April 3, 1972 HOUSE PASSES FAR-REACHING WATER POLLUTION CONTROL BILL After three days of debate and consideration of numerous amendments, the House last week approved a momentous $24.6 billion three-year water pollution control bill with authority tor a crash program to clean up the Great Lakes. I strongly supported the bill. I resurrected the special Great Lakes cleanup program after the Office of Management and Budget had shot it down by l eaving it out of the fiscal 1973 budget. In a colloquy on the House floor with Rep. Bob Jones, D-Ala. , floor manager of the bill, Rep. William Harsha, R-Ohio, senior Republican on the House Public Works Committee, and Rep. John Blatnlk~ D-Minn .• Committee chairman, I established the fact that there is ample authority in existing law and in the House bill to proceed with the Great Lakes crash cleanup program. Earlier r met vi th officials of the Environmental Protection Agency, who assured me there would be sufficient funds under the overall $24.6 billion authorization in the bill to take care of the Great Lakes program. I now will york on the House Appropriations Committee to obtain funds for a Great Lakes cleanup. The main thrust of the Great Lakes program is a $100 million attack on the problem of com­ bined sanitary and storm vater sewage. EPA wants the storm vater as well as the sanitary sewage treated before it flows into the Great Lakes . I aim to see that the program is launched. WATER POLLUTION CONTROL BILL IS LANDMARK LEGISLATION As Congressman Harsha remarked , "Anyone who thinks the House water pol lution control bill is \leak simply doesn't know what's in it. " Chairman Blatnik, longtime champion of clean water, declared the measure to be lithe most effect! ve. workable pollution control bill. that has ever been devised. " Here are the chief provisions of the legislation. The bill: * Authorizes $18 billion for construction of waste treatment works for fiscal years 1973- 75 . * Establishes the basic Federal grant at 60 per cent . If the State pays 15 per cent of the cost the Federal rant is i ncreased to 7 er cent. * Provides that projects initiated after 195 which meet the requirements of the previous Water Pollution Control Acts would be eligible for retroactive grants--and authorizes $2,750,000,000 for this purpose. * Requires that water quality standards be established for al l navigable waters . • Requires point sources of effluent other than publicly ovned treatment works t o utilize the best practicable control technology currently avail.able or a higher ~evel of treat­ ment if required to meet water quality standards. • Provides contract authority for construction grants, in place of reliance on annual appropriations. • Provides for user charges to assure that recipients of waste treatment services will ~ their share of the cost of constructing, operating and maintaining waste treatment facilities . • Requires publicly owned treatment plants to offer secondary treatment by 1976. * Establishes a system of enforcement based on discharge permits and effluent limitations. Violations are punishable by fines up to $50,000 and two years in jail. • He uires all States to classi their lakes and to car out methods to control and restore polluted lakes. The bill authorizes 300 million for this program. (over) The legislation also provides: * That allocation of funds to the States be on the basis of need, instead of the old for­ mula of population. That alternatives to traditional methods of waste treatment--like the spray irrigation system used in Belding and Muskegon--be encouraged. • That by 1981 industry mus t achieve zero discharge of pollutants unless compliance is not a.ttainable at reasonable costs, 1n which case limits a.re to be based on "the best available demonstrated technology." For publicly owned facilities, the 1981 standard is "the best practical waste treatment technology. 1\ In addition s all newly constructed or modi tied private plants MUS t meet di sch rge standards based on "the beet available demonstrated control technology~ process and methods." * That by 1985 there be no discharge of pollutants into the Nation's waters. MANY AMENDMENTS DEFEATED The biggest bone of contention in the debate over toe bill was the PUblic Works Committee's insistence on a two-year study by the National Academies ot Science and Engineering before the Congress inflexibly holds to its goals of safe, swimmable water by 1981 and DO discbarge of any pollutants into our waters by 1985. The comttdttee contended we ought to have an exPert assessment of the costs and of the impact on our economy before we irrevocably hammer those standards into law. Rep. Roger H. Zion, R-Ind., pointed out that Gov. Nelson Rockefeller hed estimated the cost of achieving the no-discharge goal at $2.3 billion for New York State alone. Extrapolating that figure, said Zion~ the estimated cost for the Nation would be 2.5 trillion--considerably more than the Gross National Product of the world. The Senate has passed a water pollution control bill which sets the 1981 and 1985 goals without any conditions. The House felt this was unreasonable and so defeated, 248 to 140. an amendment which would have eliminated the study and subsequent congressional reviev of pollution controls. The House also defeated, 251 to 114, an amendment giving only EPA the power to issue permits to industries to discharge wastes into waterways. Both the House and Senate bills transfer this authority to the States, with the Senate bill giving EPA veto ~ower. The House bill lays down strict guidelines for the States to follow and provides for EPA to run the permit program in States failing to meet the requirements. The Rouse rejected, 267 to 125, an amendment that would have continued to require such Federal agencies as the Corps of Engineers, the Federal Power Commission and the Atomic Energy Commission to prepare environmental impact studies of the effects of their projects on waterways. The House bill removes this requirement if State water quality standards are not violated. I be ieve the States should have a major role 1n the fight against water pollution and so should be involved in issuing permits. I also believe we should strive for the goal of 00- discharge by 1985 but we sbould know where we are going as we head in that direction. MUSKEGON AND BOAT POLLUTION AMENDM1!!N'TS ADOPI'ED The House approved two "Michigan amendments" to the water pollution control bill. The House voted 250 to 131 for a recycling amenament ot~ered by Rep. GuY Vander Jagt, Republican of Cadillac. This amendment directs the Environmental Protection Agency to encourage regional resource management programs that utilize spray irrigation and recycling systems for waste water disposal. As mentioned earlier in this newsletter, Muskegon and Belding have this type 0 sewage disposal system. I voted for this amendment. A boat ~o11ution amendment affecting Michigan also passed, 210 to 114. This amendment preserves the rights of states to control discharges from vessels. Under the committee bill, the Federal Government would bave preempted this right. TO amendment permits States to com­ pletely prohibit the discharge of sanitary waste from boats. Tbis is what Michigan lav does. I supported the amendment . H , It April 24, 1972 FEDERAL OUTLAYS RISE IN FIFTH DISTRICT Federal outlays in Kent and I onia Counties rose sharply in fiscal 1971, as compared with the previous f iscal year , according to an official government report. 7T7-07-ta.l-:=-_F....:e:....:d::..:e;,;;r..;;.a...::l __ m~0""n~e~s-----:~_:--=~::-::-'-r:;:K~e-=:'n=t_C~o~un~t~ in fiscal 1971 came to $238,495.734, nearly $41 million more than in $197,553,831 ). The largest sums emanated trom : * The Health. Education and Welfare Department . $110,535.339. including $86.350.279 in Social Security payments; • The Hous i ng and Urban Development Department. $1,288,600, including $224,000 for vater and sever facilities ' • The Labor Department, $2,900.477, including $1,420,815 in unemployment insurance pay­ ments and $630,979 for job placement services ' * The Transportation Department. $10.859.613. including $6,402,175 for higbv~ plannins and construction; * The Vet er ans Administr ation, $14,155,342. including $5,126,655 for veterans disability compensation; * The AgTiculture Department , $5,778,421, including $3,550,490 in food stamp bonus coupons ; * The Defense Department, $37.896,000. including $29,580,000 in military prime supply contracts . For Ionia County, the f i scal 1971 total vas $23,552.569, up $2.2 million from fiscal 1970. The largest amounts came from: * The Agriculture Department. $3.491.575 ; * The Health. Education and Welfare Depart­ ment, $13,578,207 including $10,182.946 in Socia Security payments; • The Veterans Administration $1 6 6, including 57 ,642 for veterans disabil­ ity compensation; * The Labor Department, $422.755, including $228,876 in unemployment i nsurance payments and $136,094 for placement services. * Railroad Retirement Board, $208,843 for social insurance program. One reason the Kent County total jumped as it did s construction of the new Court House and Federal Buildln in downtown Grand Ra ids. The Federal Government spent 7,629.206 on public buildings construction in Kent County in fiscal 1971 . MRS. PERROTT JOINS STAFF FIRST IN WASHINGTON -- The. 43 hen.iOI[4 06 Mrs. Marba Perrott has become a fulltime God61Le.y Lu H.igh School welte. :the. 6i.JL6t hvU.OII. member of my district office staff in Grand ci~~ OMm the. F.[6th CongJtu~i.ona.t V.ihtJU.c.t tc Rapids, succeeding a part-time employee, v.iAU W~JungtDn thi.IJ hplLing.