February 25, 1976
Page 4375
WATER POLLUTION
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, on October 18, 1972, I urged our colleagues to override a Presidential veto and begin a dramatic effort to clean up the once-pure waters of this country. Congress rose to the occasion and enacted Public Law 92-500 — the Clean Water Act of 1972.
Unfortunately, because the law called for a new way of doing business, and because of the administration's manifest opposition, our progress in the first 3 years has been considerably less than our expectations. Recent findings by the National Commission on Water Quality, chartered by the Clean Water Act, and charged with assessing the impacts of the law's implementation, confirm this finding. But the report goes on to say that the program spawned by Public Law 92-500 has gathered momentum, that is beginning to work, and that the bureaucratic community is becoming familiar, and even supportive, of its provisions.
It is difficult for anyone — even Congress — to learn to do things differently. We cannot legislate a change in attitude, or orientation, that will instantly take place. But Congress can, and did, stimulate the entire water pollution control establishment — and it is a large establishment — to take the first, tentative steps toward thinking of our lakes, rivers, and oceans as something more than elements of the waste treatment system, to be used for their ability to transport or dilute our pollution, and to be used up to the limits of their assimilative capacity. We are finally beginning to view our waters and its indigenous ecosystems as a precious natural resource, and our waste as a potential source of valuable materials.
Having completed its findings, the Commission is now entering its most critical phase, that of preparing recommendations for Congress. Although the findings cover a broad spectrum, they do not point toward any precise direction or demonstrate any clear need for change. Hearings by the Commission showed that different people find different facts in the report to support different and sometimes diametrically opposite positions.
Mr. President, this Commission, created by Congress, has given me a unique opportunity to study in depth the course of a major piece of legislation which I helped develop. With that participation came a unique and frankly difficult responsibility, for I am also chairman of the congressional subcommittee with legislative responsibility for this act.
Many people have been counting on the Commission to tell Congress what to do — to come up with a legislative package of recommendations. I have resisted that and continue to resist it. Congress should look to the Commission for facts and findings, for distillation of issues, for the Commission's judgment on areas of law that Congress should address, and for the options that Congress may choose to pursue and the implications of those options. But the ultimate decisions must be made by Congress through its procedures. I have urged colleagues on the Commission to keep this in mind.
I order to be sure that its findings were accurate, and to elicit ideas from the public on what direction the water pollution program should take, the Commission held a series of hearings throughout the country last month.
I was extremely gratified by the testimony of the Department of Environmental Protection of my home State. While unable to participate personally because of adverse weather conditions, the department submitted a letter in which they argued eloquently and persuasively for the objectives that Congress set forth 3½ years ago — to stop using our waters as sewers by applying feasible technology to keep pollutants out of the water.
Maine is not a wealthy State; Maine needs the industry she has. Maine needs new jobs. Yet Maine embarked on a program that exceeded the Federal program, and none — not one — of her paper mills is going to close due to water pollution control expenditures.
The Maine Department of Environmental Protection urges us to stick with the ideas we wrote into law. Because I intend to rely heavily on the views expressed by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection as we examine proposed recommendations from the National Commission on Water Quality, I think its contents ought to be in the RECORD and I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the RECORD.
STATE OF MAINE,
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION,
February 4, 1976.
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON WATER QUALITY,
Attention: John Freshman,
1111 18th Street,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR COMMISSION MEMBERS: I would like to bring to the attention of the National Commission on Water Quality several important trends in Maine industrial and municipal pollution abatement, some of which are contrary to Commission findings.
First, the Commission's report indicates there may be significant closing of factories and jobs lost in New England in the future because of the 1977 waste treatment requirements of the Amended Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Maine industries initially had the same deep concerns about PL 92-500; however, the contrary has happened.
In Maine the pulp and paper industry has just completed the most extensive expansion in the state's history, while completing treatment facilities for operation by October 1, 1976, nine months ahead of the federal deadline. We will experience no plant closings in any industry due solely to the requirement for secondary treatment by 1977. In some instances, abatement programs have actually helped Maine industries save money. For example, one pulp and paper company has offset wastewater treatment costs through fiber recovery from better housekeeping practices.
It is our feeling that Maine's experience with PL 92-500's 1983 goals will be similar. We feel that the 1983 goals are valuable, and that if needed, suitable compromises will be worked out to meet the goals.
I must stress that I feel it is imperative that all states are held to the July 1, 1977, deadline, and that treatment standards are not relaxed so Maine industries can compete in the marketplace on equal ground with industry in other states. Interior Secretary Udall's1967 guidelines, which proposed a minimum of secondary waste treatment systems for all, must not be altered now. Maine has come too far; too much time and money has gone to industrial waste treatment to allow those in other parts of the country a cost and resultant competitive advantage of providing something less than secondary treatment.
Maine's municipal program is progressing as fast as funds will allow. Towns and cities are working hard to meet state and federal goals for wastewater treatment. The federal funding program must continue if municipalities are to complete installation of secondary treatment facilities. If funds eligibiliity is held to interceptor systems, treatment facilities and outfalls, Maine will need federal monies for 6 more years at a rate of $40 million each year. If the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) expands eligibility to include collector systems, we will need $40 million each year for 15 years.
While we feel strongly that a state's needs should determine how much money it receives, we realize that federal programs must at least consider a distribution of funds which takes state population into account. We feel, however, that the Commission should consider changing the distribution formula so that before pollution abatement funds are spent on stormwater treatment, all municipalities nationwide have secondary treatment for sanitary waste discharges. We feel that exceptions could be made in areas such as water quality limited segments and shellfishing areas closed due to combined stormwater overflows, where stormwater treatment could provide significant positive impact.
In addition, if the DEP is to continue to manage this massive construction and administrative effort, 106 programs must continue. We feel that if, due to severe economic problems, a state's general fund allocation for pollution abatement must be reduced below its 1971 level, the state should not lose its entire federal 106 program grant; however, the grant should be proportionately reduced.
I strongly urge, further, that any recommendations made by the National Commission on Water Quality in respect to mid-course corrections in PL 92-500 should be subject to discussion among state and regional administrators. The impact of any such changes will first be felt by these administrators and their departments. We deserve a voice in any final recommendations to Congress.
Finally, another important point I would like to make is that the law and its procedures should not be significantly changed in midstream. At the inception of PL 92-500, federal, state and local governments began a 2-year learning process to set in motion the law's many requirements. Any substantial change in procedures will seriously hamper our efforts in the management of pollution abatement construction programs. Let us work with the law and make any procedural changes at regional levels where their impact on the program will be minimized.
The Commission should ensure that waste treatment be based on what we are technically and financially capable of doing, not on what our rivers and oceans can handle short of becoming open sewers. This is the ideal and goal of PL 92-500 and must not be altered. It is the only path to swimmable, fishable waters and the benefits which American people will accrue.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to voice the opinions of the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. .
Sincerely,
WILLIAM R. ADAMS, Jr., Commissioner.