WATER POLLUTION CONTROL LEGISLATION WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 1971 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AIR AND WATER POLLUTION OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS, 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, Bentsen, and Dole. Also present: Richard B. Royce, chief clerk and staff director; Barry Meyer, counsel; Leon G. Billings, Philip T. Cummings, and Richard W. Wilson; professional staff members; Bailey Guard, minority staff director; and Thomas C. Jorling, minority 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 to continue hearings on matters relating to water pollution. Our first witnesses this morning are Mr. C. V. Gibbs, president, Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies, accompanied by Mr. Charles B. Kaiser, Jr., general counsel, Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, and Mr. Ben Sosewitz, acting general superintendent, Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago. Gentlemen, would you come forward and be seated? I have a statement by Senator Magnuson who was unable to be here in person this morning, Mr. Gibbs. He has other hearings of other committees. He asked that his statement welcoming you and introducing you to this committee be made a part of this record and it is so ordered. STATEMENT OF HON. WARREN G. MAGNUSON, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON Senator MAGNUSON. Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to present to the Air and Water Pollution Subcommittee Mr. C. V. Gibbs, the president of the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies and executive director of municipality of Metropolitan Seattle. Mr. Gibbs comes before the subcommittee today as a spokesman of the major metropolitan sewerage agencies of the United States, including that of Seattle in my own State of Washington. Accompanying him and also presenting testimony on behalf of AMSA, whose members serve over 30 million people, are Mr. Charles B. Kaiser, Jr., secretary-treasurer and a director of AMSA, and general counsel of the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District; and Mr. Sosewitz, a director of AMSA, and acting general manager, Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago. 59-068 0-71—pt. 1– -32 I had the good fortune to present Mr. Gibbs to the subcommittee last year, and I am equally pleased to be able to present him and his associates to the subcommittee today. The hearings which are being conducted at this time are, perhaps, even more important than those that were held last year. The water pollution control legislation, under which we have been operating, is scheduled to die at the end of this fiscal year, June 30. I have little doubt that the program, because of its great importance to communities throughout the country, will be extended. I believe, however, that we are embarking on a new era in which the amount of Federal funds that will be dedicated to the Nation's water pollution problem is to be very greatly increased. President Gibbs will, I am confident, present very effectively and dramatically some of the problems that are experienced by our Nation's large metropolitan areas in striving toward the universal objective of pollution-free water. I am particularly impressed with the efforts of AMSA to weave into the new legislation a provision which will make it possible for those communities, including my own city of Seattle, to be made whole. Those communities which, in the period between 1956 and 1966, acting on their own initiative, undertook to bring their own water pollution control program up to the level urged by the Federal Government, but which did not receive that level of financial support to which they were entitled, should receive extra grants from the Federal support program to offset the loss of bonding authority which they used up in order to carry out the national policy of providing clean and unpolluted water to their citizens. In the last Congress and in this Congress, I introduced legislation which responded to the exhortation of the Federal Government to do which, in my view, will rectify the injustice done to those communities In the most basic terms, let me emphasize to the committee that I think it would be a very sad day in the Nation's history if those cities, which responded to the exhartation of the Federal Government to do more, were to be penalized and discriminated against because they did so. We, in Seattle, are not unhappy that our city did what we believed to be the right thing to do, but we would be most unhappy if we believed that, in having done so, we were being discriminated against. Mr. Gibbs, of course, will present the problem as we in Seattle see it, but, far more significantly, the organization of which he is the president, represents the major metropolitan areas of the country. I am glad to present Mr. Gibbs and his associates to the subcommittee and hope that it will sympathetically consider the recommendations AMSA presents. Senator EAGLETON. On behalf of Senator Magnuson, I welcome you to the committee. You may be seated, Mr. Gibbs. Mr. GIBBS. The Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies very greatly appreciates the opportunity to present this material to you. We have prepared our testimony in three parts, and have submitted those documents to the committee for the record. As indicated, Mr. Ben Sosewitz of the Sanitary District of greater Chicago will lead off with a discussion relating to the combined sewer problem; and Mr. Charles Kaiser of Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District will discuss the problem related to the inequity of the early Federal grant program. At this point, I would like to introduce Mr. Sosewitz. Senator EAGLETON. Good morning, Mr. Sosewitz. We welcome you. Mr. SOSEWITZ. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you this morning. I respectfully request that I be excused from reading this testimony. Senator EAGLETON. I am happy to concur. Your full testimony may be part of the record and you may summarize it and highlight it as you see fit. STATEMENT OF BEN SOSEWITZ, DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE AGENCIES AND ACTING GENERAL MANAGER, METROPOLITAN SANITARY DISTRICT OF GREATER CHICAGO, ILLINOIS Mr. SOSEWITZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A word about the Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies. It now represents some 25 metropolitan agencies which have populations of 30 million persons nationwide, and I believe truly reflects a significant cross section of the problems of water pollution. I do believe that it is important to note that this organization is brought together for the purpose of keeping all of its agencies informed and for making its problems, needs, and projected programs available to the Congress so that through its appropriate bodies it might respond to these needs as it sees fit with the resources that are available. What I would like to highlight, is the fact that one of the things of deep concern to the metropolitan areas, particularly the cities represented here today, is what appears to be the neglect of the very serious problem of combined sewer overflow pollution. It is our judgment that significant pollution results from this problem, pollution which has been estimated as much as one-third of the total pollution of the streams in the metropolitan areas. These estimates are substantiated by testimony that was introduced before Special Master Maris in the testimony in the 1966 Lake Diversion case. It was recently estimated that perhaps as much as 40 or 50 percent of the pollution in all of the waterways in metropolitan areas may emanate from combined sewer overflows. Our concern, sir, is that there seems to be a neglect of this in evaluating the total water pollution program in terms of funding, in terms of eligibility, if not intentionally, then perhaps only because resources are just not available to solve all of these problems. When the testimony last year was introduced, we substantiated this by suggesting that a much higher price tag was associated with correcting water pollution problems in the Nation than was being estimated by the administration at that time and included in those figures were costs for combined sewer problems which we calculated as good projections based on technology available at that time. It is our feeling that the current legislation can be interpreted to make provision for funding these combined sewer correction pro grams. We believe, because of the absence of sufficient resources, administrative personnel are not in fact acknowledging the fact that these projects are eligible for construction grant assistance. There also does not seem to be inherent in any of the legislation at the present time an instrument or technique for aiding municipalities who are confronting this combined sewer overflow problem. Needless to say, we are asked and required to eliminate this problem without the available resources or assistance required to achieve the objective. What we think is important is that Congress recognizes that this problem is here with us to stay, that, very importantly, without correcting this problem, it is liekly that the public will not see visible evidence of any pollution abatement works that are now being contemplated or have been accomplished in the last 6 years in metropolitan areas with combined sewers. We believe the confidence of the public in knowing that the money it is dedicating to this program is being used for progress that is measurable is in jeopardy. We respectfully request that the Congress take recognition of this fact and that it do one of two things: either obtain clarification of the existing language which we believe is sufficient if clarification is given or would make such programs eligible under the existing construction grant program, and, of course, provide additional revenues by raising the level of funding and/or change the existing language in such a way so that it will be abundantly clear to the administrators of the program that these projects are eligible. I only call to your attention Senator Magnuson's bill, 4015, which has appropriate language, if it is required, to satisfy this need. With that, I would like to turn over the second portion of the testimony to my colleague, Mr. Kaiser. Thank you, sir. (The prepared statement of Mr. Sosewitz follows:) PREPARED STATEMENT OF BEN SOSEWITZ The Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA) is an organization that represents large sewerage agencies throughout the United States. The purpose of AMSA is to keep its member agencies informed of changes in technology and legislation, to encourage better communication between member agencies, and to determine and work toward the common goals of the member agencies. From a small group of agencies, AMSA has grown in one year to a membership of 25 agencies serving over 30 million persons nationwide. Our legislative goals have been determined and it is these objectives that we want to discuss briefly. The large display before you summarizes the points which we believe are critical if the nation's clean waters program is to succeed. (See Appendix I) We will divide our presentation into three parts: I will discuss the combined sewer problem and the need to meet local priorities in the use of available Federal funds; Charles Kaiser will discuss the problems associated with discrimination against those communities which moved early to meet the national clean waters objectives. Finally, Charles Gibbs, AMSA's president, will discuss the desirability of certain existing and proposed Federal programs and the problems associated with Federal involvement in the detail of state and local programs. One of the fundamental shortcomings of the 6 year Federal Water Pollution Control Construction Grants Program is its ostrich like position on pollution caused by combined sewer overflows. The theory behind this position is that if you direct that this source of pollution be eliminated and do not clearly provide some of the means to eliminate it, then you bury your head in the sand, ignore and wish it away. Metropolitan communities, as well as a number of principal cities in America have obtained waste collection and storm flow collection service from combined sewer systems for many years. While these systems provided satisfactory service they also contributed increased amounts of pollution as urbanization was accelerated. Today these systems may be responsible for at least % of the pollution entering many of the streams in these urban centers. Equally important is the fact that alternatives studied to date give no simple inexpensive solution to this problem. Furthermore, because of the absence of alternatives the high cost contemplated has resulted in deliberate procrastination at all levels of government. A major problem which must be faced by all responsible individuals and again of government is that the above condition will prevent a visible change in water quality from occurring even after tertiary, advanced waste treatment and industrial waste control are accomplished. It is vital, therefore, that we reassess the water pollution abatement programs in light of the objectives desired. I submit that a high priority item deserving immediate attention is providing financial assistance through existing programs and framework for dealing with combined sewer overflow pollution problems. THE PROBLEM Most urban concentrations are drained by systems of combined sewers which spill to the open water courses when the sanitary intercepting sewers and treatment plants are overloaded. While combined sewers have been estimated to carry approximately 3 percent of the annual sewage volume to waterways during storm overflow periods the annual pollutional load discharged can be much greater because of cleansing of sewer inverts during periods of high storm runoff. The result of such discharges to the stream can be extensive sludge deposits which have a significant oxygen demand and contribute substantially to the pollution of the stream. THE SOLUTION A number of alternatives have been studied for solving the problem of pollution caused by spillages from combined sewers. Such studies have included separation of sewers, storage in existing sewers, underflow and tunnel storage plans and outfall or overflow point treatment. All of these have significant capital and operating costs and a variety of advantages and disadvantages. The need for considering these problems now is demonstrated by the relationship between trading off future treatment plant capacity for additional storage facilities to help solve the combined sewer overflow problem as well as improve normal treatment results. This could be of equal significance to both elements of pollution control (plant effluents and storm spillage) and probably more economical. In any case, as long as a program of non-recognition from a fiscal planning and assistance point of view prevails, very little progress will be made in relation to this problem. There is a need in any forthcoming legislation specifically to spell out the eligibility of systems which solve the combined sewer overflow problems for construction grant aid. When inquiries on this subject have been made of the Water Quality Office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, we have received the reply that such systems (that is, systems to intercept and treat combined sewer overflows) were ineligible. From contact with personnel of the administering agency, it would appear that the decision not to fund such systems is an administrative one, based mainly upon the lack of funds which such programs would require. In all our contacts with them, we have pointed out the utter inconsistency of preparing for higher degrees of treatment of flows entering plants, while at the same time neglecting the gross form of pollution implicit in uncontrolled storm overflows. It is our opinion that such systems are eligible for participation in the Federal Construction Grant Program provided for in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. This act was amended by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1961-(Public Law 87-88), the Water Quality Act of 1965-(Public Law 89-234), the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966—(Public Law 89-753), and the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970—(Public Law 91-224). |