December 14, 1973
Page 41636
WASTE FUND TREATMENT FUND ALLOCATIONS
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be laid aside temporarily and that the Senate turn to the consideration of Calendar No. 604, S. 2812; but before the Chair rules, I wish to say that this is one of the bills which, in response to a question raised by the distinguished acting Republican leader yesterday, I stated we would try to bring up today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senators will please be seated so that the Senator can be heard.
The bill will be stated by title.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2812) to authorize a formula for the allocation of funds authorized for fiscal year 1975 for treatment construction grants, and for other purposes.
The Senate proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during consideration of and voting on H.R. 11372 and S. 2812 the following staff members of the Committee on Public Works be granted the privilege of access to the floor:
Mr. Barry Meyer, John W. Yago, Philip T. Cummings, Ron Katz, Bailey Guard, Kathy Cudlipp, Harold Brayman, Rick Herod, Leon G. Billings, Sally W. Walker, James Readle, and Jacqueline Schafer.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, one of the innovative and controversial features of the 1972 clean water law was the provision for determining distribution of construction grant funds among the States.
Prior to 1972, water pollution construction funds were distributed among the States on the basis of population. Under the new law, allocation of funds was to be based on needs. Construction grant funds for 1973 and 1974 were distributed on the basis of a "needs" survey which EPA had submitted to the Congress in early 1972. Next year's funds – fiscal year 1975 – were to be allocated on January 1, 1974, on the basis of a new "needs" survey which was conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency and submitted to Congress in October of this year.
The committee, after holding hearings and reviewing the "needs" survey, recognized two major problems with the recommended formula. First, as the Environmental Protection Agency recognized in their report to Congress, the survey of the States had major limitations, including the survey methodology and the types of costs which States could expect.
Second, the recommended formula, if adopted as the basis for allocation, would limit the amount of grants to several States substantially below their estimated needs – needs which EPA omitted in their survey.
While the committee believes that the "needs" approach is preferable, the limitations of the current survey required consideration of other factors in developing an allocation formula that would: First, estimate needs not covered by the "needs" survey; and second, reduce the inequities to several States created by the transition to allocation based entirely on needs. The legislation reported by the committee meets these criteria.
Mr. President, section 205(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act directs the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to allocate 1975 grants for construction of wastewater treatment facilities among the States. Section 207 of that act has authorized $7 billion for fiscal year 1975.
The Environmental Protection Agency, pursuant to section 516, in its "needs" survey recommended that Congress base its allocation of 1975 grant funds to the States in the same ratio that their costs in three categories bear to the total costs of these categories to all the States. The costs covered in these categories included: First, providing the facilities to meet secondary treatment required by the 1972 act; second, providing facilities for meeting State or local requirements more stringent than secondary treatment; and third, providing eligible new interceptors, force mains, and pumping stations.
The bill reported today requires the Administrator to allocate the authorized funds on a ratio developed on the following basis: 75 percent of the total funds according to the Environmental Protection Agency's recommended formula described in the 1973 "needs" survey; 25 percent in the ratio that the population of each State bears to the population of all the States.
The committee, however, has agreed to limit the use of this allocation formula to fiscal year 1975.
Because of the limitations on the survey, the legislation requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to make another "needs" survey in 1974, which is to be initiated within 30 days, utilizing the forms approved last year. This survey is to provide Congress with new data no later than June 30, 1974, and is to serve as the basis for allocating grant funds for 1976. Unlike the 1973 survey, the new survey shall include all costs which States expect to incur to comply with the 1972 act.
The committee expects the Administrator to insist that the States submit a complete form for the entire State rather than multiple forms for communities in the State. And the committee expects the States to submit estimates of needs for all "treatment works" as defined in section 212(2) (A) and (B) and the estimate of costs for best practicable waste treatment technology defined in section 201 and required by section 301.
On a related matter, the committee bill addresses the issue of "phased funding" of needed treatment works.
Section 3 rectifies the Environmental Protection Agency's misinterpretation of section 203 of the Water Pollution Control Act. Under its present regulations, that Agency restricts complete operable works from receiving funding for separate construction segments. Furthermore, that Agency's misinterpretation of section 203 prohibits financial phasing of construction works over more than 1 fiscal year.
This section imposes no additional costs to the Federal Government nor would commitment to one phase of a project constitute an obligation on the part of the Federal Government to fund the remainder of the project. Conversely, the committee would expect EPA to obtain a commitment from any community or State utilizing phased funding, to complete the project even if future Federal funding is not assured.
Mr. President, this legislation represents a compromise – a compromise which reflects the needs for an equitable distribution of available construction grant funds and the limitations of the EPA needs survey. I think it is fair and equitable to all States. It represents the best judgment and unanimous recommendation of the Committee on Public Works.
I urge the Senate to pass the bill.