March 16, 1977
Page 7730
Mrs. MEYNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. TRAXLER) and I feel very strongly that it addresses the critical issue of Federal funding for wastewater treatment in a backward manner.
My home State of New Jersey ran out of its Federal funding for water pollution control construction in December of1976. Estimates are that between 32 and 45 other States will exhaust their funding before the end of fiscal year 1977. For this reason, it is essential that this supplemental appropriations bill contain adequate funding to maintain State programs.
The President has recommended $4.5 billion for this effort and the Senate has indicated its approval of this level of funding by including it in their version of the public works employment bill. The National Governor's Conference survey estimates that over $3.14 billion in Federal funding could be utilized immediately for priority projects in all the States.
How then, can the House of Representatives reasonably hold the level of funding down to $1 billion — more importantly, how can the House approve an amendment to cut this tiny sum by an additional 50 percent.
I think the answer lies in the crossfire of jurisdictional and political interests among the Members of this body. Make no mistake, Mr. Chairman, I am fully aware of the desire of the House Public Works and Transportation Committee to work its will on much needed reform of water pollution control laws, and of the position that major appropriations such as this should be preceded by authorizations approved by the relevant committees. But this program is too important to allow its funding to be held hostage until these issues are resolved.
Mr. Chairman, the facts in this case indicate that we have what amounts to a national emergency on our hands — an emergency that demands immediate action according to figures from the National Governor's Conference. Alabama needs $50 million for adequate sewage systems and water cleanup programs now. California needs $335 million. Illinois needs $417 million. New Jersey needs $360 million. Texas needs $202 million — and the list goes on and on.
In light of the fact that the administration and the Senate have already indicated their strong support for full funding of these EPA programs, I find it unconscionable that the House of Representatives, would be the final stumbling block. This is particularly ironic since, after 5 years of administration impoundments and bureaucratic obstructions, the House today seems to be willing to engage similar delay tactics — tactics that would thwart the objectives of its own goals.
I had planned to offer an amendment at this time to restore the level of funding for the EPA water pollution control construction program to the $4.5 billion level requested by the administration.
However, I get a strong reading that this would be rejected in favor of stalling these funds until the Public Works Committee has a chance to work its will. I regret this, but am hopeful that the conference committee that meets to resolve the funding level of this vital program will accept a level of funding more in line with that recently adopted by the Senate.
I do not wish to jeopardize that conference in any way, and certainly would not like to see a "no" vote on my amendment construed as a rejection of the House of Representatives of this very valuable EPA program.
For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I will not offer my amendment today. I do hope, however, that I have shed some light on the critical importance of full funding of the EPA water pollution control construction program, and that I have made a strong case for prompt favorable action on this $4.5 billion supplemental budget request.
At this time I will insert for the RECORD several items that will be of interest in this debate that illustrate the consequences of a lack of decisive action:
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Washington, D.C.,
March 11, 1977.
Hon. WILLIAM PROXMIRE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR PROXMIRE: During my testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee on March 7, questions arose concerning EPA's need for an appropriation of $4.5 billion in FY 1977 for the construction grants program which assists municipalities in constructing wastewater treatment facilities. The purpose of this letter is to clarify some of the major points made at that hearing.
Since the enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, the construction grants program has been growing steadily. That legislation authorized $18 billion for the planning and construction of municipal wastewater treatment works. Annual obligations have increased from $1.6 billion in FY 1973 to $4.2 billion in FY 1976 and are expected to exceed $6.0 billion in FY 1977. During this four year period EPA and the State Agencies have been building organizational capability to efficiently administer this complex program.
To meet the national need for additional wastewater treatment facilities, the Administration has proposed an additional $45 billion for the construction grant program, to be allocated in equal $4.5 billion increments over a ten year period. This funding level would permit EPA to address the treatment needs identified in the 1976 Needs Survey at an annual level of funding that can be effectively administered at both the Federal and State level.
The $4.5 billion appropriation is needed in FY 1977 for three basic reasons:
To provide additional funds to those States which will run out of currently available funds prior to the end of FY 1977.
To assure that States do not continue to run out of funds in future years.
To allow the States to continue, without interruption, the long range planning necessary for the continuity of this program.
With regard to the first reason, at the current time we estimate that there are eleven States that will run out of currently available funds prior to the end of FY 1977, and that an additional $400 million to $1 billion could be obligated in FY 1977 if additional funds were appropriated. At the same time, however, we also estimate that eight other States will have critical problems in obligating their currently available funds by the September 30, 1977 reallotment date. To explain this apparent dichotomy it is necessary to look at the construction grants program not as a uniform, nationwide program but rather as 58 separate programs, one in each State and territory.
Each State handles its own program differently, and each State has its own particular problems as far as wastewater treatment is concerned. As the program has matured some States have moved ahead rapidly while others have fallen behind, in several instances because of litigation. Thus we find ourselves in the unusual position of having some States running out of funds while others are having problems using their current allotment.
In order to keep the program operating smoothly throughout FY 1977 and FY 1978, an appropriation of $4.5 billion for FY 1977 will be required. This level of funding is necessary because each State is allotted only that percentage of the appropriation allowed by an allotment formula established by law. Such a FY 1977 appropriation is necessary to provided the needed funds to those States running out. The Administration recognizes that the appropriation of $4.5 billion will result in significant unobligated balances incertain states at the end of FY 1977. But it will allow those States which have experienced problems to smooth out their programs since the allotment will remain available for three years, and it will provide for more effective management of the program than other alternatives which have been identified.
For example, the previous Administration proposed that $400 million be made available only to those States running out of funds. This proposal raised several problems. First, the availability of a limited amount of funds would have created a "run on the bank" situation, with the eleven States and perhaps others applying for a significantly greater amount of funding than would have been available. A second problem would have come in administering the distribution of these funds. It would have been virtually impossible to arrive at an equitable allocation formula.
Therefore it would have been necessary to distribute the funds on a first-come first-served basis, raising the possibility that a few States might use the available amount, leaving the other States without funding. Increasing the total amount available for the States running out of funds to a level of $1 billion would certainly diminish this problem, but would not solve the long range planning problems discussed below.
Incidentally, EPA has frequently been asked why the $480 million added to the Public Works Employment Appropriation Act last year has not taken care of those States needing additional funds now. The reason is that under the Talmadge-Nunn formula in that Act the funds are allocated to only 37 States, primarily the Southern and Plains States, while the States running out of money are primarily in the North and the Midwest. There is very little overlap and where there is (as in the case of Nevada and Texas) the Public Works Employment Appropriation Act does not provide sufficient funds to do the job.
The second reason for requesting an appropriation of $4.5 billion for FY 1977 — to assure that States do not continue to run out of funds — is less obvious, but its impact could disrupt the planning in this program for many years. The lack of a sizeable appropriation in FY 1977 could set up a situation in which certain States would run out of funds each year prior to the availability of the next year's appropriation. In effect, the States that are moving rapidly would be penalized by an intermittent availability of funds. Let me give an example. It is estimated that New Jersey could use the full allotment available from a $4.5 billion appropriation prior to the end of FY 1977. If this appropriation is not made available, New Jersey has sufficient projects to use its FY 1978 allotment in the first half of the fiscal year, putting the State again next yearin the same position it is in now. New Jersey would then have to wait at least six months for the FY 1979 appropriation. This situation could go on indefinitely, unless the State chose to slow down its program. Each of the eleven States currently running out of funds is now in a comparable position. Many additional States could find themselvesin this position in FY 1978.
The third reason — the need for long range planning — is extremely important to the momentum of the program. Long range planning is essential to program continuity; it takes two to three years to move a project through the planning and design phases before it is ready to go under construction. To successfully obligate the amounts of money proposed for this program at a steady, well managed rate, it is essential that the States continue planning for a balanced mix of Step 1 (planning), Step 2 (design), and Step 3 (construction) projects. The lack of a FY 1977 appropriation would disrupt this planning process; many States and localities have shown a reluctance to proceed with Step 1 and Step 2 planning and design until sufficient funds have been allocated to move projects through to construction. In short, an effect of not obtaining the $4.5 billion appropriation in FY 1977 would be to gear down certain State programs that have taken four years to build up. These States would then have to rebuild these programs again in FY 1978.
This slowdown would also have a direct effect on the construction industry, with secondary effects on equipment manufacturers and other construction related industries.
In summary, the Administration is proposing a long range program of level appropriations over a ten year period starting in FY 1977. Such a program will, in the long run, iron out the problems which I have described. It will assure that States do not continually find themselves in the position of running out of funds, or in the uncertainty of not knowing whether future funds will be forthcoming. It will, in short, help to assure an efficient and effective program.
I hope that this letter has clarified the various issues related to the $4.5 billion appropriation requested in FY 1977 and demonstrated its importance to EPA's construction grants program. If you have any questions or wish any further information, please let me know.
Sincerely,
DOUGLAS M. COSTLE.
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS,
Washington, D.C.,
March 15,1977.
Hon. WILLIAM PROXMIRE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR BILL: As you know, the Senate voted to fund the water pollution control program in Title II of the Public Works Jobs bill. In order to stay within the target set by the First Concurrent Budget Resolution for this function and to conform with the new President's supplemental request for budget authority, the authorization for construction grants was reduced from $5 billion to $4.54 billion. It is now essential that the Appropriations Committee provide authority for full obligation of the 1977 construction grants funds.
There are several important reasons for inclusion of $4.54 billion in the supplemental appropriations which you will consider this week:
1. Funding for the construction of sewage treatment facilities is an integral part of the Public Works Jobs Program. This Program is ongoing; its projects are ready for construction; municipalities are ready to hire people; employment will be immediate;
2. As many as 34 States will exhaust their construction grant funds during FY 1977 and all States will require funds in FY 1978. The program must be replenished to keep workers on the job and make new jobs;
3. Any reduction in appropriations below the authorized levels reduces the allotment to each State proportionately. The Appropriations Committee does not have the flexibility to target these funds to specific States. A reduction will be crippling to those States most in need of these funds, some of which even now have demand for funds which would exceed their full share;
4. Full appropriation is needed to assure enough money for the initiation and continuation of construction of large projects. If the funding level is reduced, pressure will be on States to approve small projects in order to maximize use of limited funds, rather than maximize water cleanup or creation of new jobs;
5. Full funding for FY 1977 is needed to carry States through to the next appropriation cycle to enable long range planning, to ensure stable work flows, and to avoid added costs due to inflation; and
6. At last, we are gaining momentum in cleaning up our water. That momentum must be maintained.
When the EPA appropriations bill was considered by the Senate last June, we discussed the fact that funds were not included for waste treatment construction grants because the Public Works Committee had not completed work on the authorization. Now action can be expected on an authorization in the near future. Both the House and Senate have passed the jobs bills, and conference is expected soon.
The clean water program is vital. It serves, simultaneously, critical environmental and economic purposes; it cannot be allowed to expire; its momentum cannot be stalled; full funding is required at the earliest possible date.
We know of your commitment to our objectives, and look forward to your cooperation in providing full funding for this important program.
Sincerely,
Robert T. Stafford, Pete V. Domenici, Howard H. Baker, Jr., Jennings Randolph, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Malcolm Wallop, Gary Hart, Edmund S. Muskie,Quentin Burdick, Mike Gravel, John C. Culver, Wendell R. Anderson, James A. McClure, U.S. Senators.