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 pollut ing 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, 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. DEVELOPMENT OF METHODS AND APPLICATION OF MATERIALS FOR THE PREVENTION OF NUTRIENT INTERCHANGE WITH THE BOTTOM SEDIMENTS During the periods of the spring and fall overturn, a new supply of nutrients is made available from the bottom muds, since circulation of lake contents is possible. Techniques to prevent this interchange must be developed. WEED HARVESTING FROM SHORE AREAS AND LAKE BOTTOMS Rooted vegetation utilizes dissolved nutrients in water in the same sense that plankton algae (also plants) do. Even though the removal of plants would remove only a small fraction of the lake's nutrient content, the nuisance odors, and interference with boating, fishing and water contact sports would be temporarily eliminated with the harvested weeds. Physical and chemical removal techniques should be investigated. USE OF ALGAL PREDATORS-PARASITES AND GRAZERS Results of recent research efforts at the Cincinnati Water Research Laboratory have resulted in the discovery of a virus which is parasitic, specifically to bluegreen algae. This discovery permits the consideration of the use of these viruses to control algal blooms in lakes. This technique should be further explored, and if found satisfactory, should be demonstrated. USE OF CHEMICALS FOR ALGAL GROWTH CONTROL Chemicals such as copper sulfate have been used in the past to control the development of blooms for very short periods of time, a matter of days. Chemical treatment has had the primary disadvantage of serious side effects. For example, many young fish are killed as a result of applications of lethal chemicals. The chemical soon disperses and is incorporated in the bottom sediments and its usefulness has been exhausted. Many new chemicals are available which may be lethal specifically to plankton-algae forms. These should be sought and their usefulness demonstrated. CHEMICAL INACTIVATION OF NUTRIENTS It is possible to chelate or chemically inactivate many compounds in water solution. Methods to tie up algal nutrients, thereby preventing their participation in algae metabolism, should be explored and developed. CONTROL OF TEMPERATURE STRATIFICATION IN LAKES Past research efforts related to quality control in impoundments have resulted in techniques for stratification and destratification of bodies of surface water. It appears both technically and economically feasible to consider the application of mechanical and diffused-air pumping for lake destratification. The indications are that the growth of green algae forms can be encouraged at the expense of bluegreen algae types, thus reducing the nuisance potential. These techniques are ready for large-scale application. [From the Wall Street Journal, excerpted, May 18, 1971] (By Frederick C. Klein, Staff Reporter) Fishing in an increasing number of lakes in the Midwest and South has been spoiled by eutrophication, a process of overfertilization in which lakes' plant populations grow out of control because of the addition of nitrogen and phosphorous from sewage and farm-land runoffs. Eventually, the fish die. The problem has been harder to cure than an overabundance of undesirable fish species because the removal of plants by dredging is very expensive. Since 1969, however, the Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission, a federally sponsored economic development unit that includes Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin, has been seeking new ways to treat eutrophied lakes. Among other things, scientists for the group have pumped out whole lakes and refilled them with uncontaminated water and spread black plastic sheeting on lake bottoms to discourage plant growth. The most promising treatment to date has been with aluminum sulphate, which acts as a magnet to attract and hold plant and animal particles and sink them to lake bottoms. Lakes thus treated have become clear and less clogged after only two weeks, and the cost has been low. The chemical isn't harmful to humans-it is used to remove impurities from drinking water. "The main thing we don't know about aluminum sulphate is how long it will keep a lake clean," says Thomas Wirth, Wisconsin's chief of water resources research and head of the Upper Great Lakes project. "If its effectiveness runs into years, we might have a solution for a tough problem." SUMMARY OF CLEAN LAKES ACT OF 1971 (By Walter F. Mondale) The Clean Lakes Act of 1971 provides for a coordinated and comprehensive program to restore lakes which are in danger of becoming lifeless and useless. It would initially cover a four-year period. To qualify for assistance, applicants must develop a plan for their lakes which will ensure that steps are taken to maintain the improved standards reached through this program. The bill covers four major points. First, the bill authorizes an increase in the Federal grant now available under section 8 (b) of the Water Pollution Control Act for treatment works which are located near or adjacent to a lake and which discharge wastes into the lake or tributary waters. The increase would be to a maximum of 65 per cent of the costs, if the State pays at least 20 percent of the costs. To be eligible for this increase, enforceable water quality standards must be established and the works be consistent with the plan for the implementation, maintenance and enforcement included in the standards. These works must discharge only treated water, and industries hooking up to the municipal system must provide pretreatment of their wastes. The bill authorizes an annual appropriation of $150 million for fiscal years 1972, 1973, 1974, and 1975 for the purpose of funding these increased grants. Second, the bill directs the Administrator of the E.P.A. to provide technical and financial assistance to the states and municipalities in carrying out a comprehensive program of pollution control. This would include the use of harmless chemicals to destroy unwanted supplies of algae that accelerate the aging process of lakes, the dredging of lake bottoms to remove decaying sludge and other noxious pollutants, the recovery of over-growth of algae and trash from the surface, and the improvement of lake shores. The bill authorizes up to 80 per cent Federal grants for this program from a total appropriation of $900 million over a four-year period beginning in fiscal year 1972. Third, the bill authorizes the use of experienced Federal water resource agencies such as the Bureau of Reclamation and the Corps of Engineers, to help carry out this program under agreements with the States. Fourth, the bill provides measures to enforce water quality standards for lakes subject to this program. These measures include penalties and injunctive relief. [From the Congressional Record, 92d Cong., first sess., Friday, Feb. 26, 1971] By Mr. MONDALE (for himself), Mr. BIBLE, Mr. BURDICK, Mr. CANNON, Mr. CHURCH, Mr. CRANSTON, Mr. GRAVEL, Mr. HARRIS, Mr. HART, Mr. HARTKE, Mr. HUGHES, Mr. HUMPHREY, Mr. INOUYE, Mr. JACKSON, Mr. JAVITS, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. MAGNUSON, Mr. MANSFIELD, Mr. MCGEE, Mr. McGOVERN, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. METCALF, Mr. Moss, Mr. MUSKIE, Mr. NELSON, Mr. PERCY, Mr. PROUTY, Mr. RANDOLPH, Mr. RIBICOFF, Mr. SPARKMAN, Mr. TUNNEY, Mr. WILLIAMS, and Mr. YOUNG): S. 1017. A bill to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended. and for other purposes. Referred to the Committee on Public Works. Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, the Water Quality Improvement Act, signed into law on April 3, 1970, cleared the way for the enactment of a comprehensive program to improve the deteriorating condition of our waterways. Its passage marked the culmination of a long struggle to strengthen the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. |