February 18, 1966
Page 3454
AMENDMENTS TO WATER QUALITY ACT OF 1965
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senators BAYH, BOGGS, GRUENING, HARRIS, HART, INOUYE, JAVITS, HARTE, KENNEDY of Massachusetts, McNamara, MANDA, Moss, NELSON, RIBICOFF, RANDOLPH, TIDINGS, and YOUNG, of Ohio, I introduce for appropriate reference a bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, in order to improve and to make more effective the operations of that act.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill remain at the desk for 10 days, to give other Senators an opportunity to join as cosponsors.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The bill will be received and appropriately referred.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, last year the Congress enacted the Water Quality Act of 1965. That legislation, which resulted from several years of work, debate, and deliberation, marked a major change in the direction and emphasis of the water pollution control and abatement program.
Its two key provisions, dealing with the establishment of a new Water Pollution Control Administration in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and the program for water quality standards on interstate streams, made possible new and more effective attacks on the problem of providing the right quality of water in the right place at the right time.
The response to the Water Quality Act has been particularly gratifying in view of the strong opposition we had to overcome to obtain passage. As Senators may recall, it originated in the Senate as S. 649 in the 88th Congress. The Senate passed it in that Congress, but it did not receive concurrence in the House. We introduced the legislation in the 89th Congress as S. 4. As in the earlier Congress the reaction was mixed. The Senate acted quickly, and after several months the House passed a differing version. Protracted negotiations and a conference led to final agreement on the act which President Johnson signed October 2, 1965.
In the months since final enactment, I have been encouraged by the growing interest among public officials and industrial leaders in the comprehensive water improvement program initiated by the Water Quality Act. I believe that a fundamental change has occurred in the national attitude toward the water pollution problem. The discussion has shifted from the issue of whether or not we should improve the quality of our water to the issue of how best to accomplish our objectives.
The one disturbing factor in these months has been the delay in effectively establishing the new Water Pollution Control Administration in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare by the appointment of a Water Pollution Control Administrator, as authorized by the Water Quality Act. Quite frankly, we cannot afford to lose momentum at this time as a result of delays occasioned by administrative uncertainty.
The new Administration was authorized by the Congress to upgrade the status of our water pollution control and abatement program and to broaden the emphasis of our water program to include more than health considerations. The States are now making plans to work with the Administration in the development of water quality standards. Delay and confusion about the Administration and its status can only succeed in frustrating the intention of Congress in enacting the Water Quality Act of 1965.
The Water Quality Act was not the end of our efforts. It represented a new beginning. As President Johnson said when he signed that act:
This bill that you have passed, that will become law as a result of a responsive Congress, will not completely assure us of absolute success. Additional bolder legislation will be needed in the years ahead. But we have begun. And we have begun in the best American tradition -- with a program of joint Federal, State and local action.
The proposed legislation we are introducing today is bolder legislation. It is the product of last year's field hearings by the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of the Public Works Committee. It is designed to implement the findings published in our report, "Steps Toward Clean Water." It will form the basis for hearings and the development of legislative recommendations which the Committee on Public Works plans to report to the Senate later in the session.
Briefly, Mr. President, this legislation would provide for a 6-year, $6 billion program of grants to municipalities for sewage treatment construction, with the Federal Government paying 30 percent of the total construction cost. It would remove the present limits on individual project grants. If enacted, it would help us meet the estimated $20 billion cost of municipal sewage treatment construction needed to meet our national needs between now and 1972.
In addition, the bill provides for incentives to the States to participate in the program by offering a 10-percent bonus on those grants in cases where the State matches the Federal contribution. We provide for a long-term, low-interest loan program to assist those communities in States where State funds and local resources are not adequate to meet the local share. We also include a provision for States to anticipate their allotments to help accelerate the construction program.
In order to assist the States in improving their own programs, we have provided for an increase from $5 million to $10 million in the grants for State programs.
Finally, Mr. President, we would authorize a $25 million a year program of grants for the demonstration of advanced waste treatment and water purification methods or new or improved methods of compatible joint treatment systems for municipal and industrial wastes.
This program is designed to enable us to meet our primary and secondary sewage treatment construction needs, to upgrade State programs, and to launch us into the new and highly important systems approach to water pollution abatement and control and improved water quality development. This approach is adaptable to different conditions in all parts of the country. it is designed to take advantage of technological developments and the advantages of regional planning.
We do not pretend that this proposed legislation is the last word in water pollution control, Mr. President, but we do believe it offers a bold approach on which we ran build.
Mr. President, let me spell out in just a word or two the reason for the urgency of this program. I believe that the public is aware of this urgency. I believe that Congress is also increasingly aware of it. I am sure that the President is; but, nevertheless, it is useful from time to time to point out that unless we step up, and greatly step up, the present program to deal with the problem of water pollution, by 1980 our water supplies will not be sufficient to meet our water requirements in this greatly expanding technological and industrial society.
As our standards of living rise, this date could be advanced; therefore, this problem is an urgent one.
The program which I am presenting, although it seems to involve a great deal of money, is no more than the minimum needs required for the next 5 years to do an effective job.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the RECORD.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be received and appropriately referred; and, without objection, the bill will be printed In the RECORD and held at the desk, as requested by the Senator from Maine.
The 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, introduced by Mr. MUSKIE (for himself and other Senators), was received, read twice by its title, referred to the Committee on Public Works, and ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: