[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 67 (Wednesday, May 25, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 25, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                          THE CLEAN WATER ACT

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, 22 years ago, under the leadership of 
Senator Edmund Muskie, the Environment and Public Works Committee met 
to address a national crisis: the crisis of water pollution.
  The headlines of that era told of lakes so polluted they could 
support only algae blooms. The Cuyahoga River, which runs through 
Cleveland, was so contaminated with industrial waste that it caught 
fire. Lake Erie was considered biologically dead.
  The response was the Clean Water Act of 1972. Since its passage, the 
act has been a pillar of our country's environmental and public health 
policies.
  The Clean Water Act of 1972 set three ambitious goals: fishable and 
swimmable waters; zero discharge of pollutants; and no discharges of 
toxic pollutants in toxic amounts. Today, 22 years later, we have come 
a long way toward those goals:
  Eighty-five percent of municipal discharges and 87 percent of 
industrial sources now comply with the act's requirements on water 
quality and conventional pollutants.
  The quality of our waters--the Cuyahoga River, Lake Erie, and 
hundreds of other lakes and rivers--is immeasurably improved.
  The Clean Water Act has done a great deal of good. But when we 
consider its three original goals it is clear that we still have 
significant water pollution problems.
  The chart on my right indicates that the quality of almost 40 percent 
of assessed river miles are impaired and 6 percent are threatened with 
impairment. Thirty two percent of coastal waters are impaired as are 44 
percent of lakes. In both cases, over 10 percent of these waters are 
threatened with impairment. And, fully 97 percent of the shoreline 
miles of the Great Lakes are impaired.
  Stated differently, it is the red and the yellow which are impaired 
or threatened to be impaired and it is only the blue which meets the 
clean water standards. So, effectively, about half of our water is 
impaired and with the Great Lakes almost all of it is impaired.
  The Clean Water Act has done a good job. When we consider its goals, 
as I said, we have a lot more to do. And this chart indicates that.
  In addition, the second chart indicates the reported number of both 
beach closings and fish consumption advisories have increased in recent 
years. This is evidence that some water quality problem are getting 
worse rather than better.
  This top line--that is the blue line--lists the total number of ocean 
and bay beach closings and advisories in 22 coastal States from 1988 to 
1992. In 1988, 484 beach closings or advisories against swimming were 
issued. That is the lower left. That is the blue line. As you can see, 
this upward trend has continued. In 1992, a mere 6 years later, beaches 
were closed, or advisories were issued against swimming, on 2619 
occasions. This is more than a five-fold increase. From 1988 to 1992.
  The second line on the chart--the red line--shows the trend in fish 
consumption advisories. According to EPA, advisories to the public 
about possible fish contamination have also shown a steady increase, 
about 2\1/2\ times over the same period.
  So we have made a great deal of progress in improving water quality. 
But, as the charts show, water pollution is still very much with us.
  If we ignore those problems, they will not go away. They will be 
passed along to the next generation. That is just not acceptable. It is 
up to us to pass a strong and revitalized Clean Water Act.
  I am pleased that the Senate will begin consideration of legislation 
to reauthorize the Clean Water Act after the Memorial Day recess. This 
bill, S. 2093, was reported by the Environment and Public Works 
Committee last February by a vote of 14-3.
  We will have plenty of time to discuss the bill's provisions when the 
bill comes to the floor. Today, I want to review the key elements of 
the legislation and the benefits to the country of a new Clean Water 
Act.


            helping communities with water pollution control

  Communities across the country today face significant problems 
implementing the Clean Water Act.
  EPA estimates that funding required for sewage treatment over the 
next 20 years is over $100 billion. The bill provides funding of at 
least $2.5 billion per year to help finance sewage treatment projects.
  Perhaps as importantly, every billion dollars we invest in water 
pollution control generates over 50,000 jobs in the construction and 
related industries.
  Even with substantially increased funding, the current requirements 
of the Act--that is, under current law--with respect to municipalities, 
pose a significant burden for many communities. The bill will reduce 
requirements for control of combined sewer overflows and for treatment 
of discharges of stormwater.
  The EPA estimates that the overall savings to municipalities of the 
proposed changes to the combined sewer overflow and stormwater 
provisions of the act will save communities almost $12 billion.


           effective programs for nonpoint pollution control

  As industrial and municipal discharges have achieved compliance with 
the act, rainfall runoff from diffuse or nonpoint sources has come to 
represent the Nation's largest remaining surface water problem. 
Nonpoint source pollution affects 75 percent of river miles assessed by 
States and about 20 percent of the Nation's lake acreage.
  Nonpoint pollution comes from a variety of sources: agricultural and 
forestry practices, urban runoff from roofs and paved areas, and return 
flows from irrigated agricultural lands, construction sites, mining 
sites, and land disposal sites.
  The bill increases funding for the program from just over $100 
million to as much as $600 million. More importantly, the bill 
authorizes States to make grants to individual pollution sources, such 
as farms, for implementation of pollution control measures.
  I understand that some Senators are concerned about the nonpoint 
pollution program. I am from the State of Montana. Agriculture is the 
major industry in my State. It is the primary industry.
  I have worked very hard to come up with an effective program that 
meets the needs of agriculture. That is why the bill provides for a 
flexible, targeted, nonpoint program that works for farmers and 
ranchers.


