WATER POLLUTION CONTROL LEGISLATION TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 1971 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AIR AND WATER POLLUTION Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 4200, New Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas F. Eagleton (member of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senators Eagleton, Boggs, and Tunney. Also present: Richard B. Royce, chief clerk and staff director; Barry Meyer, counsel; Leon G. Billings, professional staff member; Bailey Guard, minority staff director; and Thomas F. Jorling, minor ity counsel. Senator EAGLETON. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution of the Senate Committee on Public Works is now in session, continuing public hearings relating to matters of water pollution. Our first witness this morning is Hon. Walter F. Mondale, senior Senator of the State of Minnesota. Good morning, Senator Mondale. You may proceed. STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER F. MONDALE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Senator MONDALE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for allowing me to appear here this morning to discuss what I regard to be the largest deficiency in this Nation's environmental program: the failure to deal with the growing deterioration of the thousands of fresh water community lakes found throughout our Nation. The measure which I introduced with 31 cosponsors representing the leadership of both political parties has been called "The Clean Lakes Bill of 1971". This measure will shortly be introduced in the House where the response has been exceedingly favorable. The primary purpose of this legislation is to halt and reverse the rapid deterioration of the Nation's fresh water lakes, to provide the sparkle that has inspired generations, and to make them fit again for swimming, boating, and fishing. Unfortunately, we have allowed hundreds of our freshwater lakes to become dirty, polluted, and to be destroyed through what scientists call eutrophication. We have dirtied our lakes in many careless and thoughtless ways. We have used them as convenient dumping places for municipal, industrial, and agricultural wastes, filling their depths with tons and tons of phosphate-laden sludge. Often we have not even bothered to treat these wastes before pouring them into our lakes. These waters have enriched the waters, creating abnormal algae growth that have robbed the lakes of oxygen and turned them an unhealthy green color. At the same time, in a wild quest for recreation property, developers have stripped many lakes of needed shoreline vegetation. This has allowed the erosion of soil and debris into the lakes, also helping to destroy their delicate balance of marine life. Our lakes are literally choking to death on these various pollutants, and many of them have already died. We must provide families with vacation homes and recreation, but we must begin to treat our lakes as irreplacable resources. Solutions to the problem are difficult but we have some technical answers, and we must begin to offer assistance. The Clean Lakes Act of 1971, provides a good start, in my judgment, for this important task. It takes a four-step approach to the problem, providing: (1) Substantial Federal assistance to the States for the construction of waste treatment plants; (2) Support for lake cleanup efforts; (3) Offering them expertise of all of the appropriate Federal agencies; and (4) A new program for Federal intrastate enforcement powers against polluters. This bill encourages citizens to take local action to preserve their lakes. It offers States an increased level of Federal assistance up to 65 percent, as opposed to the present 55 percent, for waste treatment plants to stop the flow of sewage into the lakes. Assistance of this degree would be invaluable to all States, including my own State of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I might digress here to say that my State is very proud of being the "land of 10,000 lakes," but I was impressed this year when I sought cosponsorship of what is now known as S. 1017, by the growing concern expressed in all of our States about the deterioration of fresh water community lakes. If one looks at the list of 32 cosponsors, they come from literally every section of the country and from both political parties, and they represent virtually all those Senators who have a strong interest in the environment. I think that list of cosponsors indicates a realization that we must now move to protect our lakes. Up until now, we have dealt primarily with interstate waterways, the rivers and larger lakes across State boundaries. These thousands and thousands of community lakes which are so important to their communities and to the neighborhoods have been ignored, and I think just the nature of the cosponsorship of this measure indicates that action by the Federal Government is long overdue. In Minnesota, my home State, where we have approximately 15 percent of the lakes of our country, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency is struggling to coordinate a sewage treatment program for six communities surrounding just one lake, Lake Minnetonka; but only 33 percent Federal funding is available for building the next stage of an advanced treatment plant costing $15 million. Local property taxes in the area cannot reasonably be expected to pick up the extra burden. This major recreational lake near our Twin Cities, absorbs more than 100,000 pounds of nitrogen in just 1 year. The situation there can only become worse unless action is taken, since the lakeshore population is expected to reach 200,000 by the year 1980. Just 10 years ago, only 50,000 people lived around the lake. The lakes of Minnesota are famous throughout the Nation, but, while they are in generally good condition, they, too, are being abused and are deteriorating. A recent study by the University of Minnesota shows municipal sewage is being dumped in 34 major lakes in our State. Bills are being heard in the Minnesota legislature today which will attempt to cope with the supportage of funds. In fiscal 1971, the State will be about $10 million short on construction funds. The pollution agency projects approximately a 60 percent increase in project requests for 1972 and a need for $358 million for the next 5 years. Even with 55 percent Federal contributions, the State could expect to be substantially short of its overall needs. It is perfectly clear that the local property taxes already are an overwhelming burden, and even with a State sales tax and State income tax, Minnesota needs the kinds of help we are considering in this bill, as do the other States. Equally important is the provision of this bill that offers up to 80 percent assistance to States to take the second step, namely, to clean up lakes already filled with algae and the residue of pollution. Last year, I introduced a bill which was enacted to expand research into waste to clean up these lakes. Incidentally, I hope we can build the funding in that area. I think we got about $2 million last year for research into the pollution problems of fresh water community lakes. In our lab at the University of Minnesota, we have most of the eutrophication experts in the world. The first thing they will tell you is that, "We don't know much." Last year, we finally passed the research bill, and the $2 million which was spread nationwide in very small projects, is not going to move us very far. I hope we can substantially increase research and development funding. The University of Minnesota Institute, working under grants from EPA and other Federal agencies, tries to help communities in Minnesota learn the latest techniques to clean up damaged lakes. Dr. Shapiro, the director, indicates he receives at least one call daily for help in lake cleanup projects. He has been able to suggest techniques like chemical precipitation of nutrients, manipulation of bottom sediments, controlled dilution, and other techniques. These techniques have been successfully demonstrated in lakes in many parts of the country. Two successful examples often cited are the earth filtration project at Snake Lake, Wis., and a controlled dilution project which helped clean Green Lake in Seattle. Dr. Shapiro and others have planned projects in Minnesota such as the artificial circulation project in Lake Calhoun in Minneapolis, and an agricultural run-off channeling project at Eagle Lake. These and many other projects have not yet been implemented in Minnesota for lack of funds. We have a proven technology waiting to be implemented by capable State and local people, but we do not have the funds with which to carry it out. If I may again digress briefly, Mr. Chairman: A few years ago, in the development of the research and development section which has now been adopted, this committee heard testimony from representatives of the city of Albert Lea and Freeborn County, Minn. This is a typical lake in Minnesota and I think circumstances like this are to be seen around the country: an absolutely magnificent lake which has been used for years and years as a dumping ground for industrial sewage and municipal sewage and for agricultural run-off. It is now virtually a destroyed lake. Among other things, there is a State park on its shores, but the smell is so bad that people who stay there often write the State later, urging that the park be closed. This could be one of the most magnificent recreational areas for all of southern Minnesota and northern Iowa, as it is at the cross section of two major interstate highways. It could be a magnificent place for Americans generally, but the cost of cleaning up that lake is something like $2 or $3 million. Of course, this is completely beyond the reach of the local community. Senator BOGGS. Let me interrupt, Mr. Chairman. Senator EAGLETON. Senator Boggs. Senator BOGGS. On that point-the cost of cleaning up the lakewould you be able to put a time on it? Would it take 2 years or 3 years? Have you heard any estimates? Senator MONDALE. Senator Boggs, I would like to ask the chairman for permission to include in the record following my testimony of what the problems were a summary of the Albert Lea Lake program, because I think it shows the local real estate problems, and it shows the kind of cost involved. It shows the sources of pollution. It is a good case study of the cost of cleaning up and keeping clean. I got the idea for this whole proposal from those people. They did all of the work. They did all of the statistical effort, but they just don't have the money. Even with this research bill that passed as a result of the contribution of the good people of Freeborn and Albert Lea, they didn't get a penny to do any more research. I would like to put that in the record because I think with adequate financial assistance they can move fairly fast. Senator EAGLETON. Without objection, the supplement will be added to the Senator's testimony. (The information referred to follows:) Sen. WALTER F. MONDALE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. CITY OF ALBERT LEA, Albert Lea, Minn., March 16, 1971. DEAR SENATOR MONDALE: It is my pleasure to give to you a few of the facts and circumstances regarding the lake improvement program here in the Albert Lea area. The Albert Lea area is the headwater of the Shellrock River where over 144 sq. miles of land and 4,000 acres of lakes form the drainage basin from which the Shellrock River flows via the Cedar and Mississippi Rivers to the Gulf of Mexico. The lake areas, even in their natural state, were fairly shallow with a depth of about 4'. The early 1940's, under WPA sponsorship, a dredging program was begun on Fountain Lake. Fountain Lake, as you remember, is situated in the midst of Albert Lea and has a totally built-up residential area around the shoreline. The dredge used was a 12' all electric dredge and operated on a 24-hour basis with a 12 to 24 man crew. At the beginning of World War II, this project, along with many other similar WPA projects, was abandoned. In 1962, in response to the interest of citizens and community leaders, the question was raised of whether or not the community could, at its own expense, afford to operate a dredging program to complete Fountain Lake. Investigations were made at this time of the possibility of Federal aid or other outside financing and it was found to be none |