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. 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 accurate ly 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 |