Изображения страниц
PDF
[ocr errors]

Mr. Wilcox. It will take about 5 minutes to get the film set up.

The CHAIRMAN. I think, from what I have heard, it is a very interesting film. Is it narrated?

Mr. Wilcox. The way the film operates, the people who make the statements really become the narrators. It is a series of witnesses, and it shows the conditions.

The CHAIRMAN. If you will indicate that we are showing this during the time of the committee, and you can state what it is, if you think it will be helpful to us.

Prepare a script and put it in the record.
Mr. Wilcox. All right; fine.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, gentlemen, very much for your testimony.

(The following statements were received by the committee for inclusion in the record :) STATEMENT OF ANDREW J. BIEMILLER, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATION, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. Chairman, I am submitting this statement on behalf of the AFL-CIO in support of H.R. 13853 to provide funds for badly needed water and sewer facilities throughout the U.S. and to help create jobs for those currently unemployed. We agree with Chairman Patman and the co-sponsors of this legislation that funds for necessary public facilities are not available to the affected local communities and thus the safeguarding of community health and welfare as well as our nation's continued orderly growth are severely threatened.

This legislation, by one dramatic action, could create at least one million new jobs in the United States and bring about a reduction of at least 20 percent among the five million Americans now without jobs.

We fully support the proposal that $5 billion in federal grants be made available for state and local government water and sewer projects. It is our understanding that hundreds of large and small communities of America are prepared to initiate these programs immediately with plans in the “ready to go" stage, which can be implemented within the next six months. Only the lack of funding prevents immediate groundbreaking on these programs.

It is our understanding that a public works projects survey by the National League of Cities and the National Conference of Mayors in March of 1972 indicated that water and sewer projects alone could provide for an outlay as high as $5.4 billion. We are certain that in addition to the “ready to go" programs many thousands of projects have not been put into the “ready' stage because of the absence of local funds and the lack of incentive to expend planning funds where there is little likelihood of construction grants.

In addition to the absolute and immediate need for these funds, we urge consideration of several additional factors:

The failure to provide funds seriously jeopardizes efforts to control pollution and provide for community environmental betterment.

The absence or curtailment of adequate water and sewer facilities creates a psychology of scarcity which tends to increase the price of existing dwellings and commercial facilities. The same circumstances cause an increase in the price of land within an area where there is sufficient water and sewer arrangements.

The failure to act increases the likelihood of more sewer moratoriums which now include some of the largest cities in the country, such as San Francisco and Philadelphia and, to varying degrees, all three of the counties surrounding Washington, Þ.C. Every state is affected, and no community, regardless of its size, can be certain it is beyond an immediate or potential crisis.

The failure to provide adequate water and sewer can have a ripple-out effect on employment, stifling the present home building upsurge and harming industrial and commercial employment as well. The nation's already unacceptable unemployment rate could be pushed even higher if workers in the materials pipeline of the building industry are laid off because of pollution control enforcement or a ban on new water and sewer hook-ups.

On the positive side, H.R. 13853 will have two immediate impacts:

The funds for water and sewer will go out into the economy at a time when they are needed to prolong the construction boom-one of the few favorable economic activities in America at the present time.

The bill can provide much-needed employment for jobless workers in the construction industry. Despite the building boom, joblessness among construction workers is as high as it was a year ago. In March 1971, 599,000 construction workers were jobless nationally. In March 1972, the number was virtually the same at 600,000, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

At a time when mortgage interest rates are relatively lower than they have been, the building industry is fulfilling its counter-cyclical role in our economy. If construction should falter because of water and sewer problems, there is no industry available to take up the slack and provide the millions of needed jobs.

The infusion of $5 billion into basic water and sewer grants would create jobs on the sites and in the production and distribution of materials throughout the country. It would create additional jobs, as the newly-hired workers spend their earnings. It would provide the entire national economy with a needed lift.

The AFL-CIO estimates that a $5 billion federal water and sewer program could create about 400,000 or more badly needed jobs within the year, in on-site construction and in the production and distribution of construction materials, such as steel, lumber, cement and equipment. As the additional employee incomes and business profits are spent, there would be a multiplying boost to production and employment-with an additional job increase of about 600,000 or more. The overall impact of such measure could increase employment by as much as one million jobs. At the present time more than 5 million Americans are jobless. This bill, by one dramatic action, could reduce unemployment by 20 percent.

The creation of these jobs, under such a program, would not be a boondoggle. Every project helped by this program would add to the nation's wealth and provide the trigger to far greater economic activity in the private and public sector.

We respectfully urge the Committee to give its full approval to this muchneeded measure.

STATEMENT OF ANDREW CHAFIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CUMBERLAND PLATEAU

PLANNING DISTRICT, LEBANON, Va. On behalf of the Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission, a fourcounty regional planning district in Southwest Virginia representing seven governmental sub-divisions, I express thanks for the opportunity to testify on the proposed legislation.

I honestly believe that H.R. 13853 could be a great piece of legislation insofar as the development of cities and towns in rural America is concerned. While we do have opportunities for funding under EDA, ARC, EPA, FHA, and one state agency for water and sewer facilities, we have found that the scarcity of grant funds would require an enormous amount of local funds in order to develop water and sewer projects for our towns and counties. This requirement for local funds is beyond the financial capabilities of our towns and counties. This results in a situation that prohibits the localities from being able to take advantage of the small percentage of available federal grant funds.

In my particular development district in Southwest Virginia, all four counties of the district are designated as redevelopment areas. During my four years as executive director of this regional planning and development district, I have had many town and county officials tell me at one time or another that their units of government would have to pass up a certain federal program because they could not provide the local matching share. Where possible, our regional planning office helped the towns and counties match programs with an inkind local share.

