Opening Statement for Senator Jim Jeffords
Hearing Commemorating the 30th Anniversary of
the Clean Water Act
October 8, 2002, 9:30 a.m.
I am very pleased to be here today to commemorate the 30th
anniversary of the Clean Water Act.
This statute was one of the first environmental laws that our nation
adopted, and it has remained a cornerstone of our efforts to protect and
preserve our nation's waters.
I am particularly honored to welcome two former members of
this body and of this Committee who are joining us to celebrate this event,
Senator Stafford of Vermont and Senator Mitchell of Maine. Each of them played a key role in the
passage of the 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act.
Senator Stafford, who is joining us by videoconference from
Vermont, was the chairman of this Committee when the amendments were
crafted.
Senator Mitchell of Maine was the ranking member of the
subcommittee on Environmental Protection during the development of these
amendments, and was the floor manager for one of the two historic votes to pass
these amendments and override President Reagan's veto.
We are truly fortunate that these distinguished members are
joining us today to speak about their views on the progress we have made to
cleanup our nation' s waters. Thank you
both for being here.
Sadly, the true steward of the 1987 amendments to the Clean
Water Act - Senator John Chafee -- is not with us today. Senator Chafee was one of my closest friends
in the Senate. We ate lunch together
every Wednesday for about ten years.
His contribution to our nation cannot be overstated. Senator Chafee's leadership on environmental
issues as a member and as Chairman of this Committee was unparalleled through
the last two decades. His
fingerprints can be found on virtually every major piece of environmental
legislation that became law during these two decades.
It was his leadership that brought the bipartisan 1987
Clean Water amendments through the Senate, through the conference with the
House, past a Presidential veto, and into law.
Because of his efforts, our children and grandchildren cannot imagine a
world where excess pollution can cause a river to burn. We are honored to have Senator Lincoln
Chafee here as a member of this committee, continuing his father's important
work.
To understand the significance of the Clean Water Act, one
has to recall the state of our nation's waterways in the early 1970s. The fact is, our nation was faced with a
water pollution crisis. The most vivid
example was the Cuyahoga River in Ohio, which became so polluted with chemicals
and industrial wastes that it burst into flames. Toxic materials were routinely dumped into pristine water bodies
by industrial polluters. It was standard
practice in municipalities to have underground pipes deliver raw sewage from
homes directly into rivers and streams without any intervening treatment.
Americans began to ask - is this the best we can do? I can attest to the fact that Vermonters
answered with a vehement "no".
They demanded action to solve our environmental problems. In 1970, I was the state attorney general of
Vermont. My office worked to create
Vermont Act 252, which enacted the toughest water pollution laws in the country
at the time. I had the honor of
testifying before this Committee during Senator Muskie's chairmanship during
the first phases of the debate on the Clean Water Act. Some of the concepts in Act 252 are today
part of federal water pollution laws.
Congress also answered "no" to the question - is
this the best we can do? Led by
champions like Senators Muskie and Baker, they came together on a bi-partisan
basis to override President Nixon's veto of the Clean Water Act. Originally enacted in 1948, the 1972 Clean
Water Act completely revised the existing statute and created the clean water
program that we know today.
The Act consisted of two major parts - regulations on
industries and cities designed to reach a goal of zero discharge of pollutants
and the authorization of federal financial assistance for wastewater
treatment. We have made progress.
Virtually every community served by a publicly owned
treatment works is served by a plant that uses secondary treatment. This progress was facilitated by the Federal
assistance provided for municipal wastewater treatment plant construction.
Despite progress on these and other issues, it was clear
that without action on other problems such as toxics and nonpoint source
pollution, we would not be able to meet our clean water goals.
In 1987, Americans again asked - is this the best we can
do? And again Congress said "no". Champions like Senator Chafee, Senator Stafford, Senator
Mitchell, and Senator Bentsen came together as a bi-partisan coalition to
override President Reagan's veto of the 1987 amendments and enacted the last
major reform to this country's clean water program.
Many of the key pieces of the 1987 amendments continue to
resonate in our clean water debate today - in particular, nonpoint source
pollution, stormwater, and funding levels.
We have made some progress on these issues, building on the strength of
the 1987 amendments.
However, much remains to be
done. Almost half of our nation's waters are not safe for
fishing, swimming, boating, drinking water, or other needs. EPA estimates that nonpoint sources of
pollution are responsible for half of our water quality problems. Just last week, Administrator Whitman
released the Agency's "gap analysis" which identified an enormous gap
between current funding levels and infrastructure needs for publicly owned
treatment works. In Vermont, there
are two dozen streams impaired by stormwater runoff. These issues represent a real and daily threat to public health
and to the wildlife that depend on clean water to sustain life.
On this, the 30th anniversary of the Clean Water
Act, America again asks - is this the best we can do? The answer is
"no." Our nation still faces
many important challenges. Today, our
actions overseas dominate the debates in Congress and overshadow equally
pressing problems here at home. Water
pollution continues to be a "clear and present" problem. It is real and it deserves our attention. We must take action to respond to America's
call for cleaner water. We must
squarely address nonpoint source pollution.
We must have a strong TMDL program to move states more rapidly toward
cleaning up our impaired waterways. It
is imperative that the TMDL rulemaking being undertaken by the Administration
is a "second step" in the program rather than a step backward.
We must invest in our nation's
water infrastructure. In an effort
spearheaded by Senator Graham of Florida, this Committee took action this year
to pass the Water Investment Act. This
bill authorizes takes a first step toward closing the gap in investment for
water infrastructure. I have worked
with Senators Smith, Crapo, and Graham and the Appropriations Committee to
increase funding for the SRF. This
year, we succeeded with the first increase in years. I want to thank Senators Bond and Mikulski for their support.
I believe that we must continue to move forward on
controlling stormwater and combined sewer overflows. A major element in our ability to combat these problems is
funding. In the Water Investment Act,
we included a separate authority for EPA to provide assistance to communities
in controlling combined sewer overflows.
In September I joined my colleagues on this Committee in strongly
supporting an amendment to the Clean Water Act proposed by Senator Chafee to
ensure that smaller communities covered by the phase II stormwater regulations
taking effect in March will be able to continue to use federal funds to solve
stormwater problems.
It is clear that if we do not take action to address these
issues, progress will stall. As America
asks us on the 30th anniversary of the Clean Water Act - is this the
best we can do - we must answer "no" as our colleagues did in 1972
and 1987.
I believe that we are up to the challenge.