November 12, 1969
Page 33913
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I am hopeful that the Senate will vote down the motion to recommit the bill to committee.
Let me say in passing that the main reason for the provision of funds over and above the budget relates to only one item. The House voted, as all of us know, $600 million for water pollution control. The Appropriations Committee recommends to the Senate that $1 billion be provided. I know that is money that will be well spent. I am hopeful that the executive branch will be able to allocate the funds during the remainder of this current fiscal year.
I repeat my belief that the committee has done a good job, and I hope that the motion of the Senator from Delaware will be defeated.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I support the distinguished Senator from Louisiana with regard to the point he has made in connection with financing waste treatment plants. The amount of the difference between the budget estimate and the amount of the bill as reported to the Senate is roughly $789 million, almost exactly the increase in the bill as reported to the Senate over the budget estimate for water pollution control.
I think it is important that this point be made to the Senate, that the Senate consider it carefully, and that the Senate deliberately support or disapprove this increase.
Mr. President, the $1 billion appropriation included in this legislation for the Nation's water pollution control program represents the culmination of a great deal of hard work by a great many people. It represents to those of us who have lived with, developed, and maintained a deep interest in this program for many years, a significant victory for national priorities over budgetary expediency.
Mr. President, this victory could not have been achieved without the dedication, the interest, or the commitment of the senior Senator from Louisiana and the chairman of the Public Works Appropriation Subcommittee, Senator ELLENDER.
Senator ELLENDER promised to do his best to maintain a strong water pollution control program, and he has carried out that commitment. Last year, when nearly all domestic programs suffered from both budgetary and Appropriations Committee cuts, Senator ELLENDER achieved a Senate increase in the water pollution construction grant program of $22 million. The conference committee agreed on an increase of $11 million more than the budget request for water pollution – perhaps the most significant program increase in any of the national priority programs last year. When Senator BOGGS and I appeared before Senator ELLENDER in 1968, he told us of his desire to see the level of funding equal to the demand for water pollution construction grants.
The information we had last year was inadequate. The Clean Water Restoration Act, at that time, was effectively 1 year old. The States had not begun to move to assess their own needs – to date a great many States have not. The demand for construction grants as estimated by the Department of the Interior reflected budgetary expediency more than program need.
This year when Senator BOGGS and I joined the Citizens Crusade for Clean Water before Senator ELLENDER's subcommittee, the demand had changed. Several additional major States had joined the list of States with an inventory of water pollution needs. It was obvious that the demand for water pollution funds far exceeded the $214 million requested in the President's budget. Secretary of the Interior Walter Hickel attested to this fact when he indicated that $600 million could usefully be spent in fiscal year 1970. But the Citizens Crusade, Senator BOGGS, Senator ELLENDER, and I were not satisfied with that estimate.
Senator ELLENDER asked the Department of the Interior to provide a detailed estimate of the backlog of construction grant applications. The Citizens Crusade for Clean Water, in cooperation with the Council of State Governments, requested the Governors of all affected States to provide up-to-date information on the amount of grant funds which could be effectively obligated in this fiscal year. The information provided by the Department and the Crusade indicated that more than the authorized billion dollars could be obligated, that the States were moving faster than had been anticipated and that even a fully funded program would be inadequate if reimbursable requirements were considered.
Mr. President, a man with a lesser commitment would have accepted the initial information of the Secretary of the Interior and appropriated an amount equal to that which was voted by the House of Representatives.
A man of lesser commitment would have accepted budgetary expediency over national priorities. Senator ELLENDER has fulfilled the faith of those of us who worked with the Public Works Appropriations Subcommittee, who committed ourselves to support the level of appropriation which he thought could be justifiably obligated, and who believed that he would work to see that the Nation's water pollution program is funded at the level of need.
In the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966, Congress pledged $1 billion for fiscal year 1970 for water pollution control. This is the first time that Congress has made an effort to meet that commitment. That commitment was made in 1966 for the purpose of stimulating State and local efforts without which we will not be able to deal with the pollution of our rivers and waterways in this country.
The States have responded to that incentive. They have approved bond issues. They have raised taxes. They have set water quality standards on the assumption that we would meet our commitment.
Just this past week, in my State of Maine, the people approved a bond issue of $50 million – that is $50 per capita – to meet the State's responsibility generated by our action in 1966.
That is a lot of money in Maine, and is an indication of their concern with water pollution. The voters of Maine turned down a highway bond issue referendum on that very same day.
Concern for this problem is sweeping the country. The people are far ahead of Congress and the State legislatures in their insistence that we deal with it.
Mr. President, let us see how the budget estimate for water pollution control measures up to the response the States have made to our legislation of 1966.
