April 23, 1970
Page 12791
PRESTILE STREAM, MAINE
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, in recent weeks there has been discussion in the press and it Congress about the sugar beet refinery in Easton, Maine, and its implications about the quality of water in the Prestile Stream.
The stories have contained misstatements, inaccuracies, and omissions of relevant facts.
For those who are interested in the whole story, I have prepared a statement which tells the story. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
HISTORICAL REVIEW
The Aroostook County economy has been plagued for generations by an unstable potato market. For many years the County and State have sought to broaden the economy to create more economic stability and opportunity. The potential for growing sugar beets as a second and compatible crop had been recognized for many years.
In 1962 the Congress amended the sugar act, and Maine sought to gain one of the six new sugar beet acreage allotments authorized by the amendment.
From the start, the Maine program to win one of the allotments was bi-partisan. Supporters included the farmers and business leaders of Aroostook County as well as industrialists and businessmen across the State. The Republican Governor and Executive Council, the majority and minority leaders of the Maine Legislature, agriculturalists from the University of Maine, the Maine Congressional Delegation, and the Maine Industrial Building Authority worked with the Department of Agriculture and the Area Redevelopment Administration in developing the State's proposal. For instance, the Legislature voted unanimously to raise the MIBA loan insurance limit from $S million to $8 million specifically to accommodate the sugar beat project.
As the proposal developed, Great Western Sugar Company of Denver agreed to build the refinery and process the beets if the Department of Agriculture awarded an allotment to Maine.
In April, 1964, the Department approved a 33,000-acre sugar beet allotment for Maine. The refinery had to be built by the end of 1966 to comply with the 1962 sugar act amendments.
Late in 1964 Great Western withdrew from the project, thus jeopardizing the allotment and the sugar beet industry. The company said the results of its test plantings in 1964 did not reach expectations. Although agricultural specialists from Maine disputed Great Western's conclusions, the company would not reverse its decision.
Supporters of the project were forced to seek a substitute for Great Western. One possibility was the Pepsi-Cola Company which was building a sugar refinery in New York State. The Company, however, declined to undertake a second refinery.
Early in 1965, Fred Vahlsing, Jr., the owner of a potato processing plant on the Prestile, agreed to substitute for Great Western in the project. His idea was to build a refinery next to his potato processing plant. The sponsors welcomed him, and he was able to utilize the financing package arranged for Great Western. His decision to locate the refinery on the Prestile, however, was recognized as a water pollution hazard.
There was concern that the refinery would further degrade the quality of the stream and that the operation of the refinery would violate State water quality standards, thus jeopardizing the first mortgage loan guaranteed by the AMA and the second mortgage loan made by the Area Redevelopment Administration.
As chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution I was especially concerned about the environmental dangers of a sugar beet refinery. I also knew that the necessary technology existed to control and prevent pollution from the refinery.
As a condition of my support for the Vahlsing refinery proposal I insisted that the necessary technology be made part of the plant at the time of construction.
With a commitment from Mr. Vahlsing to build as clean a plant as possible, the immediate task was to find a way to permit construction to proceed as fast as possible in order to meet the-1966 plant construction deadline.
In an unprecedented appearance before a joint session of the 102nd Legislature, Republican Governor John Reed, acting on the advice of the lending agencies – the Area Redevelopment Administration and the Maine Industrial Building Authority, a State agency – urged temporary reclassification of the stream from B to D. It allowed the project to go forward immediately by giving the refinery a chance to work out any flaws in the treatment system without the risk of legal difficulties during the initial operations of the refinery. The measure passed by an overwhelming vote as an emergency measure on May 5, 1965. The reclassification, however, did not take effect until the refinery was completed at the end of 1966. The treatment system worked effectively from the start of operations and the stream classification was raised to C by the Legislature in October, 1967, the same classification given to the Aroostook River, on which other potato processing plants are located.
CORRECTING SOME MISAPPREHENSIONS
The foregoing states the essential facts on the sugar beet refinery project and the Prestile. In addition, I think it is important to correct some misapprehensions about the Prestile.
First, contrary to some reports, the Prestile Stream did not change from a pure trout sream to a polluted watercourse in 1960, when the Vahlsing, Inc. potato processing plant was built, or in 1965 when construction began on the Maine Sugar Industries sugar beet refinery. Fish kills and blocked fish migrations were documented by State agencies as early as 1953. Long before either plant was built, the Prestile had been polluted by sewage discharges from the towns of Easton and Mars Hill, starch factory discharges and the dumping of potatoes along the stream. The B classification represented a goal, not a physical fact.
Second, the Vahlsing, Inc. potato processing plant has been a source of pollution, but, contrary to some reports, the reclassification change did not take Vahlsing, Inc. off the hook with respect to its potato processing plant discharges. The temporary change in classification to D was in effect only from January, 1967, when the refinery began operation, until October, 1967, when the stream was reclassified to C. The change in classification from B to D was made at the insistence of the lenders. They would not let the project go forward without a temporary reclassification.
The haste in the change was dictated by the necessity of having the refinery in operation in time to process the fall 1966 crop of beets. This was essential in order to retain the Maine sugar beet allotment. Otherwise, the loans for construction would not have been made, and the refinery could not have been built in time.
Third, I reluctantly supported the temporary change in classification on three grounds: (a) that the refinery would be designed and built with the most effective water utilization and waste treatment facilities; (b) that the reclassification would cover only the period of start-up for the plant; and, (c) that the refinery could not be financed without it. During the discussion about the reclassification, my staff and I pointed out on a number of occasions that the real problem on the Prestile was not the potential pollution from the sugar refinery but the existing pollution from the potato processing plant and the municipalities. At my insistence, the sugar refinery did include a recirculation system, plus a plan to apply water used to wash the beets in field irrigation. Then and since, I have pressed for more effective action to deal with the potato waste problem.
Fourth, a major problem in dealing with the Prestile and similar difficulties on other Maine streams has been the antiquated Maine classification law which requires legislative, rather than executive, action for improvements in water quality standards and which does not provide adequate enforcement authority for the Environmental Improvement Commission. Until 1957, the Maine water pollution program simply classified Maine waters as they existed. In 1957, as Governor, I initiated the first changes to upgrade the classification of Maine waters. On numerous occasions since that time I have urged changes in the Maine law to give the State authority to upgrade water quality standards through administrative action and to enforce such standards.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act contains a provision developed and enacted at my recommendation which gives the United States government and the government of Canada a vehicle for enforcing water quality standards on the Prestile and other similar international waters.
My position on the Vahlsing potato processing plant and the sugar beet refinery remains what it has always been: the problem of wastes from the potato processing plant and municipalities should be dealt with promptly and efficiently as part of a regional water quality improvement plan, and the sugar beet refinery should be operated as it was designed in order to prevent any waste discharges into the Prestile.