Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

increased. Thus, it can reasonably be stated that the cost of needed water and sewer facilities in the State of New Jersey alone, at this time, must necessarily exceed $1 billion. Indeed, Charles M. Pike, director of water resources of New Jersey recently stated at the New Jersey Water Pollution Control Association that "New Jersey's rivers will remain polluted until the Federal and State governments jointly spend $2 billion this decade to build water treatment plants throughout the State."

Our Indiana chapter reports that for the year 1971-72 the State of Indiana had determined that there were 146 priorities under its public law 660 for which construction funds should be allocated. However, the shortage of funds was such that the State developed a "short list" of some 61 priorities for which final plans were developed. However, only nine job awards were made. For the remaining 52 construction projects the State needs, but apparently does not have, $45 million. It is the estimate of the chapter that these 52 projects involve approximately 11⁄2 million man-hours of employment. It may be of some interest to note that the chapter also reports that during the previous year while the Federal Government awarded $41 million in grants the State could only come up with $3.6 million in necessary funds.

In conversations with our chapter presidents from the cities of Rochester and Syracuse, N.Y., both report a construction depression of between 50 percent to 60 percent below 1970-71 due to lack of funding for desperately needed water and sewer facilities. Apparently, this same situation exists in the eight States to which Mr. A. J. Shuttle, Jr., refers in this letter attached hereto. Attached is a copy of a letter from Duane Olin, president of our chapter in Syracuse, N.Y.

The situation is no different in the Pittsburgh area. There, too, a desperate need for water and sewer lines exists at a time where those capable of installing them are only working half time. A more detailed report from that area is attached.

In my own State, the State of Maryland, the lack of funds is creating far-reaching havoc. One of our large State parks located on the Gunpowder River is in danger of being closed to the public due to the fact that sewage is polluting the waters of the river that is the raison d'etre for the park.

Also, in Baltimore City, the Jones Falls Valley, a well-known industrial area, has had its further development stymied due to the lack of funding of sewer treatment facilities. In the neighboring Baltimore County, just as in Montgomery County, building permits have been restricted until adequate sewer and water lines can be provided. Even the new city of Columbia is experiencing difficulties in this area, as, for example, the inadequacy of the Savage treatment plant to accept further waste. These difficulties preclude expansion as planned, thus limiting Columbia's economic development.

I should like to comment briefly on a recent statement made by Environmental Protection Agency Administrator William B. Ruckelshause to the effect that the construction industry cannot handle the volume of work expected from passage of the House version of the water pollution bill. In our recent convention, a resolution was passed by the membership voicing vigorous opposition to such testimony, and a copy of that resolution is appended to this statement. In support of our membership's view that ample manpower and equipment exists to handle whatever volume of work results from passage of legislation

expanding construction for water and sewer facilities, I am here submitting a copy of a letter received this past week from A. J. Shuttle, Jr., who will be suceeding me as president of this association on June 1.

Briefly, it notes that on April 20, 1972, the Lancaster (Pennsylvania) Area Sewer Authority took bids on $16.5 million worth of proposed sanitary pipeline facilities from 28 construction firms located in eight States, a fact, along with other facts, on which he based his conclusion that there is a scarcity of work in many areas and that, accordingly, the utility industry is well able to handle a large volume of work awaiting Federal funding.

There is a provision in the bill, namely, section 709 (b), which states that grants should be made "subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary may prescribe." It should be noted that there are several plumbing codes sponsored by private organizations which, by way of a definition of "plumbing" include the installation of water and sewer facilities outside of a building as work which local authorities may require be performed by licensed plumbers. This kind of work has been performed all over the country by utility contractors utilizing laborers, and I would like to see some direction given the Secretary which would preclude him from making a plumbing code with a restrictive definition of "plumbing" and related terms applicable to the outside work contemplated by this bill. Such a provision would insure employment of minority group workers as well as the full utilization of appropriated funds.

That passage of this bill should have a significant impact on employment is evident from the fact that normal labor costs, at least in Maryland, on projects of the kind contemplated run from about 20 percent on plants to approximately 45 percent for pipelines. I understand these labor cost figures may run higher in other areas. And, of course, indirect employment resulting from the increased need for equipment and supplies must necessarily be very substantial. Again, I wish to thank the committee for this opportunity to appear and be heard on behalf of a group which proudly proclaims, "We Really Dig America."

Thank you.

(The attachments referred to in the statement of Mr. Peyton follow :)

(The resolutions referred to in Mr. Peyton's statement passed by the membership of the National Utility Contractors Association Annual Convention, May 10-14, 1972 follow:)

RESOLUTION No. 3

WHEREAS, for a year or more there has been a problem of having appropriated funds not being fully expended, and

WHEREAS, such holding back of funds has tended to preclude full employment,

and

WHEREAS, the lack of funds has resulted in a partial utilization only of existing plant facilities, and

WHEREAS, such failure to expend appropriate funds has resulted in a slowdown of the anti-pollution campaign, and

WHEREAS, the legislative will and intent is thwarted by executive refusal to expend appropriated funds,

Now, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this convention go on record as voicing its vigorous opposition to the administration's failure or refusal to expend all funds appropriated by the Congress and to urge that such failure or refusal in the future be challenged by whatever means are deemed appropriate by this Association's Board of Directors.

RESOLUTION No. 5

WHEREAS, a number of members of this Association are not operating at full capacity at the present time, and

WHEREAS, NUCA members employ trained personnel who can readily train other personnel if the need arises, and

WHEREAS, there exists equipment and facilities readily available for additional work, and

WHEREAS, members of this Association are engaged and are fully capable of being engaged in handling sewage treatment works, and

WHEREAS, the called-for expenditure of 27 billion dollars over five years in the House version of the Water Pollution Bill represents, on a yearly basis, less than a 50% increase in the amount of work normally performed,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Association voice its vigorous opposition to the testimony given by Environmental Protection Agency Administrator William B. Ruckelshaus to the effect that the construction industry cannot handle the large volume of work expected from passage of the House version of the Water Pollution Bill, so as to make it crystal clear to both Houses of Congress and to the Administration that Mr. Ruckelshaus' testimony does not reflect a view with which those most familiar with the industry's capacity can agree.

EXCERPTS FROM THE REPORT: ANTICIPATED CAPITAL NEEDS FOR SEWERAGE FACILITIES IN NEW JERSEY

NEW JERSEY STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH DIVISION OF CLEAN AIR AND WATER; ROSCOE P. KANDLE, M.D., STATE COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH; RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF CLEAN AIR AND WATER

The New Jersey State Legislature enacted the "State Public Sanitary Sewerage Facilities Assistance Act of 1965" which authorized State participation under the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966 and appropriated State funds to assist in the construction of wastewater treatment disposal facilities. This legislation authorized the State Department of Health to award grants not to exceed 30% of the construction cost of water pollution control projects which qualify for Federal aid assistance under the "Federal Water Pollution Control Act."

The State legislature appropriated a total of $5,798,200 for Fiscal Years 1968 and 1969 for State Construction Grants. These funds were apportioned in accordance with priorities established by the Department of Health to projects eligible for Federal aid. Ten projects were funded at a rate of 9.2% of the eligible construction cost from Fiscal Year 1968 funds and it is anticipated that ten projects will be funded at a rate of approximately 11% from Fiscal Year 1969 funds.

Under the terms of the federal statute local government is eligible for 30% of the cost of construction of sewage treatment plants and trunk lines. This eligibility can be increased to 55% if the state provides the legal authority and the money to fund 25% of the cost of all such projects.

The state does have such legal authority in the 1965 Act listed above. In fact, however, neither the state nor the federal government has appropriated funds in amounts representing more than a tiny fragment of the needs.

The four-year authorization contained in the federal funding statute would, in accordance with statutory formula, provide New Jersey a total of about $109 million in aid or 12% of the costs described below. However, if the funds appropriated continue for the next two years at the level of the last two years federal aid will amount to less than 3% of the total needs described below.

To date federal and state aid funds that have actually been appropriated have been in such small amount as to have no measurable impact on the pollution control program.

In last year's statement of capital needs and again in this discussion the Department has made as careful an assessment as the facts would allow of the capital costs of constructing regional sewage treatment plants and trunk lines needed to serve the public, to correct pollution of our waterways, and to conform with the treatment regulations and administrative orders described above. Last year's estimates were presented in testimony before the Governor's Commission to Evaluate the Capital Needs of New Jersey. These estimates have now been updated.

The total estimated costs of all facilities now needed is $906,000,000. The cutoff date in this estimate is 1 July 1967.

[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]

"more than expected." This, he added, required changes in plans for facilities to treat wastes from these areas.

Of the $271 million bond issue, $210 million was projected by state authorities two years ago as the state's share of the proposed regional treatment plant network, the total cost of which was estimated at $900 million. The state is counting on the federal government to pay 55 per cent of that and municipalities the remainder.

As it stands now, though, water pollution engineers are figuring the job of cutting back the present 750 local facilities to a more sophisticated regional network of 175 waste treatment plants which will cost more than $1 billion. How much more will not likely be known until the job is actually done.

"There's no question but that runaway inflation has increased the cost of these construction projects by as much as 30 percent during the last two years," said Ernest Segesser, chief of the Control.

"Like everything else," explained Barber, "inflation is eroding away the bond issue." It's a matter of dollars losing their value.

"I think everyone has to learn to live with inflation, no matter what industry, no matter what standard of living you try to maintain, inflation will hurt it."

[From the Newark (N.J.) Star-Ledger, May 13, 1972]

DYING RIVERS: JERSEY CLEANUP COST ESTIMATED AT $2 BILLION

(By Gordon Bishop)

New Jersey's rivers will remain polluted until the federal and state governments jointly spend $2 billion this decade to build water treatment plants throughout the state.

That was the price tag placed on the state's massive clean water program yesterday by Charles M. Pike, director of water resources in the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.

Pike and two other environmental officers-Dr. Alan Mytelka, engineer for the Interstate Sanitation Commission, and Albert Bromberg, surveillance chief for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-spoke on the "Direction of Future Treatment Requirements" at the concluding session of the 57th annual conference of the New Jersey Water Pollution Control Association in Atlantic City.

Pike expressed serious doubt as to the government's ability to provide $200 million a year until 1980 to purge the state's waterways of pollution that has been building up for more than 50 years.

"Without funding, the projects now in the planning stage will come to a halt," Pike told the state sanitary engineers. "Some projects are massive, costing from $100 million to $300 million."

He was referring to the $300 million needed to upgrade the Passaic Valley Sewerage Plant in Newark, the second largest system in the country. The Middlesex County Sewerage plant improvement will cost $100 million.

Pike and the other two officials called upon industry to start recycling their polluted effluent as one immediate solution to the problem.

The officials warned that industry will be forced to recycle their wastes as water becomes more scarce in a few years due to the demand by a soaring population and increasing industrial-commercial-residential development.

Bromberg said the federal government's goal by 1980 is "zero discharge"meaning no contamination of the waterways by any source. He called it a realistic target date that requires the total commitment of government, industry and technology.

The association endorsed a bill in Congress that would provide funds to states based on need rather than on population. A House bill would provide states with $246 billion for water pollution abatement, while a Senate bill would set aside only $20 billion over the next decade. The House bill would fund projects based on need.

The association installed Alexander Lach of South River, plant superintendent of the Middlesex Se erage Authority, as its new president. Also installed were William Higgins of Ewing-Lawrence Sewerage Authority, first vice president, and Daniel Bigler, supervisor of sewer plants in North Bergen, second vice president.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »