March 7, 1975
Page 5765
SENATOR MUSKIE REVIEWS CHALLENGES TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, for more than a dozen years the Committee on Public Works has been actively involved in the development of legislation to protect and enhance our natural environment.
Programs developed in our committee and enacted by the Congress are being implemented with a resulting decline in the pollution of our country's air and water. The advances have been significant, but much remains to be done before we achieve adequate protection of public health.
The knowledgeable Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) has occupied a strong position of leadership throughout the evolution of Federal environmental programs. He has approached the task realistically, fully aware of the enormity of the challenge and equally conscious of the obstacles to be overcome. Senator MUSKIE, as Chairman of our Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution, has carried out his work with fairness and with determination to fashion workable laws to facilitate the ending of contamination of our air and water.
In this time of energy shortage and economic recession the temptation is great to blame environmental programs for these problems and to seek solutions through the weakening of antipollution efforts.
Senator MUSKIE discussed the status of the environmental programs in a thoughtful and informative address before the International Conference on Biological Water Quality Alternatives in Philadelphia on March 4. His observations should be shared with all who share our concern, and I ask unanimous Consent that the text of Senator MUSKIE's address be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
SPEECH OF SENATOR EDMUND S. MUSKIE
You have had an opportunity in the last two days to delve into the technical and scientific realm – to look at present and future biological alternatives for water treatment – and you have heard from distinguished and topical speakers. I would like to try to put things in the following context: how do the purposes here mesh with other purposes of the national water pollution program, and how do the systems you are discussing fit within it?
In today's political climate, any discussion of environmental issues is risky at best. Not only must those of us who continue to believe in environmental objectives explain our position more carefully but also we must defend those objectives in the context of an unfavorable economic climate.
We must begin by documenting the point that environmental programs did not generate either the economic crisis or the energy shortage.
We must begin by demonstrating that environmental controls do not cost jobs but rather create jobs.
And we must begin by restating that basic objective of improving the quality of human life while not detracting from an improved standard of living, especially for those who have not enjoyed the abundance which so often has caused deterioration of our environment.
So let me place environment in context. A recent study for the Environmental Protection Agency came to the following conclusions–
First, "The stimulus of increased expenditures on pollution control equipment in the early years of the decade is expected to raise the rate of economic growth through 1976 above the rate of increase otherwise projected for those years ...
Second, "The unemployment rate, in keeping with the pattern of overall economic growth, is projected to be 0.4 percent lower in 1975 and 0.3 percent lower in 1976 than it would have been without pollution controls. ... " and–
Third, "The impact on prices over the decade show only slight increases which are almost phased out by 1972."
Now what do these figures mean? In essence they indicate that environmental requirements will have a stimulative economic impact – more jobs – more GNP – and slightly higher prices.
And what will the investment accomplish? You have heard broad statements about ecological and biological integrity. You have seen evidence of improved recreational and aesthetic benefits. You have probably seen statistics on the benefits to public health.
I cannot place a dollar value on these benefits.
I cannot tell you precisely what the value is of a clean stream or a clean sky. I am not prepared to place a dollar value on the estimated 15,000 deaths a year which result from dirty air. I am not even certain that our estimates of the value of a productive fishing resource are particularly accurate.
I am satisfied that man lives in a delicate balance with his environment and that our objectives – healthy air and clean water – are essential to maintaining that balance.
I am satisfied that our short term investment on environmental improvement will provide immediate economic benefit and in the longer run, essential ecological protection.
To those who assert that we are going too fast, I must respond that we are going too slow. Five years after Earth Day – four years after enactment of the Clean Air Act – three years after enactment of the Clean Water Act we are still negotiating over how clean is clean.
Only last month was the issue of water pollution funding finally resolved. Only now can we get on with the task of cleaning the nation's water. This is the question with which this Conference is concerned.
It is as if we are beginning again. The recent Supreme Court decision, declaring illegal the Administration's failure to allot the full program authorization, and our recessionary economy, with its ever-increasing unemployment, have accomplished what couldn't be accomplished before – they have stirred the sleeping giant – the 1972 Clean Water Act – put to sleep by the Administration's disregard of the law of the land – and headed that law again toward its stated objective: "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters."
The Supreme court decision, dated February 18, 1975, made the following statement: "As conceived and passed in both Houses, the legislation was intended to provide a firm commitment of substantial sums within a relatively limited period of time in an effort to achieve an early solution to what was deemed an urgent problem." An early solution to an urgent problem indeed!
It is now two and one-half years later. President Nixon, with a stroke of his pen impounded the funds to do the job and delayed the program two and one-half years, thus seriously impairing our ability to meet our national goals.
The decision, in the end, turned on a technicality: whether the Administrator had the authority to withhold certain amounts from allotment, and was decided on the basis of overwhelming legislative history to the contrary. But its impact will be far-reaching – on the environment and on the economy.
During Senate consideration of the Conference report, I said in a passage that was cited by the Supreme Court decision as evidence of Congressional intent:
"... to achieve the deadlines we are talking about in this bill, we are going to need the strongest kind of evidence of the Federal Government's commitment to pick up its share of the load. We cannot back down, with any credibility, from the kind of investment in waste treatment facilities that is called for by this bill. And the conferees are convinced that the level of investment that is authorized is the minimum dose of medicine that will solve the problem we face."
We didn't get the minimum dose – and, consequently, the deadlines are not being met – at least the 1977 deadlines for communities are not. Municipalities have been able to raise the local share, many states have been willing to participate financially, but the Federal commitment hasn't been there to match it.
Plans have been shelved, workers have been idled, factories have slowed down production of component equipment, and – this is the most insidious result – communities have lost hope – and lost belief – in the program. Projects that were ready to go in October of 1972 are no longer ready.
There is no incentive to maintain momentum when there is no follow through. Why go through the motions, they ask?
We passed a law specifically designed to prod the communities into action – and to push the states to develop aggressive programs. The prod and the push was to be assured by Federal assistance. But when they did their part, when they conducted their infiltration-inflow studies, when they established user charge systems, the Federal Government held back.
How can we cause innovation, how can we keep the pressure on technological improvement, when the Federal Government does not live up to its part of the bargain?
We have listened to the argument that the money couldn't be spent – that there were not enough projects ready to go – and we know that is not true. In Maine alone, we could obligate – within one year – the full entitled allotment of water pollution funds and still have to hold off on some projects.
And, we have been told that impoundment would have little impact on the program to clean up industry. The contrary is true.
Industries which had planned to hook into municipal systems have been stymied – they don't know what way to go – whether to build their own system or whether to wait for the municipal system.
And other industries have argued that it is unfair to force them to make a financial commitment when the Federal Government is not prepared to meet its own obligations.
But now the Supreme Court has ruled and the Administrator of EPA has agreed to make the full $9 billion available for obligation. We are, indeed, beginning again.
It is a time for decisive action – if the money is going to do any good, it must be quickly delivered. It is also a time to remind ourselves of our long-term objectives. That's what this Conference is doing today.
Your Conference – the speakers you have heard – remind us that it is not time to take the pressure off the technological community to find better and less expensive ways to do the job. We are, first and foremost, interested in reducing, and then eliminating pollution from our water – restoring and maintaining the quality of our lakes and streams. The more pollution we eliminate with each dollar invested, the better off we are.
But the water pollution program, conceived and designed to meet one major national concern – cleaning up the water – has taken on a new major role as well – stimulating a stagnant economy. The economy needs the money now – we must move those projects that are ready. But the environment ultimately needs long-term solutions, as well, solutions which may not be available in time to help stimulate our present sagging economy, but which, nonetheless, must be developed, refined, and perfected.
When we were working on the Clean Water Act some said that the country couldn't afford the cost of water pollution control, now it appears that the country can't afford not to do it – for economic, as well as environmental reasons.
These are two vital purposes – to restore our economy and to restore our environment – and they come together in the clean water program. As Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee and Chairman of the Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution, I have unique vantage point and an awesome responsibility. My role illustrates the scope of the legislation – and how its components reach out to touch many segments in our society. The extent to which the immediate and long-term needs of each effort can be merged into an active and vigorous program will provide a blueprint for solving major problems of the seventies. The seventies will show the health of the economy as dependent upon, not exclusive of, many other major social forces – education, health as well as environment.
As a United States Senator, my major objective is to get America back to work again – we desperately need to pump money into the sagging areas of the economy. We have a program ready to go – a program already committed to a major national purpose. By allotting and quickly obligating available water pollution funds, we can mitigate some of the construction industry's 15-20 percent unemployment rate.
The program will have important direct beneficial effects – the obligation of the $9 billion in impounded funds will create 360,000 direct new jobs, 180,000 in actual construction. But its major impact may be in its indirect effects. Factories will have to gear up and take on workers to provide equipment.
The equipment will have to be transported and installed. Municipalities will have to hire consultants and staff for implementation. The 360,000 new workers will have money to spend on homes, appliances, and other consumer goods, further stimulating the economy. Steel and concrete will have to be made. The ripple effect is manifold and essential.
Of course, there will be some delays. All of the states will not be ready to spend all of the money; that's expected. But the appearance of movement and the promise of funding will have the effect of a stirring giant. Everyone will know the giant is going to move. Training programs will be revived. I would suspect that the full release of the money, if announced, will even move the market up a point or two.
But this is only rhetoric. We need a specific national commitment to accelerate the rate at which we approve projects, obligate these available funds, get construction under way, get people back to work and reduce the pollution load on our streams.
Yesterday Administrator Train and I discussed the need for this kind of commitment. As a result of that discussion and other information, I am convinced that EPA can and will more than double the monthly level of obligation of water pollution funds this year. And I am convinced that Administrator Train shares this goal. I think we can expect the level of obligation to increase from $200 million a month to more than $400 million a month by the end of the calendar year.
Testimony taken last Friday from states and communities indicate that we should be able to achieve that rate of obligation of Federal funds.
In order to accelerate the obligation of funds some projects which are not ready to go will have to be replaced on state priority lists with projects on which construction can begin within the next 12 months.
Enforcement of permits for municipal discharges, heretofore ignored because communities lacked the Federal funds to move ahead, must now be enforced if communities delay submitting applications or are slow in getting approved projects under construction.
Communities should establish penalty provisions in contracts to assure prompt performance by engineers and contractors.
Reviews and analyses of projects and project applications which have been sequential must become concurrent. And projects which are routine must move so that projects which are controversial can be subjected to adequate public review.
Projects which will significantly improve water quality – such as projects which eliminate raw waste discharges – must receive priority in order that projects designated primarily to serve new growth can complete environmental impact analysis.
As Chairman of the Public Works Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution, I want to keep pollutants from reaching the water – or the air, for that matter. We developed the 1972 Clean Water Act to challenge technology to do better, to develop new and better treatment systems for all sources.
We should be on guard, however, against repeating past mistakes as we move quickly to gain the economic benefits of the construction grant program. I do not want to see the technological community – both public and private – interpret the rush to move the construction grant program as an opportunity to reinforce their old patterns, to rely on their old solutions.
For example, we adopted secondary treatment as a minimum concept. But we need, as a Nation, to move beyond that minimum.
The current waste treatment methodology has been around, without major improvement, for 60 years.
The methods you are discussing in your conference hold great promise, and we need more people looking into more alternatives. We have spurred technology before, and technology has responded. Technology must respond again. It must go beyond existing methods.
The Act provides for this. The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency is directed to "encourage waste treatment management which results in ... the recycling of potential sewage pollutants through the production of agriculture, silviculture, or aquaculture products .. ."
Systems which cooperate with nature are cheaper in the short run, and, in the long run, use less of our valuable resources because they are renewable.
There will be a tendency, as the full amount of money is allocated, to rely on easy solutions – traditional engineering and construction practices. This would be contrary to the Clean Water Act's purposes.
