abatement, and the further efforts which will be necessary.
Even with this report, it was not until this subcommittee began its hearings on the bill that we received the full appalling facts on the extent of the contamination in years past.
Only in these hearings did we learn that algae in the San Miguel River at one time contained levels of radiation 800 times the natural level. Only then did we find out that these rivers at one time contained fish 98 times more radioactive than they should have been. Only then did we learn of water so radioactive that persons drinking it would have received levels of radiation exceeding those considered acceptable by the Federal Radiation Council.
For 20 years, uranium mines and mills have been operating in the Colorado River basin.
We have no reason to doubt that uranium waste products have been contaminating the river all this time.
Geiger counters and the other radiation monitoring devices have been available all these 20 years.
Presumably, the privately owned mills have been equipped with these devices.
Presumably, the Atomic Energy Commission and its personnel have been likewise equipped.
Presumably, both have known of this contamination. They have known of the potential hazards they were causing. They have known of the hazard even as they were creating it.
And because of the complex and complicated terminology which must be used in discussing these matters, it has been possible to hoodwink Congress and the American people.
Because the Secretary of HEW and the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration have lacked the authority to require the presentation of full information, it has been possible to deceive the people by giving them only half the facts and by presenting the facts in a manner calculated to confuse.
I do not level a blanket accusation of hoodwinkery and deception. I only say that there have been such cases of this in the past, and I am pleased to say that the chances of such cases happening in the future would be considerably reduced by passage of the proposed legislation and by section 212 of the bill in particular.
Mr. president, I congratulate the junior Senator from Maine and the other members of his subcommittee for an excellent and important piece of legislation.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I wish to express my appreciation to the distinguished Senator from Alaska [Mr. BARTLETT], who is one of the sponsors of the pending legislation, for his excellent statement.
The Senator from Alaska has been a longstanding supporter of legislation in this field. It has been a pleasure and a privilege to work with him, not only with respect to water pollution, but other conservation issues in which we have a mutual interest.
I particularly appreciate that portion of the Senator's statement dealing with uranium mill tailings piles on the Colorado River. I think it is important that we focus attention on this problem, which need not be a serious one , but one which we contend has been rather carelessly neglected by the Atomic Energy Commission.
I appreciate the statement of the Senator from Alaska [Mr. BARTLETT].
Mr. BARTLETT. I am grateful for these words from the Senator from Maine. I believe he is making a great contribution to the welfare of this Nation in bringing the bill to the floor of the Senate.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment and ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk proceeded to read the amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment to the committee amendment, offered by the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE] is as follows:
In page 27, line 10, after the word "finance" delete the word "Its" and insert in lieu thereof the words "the local".
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, this is a technical amendment which is designed to effectuate the intent of the committee. It pertains to section 209 of the bill which provides the loan program to assist those communities in depressed areas when the States do not contribute to the cost of municipal treatment works.
The language of the bill, as it appears before us, creates some confusion, or at least some ambiguity, as to whether such funds will be available to States to cover their portion of the cost of the project. It was the intent of the committee that the loan program be available only to cover the local share of the cost of the project. The proposed amendment would accomplish that result.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE].
The amendment to the committee amendment was agreed to.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
AMENDMENT NO. 642
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 642 and ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment to the committee amendment will be stated for the information of the Senate.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
On page 23, line 24, insert “(a)" immediately after "SEC. 204.11
On page 24, between lines 6 and 7 insert the following new subsection:
"(b) Subsection (a) of section 7 of the Federal Water pollution Control Act is amended by striking out the period at the end thereof and inserting in lieu thereof a comma and the following: 'Including the training of personnel of public agencies.'."
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I have discussed this amendment with the distinguished Senator in charge of the bill, but thought I might make a brief explanation. It will be noted that my amendment would make funds available to States and interstate agencies for the training of personnel of public agencies in the prevention and control of water pollution and would include employees of municipalities.
I believe it would be helpful to read section 7 (a) of the present act:
SEC. 7. (a) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1957, and for each succeeding fiscal year to and including the fiscal year ending June 30, 1961, $3,000,000, and for each suceeeding fiscal year to and including the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $5,000,000 for each succeeding fiscal year to and including the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, $5,000,000, and for each succeeding fiscal year to and including the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, $10,000,000 for grants to States and to interstate agencies to assist them in meeting the costs of establishing and maintaining adequate measures for the prevention and control of water pollution.
Mr. President, if my amendment is adopted, it would add these words, "including the training of personnel of public agencies."
I would like to point out that section 5(a) of the act authorizes the Secretary to provide training in technical matters relating to the causes, prevention, and control of water pollution in the conduct and coordination of research, investigations, experiments, and studies in this field.
It is my belief that there is an additional need to train individuals employed in water pollution control and abatement programs at the State, county, and municipal level. Thus, where funds are now authorized for the training of personnel in technical matters the thrust of my amendment is to authorize funds to State, county, and municipal agencies and interstate agencies so that these agencies may train the additional personnel required to operate the water pollution and control facilities to be financed under this bill.
From my talks with officials and publicly interested citizens in my own State of Kentucky and individuals of other States who have undertaken programs to provide for controls and abatement of water pollution, I know that there exists a great need for trained personnel. Congress will not achieve its purpose by authorizing increasingly large sums to the States municipalities, and other agencies in the form of grants for the construction of treatment works where there are not adequately trained personnel to operate these facilities.
One of the projects of the Junior Chamber of Commerce of the United States has been to assist in this great task of water pollution control, and the Junior Chamber of Commerce has found that there is a need for the training of personnel to man these facilities.
I am happy to note that in my own State the Kentucky Junior Chamber of Commerce has shown leadership in this field by embarking on a statewide program to bring to the attention of the
public the need for new and more effective facilities to control and abate pollution and the necessity of securing skilled personnel to operate these facilities.
I would therefore appreciate it very much if the distinguished Senator in charge of the bill would comment on my amendment, and I hope would agree to its acceptance.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I have discussed this amendment with the distinguished Senator from Kentucky and have given his amendment my unqualified support. A number of witnesses, in the course of the hearings, testified to the need for the increased availability of engineering, scientific, and technical manpower to operate pollution control facilities. The general indication was that existing programs are suffering from a shortage of manpower and that an expanded program would be needed. This expanded program will require a greatly increased Federal commitment to training.
It might be useful to have printed in the RECORD some information received from the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration which indicates a wholly insufficient training grant program especially when related to personnel demands as indicated in the testimony.
I ask unanimous consent to have this information from the Water Pollution Control Administration indicating the amount of money now devoted to training grant programs printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
Appropriations for the training grant program for FY 1965. 1966 and 1967 are as follows: 1965, $2,617,000; 1966, $3,210,000; 1967, $3,543,000 (est.).
There are three different training grant programs. The largest is the grants to institutions, $2 million in 1965. There are 57 grants for 42 institutions in 32 states ranging from $20 thousand to $50 thousand. and aiding approximately 291 students.
The second training grant program is for fellowships to individuals, scientific and engineering students. Total allocation of this program in 1965 was $700 thousand to 51 institutions in 28 states resulting in 101 graduate level fellowships.
The only other training grant program is for the Water and Sewage Operators Training School in Neosho, Missouri. The FWPCA provides partial support to the school which in 1965 amounted to $40 thousand. This is the only full time plant operator training school in the United States.
The course covers a period of 32 weeks and in 1965 enrolled approximately 250 potential new plant operators.
Finally, the FWPCA provides courses in water pollution control at the Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineering School.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I wholly endorse the amendment of the Senator from Kentucky. Indeed, it may be necessary to do more in the years ahead in this field in order to give these facilities which would be built under the pending legislation effective maintenance and operation.
Mr. COOPER. I think so. I think it will be necessary to make more funds available in the future, but at least this is a start. I thank the Senator from
15611
and so on that are needed to fill the needs of the population today, the ones who are going to be paying the water bills, as soon as the construction is finished, whereas with the population continually growing in the metropolitan areas, particularly in the suburbs, economy in the long run would dictate a larger outlay in terms of physical facilities in order to meet the needs of tomorrow's population as well as today's. And that is a difficulty that you encounter on the revenue bond approach.
Now, the recommendation that the Commission made in that regard is that where Federal aid is involved in loans for these types of operations, provision be made for a deferral of interest for x number of years, where a clear case can be made that through deferral of interest and the use of larger facilities to meet the needs of the future population, the whole thing will pay out eventually. Then it is a saving from the standpoint of the water users to have the larger facilities."
We believe this suggestion would be a useful means of encouraging construction of waste treatment plants sufficiently large to provide for future population within a growing community.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin has a longstanding and distinguished record of concern and leadership in this field. I valued his membership on the Subcommittee on Air and Water pollution, and regretted his decision to move to another committee assignment. He and I have had many discussions about this problem, its urgency, and the need for a massive increase in the Federal contribution toward its solution. I think we share equally that sense of urgency. Indeed, the pending legislation represents just that. In the sixth year of the program which the Senate is now considering, the Federal contribution will be 10 times its present level. More important is the fact that the pending bill would lift a number of limitations which inhibit the impact of Federal resources in those areas where the problem is the greatest.
I am speaking now of the heavily populated industrial areas of the country. The pending bill will increase the Federal contribution -- if all conditions set out in the bill are met -- to 50 percent of the total cost of municipal waste treatment projects under the clean rivers program. There is built into the bill an incentive for the States to make their contribution. As I said earlier, the basic assumption of current Federal law is, the primary responsibility of pollution control rests with the States and communities. Yet, the States have failed, with exception of eight States which provide some matching funds to make any financial contribution whatsoever.
The solution to the problem is the incentive built into the bill to try to stimulate State action, through allocation of State resources, to help the communities of this country deal with the problem. If the provisions of the pending bill are fully implemented in any given State, the division of financial responsibility would be 50 percent Federal contribution, 30 percent State contribution, and 20 percent local contribution.
