CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

By JOHN J. COFFEY*

VIEWS ON SENATE BILLS 523, 1012, 1013, 1014, AND 1015

The Chamber of Commerce of the United States takes this opportunity to present its views on several water pollution control proposals to the entire Senate Public Works Committee membership. Our original intention had been to present these comments to the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution in formal testimony, permitting adequate discussion of the key issues in this important proposed legislation. The Subcommittee staff, however, thwarted our efforts to be heard through initial failure to invite our views and through subsequent rejection of our request to testify at the hearings.

The water pollution control issue is of vital concern to the National Chamber's membership-a federation of 3800 chambers of commerce and trade and professional associations, and over 39,000 business firms. Our members have the right to be heard the right to participate in the formulation of national policy on a serious national problem. And they shall be heard, despite the Subcommittee staff's efforts. As the first phase in providing business community input to your deliberations on water pollution legislation, the National Chamber is submitting this statement to all members of the Senate Public Works Committee. We urge you to consider not only the merits of the viewpoint presented in this statement, but also the operation of the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution which precluded more beneficial discussion of this viewpoint in direct testimony. Because this opportunity for questioning was not provided, the National Chamber stands ready to respond to any individual requests for further clarification and comment.

As the National Chamber stated to this Committee last May, several significant changes are required in the Federal program if water pollution problems are to be abated and prevented. Specifically, the level of Federal funding for the municipal grant-in-aid program needs to be substantially increased, deadlines for administrative action by the Environmental Protection Agency must be detailed, and periodic review of water quality standards must be scheduled. These legislative actions, together with prompt use of existing authorities can bring us to our water quality goals. However, several provisions of the major bills (S. 523 and S. 1014) under consideration must rejected because of the dangers which they present to water quality standards programs, to state water rights, to state control over economic development, and to our total environment.

BACKGROUND ON LEGISLATION

The Water Quality Act of 1965, developed by this Committee and its counterpart in the House of Representatives following extensive hearings and deliberations, constituted landmark environmental legislation. Many of the principles contained in that Act have been subsequently reflected in legislation affecting other fields.

The National Chamber followed closely the development of the Water Quality Act and advocated several constructive changes in the bill as originally introduced. When the Conference Committee Report was filed on September 17, 1965, we fully endorsed the reported bill (S. 4) and worked hard for its enactment. In 1966, and again in 1969, the National Chamber supported several amendments-later enacted-designed to improve the effectiveness of the Water Quality Act, the latest of these amendments having been signed into law on April 3, 1970.

Following passage of the Water Quality Act, the National Chamber conducted a series of regional conferences with state and local chambers of commerce and public officials explaining in detail the responsibilities of states under this Act. Senior Associate for Natural Resources and Environmental Quality, Chamber of Commerce of the United States.

(1217).

Many of our state and local chamber members also participated in the public hearings required by the Act prior to the adoption of water quality standards by the states. The vast majority of our members recognized that the Water Quality Act, if implemented fully and properly, could provide the necessary thrust to solve our nation's water pollution problems. The support of the business community was in part responsible for all fifty states developing water quality standards and implementation plans for their interstate waters. Each of the states now has some form of water pollution control program for all waters under its jurisdiction.

Much progress has been made in the fight against water pollution under the Water Quality Act. Much additional progress could have been made if the Act had been implemented fully and properly. Such additional progress can still be made if this Committee will insist upon full and proper implementation of the Act which it worked so hard to develop and if the Administration works hard to carry out the intent of Congress.

It must be emphasized that continuing substantive state and local action is required to complement the Federal action detailed in the Water Quality Act. To encourage local action in managing environmental quality, the National Chamber has recently published, and distributed to local chambers of commerce. Improving Environmental Quality-Business-Led Action to Improve Water and Air Quality. This booklet, available upon request, has been designed to assist local chambers and other community groups to organize and implement effective air and water pollution control programs.

PROBLEMS-BUDGETARY

Failure of appropriations to match the authorization levels of the Act has resulted in a lag in the construction of municipal waste treatment facilities. In recent years, high interest rates and poor bond market conditions have prevented some communities from proceeding on their own without Federal assistance. In a statement to this Committee last year, the National Chamber supported authorization of grant agreements totaling $4 billion to implement the municipal grant-in-aid program.

Increasing demand for additional waste treatment facilities and rising construction costs continue to escalate the estimated cost for the municipal program. The total cost of needed facilities is difficult to pinpoint, likewise the Federal share.

S. 1013 proposes $2 billion per year for the municipal grant program; S. 523 recommends $2 billion per year. It's impossible to determine if either accurately reflects the true need. Both figures do represent substantial increases in the Federal commitment when compared with Federal appropriation over the past years, and this is the important factor. A higher level of Federal funding should break the backlog of unbuilt municipal facilities. However, success of the mn nicipal grant program depends heavily upon confidence that appropriations will match authorizations. The "broken promises" of the past years have caused much of the delay in municipal construction.

