October 10, 1967
Page 28348
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, today the Senate is confronted with the task of considering legislation to continue development of the Nation's water resources.
Since the early years of the Republic, the Federal Government has assumed a role in the protection and enhancement of the Nation's river basins. Initially, that role was limited to river regulation for navigation purposes. Flood control took on an expanded importance as population centers developed along the lower reaches of our rivers. Today's harnessing of our waterways has proved valuable for the generation of electric power, provision of public water supply, stream augmentation for pollution control and development of recreational resources.
Generally where full river basin development has taken place, economic growth has followed.
One needs only to review briefly the value of the Tennessee Valley Authority to see the benefits received by that region over the past 30 years. The same case can be made in the Pacific Northwest, in the Missouri River Basin, in the Central Valley of California, and in fact, in every region of the Nation but one. Only in New England has public water resource development been largely ignored.
Except for a few flood control projects, normal navigation activities and beach erosion control, New England's water resources have not been fully utilized. This year and in the next few years that follow, there is a real opportunity to change that pattern.
Recently the New England River Basin Commission was formed. That River Basin Commission is charged with the responsibility to develop sound water resource planning concepts for the region. At the same time, the region can look forward to its first Federal hydroelectric project -- if the Congress supports an investment in a sound project on the Upper St. John River, as it has in other regions of the country.
Included in the appropriation bill pending before the Senate today is the final planning money for the Dickey-Lincoln School project on the St. John River, Maine. This project is of significant public value. It meets the economic tests laid down by the Congress in many ways:
First. As mentioned before, Dickey-Lincoln School is New England's first Federal hydroelectric project;
Second. It is the first major Federal investment in New England water resources;
Third. It will provide the first opportunity for power consumers in New England to have the so-called Federal "yardstick" for power rates; and
Fourth. It has the excellent benefit-cost ratio of 1.91 to 1.
Other regions of the Nation have vastly benefited from the existence of a Federal power yardstick and, the propaganda of opponents notwithstanding, private utilities of those regions have prospered as well.
From time to time, the Tennessee Valley Authority has released a graphic example of the competitive effects of lowcost power within the boundaries of TVA on surrounding regions. This same picture could be drawn for all areas in which the "yardstick" exists.
In order to indicate the differential in power cost by regions, I would like to include at this point in the RECORD a table which compares the cost of power purchased by manufacturing industries, by region, with the national average cost to industry
New England which has suffered from a constant outflow of industry, is faced with the least competitive situation. New England's residential consumers have also suffered. This is apparent from the following table which compares the average residential electric bill for New England consumers with the national average residential electric bill:
Not only have New England electric consumers paid the highest power rates in the Nation, they have also received the least reliable service from the utilities in the area.
I need not dwell on the power blackout of November 9, 1965. I am sure all of us are well aware of that disaster. The blackout only serves to indicate another value of hydroelectric power. You will recall that one of the great difficulties encountered by the utilities within the area of the blackout was the inability to restore their generating capacity because of a lack of electricity required to start the generators. Since the 1965 blackout there have been a number of less publicized blackouts within New England.
Hydroelectric projects do not require this backup generation. They can be started instantly and can be of major assistance in periods of power failure. I am not saying that Dickey would have averted the blackout, but had it been constructed, with its related transmission facilities, it might have significantly reduced the delay in restoring service following that power failure.
Mr. President, in the 8 years in which I have been in the Senate, and especially in the 8 years that I have served on the Public Works Committee, I have consistently supported water resource projects which have favorable benefit-cost ratios.
Many of those projects have had benefit-cost ratios considerably lower than Dickey-Lincoln School. For example, of the projects included in the House Committee's version of S. 2300 in 1965, 52 of 78 flood control projects for which benefit-cost ratios were listed in the committee report had a benefit-cost ratio below 1.91 to 1. This was also true for 21 out of 47 navigation projects, and five out of nine beach erosion projects.
In this regard, Dickey-Lincoln School is completely justified in the report authorized last year by the House Appropriations Committee in which the following statement appears:
The extensive investigation conducted by the Committee staff has confirmed that the project is economically feasible, with a benefit-to-cost of 1.9 to 1, and would provide efficient hydroelectric power at reasonable rates for peaking purposes as well as firm power to the preference customers in Maine.
The benefit-cost ratio for any project may not be indicative of the overall value of that project. As an example, it is anticipated that Dickey-Lincoln School will return $1.91 for every $1 of Federal investment and will pay for itself in full with interest in 50 years. But, Dickey-Lincoln will have a useful life far beyond 50 years. Dickey-Lincoln School will benefit many future generations, and at such time as the initial investment is amortized, will be an even more valuable development.
There are many more arguments which favor construction of this project, and there are numerous responses to the case against Dickey made by the private utilities in New England. But to air the arguments for or against would be both a waste of the Senate's time and might be interpreted as lending credence to arguments manufactured out of unenlightened self-interest.
The record has been made. Dickey-Lincoln School is a worthwhile, valid investment and no amount of logic, statistics, or rational reason will convert those private utilities which view with terror the concept of competition.
I therefore, urge, Mr. President, that the planning of this project be completed, that the Senate conferees stand fast in their desire to appropriate funds for the project, and that we begin to look to next year's legislation when Dickey-Lincoln School will receive its first appropriation for construction.
Finally, Mr. President, I would like to congratulate the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. ELLENDER, and my colleague, Mrs. SMITH, for their continuing support and active effort on behalf of this project. Without their interest and diligence, Dickey-Lincoln School would be much further from reality.
Mr. KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. President, the $1,676,000 in this bill for planning the Dickey-Lincoln School dam and reservoir project is important to New England and to Massachusetts.
It is important because New England, as a region, lags far behind the rest of the country in the development of low cost electric power. This means that New Englanders pay higher rates, all across the board, than do consumers of electric power in the rest of the country. For example, residential consumers served by private power companies in New England paid 34 percent more than the national average for electricity. Commercial and industrial consumers, respectively, paid 45 percent and 62 percent more.
One reason for the higher rates paid in New England is the lack of any federally produced power to provide a "yardstick" of competition to the private power producers. Every other region of the country has this yardstick, and it has been a material benefit to the consumer and to the economy.
To quote from a recent editorial in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:
Consumers of electricity in the Tennessee Valley saved some $269 million in the last fiscal year through the operations of the Tennessee Valley Authority and its retail distributors. This figure represents the difference between their actual bills and what they would have paid at average national rates. Savings on residential electric bills averaged $80 a customer. In 28 years total savings stand near $2.5 billion. These are indeed massive infusions of purchasing power into the economy of the region. And they benefit not only consumers but a wide range of enterprises with goods and services to sell. For every dollar saved in electric bills is a dollar released for spending with some other business than the utility. That is why the lowest-priced electricity feasible is good for business in general as well as good public service.
That editorial is, I think, an excellent brief of how low-cost Federal power can bring an upsurge across the whole range of business activity. But introduction of a Federal yardstick also brings an upsurge in the business of the private utilities in the area. For example, in Chattanooga, Tenn., the average yearly residential consumption in a recent year was 14,241 kilowatt-hours; in Eugene, Oreg., it was 13,913 kilowatt-hours; in Dallas, Tex., it was 4,619 kilowatt-hours. The average residential monthly bill for these three locations was, respectively, $5, $3 and $7.62. In Boston, Mass., the average use was 1,813 kilowatt-hours and the average bill was $9.91; in Providence, R.I., the average use was 1,925 kilowatthours and the monthly bill $8.85. This is clear evidence that in areas where electricity is cheaper, use is higher. Consequently, lower rates would call for increased production capacity.
The Dickey-Lincoln project is a start in lowering the rates in New England. There are some who claim it will have no effect, but let those people look to the example set in Vermont. On January 1, 1959, residential consumers in Vermont paid an average of $8.90 for 250 kilowatthours, the highest State average in the contintential United States. During 1959, Vermont began importing low-cost public power from the St. Lawrence hydro project, a joint non-profit undertaking of the New York State Power Authority and the Ontario Hydro Commission. By January 1, 1960 -- 1 year later -- the Vermont average had dropped to $7.91, and in 1966 was down to $7.37. This is a decrease of over 17 percent. By way of contrast, between 1959 and 1966 the national average bill for 25 kilowatt-hours decreased less than 1 percent, from $7.36 to $7.34.
