Agenda Packets - 1986/11/03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

LUEET-l. Wastewater Treatment. (A) The League supports increased state and federal assistance, and alternative ...,,...,me_ Which ornvide financine for wastewater treatment construction ects. Clean water is vitally important to the citizens of this country and particularly to residents and visitors of Minnesota. MInnesota's cities remain committed to improving water quality. Unfortunately, the costs involved in providing cleaner water are staggering. Because of the incredible cost, it must he recognized that it is economically impractical to immediately eliminate wastewater pollution. Therefore, all levels of government must take a r:asouably balanced approach to solving the wastewater pollution problem. The ability of cities to comply with any clean water program must be recognized as contingent upon the availability of adequate funds for treatment facilities. Since 1978, federal funding for the wastewater treatment construction grant program has been cut in half. Additionally, the federal share of construction grants dropped from 75 to 55 percent in fiscal year 1985. The same budget constraints facing the federal government exist at the state and _ local level but to a greater degree due to a limited,income base. It is unfair to those city residents who in the past have contributed their federal tax dollars to projects in other locations to he faced with a tripling of the local share for a project in their area. For this reason, if the federal government does not return the federal share for rehabilitation, repair, Upgrading, and new construction of treatment facilities to 75 percent, the state should be the lev^_1 of government to bear the increased burden. Alternatives Co grant programs, such as revolving loan funds are acceptable financing alternatives to the extent that grant programs are not sufficiently funded P-1 t `� the loan program is supplementary to, and not a replacement for, grant programs. Any loan program should take into consideration varying local financial capabilities. The League commends the Legislature for the enactment in 1984 of a separate state grants program and 1985 legislation which increased overall state financing assistance in certain circumstances. lncreased revenues are needed for this program and the. League opposes any reduction in the amount of the cigarette tax dedicated to wastewater treatment funding. The Legislature should increase state -provided financing assistance through a general fund appropriation, state bond proceeds, or other appropriate sources. The League recommends that the Legislature establish an expanded reimbursable grant program using up to one-half of the fords currently appropriated to wastewater treatment. This program, to be offered to communities on a totally voluntary basis, should seek to encourage immediate construction wirh minimal prior review by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and provide reimbursement to communities on the basis of proven performance in reducing pollutants in wastewater effluent. The program should be structured to the extent practical to avoid discouraging privatization and innovative treatment methods. -30-