If it is shown that increased Federal funding of municipal facilities does not significantly ease the construction backlog, the National Chamber will examine other avenues of Federal participation, such as the Environmental Financing Authority detailed under S. 1015. However, assuming favorable action on an increased level of Federal funding of the grant program, an assessment should first be made of the effects of this increased funding prior to consideration of rather novel and far-reaching proposals, such as detailed in S. 1015.

PROBLEMS-ADMINISTRATIVE

Significant improvement in water quality could result if the states were allowed to implement their responsibilities under the 1965 Act without unjustified Federal interference. The Water Quality Act authorizes Federal oversight of the water quality programs on interstate waters, and provides ample authority for strong action should state efforts not measure up to the requirements of the law.

As early as three years ago I pointed out in testimony to the House Public Works Committee that the continued failure by Federal authorities to unconditionally approve any of the water quality standards submitted by the states was resulting in delay in the implementation of those standards. If there are reservations concerning a state's standards, and these reservations cannot be satisfied, then the standards should be disapproved and Federal action initiated

as detailed in the Water Quality Act. Without firm approval of standards and plans, state authorities, municipalities and industries are reluctant to act to meet standards which can be changed at any time. Firm "ground rules"-water quality standards and implementation schedules-must be established in order to justify the substantial investments of time and money required to meet the standards.

Senator Muskie, in S. 523, has proposed periodic state review of water quality standards, a review we support. A five-year period would seem appropriate in view of the current five-year amortization for industrial capital expenditures on pollution control.

However, this review must be complemented by prompt Federal action, either fully approving or disapproving the proposed standards. Such Federal action on the water quality standards submitted by the states in 1967 should be taken mmediately. The elimination of "moving targets" as standards will greatly accelerate effective water pollution control programs. If the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency disapproves these standards, the Water Quality Act provides for sufficient Federal authority to act in the absence of responsible state action. However, the Administrator must first take a firm position on the state water quality standards submitted in 1967 if abatement of water pollution is to proceed. Unconditional approval of state standards or disapproval precipitating Federal action—is a necessary next step toward meaningful water quality improvement.

The 1970 Clean Air Act amendments incorporate deadlines for administrative action by the Environmental Protection Agency. This principle should apply also to the water quality program. I hope that such deadlines will be added to the Federal responsibilities under the Water Quality Act.

LEGISLATIVE DANGERS

The major proposals (S. 523 and S. 1014) now before your Committee contain substantial dangers. Your chief task may well prove to be the elimination of these dangers from the final bill approved by the Committee.

DANGER TO THE PRINCIPLE OF WATER QUALITY STANDARDS, AND TO ALL THE STATE PROGRAMS BASED ON THIS PRINCIPLE

All states now have water quality programs for the waters under their jurisdiction. Water quality standards have been used as an effective means of providing for public participation in the choice of water quality goals-in effect, the use of the water resource. Such standards are effective in protecting water from thoughtless abuse, judging costs and benefits, and weighing the effectiveness of pollution control actions.

Specific effluent limitations, designed to achieve water quality standards. are necessary items in any implementation plan. Both bills, but in particular S. 1014, place too much emphasis on rigid establishment of these effluent limitations. S. 1014 discusses Federal effluent standards for "minimum acceptable levels of treatment."

The chief argument against these Federal effluent standards is that they will be so unresponsive to regional problems that they could, in fact, impede real progress. For each water basin, state and/or regional authorities must set discharge limitations on individual waste sources in order to achieve the adopted water quality standards. Many states utilize a yearly permit system to enforce these discharge limitations. Due to changing conditions (increasng population, shifts in land use, flow variations, etc.) in each basin, these discharge limitations must be flexible in order to effectively achieve the quality standards without undue hardship. The time-consuming process of Federal approval will largely destroy this flexibility.

Both bills contemplate some form of control by the Administrator of EPA over discharge limitations. By vesting approval and/or enforcement powers over discharge limitations with EPA, regional and state authorities will be unable to respond swiftly to changing conditions in the water basin because of the required Federal action. In addition, the need to simplify Federal administration will probably lead to great pressures for uniform national discharge limitations, thus seriously imperiling the status of water quality standards. At the Federal level, the administrative ease associated with enforcement of uniform discharge limitations will overshadow the need for adequate water quality. This would present serious obstacles to the prevention of pollution.

DANGER TO STATE WATER RIGHTS AND STATE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

Both bills extend Federal participation in water pollution control efforts substantially beyond the interstate waters now covered by Federal law. While recognizing that there is a Federal role in the establishment of quality standards for interstate waters, beginning in 1963 this Committee, together with the House Public Works Committee, carefully studied Federal authority over intrastate waters. Because of the acute interrelationship between water quality (hence water use) and the development of river basins, the principle of Federal intervention into strictly intrastate situations was rejected.

Both S. 523 and S. 1014, by delegating final approval authority over intrastate water quality and over point source waste discharges to the Environmental Protection Agency, will concentrate considerable economic planning powers in the office of the Administrator. This authority could give the Administrator substantial power over the use of intrastate waters and over the location of new sources of discharge-both municipal and industrial. Each state would then be dependent upon the Administrator for its economic future. For example, Federal regulation would be extended to intrastate waters used for irrigation (regulating salt content) and to "contiguous" waters where coastal states now lease mineral rights.

Since water quality standards are the true measure of our success in protecting our environment and in providing for adequate water usage. Federal enforcement action should be directed against violations of the established water quality standards. The actions are detailed in the Water Quality Act. Federal efforts to enforce quality standards, coupled with rapid, unconditional approval of appropriate state standards are essential to prevent and control pollution.

DANGER TO OUR TOTAL ENVIRONMENT

Related to the preceeding discussion on uniform effluent standards is the prob. lem of language similar to "latest available technology."

Given finite resources, as a society we must balance our desire for a high quality physical environment with our demands for adequate housing, proper nutrition, sufficient energy, mobility, jobs-in short, our standard of living. Water quality standards provide one of the key interfaces between the physical environment and our social and economic needs. The proper allocation of our limited resources to provide the best total environment for man is the function of these quality standards. Undermining this balancing process through requiring "latest available technology" on all new sources will mean that resources which should be used to satisfy man's other needs will be diverted. While this diversion may improve the physical environment, it must degrade the quality of life-our total environment.

The need for the proper establishment and strong enforcement of water quality standards cannot be overemphasized. Concern over the physical environment must not lead to an overreaction which would neglect the fact that man, unlike flowers and trees, requires not only a suitable physical environment for life, but also those social and economic factors which make life worth living. Lack of Federal authority over intrastate water quality and point source discharges does not suggest that pollution of intrastate water will result, just as the past few years have shown that Federal authority (poorly administered) has not been a panacea for interstate water pollution problems. Under the Water Quality Act, states were encouraged to adopt water quality programs for their waters, and each state now has an agency to handle water pollution control. Most states have ongoing programs, several of which have been significantly more effective than the joint Federal-State programs for interstate waters. States have been able to develop new concepts for dealing with water basins entirely within their jurisdiction.

Another form which this danger to state economic development assumes is the "non-degradation" provision contained in both bills. The issue of non-degradation has concerned the National Chamber for several years. In essence, nondegradation stipulates that, regardless of water quality standards adopted after public hearings, no water body will be allowed to decline from its present level of water quality, even if that level is well above the approved quality standards. While non-degradation is absolutely necessary to improve the condition of presently low quality waters, its application to high quality waters presents major difficulties.

A national policy of non-degradation will tend to concentrate population and industry in areas already under substantial environmental pressure. Since 100% treatment (complete recycling) is not now within the scope of our technology, a non-degradation policy will force new waste sources-municipal, industrial, and agricultural-to locate in areas where existing sources are reducing their waste discharges rather than in areas where there are presently no waste discharges. If these sources were to locate on high quality waters, some degradation would necessarily occur, but as long as the adopted water quality standards were enforced, no pollution would result. This principle of non-degradation will lead to continued underdevelopment of our non-populous areas and increased environmental strain on the heavily populated and heavily developed sections of the country.

RIVERS AND HARBORS ACT OF 1899

Many of the dangers outlined in the proposed legislation apply also to the Administration's planned implementation of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. Much of the Administration's bill, S. 1014, is designed to give legislative sanction to the permit system for industrial discharges which would proceed under the 1899 Act. This permit system, and the proposed regulations to implement the system, flies in the face of much of the fine work on water quality standards accomplished by this Committee over the years. Firm direction from Congress must be given to Federal efforts in water pollution control. I urge that you use the present legislative opportunity to bring the Administration's proposal back into line with water quality standard programs.

SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION

Because of the proven effectiveness of the Water Quality Act in encouraging state water quality programs, and because the full potential of this Act has not been realized due to failure to implement the Act fully and properly, the National Chamber urges the members of this Committee to insist that the Water Quality Act of 1965 be given a chance to perform as effectively as this Committee envisioned when it drafted the legislation in 1965. This failure in the implementation efforts, which must rest with those officials who in the past have been responsible for the Federal program, has adversely affected not only the interstate water quality programs, but also the intrastate efforts designed to complement the joint state-federal program. Improvements in the implementation of the Water Quality Act are necessary to continue water quality efforts. To this end the National Chamber urges this Committee to adopt measures which would: 1. increase the level of Federal funding;

2. force prompt unconditional decisions by the Administrator on state water quality standards submitted for review;

3. require periodic review of state water quality standards (as in S. 523). By taking this action, and by rejecting proposals which would undermine the thrust of the Water Quality Act or impose Federal control on the development of the states and their waters, the members of this Committee will accelerate and improve the national effort to abate water pollution.

59-068 0-71-pt. 3-5