Under the funding level of $214 million proposed by the President, only 8 percent of current requirements could be met. The needs of 12 States would be met but programs in 38 States would be underfunded if the $214 million provided in the budget were allocated according to the formula in the authorizing act. This is far short of the commitment we made in 1966. At a level of $600 million, the figure approved by the House of Representatives, only 22 percent of nationwide needs could be met. The needs of 24 States would be met, but those of 26 would be underfunded.
Even at the full funding of $1 billion, only 37 percent of the current national requirements would be met. At this level, the needs of 32 States would be filled but 18 would remain underfunded.
The States have assumed that the Federal Government would keep its promise of 1966 and on that basis enact effective programs.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. CASE. I think the Senator from Maine has made a very important statement. From our experience in New Jersey I want completely to support it.
This past Tuesday, among other beneficent accomplishments made by the voters of New Jersey, was approval of a referendum for pollution control based upon the 1966 act and dependent upon it in the amount of several hundred million dollars.
The action of the New Jersey voters, and the voters of Maine, and other actions of the people throughout the country, would indicate the awakening realization in this country that its resources are too precious any longer to squander them, that the time has come to turn away from the pollution of our environment and to preserve and rehabilitate it.
The action proposed by the distinguished Senator from Delaware, whom I have very often supported in matters of fiscal integrity, if it should succeed here, would be most unfortunate.
While I am on my feet, I should like to say a word on behalf of our distinguished chairman, whose actions in this matter have been highly responsible and taken with the greatest of care.
The distinguished Senator from Louisiana (Mr. ELLENDER) is a man who is as much a pennypincher as anyone I know of in this body. For him to have come along with this program of water pollution control is the best indication in the world of the seriousness of the problem to the Nation.
I hope very much, for that reason specifically, that the motion of the Senator from Delaware will be defeated.
I pay my highest tribute to the distinguished chairman of the committee for his actions in this matter and on the bill generally
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I should like to add to the tribute just paid to the Senator from Louisiana. I have worked with him in three Congresses now on this question of funding the water pollution program. He has always refused to add any funds which could not be supported by the facts as to need.
This was the measure we applied this year. I have been in touch with him throughout the year in connection with this problem and this program, and I must say that I could not ask for a more effective fighter in any cause in which I believe than the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. ELLENDER).
He has brought out the full funding figure, which I never expected to get out of the Appropriations Committee. He did it because he is convinced of the need for that level of funding, and for his actions I pay honor to him here this afternoon. I hope that we will give him the support that his hard work and commitment and dedication have so richly earned for him.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. HANSEN. I would like, first of all, to express the great regard I have for my colleague from Maine. I think, as he made his initial statement, it would be well to emphasize or underscore what he said about the voters in his State. As I understood my distinguished colleague, he spoke about their approving a bond issue for water pollution control. Is that correct?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is right, the second one in the last 10 years, for $50 million. The earlier one was for $25 million. For a State with a population of 10 million, that would be the equivalent of $750 million.
Mr. HANSEN. Did the Senator say that at nearly the same time the people of his State rejected a highway bonding proposal?
Mr. MUSKIE. That is right.
Mr. HANSEN. I think the people of the great State of Maine are being very responsible. It is this kind of discriminating bit of judgment that I find not in evidence this afternoon. I do not for one moment challenge the wisdom of a water pollution control bill. I am in support of it. I think what needs to be emphasized, however, is that there is great concern throughout the country, and certainly this administration is very much concerned, over having a balanced budget. If we approve the bill before us, then it seems to me we have a responsibility, if not this afternoon, then perhaps at some later date, to cut back an appropriation proposal that has been made by the administration, in order to accommodate the increases that are provided in the bill before us.
I certainly could not say where we should cut this bill. I think what the distinguished senior Senator from Delaware is saying is that no one would know better than the Public Works Committee where cuts could be made in order to assign the proper priorities to the moneys we propose to appropriate here this afternoon.
It is with that thought in mind that I shall be voting in support of the motion made by my distinguished colleague from Delaware.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have included in the RECORD copies of telegrams and letters received from almost every State supporting the $1 billion item for water pollution control in this bill.
There being no objection, the communications were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
CHARLESTON, W. VA.
Council of State Governments,
1735 DeSales St.,
Washington, D.C.:
Mr. Norman Billings telegram to Dr. N. H. Dyer referred to this agency for reply your item 1; exact amount of Federal funds not known at this time. Legislation being studied by legislative interim committee to provide State matching funds which, if passed and funded, would require more Federal funds than currently required under straight 30 percent Federal participation. Your item 2; the reply is no.
EDGAR N. HENRY, Chief, Division of Water Resources.
PIERRE, S. DAK.
Council of State Governments,
1735 DeSales St.,
Washington, D.C.:
Response to Norman Billings Wire on Federal financing for P.L. 660. One – One million from July 1, 1969, to Dec. 31, 1970. Two – No, we have always had sufficient funds available.
CHARLES E. CARL, Secretary and Executive Officer,
South Dakota Committee on Pollution.
MONTGOMERY, ALA.
Council of State Governments,
1735 DeSales St.,
Washington, D.C.:
Replying to Billings telegram, 11 million could not be expended between July 1, 1969 and December 31, 1970. Have not been discouraged from submitting applications.
ARTHUR N. BECK, Technical Secretary, Water Improvement Commission.
DES MOINES, IOWA.
Council of State Governments,
1735 DeSales St.,
Washington, D.C. (Attention Norman Billings:)
Re tel Oct. 14 1. On basis of 600 million dollar appropriation. Iowa would be able to fund all anticipated grant applications to December 31, 1970.
2. Present Federal fund allotment has been adequate to fund nearly all grant applications up to present fiscal year.
R. J. SCHLIEKELMAN, Director, Water Pollution Division, Iowa State Health Department.
AUSTIN, TEX.
Council of State Governments,
1735 DeSales Street,
Washington, D.C.:
Urge consideration and support of bipartisan amendment to increase fiscal 1970 appropriation to $1 billion as authorized by the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966 far H.R.14159.
Funding is needed to control water pollution and to enhance the economy of Texas. Recent crises in the municipal bond market along with defeat of a statewide water plan bond proposal require significant attention to using and reusing water supplies already available through efficient refineries. Control of water quality through effective and efficient waste treatment facilities is significantly needed.
From the inception of P.L. 660 twelve years ago, more than 9,500 grants have been made which provide or upgrade the treatment of waste from approximately 75 million persons – total Federal cost – has been $1.36 billion with state and local investment totaling nearly $4.7 billion.
Substantial lead time is needed on waste treatment facilities planning and construction; therefore, continuing adequately funded commitment from Congress necessary for adequate waste treatment facilities.
In view of these statistics and changing conditions in Texas, it is recommended that the 1970 appropriation be at a level of one billion dollars as authorized by the Clean Water Restoration Act. Thank you.
Sincerely,
PRESTON SMITH, Governor of Texas.
NEW ORLEANS, LA.
Norman Billings,
Council of State Governments,
Washington, D.C.:
Appears P.L. 660 allocation of 4 million under continuing resolution adequate for fiscal 70. High interest rates are severely curtailing projects and cast some uncertainty on prospects for utilizing the full 4 million however a substantial improvement in bond markets could stimulate grant needs higher than are now anticipated in our state P.L. 660 applications have not been appreciably discouraged for lack of Federal funds.
JOHN E. TRYGG, Director, Bureau of Environmental Health, Louisiana State Board of Health.
BOSTON, MASS.
Council of State Governments,
Washington, D.C.:
In regards mass water pollution control program #1 can expend 32 million dollars between July 1st 1969 and December 31st I970 of PL660 fund #2 state pre-finance Federal grant. Federal grant pre finance to date 14 million dollars.
T. C. McMANN, Director of Division, WPC Mass Water Resource Commission.
HARRISBURG, PA.
Council of State Governments,
1735 DeSales Street,
Washington, D.C.:
In accordance With request from Norman Billings, acting chairman, Interstate Conference on Water Problems, information concerning Pennsylvania's sewerage construction grants under Public Law 660 follows: 1. If availability of Federal funds not a limiting factor we could expend $76.3 million between July 1, I969 and December 31, 1970. This includes repayment of $20 million to State for State advances and 50% Federal grant payments to eligible projects. 2. Many municipalities, especially smaller ones, have been reluctant to submit applications as result of awareness of lack of Federal funds. No es mate available.
WESLEY E. GILBERTSON, Deputy Secretary for Environmental Protection.
INDIANA STREAM POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
Indianapolis, Ind.
Council of State Governments,
1735 DeSales Street,
Washington, D.C.:
Question 1. Estimate Indiana could match (25%) and expand $13 million in Federal funds between July I, 1969, and December 3I, 1970. Applications for fiscal 1970 total 135 requesting $44,264,900; Federal grants and State grants totaling $22,018,721 one of Indiana's criteria for priority is submissions of completed plans and specifications and 49 applicants have complied question 2 to a limited degree. No estimate available.
B. A. POOLE, Technical Secretary.
SOUTH CAROLINA POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITY,
Columbia, S.C.
Council of State Governments,
1735 DeSales St.,
Washington, D.C.
Reference Norman Billings, acting chairman, Interstate Conference on Water Problems, eighth floor, Stevens T. Mason Building, Lansing, Mich. 4892. No. 1 twelve million Federal dollars expendable between July 1st, 1969 and December 31st, 1970. If no limiting factor No. 2 yes. No estimate.
W. T. LINTON, Executive Director.
CHARLESTON, W. VA.
Council of State Governments,
1735 DeSales St.,
Washington, D.C.
DL660 funds are administered in West Virginia by E. N. Henry, chief, Water Resources Division, Dept. of Natural Resources. Your request has been referred to his office.
N. H. DYER, State Director of Health.
TENNESSEE STREAM POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
Nashville, Tenn.
Council of State Governments,
1735 DeSales St.,
Washington, D.C.
1. Tennessee could expend $39 million Federal grants for present applications on file and expects applications for at least $3I million more by April 1970 for next year grants. 2. At least the $31 million grant applications have been discouraged.
S. LEARY JONES, Executive Secretary.
MISSISSIPPI AIR AND WATER POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION,
Jackson, Miss.
Council of State Governments,
1735 DeSales St.,
Washington, D.C.
October 14 telegram to Mississippi State Board of Health referred this agency for reply. Response to questions as follows: (1) No immediate estimate but doubtful We could expend our portion of $600,000,000 allocation. (2) No.
ROBERT S. WRIGHT, Exective Secretary.
NEW MEXICO WATER QUALITY CONTROL COMMISSION,
Sante Fe, N. Mex.
Norman Billings,
Council of State Governments,
Washington, D.C.:
Below is response to your telegram of October 15' 1969, 7:53 a.m.
1. There are about five projects underway to be completed by December 31, 1970, at a Federal dollar commitment of about $400,000. No additional projects are planned or needed.
2. No. New Mexico has not been discouraged from submitting applications because of lack of Federal funds.
3. Additional Information-100 percent of all sewered communities in New Mexico have secondary sewage treatment. Additional Federal dollars under Public Law 660 are not needed in New Mexico unless additional percentages can be given or funds for operation can be obtained.
JOHN R. WRIGHT, Executive Secretary.
STATE DEPARTMENT OF WATER AND AIR RESOURCES,
Raleigh, N.C.
Council of State Governments,
1735 DeSales St.,
Washington, D.C.:
Recently proposed $600 million for appropriation for P L 660 grants adequate to meet North Carolina's needs between July I, 1969 and December 31, 1970.
E. C. HUBBARD, Assistant Director.
DIVISION of ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, Madison, Wis.
Council of State Governments,
1735 DeSales St.,
Washington, D.C.:
Wisconsin each year applies for, uses all available FWPCA funds.
In response to questions: (1) $24.7 million of Federal grants could be utilized in
Wisconsin during fiscal year 1970; (2) We accept all applications and have certified 23 to proceed under reimbursement in addition to those proceeding With grants. Additional grant funds are urgently needed in Wisconsin.
THOMAS G. FRANGOS, Administrator.
KENTUCKY WATER POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION,
Frankfort, Ky.
Council of State Governments,
1735 DeSales St., Washington, D.C.:
Regarding telegram of Norman Billings this date question No. 1 information not available question No. 2 No.
RALPH C. PICKARD, Executive Director.
MICHIGAN WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION,
Lansing, Mich.
Council of State Governments,
1735 DeSales St., Washington, D.C.:
Supporting data for present Senate hearings to justify increase over $600 million for P.L. 660 is as follows:
1. If availability of Federal funds were not a limiting factor; $248 million for some 224 projects Would be required in Michigan between July 1, 1969 and December 31, 1970.
2. In the past, experience has shown that only a fraction of the grant requests could be funded. In 1968 Michigan was discouraged from submitting applications for approximately $170 million Worth of construction costs because of lack of Federal funds.
RALPH PURDY, Executive Secretary.
WATER AND AIR RESOURCES COMMISSION OF DELAWARE,
Dover, Del.
Council of State Governments,
1735 DeSales St.,
Washington, D.C.:
The 600 million for PL660 program is mandatory if Congress is serious in its 1967 clean Waters act that our streams be cleaned up by 1972. The States made commitments based on the authorized appropriation Congress should not expect the States to meet the five year goal unless the funds of at least 600 million are provided. With this amount Delaware can accomplish its goal of clean streams within the approved time.
JOHN C. BRYSON.
UTAH STATE DIVISION OF HEALTH, Salt Lake City, Utah.
COUNCIL of STATE GOVERNMENTS,
1735 DeSales St.,
Washington, D.C.:
Following are answers to your questions Wired to us today. No. 1 less than present allotment No. 2 No.
LYNN M. THATCHER.
MISSOURI WATER POLLUTION BOARD, Jefferson City, Mo.
COUNCIL of STATE GOVERNMENTS,
1735 DeSales St.,
Washington, D.C.
Missouri cities could use $50,2I2,900 Federal dollars between July 1, 1969 and December 31, 1970. Our State has been discouraged from submitting applications for Federal assistance because of the lack of Federal funds. It is estimated that approximately $25 million in Federal funds could have been used if funds Were available in the past.
JACK K. SMITH, Executive Secretary.
MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY,
Minneapolis, Minn.
Council of State Governments,
1735 DeSales St.,
Washington, D.C.:
Minnesota, this fiscal year, has sewage treatment projects ready for construction to utilize 16.9 million dollars of Federal grant in aid with an additional late request of two million dollars for Duluth totaling 18.9 million dollars. Expected allocation to Minnesota under administration appropriation is 3.9 million dollars. Under 600 million dollar appropriation Minnesota share would be eleven million dollars. Under one billion dollar appropriation, the Minnesota share Would be 18.4 million dollars. Minnesota could use higher appropriations. Some out-state communities have been discouraged because of lack of Federal funds. No estimate of amount, would be small. Minnesota has always had more projects than Federal grant money available.
JOHN P. BADALICH, Executive Director.
STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD, Sacramento, Calif.
Council of State Governments,
1735 DeSales St.,
Washington, D.C.
Reference telegram to H. B. Foster, California Dept. of Public Health, regarding PL 84-660 fund increase.
Response to your questions as follows:
1. Between July 1' 1969 and December 31, 1970, the State of California could use $100 million in Federal grant monies to fund current projects on fiscal year 1969-70, priority listing and estimated need from July 1 to December 31, i970.
2. Adequate information not available to determine applicants that may be discouraged from filing because of lack of Federal funds.
JEROME B. GILBERT, Executive Officer.
S. DAK. COMMITTEE ON POLLUTION, Pierre, S. Dak.
Council of State Governments
1735 DeSales St.,
Washington, D.C.
Response to Norman Billings Wire on Federal financing for PL660: one--$1,000,000.00 from July 1, 1969 to Dec. 31, 1970. Two-no we have always had sufficient funds available.
CHARLES E. CARL, Secretary and Executive Officer.
BOISE, IDAHO.
Council of State Governments,
1735 DeSales St.,
Washington, D.C.
Answer to Mr. Norman Billing's first question is $2,305,000. Answer to second question is no.
TERRELL O. CARVER, M.D., Administrator of Health.
NEW HAMPSHIRE WATER SUPPLY AND POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION, Concord, N.H.
Council of State Governments,
1735 DeSales Street,
Washington, D.C.:
In response to question included in your telegram of October 15, 1969: 1. Between July 1, 1969, and December 3I, 1970' $9,600,000 Federal dollars could be expended if available. 2. All Federal funds for 1970 fiscal year now committed. Applications now on hand for $5,800,000 in Federal aid with no funds available from FWPCA.
WILLIAM A. HEALEY, Executive Director.
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION, Olympia, Wash.
Council of State Governments,
1735 DeSales Street,
Washington, D.C.:
Washington State presently has an unfunded backlog of Public Law 668 grant applications in the amount of $10.7 million it is anticipated that $17.3 million Will be requested before December 3I. 1970 for a total of $28 million. Washington State has not been discouraged from submitting applications for construction grants we have lively pursued construction on a reimbursement basis. JAMES P. BEHLKE, Director.
ARIZONA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Phoenix, Ariz.
Council of State Governments,
1735 DeSales Street,
Washington, D.C.:
In answer to your Wire of October 14 we wish to inform you that the current allocations of Public Law 660 have been adequate to meet the demand in Arizona and we anticipate that they will be adequate in the current fiscal year.
JOSEPH E. OER, Director.
POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION, Little Rock, Ark.
Council of State Governments,
1735 DeSales Street,
Washington, D.C.:
In re telegram from Norman Billings dated O^.tuber 14, 1969. Answers to questions are as follows: 1. Approximately $8 million. 2. Yes, approximately $3 million. Present allotment totals $2.8 million while new requests and increases to existing grants total $5.2 million.
ANDY SACREY.
DIVISION OF HEALTH AND MEDICAL SERVICES, Cheyenne, Wyo.
Council of State Governments,
1735 DeSales St.,
Washington, D.C.:
Wyoming has operated with surplus construction grant funds since the first year of the program presently returning approximately one million dollars per year to FWPCA.
L. J. COHEN, M.D.
S. DAs. COMMITTEE ON POLLUTION, Pierre, S. Dak.
Council of State Governments,
1735 DeSales St.,
Washington, D.C.:
Response to Norman Billings Wire on Federal financing for PL 660: One-$1 million from July 1, 1969 to Dec. 31, 1970. Two-No we have always had sufficient funds available.
CHARLES E. CARL, Secretary and Executive Officer.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Richmond, Va.
Council of State Governments,
1735 DeSales St.,
Washington, D.C.:
In reply to your telegram from allocations under PL 660 handled by State Water Control Board am forwarding your telegram to that agency.