              continuing control of toxic water pollution

  While there has been dramatic progress in reducing the discharges of 
toxic pollutants to waters, the amount of toxics entering our waters 
still remains high.
  The bill expands existing authority for development of technology-
based controls over industrial dischargers to give greater attention to 
pollution prevention.
  The bill also improves the process for developing water quality 
criteria and standards for toxic and other pollutants. And, the bill 
responds to the growing evidence that some toxic pollutants may have 
very serious, long-term effects on the development and reproduction of 
aquatic species, wildlife and humans.


                     improving wetlands protection

  While the United States once contained some 220 million acres of 
wetlands, today the country has only about 104 million acres of 
wetlands. Wetlands losses continue at a rate of 100,000 to nearly 
300,000 acres annually. Efforts to conserve wetlands, however, have 
been a major source of controversy in recent years.
  Some point to the ecological and economic values of wetlands and 
argue that wetlands conservation requirements need strengthening. 
Others argue that the wetlands regulatory program is difficult and 
confusing, fails to adequately involve the States, and unduly restricts 
the use of private property.
  The wetlands provisions contained in the bill attempt to resolve 
these conflicting concerns.
  The bill enhances wetlands conservation by setting a national goal of 
no net loss of wetlands, regulating previously unregulated causes of 
wetlands losses, and improving wetlands planning on a watershed basis.
  It, however, simplifies compliance with wetlands requirements by 
setting permit decision deadlines, authorizing appeals of wetlands 
regulatory decisions, clarifying agricultural exemptions from permit 
requirements, and providing financial assistance to small landowners 
for wetlands conservation. The bill also encourages greater State 
involvement in wetlands programs.


                  pollution prevention and innovation

  As the water quality program has matured, it has become increasingly 
clear that there is a need for new, innovative approaches to reduce 
water pollution. New, innovative approaches have the potential to 
reduce costs while increasing environmental benefits.
  The bill includes several new approaches to water pollution control. 
For example, States are encouraged to manage water quality on a 
watershed basis. And, new authority is provided to demonstrate 
environmental benefits by allowing facilities to manage environmental 
control programs on a flexible multimedia basis.
  That is just a long way of saying that the air and water and waste 
programs can all be put together, and managed in a flexible way, not 
each run separately. Because if they are run together, a plant manager, 
a person with a farm or ranch or what not, can then deal much more 
easily with the EPA, or the State, whichever is appropriately involved.


                           concrete benefits

  It is hard--in fact, pointless--to put a price on clean water, but 
the act has dollar and job benefits that are as solid as concrete. The 
craft behind me lists several of the benefits or reauthorizing the act.
  A major benefit of the bill is that we will be able to put at least 
125,000 Americans to work on wastewater treatment projects.
  Cities all across the country will be relieved of at least $12 
billion in costs of controlling combined sewer overflows and 
stormwater--very important. That is the second one.
  The bill will improve water quality in urban areas. It will increase 
swimming and fishing and opportunities and reduce human health impacts 
of water pollution. The estimated value of these benefits is between $1 
and $6 billion. That is the third section.
  In rural areas, such as my home State of Montana, improved controls 
over nonpoint sources of pollution included in the bill are expected to 
result in measurable improvements in 156,200 river miles and 7.1 
million lake acres.
  Finally, the new authority in the bill for watershed programs is 
estimated to have a potential value of as much as $7 billion.


            the american people want a good clean water bill

  Let me conclude by reminding my colleagues that water pollution is 
the top environmental concern of the American people.
  Ninety-six percent of the public considers water quality the most 
important environmental issue, ahead of toxic waste, air pollution and 
everything else. And, the American people want us to pass tough 
practical legislation to protect water quality.
  Last year, my committee heard testimony from Dr. Theo Colburn 
concerning the effects of some toxic pollutants on wildlife and humans. 
Dr. Colburn examined babies born to women who ate two to three meals of 
Lake Michigan fish a month for 6 years before getting pregnant. She 
found that the babies were on average lighter in weight, had smaller 
skulls, and were born earlier than the babies of mothers who did not 
eat fish.
  That is what water pollution means. It is the legacy of a 
thoughtless, irresponsible past. It is not a legacy we can pass on to 
the next generation with a clear conscience. We owe America a strong 
Clean Water Act. We owe America's children a strong Clean Water Act.
  I hope all my colleagues will work with me and other members of the 
committee as we prepare to bring this important legislation to the 
Senate floor.

                          ____________________