CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE

July 12, 1968

Page 20971

SECTION 204 OF THE DEMONSTRATION CITIES AND METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT ACT

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I was disappointed in the action that the House took on Wednesday in repealing section 204 of the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966.

Section 204 provides that all applications for Federal assistance for certain physical development projects be accompanied by the comments of an areawide planning agency. For the past several months the Bureau of the Budget has had the responsibility for implenting section 204. In reviewing the first 6 months of its implementation, the Budget Bureau learned that the review process under section 204 has stimulated rational and comprehensive planning throughout the country.

In another recent study, the National Association of Counties and the National League of Cities jointly examined the results of the first year of section 204. This study brought to light many examples of significant savings to local governments and a prevention of duplication and inconsistent planning. I ask unanimous consent that these examples of section 204's success be printed at this point in the RECORD.

There being no objection, the examples were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:

(1) Regional Planning Council (Baltimore Maryland) :

The City of Annapolis and Anne Arundel County each submitted applications for financial assistance from the Department of Interior for the construction of sewage treatment plants. In reviewing the plans the Regional Planning Council noted that the two plants were proposed to be constructed relatively close to each other, south of Annapolis. The Council gave approval to the plan for construction of a sewage treatment plant but only on condition that one plant was constructed to serve the purposes of the two originally proposed. The Council felt that one plant could more efficiently serve the residents of both jurisdictions. In addition to money savings as a result of cutting operating expenses, it is estimated that over $700,000 would be saved in constructing one plant, instead of two.

The City and the County are currently negotiating to determine what changes will be necessary in their plans and to develop a working relationship for such an operation.

(2) Columbia Region Association of Governments (Portland, Oregon)

(a) Seventeen separate sewage treatment facilities in five cities and three counties in the Portland area were under condemnation and applications for Federal assistance to upgrade these facilities to meet state standards were received by CRAG. After receiving the applications, CRAG recommended that the jurisdictions involved consider the construction of one larger, more advanced facility to replace the others instead of upgrading them. This recommendation was accepted unanimously by the jurisdictions and, in addition to operating savings, resulted in savings of $1.5 million over the cost of upgrading.

(b) The City of Troutdale, 1,500 population, submitted an application for a sewage system designed to accommodate the city's projected population for the next 20 years. In reviewing the application CRAG indicated that their population estimate showed considerably more growth than the city had designed for. After additional study, the application was revised to combine the facilities of three cities and one-half of the county, a population of 20,000, and which would have the capability to handle the actual expected population growth.

(c) A water district in Washington State submitted an application for review which requested funds from Farmers Home Administration for the provision of a 2-inch water line to serve a school and 20 residences. CRAG reviewed the project application and recommended that an additional $10,000 be requested to construct a 6-inch water line because CRAG's population estimates showed substantial growth in the area and the larger line would also be sufficient for fire protection purposes. Farmers Home Administration chose not to follow the recommendation and funded the 2-inch line.

(3) Metropolitan Area Planning Council (Boston, Mass.) :

A relatively small jurisdiction submitted an application for review providing for waste treatment plant facility. The application, in the opinion of the Council, was inadequate in design and construction and was directed to an inappropriate federal agency and was subsequently rejected by that agency. The Council worked with the City re-studying their needs and goals. This reevaluation resulted in a revised application providing for two plants to adequately handle a larger projected population and an already deteriorating health situation, which was forwarded to the appropriate agency where the project was funded.

(4) Erie and Niagara Counties Regional Planning Board (Buffalo, N.Y.)

(a) An application from the State for assistance to fund a major highway interchange in the Downtown Buffalo area was received by the Board. This project would have resulted in an island of about two acres of prime downtown real estate. The City of Buffalo was brought into the discussion of the application and, due to the potentially adverse effects on the downtown area the project has been put in abeyance.

(b) A number of applications for 701 planning assistance were subsequently amended. prior to submission to HUD, as a result of the review process. In each case the problem was that money was being requested to collect data and information which had already been collected by some other government or regional agency.

(5) Metropolitan Council (St. Paul, Minnesota) :

Recently the Metropolitan Council, the “204" review and comment agency, had a request from several communities in southwestern section of the metropolitan area for sewer service. These communities (including cities of Minnetonka and Ocono) were applying for federal funds to develop a sewer district facility. The Metropolitan Council in having prepared a total sewer service plan for the region was in a position to review the pollution problems of Lake Minnetonka (which the communities border) and provide an economically feasible treatment facility. The grant application of the communities was approved with request they enlarge their service district to pick up existing and future sewage treatment problems in the southwest area to assist in the cleanup of the lake. The inter-community facility will also provide significant construction and operational savings.

(6) East West Gateway Coordinating Council (St. Louis, Missouri)

(a) An application for funds to construct a section of an interstate highway in Illinois was received for review by the Council. In examining the plans it was apparent that the highway would be built so as to cross at the end of the proposed runway extension at the Parks Bi-State Airport. FAA funds had just been approved for the extension of the runway. Through negotiations, the highway plans were adjusted to move the highway further from the end of the runway, out of the immediate flight path of departing aircraft.

(7) Denver Regional Council of Governments (Denver, Colorado) :

The review process in the Denver area has led to a substantially improved planning process at all levels of government. With 264 taxing jurisdictions in the immediate area, it was necessary to establish a system for coordination of applications which required that each local planning board application just be submitted to the responsible city planning board for review, and then to other planning agencies with an interest before submission to the council of governments. This sophistication of the 204 review process has, through substantial involvement of the local governments, considerably improved local and federal program coordination and cooperation.

(8) Association of Bay Area Governmentments (San Francisco, Calif.)

(a) Special districts and authorities in the Bay area are particularly conscious of the regional review process. In at least one case, a smaller suburban city submitted plans for the expansion of existing water facilities. During the review process, it was noted that the developing poor water supply condition would be increased if the city's proposal was approved. It was recommended that consideration be given to contract to receive water from the special district's facilities, the cost of which would be the same or less than that obtained through an expanded city facility.

(b) In reviewing an application for funds for outdoor recreation by Santa Clara county it was determined that ABAG had already collected substantial portions of the data that was proposed to be collected in the application. The application was amended at a savings to the county.

(9) Metropolitan Planning Commission (Kansas City, Missouri)

(a) Four counties in the area each separately submitted applications for 701 planning assistance. In reviewing the applications, the MPC recommended that the proposed projects be consolidated and that one application be submitted for the entire four county area. The subregional planning program would go through the MPC resulting in considerable savings in staff and administrative costs and eliminate the possibility of conflicting, uncoordinated local plans designed separately. The jurisdictions have accepted this proposal.

(b) A water district in a sparsely settled portion of the SMSA submitted an application for funds to provide expanded water services. The funding agency was to be Farmers Home Administration. The MPC population estimates predicted that within five years there would be a considerable influx of population into the area in question and recommended that the system be designed to handle this more realistic population load. The application is now in abeyance pending further studies.

(c) An application was received from a community bordering the City of Kansas City. The application was for establishment of a sewage treatment plant. Upon review it was determined that the plant was proposed to be located approximately one mile from an existing Kansas City facility. The MPC recommended that a line be extended to the Kansas City plant from the suburban community. There would be operational and construction savings. Negotiations are now in process to determine if this procedure will be feasible.

CONCLUSION

Both the National League of Cities and National Association of Counties have supported Section 204 for regional review and comment of local government applications for federal grants. They believe this function is extremely useful in coordinating federal programs, in promoting local government cooperation and in preventing facility duplications or inconsistencies.

The National Association of Counties also supports the application of the "204" regional review and comment principle to non-metropolitan areas. In several of these areas this process has already been established by the local governments.

Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, because I am convinced of the importance of section 204 it is my hope that the conferees on S. 3497 will act to restore this effective review process.