02/28/1979 Meeting - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Vote was taken on the motion, which carried unanimously. e IV. Discussion of Presentation to Oregon Congressional De1egation--Memos distributed. A. Metro Treatment Plant EPA funding Manager reviewed the memorandum. He said in 1972, Congress passed the Clean Water Act which established national policy to clean water of the United States within ten years. The cities and counties were ordered to achieve clean water standards by that date, or be subject to penalties. Congress then authorized Federal matching funds of 3:1 with local funds. Funding was to cover a 10-year period. The allocations started in 1973, but by 1979, inflation had taken its toll. He noted the appropriations that followed had dropped from 1978 to the present. He reviewed the amounts of money from the memorandum. A percentage formula distribution (1.2974 percent funding for Oregon) of the total national appropriation was assigned. e Regarding the local action, he said a district was formed, plans were developed, and voter approval was gained for the building of a treat- ment plant, based on the Federal mandate that, otherwise, the area would suffer penalties. A $29.5 million bond issue was passed. Since then, EPA has been dropping the appropriations allocated for Oregon. Thus, the project has not proceeded. He noted prepurchase authoriza- tions for equipment have already been written. If the allocation to Oregon is reduced, the project will be delayed, with inflation forcing higher costs for construction. Then local, State, or Federal funds will have to be found. He said this was a very serious breach of contract on the part of the Federal government. Two areas of strategy were suggested: 1) Ask for more appropriations, or 2) ask for a reallocation of funds. He noted the EPA has never reallocated funds among the states. Some states have not spent their allocations, but the request for reallocations could be made to allow the states who are on time to proceed with their projects without being penalized. William Pye, Manager, Wastewater Treatment Commission, said it is very difficult to plan and schedule such a large project when the amount of money to be used is not. known and cannot be depended upon. Anything the Council can do to put pressure to get the appropriations up to the authorization would be extremely helpful. He noted five other states were in the same position as Oregon (have no carryover funds from previous years), and would get that information to the Manager. e Ms. Smith felt that it might be more difficult to try to achieve reallocation than reappropriation of funds. Mr. pye noted the EPA, in their FY 180 budget, did indicate they were going to ask for an exten- sion of the two-year to three-year period of reallocated uncommitted funds. Mr. Delay felt the unal10cated funding mechanism for arguing for reducing appropriations has been done very selectively. EPA has been one of the smallest offenders, as compared to the Defense Depart- ment. He felt it to be an unwise and inequitable policy. 2/28/79--5 127