E. C. MEREDITH, Director.
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, Madison, Wis.
Council of State Governments,
1735 DeSales St.,
Washington, D.C.:
Wisconsin each year applied for IISIS all available FWPC funds. In response to questions (1) $24.7 million of Federal grants could be utilized in Wisconsin during FY 1970; (2) We accept all applications and have certified 23 to proceed under reimbursement in addition to those proceeding with grants. Additional grant funds are urgently needed in Wisconsin.
THOMAS G. FRANGOS, Administrator.
RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
Providence, R.I.
Mr. Norman Billings,
Acting Chairman, Interstate Conference on Water Problems,
Council of State Governments,
Washington, D.C.:
1. $7,000'000 in Federal grants for water pollution control could be expanded in Rhode Island if available between July 1, 1969 and December 31, 1970.
2. No indication that lack of Federal assistance has discouraged application for same. JOSEPH E. CANNON, M.D., Director.
MISSOURI WATER POLLUTION BOARD, Jefferson City, Mo.
Council of State Governments,
Washington, D.C.:
Missouri cities could use $50'212,900 Federal dollars between July 1' 1969 and December 31, 1970. Our State has been discouraged from submitting applications for Federal assistance because of the lack of Federal funds. It is estimated that approximately $25 million in Federal funds could have been used if funds were available in the past.
JACK K. SMITH, Executive Secretary.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY,
Portland, Oreg.
Council of State Governments,
Washington, D.C.:
Re telegram from Norman Billings 10-1569: (1) Total eligible cost of grant applications on file for fiscal year 1970 is $45 million. At 30 percent Federal participation $13,500,000 in Federal funds would be required to fund project and start construction before December 31, 1970. (2) We are not aware that lack of Federal funds has discouraged local governments from submitting applications.
ELY J. WEATHERSBEE, Deputy Director.
RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT of HEALTH,
Providence, R.I.
Council of State Governments,
Washington, D.C.:
1. $7,000,000 in Federal grants for water pollution control could be expended in Rhode Island if available between July 1, 1969 and December 31, 1970.
2. No indication that lack of Federal assistance has discouraged applications for same. JOSEPH E. CANNON, M.D., Director.
BISMARCK, N. DAs.
Council of State Governments,
Washington, D.C.:
N. Dak. does have adequate funds with present construction grant allocations under PL 660. However, we urge the increase to 600 million as it is recognized that a large majorIty of the States do not receive adequate funds to meet the demands from applications received.
JAMES R. AMOS, M.D., State Health Officer.
CARSON CITY, NEV.
Norman Billings,
Council of State Governments,
Washington, D.C.:
1. There are five projects on hand in Nevada which have been processed asking for 3.6 million dollars of PL-660 funds. Two are being delayed because of lack of funds. There are 17 additional projects asking for 1.5 million in PL-660 funds. They are in planning stages and intend to be under construction by December 31, 1970. Total of 5.1 million dollars needed for period July 1, 1969 through December 31, 1970.
2. Nevada has not been discouraged from submitting requests although these requests have been curtailed because municipalities knew funds were not available.
KARL. R. HARRIS,
Director, Health Welfare and Rehabilitation.
OCTOBER 15, 1969.
DEANE: Mr. T. A. Filipi Secretary of the Nebraska Water Pollution Control Council, called and rapidly replied to the "Billings" telegram.
Fortunately, you had explained some of it to me, but he said that his telegram read "increase over $600 million."
Anyway, you may have to call him back at Area 402, 473-1484, but this is the gist of his remarks:
"Nebraska could live very happily with $600 million. This would leave about $5,112,400. . . . This means that Nebraska would have about $15 million construction funds. Actually, Omaha could use it all, but can't get the funds because its credit is not good enough.
The main problem in Nebraska is "local conditions. Local conditions mean that the localities are awaiting state grants from the legislature . . they are sitting back saying it is up to the legislature.
On the hunch that some of this doesn't make sense, I offered that you may wish to call him back at our expense. The number is in para. 3 above.
A. B.
Council of State Governments,
Washington, D.C.:
Re telegram from Norman Billings our reply to the questions is as follows 1.Hawaii can commit but not expend 4,000,000 dollars of Federal funds for PL 660 between July 1, 1969 and December 31, 1970. 2.Yes approximately 1,300,000 dollars.
WALTER B. QUINSENBERRY, MD., Director of Health.
GEORGIA WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, Atlanta, Ga.
Council of State Governments,
Washington, D.C.
Attention: Norman Billings, acting chairman, inter-state conference on water problems, 8th floor, Stevens T. Mason Bldg., Lansing, Michigan.
Responding to questions in your telegram of October 14th, we advise as follows:
1. Georgia could expend approximately $35 million in federal grant money between July 1, 1969 and December 31, 1970.
2. City and count governments have been discouraged from developing abatement programs and applying for federal construction grants because of the gap between federal funds authorized and federal funds appropriated. It is estimated that an additional $25 million in grant applications would have been filed last fiscal year, if authorized federal funds had been appropriated.
JOHN H. VENABLE, M.D., Chairman.
DIVISION OF HEALTH, Jacksonville, Fla.
Council of State Governments,
Washington, D.C.:
Re – Senate hearings on P.L. 660 fund appropriations increase, the following comments are offered for Florida: (1) for FY 70 Florida could use at least 30 million dollars. Bond market improvement would permit use of federal funds in excess of 35 million dollars. Anticipated state assistance funding to be considered by legislature could materially increase federal funds utilization (2) federal fund limitations have discouraged certification by the state to federal agency of projects. For FY 59 difference between requested funds and available amount was in excess of 11 million dollars. For FY 70 the disparity if original budget request is maintained would be 30 million, and if proposed 600 million is appropriated, the amount would be 15 million dollars. Please refer future requests for information on P.L. 660 to Vincent D. Patton, Department of Air & Water Pollution Control, Tallahassee.
WILSON T. OWDER, M.D., Director.
DIVISION OF PURE WATERS, Albany, N.Y.
Council of State Governments,
Washington, D.C.:
The following answers are in response to the telegram from Norman Billings, acting chairman, interstate conference on water problems.
1. Our latest estimates indicate that if New York State could avail itself of the maximum Federal grants for the construction of sewage treatment works, $847 million of Federal funds can be obligated and utilized prior to December 31, 1970.
2. Due to the billion dollar bond issue approved by the voters of the State of New York the State has been able to prefinance funds unavailable from the Federal Government. Therefore, due to this policy no project applications have been delayed due to the shortage of Federal funds.
EUGENE F. SEEBALD, Associate Director.
STATE OF ALASKA, Juneau, Alaska.
Council of State Governments,
Washington, D.C.:
Re your telegram. Encourage support of appropriations for full billion authorized. Question 1: Alaska could use three million federal dollars.
2. Although no discouragement to date, anticipate pressure to meet 1972 deadline set for Waste treatment in Alaska community.
J. W. BETIT, Commissioner, Department, Health and Welfare.
DIVISION OF CLEAN AIR AND WATER, Trenton, N.J.
Council of State Governments,
Washington, D.C.:
New Jersey has 115.6 million dollars worth of eligible sewerage projects either already certified to Federal Water Pollution Control Administration and not funded, or projects which have been completed through the design phase. Additional to these there is an estimated 38 million dollars worth of treatment projects currently under design and which are scheduled for design completion in time for funding before the end of calendar year 1970. It is thought that a significant volume of design work has proceeded slowly if at all on account of apparent inability to finance the construction if financial problems can be resolved. New Jersey is in a high state of readiness to build. On November 4, New Jersey voters will decide on a State bond issue referendum which would provide 242 million dollars in State grants of 25 percent of eligible projects. We believe it will be approved.
RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Director.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, Washington, D.C.
Council of State Governments,
Washington, D.C.:
The District of Columbia will be eligible for an estimated 61.35 million dollars in PL 660 funds during the period July 1, 1969 to December 31, 1970. This sum represents an estimated project cost of 111.55 million dollars. From July 1, 1968 to June 30, 1969 the D.C. Department of Public Health did not withhold any grant applications due to a lack of Federal grant funds. During that period projects eligible for $8,115,560 in Federal funds were submitted to FWPCA. Grant offers for these projects total $5,028,840.
MALCOLM C. HOPE, Associate Director.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICES, Topeka, Kans.
Response to Norman Billings, Acting Chairman, Interstate Conference on Water Problems.
Council of State Governments,
Washington, D.C.:
State of Kansas is in an unusual position due to fact we have had water pollution control program for 60 years and little or no backlog of construction needs.
Kansas currently receives $2,800,000 per year in construction grant funds. This amount is approximately equal to our needs for 30% grant funds.
Kansas does not have State grants. Legislation is proposed for early 1970 and if passed and funded would enable us to use approximately $6 million Federal funds under present program. The proposed increase of total P.L. 660 grants to $600 million would provide an estimated $7.5 million to Kansas which would take care of all anticipated needs within present program allowances.
MELVILLE W. GRAY, P.E. Acting Chief Engineer and Director.
ILLINOIS SANITARY WATER BOARD,
Springfield, Ill.
Council of State Governments,
Washington, D.C.
Assume Federal funds not limiting, Illinois needs 53 million through 1970. Current grant requests total 55 million at 30 percent. No applications for fiscal year 1970 funds processed to date due to delay in Federal action and uncertainty regarding local funds needed. Some 25 million request immediately pending.
C. W. KLASSEN. Technical Secretary.
MONTANA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
Helena, Mont.,
October 20, 1969.
Council of State Governments,
Washington, D.C.:
With the interest rates in excess of our legal limits and with the U.S. Supreme Court decision relative to Louisiana revenue bonds, such decision also effecting Montana, we anticipate a practical shutdown of all sewage treatment construction until the 1971 legislature meets to change our existing laws. Present amount of money allocated will be more than sufficient for us. We have not been discouraged from submitting applications for Federal assistance. The State has been returning unused money.
C. W. BRINCK, Director, Division of Environmental Sanitation.
TENNESSEE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS,
Nashville, Tenn.,
October 16, 1969.
Re: Ammunition from Tennessee regarding funds needed for construction of sewage treatment plants.
Council of State Governments,
Washington, D.C.
Priority list of projects approved for grants by the Stream Pollution Control Board list 26 projects with a total estimated cost of $81,044,048. Amount needed for 33 per cent grants for these projects is $24,286,573. (Tennessee's allocation for construction grants if the $600 million appropriation remains is given at $11,900,000.) The bleak picture is complicated by our state appropriating $2.2 million which means that the top priority projects on the list must get 55 percent of their total cost from this allocation for the whole state. It's a bleak picture from our state.
The above figures are from the office of the Director of the Stream Pollution Control Board.
Sincerely yours,
Mrs. JOHN W. WADE' Water Resources Chairman.
STATE OF LOUISIANA STREAM CONTROL COMMISSION,
Baton Rouge, La.,
October 14, 1969.
Hon. ALLEN B. ELLENDER,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Public Works,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SIR: The Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators strongly urges that the one billion dollar appropriation be approved for financing municipal waste treatment grants. States with prefinancing procedures and the backlog of treatment plants now being planned can reasonably be expected to use the entire amount of this appropriation.
Thanking you for your consideration in this matter, I am
Very truly yours,
ROBERT A. LAFLEUR, President, Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators.
STATE BOARD OF HEALTH, Indianapolis, Ind.,
October 16, 1969.
Council of State Governments,
Washington, D.C.:
On October 15 after repeated attempts to reach Western Union (no one answered the phone) to send the following wire, I telephoned it to Mr. Conrad of the Council of State Governments. He asked that I confirm the information by wire on October 16. This has been done. The wire follows:
Question 1. Estimate Indiana could match (25%) and expend $13 million in federal funds between July 1, 1969 and December 31, 1970. Applications for fiscal 1970 total 135, requesting $44,264,900 federal grants and state grants totaling $22,018,721. One of Indiana's criteria for priority is submission of completed plans and specifications, and 49 applicants have complied.
Question 2. To a limited degree – no estimate available.
B. A. Poole,
Technical Secretary, Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board.
STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
Oklahoma City, Okla.,
October 16, 1969.
Council of State Governments,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SIRS: In reply to the telegram of October 14, 1969 from Mr. Norman Billings, Acting Chairman, Interstate Conference on Water Problems, Lansing, Michigan, we are enclosing a copy of an identical letter which has been sent to Oklahoma's Congressional Delegation on this date, encouraging their support for $600 million appropriations for the waste treatment construction grants program of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Sincerely,
A. B. COLYAR, M.D., Commissioner of Health.
STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
Oklahoma City, Okla.,
October 16, 1969.
Hon. FRED R. HARRIS,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR HARRIS: It has been called to our attention that the Congress is considering legislation which will increase the appropriation under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act from $214 million to $600 million and that such an allocation was passed by the House of Representatives on October 8, 1969.
Records of this office developed in connection with the administration of the sewage treatment construction grants program under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act indicate that the City of Oklahoma City has recently voted $37 million and the City of Tulsa has voted in excess of $16 million for sewerage improvements, and that most of this construction will be eligible for grants under current criteria. When these anticipated five-year programs for Oklahoma City and Tulsa are combined with the forecasts for the rest of the state, it is apparent that Oklahoma's allocation under the current appropriation of $214 million will need to be substantially increased to maintain planned municipal waste facilities on schedule over the next five years.
The $600 million now being considered appears to be reasonably consistent with Oklahoma's needs as indicated at this time. Depending on the number of new projects which might be generated through the availability of construction funds, planned project construction may be speeded up to meet water pollution control needs at earlier dates than planned and to take advantage of increasing construction costs.
During recent years, actions by the Congress in water pollution control and other environmental programs has stimulated great public concern and interest, which is being reflected in public support of programs in Oklahoma.
Your continued support of these programs is needed and appreciated.
Sincerely,
A. B. COLYAR, M.D., Commissioner of Health.