December 21, 1973
Page 43130
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, one week ago today the Senate passed S. 2812 authorizing a formula for the allocation of funds authorized for fiscal year 1975 for sewage construction grants and for other purposes.
This past week the House amended this bill in several significant respects.
The House has substituted a different ratio for the allocation of wastewater treatment grants. That ratio is to be determined one-half on the basis of table I of House Public Works Committee print No. 93-28 and one-half on the basis of table II of such print. Under this amendment, no State shall receive for fiscal year 1975 an allotment less than that which it received for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, as set forth in table III of the House Public Works Committee print.
The House amendment required that this ratio be used for allocating funds for both fiscal years 1975 and 1976.
Mr. President, the amendment I propose would limit the use of the House ratio to fiscal year 1975 only as was proposed in the original Senate version of S.2812.
The amendment I propose would restore the Senate requirement that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency accelerate the "needs" survey required under section 516(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972. This amendment requires the Administrator to submit a preliminary detailed cost estimate to Congress no later than September 3, 1974. The final results will be expected no later than February 10, 1975 as required in section 516(b).
This is a modification, as to date, of the Senate provision, but in other respects is similar in intent and purpose to the original Senate bill. The Administrator need only transmit a summary of categorized costs that States submit. If the Administrator has time, he may also accompany the report with appropriate analysis and a recommendation.
In adopting these amendments, the Public Works Committee of each House expects the Environmental Protection Agency to do three things: First, to insure an accurate estimate of all needs for all treatment works, the agency should develop more definitive statements and definitions of which costs will be eligible. Second, the Agency should consult with the Committees on Public Works of both Houses prior to going forward with the survey. Third, the agency should provide monthly reports to Congress on the progress of the preliminary detailed estimate of survey needs.
In amending section 203 of Public Law 92-500, the House has included substitute language on the issue of phased funding. The Senate and House amendments overrule an erroneous interpretation by the Environmental Protection Agency on how projects are to be funded.
Presently, the Agency limits grants for portions of treatment works which are "operable units." As the House and Senate noted, this was not the intent of the Congress. The difference between the two bills is related to whether grants are made to financial phases or engineering phases of projects. The House, in requiring that grants be made for projects which are operable units, narrows the Senate's provision, but corrects the basic flaw in Agency interpretation.
Finally, the House included an additional provision which prohibits the Environmental Protection Agency from requiring States to establish, in their construction grant priority lists, a preference for projects which treat wastes to be discharged into international waters.
I recommend the Senate accept this amendment.
The basic cause of the problem we face in fulfilling obligations to clean up international treaties stems from earlier action by this administration. If the administration had not impounded water pollution control allocations, there could have been adequate funds available to meet our international commitments as well as meet the needs of the States for construction of other waste treatment facilities. The attempt by the administration to pressure the States to place international projects at the top of their priority list is an unacceptable response to the failure to release adequate funds.
The illegal decision to impound water pollution funds has created tremendous problems. The administration is now feeling the rebound of that action. The correct policy would be to release the impounded allocations.