In the judgment of the committee, after extensive hearings and discussion, this represents an appropriate division of the responsibilities that should rest on all three levels of the Federal system.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield for a question?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. NELSON. The Senator mentioned that eight States have made a contribution. What is the maximum percentage contribution that any one of those eight States has made?
Mr. MUSKIE. The maximum provision is reflected in the bill. Maine and New York have contributed 30 percent of the cost. They make the largest contribution of any States to the cost of municipal sewage treatment projects. Six other States make contributions, some of which have a dollar limitation, and some of which have a smaller percentage limitation.
Mr. NELSON. But Maine and New York made a 30-percent contribution toward the total cost of sewage treatment plant installations?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
Mr. NELSON. What kind of dollar figure has that been representing in those two States?
Mr. MUSKIE. The New York program would be financed by a bond issue which was approved last year, in a referendum totaling $1 billion. The total cost for New York State is estimated at $1.7 billion. The Maine program has been financed out of current appropriations and a bond issue of $25 million last year.
Until last year, it was possible to finance the Maine program entirely out of current revenues. I do not know what the cumulative total of that contribution has been.
Mr. NELSON. Does the Senator from Maine know whether there will be any problem for some States respecting a constitutional prohibition against this kind of grant from general Treasury funds, or bonding to a local municipal treatment plant?
Mr. MUSKIE. I think there are some constitutional limitations on bonding. This bill does not require bonding.
Mr. NELSON. I refer to the authority of the State itself to take State general fund moneys and give it as a grant matching fund for local sewage treatment plants.
Mr. MUSKIE. I could not answer that question. There may be such. Does the Senator mean a constitutional limitation other than the bonding problem?
Mr. NELSON. Yes.
Mr. MUSKIE. If there is, I do not know of any. We have no testimony to that effect. However, we do have information that some States have bonding limitations, which may be an inhibition if they need to raise money by that method.
Mr. NELSON. I certainly did not intend, by remarks, in any way to indicate that I did not think this was a massive increase in Federal participation, because it is a massive increase. I hope the bill will pass both Houses.
I think it is to the great credit of the chairman that we have been able to bring to the floor a bill providing for a $6 billion participation by the Federal Government. I am sure the Senator
agrees with me that in future years Federal participation will have to be increased if we are to meet the problem.
Mr. MUSKIE. I do. I agree to such an extent that it would be easy to rationalize support of greater Federal participation in dealing with this problem than the pending bill envisages, or even than the Senator's amendment envisages, but we must deal with the art of the possible. We have in the bill, if Congress passes it, a means for helping meet the needs of the problem we are talking about.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, this bill deals with what, is undoubtedly one of the foremost problems confronting our Nation. I think it deals with it in a very rational and practical manner. In my judgment, the distinguished Senator from Maine merits the thanks of the entire country for the untiring energy, thought, and effort he gave in the preparation of the bill and in the presentation of it to the Senate.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank my distinguished friend from North Carolina, who helped immensely in his testimony before the subcommittee.
I think it is worth noting that Senators on both sides of the aisle, from all areas of the country, and of all philosophies, recognize the urgency of the problem, and are willing to support efforts to deal with it.
Mr. HARTKE. Mr. president, I wish to commend the members of the public Works Committee, the distinguished chairman, JENNINGS RANDOLPH, and the distinguished Senator from Maine, Senator MUSKIE, for giving us S. 2947 -- a comprehensive approach for pollution abatement and water reclamation -- in order to provide our Nation with usable clean water for the future.
S. 2947, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments and Clean Rivers Restoration Act of 1966, provides practical answers to industry, municipalities, and small towns in the complex and distressing campaign to protect the vital natural resource -- water.
Civic leaders throughout the country have known for some time that their communities with nonexistent or inadequate facilities for waste treatment and disposal are contributing to a future catastrophe. However, they did not, in most instances, have the financial resources for the expensive sewage treatment plants. I know how hard it is; I was a mayor, and fully realize the difficulty of convincing the public of the necessity of $4 or $5 million for these facilities when so many other community projects are needed, especially in the field of education and transportation.
Unfortunately, a sewer system or a treatment plant is not a facility to which a mayor or city councilman can point with pride. No one really cares as long as it is working.
Frankly, the effect of putting such facilities in is soon forgotten. It is similar to a person who has a toothache, has it taken care of by the dentist, and then the ache is soon forgotten. Once the toothache is taken care of, the toothache and the dentist are soon forgotten. Once a sewer pipe is placed in the ground and
15628
world, the five Great Lakes. The adverse effect which loss of or irreparable damage to this natural resource upon the continued economic growth and success of this complex is self-evident.
It should be noted that already some 40 percent of our urban population and a higher portion of our industrial activity is located in only 4 of our 22 major river basins. These basins frequently contain huge metropolitan complexes and intensively developed watersheds where the gains for systematic approaches are likely to be large. The Great Lakes Basin is one of the four that is relatively highly industrialized and with a rapidly growing population, and the pollution situation is extremely acute. It is my belief that those basins similar to the Great Lakes Basin, which are facing emergencies, should be given distinct priority in Federal assistance, at least as to timing, over those areas where the situation is not of an emergency nature.