I feel that redevelopment areas should be eligible for 100 percent grants for water and sewer facilities. Although we have been able to obtain local matching shares for one or two water and sewer programs in our district, a great many of our efforts have been nipped in the bud by an excessive amount of money required on a local level.

In our district, we have developed a regional water project in which two counties and three towns have joined together in an effort to provide area citizens and industrial and commercial establishments with a satisfactory quantity and quality of water at an economically feasible cost. This entire proposed regiona, system will cost approximately $10 million. It will provide water service to approximately 40,000 people, hundreds of commercial establishments, and many industrial users. In order to develop this regional system to serve two of our rural counties and three towns, we must have at least 50 percent grant funds. Without the grant funds, the project is lost because local governments cannot provide local funds and the system is not economically feasible with only loan funds. This proposed regional project will help in stimulating the local economy to the tune of creating or helping to create some 2000 new jobs.

We are desperately attempting to tie together the grant and loan programs of Farmers Home Administration, Economic Development Administration, and the Appalachian Regional Commission for the development of this regional system. The prospect, however, seems to be somewhat bleak that we will be able to put this regional project together in phases with three government agencies assisting in the funding.

The Emergency Community Facilities and Public Investment Act of 1972 is the ray of hope that we have been waiting for. If this act was law and in effect today, we could use its resources to completely turn around the economy of two of our redevelopment counties.

We feel this regional water project we are attempting to develop presents a classicial case of the existing federal funding resources defeating itself. This proposed regional system plans to make water service available to three communities that the State Water Control Board and the Environmental Protection Agency have scheduled for funding of sewer systems. However, none of these three localities have public water systems, and it would seem to be an impossibility to develop a sewer project where there is no public water system. What this will mean is that these three localities will lose their chances to receive grant funds to develop a sewer system because they were unable to receive sufficient grant money to develop a water system. Therefore, the pollution of our rivers and streams will continue in many parts of rural America.

These factors create a tremendously frustrating situation for local officials who want to improve their areas, provide job opportunities and the necessary public utilities to stimulate a well-rounded prosperous economy.

Every one of our four counties is deficient in water and sewer facilities. In 1969 we did a survey which revealed that less than 30 percent of our district populalion was served by public water and less than 20 percent was served by public sewer. One of our counties has only 10 percent of its population served by water and sewer. That county, by the way, is one of the counties to be served by the regional water project I have discussed. Unless 100 percent grants are made available, then the chances that these towns and counties can ever have adequate facilities are slim indeed. Without public water and sewer service, we can be assured that we will continue to struggle with a lagging economy that does not provide job opportunities or prevent out-migration.

I don't want to take up a lot of time or try to present a statistical survey-I simply want to point out that in one development district made up of four redevelopment counties we simply don't know how we are going to provide water and sewer facilities under present grant programs. There must be many more such areas throughout the nation.

Some areas around the country and some development districts like ours are financially able to match state and federal grant programs and lay the necessary groundwork for the economic development of their communities. In a district where local matching funds are not available to take advantage of these state and federal grant programs, what route do you take? There is only one route you can take you sit back and watch other areas grab up the grant money while you linger in the status quo.

Our four counties in Southwest Virginia could develop into progressive, robust economic areas if we could provide them with adequate public water and sewer facilities. We think we might be able to do this under the Emergency Community Facilities and Public Investment Act of 1972. In view of the existing grant programs and our present financial situation, it seems that this act might be our only hope. This is why I am here today. Thank you.

(Whereupon, at 2:35 p.m., a recess was taken until 10 a.m., Wednesday, May, 24, 1972.)

APPENDIX

(The following material was submitted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for inclusion in the record :)

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, WATER AND SEWER

PROJECT DIRECTORY

The Project Directory is prepared by State within HUD Regions listing all projects in numerical sequence. The page heading includes: Region Code (0 through 9 with O equal to 10); State Code, and State name. Column headings:

Definition/Description Project Number.

Project Numbers assigned to Application/Project

after jurisdictional acceptance by HUD. I.A. Number...

Preliminary Project Control Number assigned

prior to "jurisdictional acceptance.” Congressional Districts... The Congressional District Code(s) related to the

Project locations. Name of Applicant.--- Self Explanatory— Also includes applicant address,

i.e. City and County names. City-Location-County- Project Location(s), City and County names. Pop -

Population Code—(see codes in reporting

procedures). Type Facility----

Type of Facility Code consisting of four (4) numeric digits that describe the facility or

facilities to be developed by the project. Inquiry (Inq)

Date (Month, Day, Year) Inquiry received. Pre-Conf.

Disregard- No longer used. Appl. (Apl)

Date Full Application received. Fr. Made (Fr).

Date Fund Reservation made. Approv. (Apr)

Date of Approval - Public Announcement. Agree (Agr)

Date Agreement/Contract signed. C-Start (CS)

Date of Construction Start C-Comp (CC)

Date of Construction Completion CL-Out (CL)

Date Project Closed-Out/Completed Grant.um

Federal Grant Amount-Current/Net Amt. Loan..

Federal Loan Amount Requested-represents

supporting loan Total Cost..

Estimated Total Cost of Project Reloc...

Relocation Code (*)--Indicates relocation in

volvement Status and Date.

Current Status of Project and date of that status,

i.e., codes INQ, APL through CL above also attrition codes when applicable C-1 through

C-5, D-1 through D4, and w SMSA.

Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area Code

(when applicable to location) EDA..

Economic Development Area code (when ap

plicable to location)—type of ED Area PWP...

Public Works Planning project in tandem with

W&S project PFL.

Public Facility Loans project in support of W&S project

(59)

[ocr errors]
« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »