Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
4525563
label
Ford Press Releases - Pollution, 1967-1970
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
4525563
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Ford Press Releases - Pollution, 1967-1970
citationUrl
collections
Gerald R. Ford Congressional Papers
Press Releases Subject Files
subjects
Air pollution
Legislation
Wastes
Water pollution
iiifBase
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
4525563
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1970-10-31
month
10
year
1970
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1967-10-01
month
10
year
1967
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
url
mediaId
2d74e04032bcae26
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box D8, folder "Ford Press Releases - Pollution,
1967-1970" of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the
Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box D8 of The Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
25 October 1967
IIIII
HUME
U. S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN I. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
140 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE SUPPORTS THE AIR QUALITY ACT OF 1967, S.780
The House Republican Policy Committee supports the Air Quality Act of 1967,
S.780. This bill would encourage the solution of air pollution problems on a regional
basis in accordance with air quality standards and enforcement blans developed by the
States. It would provide $362.3 million over a three year period for air control
research, studies, planning and grants to States and air pollution agencies. Air
pollution is no longer just a threat, it is a present menace to the health and well-
being of the American people. Under this legislation reasonable standards can be
established and the States and Regions will be empowered to develop plans and programs
to combat and reduce air pollution
Approximately 130 million tons of pollutants are discharged annually into
the nation's atmosphere an average of 1,400 pounds for each American. This pollution
is a by-product of our highly developed economy. It stems from the rising number of
motor vehicles, and from the trend toward urbanization which concentrates the highest
levels of pollution in the most populated areas. Economic and mechanical progress
has meant the deterioration of our precious air supply. Smog, damage to health and
property, and even death have resulted from the pollution of our air.
Steps must be taken to improve this nation's knowledge of and technical
capability to meet the air pollution problem. In his 1955 State of the Union Address,
President Eisenhower urged the enactment of air pollution legislation. With the
support of Republicans of both Houses of Congress, the first legislation in this
field was enacted by the 84th Congress. S.780 would materially strengthen and improve
this basic legislation. We urge its adoption.
GERALOR FORD LIDENSE
25 October 1967
11111
00000
U. S. HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES
REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE
REP. JOHN J. RHODES, (R.-ARIZ.) CHAIRMAN
140 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
TELEPHONE 225-6168
10
HOUSE REPUBLICAN POLICY COMMITTEE SUPPORTS THE AIR QUALITY ACT OF 1967, S.780
The House Republican Policy Committee supports the Air Quality Act of 1967,
S.780. This bill would encourage the solution of air pollution problems on a regional
basis in accordance with air quality standards and enforcement plans developed by the
States. It would provide $362.3 million over a three year period for air control
research, studies, planning and grants to States and air pollution agencies. Air
pollution is no longer just a threat, it is a present menace to the health and well-
being of the American people. Under this legislation, reasonable standards can be
established and the States and Regions will be empowered to develop plans and programs
to combat and reduce air pollution.
Approximately 130 million tons of pollutants are discharged annually into
the nation's atmosphere, an average of 1,400 pounds for each American. This pollution
is a by-product of our highly developed economy. It stems from the rising number of
motor vehicles, and from the trend toward urbanization which concentrates the highest
levels of pollution in the most populated areas. Economic and mechanical progress
has meant the deterioration of our precious air supply. Smog, damage to health and
property, and even death have resulted from the pollution of our air.
Steps must be taken to improve this nation's knowledge of and technical
capability to meet the air pollution problem. In his 1955 State of the Union Address,
President Eisenhower urged the enactment of air pollution legislation. With the
support of Republicans of both Houses of Congress, the first legislation in this
field was enacted by the 84th Congress. S.780 would materially strengthen and improve
this basic legislation. We urge its adoption.
Adopted by
The Republican Coordinating Committee
December 11, 1967
Presented by
The Task Force on the Functions of
Federal, State and Local Governments
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL: PROMISE AND PERFORMANCE
Prepared under the direction of:
Republican National Committee
Ray C. Bliss, Chairman
1625 Eye Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20006
REPUBLICAN COORDINATING COMMITTEE
Presiding Officer: Chairman, Republican National Committee
Former President
Dwight D. Eisenhower
300 Carlisle Street
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania
Former Presidential Nominees
Barry Goldwater
(1964)
Thomas E. Dewey
(1944 & 1948)
Post Office Box 1601
140 Broadway
Scottsdale, Arizona
New York, New York
Richard M. Nixon
(1960)
Alf M. Landon
(1936)
Nixon, Mudge, Rose,
National Bank of Topeka Building
Guthrie & Alexander
1001 Fillmore Street
20 Broad Street
Topeka, Kansas
New York, New York
Senate Leadership
Everett M Dirksen
George Murphy, Chairman
Minority Leader
National Republican Senatorial Comm.
Thomas H. Kuchel
Milton R. Young, Secretary
Minority Whip
Republican Conference
Bourke B. Hickenlooper, Chairman
Hugh Scott, Vice Chairman
Republican Policy Committee
National Republican Senatorial Comm.
Margaret Chase Smith, Chairman
Republican Conference
House Leadership
Gerald R. Ford
Bob Wilson, Chairman
Minority Leader
National Republican Congressional Comm.
Leslie C. Arends
Charles E. Goodell, Chairman
Minority Whip
Planning and Research Committee
Melvin R. Laird, Chairman
Richard H. Poff, Secretary
Republican Conference
Republican Conference
John J. Rhodes, Chairman
William C. Cramer, Vice Chairman
Republican Policy Committee
Republican Conference
H. Allen Smith
Ranking Member of Rules Committee
(continued)
REPUBLICAN COORDINATING COMMITTEE
continued
- 2 -
Representatives of the Republican Governors Association *
John A. Love
Raymond P. Shafer
Governor of the State of Colorado
Governor of the Commonwealth
Denver, Colorado
of Pennsylvania
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
John A. Volpe
Governor of the Commonwealth
John H. Chafee
of Massachusetts
Governor of the State of
Boston, Massachusetts
Rhode Island
Providence, Rhode Island
George W. Romney
Governor of the State of Michigan
Nils A. Boe
Lansing, Michigan
Governor of the State of
South Dakota
Nelson A. Rockefeller
Pierre, South Dakota
Governor of the State of New York
Albany, New York
Daniel J. Evans
Governor of the State of Washington
Olympia, Washington
Republican National Committee
Ray C. Bliss, Chairman
Donald R. Ross, Vice Chairman
Republican National Committee
Republican National Committee
1625 Eye Street, Northwest
1406 Kiewit Plaza, Farnam at 36th
Washington, D. C. 20006
Omaha, Nebraska 68131
Mrs. C. Wayland Brooks, Assistant Chrmn.
Mrs. J. Willard Marriott, Vice Chrmn.
Republican National Committee
Republican National Committee
1625 Eye Street, Northwest
4500 Garfield Street, Northwest
Washington, D. C. 20006
Washington, D. C. 20007
Mrs. Collis P. Moore, Vice Chairman
J. Drake Edens, Jr., Vice Chairman
Republican National Committee
Republican National Committee
Box 225
Post Office Box 9385
Moro, Oregon 97039
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
President of the Republican State Legislators Association
F. F. (Monte) Montgomery
Speaker of the House of Representatives
State of Oregon
Salem, Oregon
* In the absence of a representative of the Republican Governors Association,
the following alternates have been named:
Ronald Reagan
Spiro T. Agnew
Governor of the State of California
Governor of the State of Maryland
Sacramento, California
Annapolis, Maryland
Tim B. Babcock
Governor of the State of Montana
Helena, Montana
Members of the Republican Coordinating Committee's Task Force on
the Functions of the Federal, State and Local Governments
Robert Taft, Jr., Chairman
Member of Congress from Ohio
Karl Mundt, Vice Chairman
United States Senator from South Dakota
Mrs. Consuelo Northrop Bailey
Secretary of the Republican National Committee
George C. S. Benson
President, Claremont Men's College
Neal Blaisdell
Mayor of the City of Honolulu
Joseph L. Budd
Republican National Committeeman for Wyoming
Howard H. Callaway
Member of Congress from Georgia, 1965-1967
Frank Carlson
United States Senator from Kansas
Roger Cloud
Auditor of the State of Ohio
William Cowger
Member of Congress from Kentucky
Walter DeVries
Executive Assistant to the Governor of the
State of Michigan
Willis D. Gradison, Jr.
Member of City Council, Cincinnati, Ohio
Robert J. Huckshorn
Professor of Political Science, Florida Atlantic
University
Denison Kitchel
Attorney, Phoenix, Arizona
Warren P. Knowles
Governor of the State of Wisconsin
Edwin G. Michaelian
County Executive, Westchester County, New York
Karl M. Ruppenthal
Professor, Graduate School of Business,
Stanford University
Robert F. Sittig
Professor, Department of Political Science,
University of Nebraska
Craig Truax
Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Fred VanNatta
Former Aid to the Speaker of the House of Representatives,
State of Oregon
Charles E. Wittenmeyer
Republican National Committeeman for Iowa
Lawrence L. Thompson, Secretary to the Task Force
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL: PROMISE AND PERFORMANCE
Today, as throughout the history of mankind, the well-being of society
depends vitally on an adequate supply of clean water. Indeed, as our Nation
has become industrialized, and as the economy has produced unprecedented
leisure time, this dependence has taken on new dimensions. To the tradi-
tional demands of domestic and agricultural pursuits two new categories have
been added: (1) large-scale water use for industrial purposes, and (2)
greatly increased popularity of lakes and streams for recreation and sports.
As our economy and population continue to grow, the demand for water in
all these categories reaches record volumes, and total demand begins to crowd
total supply, creating greater competition among the various users of water.
But simply providing a supply of water without maintaining its quality
is not enough, as any resident of the Northeastern United States will testify
after the summer of 1966, when the ancient mariner's plight of "water water
everywhere, nor any drop to drink" came perilously close to being a reality.
Each category of water use requires an appropriate level of purity or quality,
and a fundamental problem of water resources management today is that the
same expanding economy and population that creates the demand for more water
also contributes to the degradation of its quality through the increased dis-
charge of soiled water.
The dilemma of increasing water usage and decreasing water quality has
not occurred overnight, but is the product of years of neglect and mismanagement
-2-
as the careless pollution of lakes and streams often went unchallenged through-
out most of the Nation.
As we now look with dismay at the degraded condition of many of our lakes
and streams, we must realize a double responsibility: first, that of correct-
ing past deficiencies by restoring the quality of water to desired levels; and,
second, that of maintaining this quality in the years ahead. The wise use and
preservation of this vital natural resource is a responsibility we owe to
ourselves and to future generations.
WATER POLLUTION: THE PROBLEM
The principal sources of water pollution are household wastes, industrial
discharges, and land drainage in both urban and rural areas.
Household wastewaters are carried off by municipal sewage disposal systems
at the rate of approximately 100 gallons per day for each person, or 20 billion
gallons each day nationwide. Wastewater treatment systems vary in their effi-
ciency, and in some cases are non-existent. Despite substantial progress in
recent years, it is estimated that communities representing a total population
of 37 million are still without adequate waste treatment facilities.
Water-borne discharges from the entire range of manufacturing processes
together with heated water from electric power plants combine to produce 100
billion gallons of industrial wastewater each day. In many cases, these flows
are emptied directly into the receiving lakes or streams without adequate
treatment or control.
Each year drainage of rainfall from land areas carries into lakes and
streams a wide variety of undesirable substances including fertilizers and pesti-
cides, farm animal wastes, street dirt, and acid and radioactive wastes from
mining operations. Soil erosion and sedimentation degrades the quality of the
-3-
receiving waters, and leaves farm land scarred and less productive. These
types of pollution present an especially difficult control problem, inasmuch
as they are scattered, and in most cases not amenable to collection and treat-
ment at central locations.
The adverse consequences of water pollution are numerous and widespread.
Household and domestic water users may find their health endangered by
polluted water.
Industrial firms may encounter difficulties in utilizing polluted
water due to its abnormal chemical or temperature characteristics and the
resultant effects on manufacturing processes and equipment.
Farmers and growers may find polluted water harmful to livestock and
other farm animals, and increased salinity in irrigation waters can lower
crop yields.
Recreationists, sportsmen, and conservationists may discover that once
pure lakes and streams are now polluted, affecting swimming, fishing and
wildlife. Many historic and economically important fish runs have been
destroyed by pollution.
All of us encounter polluted water that is offensive to smell, taste
and sight.
A few specific examples of pollution and its effects serve to illustrate
the problem:
- - In 1961 a hepatitis epidemic in New York City was traced to
contaminated shellfish taken from the polluted Raritan Bay.
On Lake Erie, public recreation areas have been closed due to
the severe water pollution problem in this Great Lake.
- - In the Appalachian region, two-thirds of the streams and ponds
tested in 1965 were so polluted by mine acids that fish could
not survive.
In some sections of the nation, wildlife and domestic animals
have been killed by the development of poisonous algae in small
lakes.
-4-
The foregoing analysis underscores the immense complexity of the water
pollution problem -- in magnitude, in diversity of sources and causes, in
multiplicity of unwanted effects, and in its nationwide impact. The manage-
ment of water resources at appropriate levels of cleanliness is clearly
a most challenging economic, technical, and administrative undertaking. The
Republican Party is wholeheartedly committed to this task, and we call upon
government at all levels, industry, and private citizens to join in
championing this cause.
GEARING PERFORMANCE TO PROMISE
Since 1956 when the Federal Water Pollution Control Act was signed into
law by President Eisenhower, governments at all levels have taken significant steps
to advance the crusade for clean waters. Additional national legislation
enacted in 1961, 1965, and 1966 has at each step increased Federal enforcement
authority and augmented funding authorization for water pollution control
grants and activities. Federal funding authorization for municipal wastewater
treatment construction grants now totals $3.4 billion for the four-year period
1968 through 1971.
State and local governments have also sought to increase their commitment
to control the pollution of waterways within and adjacent to their boundaries.
Local governments are intimately involved with efforts to deal with the problem.
Total outlays for Federally aided municipal wastewater treatment works
have exceeded $3 billion since 1956.
Federal activities in recent years have been accompanied by a fanfare of
Administration publicity designed to create the impression that pollution con-
trol panaceas have been devised, and that our lakes and streams will soon re-
flect a condition of absolute purity. This is an oversimplification of an
-5-
extremely complex problem requiring adjustments for a variety of social,
economic, and political factors.
Evidence is multiplying that after eleven years of Federal activity in
this field, performance in getting on with the job is not matching pub-
licized promises. Certainly the situation cannot be comforting to those who
have placed primary reliance on legislation broadening Federal jurisdictional
authority, together with ever-increasing commitments of Federal funds, for
hastening action. We believe that these programs should and can be redirected
and improved to expedite the attainment of our water quality goals. The guide-
lines and specific recommendations set forth below constitute a Republican plan
to gear performance to promise in water pollution control.
1. Setting Goals and Measuring Progress.
One of the basic deficiencies of present strategy and tactics is the
obscurity of what should constitute appropriate national water quality goals.
Granted the necessity of achieving cleaner waters, the questions are: How clean?
And how quickly?
Thus far, Federal pronouncements and policies have contributed little to
a clarification of this basic issue. They reflect an obsession with the notion
that the Nation is confronted with a choice among absolutes -- of clean water
versus dirty water or of fish versus factories -- instead of a rigorous
examination of realistic alternatives and goals.
To be meaningful as guides to action, goals must be accompanied by
periodic assessments of progress. Numerous and costly surveys have been
initiated. But there is a lack of systematic means of measuring changes
and appraising trends in water quality conditions in terms that can be
related to national goals.
-6-
Recommendation No. 1. We call upon the Federal government, working
in close consultation with the States, to define the aims of
national water quality policy. Further, we recommend that an
agency unprejudiced by regulatory responsibilities be assigned the
task of assembling and evaluating data that will provide a periodic
audit of the quality conditions of our water resources. In view of
its half-century of experience and professional competence in the
scientific assessment of water characteristics, this responsibility
might appropriately be assigned to the U. S. Geological Survey.
2. Improving Federal Assistance Programs.
With the rapid growth in Federal funding authorization for water pollution
control grants to States and localities, conditions have emerged which are
complicating and slowing the pace of the overall effort.
The first is the questionable proliferation of grant programs among five
Federal agencies. When the Federal assistance program was initiated in 1956
under Republican auspices, all grants were channelled through a single source.
Since 1961, Democratic Administrations have spawned four entirely separate pro-
grams under different Federal agencies, in addition to the basic program adminis-
tered by the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (FWPCA). It is now possi-
ble to obtain municipal water and sewer grants from the Department of Housing and
Urban Development, from the Economic Development Administration, from the Farmers
Home Administration, and from the Appalachian Regional Commission -- in addition
to FWPCA. Each agency has its own planning and review procedures, criteria for
grant eligibility, and matching fund formula.
The confusion, delay, and frustration -- to say nothing of the added
administrative expenses -- created at the State and local level as five
Federal agencies compete, overlap, or pass responsibility in this field from
one to the other, has been well documented in Congressional hearings and by
-7-
independent studies. The Bureau of the Budget has attempted to negotiate
a "sewer treaty" among the five agencies, but this would not appear to be
an effective or permanent solution.
Recommendation No. 2.a. In order to promote efficiency and
increased effectiveness in the operation of Federal water and
sewer grant programs, we recommend transfer to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration of all such programs now
administered by other Federal agencies. We believe this to be
the first step in restoring some orderliness to Federal grant-
making activities in this field.
In addition, all Federal grants should be allocated to
local projects only after approval by the State as meeting
an area-wide or regional pollution control plan.
A second problem is the paradoxical effect of Federal grant programs in
sometimes causing delay in the construction of needed municipal wastewater
treatment facilities. The legislation which first established the Federal
grant program in 1956 was based on the proposition that a small amount of
Federal "seed" money could be expected to produce a harvest of municipal
treatment plants.
But since then many communities have failed to proceed with building
necessary treatment plants until given a grant. As a result, Federal appro-
priations have been gradually escalated from $50 million annually to $203 million
for Fiscal Year 1968. Moreover, the authorization for Fiscal Year 1969 is $700
million. And no longer do communities regard the traditional 30 percent as pro-
viding sufficient incentive to get started; this year grants have been upped to
as much as 50 percent of the cost of a project.
-8-
To the extent that Federal grant programs sap local initiative, they
can prove to be a deterrent to progress. As one observer has concluded,
"So long as the hope for federal money exists, local
politicians will find it suicidal to propose bond issues for
immediately needed improvements and they will be delayed."
We believe that the solution to this dilemma may lie in use of financial
need, priority criteria, and long-range programming by Federal and State author-
ities as the bases for making grants to local governments. In this way hold-ups
by communities that can afford other financing and do not have adequate priorities
can be avoided.
Recommendation 2.b. We recommend that Congress review the criteria,
formulae, and long-range planning for Federal water treatment con-
struction grants to ensure that such aid is a stimulant and not a
depressant to local initiative. Consideration should be given to
current local financial efforts and priority should be given to
projects in areas where pollution problems are most urgent.
Consideration should also be given to encouraging States to
advance construction of facilities by pre-financing against Federal
reimbursement.
For example, at the present time one of the States has established a
comprehensive program under the pre-financing plan that will clean up all of
the waters in that State within six years. If all of the States would mount
a similar program, the waters throughout America could be cleaned-up within
the foreseeable future. This is in contrast to the present piecemeal approach
to the water pollution problem that will take many years to complete at an
escalating cost that may prove prohibitive.
-9-
3. New Organizational Approaches.
Effectiveness of pollution control is impeded by the fact that there is
a lack of integration of the planning and operating functions of separate
organizational entities in a watershed. Neither State nor Federal regulatory
practices, which are directed to individual pollution cases are suitable for
encouraging the design and application of comprehensive approaches.
One form of organizational framework that could lend itself to more
effective water quality management is represented by watershed agencies
empowered to plan, construct and operate a variety of physical facilities,
and, most importantly, to finance them through service charges that relate
benefits to costs. By combining these functions with regulatory powers, such
agencies could provide integrated water quality management over an entire
region or watershed area, and could receive and dispose of all municipal and
industrial wastewaters generated within the same area.
Michigan and New York have already provided legislation to establish inte-
grated State agencies of this type, while California, Maryland, Ohio and
Pennsylvania are actively studying this approach. We commend these States for
their initiative in this area.
On interstate waters, regional agencies established by compact among
the contiguous States offer a mechanism for this purpose which has hardly
been probed because of a preoccupation with expansion of Federal authority.
The new Delaware River Basin Commission, the emerging Susquehanna River Basin
Compact, and the proposed Potomac River Basin Compact hold great promise. We
strongly endorse the interstate compact approach.
Recommendation No. 3. We urge that attention be directed to the
integrated water quality management organizations now established
or undergoing study at the State and interstate level. These agencies
might well provide a model for similar action by other States.
-10-
4. Meshing Water Quality and Water Supply Planning.
Pollution control measures frequently are conceived in terms of reliance
on a single technical approach, namely, traditional wastewater treatment
systems. We have today at our command or under development a variety of tech-
nological alternatives for maintaining water of the necessary quality -- such
as augmentation of stream flow from storage reservoirs, mechanical re-aeration
of streams and lakes, programmed discharge of effluents, desalination, greater
use of ground waters, and water re-use -- which alone or in combination may
offer opportunities for maintaining desired quality conditions in a watershed
at lower total costs than installation of treatment works at every waste source.