It has been estimated that the cost of reasonably complete abatement of pollution in this country in a crash program would be from $80 to $100 billion over a period of 10 years. Obviously, to carry out such a program would be far beyond the financial abilities of State and local economies. Definitely, substantial Federal assistance is needed, far more liberal in both amounts of money and formulas for allocating grants than is permissible under existing law.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I recommend that your subcommittee act favorably on this bill. As a coauthor, I am pleased to give it my wholehearted support.
Senator CLARK. May I say, Mr. Chairman, it is a rare privilege and a high honor, as Speaker Rayburn used to say, to find myself on the same side as the Senator from Ohio.
Senator MUSKIE. As a matter of fact, Senator LAUSCHE, I particularly welcome your testimony. I know that you and I and Senator CLARK disagree in several areas as to the responsibilities that the Federal Government carries.
To have your endorsement of this program and your expression of concern is a real boost to our efforts. We appreciate it.
Senator LAUSCHE. Senator TYDINGS, and Senator MOSS and Senator CLARK were not here when I said if there is to be any retrenchment let it not be in the fight against pollution. Let us retrench in other areas where the need is not so demanding and immediate as it is in this field.
Senator CLARK. Ohio and Pennsylvania both border on Lake Erie.
Senator MUSKIE. Senator CLARK, we are ready for you now. We welcome your presence. As I said before Senator LAUSCHE's testimony we are delighted so many Senators are coming here to testify or to submit a statement on this important subject. I think now you are No. 23.
We might get a majority before this committee before we are through.
(At this point Mr. HARRIS assumed the chair.)
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. president, I am very happy to get the floor after waiting for an hour and a half and seeing other Senators come to the floor, be recognized, and leave after speaking.
It is indeed a privilege to speak to the Senate under these circumstances. I do want to address my remarks basically to the bill under consideration.
I am sorry that in the interim the distinguished Senator from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER] has had to leave the floor. I wanted to compliment him for the work he has done and for his introduction of a bill, which I have cosponsored, to provide incentives to private firms and corporations who will be faced with the very onerous task of meeting antipollution standards and taking antipollution steps during the next few years.
I have personally felt that pollution was one of the greatest problems which face this country. I would place it above many of the other problems, because it affects the health of the Nation. When we have any problem which affects the health of the Nation, we then have something which ought to be one of the top priorities of the Senate.
I am therefore very happy to have supported, and will continue to support at the proper place in the proper bill, an amendment to provide an incentive, a tax credit or an increased tax deduction for moneys which are invested by firms or corporations in the diminishment of our pollution problems. There are many such companies in the United States, and some of them would be literally put into bankruptcy today if they had to take these steps under our present tax law.
I think the real solution is to provide them with the incentive and the opportunity to do this. I think that then we shall not have to worry so much about what will need to be done later.
I also compliment the distinguished Senator from Maine for his work upon the bill. As is quite often the case, the ranking minority member of the committee is overlooked. In this case, the distinguished junior Senator from Delaware [Mr. BOGGS] has done an outstanding job. He has worked on the bill all the way through. As the distinguished Senator from Maine has said, he is deserving of equal credit for the work that has been done on the bill.
This is a bill which requires an almost infinite amount of time and patience, as the transcripts of the hearings which lie on our desks will show. These two Senators have spent many hours in these hearings to try to come up with a workable bill to solve what to me is one of the most important problems facing this country. Their work is very praiseworthy, and I think it deserves the thanks of the Senate.
I rose to speak this afternoon upon this matter for one reason in particular. On page 15 of the report, and running thereafter to page 18, is a discussion of radioactive pollution.
On June 23 of this year, the Senator from Alaska [Mr. BARTLETT], the junior Senator from Colorado [Mr. DOMINICK], and myself were involved in a colloquy in the Senate with respect to this matter.
I cannot say that I believe that the language of the report contains any direct misstatements. However, I believe that the wording of the language is such that it raises in my mind -- as I am sure it will raise in the mind of any casual reader, as distinguished from a careful reader -- the fact that a real problem of radioactive pollution exists in the Colorado River Basin.
I wish to call attention to 2 or 3 statements in the report.
On page 15 appears this statement:
The report established that, in the past at a period of peak release of contaminants from operating mills, there was a serious problem with regard to the presence of concentrations of radium 226 in the Animas and San Miguel Rivers.
These rivers arise in southwestern Colorado, as everyone knows; and the three words "in the past" are apt to be overlooked.
When this problem arose in 1956,1957, and 1958, the senior Senator from Colorado was deeply involved in it, and he was deeply involved in the steps that were taken at that time -- several changes in mill operations and other measures -- to clean up the Colorado River. The important point, in my opinion, is to emphasize and to underscore that this job has been done.
I read from page 16 of the report:
The Counsel for the AEC testified that the AEC could require stabilization of the tailings piles if the pile represented a risk to the public health and safety. The FWPCA testified that the piles did represent such a risk.
I do not find the facts in the hearings to be quite in accordance with that statement. For example, Mr. Murray Stein testified before the committee on May 6, and in part he said this:
In 1960, a conference was held on all of the Colorado River Basin at the request of six of the seven States involved, and the Animas River pollution problems were incorporated into this enforcement conference. The Colorado River Basin water quality control enforcement project was then established and included in its work were studies of other sources of radioactive waste discharged to basin streams. The Colorado conference has met in five sessions, and recommendations have been made to abate radioactive and other sources of pollution.
Uranium mill waste discharges have been substantially reduced. This was achieved through the joint efforts and cooperation of the States involved, the Federal water pollution control program, the Atomic Energy Commission, and the uranium milling industries themselves.
Then he continued:
We believe the control and prevention of radioactive pollution in the Colorado River Basin has been one of the significant success stories in pollution abatement in this country. When we first began to deal with this problem in several areas, the radioactive levels were several times the maximum permissible concentration.
Mr. president, this year Colorado passed a water pollution bill which contains several elements. First, it creates a water pollution commission which gives it general supervision over administration and enforcement. Second, it adopts strict water quality standards in accordance with those satisfactory to Federal requirements where interstate streams are involved. Third, it is empowered to accept and allocate loans and grants. Fourth, it is capable of adopting, modifying, and enforcing rules and orders pertaining to water pollution control. Fifth, it may employ, and does employ, technical personnel and hearing officers and others of general responsibility.
Mr. President, I bring this matter up because I believe the Colorado act on water pollution control is one of the best and most forward looking acts in the United States. On several occasions I have paid tribute to the legislature -- both Republicans and Democrats -- that did such an outstanding job on this subject, under the leadership of Governor Love. I believe the Colorado act will constitute a model for good action upon water pollution control from this date forward.
In addition to the quotation of Mr. Stein which I read a few moments ago, I wish to read a few remarks from the statement of Mr. Klashman, who is the regional director of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration of HEW in Denver. Mr. Klashman said this:
The cooperative industry- Government radioactive pollution abatement program has been eminently successful. Early studies had indicated that the tailings solids were the major source of stream contamination, and hence the industry instituted waste treatment practices that successfully captured and retained these settleable solids. Our surveillance network demonstrates clearly that for all practical purposes surface waters of the entire basin are now free of recent bottom deposits of mill tailings. In addition, where needed, the industry installed addttional chemical treatment facilities to remove substantial quantities of radium dissolved in the liquid wastes before release of the latter to the surface streams.
I shall skip a bit and continue with his statement:
In earlier years, also, the industry had been plagued by a series of accidents in which the occasional rupture of earthen tailings pond dikes released large quantities of radioactive wastes to the water environment. Better dike construction and maintenance has essentially solved this problem.
Our surveillance program demonstrates that as a result of this abatement program, the surface waters of the Colorado Basin have for several years contained no more than one-third of the quantity of radium that is regarded as safe. This is a precedent-setting case in which an entire industry has cooperated in reducing pollution to a level sharply below that which has been regarded as acceptable.
Now, Mr. President, I wish to read an order which was issued by Dr. Roy L. Cleere, who is the director of public health, Colorado State Board of Health, pursuant to the act which has been enacted in Colorado.
It is hereby declared to be the order of the Colorado State Board of Health that the owners, operators and other persons or corporations having or claiming to have a legal interest in the premises where tailing piles from uranium or thorium mills are situated, or persons having responsibility for the operation of the mill, submit to the State Department of Public Health within ninety (90) days after the effective date of this regulation a written report setting forth plans and measures employed by them to stabilize such tailing piles and what further plans and
measures, if any, are proposed to accomplish the purposes of this regulation.
Then I shall read the actual order as it was put into effect, which was to the effect that these people do exactly this and report to the health department what they have done along these lines.
It is hereby declared to be the order of the Colorado State Board of Health that the owners, operators and other persons or corporations having or claiming to have a legal interest in the premises where tailing piles from uranium or thorium mills are situated, or persons having responsibility for the operation of the mill, submit to the State Department of Public Health within ninety (90) days after the effective date of this regulation a written report setting forth plans and measures employed by them to stabilize such tailing piles and what further plans and measures if any, are proposed to accomplish the purposes of this regulation.
The effective date of this regulation will be thirty (30) days from and after the date of adoption hereinafter set forth.
Adopted May 9, 1966.
Roy L. CLEERE, M.D., M.P.H.,
Secretary, Colorado State Board of Health.
I shall now take up one other aspect of this matter. I shall not detain the Senate for more than a few minutes, but I believe the record must be made clear.
Dr. Morris, who is the Director of the Division of operating Safety of the Atomic Energy Commission, said this in the hearings:
We felt that, simply as a matter of good housekeeping prudence in being a good neighbor, we should stabilize that pile and return the land to its natural state.
This refers not to any plant in Colorado but one in Monticello, Utah, and which was operated by the Atomic Energy Commission.