The senior Senator from Vermont, Senator AIKEN, said recently about Vermont's success in lowering rates:
All the figures show that when St. Lawrence power was made available by the New York Power Authority, Vermont's rates dropped and there was a corresponding increase in electricity use.
I find those conclusions inescapable.
As to the construction of the Dickey-Lincoln project itself, it has been consistently recommended by the administration. It has been recommended by the House Committee on Appropriations, after an exhaustive staff study completed in June. It has been recommended by the Senate Committee on Appropriations.
What, then, should be the bar to Senate acceptance of it? There should be none.
An examination of the projects included in this bill, listed on pages 8 to 21 of the committee report, shows 42 projects associated with the production of public power -- and the only one listed for New England is for Dickey-Lincoln. The United States, except for New England, has long felt the benefits of a Federal yardstick. It is high time New England did.
The preliminary report of the Department of the Interior indicates that the cost of Dickey-Lincoln power delivered in the Boston area will be about $14.60 per kilowatt per year, contrasted with the current wholesale power costs of about $35 per kilowatt per year in Boston. This 50-percent saving should be conclusive evidence of the worth of the project.
I urge acceptance of the amount included for the Dickey-Lincoln project.
THE NEED FOR MORE ADEQUATE FUNDING OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL CONSTRUCTION GRANT PROGRAM
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, last year the Senate passed a far reaching and critically important measure authorizing major Federal support for the construction of sewage treatment facilities. The Senate voted, on July 13, 1966, a pledge of $6 billion to assist the States and local government in the battle against water pollution.
Later, after a conference with the House, the Senate unanimously agreed to the Clean Water Restoration Act with an authorization of $3.4 billion for construction grants. Of those funds $450 million were authorized for fiscal year 1968, a reduction from our original $600 million authorization for fiscal year 1968. At the time of adoption of the conference report I apologized to my colleagues for not obtaining the full Senate authorization. But the conferees on the part of the Senate and of the House of Representatives agreed that the $450 million figure was an absolute minimum if the water quality program was to proceed with minimum delay.
It is evident that last year's authorization was in large part dictated by budgetary expediency, as it appeared at that time. Since then our international commitments have required a great deal of belt tightening and will require more. Many vital public programs are going to suffer and, candidly, our water pollution fight must share the burden of what the other body now refers to as "recission."
Mr. President, I seriously considered offering an amendment today to increase the water pollution construction grant appropriation to $450 million. But, after thorough review of the present economic and fiscal situation, I cannot in good conscience offer that amendment.
I have carefully surveyed this question among a majority of the members of this body as to their views on this same problem. Although there are several Senators who think we can justify the full $450 million appropriation, by and large, the consensus seems to be that the course of action I am about to spell out is the sensible one to follow. There are some Senators, including the junior Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. NELSON], the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. WILLIAMS], and the Senator from Michigan [Mr. HART], who had planned to offer amendments to appropriate the full $450 million. Upon reflection, they, and the Senator from Michigan [Mr. HART], have agreed to join me in this course.
Fortunately, Mr. President, this year's appropriation need not be considered as a halt to the program. In last year's act, the Congress enacted a prefinancing provision which allows States which proceed to be reimbursed for the Federal share at such time as Congress appropriates essential funds for the program.
Though many States are not in a position to take advantage of this feature at the present time, several have indicated that they will move ahead on their own. I sincerely hope that the Congress does not default on this commitment.
In order that the record may be complete and so that my colleagues may fully comprehend the magnitude of our commitment, I would like to read from the statement of Federal Water Pollution Control Administration Commissioner James Quigley before the Senate Appropriations Committee do April 19 of this year. Mr. Quigley said:
At the present time there are 1,884 applications (for construction grants) being processed or being prepared with total eligible cost amounting to $13 billion . . .
The Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution has since obtained a breakdown of grant applications being processed or prepared which should be transmitted to the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration before the end of fiscal year 1968. The attached table fully indicates the magnitude of activity and the backlog with which the Federal Government will be confronted due to inadequate funding.
I ask unanimous consent that the table be printed in the RECORD following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. MUSKIE. In order that my colleagues will be able to compare prospective demands with the allocation for their States, I would like to insert a table which indicates the State-by-State breakdown of: First, the budget request which was approved by the House; second, the amount approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee; and, third, the amount authorized last year by the Congress.
I ask unanimous consent that that table be printed in the RECORD following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 2.)
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the States are moving ahead. Local communities are planning new waste treatment facilities. Federal water quality standards, now in effect, require secondary treatment as a minimum. All of this will increase costs.
Last year's legislation increased the Federal share of a waste treatment plant to a maximum 55 percent, under certain specified conditions. Several States now appear eligible for that maximum and more are moving, legislatively, to become eligible. In any event, the administration now assumes that the average Federal grant will approximate 40 percent. There no longer are dollar limitations on grants as there were prior to last year's bill. Therefore, if Mr. Quigley's statement is correct, the Federal share of $13 billion will approximate $5.2 billion now in the pipeline.
Mr. President, I summarize this information so that the Senate may be fully aware of the magnitude of the problem which confronts this Nation. I do not, however, intend to be critical of the job done by Senator ELLENDER and the Appropriations Committee. Under the most adverse conditions the able Senator from Louisiana has managed to obtain an increase over the budget request which the House has already accepted.
In a period of intensive pressure to cut the budget, water pollution control has received essential recognition by the Appropriations Committee.
Mr. President, I think it is important that I do not conclude on a distressing note. We all know the need for funds. We are all aware of the fact that the full authorization could be effectively used and, if some were to be left over, the slack would be quickly taken up as the program gains momentum.
I would, however, call attention to the fact that this legislation is not the final word on any public works matter just as other appropriation legislation pending and passed is not the final word. We do have, at the end of every session of Congress and soon after the beginning of every new session, supplemental appropriations requests. The concept behind supplemental requests is that demands, both peaceful and military, are not wholly predictable and that new needs develop or greater demands are made.
Early next year there will be such a supplemental appropriation. I sincerely hope that, at that time, the Public Works Appropriations Subcommittee will call officials from the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration for the purpose of reviewing grant applications and available funds. It may be that it will be essential to appropriate additional funds to keep this vital program alive, and I would hope that the Congress would be more responsive at that time.
I have discussed this point with the distinguished senior Senator from Louisiana, and it is on the basis of that discussion that I recommend this course of action to the Senate.
May I at this time, if the distinguished Senator from Louisiana will indulge me, put this question to him?
In the Senator's report accompanying the public works appropriation bill the following statement appears:
In view of the budgetary situation and the uncertainty of the actual need at this time, the committee recommended a token increase of $22 million to indicate its support for the program.
Prior to that statement, the report quotes Assistant Secretary Di Luzio as saying
We expect, therefore, that after a moderate start during the first and second quarters of fiscal year 1988, the equivalent rate of grant awards in the third and fourth quarters will be far greater, perhaps equivalent to an annual rate of $300 to $350 million.
On this basis does the Senator anticipate the subcommittee will give careful and sympathetic attention to a request for a supplemental appropriation for the sewage treatment construction grant program?
May I say that I have been joined in this request by the distinguished Senator from New Jersey [Mr. WILLIAMS], the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. NELSON], and the distinguished Senator from Michigan [Mr. HART].
Mr. ELLENDER. The response to the Senator's question is in the affirmative. In the meantime, I would suggest that the distinguished Senator from Maine try to get a budget estimate for whatever amount is required for construction grants in excess of the appropriation up to the full authorization of $450 million.
Mr. President, while I am on my feet, I wish to state that the distinguished Senator from Maine appeared and made a very valid argument for the full amount authorized, and presented splendid testimony, which would have justified the committee recommending the full amount. But it was argued that if the committee acceded to the request of the Senator from Maine, we would be bringing to the Senate a bill over the amount of the budget requests by more than $125 million, and an increase of $247,000,000 in the item for construction grants.
So, as the Senator stated, in order to show our interest in this program, the committee agreed to an increase of $22 million or about a 10 percent increase, making a total, included in the appropriation bill, of $225 million. I was glad that the committee agreed to that amount, and I believe the Senate as a whole will also agree to it. I hope that the Senator from Maine will be successful in getting a budget estimate; and if, as, and when the supplemental bill does come before the Senate, I shall do all I can to provide whatever is required up to the full amount of the authorization.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I am grateful for that response from the Senator from Louisiana, which is typical of his generosity. All he is asking us to do is to make the case again after the first of the year, which is a reasonable request. We will make that case, as the facts dictate.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD the statements I made on the two occasions I appeared before the Public Works Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, to be sure that our position will be clear in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the statements were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENT BY SENATOR EDMUND S. MUSKIE, OF MAINE, BEFORE THE PUBLIC WORKS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE, MAY 10, 1967
Earlier this year, when the Congress received the administration's proposed budget for 1968, I took the Senate floor to note that that document grossly underestimated the cost associated with the water pollution control needs of this country. At that time I committed myself to request an opportunity to appear before your committee to request that the full $450 million authorized by the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966 for fiscal year 1968 be made available for waste treatment grants in 1968.
