March 4, 1970
Page 5987
OUR RAVAGED NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the people of the United States today are becoming increasingly aware of the extent to which we have ravaged our natural environment and of the urgency of taking steps to correct a situation which threatens our very survival. This environmental conscience holds great potential for our land, our air, our water, and our own future together.
But awareness of the problem is not enough. It is the immediate responsibility of the lawmakers of our country to mold the voices of this conscience into a strong and workable national program.
Equally essential as action by the Federal Government is initiative on the State level. We cannot overemphasize the role which the States must play in cleaning up our environment.
On February 13, Gov. Marvin Mandel delivered an environmental message to the Maryland General Assembly worthy of note by leaders of all States. The program outlined by Governor Mandel in this address reflects a keen sensitivity to all aspects of this problem – fiscal, logistical, and political – as well as a determination to clean up the State of Maryland whatever the cost.
In offering a broad program of legislative proposals, Governor Mandel has set an example of which we should all be aware. I therefore ask unanimous consent that the text of this address be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
REMARKS OF GOV. MARVIN MANDEL
Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, Ladies and Gentlemen of the General Assembly, My Fellow Marylanders:
It is a rare intrusion when a Governor feels compelled to come before the General Assembly – and the people of Maryland – twice during the first month of a legislative session.
I felt this extraordinary step was necessary, because we have an extraordinary opportunity.
Our citizens are convinced that the course of society is moving us relentlessly toward an environmental catastrophe.
The most frightened among them are being persuaded that man as a species will vanish in a cloud of industrial haze, or in a flood of polluted water.
I come before you today, not as a prophet of doom – nor as a fiery evangelist of the latest social crusade.
I am here to talk common sense.
At the outset, let me say that I come before you with pride in what Maryland already has accomplished, and with confidence in Maryland's future actions in the field of environment protection.
Let me ask a question.
How often have we heard Maryland cited as a horrible example of what pollution has done to a state?
The Chesapeake Bay is not Lake Erie. It is alive and productive.
Unlike the Delaware Estuary, the Bay's oxygen supply has not been choked off. Rockfish are flourishing.
And unlike the Raritan Bay, there has never been a case of disease traced to shellfish from Maryland waters in modern times.
The reason for this is that Maryland began planning while much of the nation remained indifferent. Maryland began acting while the Federal Government talked.
For more than half a century, the renowned Abel Wolman has been devoting his wisdom and his energies to the conservation and improvement of Maryland's environment.
In the early part of this century, Baltimore City tore up its streets to separate its storm and sanitary sewers, and to build a sewage treatment plant that at that time was the most modern in the world.
Easton showed the state how oxidation ponds could be used to purify sewage, and at the same time pioneered the use of modern sanitary landfill.
St. Michaels built a modern sewage treatment plant to protect its harbor and its shellfish industry long before Federal and State grants became available.
Charles County Community College is the nation's foremost institution for training environmental workers. Ironically, only a few years ago, one of its applications for Federal assistance was rejected with the explanation that training in environmental skills was a local problem of no national significance.
Allegany County was able to install sewer systems through its mountain ranges, while many areas of the nation still have not run pipelines across their flatlands.
Frostburg has shown the world how trash can be used to restore land by using abandoned strip mines to dispose of solid refuse.
That city's scientific approach to the problem has been studied by experts from around the world.
Does this appear as though we have been neglecting our environment?
If this were the case, then I could join the chorus of doomsayers, and tell you that by the end of the decade man will evaporate in an overabundance of his own waste.
This is but a small example of what Maryland's towns, its communities, and its cities have done to solve their own environmental problems. In many of these efforts, they received financial support and technical guidance through various State programs.
But I said I am here to talk common sense. I will not stand before you and say that mistakes have not been made – that we have not abused our air, our water, our land.
We are living on the ugly side of abundance.
In contrast to the Bay, we have turned our rivers and harbors into open sewers.
We have left trash heaps smoldering on the outskirts of our residential areas.
We have filled the air with noxious gases and smoke.
We have uprooted trees, and scraped the crust off the earth.
We have gouged our mountains for coal, and left poisonous acids bleeding into our streams.
But we recognized the foolishness of these errors, and we moved with forceful legislation to correct them.
So that there be no misunderstanding, I do not pretend that pollution does not exist. What I am saying is that through the bold and visionary actions taken by this General Assembly, Maryland has begun to check the spread of pollution and, in many cases, to reduce the accumulated neglect of 300 years.
While present laws are adequate to correct the errors of the past, they will not serve to prevent the problems of the future.
The legislative program I will outline for you today may require Maryland to solve its problems without the benefits of the promised Federal partnership.
Like many of you, I paid careful attention to the President's message on the environment earlier this week.
While I was encouraged that he recognized our problems, I was shocked to learn that he proposes reducing by 20 percent – or one-quarter billion dollars – the annual Federal contribution to water pollution abatement programs.
In addition to the reduction in dollars, the President also intends to reduce the level of Federal support from 55 to 40 percent.
However, there was some small consolation in the President's message. It was gratifying to learn that he proposes to dispose of junk cars through a bounty plan, which my Administration sponsored – and this General Assembly enacted – last year.
Perhaps the Federal Administration's awareness of environmental problems was best summed up by one of its officials who was quoted in yesterday's Washington Star:
"The States gambled that the government would appropriate funds. They lost."
How can we have confidence that future joint ventures with the Federal Government will be more reliable when they refuse to honor past commitments?
It is clear that we must plan – and act – with a commitment to our citizens, and to our future, rather than to a batch of unredeemed IOU's.
The legislation I am proposing to you today is a commitment to that future. It will: Revamp our methods of managing liquid and solid wastes.
Extend soil conservation practices to all land uses throughout the State.
Provide an effective method of financing shore erosion control projects.
Attack the problem of acid drainage from abandoned mines.
Continue the State's generous participation in the construction of sewage treatment plants.
And strengthen our air and water pollution control laws.
In addition to these new measures, I urge you to adopt a Wetlands Bill along the lines recommended by the Legislative Council.
It is also essential that a multi-state approach be taken to protect the Potomac and Susquehanna Rivers.
The compact among Maryland, New York and Pennsylvania, which we ratified years ago, is languishing in Congress.
I have been actively prodding Federal officials to help get the necessary Congressional endorsement of this agreement.
The Potomac compact, a crucial step in our quest to upgrade this waterway, is now before the General Assembly. I urge you to act favorably on this measure.
Along with recommending these legislative proposals, I am exercising executive prerogatives to make our existing laws more effective, and to give Maryland a unified approach to conservation and environmental control.
I am preparing an executive order creating the Council on Maryland's Environment and specifying its duties.
I also have instructed the Secretary of Health and Mental Hygiene to participate as a party in all cases involving Maryland's interests before the Atomic Energy Commission.
In addition, I am requesting the Attorney General to join in defense of Minnesota's efforts to draft stricter radiation standards than the Federal Government requires.
If this power can be established by the states, Maryland will exercise it.
The Secretary of Natural Resources will prepare a complete and coordinated plan for research and monitoring of atomic power plants on the Chesapeake Bay.
I have asked the Secretary of Planning to move as rapidly as possible to enable the Chesapeake Bay Inter-Agency Planning Committee to produce a comprehensive plan for the use and protection of the Bay.
The Open Space Program, which was enacted by the General Assembly last year, will be implemented as rapidly as funds are received to purchase available recreation lands before they are converted to other uses.
It is essential that public facilities set a good example for compliance with pollution control laws.
Accordingly, I am directing the heads of all State agencies to review practices at every installation, and to file plans for compliance with the appropriate regulatory agency.
I have instructed the Secretary of Planning and the Director of Public Improvements to give the highest priority to the funding of needed pollution control facilities – and I am asking the Board of Public Works to endorse that policy.
Until recently, pollution of the air was increasing dangerously.
1969 marked a significant turning point. Action was taken not only to halt the further fouling of the air, but to reduce current levels and to prevent serious build-ups in the future.
Methodically, all open burning dumps in the State are being eliminated.
A ban on open burning, a tax on automobile hulks in junk yards, and a cash incentive for turning junked cars over to scrap processors have begun to bring the problem of the abandoned automobile under control.
In conjunction with the National Air Pollution Control Administration, we have taken the first step to restore clean air to the Washington and the Baltimore metropolitan areas.
Strict limitations have been placed on the sulphur content of all fuel oil. The sulphur content of coal is regulated where it is used in large industrial burners.
Discharge of smoke and soot has been outlawed so that emissions from power plant stacks in the future will be invisible.
In the case of older plants, improvements have been scheduled over a period of time so that the clean-up can be accomplished smoothly and quickly, without interrupting the supply of power.
During 1969, activities more than doubled under the State's air quality program, and further upgrading and expansion is scheduled for this year.
Local air pollution control programs also are being strengthened and coordinated with State programs.
During the past year, information was obtained on more than 1,600 actual or potential, sources of air pollution. One hundred of the largest sources were screened for detailed evaluation and enforcement procedures.
As a result of this effort, 20 compliance plans have been submitted to the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. Five of these compliance plans – including the Baltimore Gas and Electric Company and the Potomac Electric Power Company – have been approved.
Modification of these facilities to greatly reduce pollution is now underway.
The Bethlehem Steel Company's plan is near final review, and approval is expected within a few days.
It is worth noting that these three firms alone are legally committed to invest about $72 million to fight pollution over the next several years.
This is not a penalty. This is progress. And to assure continued monitoring for possible infractions of the Air Quality Control Law, I am asking you to enact legislation that will simplify enforcement procedures of the existing safeguards.
At this point, Federal law prevents the states from pre-empting standards to control pollution emissions from automotive exhausts.
No state in the nation has a water pollution control program that is more effective than Maryland's.
In 1966, for example, Maryland enacted legislation which requires that each of the 24 major subdivisions develop comprehensive 10 year water supply and sewerage plans by January 1, 1970.
Today I am recommending that the water and sewerage planning act be amended to require parallel planning for solid wastes disposal.
The legislation that I am proposing to you is a bold, new approach.
The Environmental Services Act of 1970 will create a public utility-type agency to provide waste treatment services on a wholesale basis.
It could be described as a statewide sanitary district that is required to provide solid waste disposal and sewage treatment plants for our communities and industries.
The proposal protects the existing authority and control that local governments exercise over land uses and other social and economic objectives.
But the new service would be required to provide the facilities to treat liquid wastes and to dispose of solid wastes when, and where, those services are needed.
One of the most valuable features of the water and sewerage planning act was authorization for the State to share in the financing of the planning costs.
I am recommending that this same cost sharing plan be adopted for the solid wastes program.
The Water Quality Loan Act of 1968 was passed as part of a comprehensive water pollution control program.
That program has been highly successful with one exception – the default in Federal funding.
The lag in Federal grants for construction of sewage treatment plants has received much attention. Virtually unnoticed, however, is the default in Federal funds to support regional river basin planning.
I am proposing, further, that county sanitary commissions be permitted to carry out the same kind of regional and county-wide projects in solid wastes that they are now authorized to develop for water supply and sewerage service.
The changes I am recommending will free planning money, so that Maryland will not be held back by the inadequate Federal program.
Also, we will be permitted to use money on State water pollution control facilities without applying for Federal assistance.
Since all of the authorized loan money will not be needed in the coming year, I am asking for the authority to use part of that money to make grants for sewage treatment plants.
By making this transfer of funds, we can continue our momentum toward the 1971 goal without authorizing additional bond sales.
The Federal authorization expires in 1971, when we can expect major revisions in the Water Pollution Control Act.
For this reason, it seems prudent to make these temporary adjustments.
In addition, I am recommending legislation which would provide assurance that privately owned and operated landfills would not be abandoned in an unsightly and unusable state.
For too long, we have placed the major burden of soil conservation on the farmer. Through the State committee and the soil conservation districts, our farmers have acted as good stewards over soil agricultural use.
But silt resulting from improved land development is in many cases a major source of water pollution.
It is time that the lessons we learned on the farm are applied to highway construction and subdivision development as a general rule rather than as the exception.
Rather than create a new agency, the proposed Shore Erosion and Soil Conservation Act of 1970 will make wider use of the soil conservation districts.
This concept already has been pioneered in Montgomery County and in the Patuxent River Basin.
Last year, the General Assembly enacted a soil conservation measure limited to the Patuxent Watershed. That measure has proven effective.
The proposed legislation will extend the Patuxent program to all soil conservation districts in Maryland.
It will move the State Soil Conservation Committee from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Natural Resources.
This will in no way diminish the Committee's service to agricultural interests.
In the shore erosion portion of the bill, we could assure the protection of State owned lands by the General Assembly. The General Assembly will be able to take the initiative when private owners cannot – or will not – act. In most cases, private owners will act, and I am proposing an innovative method of sharing the cost of erosion control works with them.
Under the cost-sharing proposal, the State will assume the cost of engineering work. Actual construction costs would be paid in most instances by means of an interest-free loan from the State.
The loan would be assessed to the properties benefitted, and the principal recovered with the tax payments over a period not to exceed 25 years.
Recent legislation has greatly improved our ability to control acid drainage from active coal mines.
A major problem remains with inactive or abandoned mines which continue to seep acids into our streams.
It appears that this problem can only be corrected at public expense.
Therefore, I am proposing the enactment of the Abandoned Mine Drainage Act of 1970 to provide authority to sell $5 million in bonds.
This would be used to abate drainage from mines on public land. In addition, it provides for the purchase of land on which abandoned mines are located.
After the drainage is abated and the land is restored to useful purposes, the proposed legislation provides that it may be retained by the State, transferred to local governments, or returned by sale to private ownership.
All transfer of land would take place through actions of the Board of Public Works.
The program I have outlined for you is but a small repayment to nature for the violence we have done to it.
Our environment is as much a part of our heritage as our culture. We must nurture it, and protect it, so that it can be passed on to coming generations.
The commitment of the people of Maryland to the case of environmental quality is a commitment to the quality of life itself.
It is quality that the people of Maryland seek, and I am certain that the members of the General Assembly are equal to the challenge – as they always have been.