November 2, 1971
Page 38822
Mr. SAXBE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. SAXBE. Mr. President, first I should like to compliment the able Senator from Maine, the chairman of the subcommittee, and then the entire membership of the Committee on Public Works for the excellent work they have done on a subject in which we are all interested.
I am concerned, however, about one particular aspect of the bill, and it is whether intrastate agencies can be funded under the bill. Intrastate agencies have done a tremendous job in combating water pollution, and one of the agencies that has been in the forefront has been the Miami Conservancy District of Ohio. These agencies now face difficulties in funding. I introduced a bill (S. 601), which was referred to the committee, and which included intrastate fundings, in the hope that my bill would be incorporated in the bill now under consideration. I, therefore, should like to ask the distinguished Senator from Maine a few questions on the subject.
First, will intrastate agencies qualify for funding under section 106 of this bill, entitled "State Programs"?
Mr. MUSKIE. My reply to the Senator is yes, that such agencies can receive support funds under section 106 to the extent that they carry out programs for the elimination of water pollution in accordance with the requirements of that section. Such funds would have to be applied for by the State as a part of its grant and transferred to the intrastate agency.
Mr. SAXBE. I share the Senator's view.
My second question is: Will intrastate agencies qualify for planning and management funding under section 209 of this bill, entitled "Waste Treatment Management"?
Mr. MUSKIE. The answer to the Senator's question is, again, "Yes," indeed. Intrastate agencies are the type of entity which section 209 is intended to cover. When an agency such as the Senator from Ohio has described is designated by the Governor of the State as a planning agency responsible for developing an areawide waste treatment management plan, it becomes eligible for direct grants from the Environmental Protection Agency to support its activities in preparing such a plan. Of course, existing intrastate agencies may also be designated as management agencies under section 209.
Mr. SAXBE. I thank the Senator from Maine.
Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Maine yield for a question?
Mr. MUSKIE. I am happy to yield.
Mr. PEARSON. Will the Senator state whether the States have been heard from, so far as the final version of the bill is concerned?
Mr. MUSKIE. It depends on how one describes the final version of the bill. The States were kept apprised of developments.
Mr. PEARSON. I refer to the bill as reported to the Senate, of course.
Mr. MUSKIE. I want to be technically correct in what I am saying.
Actually, the printed bill which the Senate has before it has not been distributed to the States, so that they could comment on it in that form. I think the information that they did receive with respect to the contents of the bill, its details, and its thrust are pretty close to the final bill, and we have received comments from the States.
Mr. PEARSON. The other question I wish to ask the Senator is whether some estimate or judgment has been made as to the cast of achieving zero pollution by 1985, both as to capital cost and operative cost.
Mr. MUSKIE. There are no estimates of that kind that, in my judgment, have any validity. I covered this subject at some length in my statement earlier today. Chairman Russell Train of the Council on Environmental Quality has developed such estimates. I do not think they have any credibility with respect to the order of magnitude. It has been difficult enough to get figures that are fairly accurate – something on the order of $30 billion to $35 billion. But the 1985 target has not been related to costs. The bill does provide for water quality inventories which by the mid-seventies are designed to give us some hard estimates as to the cost of achieving no pollution discharge by 1985, when we have that information. Then it would be for Congress to decide whether achieving no discharge by 1985 is within the ability of the American people to absorb the cost.
Mr. PEARSON. I thank the Senator from Maine.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I have sent to the desk a series of technical amendments. I ask that they be considered en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendments will be considered en bloc. Is the Senator asking for the approval of the amendments en bloc?
Mr. MUSKIE. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I had agreed to yield to the Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, if the Senator from New York would like to have some time now, I shall be glad to yield to him. I have an amendment to offer that will take an hour.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. President, we are very much interested in the whole prefinancing question. The Senator is aware that New York has been unusually forthcoming and very enterprising in the prefinancing of projects so long as it has had the moral commitment of the Federal Government that there would be reimbursement.
Certainly the committee has shown a most admirable recognition of the fact that the money is for reimbursement. The problem arises not through any absence of good faith or good will. Indeed, there is a very constructive outlook in the committee.
We are advised that the provision needs to be funded by appropriation before it is truly effective. We are also advised that there is just a chance that the amount provided might not be adequate.
I am advised that in my State of New York the money has been prefinanced to the extent of $2 billion against $1 billion authorization. It would be very helpful, naturally, if the feelings of the manager of the bill could be ascertained and if the Senator who is likely to be chairman of the subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee that will deal with this matter might also be heard from in connection with this dispute, so that my State and other States might have a sense of reassurance.
Certainly, the Committee on Public Works and the Senator from Maine have shown a most admirable recognition of this situation and of the responsibility which is involved and of the very constructive point of view that States should be encouraged to take this action and have the obligation made good rather than to be discouraged by sticking their necks out and finding out later that they will not be reimbursed.
Mr. MUSKIE. I would refer to the two phases. First, for the period 1956 to 1966, when the Federal grant or most advantageous grant was at a level of 30 percent of project cost, cities with a population over 250,000 – I think that is the level – did not get that maximum Federal grant. So it is the intent of the legislation before us to, in effect, retroactively reimburse all communities for constructed plants in that period up to the maximum Federal grant in that period, to wit, 30 percent.
From 1966 on the maximum Federal grant was 50 percent plus another 5 percent for areawide treatment planning. It was my desire in this bill, and the committee went along with it, to reimburse States up to this maximum of 50 percent.
Whether a State received as much as 50 percent in this period depended on whether States had contributed up to 25 percent of the project cost – because many States had not done so, and the effect was to penalize those communities because of the States.
In the second phase the cost is 50 percent.
The figure in the bill, which covers both of these phases, based on the best estimates we were able to get, is $2.4 billion in all.
Mr. JAVITS. I note from the report that the committee said that if it should be found inadequate and the entitlement higher, the committee intends to seek authorization and appropriation for whatever is paid.
Mr. MUSKIE. That is correct. We will do that.
Mr. JAVITS. I thank the Senator very much.
I believe this is a most constructive course. I emphasize the fact also that it is overlooked that we wish to encourage and not discourage States in prefinancing. This is good for the United States and for the people.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. MUSKIE. I yield.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, like my colleague, I am concerned about this point. It is an important point affecting 30 States having large outstanding contributions in reliance on an oral commitment by the Federal Government. These are large figures: In Michigan $162 million, in New York $900 million, and in Connecticut $104 million.
Many of these States will find they are hard put to proceed with programs already on the drawing board, even with the increase in the Federal share provided for in this legislation unless Congress at the same time appropriates the money required to make these very sizable reimbursements. Otherwise, programs would have to be put on the shelf and valuable time lost. I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. MUSKIE. I thank the Senator for his comment.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a statement and then a question?
Mr. MUSKIE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Vermont.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, Lake Champlain, which lies between the States of Vermont and New York, is the largest fresh-water lake in the United States outside the Great Lakes.
It has an unusually high water quality standard but at the southern end of the lake near Ticonderoga, N.Y., Lake Champlain has been seriously polluted by discharges from a large paper mill.
The sludge deposited over many years now covers some 300 acres which is 12 feet deep at some points.
The paper mill is now closed and a new larger mill has been built and is operating several miles further north on the lake.
The paper company says that it has removed about 90 percent of its pollutants by the installation of new processes.
The Army Engineers estimate it will cost about $4 or $5 million to remove the sludge from the site of the old mill.
This sludge has been the subject of controversy for a number of years. The residents on the Vermont side of the lake in that area have found the water to be unfit for swimming and fishing.
Air pollution blowing across the lake from the old mill site has been extremely offensive at times.
The old Federal Water Quality Administration held special pollution conferences and found the pollution should be abated but nothing was ever done.
The new Environmental Protection Agency also explored the problem but apparently lacks authority to do anything realistic about it.
I brought this problem to the attention of the ranking minority member of the committee (Mr. COOPER) some time ago, and I am gratified to know that language has been included in S. 2770 to permit specific action to be taken to remove the sludge.
I am advised that this language appears on page 22, lines 14, 15, and 16, namely (C), to eliminate the effects of pollution from in-place or accumulated sources of pollution.
Am I correct in believing that this language would authorize a project which would permit the removal of the sludge and a concurrent study of the effects of this removal upon the water quality of Lake Champlain?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Senator's understanding of the bill is correct that section 105 contains provisions that could be used to support a demonstration grant to repair accumulated sludge adjacent to the facilities on Lake Champlain.
I would like to point out that for the first time the bill recognizes the serious problem of in-place or accumulated sources of pollution. That is of concern to me in Maine because we have similar problems in our rivers on which paper mills have been located. I commend the Senator for bringing this provision to the attention of the Senate at this time.