As you will recall, last year the Senate unanimously agreed to legislation which would have authorized $6 billion over a five year period for grants to construct waste treatment facilities. For a variety of reasons, including the fact that the other body authorized considerably less money in their bill, the figure finally agreed to was $3.4 billion for a period of four years. This was below what our information indicated to be the national need. It was, in fact, a minimum figure.
The final figure of $450 million for 1968 represented a $150 million cut below the initial Senate recommendation. The Senate conferees knew, in accepting the lower figure, that it would be imperative that no less than $450 million be appropriated for fiscal 1968 to demonstrate to the States and their local units of Government that the Federal Government was fully prepared to keep the commitments set forth in the Clean Water Restoration Act.
Last year's action provided an incentive program designed to encourage the States to step up their own water improvement programs, by providing a portion of the cost of municipal waste treatment facilities and by establishing enforceable statewide water quality standards. The Federal share of any approved project's cost was set at a flat 30 percent without dollar limitations. This amount increases to 40 percent if the State provides 30 percent of the project's cost and to 50 percent if the State sets the aforementioned water quality standards and provides 25 percent of the project's cost. There was no change in the existing provision of the water pollution control act which provides for a 10 percent increase in the Federal grant if the project is consistent with a metropolitan area plan.
In essence, Mr. Chairman, this means that if a State takes maximum advantage of Federal incentives a waste treatment project could receive a Federal grant of 55 percent.
In order to accomplish the purpose for which the incentives are designed many States must enact water quality standards and matching grant legislation; some State legislatures are now in session. If we are to achieve the goal of encouraging maximum State activity, those State legislatures must be assured that the Federal Government intends to honor its commitments.
There is no doubt in my mind that their response will be somewhat less than wholehearted if the Congress leaves the budget request as it stands and inadequate funds are made available.
But there is more than just a psychological factor involved in justification for increasing the appropriation over the administration's request.
The allocation formula in existing raw is such that many states will not receive their full share under the Federal grant formula even if the full $450 million were to be appropriated.
Information supplied the committee indicates that $179,585,532 will be spent in 1968 in New York City alone. Therefore, even if all of New York's money were allocated to the city of New York, that city would receive only a little over 20 percent of its total cost. And in New York because the state provides a 30 percent matching grant the Federal share would be at least 40 percent. New York is also moving to establish enforceable state-wide water quality standards which would mean that New York City is potentially eligible for 50 percent of its costs.
Mayor Ralph Locher testified before the committee last year that it would cost the city of Cleveland $900 million to eliminate water pollution. Mayor Locher noted that this sum is the equivalent of 15 years of the city's general fund budget of $62 million. It is worth noting that the public health service reports that Cuyahoga River, which flows through Cleveland, is so polluted that it has become a fire hazard. The city has found it necessary to construct firebreaks out into the river to facilitate sectioning off the fires when they occur. There was a fire on the Maumee River, which flows through the neighboring city of Toledo, in March of 1962.
There are many other examples which are illustrative of the problem which the attached chart demonstrates. I would like to have the chart included in the record at this point. In addition, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have inserted in the record several letters which I have received from communities alarmed because of financial problems which will be caused by congressional concurrence in the administration's budget request.
A week ago this past, Sunday, the President announced the decision to go ahead with the supersonic transport, the SST, and recommended that $198 million be made available in fiscal year 1968 for this project. In the week prior to this announcement, in hearings before the House Committee on Public Works, the Secretary of the Interior and representatives of the Federal water pollution control administration justified the water pollution budget request on the basis of our international commitments.
Mr. Chairman, I have no philosophical objections to construction of a supersonic plane, but I cannot in good conscience accept a decision which suggests that we spend nearly $200 million next year to increase the rapidity by which one can go from Washington, D.C., on the polluted Potomac, to smog-ridden Los Angeles when at the same time a decision has been made that we cannot afford to take essential steps for the protection and enhancement of the quality of our environment.
I make this point, Mr. Chairman, to indicate my concern over what appears to be a case of putting short-term budgetary expediency ahead of public responsibility in the area of environmental quality, while at the same time making that budget flexible for a single-purpose transportation vehicle. If we can do one, we can do the other.
I do not believe that there is any question in the minds of the members of this body, those of us who voted 90-0 last year for a $6 billion water pollution program, that we must move rapidly to preserve, and in many instances to reclaim, the quality of the nation's rivers, lakes and streams.
But if there is any question I would like to quote from the statement of Mr. James M. Quigley, Commissioner, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, which was delivered to this committee on April 19.
On page 16 of Mr. Quigley's prepared text appears the following statement: "At the present time there are 1884 applications being processed or being prepared with total eligible cost amounting to $13 billion and requiring over $255 million in Federal grants, based on existing provisions. In contrast we have available $76 million for this purpose." That statement contains two important items. First, it tends to verify the information received by the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution that there is a huge backlog of needed waste treatment facilities -- our estimate is somewhat in excess of $20 billion.
The second point, Mr. Chairman, is that that statement contains a little double talk. The $255 million figure stated as the federal share of that amount is not valid. As of July 1, 1967, there will be no dollar limitations on waste treatment projects. Those projects, if only eligible for the minimum 30 percent, would require $3.9 billion worth of Federal funds, and if eligible for the full 55 percent would require $7.1 billion.
According to the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration the average grant will be approximately 40 percent. Therefore, I think we can assume that $13 billion worth of projects will cost the Federal Government no less than $5.2 billion. We are asking less than 10 percent of that amount this year.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Public Works, the Senate, and the House are unanimous in the belief that the Federal Government has an obligation to improve the water quality of this nation. I urge the Committee on Appropriations to take the next major step in seeing that we move as rapidly as possible down the road, toward achieving that goal.
TESTIMONY BY SENATOR EDMUND S. MUSKIE, OF MAINE, CHAIRMAN OF THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON AIR AND WATER POLLUTION, BEFORE THE PUBLIC WORKS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, JULY 31, 1967, S. 126, U.S. CAPITOL
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to appear for the second time this year before your committee to discuss construction grant appropriations for the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration.
On the 18th day of July, the other body passed the bill now pending before this committee without improving on the request of the President for water pollution construction funds. There was an effort on the floor to reinstate the full $450 million authorized last year but that effort was to no avail. However, Mr. Chairman, a solid record of need was developed and many members of the other body gave evidence of their concern.
The inadequate request by the administration and the action by the House once again places a severe burden on the Senate to take the necessary steps to secure needed funds to carry forward this vital social program. Once again we are called upon to back up our actions with dollars.
Mr. Chairman, last year the Senate voted a $6 billion authorization for five years for water pollution control. That amount was pared by conference to an absolute minimum of $3.4 billion for four years. The conference action was accepted unanimously by both sides. Many words were spoken about the need and the obligation of the Congress to respond to that need. At that time I pledged that I would make every effort to see that that need did not go unmet.
Because of my pledge, I have been bombarded, during the past six months, with letters from cities, from counties and from States, appealing to me to work for improvement on the President's budget request. l want to assure this committee that I intend to honor that commitment. That is why I am here today and that is why I will continue to fight for appropriation of the full $450 million authorized for fiscal year 1968.
I recognize that the House committee based its recommendation on the 1967 rate of expenditures. That argument does not take into account the backlog of projects and proposals which were waiting for the new formulae which took effect July 1, 1967. I have previously detailed to this committee the reasons for appropriating the full authorization. The record of your hearing of May 10 adequately indicates the needs of the major cities of this country and how those needs relate to the inadequate recommendation of the administration.
I think it may be helpful to the committee if I recall part of my testimony from the May 10 hearing. At that time I said:
"I do not believe that there is any question in the minds of the Members of this body, those of us who voted 90-0 last year for a $6 billion water pollution program, that we must move rapidly to preserve, and in many instances to reclaim, the quality of the Nation's rivers, lakes and streams. But if there is any question I would like to quote from the statement of Mr. James M. Quigley, commissioner, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, which was delivered to this committee on April 19."
