April 25, 1977
Page 12010
WATER POLLUTION
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, recently our distinguished colleague from Iowa, JOHN CULVER, addressed the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, AMSA, at its annual legislative meeting in Washington, D.C. This association consists of the operators of the municipal wastewater treatment facilities of our major metropolitan areas.
In his speech, Senator CULVER underscored the need to continue our national commitment to clean our waters while recognizing that some changes may be in order. And he stressed the accomplishments we have made to date.
The Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution, which I chair, will soon begin oversight hearings and legislative consideration of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. This will be an in-depth examination designed to find ways to improve the ambitious clean water program on which we are embarked.
The subcommittee is fortunate that JOHN CULVER is a member. His intelligence, diligence, and farsightedness will be invaluable to our deliberations.
I believe Senator CULVER's remarks present an important examination of the dynamics of our water pollution control program, and I commend his speech to our colleagues. I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the speech was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
REMARKS OF SENATOR JOHN CULVER
It is a privilege to meet with you members of the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies for this early morning fireside chat. I am happy to be here and want to thank Ron Linton and Lee White for inviting me.
It would be impossible to find a group of people more thoroughly aware of the importance of adequate supplies of clean, fresh water to our country and to the world than you who are gathered here this morning. Despite the acute drought conditions we are experiencing in this period, energy still ranks ahead of water as a glamor issue in the public's concern.
As you know, they are in the process of setting up a House Select Committee on Energy to help implement the President's energy proposals, and apparently Speaker Tip O'Neill is having a regular stampede of Members who want to be on the committee. When asked how many had applied, one of Tip's assistants replied — "435."
Yet, it is ironic that any scientific long range projections of priority global problems would put the possibility of severe water shortages at the top of the list. Moreover, many of our available energy sources are dependent on adequate water supplies.
It is interesting to note that Kuwait, which is one of the OPEC countries awash with oil, has virtually no fresh water supplies and depends heavily on desalinized sea water.
I note that you have some highly qualified professional staff members from Congress on your program who will deal with specifics of legislation coming up before the 95th Congress. For my own part, I would like to deal with some of the broader aspects of water pollution control policy that underly the legislative job we have ahead of us.
The whole problem area is awesomely massive, complex and technical. It would be nice we think at times, to retreat into the past, the "good old days" when life was less complicated and on a smaller scale. There is a considerable following now for E. F. Schumacher's philosophy of "small is beautiful." We can learn some useful things from this philosophy, but the realities are that while small may be beautiful, big is here to stay and to be dealt with.
In pollution control, as in other major areas of public policy, I am an ardent believer in the imperative need to develop long range foresight capability. Futurists deal with what they call "alternative futures," based not on certainties but on highly likely possibilities. Obviously the future is not always a direct continuation of the past. If nuclear war or some other world disaster strikes or if we experience a revolution of new breakthroughs in technology, then all bets are off.
But much of what will take place in the years ahead can be foreseen by careful study and planning and many crises can be avoided before they roll over us from the blind side.
I know that when I talk about the need for developing foresight expertise and exercising the discipline of long range planning, I am getting into an area in which you people live and have your professional being. I know, for example, that you are interested in an ongoing struggle for longer range funding to permit longer range planning, and this aspect of your problems will be carefully considered by the Congress.
Although America is still a comparative oasis among other countries in a world of spreading global shortages, it is clear to all of us that in the third century of our republic, we must develop new attitudes and new methods in the management of our natural resources.
In the first 200 years, we proceeded along developmental lines that were roughly the same from the beginning — aggressive geographical expansion, unlimited economic growth, lavish use of resources, and unplanned use of space and energy. Now we must proceed in a more rational, disciplined, and foresighted way if we are to continue the good life.
The environmental laws, written primarily by the subcommittee on environmental pollution on which I serve, are an important beginning. Their commitment to the future is staggering in its scope — but it must be met. We have all been part of the problem; we must all be part of the solution.
The '76-'77 drought has gone a long way to awaken the public awareness to the seriousness of the water problem. Americans in the far west have always been concerned about water shortages, but we in the midwest and eastern states have taken our water supplies for granted as a limitless resource.
The suggestion some citizens made to the President during this past winter — that we should load snow from upstate New York on flat cars and ship it to the drought areas — may have been naive and impractical, but it shows the awakening of some elementary awareness to the problem.
However, even with this winter's drought that has made water scarce in most areas of our nation, most Americans probably see this shortage as a temporary problem only. However, scientists warn that the present situation could represent the early phase of a major climate shift that could continue for years or could at least recur more frequently than in past decades.
As you professionals well know, and as the American people should begin to realize, although water is one of the most abundant materials on earth, almost 99 percent of it is inaccessible for human use. Nor have we yet made any major technical breakthrough to convert these sources of water — such as the oceans, icebergs and polar snow caps — to human use.
In the meantime both domestic and industrial demand for water keeps increasing at an accelerated rate. For instance, it is estimated that producing a ton of steel requires 40,000 gallons of water, and making a ton of paper requires 250 tons of water.
You all know the story of the critical point to which the deterioration of the nation's waters had come at the beginning of the present decade. By 1971, 29 percent of the country's lakes and rivers were polluted, according to a Council on Environmental Quality report.
The response of Congress came in the form of the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act amendments (P L. 92-500), one of the most important and far reaching laws ever enacted.
While congressional efforts prior to 1972 had failed to keep water pollution from increasing both in outright tonnage and in lethality to man and aquatic species, the 1972 legislation represented a landmark in our strategy to control discharges of effluent into our waterways. It also marked a fundamental rethinking of our national pollution control policy. Instead of selective enforcement against the worst offenders, all polluters were to be regulated under a nationwide permit program.
And major funding was authorized for municipal treatment construction grants in order to carry out the mandate of the legislation.
There is no doubt we have made significant progress under the changes mandated in 1972 in cleaning our water — from both industrial and municipal sources — and I commend you members of the association for your part in this.
We have cleaned up major waterways that once were dead. For example, the Rouge River in Detroit used to be choked with a mounting tide of sewage, chemicals, waste oils, acids and paper sludge, and a quarter-inch thick coating of oil covered the shoreline. Now the water quality in the river has improved so much that you can fish from it in front of Cobo Hall.
In contrast with these successes, we have also had a substantial number of setbacks, lags and delays. The Potomac River is still a national disgrace and New York Harbor remains stagnant. Eighty-one per cent of over 200 lakes recently studied by the E.PA. are in an advanced state of eutrophication.
In the implementation of P L. 92-500, some mid-course corrections are undoubtedly in order. But the commitment and objectives are still sound.
As a member of the Senate Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution, I intend to participate in a thorough examination of the specific provisions of this program in the months ahead. This has always been the firm commitment of Senator Ed Muskie, who chairs the subcommittee, and Chairman Randolph.
I can assure you that the subcommittee will be willing to work with you and other experts in the field about the mechanics of the program. In order to preserve the central legislative intent, the subcommittee has resisted piecemeal amendments that have been offered up to this point.
The constraints of the Federal budget are more stringent than perhaps ever before, but I believe the recent decision by the committee to authorize $4.5 billion annually for fiscal years 1977 and 1978 demonstrates our desire to maintain a strong level of Federal funding. I know that many cities have a backlog of projects ready to go. The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, for instance, has $1.3 billion in construction plans for sewer runoff tunnels, approved and awaiting Federal funds.
The difficulties in keeping faith with America in controlling the pollution of our fresh waters remain enormous. The nation has many other priority needs and the competition for public funds will be of unmatched ferocity. The nation is struggling to get back on the expressway to economic recovery, and it is necessary to seek a careful balance between the needs of economic growth and of environmental protection.
But one thing is clear. For the benefit of ourselves and of generations to come, we cannot abandon our commitment to clean water USA.