STATE OF INDIANA OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Chairman, Subcommitte on Air and Water, DEAR SENATOR MUSKIE: It is important that legislation currently under consideration for extending the construction grant funds under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act include adequate provisions for reimbursement to the states which have made commitments out of their own fiscal resources to finance construction of such facilities. The federal funding of the construction grant programs was not until the last two years in the amounts of the authorization proposed by Congress requiring greater commitment on the part of the states to maintain progress in the construetion of sewage treatment facilities. Also, the present federal commitment to reimburse has not been adequate to permit the states to finance the continuing pollution abatement program. I would urge your favorable consideration of amendments which would: 1. Authorize commitment of federal funds to assume the state and local prefinancing commitments made between July 1, 1966 and June 30, 1971. 2. Provide a set percentage of funds appropriated for the payment of state and municipal prefinancing obligations. 3. Provide that any funds prefinanced by states and local governments after July 1, 1971 shall constitute a commitment or obligation of the federal government. These amendments are needed to assure reimbursement to the states to maintain the progress in the construction of municipal waste treatment works. Sincerely, EDGAR D. WHITCOMB, Governor. INTERNATIONAL BOATING ASSOCIATION By JOHN C. MURPHY, Vice President The International Boating Association, a service organization founded to meet the needs and advocate the interests of pleasure boat owners throughout the United States, wishes to take this opportunity to comment upon legislative items pending before the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution pertaining to water pollution control. The boatsman, perhaps more than anyone else because of his close proximity to the water, is keenly aware of the fact that our waterways are a national disgrace, having been degraded to a dangerous level by pollutants. This condition is critical to him for it has an adverse effect on his enjoyment of recreational boating, to say nothing of the fact that it may endanger his life or health and that of the general public. He also knows that abatement of his condition will not occur on a voluntary basis, and, therefore, it appears that coercion, financial assistance or both must be provided by Federal, state and local units of government to reverse the steady degradation of our precious water resource. The Association, in its 1971 Statment of Legislative Policy, asserts that a tool for combating water pollution presently exists, namely the Water Quality Standards Program. What is needed, however, is an extension of the Program to cover all of the navigable waters of the United States, rigid enforcement of the Standards, and an adequate level of funding to bring about complete implementation of the Standards Program. With respect to the two pending items of legislation before the Subcommittee, namely the Muskie bill (S. 523) and that proposed by the Administration, we wish to offer our support for the Muskie bill-S. 523. Although there is a good measure of similarity between the two, that which is proposed in S. 523 is more realistic and responsive to answering the need for combating a major source of water pollution-inadequately treated effluent from municipal waste treatment systems. We concur with the call for a 5 year, $25 billion program for additional municipal sewage treatment plant construction as a very necessary step toward insuring an acceptable standard of quality of our Nation's waters. We also support stricter Water Quality Standards and greater Federal enforcement powers to insure compliance with such Standards. The International Boating Association strongly urges the members of the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution to favorably report the "National Water Quality Standards Act of 1971" to the full Public Works Committee and likewise urge it, and ultimately the Congress of the United States, to enact into law this vital piece of legislation. Very truly yours, JOHN C. MURPHY, Vice President. LAKE CARRIERS' ASSOCIATION Hon. EDMUND S. MUSKIE, LAKE CARRIERS' ASSOCIATION, Chairman, Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, Committee of Commerce, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Last Friday in your absence I had an opportunity to meet with a member of your staff to chat briefly about one of the most pressing problems on the Great Lakes-the varying pollution laws and regulations that have been enacted by state and local governments since the Federal Water Quality Improvement Act was passed last April. I am proud to point out for our industry that on most of our ships built or acquired since World War II, we have installed sewage treatment plants that produce approximately a secondary level treatment. This has been done as part of our pursuit of cleaner water in the Great Lakes even when there were no federal or state standards or requirements talked about, showing early industry concern and action. The local and state legislative actions, which are doomed to a limited degree of effectiveness on the total Great Lakes system because of lack of coverage and uniformity, is a manifestation of a concerned citizenry-and perhaps an overreacting law making body. It may also point to an inadequate national program. The result is quite clear, not only an ineffective Great Lakes water quality program but an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce. In an immediate effort to wring some sense out of a chaotic picture, lake shipping (19 out of 21 of our member companies) filed suit this week in the U.S. District Court at Detroit seeking a declaratory judgment in an effort to determine which standards govern. A temporary restraining order has been issued and a hearing on the case scheduled for April 6th. Since almost half the Great Lakes system waters are Canadian, we must recognize that country's concomitant interest and responsibility for a clean water program also. The province of Ontario plays a part, as well as the national government of Canada. I will point to several problems that we in lake shipping have with the 1970 Water Quality Improvement Act for non-oil discharges: (1) No federal standards have been issued almost a year after enactment. (2) After issuance of the federal standards there will be an apparent fiveyear period for existing vessels before federal pre-emption occurs. (3) Even if a vessel installs a federally approved sewage treatment device during the five-year period, the vessel apparently is not protected against state or local requirements. (4) The Act deals only with sewage discharge, leaving other potentially polluting discharges to state and local laws and regulations. The problem here again is lack of uniformity in dealing with the other discharges which results in an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce, not to mention the ineffectiveness of a local approach. (5) Insofar as the Great Lakes are concerned, the Act deals unilaterally with U.S. interests only. I am convinced that there is a genuine universal interest in Great Lakes water quality in both the United States and Canada. Consequently, the most effective and timely approach appears to be an international agreement between the United States and Canada covering water quality standards for the Great Lakes. Such an agreement, if confirmed by the Senate, would be nationally pre-emptive insofar as state or local actions in the United States are converned. To minimize the time to achieve such an international agreement, general terms could be agreed upon with separate "annexes" to be concluded without Senate ratification on an "as needed" basis to cover pollutants subsequently identified. For your information, I am attaching a copy of a letter recently sent to Mr. Russell E. Train, Chairman of the President's Council on Environmental Quality. We share your interest for an immediate program to improve our environment. We hope you share our concern for a rational approach. Chairman, President's Council on Environmental Quality, DEAR MR. TRAIN: Would we not all benefit, especially clean water enthusiasts (and we proudly include ourselves in that category) if the federal standards called for in Section 13 (b) (1) of the "Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970," approved April 3, 1970, were published without further delay? We do not contend that such publication will be a panacea for Great Lakes shipping, i.e., domestic, Canadian and ocean-going vessels of the world entering through the St. Lawrence Seaway, since there are many state and local requirements confronting us with various standards and timetables, not to mention Canadian involvement. But publication would be an important step toward solution. A federal standard as visualized by the Act cited above would help to clear the air and provide a base from which to work, both as to quality and as to timetable. Concomitantly, technological development of marine waste systems would have a basis for moving forward to meet those standards. Further, the recently announced Administration water quality legislative program for 1971 should include clarification of the pre-emption features of the 1970 Act. Specifically, after federal standards are established by your office, and after implementing regulations are established by DOT, if an approved device is installed immediately by a vessel engaged in interstate commerce, what protection does the vessel have against state or local laws for the remainder of the five-year grace period? Would not an immediate protection provide an incentive for vessels to conform without waiting for the five-year grace period to expire? Then, looking at the Great Lakes navigable water system as one huge body of fresh water of intense interest to Canada as well as the United States, would it not make sense to develop and adopt universal water quality standards in the form of an international treaty between the two countries? Such standards should go beyond the restraints contained in the 1970 Act and deal with phosphates and other pollutants in addition to sewage. Presumably, a reasonable timetable for compliance would be agreed upon between the two countries, the agreement would be formally ratified and would pre-empt federal, state or local laws with a sensible, meaningful and timely water quality program. We are aware that some work is going on now under the aegis of the IJC, but probably only on sewage wastes. Informal discussions in the lakes shipping industry and with Canadian government officials suggest such an approach is not only acceptable but urgent. A number of waste treatment systems are being tested in this country and internationally, but until the national or U.S./Canadian standards are clarified, there is little incentive for interested companies to move forward in this field. We in the U.S. lakes shipping industry have installed sewage treatment systems in all replacement vessels built since World War II, even when there was no standard or public clamor for environmental quality. We are anxious to take the lead in a new and higher quality program for the Great Lakes. Will you help us? In summary, three urgent proposals are advanced : (1) Expedite publication of federal water quality standards called for in PL 91-224, approved last April. (2) Clarify PL 91-224 so that approved marine sewage treatment installations made thereunder will have federal protection against state or local laws as an incentive to stop polluting before the five-year grace period expires. (3) Push for joint U.S./Canadian water quality standards for the Great Lakes covering all pollutants. I am sending a similar letter to Mr. William D. Ruckelshaus, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, in Washington, D.C. Urgently yours, PAUL E. TRIMBLE, President. HON. WALTER F. MONDALE U.S. SENATE, Washington, D.C., May 26, 1971. Hon. THOMAS F. EAGLETON, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR TOM: Now pending in the Air and Water Pollution Subcommittee is my Clean Lakes Act of 1971, Senate bill 1017. I greatly appreciated the Subcommittee's courtesy and interest during my testimony on March 16. A number of the questions raised by the Subcommittee then have since been asked in other forums and the news media. On May 21, Life Magazine, in an article on phosphates pollution, pointed out how lakes are lost to all use through entrophication, premature aging. S. 1017 would provide the additional treatment funds necessary to protect lakes from phosphorous and other effluent not now removed by most treatment plants. But most importantly, the bill would provide grants for cleanup programs, to reclaim damaged lakes from weeds and algae after pollution is curtailed; no current federal program directly addresses this need. Over the years, research has produced a number of methods for cleaning up lakes. Attached is a list of such techniques recently published by the Department of the Interior. These methods have been tested in pilot programs in sixteen states. Now a program of assistance for the actual lakes cleanup is needed. These techniques can be used in all our states to provide highly visible evidence of the Congress' continuing efforts to protect water quality. On May 18, the front page of the Wall Street Journal reported a number of recent successful efforts at restoring lakes previously lost to pollution. The article cited the success of the Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission in treating enthropied lakes with several chemical and mechanical techniques. I enclose an excerpt of that article. I have asked the Commission to report some of its data for the use of the Subcommittee. For most Americans, inland lakes are one of the most visible aspects of the environment. In addition to recreational, sporting, and aesthetic considerations, lakes are very clearly basic to the ecology of the planet. I ask your support of this Clean Lakes legislation as you consider the 1971 national water quality legislation. With warmest personal regards. Sincerely, Attachments: WALTER F. MONDALE. TECHNIQUES WITH POTENTIAL FOR CLEANING EUTROPHIC LAKES DEVELOPMENT OF THE DREDGING TECHNIQUE OF NUTRIENT REMOVAL FOR PRACTICAL APPLICATION A lake bottom is virtually a "mine" of nutrient compounds, a portion of which may be re-suspended and re-dissolved rendering them available on a continuing basis, from year to year, for new algal growth. The feasibility of dredging either portions or all of lakes and reservoir bottoms must be investigated. DEVELOPMENT OF TECHNIQUES FOR FLUSH-OUT OF EUTROPHIC LAKES WITH LOWNUTRIENT WATER The "triggering" mechanism for the development of an algal bloom appears to be related to the concentration of nutrient compounds in water. In areas where water containing very low concentration of nutrients is available, the flushing technique should be explored. |