"On page 16 of Mr. Quigley's prepared text appears the following statement: At the present time there are 1884 applications being processed or being prepared with total eligible cost amounting to $13 billion and requiring over $255 million in Federal grants, based on existing provisions. In contrast we have available $76 million for this purpose.
"That statement contains two important items. First, it tends to verify the information received by the subcommittee on air and water pollution that there is a huge backlog of needed waste treatment facilities-our estimate is somewhat in excess o1 $20 billion.
"The second point, Mr. Chairman, is that that statement contains a little double talk. The $255 million figure stated as the Federal share of that amount is not valid. As of July 1, 1967, there will be no dollar limitations on waste treatment projects. Those projects, if only eligible for the minimum 30 percent, would require $3.9 billion worth of Federal funds, and if eligible for the full 55 percent would require $7.1 billion."
"According to the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration the average grant will be approximately 40 percent. Therefore, I think we can assume that $13 billion worth of projects will cost the Federal Government no less than $5.2 billion. We are asking less than 10 percent of that amount this year."
I would like to cite three new and striking examples.
The first example involves the State of Louisiana. There are, at the present time, 43 sewage treatment construction grant requests for Louisiana communities for fiscal year 1968 in the Federal Water Pollution Control Agency Regional Office, in the State agency or in preparation at the local level. The 43 project requests would require Federal grants totaling $8,887,595. If the House passed appropriation stands, Louisiana would have available from FY 1968 allocations and the balance from its FY 1967 allocation $4,181,600, or less than 50 percent of its needs. A full appropriation of $450,000,000 for this program would allow a FY 1968 allocation of $8,289,300 for Louisiana which, when added to the FY 1967 balance, would make available $8,661,100 for the Louisiana projects.
The second example relates to the State of Oregon.
Earlier this month I received a copy of a letter written to Representative Al Ullman from the Oregon State Sanitary Authority. I would like to insert that letter in the record at this point and highlight the important points:
1. Oregon has enacted legislation enabling that State to receive incentive grants for projects constructed within that State, in some instances such grants to be as high as 55 percent.
2. Oregon is eligible in 1968, under the administration request, for $2,262,550 and, under the authorized amount, $4,695,000. The State Pollution Control Authority has processed grants for FY 1968 which will require $14,324,788 of Federal funds. And the State of Oregon is prepared to put up $7,461,738.
3. The very best Oregon can hope to do, even if the full amount authorized is appropriated, would be nearly $10 million short of their authorized share under the new grant formulae.
My third example, Mr. Chairman, is that of my own state of Maine. Just this past week I was informed that Maine's request for grants for FY 1968 would require $4.5 million in Federal funds if the Federal commitment were implemented in accordance with the matching grant formulae. Under the President's request Maine would be eligible for only $1,785,950 and, under the authorized amount, only $3,118,950. In other words, Mr. Chairman, Maine will be prepared in fiscal year 1968 to spend at a level for which Federal grant funds will not be available until 1969.
I ask unanimous consent that a chart containing additional examples be inserted in the RECORD at this point.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that 16 states (including Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands) have authorized programs which will make them eligible for the incentive assistance provided in the Clean Water Restoration Act, and 13 other states have legislation pending which would make them eligible also.
I doubt that any of these States will have grant requests less than their allocation. All of the States are now required to meet water quality standards which were filed on July 1 of this year. Also I am reliably informed that the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration is receiving grant applications at a phenomenal rate due to the elimination of the dollar ceilings as of July 1, 1967.
More is involved than the relationship between the grant requests and available funds, Mr. Chairman. In 1965 and 1966 the Congress, and particularly the Senate, served notice on States, local governments and private businesses to accelerate the rate of pollution control and abatement. Time after time we were challenged by witnesses on the question: Will funds be available from the Federal Government if we do our share? The States and localities are gearing up to do their share, Mr. Chairman. If we do not make available the funds authorized in the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966, serious doubts will be raised as to our intentions in making good our pledge to the country. A serious blow will be delivered to this program, which is vital to the health and welfare of our country.
In light of all of these factors, I strongly urge you to include, in this appropriation bill, the full $450 million authorized for 1968.