Mr. President, along the same lines, after we had a colloquy on the floor the Senator from Alaska [Mr. BARTLETT] said this:
Mr. BARTLETT. I did not intend to so imply. Obviously, the record is clear that no dangers are to be encountered by anyone at this time. One could go to the Arctic as a tourist, where there has been a peculiar situation in connection with radioactive fallout, and eat caribou meat and there would be no danger at all, or any dire consequences. We are not so sure, yet that the Eskimos, who subsist on caribou meat day in and day out, are not in some danger even now, although several years have passed since tests have been made in the outer atmosphere.
I wish to assure my friend from Colorado that I am not talking today and shall not talk later as an alarmist. We have mined uranium in the past. We have processed uranium in the past. We are going to continue to do so.
On April 29, 1966, 1 wrote a letter to Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. Dr. Seaborg's reply to my earlier letter can be found in full on page 14061 of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of June 23. 1 shall not insert it again but I do wish to quote a few paragraphs from his reply. He states as follows:
The FWPCA report, which deals with potential effects of uranium mill tailings on rivers and streams in the Colorado River Basin, states, "there is currently no significant immediate hazard associated with uranium milling activities anywhere in the Colorado River Basin."
I continue with his letter:
However, the report recommends that because of the long half-life of radium-266 -- the isotope of principal interest in the tailings from a water standpoint -- and the uncertainties regarding changes that may occur over centuries in things such as river hydrology and the uses of water, measures should be taken to prevent the erosion, spread and distribution of tailings and that binding agreements should be reached as soon as possible regarding long term public and/or private responsibility for adequate maintenance of the tailing piles.
In concluding the letter he said:
As you know, on May 9, 1966, the State of Colorado Board of Health adopted regulations concerning the handling and disposition of radioactivity-bearing ore materials. The regulations which become effective June 10 1966, require mill owners to submit to the State of Colorado health authorities within ninety days from that date a written report on measures taken to stabilize tailings piles together with any further actions proposed. We think the approach adopted in the Colorado regulations is a good one.
Please let me know if you would like any further information.
Mr. president, as I have said, I do disagree with one statement in the report, but nevertheless my reason for these remarks basically is to negative anything that the casual reader might get from the report that there is a present danger in the Colorado River Basin from radioactive water, because this is not the case based upon any standards which we have available to us today with regard to radioactive material.
I yield to the distinguished Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am delighted that the Senator from Colorado [Mr. ALLOTT] raised this question because it is not my desire or the desire of the subcommittee to create any undue alarm or suggest that there is any immediate problem related to uranium milling activities in the Colorado River.
It might be helpful if I cite two or three statements from the hearing record to put the matter into proper perspective.
For example, on page 3 of the hearing record, Mr. Murray Stein, chief enforcement officer, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, made this statement:
We believe the control and prevention of radioactive pollution in the Colorado River basin has been one of the significant success stories in pollution abatement in this country.
Mr. Stein made this statement on page 5 of the hearing record:
I do not believe that the people in the area are now exposed to immediate health hazard. I think the radiation levels have been reduced materially. Certainly the water, as we will point out, is one-third of the public Health Service suggested drinking water standards.
On page 37 of the record of the hearings, I made the following statement, raising some questions which I directed to Mr. Stein:
Senator MUSKIE. Now, having listened to all of this, let me pose two or three questions which would seem to me need to be answered before we can develop some policy with respect to this problem.
First of all, do the piles as they exist constitute any hazard to the health of anybody who might be exposed to them as they stand?
Secondly, is there enough radioactive material in the pile so that if concentrated in any way it would produce a hazard to health?
Three, considering the physical characteristics of the pile, the environment in which it exists, and the erosion dangers which are present, are conditions such that they could lead to concentrations within any reasonable anticipation of what might happen that would be hazardous to health?
Mr. Stein’s reply, which appears on page 38, was quite extensive. He concluded it with the, sentence, which appears pears On page 39:
I would answer yes to all three of the questions.
The subcommittee found itself in something of a dilemma. The Federal Water Pollution Control Administration obviously was more concerned with the future problem or long-term hazard than were the Atomic Energy Administration representatives. We felt that on the basis of the facts disclosed, relative to the costs of stabilizing the piles in order to reduce any potential hazard, that the piles should have been stabilized.
We thought that the Atomic Energy Commission witnesses were a little careless in their attitude toward the solution of a potential long-term hazard.
But I should like to emphasize again to the Senator from Colorado that no witnesses before the committee suggested that there was an immediate hazard.. The sole question involved was: What should be done in addition to what had been done or had not been done to minimize the possibility of future hazards? It was on that question that we felt it essential to invite the attention of the Senate and public to the conflict in the attitude of the two agencies; to stimulate minimal action in dealing with the problem. I emphasize again that the committee was and is concerned with "long-term potential hazard."
Mr. ALLOTT. I very much appreciate the remarks of the Senator from Maine. I think that even in this instance it might be reasonable to invite attention to the remarks of Dr. Morris, who in his opinion differed with Mr. Stein. His statement is on page 40, the page following the one from which the Senator from Maine was reading. Dr. Morris was asked by the Senator from Maine about the use of these piles as a child’s sand pile. Dr. Morris replied:
I think this allowable averaging applies directly. If the Boy Scouts camped on it for one night, there would be no danger whatsoever.
Senator MUSKIE. How many nights could they camp on it safely?
Dr. Morris. We could ask about the boy who slept there every night. My rough calculation shows if one was there 40 hours a week, he would get about four times the annual permissible dose.
Again, this is close to levels for which there is no observable biological effect.
So there is a difference of opinion on this subject. I presume that the Senator from Maine has not seen the piles. As they come out finally, they are of very fine sand.
They can be stabilized -- not without some difficulty, but stabilization is possible. At this point, I wish to make sure that the condition which the report might imply to a casual reader has been obviated by the steps taken some time since. Second, that any possibility of damage from these piles is now being diminished and done away with by action of the pollution Control Board of the State of Colorado.
I am very much appreciative of the Senator’s remarks, but I thought it was important enough that we not leave the impression that the Colorado River Basin -- most of which, incidentally, lies outside the State of Colorado, although Colorado supplies most of the water and which extends through all of the Southwestern States -- was polluted from a radioactive standpoint.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator from Colorado
Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, water, the vital resource, is much in our thoughts and much in our pronouncements today. But if we are to serve with fidelity the people whom we represent here, in the Senate of the United States, it is not enough that we think about water, or talk about water. We must act, now, to assure that there will be enough water, of adequate quality, to meet the present needs of the people, the growing requirements of the foreseeable future, and the staggering demands of the years to come.
My State of Connecticut, like so many States, owes much to the waters with which she is endowed. Three important river systems traverse Connecticut -- the Housatonic, the Thames, and the Connecticut, New England's greatest stream. On the south the State is bounded by the waters of Long Island Sound, and the beneficiary of a beautiful shoreline.
Water turned the wheels of our earliest industry. Our tobacco crop grows in the fertile valley beside the long tidal river. Fish and shellfish are gifts of our waters. Swimming, boating, fishing for sport, and other water-oriented recreation for the people of nearby communities are the prospect -- if not always the reality -- which abundant water resources have to offer us. And the beauty of the State is enhanced by our streams and lakes and coastal waters.
Water is a gift of nature. It is our responsibility to protect it, to develop it wisely, and to use it well. New England learned long ago about the ravages of floods. We were reminded last year of the devastation of prolonged drought. And we are learning, painfully, about the terrible plunder of pollution. What is more we are doing something about it.
In Connecticut, Governor Dempsey's clean water task force -- a panel of distinguished citizens appointed by the Governor last Year -- recently completed a study of the water pollution problem. Their recommendations -- which have the strong endorsement of Governor Dempsey --will provide an even stronger and more vigorous State program to combat water pollution. In one major recommendation, the task force has proposed a $150 million bond issue to provide a program of State grants to municipalities for sewage treatment facilities. I am confident that this program will have the support of the Connecticut legislature next year.
The task force also urged the passage of the bill we are discussing today, and gave strong support to a program of tax incentives for the construction of pollution abatement facilities by industry. So we are moving forward. And S. 2947, the Federal Water pollution Control Amendments and Clean Rivers Restoration Act of 1966, offers sound solutions to the critical domestic problem of water pollution now, at last, faced squarely and met head on with the weapons of new knowledge, more money, and stronger authority.
The Committee on Public Works and its Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, under the leadership of the Senator from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH] and the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], has come forward again with sound legislation after a difficult assignment. I am proud to join in sponsoring S. 2947 and urge its speedy enactment into law
S. 2947 is a bold bill. It is bold in its call for an outlay of $6 billion in 6 years as the Federal contribution to the estimated $20 billion nationwide need for waste treatment works construction. It is bold in its call for the removal of restrictions on Federal assistance, which hamper the construction of some of the most critically needed projects. It is bold in its call for a special effort to develop advanced waste treatment for the joint treatment of municipal wastes and industrial wastes. It is bold in its call for new enforcement authorities to assure that the conference is armed with the information it needs on which to base a workable, fair program of remedial action. Enforcement is crucial to a successful water pollution control program.
Federal enforcement has laid the groundwork for the cleanup of difficult, longstanding problems on the Connecticut River, and I am convinced of its worth.
S. 2947 is a sound bill. It is the product of the exhaustive subcommittee hearings in Washington and around the Nation last year, of this year's thorough hearings on water pollution control legislation, and of conscientious bipartisan committee deliberations. It provides the mechanism for the river basins approach to water pollution control proposed by the President, while building on the solid foundation of present law so that no momentum will be lost in the great nationwide attack on the defilement of America's waters.
With the passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Amendments and Clean Rivers Restoration Act of 1966, we will serve the people well.
Mr. KENNEDY of New York. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to vote today for S. 2947, a bill amending the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
By providing for the first time Federal assistance on a scale necessary to meet present antipollution needs, and by eliminating dollar ceilings on sewage treatment plant construction grants, this bill is a major step in our drive to reduce and eliminate water pollution. I am glad to join Senator MUSKIE in cosponsoring this measure and urge my colleagues to support it today.
This bill authorizes Federal matching grants for sewage treatment plant construction that total $6 billion over the next 6 years. It raises the annual Federal contribution to $11/2 billion a year by 1971 in contrast to the $150 million that would be authorized for the current year. Although this may seem to be a rapid growth, anything less would be inadequate for the job. It has been esti
NEW SECTION OF DEBATE STARTS HERE
today. It is therefore not the total world supply that is of concern to man but its management and distribution that will determine whether adequate water will be available.
The history of my State, Mr. President, shows a strong link between the development of the State and the development of its water resources. So we in California have long appreciated this problem and the 240-mile-long aqueduct canal in Los Angeles is just one of many examples of California's effort to overcome the unequal distribution of water.
Last year, Congress enacted important legislation designed to alleviate the water pollution control and abatement problem. Important as this action was, evidence gathered from hearings held in California and across the country by the Air and Water Pollution Subcommittee indicated that we are not doing enough and that greater effort is needed to deal with this most serious national problem.
As a result of these hearings, the subcommittee made recommendations to further attack the water problem, and many of these recommendations are incorporated in S. 2947. Our subcommittee found that greater Federal assistance was needed to meet the costs of municipal sewage treatment construction between now and 1972. S. 2947 would help to answer the dire need of the many communities across the Nation by authorizing a 6-year Federal program of sewage treatment construction grants. As costly as this program would be, I am convinced it is necessary for the health, welfare, and future growth of the country.
We in the West have always been keenly aware that water is a critically important resource. The shortage experienced by the northeast section of our country last year has served to underscore the fact that the water problem is national in scope, that it must be faced, and faced now.
That is why I feel that there is no more important subject than that of water. As the major substance of all living things, water is truly an extraordinary substance. It is essential for the transportation of man's commerce, for providing man with essential power for irrigation of his farms and, yes, for the sustaining of life itself.
The poet Byron once said:
Til taught by pain, men really know not what good water is worth.
It is the duty of the Congress, the States, the local communities, and industry to see if the "pain" of inadequate water supplies can be avoided by proper and prudent planning.
The passage of S. 2947 today, Mr. President, will contribute to that end. Enactment of S. 2947 will again underscore the determination of the American people and of the Congress that the byproducts of modern society will not be permitted to despoil our natural resources, and that the genius and reasonableness of man will enable us to overcome the pollution problem, thus permitting our citizens to enjoy these precious natural resources.
Mr. McINTYRE. Mr. president, I would like to congratulate the Senator from Maine [Mr. MUSKIE], for the effective manner in which he has managed the bill now before the Senate,
This bill represents a further recognition by the Senate of the tremendous need for financial assistance to communities which are trying to clean up their own water pollution. The job of cleaning up our Nation's rivers must be accelerated; and this can be done only through additional Federal and State financial help. Our cities cannot be left to bear the full cost of these expensive treatment facilities which are of benefit to entire regions.
My State of New Hampshire contains the headwaters of six interstate river basins. We know firsthand the expense of installing municipal treatment plants. Under our Governor, John W. King, New Hampshire has played a leading role among the States in financial support to municipalities for controlling water pollution. Our New Hampshire communities are looking forward to the additional funds for which their State's efforts have qualified them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill, having been read the third time, the question is, Shall it pass?
On this question the yeas and nays have been ordered; and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced-yeas 90, nays 0. as follows:
[ROLL CALL VOTE TALLY OMITTED]
So the bill (S. 2947) was passed.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, by unanimously agreeing to expand the Government's attack on water pollution, the Senate accorded the distinguished Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE] an outstanding tribute. I barely need add that the tribute was highly deserved. I join with the many Senators who commended Senator MUSKIE for the exceptional manner in which he brought this measure to its successful disposition. In committee and on the floor of the Senate today, his strong support, his clear, convincing advocacy, and his effective leadership assured the Senate's overwhelming approval.
Furthermore, with the passage of the clean air measure yesterday, followed by the anti water pollution proposal today, Senator MUSKIE has indeed brought great distinction to his Air and Water Pollution Subcommittee. Clearly, all Americans are deeply grateful for his singular devotion to the solution of this grave and most significant problem.
So, too, has the ranking minority member of the subcommittee, the distinguished junior Senator from Delaware [Mr. BOGGS] devoted his great talent and energy to this problem. And of course he must share the credit for today's success. His vigorous support was essential to this outstanding victory.
The chairman of the Committee on public Works, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia [Mr. RANDOLPH], similarly is to be commended for his strong and articulate advocacy. Long a supporter of effective legislation in this vital area, his backing today served immensely to achieve an overwhelming endorsement. The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. COOPER) and the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY] likewise contributed to the success both with outstanding support and gracious cooperation. The same may be said of the Senator from Alaska [Mr. BARTLETT], the Senator from New York [Mr. JAVITS ], the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. NELSON], the Senator from Texas [Mr. YARBOROUGH], and other Senators who joined to assure unanimous passage.
Once again, I wish to praise Senator MUSKIE and his subcommittee for a job