Baucus, Max S.

English

University of Montana

University of MontanaScholarWorks at University of MontanaMax S. Baucus Speeches Archives and Special Collections2-23-1993Clean Water Act MarkupMax S. BaucusLet us know how access to this document benefits you.Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/baucus_speechesThis Speech is brought to you for free and open access by the Archives and Special Collections at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has beenaccepted for inclusion in Max S. Baucus Speeches by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information,please contact scholarworks@mso.umt.edu.Recommended CitationBaucus, Max S., "Clean Water Act Markup" (February 23, 1993). Max S. Baucus Speeches. 498.https://scholarworks.umt.edu/baucus_speeches/498Printing, Graphics & Direct MailONBASE SYSTEMIndexing FormSenator * or Department*: BAUCUSInstructions:Prepare one form for insertion at the beginning of each record series.Prepare and insert additional forms at points that you want to index.For example: at the beginning of a new folder, briefing book, topic, project, or date sequence.Record Type*: Speeches & RemarksMONTH/YEAR of Records*: February-1 993(Example: JANUARY-2003)(1) Subject*: Environment(select subject from controlled vocabulary, if your office has one)(2) Subject* Clean Water Act MarkupDOCUMENT DATE*: 02/23/1993(Example: 01/12/1966)* "required information"EIGK TO PRINBBAUCUSMAX BAUCUS WASHINGTON, DCMONTBANA (202) 224-2651MONTANAMONTANA TOLL FREE NUMBER1-800-332-6106thited A5tatts AnmattWASHINGTON, DC 20510Remarks of Senator Max BaucusClean Water Act MarkupFebruary 23, 1993Good morning. Twenty-two years ago, under the leadership of Senator EdmundMuskie, this Committee met to address a national crisis. The headlines of that era told oflakes so polluted they could support only algae blooms, and of rivers so contaminated withindustrial waste that one caught fire and burned to the waterline.Our predecessors were up to the challenge. They passed a Clean Water Act which setthree ambitious goals: zero discharge of pollutants; fishable and swimmable waters; and notoxics in toxic amounts. Today, as a result of their vision, 85% of municipal waters and 87%of industrial sources are in compliance with the Clean Water Act. The quality of our waters -- the Great Lakes, the Charles River, the Hudson and other historic lakes and rivers -- isimmeasurably better.NEED TO UPDATE THE ACTBut for all the good the Clean Water Act has accomplished, there are some problemsit does not adequately address. It does not address, for example, the largest source of waterpollution in Montana and other Western states. That is "non-point source" pollution --pesticide runoff, mine tailings and so on, which spring from no one identifiable source butfrom hundreds or thousands of small sources.Non-point source pollution causes 90% of Montana's pollution problem. It hasimpaired three quarters of our river miles and half of our lakes. And it endangers ourprospect for healthy tourism, natural resource, and agricultural industries.I visited Muddy Creek last week, near Great Falls. At Muddy Creek, runoff from anIrrigation District has led to severe erosion that threatens a bridge, an ancient Indianencampment, farmhouses and even Interstate 15. A local landowner says Muddy Creek nowlooks like "the Grand Canyon of Montana." Erosion there threatens everything fromrecreation to flood control to fisheries.Montana and the West cannot afford to ignore this problem. My constituents --farmers, ranchers, hikers and fly fishers alike -- will all benefit from cleaner lakes andstreams. And we can only get cleaner lakes and streams with a stronger Clean Water Act.BILLINGS . BOZEMAN BUTTE GREAT FALLS HELENA KALISPELL MISSOULA(406) 657-6790 (406) 586-6104 (406) 782-8700 (406) 761-1574 (406) 449-5480 (406) 756-1150 (406) 329-31232At the same time, two decades worth of experience with the Act show that it needs tobe improved. We need to cut regulation and give states and industries more flexible ways tomeet our broad goals. We must consider the risks of various contaminants more carefully.State and local governments make reasonable complaints about the Act's unfunded mandates.And we can control pollution more effectively by using scientific and management techniquesdeveloped over the past two decades.THE CLEAN WATER ACT OF 1994Our bill will address those issues. For the first time, the Clean Water Act will take onnon-point source pollution. This will improve the quality of 150,000 miles of threatenedrivers -- sixty times the length of the