Page Technical guidelines for interstate waters- New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission. General policy for water use classes New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission: Statement of. Resolution of Colorado River Basin State Conferees, November 15, 1967... 1493 1493 1494 1496 1499 1500 Philadelphia Bar Association, Committee on Environmental Quality: 1502 Rasmussen, Dr. John O.: Letter dated April 14, 1971 to Chairman Muskie__ 1506 1506 Restoring the quality of Wisconsin River Waters: Paper prepared by Anthony H. J. Dorcey, Charles H. Falkner, and Irving K. Fox, under auspices of the Water Resources Center, University of Wisconsin.... 1515 Rex Chain belt, Inc.: Comments on S. 523- 1536 1539 1540 1545 Waste and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Association, Inc.: 1546 GENERAL APPENDIX Section I. ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS AND MATERIALS STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN CONCRETE PIPE ASSOCIATION By Richard E. Barnes, Managing Director Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: the American Concrete Pipe Association welcomes this opportunity to file its views on the current water pollution control legislation pending before this Subcommittee. This statement is submitted on behalf of the members of our Association. INTRODUCTION The American Concrete Pipe Association was founded as a non-profit organization in 1907. The Association serves as spokesman for the concrete pipe industry in all matters affecting the welfare of the industry. It has member companies in every state except two. There are almost 500 concrete pipe plants in the United States of which our members represent 351 plants located throughout this country. The Association's membership represents 70 to 75 percent of the annual production of the entire industry. The value of our industry's total annual production is about $700 million. The membership of our Association is deeply aware of the environmental problems confronting our great nation, especially the need for clean waters. During hearings before this Subcommittee in the 2nd Session of the 91st Congress, our Association filed a statement on May 22, 1970, presenting its position and views. This statement now appears in Volume V, pages 1705 through 1708 in said hearing record. The control of water pollution is a major activity of the concrete pipe industry. Throughout the world, concrete pipe is the accepted conduit for irrigation, drainage, sewers, highway culverts, and pressure water supply mains. Without these systems for controlling water supply and discharge wastes, our nation could not function in a progressive and healthful manner. Attached to this statement, as Exhibit "A", is a brief report of the different types of concrete pipe available and their end uses. ABATEMENT NEEDS Since these hearings began, much has been said about the waste treatment grant program conducted by the Office of Water Quality of the Environmental Protection Agency. It is our opinion that to gain a complete perspective of the needs to abate water pollution, one must include the water and sewer programs of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Farmer's Home Administration of USDA, and the Economic Development Administration of the Department of Commerce. Attached as Exhibit "B" is a recent study prepared by the Association entitled: "A Survey of the Water Pollution Control Programs." This survey was introduced on the floor of the U.S. Senate by a member of this Subcommittee, Senator Dole of Kansas. Attached as Exhibit "C" is an update of Tables I and II of the survey. Gentlemen, there are nearly 15,000 applications pending before EPA, HUD, EDA and FHA with a total needed grant funding of $5.9 billion. Neither the estimated fiscal outlays of less than $900 million for 1971 and about $1.4 billion for fiscal 1972 come close to the real need of $5.9 billion just to fund pending applications. In addition to the $5.9 billion grant amount needed to cover pending applications, William D. Ruckelshaus, Administrator of EPA, testified before this Subcommittee on February 4 that the federal debt owned to the states in the form of reimbursements for their pre-paying the federal share of the EPA program has risen to $1.5 billion, of which about $300 million is immediate debt out standing. Thus, the current needs of applications and reimbursables to the states total $7.4 billion. The question arises: if this represents past needed funding, what are the economic projections to just catch up with water pollution needs? A recent survey by the National League of Cities estimated that public funds needed now to control water pollution amount to from $33 to $37 billion. The Joint Economic Committee of Congress examined this same problem and estimated in 1968 that a ten year, $51.8 billion program was needed with an annual average need of $5.2 billion. Gentlemen, the financial needs of this country to solve its water pollution problems are extremely formidable, unless new research developments discover more economical solutions. Neither the Administration's proposed increases in appropriations for EPA, nor Senator Muskie's bill, S.523, are a total financial panacea, especially in view of the economic realities of America today. Another question that is receiving intense examination by industries and environmentally conscious citizens is the implications of the President's revenuesharing proposal, particularly the "special revenue-sharing grants" of $11.2 billion which would be earmarked to be spent in the functional areas of transportation, education, urban and rural community development, manpower training and law enforcement. It is sincerely hoped that the water and sewer programs will not be confronted on a competitively funding basis with urban renewal and model cities programs, whereas in the past separate budgeted amounts have prevailed. In addition, the President in his environmental message excluded water districts from eligibility in the $5 billion "general revenuesharing" plan. FEDERAL AGENCY PROGRAMS The following is an analysis of the four federal agency programs attempting to control water pollution: 1. EPA. The specific need within the Office of Water Quality of EPA, besides the funding of 3,007 applications at grant need of $2.1 million, is to make eligible for federal grants the separation or storage of combined sewer-storm discharge systems. There are over 1,900 communities in the U.S. with combined or partially combined storm and sanitary sewer systems serving some 59 million people. To stop the raw sewage overflow at peak periods will require either the separation of combined systems or the storage of heavy combined sewer flows to be delivered for treatment to the disposal plant during periods of low flow. In 1967, the American Public Works Association Research Foundation, under study contract with the then FWPCA, estimated that the separation of our nation's combined systems would cost about $48 billion, including the necessary plumbing changes on private property. Exhibit "D" to our testimony is the result of their study. If the separation or storage of these systems is financially feasible, it is recommended that the Subcommittee consider the amendment language which appeared as Section 3 of S. 4105, which was introduced by Senator Magnuson of Washington on July 21, 1970. 2. EDA. The purpose of the Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965 was to help restore areas burdened with high unemployment and low family income. Of the total budget for programs under the jurisdiction of the Economic Development Administration of the U.S. Department of Commerce, sixty (60) to seventy (70) percent is utilized in water and sewer projects. New industry means new jobs and fuller employment where it is most needed, but, without adequate water and sewer facilities, underemployed communities can never hope to attract an influx of industrial development. As of December 31, 1970, 150 pending water and sewer projects with needed grants amounting to $100 million remained unfunded. 3. HUD.-HUD's Water and Sewer Facilities Grant Program helps communities stretch their limited resources to trigger local employment opportunities, promote an increased housing supply, and provide an atmosphere conducive to economic growth, thus responding to social needs as well. Presently, the program has about 4,300 pending applications unfunded at a grant amount of about $2.5 billion. The present Administration has projected an estimated $140.5 million of outlay during fiscal 1971, when Congress appropriaed $350 million for water and sewer projects and authorized an additional $1 billion in Public Law 91-431. In effect, the Office of Management and Budget appears to be willing to reduce this program for the current fiscal year by reducing more than one half of the appropriated amount. By HUD definition, "the basic parts of a water or sewer facility for which a grant may be made include all parts of the water or sewer facility except building or household connection and local distribution or collection laterals." A local collection lateral as understood by HUD is "that portion of a sewer facility which only collects flow from building or household connections and does not collect a flow from other common sewers or tributaries." If the federal government is interested in creating an incentive plan to meet the 10-year housing goal as stated in the 1968 Housing Act report, which called for 26-million units started or rehabilitated between 1968 and 1978, an amendment to the statute to make laterals eligible under the HUD Grant Program would be a suggestion. We support the testimony presented by the National Association of Counties before the House Committee on Banking and Currency on June 12, 1970, especially their statement: "We believe the Congress and the Administration should place water-sewer construction at the top of the priority list if our national housing goals are to be met over the next decade." In addition, we support the statement in the President's Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations report "Metropolitan America: Challenge to Federalism" that "one of the major shortcomings in water supply and waste disposal is the continued reliance on private wells and individual septic tanks in communities where the growing density of population calls for public water and sewerage systems." 4. FHA.-Recent studies of applications strongly indicate that the Farmer's Home Administration is falling significantly behind with its efforts to help secure adequate public facilities for the 61,922 small towns and rural communities which desperately need water and sewer grants and loans for the construction of adequate facilities. Rural America is the home of approximately one-third of our total population. It contains most of the substandard water and sewerage systems that are used by about 19.7 million rural families. In rural areas not served with adequate central water supplies, 16 times as many people die from waterborne diseases as do in the remainder of the nation. The Surgeon General in a speech made at the Alliance for Progress 1968 Meeting stated that a Public Health study of 228 outbreaks of waterborne diseases revealed that untreated ground water used by families not connected to a public supply accounted for the majority of these diseased cases. The Economic Research Service of USDA published a study in "Agricultural Economic Report No. 143" reporting that 44,567 communities having populations less than 5,500 do not have a sewerage system. In December 1969, FHA conducted a survey which resulted in a water and sewer system need amounting to $11.3 billion. Of all the federal agencies, FHA has the greatest number of unfunded, pending water and sewer applications. As of December 31, 1970, 7,267 applications remained unfunded by FHA over the past three years at a grant amount of $1.176 billion. In order to adequately meet minimum water and sewer requirements, FHA has estimated the annual need for their grant program at $150 million and their loan program at $1 billion annually. This estimate falls far short of the following amounts enumerated by the President's Office of Management and Budget: Gentlemen, if FHA is to continue with a direct action program in providing matching loans for HUD, EPA (OWQ) and EDA grants made in rural areas, it is mandatory that the insured loan fund must be substantially increased. FHA is the only federal agency among those listed that seems to have the delivery capability of making loans in rural areas in the numbers and amounts required. Because of the unavailability of monies in the Agricultural Credit Insurance Fund, it would be interesting for this Subcommittee to know what percent of the applications in all four federal agencies are pending because of the meager loan authority granted the ACI Fund. In addition, it would be interesting to know which rural areas have had development terminated or never initiated because they didn't have the funds to meet state water quality standards. Can the Congress, through the Secretary of the Interior, agree to impose state water quality standards without providing the necessary matching funds to meet those standards? |