Through the coming years as the program moves into full implementation, the Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution will continue to push for the development of that kind of innovative technology. Last year, we discussed the question in a hearing in Hawaii, and I said:
"... secondary treatment is not necessarily the last word in methods to deal more effectively with water purity. Indeed . . . I am personally a little disturbed that in all the years since 1918 we have developed nothing better than secondary treatment as a way of dealing with these problems . . . I don't think we ought to be inhibited by the question of expenditure of monetary and other resources. If we can find a better method, we ought to go do it, hopefully at less cost and resource demands."
As a Senator representing the State of Maine, I am especially interested in systems with a biological or natural base because, in the long run, they tend to employ more people from the local area and they are less capital and energy intensive.
My state has hundreds of small communities which tend to rely on treatment systems that were really developed for big cities. These communities are employing capital-intensive, energy- intensive systems, designed for areas that have a minimum of available land. In other words, they must put up something they don't have – money and machinery – and not something they do have – land. These communities have retained their natural support system which the cities have abandoned, but they are often not using it. We need to provide them with options tailored to their specific locations and needs.
Our economic problem is immediate, to be sure, but in addressing it, we should not provide only short-term solutions. Treatment plants that employ people only for construction are not the optimum solution. When the construction is completed, the jobs are done. The long-term employment implications must be factored in.
As Chairman of the new Senate Budget Committee, I want to keep our expenditures in reasonable proportion to our income. I am especially interested in those treatment systems which produce financial, as well as environmental benefits – benefits which recover valuable resources.
Further, I want to see systems which can expand as a community expands, at community, not Federal expense.
This round of Federal assistance should not have to be repeated. The Federal Government should not and cannot commit itself toward an endless capital expense. The land application system developed in the community of Muskegon, Michigan, recently sold a corn crop for $400,000 despite an early killing frost, and that community predicts, during calendar year 1975, that they will pay their full operating expenses with the receipts of their corn sale.
Muskegon is capable of handling growth without new construction. Their system is adaptable. In fact, two industries have sited in that area because of the adaptability of their system – and those industries are going to pay their full share of the costs of operation. Muskegon also uses land and air as cleansing agents – both renewable resources. There is no resource depletion.
In the greatest food-producing country the world has ever seen, we continue to consider nutrients as pollutants. Phosphorous, nitrogen and potassium have been the targets of water pollution clean-up efforts for years, and then viewed as a sludge disposal problem, while the cost of fertilizer has escalated to unacceptable levels.
The average day's worth of municipal waste is 40 billion gallons per day. With an average of 40 parts per million of nitrogen and 10 parts per million of potassium and phosphates, it is laden with nutrients.
Each year in the United States we discharge over $200 million worth of valuable nutrients into our waterways – and call them pollutants; 486 million pounds of organic nitrogen worth $121 million; 121 pounds of available phosphorous worth $88 million; and the same amount of potassium worth $12 million. And these are deliberately conservative figures. The value of these three major chemical fertilizer components does not tell the whole story because of the micro-nutrients: zinc, copper and lead which are frequently added at the farmer's expense to agricultural land. Healthy soil is composed of myriad organic components which need to be replenished; these are present in a municipal waste stream. Finally, in many areas of the country we cannot overlook the value of water, which is imported to agricultural lands at great cost.
We need to return these materials to nature, for nature's use, for economic, as well as environmental reasons.
We need to continue to push the program toward self-sufficiency and permanence – long-term solutions, based upon sound ecological concepts – like the kind that are being discussed at this conference – the kind that are required by the Clean Water Act.
As I have said, we are beginning again, and provided with new opportunities. We have great problems to meet and overcome, and we have a law to do it; enacted by an overwhelming majority of the people's representatives and embodying fundamentally sound ecological principles.
We need all of the most expert help we can get: of scientists and engineers; of lawyers and laborers; of politicians and administrators; all of us need to work together again to restore our economy and our environment, and create an order which embodies the ethic of the naturalist, Aldo Leopold:
"A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise."