February 25, 1975
Page 4333
By Mr. MUSKIE (for himself, Mr. RANDOLPH, Mr. BAKER, Mr. BUCKLEY, Mr. BURDICK, Mr. GRAVEL, Mr. GARY HART, and Mr. MONTOYA)
S. 3037. A bill to extend certain authorizations under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended. Referred to the Committee on Public Works.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the bill I am introducing today would provide 1 additional year of funds for the waste-water treatment facility construction grant program under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Authorizations for this program were provided for fiscal years 1973, 1974, and 1975 for a total of $18 billion. The administration impounded $9 billion of these funds. The legality of that impoundment was questioned, and the Supreme Court ruled in February of 1974 that the $9 billion had been illegally impounded. Those funds were then immediately released and remain available to the States until September 1977.
The Environmental Protection Agency has accelerated the rate at which applications for construction grants are being approved, and the States have accelerated their application procedure. After a surge of new grant contracts, however, the pace of applications has slowed. Delays now are at the local level — not as a result of EPA's regulations. Part of this delay is caused by the uncertainty of funding the local share, an uncertainty which would have been overcome if the public works jobs bill had not been vetoed.
Part of the delay is the result of lack of local initiatives and the apparent willingness of EPA to let municipal discharge permit conditions go unenforced.
Some States, like Maine, are continuing to release these funds at an accelerated pace. Unfortunately, even this orderly process will stop if there are no new authorizations. The Environmental Protection Agency has provided information which shows that at least 22 States will run out of construction grant funds by March 1977 — a full 6 months ahead of schedule.
Many of those States will run out even earlier — some will run out within the next few months.
What will happen to the construction grant programs in those States? What will happen to the capacity of communities to meet clean water deadlines? And what will happen to the jobs which are created by these needed public works investments?
Faced with this grim scenario, it would be reasonable to expect a request from the administration for a continued level of funding for the grant program through fiscal year 1977. The EPA budget request contains no money for the grant program. EPA has asked OMB for this authority and OMB refused to provide it.
It is our responsibility to make good on our Federal commitment to the States to provide funds in an orderly fashion for this construction grant program. It is for this reason that I introduce this bill which will continue funding the construction grant program at the $7 billion level authorized for fiscal year 1975. This bill simply provides an authorization for appropriation of construction grant funds. The State-by-State allocation of this $7 billion is an issue which remains to be resolved. The Public Works Committee will have to consider any change in the allocation formula for this money.
The Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution, which I chair, will be holding hearings on March 1 to consider the adequacy of the EPA budget request for fiscal year 1977. I intend to review the status of the construction grant program at that time, especially looking to the need for additional construction grant funds.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this legislation and I commend the Senator from Maine (Mr. MUSKIE) for introducing it.
As a member of the National Commission on Water Quality, I am convinced by the testimony and the evidence that a great need exists to maintain a continuing grant program to assist municipalities in the construction of effective sewage treatment facilities. The cost of that effort over the coming decade is estimated at between $5 to $10 billion yearly.
The Committee on Public Works has scheduled a hearing next Monday on the administration's budget proposal for the Environmental Protection Agency. This hearing will be the basis for our recommendations to the Budget Committee. A key question in that review will be what level of obligation is needed to maintain continuity of the sewage treatment grant effort.
I intend to examine the realistic needs of the program in that hearing. Thus, while I may ultimately support a figure for fiscal year 1977 that may be either lower, or higher than the $7 billion incorporated within this bill, I believe the bill serves as a helpful tool to this dialog. I am pleased to join my colleagues in cosponsoring this bill.