Desalination, especially in the United States as well as in the Mid-East, as
recommended by President Eisenhower, needs greatly increased emphasis.
At the Federal level, many of these approaches fall under the cognizance
of water supply or water research agencies, rather than water quality agencies.
Recommendation No. 4. We recommend that the recently established
Federal Water Resources Council emphasize procedures to promote
development of coordinated water resource plans that will become
the basis for program development and action by the various
agencies. Planning for water supplies, water quality and water
research must be combined into a total water resources program
which evaluates the costs, feasibility, and benefits of a range
of technological alternatives.
5. Improving the Federal Research and Development Program.
Federal research and development activities in the water quality field
have grown rapidly in recent years. Today, there are fifteen Federal agen-
cies conducting research and development directly related to water quality,
-11-
and three additional agencies are engaged in associated water resource R&D
efforts. The total number of projects supported with Federal funds exceeds
1,500. The research and development budget of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration alone now exceeds $55 million compared to $11 million
just four years ago.
Moreover, these efforts are carried out through a variety of administrative
instruments -- in-house, by grants, and by contracts with universities, indus-
tries and municipalities.
We are in full support of an aggressive and effective research and develop-
ment effort in support of the pressing need to combat water pollution. However,
the rapid growth and proliferation of these programs inevitably raises questions
of possible duplication, lack of coordination, and overall effectiveness.
Recommendation No. 5. We recommend that the Federal Government
sponsor a comprehensive, in-depth review of all research and
development programs related to water quality management in order
to achieve maximum possible economy and efficiency. This
examination of the aims, procedures, and performance of
these programs should be assigned to an independent organiza-
tion such as the National Research Council, which is serviced
by both the National Academy of Science and the National
Academy of Engineering.
6. Tax Benefits for Controlling Pollution.
To date, water pollution control activities have concentrated on con-
struction and improvement of municipal waste treatment plants, and Federal
grants have been available to aid local governments for this purpose. In
the case of industrial pollution, it is many times neither possible, due to
location, nor feasible because of the nature of the discharges, to connect
industrial plants to municipal treatment systems.
-12-
Under these conditions, the full capital costs of specialized pollution
control equipment must be borne by industry, and by their customers through
higher prices. One way to distribute more fairly the costs of combatting
pollution in these circumstances is through a system of tax benefits to
industry as partial compensation for outlays for pollution control devices.
As of 1966, eleven States had adopted laws of this type.
Recommendation No. 6. We endorse legislation to permit an
increased investment credit or to allow rapid depreciation on Federal
tax returns, for outlays for pollution control equipment, in those
cases where it is not feasible to accommodate industrial waste-
waters at municipal waste treatment systems. Legislation
of this type has been introduced by Republicans in both the
Senate and the House and has received widespread support; we
urge hearings and enactment of a bill embodying these principles.
7. Cleaning Up Water Pollution from Federal Installations.
In 1956, Congress included in the Water Pollution Control Act a provision
requesting all Federal agencies to cooperate in preventing and controlling water
pollution from Federal installations and activities. In response to this
expression of Congressional intent, President Eisenhower ordered a compre-
hensive survey of pollution from all Federal installations. This 58 volume
survey, completed in 1960, revealed that Federal installations were discharg-
ing 134 million gallons of untreated wastewaters each day.
Despite Executive Orders and directives issued under Democratic Administra-
tions, there remain glaring examples of the Federal contribution to pollution
of our waters. A 1966 sample survey by the House Committee on Government
Operations identified 237 Federal installations still discharging into our
waterways untreated or partially treated wastewaters. And despite promises
-13-
by the President that the Potomac will become a model river, the Federal
Government continues to pollute it. As of September 1967, an official inquiry
revealed that Federal government facilities each day discharge three-quarters of a
million gallons of inadequately treated wastewaters into the Potomac Basin.
Listed as violators in this report were the Pentagon, the National Zoo, and
the yacht of the Secretary of the Navy.
If the Federal Government is going to legislate in the field of water
pollution, it must in its own activities adhere to exemplary practices in
controlling inadequately treated discharges from Federal installations. The
present Administration has violated this principle.
Recommendation No. 7. We recommend immediate steps to
eliminate water pollution from all Federal installations.
CONCLUSION
Effective control of water pollution can never be realized solely by
issuing publicity statements, delivering verbal exhortations, passing new
Federal legislation or authorizing the expenditure of additional Federal
dollars. By stressing these approaches, the present Administration has
extended its promise far beyond the reach of its performance. Water pollution
control as practiced by this Administration presents another example of
expectations raised but not realized, of public disappointment and
disillusionment.
We believe that the answers lie in an emphasis, not on promises,
publicity and pronouncements, but on far more effective day-to-day management
of water quality programs at all levels of government. The key elements of
this approach, as we have outlined in this paper, include the setting of real-
istic goals and schedules; employment of new organizational approaches to water
-14-
quality management on a regional or watershed basis; improving relationships
among Federal, State and local governments; conduct of more effective research
and development efforts; the use of tax advantages to encourage positive action
by industry; and insistence upon exemplary performance on the part of Federal
installations.
Of these proposals, none is more important than seeking to establish a
more balanced and meaningful partnership among levels of government. Such a
partnership in water pollution control is the most effective way of meeting
this national problem.
Control of water pollution is not an end in itself. In considering the
mechanics of reducing pollution -- the roles of government, organizational
arrangements, methods of financing and so on -- we must never lose sight of
the ultimate objective, which is to maintain water quality appropriate to
human needs. For it is these human needs -- domestic comfort, recreation and
sports, industry, agriculture, and aesthetic pleasure -- which provide a
fundamental link between the quality of water and the quality of life.
#
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
For Use Thursday, Feb. 22, 1968, and thereafter--
The Army Corps of Engineers plans to build two water reservoir complexes as
the result of continuing studies of Grand River Basin development, Rep. Gerald
R. Ford of Grand Rapids announced today.
One of the reservoir complexes would be constructed on the Grand River and
the other on the Red Cedar River, Ford said.
Plans to build the reservoirs have arisen from a longrange study of Grand
River Basin development needs. The study was initiated in 1962 under authority
of a congressional resolution sponsored by Ford.
The Corps of Engineers has informed Ford that "three or four" sites are
under consideration for the two reservoir complexes, Possible site locations
cannot be made known at this time. Plans still are tentative and land speculation
might result. None of the proposed sites is in Kent or Ionia Counties.
Primary purposes of the two reservoir complexes will be flood control and
water quality control. The reservoirs also would be used for recreation and as
fish and wildlife habitats.
A Lansing firm has been engaged to provide detailed aerial maps of the pro-
posed site locations, the Corps of Engineers told Ford. Soil borings also will
be taken, a spokesman added,
"We are in the process of refining our data," he said. "I would emphasize
that our present plans are tentative However, they do have the approval of
representatives of the agencies involved (the State of Michigan and the Federal
departments of Agriculture, Army, Commerce, Interior, the Federal Power Commission
and Health, Education and Welfare).
The spokesman said the reservoirs "might possibly" also provide public
water supplies for some communities.
"We would have to work with the local communities to see what their
alternatives are,' he said.
The Corps of Engineers expects that a comprehensive report covering water
needs and uses for the entire Grand River Basin will be completed by July 1, 1969.
Congress then would be asked to authorize the proposed construction projects,
(more)
GERALD
LIBRARY
-2-
with the work to be done under Federal supervision and in cooperation with
local groups, the State and the local units of government.
(Note to Editor: CUT HERE IF SHORT ON SPACE)
The Grand River Basin is Michigan's second largest watershed. The Grand
and its major tributaries--the Red Cedar, Rogue, Thornapple, Flat, Maple and
Lookingglass Rivers--drain an area of about 5,570 square miles or roughly 10
per cent of Michigan's total land area.
The main stem of the Grand rises in the northeast corner of Hillsdale
County, flows northward through Jackson and Lansing, then flows westward through
Grand Rapids before emptying into Lake Michigan at Grand Haven.
The goal of the Grand River Basin study is to satisfy, ultimately, all the
water-related needs in the basin. The reservoir plan would meet those needs up
to 1985, the Corps of Engineers believes. Longrange needs covering the next
half century would be sketched out in the comprehensive report.
The Corps lists the basin needs as flood and erosion control, drainage,
municipal and industrial water supply, assimilation and transportation of water-
borne wastes, irrigation, fish and wildlife conservation and recreation.
The Federal-State Coordinating Committee which has been making the study
estimates that the Grand River Basin's population will climb from 1.1 million
persons in 1960 to 2.1 million by the year 2000. Most of this growth will take
place in the Grand Rapids, Lansing and Jackson metropolitan areas.
This, the committee states, "intensifies" the basin's needs in terms of
water supply, water quality control, flood damage reduction, and expanded
recreational facilities.
###
NEWS RELEASE FROM THE OFFICE OF REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
For Use Thursday, Feb. 29, 1968 and Thereafter--
The Federal Government will join hands with State and local authorities to
deal with an expected recurrence of the Lake Michigan alewife mess this spring and
summer, Rep. Gerald R. Ford of Grand Rapids said today.
"The main burden will be on the State and the local communities, and the
federal assistance will be modest," Ford said. "I think the kind of cooperation
that is planned is a strong first step toward meeting the alewife menace."
Ford noted that the fiscal 1969 federal budget contains $100,000 to be used
to spot and measure alewife die-offs. State and local funds would pay for netting
the dead fish and removing those that reach the beaches.
The federally-financed program will be carried out by the Ann Arbor
laboratory of the Federal Bureau of Commercial Fisheries.
J. L. McHugh, acting director of the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service, told
Ford the federal funds will be used to measure the abundance of the alewives and
to follow their movements to determine the areas and probable intensity of die-offs.
He said methods will be tested to "lessen the problems associated with massive
die-offs."
Gov. Romney is seeking a supplemental state appropriation of $400,000 to
eombat the fouling of Lake Michigan beaches by dead alewives this summer. The
proposal calls for the state financing to be matched by local governments affected.
The overall result would be an $800,000 state-local program.
"If all of the pieces fall into place, we will have a $900,000 anti-alewife
program this year, including the $100,000 federal share," Ford said.
Ford noted that the alewife has increased explosively in Lake Michigan since
it first was found there in 1949.
"The Michigan program to net the fish and to engage in immediate and massive
eleanup of the beaches which are reached by dead alewives is the only immediate
solution for the problem," Ford said. "I think netting the alewives as proposed
by the governor is an excellent idea. Once they get on the beaches, they are a
mess. Of course, the longrange solution is to get the fish population in Lake
Michigan back into balance by continuing to control the sea lamprey and by expand-
ing the numbers of Coho Salmon and lake trout which feed on the alewife."
Last summer contamination of Lake Michigan beaches by dead alewives was SO
severe that an estimated $55 million in tourist business was lost.
The alewife also is found in Lakes Ontario, Erie, Huron and Superior, but the
problem is the most acute in Lake Michigan. There is an annual die-off of the
fish in the lakes where they have become very abundant.
# # #
NEWS RELEASE FROM THE OFFICE OF REP. GERALD R. FORD, R-MICH.
For Use Thursday, Feb. 29, 1968 and Thereafter--
The Federal Government will join hands with State and local authorities to
deal with an expected recurrence of the Lake Michigan alewife mess this spring and
summer, Rep. Gerald R. Ford of Grand Rapids said today.
"The main burden will be on the State and the local communities, and the
federal assistance will be modest," Ford said. "I think the kind of cooperation
that is planned is a strong first step toward meeting the alewife menace."
Ford noted that the fiscal 1969 federal budget contains $100,000 to be used
to spot and measure alewife die-offs. State and local funds would pay for netting
the dead fish and removing those that reach the beaches.
The federally-financed program will be carried out by the Ann Arbor
laboratory of the Federal Bureau of Commercial Fisheries.
J. L. McHugh, acting director of the Federal Fish and Wildlife Service, told
Ford the federal funds will be used to measure the abundance of the alewives and
to follow their movements to determine the areas and probable intensity of die-offs.
He said methods will be tested to "lessen the problems associated with massive
die-offs."
Gov. Romney is seeking a supplemental state appropriation of $400,000 to
eombat the fouling of Lake Michigan beaches by dead alewives this summer. The
proposal calls for the state financing to be matched by local governments affected.
The overall result would be an $800,000 state-local program.
"If all of the pieces fall into place, we will have a $900,000 anti-alewife
program this year, including the $100,000 federal share," Ford said.
Ford noted that the alewife has increased explosively in Lake Michigan since
it first was found there in 1949.
"The Michigan program to net the fish and to engage in immediate and massive
eleanup of the beaches which are reached by dead alewives is the only immediate
solution for the problem," Ford said. "I think netting the alewives as proposed
by the governor is an excellent idea. Once they get on the beaches, they are a
mess. Of course, the longrange solution is to get the fish population in Lake
Michigan back into balance by continuing to control the sea lamprey and by expand-
ing the numbers of Coho Salmon and lake trout which feed on the alewife."
Last summer contamination of Lake Michigan beaches by dead alewives was so
severe that an estimated $55 million in tourist business was lost.
The alewife also is found in Lakes Ontario, Erie, Huron and Superior, but the
problem is the most acute in Lake Michigan. There is an annual die-off of the
fish in the lakes where they have become very abundant.
# # #
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
-FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY--
4:30 p.m. Saturday, March 16, 1968
We are faced in Michigan with a grave crisis involving our most precious
natural resource--water.
We have learned that unchecked pollution of Lake Michigan could turn it into
another Lake Erie.
We are faced with an urgent need to avert the premature aging of Lake
Michigan as a result of pollution.
Many communities in Michigan are struggling with various forms of water
pollution and find themselves unequal to the task.
It is clear that the fight against pollution of our lakes and streams is
a battle in which government at all levels must be linked and in which industry
must join.
Unfortunately, the policy of brave rhetoric but poor performance on the part
of the Johnson-Humphrey Administration has handicapped rather than helped the
local communities and the states in the fight against water pollution.
The Great Society has come to mean "great backlog" to those communities
standing in line for approval of sewage disposal projects by Washington.
For example, in the Housing Act of 1965 a total of $200 million a year was
authorized for 50 per cent matching grants for construction of local sewer
systems. But the President requested only $100 million each in 1965 and 1966
while seeking excessive funding for programs of lesser importance. For fiscal
1968 he could have sought $400 million for sewage disposal but instead asked
only $165 million.
Currently the Housing and Urban Development Department has $5.1 billion in
project applications on file. The failure of the Johnson Administration to
attach proper priority to the federal water pollution control program is holding
up sewer construction all over the United States.
The long-range answer rests with Republican plans for sharing of federal
income tax revenue with the states and local communities, so they may proceed
with local projects on the basis of their own priorities.
Another possible answer is to provide industry with tax credits for
installation of water pollution control equipment in amounts that will provide
a real incentive. This plan is opposed by the Johnson-Humphrey Administration
(more)
-2-
because Lyndon Johnson wants to extract the greatest possible political benefit
out of every dollar expended from the Federal Treasury. There would be no
political rebate for a Democratic Administration in tax credits for industrial
water pollution controls.
Meantime we must move ahead with the weapons at hand.
Republicans pledge to use all of the resources at their command to deal
with all of Michigan's water pollution problems and specifically to restore
Lake Michigan to health through coordinated federal, state and local attacks on
the alewife menace and all other forms of serious pollution. We must save our
lake
through an upgrading of treatment of industrial and municipal wastes,
including removal of phosphates from the waste to discourage excessive growth
of algae.
We are determined in our efforts to improve the quality of Michigan's waters,
and to keep it a Water Wonderland.
# # #
NOTE: not Distributed
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE ON DELIVERY--
4:30 p.m. Saturday, March 16, 1968
We are faced in Michigan with a grave crisis involving our most precious
natural resource--water.
We have learned that unchecked pollution of Lake Michigan could turn it into
another Lake Erie.
We are faced with an urgent need to avert the premature,aging of Lake
Michigan as a result of pollution.
Many communities in Michigan are struggling with various forms of water
pollution and find themselves unequal to the task.
It is clear that the fight against pollution of our lakes and streams is
a battle in which government at all levels must be linked and in which industry
must join.
Unfortunately, the policy of brave rhetoric but poor performance on the part
of the Johnson-Humphrey Administration has handicapped rather than helped the
local communities and the states in the fight against water pollution.
The Great Society has come to mean "great backlog" to those communities
standing in line for approval of sewage disposal projects by Washington.
For example, in the Housing Act of 1965 a total of $200 million a year was
authorized for 50 per cent matching grants for construction of local sewer
systems. But the President requested only $100 million each in 1965 and 1966
while seeking excessive funding for programs of lesser importance. For fiscal
1968 he could have sought $400 million for sewage disposal but instead asked
only $165 million.
Currently the Housing and Urban Development Department has $5.1 billion in
project applications on file. The failure of the Johnson Administration to
attach proper priority to the federal water pollution control program is holding
up sewer construction all over the United States.
The long-tange answer rests with Republican plans for sharing of federal
income tax revenue with the states and local communities, so they may proceed
with local projects on the basis of their own priorities.
Another possible answer is to provide industry with tax credits for
installation of water sollution control equipment in amounts that will provide
a real incentive. This plan is opposed by the Johnson-Humphrey Administration
(more)
-2-
because Lyndon Johnson wants to extract the greatest possible political benefit
out of every dollar expended from the Federal Treasury. There would be no
political rebate for a Democratic Administration in tax credits for industrial
water pollution controls.
Meantime we must move ahead with the weapons at hand.
Republicans pledge to use all of the resources at their command to deal
with all of Michigan's water pollution problems and specifically to restore
Lake Michigan to health through coordinated federal, state and local attacks on
the alewife menace and all other forms of serious pollution. We must save our
lake
through an upgrading of treatment of industrial and municipal wastes,
including removal of phosphates from the waste to discourage excessive growth
of algae.
We are determined in our efforts to improve the quality of Michigan's waters,
and to keep it a Water Wonderland.
# # #
office Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE IN PM's OF WEDNESDAY--
July 31, 1968
Statement by House Minority Leader Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich.
It is long past time for the Congress of the United States to mount an all-out
attack on pollution of America's most precious resource, its water.
As part of the effort, I today have introduced a bill to prohibit the dumping
of spoil material from dredging operations into Lake Michigan or any other
navigable water.
A number of my colleagues in the House have introduced a similar bill, but
that measure would permit the Secretary of Interior to make exceptions by declar-
ing that in some cases such dumping would not result in pollution.
My bill would impose a flat ban on dumping of dredged-up spoil material
into navigable waters. There would be no exceptions.
The Army Corps of Engineers concedes that virtually all such material is
polluted in some degree. In my view, it is ridiculous to dredge up polluted
material from Lake Michigan and then take it out into deep water and dump it
right back into the lake.
It is absolutely nonsensical for the Federal Government to dump polluted
spoil material back into our lakes and streams while urging states and local
communities to spend billions on sewage treatment systems. Of course the sewage
treatment systems must be built. But the Federal Government should be setting an
example for local communities instead of telling them, "Do as I say and not as
I do."
Secretary of Interior Udall recently recommended that dumping of polluted
dredging materials into Lake Michigan stop "as soon as possible." Then he added
that the Army Corps of Engineers and the States should report "within six months"
what they are doing to halt the dumping. After that, he continued, Federal and
State officials would "consider adopting a coordinated approach to deal with this
problem and a target date for getting a program under way."
The obvious lack of urgency on the Secretary's part leads me to believe that
(more)
-2-
letting him decide what material could be dumped into Lake Michigan and other
navigable waters would be a loophole big enough to drive a dredge through.
I believe we should start with the premise that there should be a flat ban
on spoil material dumping into navigable waters and then determine whether it is
economically feasible to carry out that objective in relation to the benefits
to be achieved.
A 1967 report by the House Subcommittee on Natural Resources and Power
declared that most of America's 100,000 lakes will soon be destroyed unless
pollution is checked. This tragedy must not be allowed to occur.
We must all step up our anti-pollution efforts. My bill points up the fact
that the Federal Government is one of the worst pollution offenders--and points
to a remedy.
# # #
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE ON RECEIPT--
The way is open for Michigan to launch a statewide water pollution control
program if the voters so decide on Nov. 5, Rep. Gerald R. Ford of Grand Rapids
declared today.
Ford said obstacles posed by a Johnson Administration bill changing the
rules on payment of the Federal Government's share of sewage treatment plant
costs have been eliminated.
"The Administration proposals have died in the House Public Works Committee,
and the Senate abandoned them in the bill recently passed in that body," Ford
said.
Ford vigorously attacked the Administration water pollution control
amendments after Michigan officials testified against them and said they would
wreck Michigan's plans for going ahead with a large-scale water pollution control
program.
Gov. George Romney and the State Legislature propose a $335 million bond
issue for pollution control, including the pre-financing of half of the Federal
cost-share of the program. The Administration water pollution control amend-
ments would have banned pre-financing of the Federal cost-share of such programs.
The Administration bill also would have restricted Federal aid to
communities in major metropolitan centers, which meant that only 14 of Michigan's
83 counties could have expected Federal assistance and 229 of 335 communities
needing money for pollution cleanup would have been excluded.
The Administration further proposed to make taxable the State revenue bonds
sold to finance such programs as Michigan's, figuring the Federal Government
would come out ahead by paying the extra interest costs out of Federal taxes
on the bonds.
Michigan and New York protested bitterly, and now the fight is won, Ford
said.
"I feel this is a personal victory in view of the strong objections I voiced
to members of the House Public Works Committee, " Ford declared. "Now I am told
(more)
-2-
that Congressman (John) Blatnik, the chairman of the Water Pollution Control
Subcommittee, plans to bring out a completely non-controversial bill."
State officials in Lansing are not completely satisfied with the water
pollution control bill passed by the U.S. Senate, although it abandons the
Administration approach. These officials point out that the Senate bill pledges
payment of the Federal cost-share over a 30-year period but places a ceiling on
amounts that can be committed for state programs. They said this legislation
would not destroy Michigan's program but would slow it down.
The existing Federal program permits state pre-financing of the Federal
cost-share but does not guarantee Federal payment.
Michigan officials said they want legislation which guarantees payment to
the states of the Federal cost-share but does not hamstring state programs with
unrealistic ceilings on Federal funding.
"I feel sure this entire problem will be worked out to Michigan's
satisfaction," Ford said. "I certainly am going to do everything I can to see
to it that Michigan is in a position to go ahead with the kind of water pollution
control program the people want."
Besides fighting the water pollution control amendments Michigan found
objectionable, Ford recently introduced legislation to prohibit the dumping of
spoilage from dredging operations into Lake Michigan and other navigable waters.
# # #
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
For Use the Week of Sept. 1-7 and thereafter
Engineers
Report On
Lake Dumping
BY JERRY FORD
Would you believe that the Army Corps of Engineers and others dug more than
1 million cubic yards of polluted material out of Lake Michigan harbors last
year and then dumped it back into the lake?
That's the story in a report I obtained from the Corps of Engineers the
other day after I became aware of the Federal Government's role in polluting
Lake Michigan.
I have been lighting fires under the Federal Government for contributing
to Lake Michigan pollution, and it seems my efforts already are paying off.
For instance, the Corps of Engineers report on Lake Michigan dumping
indicates that disposal of polluted material in the open lake this year will
total only 359,000 cubic yards. I say "only," because this is a sharp drop from
the grand total of more than 1 million cubic yards of polluted dredging spoil
tossed back into the lake last year.
Meantime I have introduced a bill that would prohibit the dumping of any
dredging spoil back into Lake Michigan. From the standpoint of cost and other
considerations, it may be that material shown not to be polluted should be
exempted from the proposed ban. But I think we should start out with the idea
of banning all Lake Michigan dumping and force others to make a case for
exceptions.
I am happy to report that the material dredged out of Grand Haven and
Holland harbors in both 1967 and 1968 was classified by the Army Corps of
Engineers as "not polluted.' As a matter of fact, the worst instances of Lake
Michigan pollution from dumping of dredging material occur in connection with
Calumet, Green Bay, Indiana and Milwaukee Harbors.
In a letter to me accompanying his report, Col. F. E. Anderson, Jr. of
the Corps of Engineers, asserted that "most of the grossly polluted dredging
(more)
-2-
spoil" goes into diked disposal areas instead of back into Lake Michigan. He
emphasized that Corps of Engineers construction of diked spoil areas is being
done only on a pilot basis for study purposes. There are no funds, he said, to
build full-scale diked disposal areas at polluted harbors.
My comment is that the dumping of any polluted dredging spoil into Lake
Michigan is a destructive activity. It helps to destroy one of our most precious
resources -- water. It should be stopped.
We all know that the fight against water pollution costs money. But think
of all the projects of dubious value on which federal funds are being lavished
at present. Then ask yourself whether more should not be done about water
pollution instead.
Polluting of Lake Michigan with dredging spoil is only part of the Lake
Michigan problem, of course, and only a fraction of the overall water pollution
problem facing communities throughout the State of Michigan.
What is required is that all of us assign top priority to the fight against
water pollution and lend our support to a massive federal-state-and-local
campaign to clean up our streams and lakes.
This is not just a Federal problem by any means. It is everybody's problem.
# # #
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., Minority Leader of the U.S. House
of Representatives.
For Use the Week of Sept. 22-28 and thereafter
Ford Pledges
Personal Support
In Pollution Fight
BY JERRY FORD
I will vote Nov. 5 for the $335 million state bond issue to fight water
pollution.
Clean water is vital to every man, woman and child in Kent and Ionia counties
and throughout the State of Michigan.
I am dedicating myself to the fight for clean water in Michigan and as part
of that effort I am supporting the bond issue proposal on the November ballot.
Although no tax increase is involved, I would not presume to tell any other
resident of Kent and Ionia counties how to vote on the bond issue question.
But I suggest we all consider that unless we act to halt pollution we will
kill our rivers and make mammoth cesspools of our lakes.
We should consider that Lake Michigan is aging at 300 to 500 times its
normal rate because of pollution
That more than 900 miles of once-high-quality streams in Michigan are now
degraded by untreated or improperly treated municipal wastes discharged into them..
That at least 150 Michigan communities currently are violating the state
pollution control law, primarily for lack of funds.
The route to clean, usable water is really pretty simple. Keep the filth
and pollution out of the water in the first place.
Unfortunately, keeping pollutants out of the water also is pretty expensive.
It means building sewage collection systems, constructing sewage treatment
plants, and getting others to treat industrial wastes, build power plant cooling
towers and contain the threat of chemical pesticides.
If we in Michigan are to control municipal pollution adequately--even by
1980--we must build 210 new municipal sewage treatment plants, build sewers for
an additional 3.5 million people and improve 126 existing sewage treatment
facilities.
The $335 million state bond issue will help do this and will provide
$50 million for small, hard-pressed communities without sewers.
There is much that must be done to clean up Michigan's waters. The
$335 million bond issue would be a giant step in the right direction.
# # #
Q Office Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
Feb. 18, 1970
It's time to get tough--really tough--with the polluters of America's lakes
and streams.
That's the major thrust of the Nixon water pollution control measures being
introduced today.
There is a new awareness in the Nation of the need to restore, protect and
preserve our most precious natural resource--water. This new awareness must give
rise to effective enforcement of our pollution control laws. We must fashion a
club that will swing polluters throughout the country into remedial action.
One of the most serious defects in our present system of water pollution
control is the delay in taking an individual polluter to court. It now takes 18
months or longer to go through all the procedures involved before court action is
possible. The hearing stage is at the root of the delaying action.
President Nixon would eliminate the hearing stage and take a case directly
from an enforcement conference to the courts. I applaud this move. I also favor
the President's attempt to give enforcement more clout by empowering the courts
to impose fines of up to $10,000 a day for non-compliance with responsible water
quality standards.
In addition, the President has wisely recommended that the Secretary of
Interior be authorized to seek court orders halting pollution immediately in
emergency situations. These would be situations where severe water pollution
constitutes an imminent danger to health or threatens irreversible damage to water
quality.
We must protect our waters--and the public--in situations where time does not
permit routine enforcement and normal court procedures.
I urge that the Congress give full backing to President Nixon's water pollution
control proposals. We must have large-scale action against polluters of our streams
and lakes.
########
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
Feb. 18, 1970
It's time to get tough--really tough--with the polluters of America's lakes
and streams.
That's the major thrust of the Nixon water pollution control measures being
introduced today.
There is a new awareness in the Nation of the need to restore, protect and
preserve our most precious natural resource--water. This new awareness must give
rise to effective enforcement of our pollution control laws. We must fashion a
club that will swing polluters throughout the country into remedial action.
One of the most serious defects in our present system of water pollution
control is the delay in taking an individual polluter to court. It now takes 18
months or longer to go through all the procedures involved before court action is
possible. The hearing stage is at the root of the delaying action.
President Nixon would eliminate the hearing stage and take a case directly
from an enforcement conference to the courts. I applaud this move. I also favor
the President's attempt to give enforcement more clout by empowering the courts
to impose fines of up to $10,000 a day for non-compliance with responsible water
quality standards.
In addition, the President has wisely recommended that the Secretary of
Interior be authorized to seek court orders halting pollution immediately in
emergency situations. These would be situations where severe water pollution
constitutes an imminent danger to health or threatens irreversible damage to water
quality.
We must protect our waters--and the public--in situations where time does not
permit routine enforcement and normal court procedures.
I urge that the Congress give full backing to President Nixon's water pollution
control proposals. We must have large-scale action against polluters of our streams
and lakes.
########
O Office Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE--
April 15, 1970
A Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., Republican Leader, U.S. House of Reps.
The President's Message on Great Lakes Disposal is another example of the
tremendous leadership President Nixon is displaying in the effort to restore our
environment.
For years I have urged a halt to the dumping of polluted dredged material
back into the Great Lakes. I introduced legislation last year aimed at accomplish-
ing that objective.
I am therefore greatly pleased that the President has thrown his support
behind my efforts to stop this practice, which flies in the face of common sense.
It it were at all feasible, I would favor a ban on dumping any dredged
material back into the Great Lakes, whether such material was adjudged to be
polluted or not. But of course finding adequate areas for land disposal of the
dredgings is always a problem.
The Administration bill to stop the dumping of polluted dredge spoil into the
Great Lakes is most welcome. The Federal Government should be setting an example
for the States, localities and private industry in our efforts to restore and
preserve our environment.
The question of polluted dredgings goes deeper, of course, than finding a
place to dump such spoil. We should go behind that problem and prevent the entry
of polluted soil into the lakes. Until the day arrives when we have accomplished
that goal, however, it is vital that dumping of polluted spoil back into the lakes
be stopped.
At the same time, we certainly need a study of ocean dumping as outlined by
the President in his Message to the Congress. I am glad to see that the President
has ordered such a study made.
###
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 15, 1970
A Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., Republican Leader, U.S. House of Reps.
The President's Message on Great Lakes Disposal is another example of the
tremendous leadership President Nixon is displaying in the effort to restore our
environment.
For years I have urged a halt to the dumping of polluted dredged material
back into the Great Lakes. I introduced legislation last year aimed at accomplish-
ing that objective.
I am therefore greatly pleased that the President has thrown his support
behind my efforts to stop this practice, which flies in the face of common sense.
It it were at all feasible, I would favor a ban on dumping any dredged
material back into the Great Lakes, whether such material was adjudged to be
polluted or not. But of course finding adequate areas for land disposal of the
dredgings is always a problem.
The Administration bill to stop the dumping of polluted dredge spoil into the
Great Lakes is most welcome. The Federal Government should be setting an example
for the States, localities and private industry in our efforts to restore and
preserve our environment.
The question of polluted dredgings goes deeper, of course, than finding a
place to dump such spoil. We should go behind that problem and prevent the entry
of polluted soil into the lakes. Until the day arrives when we have accomplished
that goal, however, it is vital that dumping of polluted spoil back into the lakes
be stopped.
At the same time, we certainly need a study of ocean dumping as outlined by
the President in his Message to the Congress. I am glad to see that the President
has ordered such a study made.
###
all Fifth District news Media
Office Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR RELEASE ON RECEIPT--
Issued October 7, 1970
The oceans cannot hold out much longer against the flood of contaminants
that is being dumped into them.
We must halt the dumping of wastes into the ocean. Such action would
complement my bill, introduced Jan. 3, 1969, which would prohibit such dumping
in the Great Lakes.
The situation is far more serious than most Americans realize. We must act
before it is too late. We are in a race with time. If we do not act the oceans
will become far more contaminated with raw sewage and other wastes than at present.
I would go farther than the President. I believe we must legislate a flat
ban on the dumping of all harmful materials in either the oceans or the Great
Lakes. Such dumping should not be sanctioned even by official permit, as is now
done by the Army Corps of Engineers regarding the Great Lakes.
I am pleased that the Administration acted last May 20 to deal with oil
spills and proposed creation of an Environmental Protection Agency and a National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) last July 9.
However, I view the matter of halting ocean dumping with greater urgency
than that expressed by the Council on Environmental Quality. I repeat. There
should be a flat ban on the dumping of harmful materials into the oceans and the
Great Lakes, not a system of dumping by permit.
###
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
FOR RELEASE ON RECEIPT-
Issued October 7, 1970
The oceans cannot hold out much longer against the flood of contaminants
that is being dumped into them.
We must halt the dumping of wastes into the ocean. Such action would
complement my bill, introduced Jan. 3, 1969, which would prohibit such dumping
in the Great Lakes.
The situation is far more serious than most Americans realize. We must act
before it is too late. We are in a race with time. If we do not act the oceans
will become far more contaminated with raw sewage and other wastes than at present.
I would go farther than the President. I believe we must legislate a flat
ban on the dumping of all harmful materials in either the oceans or the Great
Lakes. Such dumping should not be sanctioned even by official permit, as is now
done by the Army Corps of Engineers regarding the Great Lakes.
I am pleased that the Administration acted last May 20 to deal with oil
spills and proposed creation of an Environmental Protection Agency and a National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) last July 9.
However, I view the matter of halting ocean dumping with greater urgency
than that expressed by the Council on Environmental Quality. I repeat. There
should be a flat ban on the dumping of harmful materials into the oceans and the
Great Lakes, not a system of dumping by permit.
# # #
Limited Distribution
Q Office Copy
CONGRESSMAN
NEWS
GERALD R. FORD
HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER
RELEASE
--FOR IMMEDIATE REIEASE--
Dec. 23, 1970
Statement by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, Republican Leader, U.S. House of Representatives
I congratulate President Nixon on his decision to crack down on industrial
pollution by invoking the Refuse Act of 1899.
In so doing the President has circumvented the refusal of the Democratic-
controlled Congress to enact the enforcement provisions of the water pollution
control legislation introduced last Feb. 18.
It is nothing short of disgraceful that the Congress has failed even to hold
hearings on the President's water pollution control package, including new authority
to develop comprehensive water quality programs and to enforce pollution control
measures.
The President, then, has perforce acted on his own under authority of a 71-year-old
law. This does not lessen the blame which must be placedimpon Congre SS for failing
to live up to its own responsibilities. Nor does it le ssen the need for the
Administration's entire water pollution control program.
The President can take only certain actions in the absence of a congressional
mandate. His current crackdown on water pollution stands in sharp contrast with the
record of the eight years preceding the advent of the Nixon Administration--and the
American people should recognize the facts for what they are. The eight years prior
to the present Administration saw destruction of our environment go largely
unchallenged, That is not a partisan statement. The facts speak for themselves.
Saving the environment should not be a partisan issue. It now r emains for
the majority party in Congress to join hands with the Nixon Administration in an
anti-pollution crusade. We must restore America the Beautiful.
GERALD LIBRARY
#####