August 4, 1977
Page 26762
Mr. BURDICK. Mr. President, the Federal Government's water pollution control efforts have, from the beginning, emphasized potential recreation benefits. The goal of swimmable lakes, streams, and rivers is fully embraced in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Yet, we have seen little actual implementation of plans to encourage the realization of direct recreation benefits in the design and construction works. For this reason, I am offering minor amendments to the act before us today to require analysis of recreation and open space potential in the waste treatment planning process and to maximize the public recreation opportunities when they are identified.
One good example of what I am trying to accomplish appears in a letter to the Philadelphia office of the Environmental Protection Agency from the general manager of the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission; the letter, dated June 24, 1977, described the potential multiple benefits of joint sewer line bike trail projects.
First, lower administrative and construction costs realized by the employment of a single contractor for both the trail and sewer, rather than separate contractors for each project;
Second, lower overall restoration costs incurred by combining sewer and trail construction activities;
Third, less environmental damage to the stream valley achieved by not having to return for a second time to construct the trail, and
Four, the installation of a trial system serving both recreational and commuter needs and promoting energy conservation. In addition, the WSSC also benefits by using the trails as access roads for inspection and maintenance of the sewer lines.
Imaginative public officials have built tennis courts on top of sewer interceptor lines and have planned open space greenways along shore fronts to provide public access to waters becoming cleaner every day. However, we have only begun to realize the benefits of such planning. As the National Recreation and Park Association pointed out to the committee in a recent letter, these multiple use examples are the exception rather than the rule. The encouragement of such multiple uses must be strengthened beyond what is provided for in Public Law 92–500 and the executive branch should be directed to actively seek out these multiple benefits. There should be, in my opinion, a relationship between waste water treatment plans and State and local recreation and open space plans. Such legislative action will not only provide additional recreation benefits to citizens in surrounding areas, but will also give the public the greatest benefit for local and Federal tax dollars spent.
The National Recreation and Park Association completed a survey last summer of planners around the country working for park and recreation agencies, 208 water quality planning agencies, and agency recipients of section 201 construction grants. The survey results were supportive of the need for these amendments in that respondents overwhelmingly indicated the desirability of linking recreation benefits to water quality improvement efforts. The theme running through all the responses was that multiple use design principles must be incorporated into the planning processes from the very beginning. Mr. President, the effect of the amendments I am offering today is to meet that need by requiring the consideration of recreation and open space benefits prior to final approval and grant award for the construction of a treatment works.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, as I understand the amendments of the Senator from North Dakota, they would encourage the planning of related recreational projects?
Mr. BURDICK. That is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. Is it fair to conclude that the Senator's amendments would not divert grant money away from the construction of needed treatment works, but rather would force consideration of design modifications by the grantees?
Mr. BURDICK. That is correct.
Mr. MUSKIE. I also understand that under the Senator's amendments, should recreation considerations alter the total cost of a treatment works, such alterations, to be eligible for Federal funding, could not significantly raise the total project cost.
Mr. BURDICK. Yes, that is my intent in offering this amendment.
Mr. MUSKIE. With that understanding, Mr. President, the committee accepts the Senator's amendments.
Mr. BURDICK. In summary, Mr. President, the section 204 amendment requires the addition of one factor to the EPA checkoff list prior to the final approval of a grant. That factor is that the applicant has analyzed the potential recreation opportunities of the proposed treatment works.
The section 208 amendment requires consideration of open space and recreation opportunities in the development of section 208 area wide waste treatment plans.
Mr. ANDERSON. We have no objection, Mr. President.
Mr. STAFFORD. We have no objection on this side of the aisle, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back?
Mr. STAFFORD. All time is yielded back.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time having been yielded back, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.