Mississippi -- and over seven million acres of impairedor threatened lakes. The fly fishers who come from all over the world to Montana;recreational hunters in the West and the Appalachians; and people who simply want a day atthe beach will all benefit.The Act's coverage of toxic pollutants will widen and improve. We will reduce urbanpollutants -- sediments, toxics and nutrients -- by up to 80% in developing areas and up to25% in developed areas. Every year, we will provide treatment for over a trillion gallons ofraw sewage, urban runoff and industrial wastewater that now get no treatment at all.And we will do it with much less spending. The Clean Water Act of 1994 will cutour national bill for clean water by $30 billion per year. Industry will save $17 billion ayear. Cities and towns will save nearly $11 billion. And to reduce unfunded mandates, wesignificantly raise the funding of the States Revolving Loan Fund.And we will do it with less regulation. This legislation will give states and citiesmore flexibility in meeting requirements, and encourage innovative approaches like watershedmanagement and pollution prevention. It will bring together local businesses, government andcitizens' groups to meet clean water goals in the most appropriate way for each community.CONCRETE BENEFITSIt is hard to put a price tag on the value of clean water and environmental stewardship.But we can put a dollar and cent value on some parts of this bill.For example, benefits to recreational fishing, boating and swimming fromimprovements in water quality will be nearly $700 million a year. Commercial fisheries willlikely see the value of their fish harvests rise by 20%. And improved water quality will letthose who depend on water to manufacture goods save more than $80 million a year.3Finally, let us no forget the expected savings from reduced health risks. The reductionof risk from consumption of contaminated seafood alone will save us $200 million a year inhealth-related costs.Most important, however, we will meet the concerns of the American people. Ninety-six percent of the public considers water quality the most important environmental issue,ahead of toxic waste, air pollution and all others. Water pollution is our country's topenvironmental concern. All of us who heard Dr. Theo Colburn testify here last year knowwhy.Water pollution is not just a bad smell and a stream without fish. We don't see itsworst effects for a generation. Dr. Colburn examined babies born to women who ate two tothree meals of Lake Michigan fish a month for six years before getting pregnant. She foundthat the babies were on average lighter in weight, had smaller skulls, and were born earlierthan the babies of mothers who didn't eat fish. At four years old, they were physicallysmaller and had poorer memories. That is the legacy of a thoughtless, irresponsible past. Itis not a legacy we should pass on to the next generation.We in this Committee owe the people a strong Clean Water Act. We owe ourchildren a strong Clean Water Act. And the work we do today will give the country a strongClean Water Act.CONCLUSIONNo Senators here today served on the Committee when it passed the first Clean WaterAct in 1972. Only our superb Committee Editorial Director, Paul Chimes was here on thatoccasion; and only eleven of those who voted on the Act, and passed it over PresidentNixon's veto, remain in the entire Senate. Our predecessors set a high standard. But I amconfident that our bill lives up to it. And with Senator Muskie's 80th birthday coming nextmonth, it is the most appropriate present I can imagine.The bill does not give everyone everything he or she might want. But it reflects aconsensus -- in the Senate, in the scientific community, within industry and agriculture, andamong environmentalists -- that we need a stronger Clean Water Act which also considers theneeds of business and local government. And it reflects the desire of the American peoplefor waters that are cleaner, safer and more beautiful.In closing, I want to express my deep and sincere gratitude to Senator Chafee, whocosponsored the bill and whose hard work has made it a bipartisan effort from the first day ofthe 103rd Congress. Senator Graham, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Clean Water,Fisheries and Wildlife, has been an integral part of the effort. And the Committee as a wholecan be very proud of its work.

Clean Water Act Markup

https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1497&amp;context=baucus_speeches

Clean Water Act Markup

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Montana