November 2, 1971
Page 38806
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, this bill, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1971, is both a logical extension of, and a significant departure from, the existing water pollution control program.
The bill reflects a significant shift in focus from controlling pollution indirectly, through water quality standards, to an emphasis on direct control of effluents. Water quality standards will remain significant in the new program as an index of our progress, but they will serve less as an instrument of that progress.
It sets the goal of eliminating both industrial and municipal waste discharges into all U.S. waterways – ending all water pollution – by 1985.
In addition to making the elimination of water pollution by 1985 a national policy, the bill sets these other, interim goals–
By June 30, 1974, municipal sewage facilities should be able to provide the equivalent of secondary treatment.
By July 1, 1974, construction grants would be provided only for treatment facilities on a regional, or areawide basis, rather than on a city-by-city or town-by-town basis as in the past.
By January 1, 1976, industrial sources of pollution would be required to have the best available control technology.
By January 1, 1981, there would be no allowable discharge of pollutants from industrial sources.
There is also one general interim goal: To make lakes and streams clean enough, by 1981, for swimming and for the propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife.
To help States and localities, the bill would authorize $14 billion in Federal grants over a 4-year period for the construction and improvement of waste treatment plants. The Federal share would be 60 percent, and would rise to 70 percent if the State contributed 10 percent, leaving the locality to provide only 20 percent.
This new emphasis on effluent controls as such, and on the incremental tightening of control requirements leading up to elimination, with certain exceptions, of all discharges of pollutants from point of sources by 1985, is to be supported by an accelerated research effort – one of the more significant components of a $65 million research program under the bill.
EAGLETON AMENDMENT
Under a section of the bill that I proposed, local governments would be reimbursed for the full Federal share for sewage treatment plants built between 1956 and 1966.
Local governments would be eligible for an estimated $400 million under this section. In my State, Missouri, voters on October 5 approved by a margin of 3 to 1 a $150 million bond issue for water pollution control. Under the reimbursement section of the bill, St. Louis would be eligible for $13.32 million and Kansas City would be eligible for $7.76 million, which will enable them largely to offset their local share of the cost of the next round of new treatment facilities.
AGRICULTURAL POLLUTION
I was particularly concerned throughout the committee's deliberations with the application of this bill to agriculture.
While American farmers recognize the need for pollution control – they are, after all, our leading conservationists – I think we all recognize that the characteristics of agricultural pollution and the best means of controlling it are quite different from those associated with urban/ industrial pollution.
Several portions of this bill apply specifically to the control of pollution from nonpoint agricultural sources.
Section 104(d) (1) calls upon the Administrator to initiate and carry out an accelerated effort to develop and apply practical waste management methods for nonpoint sources of pollution as well as point sources.
Section 104(b) authorizes a comprehensive program of study and research on improved methods of preventing and abating water pollution from agricultural operations specifically.
The information developed through these research programs will not just be written up in scientific journals and circulated within the academic community. Section 105 of the bill grants the FPA Administrator broad authority to provide financial assistance for demonstration projects.
Section 105(d) specifically authorizes demonstration project grants for methods of handling water pollution from agriculture. Once those methods have been demonstrated, the Administrator is authorized, in cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture, to disseminate the information developed in order to facilitate adoption by farmers.
Section 304 (e) calls upon the Administrator to issue information to the States and other Federal agencies on processes, procedures, and methods for controlling water pollution resulting, in general, from nonpoint sources, including agricultural activities, mining operations, construction work, and other sources. This is to be done only after consultation with appropriate Federal and State agencies – such as the Department of Agriculture.
This kind of consultation will have profound significance for the success of our national efforts to control water pollution.
As the Administrator develops the information that he will issue under section 304 and as the States act on that information in developing plans under section 209, an important and often difficult reconciliation of competing objectives will have to be accomplished. There are potential conflicts between laws and regulations for the control of water pollution and other laws and regulations designed for the protection of workers and for the protection of sanitation in the production of food products such as meat and milk, to cite just two examples. These conflicts must be reconciled in a way that protects all valid competing public policy objectives.
This task may be made more difficult by the separation of public health functions from water pollution control functions in governments both at the Federal level and in many of the States.
My objective was to make sure that the interests of farmers are permanently represented in the counsels dealing with pollution controls.
Is it the view of the chairman of the subcommittee that the Secretary and the States, in carrying out their respective functions, should make a concerted effort to accommodate these important, and potentially conflicting, public policy objectives?
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I am sure that this task may be made more difficult by the separation of public health functions from water pollution control functions in governments both at the Federal level and in many of the States.
I would hope that potential conflicts such as the Senator from Missouri has described between competing public policy objectives can be resolved on a timely basis, and in a manner which will not place farmers, dairymen, and others in an impossible position as a result of failure to accommodate competing public policy objectives in the development of water pollution control requirements.
I would like to pay special tribute to Senator EAGLETON of Missouri for his substantial contribution during the consideration of this bill. As chairman of the Subcommittee's Panel on Science and Technology; he held hearings that developed much of the information on which the bill is based. As vice chairman of the Air and Water Pollution Subcommittee of the Public Works Committee, he chaired several days at public hearings, including those in Kansas City, Mo., and New Orleans, La. Senator EAGLETON has been present during virtually all the deliberations on this bill and is to be commended for his participation and contribution.
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, I was very proud, as vice chairman of the Air and Water Pollution Subcommittee, to work closely in developing this bill with the distinguished subcommittee chairman, Senator MUSKIE, with the distinguished chairman of the full Public Works Committee, Senator RANDOLPH, and with the members of the committee.
This bill is a tough measure, but I think it is also realistic. It signals a period of adjustments to new demands. Some of these adjustments will be painful. It will require breakthroughs in science, engineering, and economics, and changes in our everyday lives as well.
Many of our Nation's navigable waters are severely polluted. Major waterways adjacent to our industrial and urban areas are not fit for any purpose. Our rivers are the primary source of pollution of coastal waters and the ocean. Many of our lakes and other confined waters are being degraded rapidly.
America's waterways are a public resource. It is time we returned our rivers, lakes and streams and the oceans to their natural role as part of man's life support system, and stopped using them as a free waste treatment system.