HBI
720626
THONE
US REPRESENTATIVE
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
CLEAN WATER ACT OF 1977, H.R. 15693 A BILL NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION
FROM AGRICULTURAL, RURAL, AND DEVELOPING AREAS. (PP 2238 TO 2255)
H.R. 15693
--
95-217
--
CW181523 CW181540 /
03804
(())
92D Congress
2D Session
referred to the Committee on Public Works
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. (a) It is recognized that the soil and water resources of
the Nation are being polluted by agricultural and related pollutants
such as animal wastes, plant nutrient materials, agricultural and other
chemicals, mineral salts, infections agents, waste products from
processing plants, as well as pollutants eminating from improper solid
waste disposal, /(()) and that such pollution is injurious to crops,
livestock, wildlife, fish, air and water quality, and the public health,
and constitutes a growing menace to the national welfare. The Congress
finds that the resources of State and local public agencies are not
adequate without Federal assistance to undertake an essential nationwide
program for the abatement, control, and prevention of such pollution and
declares that the purposes of this section are to provide for Federal
cooperation with State and local public agencies in the development and
execution of a national program for the abatement, control, and
prevention of such pollution, and in conjunction therewith to initiate
and accelerate nationwide research and education directed toward
expediting the abatement, control, and prevention of such pollution.
(b)(1) In order to provide the Federal assistance needed in
connection with such national program the Secretary of Agriculture,
hereinafter called the Secretary, may cooperate and enter into
agreements with and furnish technical, financial, and other assistance
to State and local public agencies.
(2) The Secretary may, upon application by State and local public
agencies, if such application has been submitted to, and not disapproved
within forty-five days by, the State soil and water conservation
commission or comparable State agency, in consultation with the
appropriate State pollution /(()) control agency, or by the Governor in
the absence of any such commission or comparable State agency, assist
such State and local public agencies to prepare plans for the abatement,
control, and prevention of agricultural and related pollution. Any such
plan shall identify the pollution problems and the areas involved;
shall set forth the needed remedial measures and works of improvement
and the arrangements to be made for the necessary operation and
maintenance thereof; shall describe any proposed regulatory or control
actions to be undertaken by the State or local public agency; shall set
forth the conditions governing the acquisition by the State or local
public agency of the needed lands, casements, or right-of-way; and
shall include a statement of the estimated costs of carrying out the
plan and of the respective portions of such costs that are to be borne
by the Secretary and the State or local public agency. The Secretary
may agree to bear such portion of such costs as he determines to be
equitable in consideration of national needs and assistance authorized
for similar purposes under other Federal programs.
(3) When a plan has been agreed upon by the Secretary and the State
or local public agency, the Secretary may enter into an agreement with
the State or local publaic agency setting forth the terms and conditions
upon which the plan is to be carried out. /(())
(4) The Secretary may, in order to assist the State or local public
agency in carrying out the plan, (a) enter into an agreement of not to
exceed ten years with any owner, operator, or occupier of land providing
for the installation and maintenance of the pollution prevention,
abatement, control, and practices and measures described in the
agreement, (b) any such agreement may include, but need not be limited
to, engineering operations; methods of cultivation; the growing of
vegetation; land utilization; and the development, acquisition, or
installation of waste holding, conditioning and disposal facilities, and
the installation of waste utilizing and pollutant management practices
and measures, and (c) furnish such financial and other assistance to any
such owner, operator, or occupier as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate for the installation of such practices and measures.
(c) The Secretary may, with respect to any plan upon which he has
reached agreement with a State or local public agency, make loans or
advancements for the non-Federal share of costs to any cooperating State
or local public agency, and to any cooperating owner, operator, or
occupier of land with whom an agreement has been entered into pursuant
to the plan. Loans or advancements under this section shall be made
under contracts which will provide, under such terms and conditions as
the Secretary deems appropriate, for the repayment thereof in not more
than thirty years, with /(()) interest at a rate prescribed by the
Secretary and not less than (i) a rate determined by the Secretary of
the Treasury, taking into consideration the current average market yield
on outstanding marketable obligations of the United States with
remaining periods to maturity comparable to the average maturities of
such loans, plus (ii) such additional charge, if any, toward covering
other costs of the program as the Secretary of Agriculture may determine
to be consistent with its purposes, such rate of interest to be adjusted
to the nearest one-eighth of 1 per centum. Repayment of principal and
interest on such loans or advancements shall begin within five years.
(d) The Secretary may initiate and conduct nationwide research and
education for identifying and characterizing such agricultural and
related pollutants and developing methods for the abatement, control,
and prevention of pollution. As a part of such program he may conduct,
and promote the coordination and acceleration of, research,
investigations, experiments, training, demonstrations, surveys, and
studies relating to the causes, effects, extent, abatement, control, and
prevention of pollution.
(e)(1) The Secretary of Agriculture shall consult with the Secretary
of Health, Education and Welfare and the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to assure the appropriate coordination
in the administration of /(()) this section with the administration of
any other Act administered by the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
relating to control, prevention, or abatement of air or water pollution.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed as superseding or
limiting the functions of the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare and the Environmental Protection Agency under any other law
relating to control, prevention, or abatement of air or water pollution.
(f) Any Federal department or agency which has jurisdiction over any
land, building, installation, or other property causing or affected by
such agricultural or related pollution, or which is administering a
program involving any such property, shall, to the extent practicable
and consistent with the interests of the United States and within
available appropriations, cooperate with the Secretary of Agriculture in
the abatement, control, and prevention of such pollution.
SEC. 2. (a) The Congress recognizes that erosion arising on farm and
forest land and rapidly developing rural and urban areas, erosion of
roadsides and rights-of-way, streambank and lakeshore erosion, erosion
from unrestored and unrehabilitated non-Federal surface or strip mined
lands, is causing the pollution of and damage to lakes, reservoirs,
/(()) rivers, streams, and other waterways by sediment and mine acid
drainage, deterioration of water quality, impairment of the beauty of
the natural landscape, destruction of land and other property, damages
to fish, wildlife, and recreation resources, and unsafe conditions on
roads and highways, all of which constitute a serious loss to the
Nation's natural resources and an injury to the public health, safety,
and general welfare. The Congress further finds that State, local, and
private resources are not adequate without Federal aid to undertake an
essential program to overcome and remedy these damages to the Nation's
resources. It is therefore the purpose of this section to provide for
Federal participation and assistance in a program for the abatement,
prevention, and control of such erosion, sedimentation, and related
damages.
(b)(1) The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to cooperate with
and to furnish technical, financial, and other assistance to States,
their political subdivisions, and local public agencies, including soil
and water conservation districts, in developing and carrying out on a
natural drainage area or community basis, plans which have been
developed in cooperation with the appropriate soil conservation district
for the prevention and control of excessive erosion and sedimentation
arising on farms and ranches. /(())
(2) Any such plan shall be agreed upon by the Secretary and the
cooperating State, political subdivision, or local public agency, and
may include works or measures such as revegetation, land smoothing,
diversions, grade stabilization and gully control structures, debris
basins, bank sloping, drainage, access roads for maintenance, and any
other works or measures deemed appropriate by the Secretary: Provided,
That the Federal share of the cost of carrying out any such works or
measures shall not exceed that deemed by the Secretary to be necessary
and appropriate in the public interest to carry out the purposes of this
section.
(3) In carrying out any such plan the Secretary is authorized to
enter into an agreement, which agreement has been reviewed by the
appropriate soil and water conservation district, with any landowner or
occupier, and is authorized to require as a condition to the furnishing
of assistance hereunder that the landowner or occupier shall --
(A) enter into an agreement of not to exceed ten years
providing for the installation and maintenance of the needed works
or measures; and
(B) install the needed works or measures in accordance with
technical specifications as approved by the Secretary.
(c)(1) The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to cooperate with
and furnish financial and technical assistance /(()) to States,
counties, municipalities, and other local public agencies in formulating
development land use plans, including plans for the control of erosion
and sediment in rapidly developing rural and urban areas. Such plans
will be developed in cooperation with appropriate soil and water
conservation districts.
(2) The Secretary shall require as a condition to providing Federal
assistance for formulating development plans, works, and measures that
the cooperating State, county, or local public agency provide assurance
that such agency will --
(A) enact and enforce adequate development regulations;
(B) bear proportionate costs for preparing the development plan
as agreed upon by such agency and the Secretary.
(d)(1) The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to cooperate with
and to furnish technical, financial, and other assistance to States,
counties, and local public agencies in formulating plans, which shall be
developed in cooperation with the appropriate soil conservation
district, and in carrying out any such plans that have been agreed upon
by the Secretary and the cooperating State, county, or local public
agency, for the prevention and control of erosion sedimentation and
related damages on roadsides and rights-of-way of existing State,
county, and other rural roads, and of areas /(()) within or related to
their rights-of-way, including borrow areas and adjacent areas
contributing directly to such damages.
(2) The Secretary shall require as a condition to providing Federal
assistance for the installation of works or measures included in such
plans that the cooperating State, county, or local public agency shall
--
(A) bear not less than 25 per centum of the construction costs
of works or measures involving Federal assistance;
(B) acquire or provide assurances satisfactory to the Secretary
that it will acquire, without cost to the Federal Government from
funds appropriated for the purposes of this subsection, such land,
easements, or rights-of-way as will be needed in connection with
any such works or measures;
(C) make arrangements satisfactory to the Secretary for
defraying the costs of operating and maintaining any such works or
measures; and
(D) bear such proportionate part of the costs of engineering
services and administration of contracts as the Secretary
determines to be equitable and appropriate to carry out the
purposes of this subsection.
(e)(1) The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to cooperate with
and to furnish financial and other assistance /(()) to States, counties,
local public agencies, including soil and water conservation districts,
and private nonprofit agencies in formulating plans, which shall be
developed in cooperation with the appropriate soil conservation
district, and in carrying out any such plans that have been agreed upon
by the Secretary and the cooperating State, county, or public or private
agency, and which have been developed in cooperation with the
appropriate soil conservation district, for the prevention and control
of erosion of the banks of upstream tributaries of major rivers, and of
sediment damages resulting therefrom.
(2) The Secretary shall require as a condition to providing Federal
assistance for the installation of works or measures included in such
plans that the cooperating State, county, or public or private agency
shall --
(A) bear not less than 25 per centum of the construction costs
of any works or measures involving Federal assistance;
(B) acquire or provide assurances satisfactory to the Secretary
that it will acquire, without cost to the Federal Government from
funds appropriated for the purposes of this section, such land,
easements, or rights-of-way as will be needed in connection with
any such works or measures;
/(())
(C) make arrangements satisfactory to the Secretary for
defraying the costs of operating and maintaining any such works or
measures; and
(D) bear such proportionate part of the costs of engineering
services and administration of contracts as the Secretary
determines to be equitable and appropriate to carry out the
purposes of this section.
(f)(1) The Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to cooperate with
and to furnish financial and other assistance to States and their
political subdivisions, including soil and water conservation districts,
in developing and carrying out on a watershed or community basis, plans
which have been developed in cooperation with the appropriate soil
conservation district for the prevention and control of erosion on, and
for the restoration, rehabilitation, and use of, non-Federal lands which
have been damaged by surface or strip mining and which are presently in
a scarred or unrestored condition, and with respect to which lands the
Secretary determines that --
(A) such lands were damaged by surface or strip mining prior to
the date of enactment of this section; and
(B) there is no existing contractual or other legal requirement
for the adequate restoration and rehabilitation of such lands.
/(())
(2) Any such plan shall be agreed upon by the Secretary and the
cooperating State or political subdivision, and may include works or
measures such as revegetation, land smoothing, diversions, grade
stabilization and gully-control structures, debris basins, bank sloping,
drainage, access roads for maintenance, and any other works or measures
deemed appropriate by the Secretary: Provided, That the Federal share
of the cost of carrying out any such works or measures shall not exceed
that deemed by the Secretary to be necessary and appropriate in the
public interest to carry out the purposes of this section.
(3) In carrying out any such plan the Secretary is authorized to
enter into agreements with any landowner or occupier, and is authorized
to require as a condition to the furnishing of assistance hereunder that
the landowner or occupier shall --
(A) enter into an agreement of not to exceed ten years
providing for the installation and maintenance of the needed works
or measures;
(B) install the needed works or measures in accordance with
technical specifications as approved by the Secretary; and
(C) provide assurances satisfactory to the Secretary that such
restored and rehabilitated lands will be
/(())
adequately protected against damages resulting from future surface
or strip mining operations.
(g) The Secretary shall initiate and conduct nationwide research and
education for determining rates of soil erosion and associated
sedimentation, pollution effects of sediment, and for developing methods
for the abatement, control, or prevention of pollution by sediment
arising from erosion on farm and forest lands, rapidly developing rural
and urban areas, roadsides and rights-of-way, streambanks and
shorelines, and erosion on unrestored and unrehabilitated non-Federal
surface or strip mined lands. As a part of such program he may conduct,
and promote the coordination and acceleration of, research,
investigations, experiments, training, demonstrations, surveys, and
studies relating to the causes, effects, extent, abatement, control of
soil erosion, and associated pollution by sediment.
SEC. 3. Section 10 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended (33 U.S.C. 466g), is hereby further amended by adding after
subsection (k) thereof a new subsection (1) to read as follows:
"Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, with respect
to livestock and poultry enterprise (including feeder lots), for a
period of three years following the adoption of water quality standards
pursuant to this Act applicable thereto, no notices respecting abatement
of pollution /(()) shall be made hereunder, and no action shall be
brought pursuant to subsection (g) hereof, if the Secretary determines
from time to time during such three-year period that such enterprises
are complying with interim standards adopted pursuant to guidelines
prescribed as provided herein. The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall, in consultation with the Secretary of
Agriculture and interested State agencies, develop and publish in the
Federal Register interim guidelines to be implemented by the operator of
livestock and poultry enterprises (including feeder lots) during such
three-year period, which guidelines for interim standard shall include
water quality criteria reasonably attainable by the operator during such
period, shall be the minimum reasonably acceptable to adequately
consider public health, and shall include criteria for treatment of the
site of the enterprise with respect to (1) type of soil, (2) topography,
(3) distance from towns or cities, (4) drainage, (5) presence of holding
ponds, oxidation ditches, lagoons, and other animal waste management
facilities and procedures, (6) amount and location of land for
distribution of waste residues, and (7) presence of any buffer zone to
screen and diminish sound, odor, and unsightliness. So long as any such
livestock or poultry enterprise (including feeder lot) is in compliance
with interim standards prescribed by the Administrator during such
three-year period, such
/(()) compliance shall be deemed compliance with the water quality
standards established pursuant to this Act for purposes of notification
pursuant to subsection (c)(5) hereof and of any legal action brought in
any court respecting compliance with such standards."
SEC. 4. Notwithstanding anything in this Act, or in any other law,
whenever, after the Secretary of Agriculture and a State agency have
agreed upon a plan for the abatement, control, and prevention of
agricultural related pollution, or prevention of erosion and sediment
damages which plan includes promulgation of regulations, standards, and
criteria with respect thereto, the State agency determines that any
landowner, operator, or occupier, including any livestock or
agricultural enterprise, violates or is in violation of State water
quality standards for the area, or is doing any act, or permits to exist
any condition causing pollution from agricultural and related pollutants
or which causes excessive soil erosion and sediment damages in violation
of said regulations, standards, or criteria, if the State agency, or the
Secretary of Agriculture under the provisions of this title has offered
assistance to such landowner, operator, or occupier, or livestock or
agricultural enterprise to come into compliance with said water quality
standards, or to otherwise take the minimum reasonable steps to avoid
such pollution, or erosion and sediment damages, such landowner,
operator, or occupier shall not be eligible for further Federal /(())
assistance or benefits under any other Federal programs or activity with
respect to such land or enterprise until such water quality standards or
such plans have been substantially complied with: Provided, That the
State agency shall have given such landowner, operator, or occupier
thirty days written notice of such violation and an opportunity to be
heard, not exceeding a period of sixty additional days; and notice of
said violation and failure to act shall have been given by the Secretary
of Agriculture by publication in the Federal Register.
SEC. 5. (a) The Secretary is authorized to develop a program of
summer jobs, to be designated the agriculture youth program, for
students of agriculture, conservation, and related fields.
(b) The agriculture youth program shall, as the Secretary may
determine, participate in any phase of the soil conservation and
watershed programs provided for in this title.
SEC. 6. (a) The Secretary is authorized to prescribe such rules and
regulations as he deems necessary or desirable to carry out the
principles of this title or to facilitate the practical administration
of the programs provided for herein.
(b) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000,000 for
the fiscal year 1973 and such sums thereafter as may be necessary to
carry out the purpose of this title, such sums to remain available until
expended. /(())
92D Congress
2D Session
DEB
720605
RANDOLPH
US SENATOR
--
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 1972, SUBSTITUTION OF CONFEREE ON S.
2770 (P 630)
--
--
92-500
--
CW181541 CW181541
03805
(())
Congressional Record Senate
Proceedings and Debates of the 92nd Congress
LD-4o(Rev. Jan. 71)
Bill Date Page(s)
S. 2770 6/5/72 S 8760
Action: Conferee Change.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from
California (Mr. Tunney) be substituted for the Senator from Indiana (Mr.
Bayh) as a Senate conferee on S-2770, the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act.
The President pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
HSM
720509
JOHN D. DINGELL
US REPRESENTATIVE
--
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1972, AMENDMENTS TO
THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT (PP 7982 TO 7987)
--
--
92-500
--
CW181542 CW181547 /
03806
(())
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD EXTENSION OF REMARKS
Proceedings and Debates of the 92d Congress
LD-4b (Rev. Jan. 71)
BILL DATE PAGE(S)
S. 2770 5/9/72 E 4883-87
REMARKS:
by Mr. Dingell of Michigan. /(())
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, on April 26, 1972, the Environmental
Protection Agency called together representatives of the States,
environmental organizations, and others in an effort to win their
support for early enactment of a water pollution control bill. Earlier
on April 22, 1972, EPA issued a press release in which EPA's Assistant
Administrator for Enforcement and General Counsel, warns that EPA's
"water pollution control program will be ILLEGIBLE" unless Congress
"acts promptly" to resolve differences between the House and Senate
bills. EPA's release states that:
Attention has focused on the differences between the two bills. In
reality the similarities are far more important. (Italics supplied.)
Apparently, these two events were the opening effort on the part of
the administration to convince environmentalists and State officials
that a new water pollution bill should be enacted, no matter what form
it takes.
At the meeting, EPA officials were surprised to learn, I am told,
that these representatives did not share EPA's view that a bill, in any
form, is essential. Environmentalists do not buy the idea that the
similarities between the House and Senate bills are far more important
than the differences. Possibly this is because they recall the
administration's efforts last November and December to delay passage of
a strong Senate bill, to lobby for major changes in that bill, and to
insist that the House hold hearings on the Senate-passed bill. They
also recall the efforts in March by industry lobbyists, aided by the
administration, to have the House pass its much weaker bill, H.R. 11896,
without any amendments. They also not that many legislative weeks
remain before Congress will adjourn.
Yes, there are many similarities between the two bills. But,
unfortunately, they do not exist in what might be termed the "gut"
provisions -- those dealing with establishment of effluent limitations,
enforcement, permits, and citizen participation. There the differences
are, in fact, far more important than the similarities.
The April 22 news release also quotes the EPA Assistant Administrator
for Enforcement and General Counsel, as stating:
The real need is to achieve legislation now. It would be a tragedy
if we lost the opportunity to obtain a good bill because of a failure to
agree on details. (Italics supplied.)
I am amazed at this attitude of EPA. Do they mean that the Senate
conferees and environmentalists and State officials should capitulate on
these so-called details and accept a weak House bill just so the
administration can boast to the public that new water pollution control
amendments have been enacted in 1972?
Since 1956, Congress has amended the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act four times -- 1961, 1965, 1966, and 1970. Although these amendments
were helpful in some respects, they were largely cut-and-paste revisions
of a weak and largely ineffective law. They did not face the real issue
-- namely, the issue of eliminating -- not merely abating -- water
pollution wherever possible. Those amendments skirted that issue.
It was not until this time that Congress squarely faced the issue of
eliminating versus abating water pollution. This is the principal
difference between the House and Senate versions of the amendments to
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956 pending in conference.
This is the detail that the conferees must work out when they meet
beginning this week.
My colleague, HENRY S. REUSS, and I, joined by more than 40 other
Members of the House, a few weeks ago sought to have the House adopt the
20th century concept of the Senate bill (S.2770) -- to eliminate
pollution through the use of best available technology wherever possible
from our waterways -- rather than the 19th century abatement concept of
the House bill (H.R. 11896). We believed then, and now, that unless the
Congress adopts this pollutin elimination concept, it probably would be
better to enact no bill at all, but merely pass a continuing resolution
and let the 93d Congress take a fresh look at the problem. We want
strong and effective legislation along the lines of the Senate bill. A
weak bill would be equal to no bill at all.
There are many excellent provisions in the House-passed bill. But
there are also many provisions in that bill that are designed to
perpetuate the abatement theory. For example, the House bill:
States, in section 102, that EPA should establish a national research
program for the prevention and abatement of pollution;
Continues the archaic concept of beneficial uses of water, whereby
the stream is used to treat wastes rather than requiring that the
polluter eliminate or adequately treat the wastes;
In attempting to retain the outmoded and unenforceable system of
water quality standards of the receiving waters, and to integrate that
system into the new system of effluent controls at the source, the House
bill lets the States establish maximum daily waste loads allowable for a
waterway -- in other words, it continues the old assimilative capacity
theory that a stream can be used to treat wastes up to an established
limit;
Authorized EPA to defer to 1978 the requirment that point sources
must comply with effluent limitations;
Instead of requiring pollutors to apply the best available technology
to their wastes by 1981, it simply calls for a 2-year study by the
National Academy of Sciences, and leaves it to some future Congress to
enacve that requirement;
Requires that all point sources of polutants, other than publicly
owned treatment works, must achieve, not later than January 1, 1976,
effluent limitations requiring the use of the best practicable control
technology currently available. This sounds fine, but it is drastically
undermined by the committee report's definition of the term "currently
available," as a control technology demonstrated as viable at the time
of commencement of actual construction of the control facilities, with
no provision for review and updating of this technology at any time.
Thus, it appears that a pollutor who began construction of his control
facility in 1971 using the best practicable control technology of that
time would have that technology grandfathered until Congress changes the
law by adopting some supposedly stricter standard after the NAS study;
Adds a new and subjective economic test in the setting of Federal
standards /(()) of performance for any facility discharging pollutants
that is constructed more than 90 days after enactment of this
legislation;
Give EPA total discretion to decide whethe or not to initiate a civil
action to require compliance with an abatement order when a violation of
permit conditions or effluent limitations takes place;
Does not provide criminal sanctions against polluters who fail to
comply with an EPA order;
The EPA's hands by refusing to give that Agency power to issue
subpenas in enforcement actions;
Gives polluters immunity until 1976 from prosecution, except in an
emergency that threatens the health of persons, either under the Refuse
Act of 1899 or this legislation, if they merely file applications for
permits;
Allows EPA to transfer the permit program to a State long before the
State has established effluent limitations, standards of performance,
and other basic requirements under the act;
Takes away from EPA it present authority to review and, where
appropriate, disapprovve discharge permits, once administration of the
permit program is transferred to a State;
Provides that industrial pollutors who discharge wastes intoi a
publicly owned waste treatment system -- rather than directly into a
waterway -- need not apply for any permit;
Severely limits a citizen's ability to require enforcement of the
law, by establishing vague, ambiguous, and unwise tests to establish the
citizen's standing to sue a pollutor or EPA's Administrator;
Limits EPA's emergency powers under the bill to those instances where
the health, but not the welfare, of persons is endangered by a pollution
source or combination of sources;
Deletes a Senate provision which prevents a pollutor from obtaining
court review of EPA's action in promulgating effluent standards,
performance standards, et cetera, in civil or criminal enforcement
proceedings later instituted by EPA against the pollutor, despite the
fact that both the House and Senate bills provide an opportunity for
such review within 30 days after such promulgation; and
Deletes a provision in the Senate bill that specifically provides
that stricter water quality requirements of a State shall be set forth
in the certifications provided in section 401 of the bill and shall
become a condition of any Federal license or permit for which the
certification is required.
These are some of the major deficiencies in the House-passed bill
that, if enacted, would continue the Federal water pollution program in
the style of the 19th century. It would reenact the same old
pollution-as-usual approach that has prevailed in the United States for
many years. That approach is remarkable in that is has served to
perpetuate pollution, rather than to reduce and eliminate it. Under
that approach, our Nation's water have been further degraded. A 1972
EPA report, "The Economics of Clean Water," states that "water pollution
increased from 1970 to 1971."
We have the opportunity today to shift from this old approach to a
moder and, in the long run, less costly approach of pollution
climination. We have tried the old way. It has not worked. Let us try
a new way that shows greater promise.
Mr. Speaker, at this point I insert in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD a
document -- dated April 15, 1972 -- prepared by EPA and marked "Official
Use Only" which I have just obtained. It is entitled "Comparison of
Major Provisions Between S. 2770, Passed By The Senate on November 2,
1971, H.R. 11896, Passed By The House On March 29, 1972, and Comments."
I commend it to the attention of my colleagues. I feel certain that,
after you need it, you will discern an alarmingly negative attitude at
EPA for anything that is progressive in this field. I certainly hope
that Mr. Ruckelshaus will disassociate himself from this document.
The comparative follows:
/(())
/(())
Mr. Speaker, I call attention to several very interesting "comments"
and "noncomments" in this document.
First, the comment that EPA is opposed to increasing the Federal
share for waste treatment works to more than 55 percent. EPA contends
that "substantial State and local matching is necessary to insure
economy and cost effectiveness."
This sounds like it was written by the penny-pinching Office of
Management and Budget, or at least under the direction of OMB.
Second, the EPA comparison describes the different versions in the
two bills concerning citizen suits and the issue of standing to sue, but
no comment is forthcoming from EPA as to which version is preferred by
EPA.
This matter of citizen suits and standing is of great importanct to
all citizens and environmental organizations. Where does EPA stand on
this issue? Does that Agency side with those in industry who seek to
curtail citizen suits? I hope not.
EPA needs help. Citizen participation would be welcomed by EPA.
Citizen suits provide such participation. I urge that EPA publicly
support the Senate version which leaves the question of standing to the
courts, where it belongs.
Finally, the EPA document fails to comment on the so-called Baker
amendment -- a major attempt to weaken the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969. It doesnot note the differences between the two versions
of the NEPA amendment. Most importantly, once again it fails to
indicate where EPA stands on this amendment to NEPA.
Environmentalists are seeking to save EPA. I support them in this
effort. But I think we must look closely at the so-called Baker
amendment which, I understand, was initially offered for what appeared
then as environmentally sound reasons. It is clear now, however, that
the amendment is not sound, and I urge that the conferees abandon it
entirely.
At this point I insert an article from the New York Times:
(From the New York Times, May 7, 1972)
WASHINGTON, May 6 -- Differences in the House and Senate water
pollution control bills are so fundamental that passage of legislation
this session is in doubt.
The fate of the legislation will be determined by a conference
committee that will begin next week to go over the House and Senate
measures.
Much rides on the final product. One is the Federal share for sewage
plants. The Administration asked $6-billion for three years. The
Senate bill authorizes $14-billion, the House bill $18-billion.
Without a bill, cities could still get Federal grants under a
continuing authorization such as has been in effect since the old law
expired in June, 1971. But the rate of Federal funding would be only
$20-billion a year.
The differences in money in the two bills are believed to be subject
to compromise. More difficult to adjust are basic differences on
pollution controls and many provisions in the Hoiuse bill that that
Senate conferees and environmental organizations regard as loopholes for
industry.
Fearful that there may be no legislation, officials of the
Environmental Protection Agency have been meeting the last two weeks
with representatives of environmental groups, urging them to use their
influence to get a compromise.
John R. Quaries, the agency's general counsel, and Gary Baise, its
legislative liaison, have been insisting that the "similarities" in the
two bills "are far more important" than the differences and assert that
it would be "a tragedy" if the bill were lost because of a failure to
agree "on details."
So far, the conservation groups have not been receptive to these
arguments. They say that the Administration, including E.P.A.'s
administrator, William D. Ruckelshaus, strenuously opposed the Senate
bill and organized the Senate bill and organized industrial opposition
to it.
The environmental organization believe that they are being asked to
support a "compromise" that would be essentially the same as the House
bill.
Following are a few of the differences that could result in a
deadlock:
PERMIT SYSTEM. Both bills would abolish the system, based on the
Refuse Act of 1899 under which the Army Corps of Engineers must give a
permit, subject to E.P.A. approval, for dumping wastes into navigable
waters. They provide that the states shall issue such permits to
industries if they are in compliance with the effluent limitations
imposed by the 1972 Federal act.
However, the Senate bill give E.P.A. the authority to veto a state
permit. The House bill would allow such Federal veto only where a
downstream state was adversely affected by and object to another state's
permit.
The Senate Public Works Committee and environmental groups contend
that the E.P.A. veto is necessary to insure that states do not give
permits to industries not meeting effluent standards. An E.P.A.
document, marked "official use only," puts the agency's position in
these words. "We do not favor the permit-by-permit Federal review of
state permits."
Furthermore, the Senate bill includes in its definition of
"discharge" for which permits must be obtained those pollutants that an
industry may put into a public waste treatment system. The House bill
deletes such industrial pollutants discharged into public sewers.
The effect of this deletion, environmentalists content, is to free
such industries of the requirement for a discharge permit.
Pollution-dilution. The Senate bill states that water shall not be
stored in a reservoir to release for diluting pollution downstream when
this is a substitute for "adequate treatment" of the industrial waste
"at the source." It says further that the need for such water quality
storage shall be determined by the E.P.A. administrator.
The House bill, by contrast, requires that "consideration" be given
to the pollution-dilution in the planning of any reservoir by the Army
Corps of Engineers or the Bureau of Reclamation of the Department of the
Interior. It further states that the need for such water quality
storage be determined by these two agencies with "the advice" of the
E.P.A. administrator.
The Senate committee and environmental groups oppose the house
provision for two reasons. First, they contend that industry wants
pollution-dilution because it is obviously cheaper for it than treating
wastes at the source.
Second, they contend that the corps and the Bureau of Reclamation
favor pollution-dilution because it gives them one more argument for
constructing dams -- an added "benefit" to balance out a cost-benefit
ratio that might otherwise be too heavily weighted on costs to justify
the project.
Citizen-suits. The Senate bill provides that any person can file a
suit against alleged violators of the act. The House bill requires that
to have standing to sue, a person must come from the "geographic area"
where the alleged violation occurred and also have "a direct interest"
in the violation.
It further provides that no organization, such as the Izaak Walton
League, can file suit unless it has been actively engaged in
administrative proceedings -- for example, hearings on a permit for a
nuclear power plant -- from the outset.
While the above differences are important, the showdown in the
conference committee is likely to come on the basic questions of control
and enforcement.
Under the old law, states get water quality standards, subject to
E.P.A. approval, for a lake or stream. The standards take into account
the so-called "beneficial uses" of the waterway, which might range from
swimming to serving as a receptacle for industrial wastes.
Consequently, the standard was based on the estimated capacity of the
receiving water to "assimilate" wastes. /
HBI
720508
--
--
HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1972, S. 3572 AN ACT
TO EXTEND AND AMEND SECTIONS 5(N) and 8(D) OF THE FEDERAL WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL ACT AS AMENDED. (PP 2357 TO 2359)
S. 3572
--
92-500
--
CW181548 CW181550 /
03807
(())
92D CONGRESS
2D SESSION
To extend and amend sections 5(n) and 8(d) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. The third sentence of section 5(n) of the Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.), is amended by striking
out "$30,000,000 for the period commencing November 1, 1971, and ending
April 30, 1972," and inserting in lieu therof "$41,000,000 for the
period commencing November 1, 1971, and ending June 30, 1972,".
SEC 2. The second sentence of section 8(d) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. /(()) 1158(d)), is amended
by striking out "$1,650,000,000 for the period ending April 30, 1972."
and inserting in lieu thereof "$2,000,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1972, of which not to exceed $167,000,000 may be allocated for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, to assist in the construction of
projects utilizing advanced treatment methods for the treatment of
wastes on a regional scale for areas with especially severe water
pollution control problems."
Passed the Senate May 4, 1972.
Attest: FRANCIS R. VALEO.
/(())
92D CONGRESS
2D SESSION
DEB
720504
ROBERT C BYRD BEALL
US SENATOR US SENATOR
--
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1972, EXTENSION OF
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT (PP 2360 TO 2362)
--
--
92-500
--
CW181551 CW181553 /
03808
(())
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE
Proceedings and Debates of the 92d Congress
LD-4a (Rev. Jan. 71)
BILL DATE PAGE(S)
S. 3572 5/4/72 S 7218-20
ACTION:
Passed.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 746, S. 3572.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The bill will be stated by title.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
S. 3572, to extend and amend sections 5(n) and 8(d) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the present
consideration of the bill?
There being no objection, the Sente proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. BEALL. Mr. President, I strongly support the enactment of the
continuing resolution, which extends the authorization at the $2 billion
level for the water pollution legislation to the end of this fiscal
year, June 30. I am particularly pleased that the resolution includes
$200 million in discretionary funds for regional advanced waste
treatment projects.
This resolution is critical if the efforts of both Houses of Congress
to win the battle against water pollution, are going to succeed. It is
vital if we, in the /(()) Congress, do not want to be the cause of delay
in permitting State and local governments to move ahead with
construction of needed waste treatment facilities.
I had the honor and pleasure of serving on the Public Works Committee
during most of the time that the committee was considering S. 2770.
This is landmark legislation and I certainly hope that the conferees
will reach early agreement on a final measure so that new directions and
additional resources will be available for a massive effort to clean up
the Nation's waters.
During the committee deliberations, I offered an amendment that was
adopted and incorporated in section 205(D) of the Senate bill that is of
utmost importance and urgency to the Nation's Capital region. This
amendment provides the Director of the Environmental Protection Agency
with discretionary sums of up to $200 million for projects utilizing
advanced waste treatment methods on a regional basis for areas with
especially severe water pollution control problems.
This discretionary authority is a must if the Nation's Capital area
waste treatment plant at Blue Plains is not to be delayed. The Blue
Plains facility serves the District of Columbia and the surrounding
suburban Virginia and Maryland communities. The Blue Plains facility is
a very advanced water treatment plant which the Federal Government
required through the Potomac Enforcement Conference. All of the
respective jurisdictions involved in the District of Columbia area are
fully committed to paying their share, but the cost of the Blue Plains
facility requires substantial Federal funding. At the 70 percent
matching level which was approved in S. 2770, the Blue Plains facility
required $97 million in fiscal 1972 and over $77 million in fiscal 1973.
This level of funding far exceeds the amount that would be available to
the par;ticipating States under the regular population-based
allocations. The adoption of my amendment would have enabled the
completion of Blue Plains on schedule.
Administrator Ruskelshaus, in a letter assured me -- and his
assurance appears in the Senate committee report -- that with such
discretionary funds, the full Federal share would be made available to
keep the Blue Plains project on time. It is generally felt, because of
the complexities and differences in the House and Senate water pollution
measures, that the conference will take some time. I am, therefore,
delighted that the continuing resolution includes the authority to
provide the funds necessary for the Blue Plains facility.
Mr. President. Blue Plains is not just another treatment facility.
The Federal Government has mandated for this facility especially high
standards of treatment so that, when completed, the plant will employ
the most advanced technology available. Similarly, this area is not
just another area in the country. This is the Nation's Capital area.
This area should and must be a national model from the pollution
standpoint. The Blue Plains facility receives special Federal usage.
Such Federal complexes, as NIH, the White House, and Congress itself,
contribute to the need for the Blue Plains facility. In fact, it has
been estimated that Federal installations account for about 15 percent
of the total daily flow into Blue Plains.
Also, the Potomac is not just an average river in the country. Just
as Washington is referred to as the "Federal City, the Potomac has been
referred to as "Our Nation's River."
In 4 years, many visitors from foreign countries will be coming here
to join in the celebration of our 200th birthday. While the completion
of the Blue Plains project may not assure that our visitors will see the
same river that our forefathers saw, we must move in that direction and
at the very least remove the stigma of it being a body of water that is
so contaminated that is unsafe even to wade or swim in.
In recognition of the special responsibilities to the Nation's
Capital area and in recognition of the critical nature of the problems,
I strongly support the enactment of the continuing resolution. I urge
early and favorable House action on this resolution.
I ask unanimouis consent that an excellent editorial from the May 1
Washington Post in suport of the Senate action be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in
the RECORD, as follows:
Some time ago we noted with dismay that the $369-million Blue Plains
sewage treatment project has become a victim of congressional hassling
over new national water pollution control legislation. In essence, the
District cannot let any new contracts for Blue Plains until EPA provides
about $62 million in long-promised federal aid. In a reversal of the
usual federal-funding problem, the money has already been appropriated
but authority to spend it is hung up in the Senate-House conference over
the controversial Muskie and Blatnik clean-water bills. While the
conferees fence over such issues as national goals for 1985, the Blue
Plains project, which would relieve Potomac pollution by 1975, has
already been delayed three months.
The Senate Public Works Committee, at the urgings of Senators Beall,
Mathias and Eagleton, has just taken an overdue initiative to make the
essential funds for Blue Plains available at once. Last week the
committee approved a resolution authorizing EPA to make water pollution
control grants nationwide through June 30, using the funds already
appropriated. Included in that resolution were special provisions
enabling EPA to allocate up to $200 million for regional projects using
advanced waste methods in metropolitan areas with severe pollution
problems. This language, of course, is longhand for "Blue Plains."
The Blue Plains project, embitious and technologically advanced in
itself, is perhaps most important as the crucial first priority on a
long agenda of pollution control actions which area governments will
have to undertake in the next few years. The project has the
administration's full support and regional backing as nearly unanimous
as any venture in this area ever enjoys. We trust the Senate will
approve the Public Works Committee's resolution. We urge the House to
recognize as well that while other prickly pollution issues are being
thrashed out this project should be freed and funded right now.
In most cases, and particularly for advance ticket purchases, there
ought to be certain conditions under which the persons check (and the
credit card for that matter) are still welcome. Let's hope the Nation
gives it a try.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading, was read
the third time, and passed, as follows:
Be it enaced by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled.
SECTION 1. The third sentence of section 5(n) of the Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.), is amended by striking
out "$300,000,000 for the period commencing November 1, 1971, and ending
April 30, 1972," and inserting in lieu thereof "$41,000,000 for the
period commencing November 1, 1971, and ending June 30, 1972".
SEC. 2. The second sentence of section 1(d) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1158(d)), is amended by
striking out "$1,650,000,000 for the period ending April 30, 1972," and
inserting in lieu thereof "$2,000,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1972, of which not to exceed $167,000,000 may be allocated for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, to assist in the construction of
projects utilizing advanced treatment methods for the treatment of
wastes on a regional scale for areas with especially severe water
pollution control problems."
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the RECORD an excerpt from the report (No. 92-777) explaining
the purposes of the measure.
There being no objection the excerpt was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD as follows:
Authorization contained in sections 5(n) and 8(d) of the Federal
Water Pollutor Control Act, as amended earlier this year, expire on
April 30, 1972. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives have
passed S. 2770, which would extend these authorizations, but it is
unlikely that final action or any conference report on the differences
between the two Houses can be taken until later in June. In order to
allow Congress to complete action on a major revision of the water
pollution control legislation and fully authorize the funds already
appropriated for fiscal 1972, conditional on subsequent authorization,
this bill would extend authorizations for sections 5(n) and 8(d) through
the fiscal year at the appropriated level.
Funds authorized for research, investigations, training and
information under section 5 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
would be increased by $11 million from $30 million for the period ending
April 30 to $41 million, the sum appropriated for fiscal year 1972 for
the period ending June 30, 1972. This is in addition to the sums
authorized for salaries and related expenses under section 5(n) for
fiscal year 1972.
Construction grants under section 8 would be authorized at the
appropriated level of $2 billion for the full fiscal year, and
additional of $350 million to the previously authorized sum.
The committee wishes to clarify that all funds authorized for
purposes of section 8 for fiscal year 1972 are available at the option
of each State, for grants to municipalities which have initiated
construction of projeccts during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972
without Federal financial assistance, or with a lesser amount of such
assistance than that for which a project was eligible. If such projects
are certified by such State as entitled to priority over other eligible
projects /(()) and otherwise meet the requirements of the act.
The committee understands that some communities have initiated
construction of projects during fiscal year 1972 without Federal grant
funds. To the extent that these projects have been certified by the
States, otherwise meet the requirements of the act, and approved by the
Administrator of EPA, there is no reason why funds authorized for fiscal
year 1972 should be withheld from such projects. The committee trusts
that any contrary interpretation of the law by the Environmental
Protection Agency is now laid to rest.
In addition, the committee recognizes that several projects across
the country impose especially heavy financial burdens because of the
severity of the pollution problems to which they respond, the costliness
of advanced waste treatment technologies they must employ, and the
regional scope of the service they must provide. These projects cannot
be adequately funded under the usuall allocation formula. For this
reason the amendment provides an amount of flexibility in allocating up
to $167 million of fiscal year 1972 construction grant funds so that the
construction of these very necessary projects can proceed. A similar
provision is contained in S. 2770, but this authority is necessary now
in connection with the full authorization of fiscal year 1972 funds.
The prime example of projects expected to be expeditiously funded
under this new authority is the Blue Plains project for the Washington,
D.C. area. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Federal fund needs for such projects are as follows:
These figures are based on maximum funding permissible in each case
under existing legislation. The amounts shown will not necessarily
cover the Federal needs for the entire project, but will be sufficient
to permit portions of the project to go under contract in order to meet
established schedules.
SRP
720503
SENATE COMMITTE ON PUBLIC WORKS
--
--
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1972, EXTENSION OF
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT REPORT (TO ACCOMPANY S. 3572) (PP
2363 TO 2364)
--
S 92-777
92-500
--
CW181554 CW181555 /
03809
(())
92D CONGRESS SENATE REPORT
2d Session No. 92 777
The Committee on Public Works reports an original bill (S. 3572) to
extend and amend sections 5(n) and 8(d) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended, and recommends that the bill do pass.
Authorization contained in sections 5(n) and 8(d) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as amended earlier this year, expire on
April 30, 1972. Both the Senate and the House of Representatives have
passed S. 2770, which would extend these authorizations, but it is
unlikely that final action on any conference report on the differences
between the two Houses can be taken until later in June. In order to
allow Congress to complete action on a major revision of the water
pollution control legislation and fully authorize the funds already
appropriated for fiscal 1972, conditional on subsequent authorization,
this bill would extend authorizations for sections 5(n) and 8(d) through
the fiscal year at the appropriated level.
Funds authorized for research, investigations, training and
information under section 5 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
would be increased by $11 million, from $30 million for the period
ending April 30 to $41 million, the sum appropriated for fiscal year
1972 for the period ending June 30, 1972. This is in addition to the
sum authorized for salaries and related expenses under section 5(n) for
fiscal year 1972.
Construction grants under section 8 would be authorized at the
appropriated level of $2 billion for the full fiscal year, an addition
of $350 million to the previously authorized sum. /(())
The committee wishes to clarify that all funds authorized for
purposes of section 8 for fiscal year 1972 are available, at the option
of each State, for grants to municipalities which have initiated
construction of projects during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972,
without Federal financial assistance, or with a lesser amount of such
assistance than that for which a project was eligible, if such projects
are certified by such State as entitled to priority over other eligible
projects and otherwise meet the requirements of the act.
The committee understands that some communities have initiated
construction of projects during fiscal year 1972 without Federal grant
funds. To the extent that these projects have been certified by the
States, otherwise meet the requirements of the act, and approved by the
Administrator of EPA, there is no reason why funds authorized for fiscal
year 1972 should be withheld from such projects. The committee trusts
that any contrary interpretation of the law by the Environmental
Protection Agency is now laid to rest.
In addition, the committee recognizes that several projects across
the country impose especially heavy financial burdens because of the
severity of the pollution problems to which they respond, the costliness
of advanced waste treatment technologies they must employ, and the
regional scope of the service they must provide. These projects cannot
be adequately funded under the usual allocation formula. For this
reason the amendment provides an amount of flexibility in allocating up
to $167 million of fiscal year 1972 construction grant funds so that the
construction of these very necessary projects can proceed. A similar
provision is contained in S. 2770, but this authority is necessary now
in connection with the full authorization of fiscal year 1972 funds.
The prime example of projects expected to be expeditiously funded
under this new authority is the Blue Plains project for the Washington,
D.C. area. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, the
Federal fund needs for such projects are as follows:
These figures are based on maximum funding permissible in each case
under existing legislation. The amount shown will not necessarily cover
the Federal needs for the entire project, but will be sufficient to
permit portions of the project to go under contract in order to meet
established schedules.
SBR
720503
SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
--
--
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1972, S. 3572 A BILL
TO EXTEND AND AMEND SECTIONS 5 (N) AND 8 (D) OF THE FEDERAL WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL ACT, AS AMENDED. (PP 2367 TO 2368)
S. 3572
--
92-500
--
CW181556 CW181557 /
03810
(())
92D CONGRESS
2D SESSION
and ordered to be placed on the calendar
To extend and amend sections 5(n) and 8(d) of the Federal Wate
Pollution Control Act, as amended.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. The third sentence of section 5(n) of the Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1151 et seq.), is amended by striking
out "$30,000,000 for the period commencing November 1, 1971, and ending
April 30, 1972," and inserting in lieu thereof "$41,000,000 for the
period commencing November 1, 1971, and ending June 30, 1972,".
SEC. 2. The second sentence of section 8(d) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1158(d)), is amended by
striking out "$1,650,000,000 /(()) for the period ending April 30,
1972," and inserting in lieu thereof "$2,000,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1972, of which not to exceed $167,000,000 may be
allocated for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, to assist in the
construction of projects utilizing advanced treatment methods for the
treatment of wastes on a regional scale for areas with especially severe
water pollution control problems."
92D CONGRESS
2D SESSION
DEB
720501
DORN
US REPRESENTATIVE
--
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 1972, APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON S.
2770, FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT (P 631)
--
--
92-500
--
CW181558 CW181558 /
03811
(())
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE
Proceedings and Debates of the 92d Congress
LD-4 (Rev. Jan. 71)
BILL DATE PAGE(S)
S. 2770 5/1/72 H 3770
ACTION:
House insisted on its amendments, agreed to conference and appointed
conferees.
Mr. DORN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (S. 2770) to amend the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, with a House amendment thereto, insist on the House
amendment and agree to the conference asked by the Senate.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
South Carolina? The Chair hears none, and appoints the following
conferres: Messrs. BLATNIK, JONES of Alabama, WRIGHT, JOHNSON of
California, ROE, HARSHA, GROVER, DON H. CLAUSEN, and MILLER of Ohio.
COR
720415
RICHARD NIXON
US PRESIDENT
--
WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1970, GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY
AGREEMENT (PP 2809 TO 2810)
--
--
91-224
--
CW181559 CW181560 /
03812
(())
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
The President's Remarks Upon Signing the Agreement With Canada in
Ottawa. April 15, 1972
Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Foreign Minister, Your Excellencies, ladies
and gentlemen:
In response to the remarks of the Prime Minister, I particularly wish
to express at this occasion our great appreciation for the warm
reception we have received here, and after having been here for the
first time on a State visit, I can only say that we hope that we can
return, either on that kind of visit or another kind of visit. Of
course, I do not have control of which kind of visit it will be.
When the first European explorers sailed the Great Lakes three
centuries ago, they were deeply moved by the Lakes' striking beakuty and
boundless promise, and from that time to this, generation after
generation of Canadians and Americans have looked upon the Great Lakes
as great highways to the future for both of our countries.
But in recent years, as we know, the quality of the Great Lakes'
waters has been declining, with ominous implications for 30 million
Americans and 7 million Canadians who live near their shores.
The signing today of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
represents a significatn step toward reversing that decline. This
agreement extends the great tradition of cooperation between the United
States and Canada. Just as the St. Lawrence Seaway transformed the
Great Lakes into highways of peaceful commerce among nations, so the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement can make them great symbols of
international cooperation as man makes his peace with nature.
This agreement represents an important beginning, one which has been
made possibly by the cooperation of our two national governments and of
State and Provincial governments as well. And now we must all follow
through on the beginning. Under the agreement, the International Joint
Commission will provide important leadership in this effort. /(())
But it is also essential that governments of all levels, in both of
our countries, and private industry as well, work within their own
constitutional frameworks to achieve the objectives the agreement
defines.
It is with very great pride and pleasure that I have signed the Great
Lakes Water Quality Agreement between Canada and the United States, for
this agreement bears witness to all the world of great concerns which
united our two countries: our common appreciation for the natural
heritage which undergirds our national strengths; our common
recognition that problems which cross international boundaries require
international solutions, and our common confidence that our traditional
relationship can grow to meet new demands.
NOTE: The President spoke at 9:35 a.m. in the Confederation Room.
West Block. Parliament Hill, in Ottawa.
As printed above, this item follows the text of the White House press
release.
DEB
720412
RANDOLPH
US SENATOR
--
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 1972, FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION
CONRROL ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1972 (PP 632 TO 660)
--
--
92-500
--
CW181561 CW181589 /
03813
(())
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
Proceedings and Debate of the 92d Congress SENATE
LD 4a (Rev. Jan.71)
Bill Date Page(s)
S. 2770 (General Accounting Office Reference, 4/12/72
Action
Water Pollution Control: Senate disagreed to the House amendments to
S. 2770, proposed Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972, requested conference with the House, and appointed as conferees
Senators Muskie, Randolph, Bayh, Eagleton, Boggs, Cooper, and Baker.
Pages S 6021 S6048 /(())
Mr. RANDOLPH: Mr. President, I ask the Chair to lay before the
Senate a message from the House of Representatives on S. 2770
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bentsen) laid before the Senate the
amendment of the House of Representatives to the bill (S. 2770) to amend
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act which was to strike out all
after the enacting clause, and insert:
That this Act may be cited as the "Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972".
Sec. 2. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act is amended to read
as follows:
SEC. 101. (a) The objective of this Act is to restore and maintain
the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.
In order to achieve this objective it is hereby declared that,
consistent with the provisions of this Act
"(1) It is the national goal that the discharge of pollutants into
the navigable waters be eliminated by 1985;
"(2) it is the national goal that whenever attainable, an interim
goal of water quality which provides for the protection and propogation
of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on
the water to be achieved by 1981;
"(3) It is the national policy that the discharge of toxic pollutants
in toxic amounts be prohibited;
"(4) it is the national policy that Federal financial assistance be
provided to construct publicly owned waste treatment works;
"(5) it is the national policy that areawide wast treatement
management planning programs be developed and implemented to assure
adequate control of sources of pollutants in each State; and
"(6) it is the national policy that a major /(()) research and
demonstration effort be made to develop technology necesary to eliminate
the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters, waters of the
contiguous zone, and the oceans.
"(b) It is the policy of the Congress to recognize, preserve, and
protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States to prevent and
abate pollution, to play the development and use (including restoration,
preservation, and enhancement) of land and water resources, and to
consult with the Administrator in the exercise of his authority under
this Act. It is further the policy of the Congress to support and aid
research relating to the prevention and abatement of pollution, and to
provide Federal technical services and financial aid to State and
interstate agencies and municipalities in connection with the prevention
and abatement of pollution.
"(c) Public participation in the devlopment, revision, and
enforcement of any regulation, standard, or effluent limitation
established by the Administrator or any State under this Act shall be
provided for, encouraged, and assisted by the Administrator and the
States. The Administrator, in cooperation with the States, shall
develop and publish regulations specifying minimum guidelines for public
participation in such processes.
"(f) It is the national policy that to the maxiumum extent possible
the procedures utilized for implementing this Act shall encourage the
drastic minimization of paperwork and interagency decision procedures,
and the best use of available manpower and funds, so as to prevent
needless duplication and unnecessary delays at all levels of government.
"(g) In the implementation of this Act, agencies responsible therefor
shall consider all potential impacts relating to the water, land, and
air to insure that other significant environmental degradation and
damage to the health and welfare of man does not result.
SEC. 102. (a) The Administrator shall, after careful investigation,
and in cooperation with other Federal agencies, State water pollution
control agencies, interstate agencies, and the municipalities and
industries involved, prepare or develop comprehensive programs for
abating or reducing the pollution of the navigable waters and ground
waters and improving the sanitary condition of surface and underground
waters. In the development of such comprehensive programs due regard
shall be given to the improvements which are necessary to conserve such
waters for public water supplies, propogation of fish and aquatic life
and wildlife, recreational purposes, and agricultural, industrial, and
other legitimate uses. For the purpose of this section, the
Administrator is authorzed to make joint investigations with any such
agencies of the conditions of any waters in any State or States, and of
the discharge of any sewage, industrial wastes, or substances which may
adversely affect such waters.
"(b)(1) In the survey or planning of any reservoir by the Corps of
Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, or other Federal agency consideration
shall be given to inclusio of storage for regulation of stream flow for
the purpose of water quality control, except that any such storage and
water releases shall not be provided as a substitute for adequate
treatment or other methods of controlling waste at the source.
"(2) The need for and the value of storage for this purpose shall be
determined by these agencies with the advice of the Administrator, and
his views on these matters shall be set forth in any report or
presentation to the Congress proposing authorization or construction of
any reservoir including such storage.
"(3) The value of such storage shall be taken into account in
determining the economic value of the entire project of which it is a
part, and costs shall be allocated to the purpose of water quality
control in a manner which will insure that all project purposes share
equitable in the benefits of multiple purpose construction.
"(4) Costs of water quality control features incorporated in any
Federal reservoir or other impoundment uder the provisions of this Act
shall be determined and the beneficiaries identified and if the benefits
are widespread or national in scope, the costs of such features shall be
nonreimbursable.
"(5) No license granted by the Federal Power Commission for a
hydroelectric power porject shall include storage for regulation of
streamflow for the purpose of water quality control unless the
Administrator shall recommend its inclusion and such reservoir storage
capacity shall not exceed such proportion of the total storage required
for the water quality control plan as the drainage area of such
reservoir bears to the drainage area of the river basin or basins
involved in such water quality control plan.
"(c)(1) The Administrator shall, at the request of the Governor of a
State, or a majority of the Governors when more than one State is
involved, make a grant to pay not to exceed 50 per centum of the
administrative expenses of a planning agency for a period not to exceed
three years, whichperiod shall begin after the date of enactment of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, if such agency
provides for adequate represenation of appropriate State, interstate,
local, or (when appropriate) international interests in the basin or
portion thereof involved and is capable of developing and effective
comprehensive water quality control and abatement plan for a basin or
portion thereof.
"(2) Each planning agency receiving a grant under this subsection
shall develop a comprehensive pollution control and abatement plan for
the basin or portion thereof which
"(A) is consistent with any applicable water quality standards ,
effluent and other limitations, and thermal discharge regulations
established pursuant to current law with the basin;
"(B) recommends such treatment works as will provide the most
effective and economical means of collection, storage, treatment, and
elimination of pollutants and recommended means to encourage both
municipal and industrial use of such works;
"(C) recommends maintenance and improvement of water quality within
the basin or portion thereof and recommends methods of adequately
financing those facilities as may be necessary to implement the plan;
and
"(D) as appropriate, is developed in cooperation with, and is
consistent with any comphrensive plan prepared by the Water Resources
Council any areawide waste management plans developed pursuant to
section 208 of this Act, and any State plan developed pursuant to
section 303(e) of this Act.
"(3) For the purposes of this subsection the term "basin" includes,
but is not limited to, rivers and their triburaries, streams, coastal
waters, sounds, estuaries, bays, lakes, and portions thereof; as well
as the lands drained thereby.
"SEC. 103. (a) The Administrator shall encourage cooperative
activities by the States for the prevention and abatement of pollution,
encourage the enactment of improved and, so far as practicable, uniform
State laws relating to the prevention and abatement of pollution; and
encourage compacts between States for the prevention and control of
pollution.
"(b) The consent of the Congress is hereby given to two or more
States to negotiate and enter into agreements or compacts, not in
conflict with any law or treaty of the United States, for (1)
cooperative effort and mutual assistance for the prevention and control
of pollution and the enforcement of their respective laws relating
thereto, and (2) the establishment of such agencies, joint or otherwise,
as they may deem desirable for making effective such agreements or
compacts. No such agreement or compact shall be binding or obligatory
upon any State a party thereto unless and until it has been approved by
the Congress.
SEC. 104. (a) The Administrator shall establish national programs for
the prevention and abatement of pollution and as part of such programs
shall
"(1) in cooperation with other Federal, State, and local agencies,
conduct and promote the coordination and acceleration of research,
investigations, experiments, training, demonstrations, surveys and
studies relating to the causes, effects, extent, prevention and
abatement of pollution;
"(2) encourage, cooperate with, and render technical services to
pollution control agencies and other appropriate public or private
agencies, institutions, and organizations and individuals, including the
general public, in the conduct of activities referred to in paragraph
(1) of this subsection;
"(3) conduct, in cooperation with State water pollution control
agencies and other interested agencies, organizations and persons,
public investigations concerning the pollution of any navigable waters
and report on the results of such investigations;
"(4) establish advisory committees composed of recognized experts in
various aspects of pollution and representatives of the public to assist
in the examination and evaluation of research progress and proposals and
to avoid duplication of research;
"(5) in cooperation with the States, and thier political
subdivisions, and other Federal agencies establish, equip, and maintain
a water quality surveillance system for the purpose of monitoring the
quality of the navigable waters and ground waters and the contiguous
zone and the oceans and the Administrator shall, to the extent
practicable, conduct such surveillance by utilizing the resources of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Coast Guard, and
shall report on such quality in the report required under subsection (a)
of section 516; and
"(6) initiate and promote the coordination and acceleration of
research designed to develop the most effective practicable tools and
techniques for measuring the social and economic costs and benefits of
activities which are subject to regulation under this Act; and shall
transmit a report on the results /(()) of such research to the Congress
not later than July 1, 1973.
"(b) In carrying out the provisions of subsection (a) of this
section, the Administrator is authorized to
"(1) collect and make available, through publications and other
appropriate means, the results of and other information, including
appropriate recommendations by him in connection therewith, pertaining
to such research and other activities referred to in paragraph (1) of
subsection (a);
"(2) cooperate with other Federal departments and agencies, State
water pollution control agencies, interstate agencies, other public and
private agencies, institutions, organizations, industries involved, and
individuals in the preparation and conduct of such research and other
activities referred to in paragraph (1) of subsection (a);
"(3) make grants to State water pollution control agencies,
interstate agencies, other public or nonprofit private agencies,
institutions, organizations, and individuals for purposes stated in
paragraph (1) of subsection (a);
"(4) contrat with public or private agencies, institutions,
organizations, and individuals without regard to sections 3648 and 3709
of the Revised statutes (31 USC 529; 41 USC 5), referred to in
paragraph (1) of subsection (a);
"(5) establish and maintain research fellowships at public or
nonprofit private educational institutions or research organizations;
"(6) collect and disseminate, in cooperation with other Federal
departments and agencies, and with other public or private agencies,
institutions, and organizations having related responsibilities, basic
data on chemical, physical and biological effects of varying water
quality and other information pertaining to pollution and the prevention
and abatement thereof; and
"(7) develop effective and practical processes, methods, and
prototype devices for the prevention or abatement of pollution.
"(c) In carrying out the provisions of subsection (a) of this section
the Administrator shall conduct research on, and survey the results of
other scientific studies on, the harmful effects on the health or
welfare of persons caused by pollutants. In order to avoid duplication
of effort, the Administrator shall, to the extent practicable, conduct
such research in cooperation with and through the facilities of the
Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare.
"(d) In carrying out the provisions of this section, the
Administrator shall develop and demonstrate under varied conditions
(including conducting such basic and applied research studies and
experiments as may be necessary):
"(1) Practicable means of treating municipal sewage and other
waterborne wastes to remove the maximum possible amounts of pollutants
in order to restore and maintain the maximum amount of the Nation's
water at a quantity suitable for repeated reuse;
"(2) Improved methods and procedures to identify and measure the
effects of pollutants on water uses, including those pollutants created
by new technological developments;
"(3) Methods and procedures for evaluating the effects on water
quality and water uses of augmented streamflows to control pollution not
susceptible to other means of abatement.
"(e) The Administrator shall establish, equip and maintain field
laboratory and research facilities, including, but not limited to, one
to be located in the northeastern area of the United States, one in the
Middle Atlantic area, one in the southeastern area, one in the
midwestern area, one in the southwestern area, one in the Pacific
Northwest, and one in the State of Alaska, for conduct of research,
invetigations, experiments, field demonsrations and studies, and
training relating to the prevention and control of pollution. Insofar
as practicable, each such facility shall be located near institutions of
higher learning in which graduate training in such research might be
carried out.
"(f) The Administrator shall conduct research and technical
development work, and make studies, with respect to the quality of the
waters of the Great Lakes, including an analysis of the present and
projected future water quality of the Great Lakes under varying
conditions of waste treatment and disposal, an evaluation of the water
quality needs of those to be served by such waters and evaluation of
municipal, industrial, and vessel waste treatment and disposal practices
with respect to such waters, and a study of alternate means of solving
pollution problems (including additional waste treatment measures) with
respect to such waters.
"(g)(1) For the purpose of providing an adequate suply of trained
personnel to operate and maintain existing and future treatment works
and related activities, and for the purpose of enhancing substantially
the proficiency of those engaged in such activities, the Administrator
shall finance pilot programs, in cooperation with State and interstate
agencies, municipalities, edcuatinal institutions, and other
organizations and individuals of manpower development and training and
retraining of persons in or entering into, the field of operation and
maintenance of treatment works and related activities. Such progam and
any funds expended for such a program shall supplement, not supplant,
other manpower and training programs and funds available for the
purposes of this paragraph. The Administrator is authorized, under such
terms and conditions as he deems appropriate, to enter into agreements
with one or more States, acting jointly or severally, or with other
public or private agencies or institutions for the development and
implementation of such a program.
"(2) The Administrator is authorzed to enter into agreements with
public and private agencies and institutions, and individuals to develop
and maintain an effective system for forecasting the supply of, and
demand for, various professional and other occupational categories
needed for the prevention, control and abatement of pollution in each
region, State, or area of the United States and, from time to time, to
publish the results of such forecasts.
"(3) In furtherance of the purposes of this Act, the Administrator is
authorized to
"(A) make grants to public and private agencies and institutions, and
to individuals for training projects, and provide for the conduct of
training by contract with public or private agencies and institutions
and with individuals without regard to sections 3648 and 3709 of the
Revised Statutes;
"(B) establish and maintain research fellowships in the Environmental
Protection Agency with such stipends and allowances including traveling
and subsistence expenses, as he may deem necessary to procure the
assistance of the most promising research fellowships; and
"(C) provide, in addition to the program establshed under paragraph
(1) of this subsection, training in technical matters relating to the
causes, prevention and control of pollution for personnel of public
agencies and other persons with suitable qualificatons.
"(4) The Administrator shall submit through the President, a report
to the Congress not later than December 31, 1973, summarizing the
actions taken under this subsection and the effectiveness of such
actions, and setting forth the number of persons trained, the
occupational categories for which training was provided, the
effectiveness of other Federal, State, and local training programs in
this field, together with estimates of future needs, recommendations on
improving training programs, and such other information and
recommendations, including legislative recommendations, as he deems
appropriate.
"(h) The Administrator is authorzed to enter into contracts with, or
make grants to, public or private agencies and organizations and
individuals for (A) the purpose of developing and demonsrating new or
improved methods for the prevention, removal and abatement of pollution
in lakes, including the undersirable efffects of nutrients and
vegetation, and (B) the construcion of publicly owned research
facilities for such purposes.
"(i) The Administrator, in cooperation with the secretary of the
department in which the Coast Guard is operating, shall
"(1) engage in such research, studies, experiments, and
demonstrations as he deems appropriate, relative to the removal of oil
from any waters and to the prevention, control, and elimination of oil
and hazardous substances pollution;
"(2) publish from time to time the results of such activities; and
"(3) from time to time, develop and publish in the Federal Register
specifications and other technical information on the various chemical
compounds used in the control of oil and hazardous substances spills.
In carrying out this subsection, the Administrator may enter into
contracts with, or make grants to, public or private agencies and
organizations and individuals.
"(j) The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating shall engage in such research, studies, experiments, and
demonstrations as he deems appropriate relative to equipment which is to
be installed on board a vessel and is designed to receive, retain,
treat, or discharge human body wastes and the wastes from toilets and
other receptacles intended to receive or retain body wastes with
particular emphasis on equipment to be installed on small recreational
vessesl. The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating shall report to Congress the results of such research,
studies, experiments, and demonstrations prior to the effective date of
any regulations established under section 312 of this Act. In carrying
out this subsection the Secretary of the department in which the Coast
Guard is operating may enter into contracts with or make grants to,
public or private organizations and individuals.
"(k) In carrying out the provisions of this section relating to the
conduct by the Administrator of demonstration projects and the
development of field laboratories and research facilities, the
Administrator may acquire land and interests therein by purchase with
appropriated or donated funds, by donation, or by exchange for acquired
or public lands under his jurisdiction which he classifies as suitable
for disposition. The values of the properties so exchanged either shall
be approximately equal, or if they are not approximately equal, the
values shall be equalized by the payment of cash to the granter or to
the Administrator as the circumstances require.
"(l)(1) The Administrator shall after consultation with appropriate
local, State, and Federal agencies, public and private organizations,
and interested individuals as soon as praticable but not later than
October 3, 1972, develop and issue to the States for the purpose of
carrying out this Act the latest scientific knowledge available in
indicating the kind and extent of effects on health and welfare which
may be expected from the presence of pesticides in the water in varying
quantities. He shall revise and add to such information whenever
necessary to reflect developing scientific knowledge. /(())
"(2) The President shall, in consultation with appropriate local,
State, and Federal agencies, public and private organizations, and
interested invdividuals, conduct studies and investigations of methods
to control the release of pesticides into the environment which study
shall include examination of the persistency of pesticides in the water
environment and alternatives thereto. The President shall submit
reports, from time to time, on such investigations to Congress together
with his recommendations for any necessary legislation.
"(m)(1) The Administrator shall, in an effort to prevent degradation
of the environment from the disposal of waste oil, conduct a study of
(A) the generation of used engine, machine, cooling, and similar waste
oil, including quantities generated, the nature and quality of such oil,
present collecting methods and disposal practices, and alternate uses of
such oil; (B) the long term, chronic biological effects of the disposal
of such waste oil; and (C) the potential market for such oils, incuding
the economic and legal factors relating to the sale of products made
from such oils, the level of subsidy, if any, needed to encourage the
purchase by public and private nonprofit agencies of products from such
oil, and the practicability of Federal procurement, on a priority basis,
of products made from such oil. In conducting such study, the
Administrator shall consult with affected industries and other persons.
"(2) The Administrator shall report he results of such study to the
Congress within 18 months after the date of enactment of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
"(n)(1) The Administrator shall, in cooperation with the Secretary of
the Army, the Secretary of Agriculture, the Water Resources Council, and
with other appropriate Federal, State, interstate, or local public
bodies and private organizations, institutions, and individuals, conduct
and promote, and encourage contributions to, continuing comprehensive
studies of the effects of pollution, including sedimentation, in the
estuaries and estuarine zones of the United States on fish and wildlife,
on sport and commercial fishing, on recreation, on water supply and
water power, and on other beneficial purposes. Such studies shall also
consider the effect of demographic trends, the exploitation of mineral
resources and fossil fuels, land and industrial development, navigation,
flood and erosiion contdrol, and other uses of estuaries and estuarine
zones upon the pollution of the waters therein.
"(2) In conducting such studies, the Administrator shall assemble,
coordinate, and organize all existing pertinent information on the
Nation's estuaries and estuarine zones, carry out a program of
investigations and surveys to supplement existing informatin in
representative estuaries and estuarine zones, and identify theproblems
and areas where further research and study are required.
"(3) The Administrator shall submit to Congress from time to time,
reports of the studies authorized by this subsection but at least one
such report during any three year period. Copies of each such report
shall be made available to all interested parties, public and private.
"(4) For the purpose of this subsection, the term 'estuarine zones'
means an environmental systems consisting of an estuary and those
transitional areas which are consistently influenced or affected by
water from an estuary such as, but not limited to, salt marshes, coastal
and intertidal areas, bays, harbors, lagoons, inshore waters, and
channels, and the term 'estuary' means all or part of the mouth of a
river or stream or other body of water having unimpaired natural
connection with open sea and within which the sea water is measurably
diluted with fresh water derived from land drainage.
"(o)(1) The Administrator shall conduct research and investigations
on devices, systems, incentives, pricing policy, andother methods of
reducing the total flow of sewage, including, but not limited to,
unnecessary water consumption in order to reduce the requirements for,
and the costs of, sewage and waste treatment services. Such research
and investigations shall be directed to develop devices, system,
policies, and methods capable of achieving the maximum reduction of
unnecessary water consumption.
"(2) The Administrator shall report the preliminary results of such
studies and investigations to the Congress within one year after the
date of enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972, and annually thereafter in the report required under subsection
(a) of section 516. Such report shall include recommendations for any
legislation that may be required to provide for the adoption and use of
devices, systems, policies, or other methods of reducing water
consumption and reducing the total flow of sewage. Such report shall
include an estimate of the benefits to be derived from adoption and use
of such services, systems, policies, or other methods and also shall
reflect estimates of any increase in private, public, or other cost that
would be occasioned thereby.
"(p) In carrying out the provisions of subsection (a) of this section
the Administrator shall, in cooperation with the Secretary of
Agriculture, other Federal agencies, and the States, carry out a
comprehensive study and research program to determine new and improved
methods and the better application of existing methods of preventing and
abating pollution from agriculture, including the legal, economic, and
other implications of the use of such methods.
"(q)(1) The Administrator shall conduct a comprehensive program of
research and investigation and pilot project implementation into new and
improved methods of preventing, abating, reducing, storing, collecting,
treating, or otherwise eliminating pollution from sewage in rural and
other areas where collection of dsewage in conentional communitywide
sewage collection systems is impractical, uneconomical or otherwise
infeasible, or where soil conditions or other factors preclude the use
of septic tank and drainage field systems.
"(2) The Administrator shall conduct a comprehensive program of
research and investigation and pilot project implementation into new and
improved methjods for the collection and treatment of sweage and other
liquid wastes combined with the treatment and disposal of solid wastes.
"(r) The Administrator is authorized to make grants to colleges and
universities to conduct basic research into the structure and function
of fresh water aquatic ecosystems and to improve understanding of the
ecological characteristics necessary to the maintenance of the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of freshwater aquatic ecosystems.
"(s) The Administrator is authorized to make grants to one or more
institutions of higher education (regionally located and to be
designated as 'River Study Centers') for the purpose of conducting and
reporting on interdisciplinary studies on the nature of river systems
including hydrology, biology, ecology, economnics, the relationship
between river uses and land uses, and the effects of development within
river basins on river systems and on the value of water resources and
water development activities. No such grant in any fiscal year shall
exceed $1,000,000.
"(t) The Administrator shall, in cooperation with State and Federal
agencies and public and private organizations, conduct continuing
comprehensive studies of the effects and methods of control of thermal
discharges. In evaluating alternate methods of control the studies
shall consider (1) their relative engineering and technical feasibility,
(2) their relative social and economic costs and benefits, and (3) their
relative impact on the environment, considering not only water quality
but also air quality, land use, and effective utilization and
conservation of natural resources. Such studies shall consider methods
of minimizing adverse effects and maximizing beneficial effects of
thermal discharge. The results of these studies shall be reported by
the Administrator as soon as practicable, but not later than one year
after enactment of this subsection, and shall be made available to the
public and the States, and utilized by the Administrator in proposing
regulations with respect to thermal discharges under section 316 of this
Act.
"(u) There is authorized to be appropriated (1) $100,000,000 per
fiscal year for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1974, for carrying out the provisions of this
section other than subsection (g), (p), and (r); (2) not to exceed
$7,500,000 for fiscal year 1973 for carrying out the provisions of
subsection (g)(1); (3) not to exceed $2,500,000 for fiscal year 1973
for carrying out the provisions of subsection (g)(2); (4) not to exceed
$10,000,000 for each of the fiscal years ending June 30, 1973 and June
30, 1974 for carrying out the provisions of subsection (p); and not to
exceed $15,000,000 per fiscal year for the fiscal years ending June 30,
1973 and June 30, 1974 for carrying out the provisions of subsection
(r).
"SEC. 105. (a) The Administrator is authorized to conduct in the
Environmental Protection Agency, and to make grants to any State,
municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency for the purpose of
assistance in the development of
"(1) any project which will demonstrate a new or improved method of
preventing and abating the discharge into anyu waters of pollutants from
sewers which carrying storm water or both storm water and pollutants;
or
"(2) any project which will demonstrate advanced waste treatment and
water purification methods (including the temporary use of new or
improved chemical additives which provide substantial immediate
improvement to existing treatment processes), or new or improved methods
of joint treatment systems for municipal and industrial wastes; and to
include in such grants such amounts as are necessary for the purpose of
reports, plans, and specifications in connection therewith.
"(b) The Administrator is authorized to make grants to any State or
States or interstate agency to demonstrate, in river basins or portions
thereof, advanced polltuion treatment and environmental enhancement
techniques to control polltuion from all sources, within such basins or
portions thereof, including nonpoint sources, together with instream
water quality improvement techniques.
"(c) The Administrator is authorized to conduct in the Environmental
Protection Agency, to make grants to, and to enter into contracts with
persons for research and demonstration projects for prevention of
pollution by industry including but not limited to treatment of
industrial waste. No grant shall be made for any project under this
subsection unless the Administrator determines that such project will
develop or demonstrate a new or improved method of treating industrial
wastes or otherwise prevent pollution by industry, which method shall
have industrywide application.
"(d) In carrying out the provisions of this section, the
Administrator shall conduct, on a priority basis, an accelerated effort
to develop, refine, and achieve practical application of: /(())
"(1) waste management methods applicable to point and nonpoint
sources of pollutants to eliminate the discharge of pollutants,
including but not limited to elimination of runoff of pollutants and the
effects of pollutants from inplace or accumulated sources;
"(2) advanced waste treatment methods applicable to point and
nonpoint sources, including inplace or accumulated sources of
pollutants, and methods for reclaiming and recycling water and confining
and containing pollutants so they will not migrate to cause water or
other environmental pollution; and
"(3) improved methods and procedures to identify and measure the
effects of pollutants on the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of water, including those pollutants created by new
technological developments.
"(e)(1) The Administrator is authorized to (A) make, in consultation
with the Secretary of Agriculture, grants to persons for research and
demonstration projects with respect to new and improved methods of
preventing and abating pollution from agriculture, and (B) disseminate,
in cooperation with the Secretary of Agriculture, such information
obtained under this subsection, section 104(p), and section 304 as will
encourage and enable the adoption of such methods in the agricultural
industry.
"(2) The Administrator is authorized, (A) in consultation with other
interested Federal agencies, to make grants for demonstration projects
with respect to new and improved methods of preventing, abating,
reducing, storing, collecting, treating, or otherwise eliminating
pollution from from sewage in rural and other areas where collection of
sewage in conventional, communitywide sewage collection system is
impractical, uneconomical, or otherwise infeasible, or where soil
conditions or other factors preclude the use of septic tank and drainage
field systems and (B) in cooperation with other interested Federal and
State agencies, to disseminate such information obtained under this
subsection as will encourage and eanble the adoption of new and improved
methods developed pursuant to this subsection.
"(f) Federal grants under subsection (a) of this section shall be
subject to the following limitations:
"(1) No grants shall be made for any project unless such project
shall have been approved by the appropriate State water pollution
control agency or agencies and by the Administrator;
"(2) No grants shall be made for any project in an amount exceeding
75 per centum of the cost thereof as determined by the Administrator;
and
"(3) No grant shall be made for any project unless the Administrator
determines that such project will served as a useful demonstration for
the purpose set forth in clause (1) or (2) of subsection (a).
"(g) Federal grants under subsections (c) and (d) of this section
shall not exceed 75 per centum of the cost of the project.
"(h) For the purpose of this section there is authorized to be
appropriated $70,000,000 per fiscal year for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1973, and the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974, and from such
appropriations at least 10 per centum of the funds actually appropriated
in each fiscal year shall be available only for the purposes of
subsection (e).
"SEC. 106. (a) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated the
following sums, to remain available until expended to carry out the
purposes of this section
"(1) $60,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973; and
"(2) $75,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974; for
grants to States and to interstate agencies to assist them in carrying
out programs for the prevention and abatement of pollution.
"(b) From the sums appropriated in any fiscal year, the Administrator
shall make allotments to the several States and interstate agencies in
accordance with regulations promulgated by him on the basis of the
extent of the pollution problem in the respective States.
"(c) The Administrator is authorized to pay to each State and
interstate agency each fiscal year either
"(1) the allotment of such State or agency for such fiscal year under
subsection (b), or
"(2) the reasonable costs as determined by the Administrator of
developing and carrying out a pollution program by such State whichever
amount is the lesser.
"(d) No grant shall be made under this sectin to any State or
interstate agency for any fiscal year when the expenditure of nonFederal
funds by such State or interstate agency during such fiscal year for the
recurrent expenses of carying out its pollution control program are less
than the expenditure by such State or interstate agency of nonFederal
funds for sucvh recurrent program expenses during the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1971.
"(e) Grants shall be made under this section on condition that
"(1) Such State (or interstate agency) files with the Administrator
within one hundred and twenty days after the date of enactment of this
section:
"(A) a summary report of the current status of the State pollution
control program, incuding the criteria used by the State in determining
priority of treatment works; and
"(B) such additional information, data, and reports as the
Administrator may require.
"(2) No federal assumed enforcement as defined in section 309(a)(2)
is in effect with respect to such State or interstate agency.
"(3) Such State (or interstate agency) submits within one hundred and
twenty days after the date of enactment of this section and before July
1 of each year thereafter for the Administrator's approval its program
for the prevention and abatement of pollution in accordance with
purposes and provisions of this Act in such form and content as the
Administrator may prescribe.
"(f) Any sums alloted under subsection (b) in any fiscal year which
are not paid shall be realloted by the Administrator in accordance with
regulations promulgated by him.
"SEC. 107. (a) The Administrator in cooperation with other Federal
departments, agencies, and instrumentalities is authorized to enter into
agreements with any State or interstate agency to carry out one or more
projects to demonstrate methods for the elimnation or control, within
all or part of a watershed, of acid or other mine water pollution
resulting from active or abaondoned mines. Such projects shall
demonstrate the engineering and economic feasibility and practicality of
various abatement techniques which will contdribute substantially to
effective and practical methods of acid or other mine water pollution
elimination or control, incuding techniques that demonstrate the
engineering and economic feasibility and practicality of using sewage
sludge materials and other municipal wastes to diminish or prevent
pollution from acid, sedimentation, or other water pollutants and to
restore the lands on which such projects are located to usefulness for
forestry, agriculture, recreation, or other beneficial uses.
"(b) The Administrator, in selecting watersheds for the purposes of
this section, shall (1) require such feasibility studies as he deems
appropriate, (2) give preference to areas which have the greatest
present or potential value for public use for recreation, fish and
wildlife, water supply, and other public uses, and (3) be satisfied that
the project area will not be affected adversely by the influx of acid or
other mine water pollution from nearby sources.
"(c) Federal participation in such projects shall be subject to the
conditions
"(1) that the State or interstate agency shall pay not less than 25
per centum of the actual project costs which payment may be in any form,
including, but not limited to, land or interests therein that is needed
for the project, or personal property or services, the value of which
shall be determined by the Administrator; and
"(2) that the State or interstate agency shall provide legal and
practical protection to the project area to insure against any
activities which will cause future acid or other mine water pollution.
"(d) There is authorized to be appropriated $15,000,000 to carry out
the provisions of this secion, which sum shall be available until
expended. No more than 25 per centum of the total funds available under
this section in any one year shall be granted to any one State.
"SEC. 108. (a) The Administrator in cooperation with other Federal
departments, agencies, and instrumentalities is authorized to enter into
agreements with any State, political subdivision, interstate agency, or
other public agency, or combination therof, to carry out one or more
projects to demonstrate new methods and techniques and to develop
preliminary plans for the elimination or control of pollution, within
all or any part of the watersheds of the Great Lakes. Such projects
shall demonstrate the engineering and economic feasibility and
practicability of removal of pollutants and prevention of any polluting
matter from entering into the Great Lakes in the future and other
abatement and remedial techniques which will contribute substantially to
effective and practical methods of pollution elimination or control.
"(b) Federal participation in such projects shall be subject to the
condition that the State, political subdivision, interstate agency, or
other public agency, or combination thereof, shall pay not less than 25
per centum of the actual project costs, which payment may be in any
form, including, but not limited to, land or interests therein that is
needed for the project, and personal property or services the value of
which shall be determined by the Administrator.
"(c) There is authorized to be appropriated $20,000,000 to carry out
the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) of this section, which sum
shall be available until expended.
"(d)(1) In recognition of the serious conditions which exist in Lake
Erie, the Secretary of the Army acting through the Chief of Engineers,
is directed to design and devlop a demonstration waste water management
program for the rehabilitation and environmental repair of Lake Erie.
Prior to the initiation of detailed engineering and design, the program,
along with the specific recommendations of the Chief of Engineers, and
recommendations for its financing, shall be submitted to Congress for
statutory approval. This authority is in addition to, and not in lieu
of, other waste water studies aimed at eliminating pollution emanating
from select sources around Lake Erie.
"(2) This program is to be developed in cooperation with the
Environmental Protection Agency, other interested departments, agencies
and instrumentalities of the Federal Government, and the States and
their political subdivisions. This program shall set forth alternative
systems for managing waste water on a regional basis and shall provide
/(()) local and State governments with a range of choice as to the type
of system to be used for the treatment of waste water. These
alternative systems shall include both advanced waste treatment
technology and land disposal systems included aerated treatment spray
irrigation technology and will also include provisions for the disposal
of solid wastes, including sludge. Such program should incude measures
to control point sources of pollution, area sources of pollution,
including acid mine drainage, urban runoff and rural runoff, and sources
of inplace plollutants, including bottom loads, sludge banks, and
polluted harbor dredgings.
"(e) There is authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 to cary out
the provisions of subsection (d) of this section, which sum shall be
available until expended.
"SEC. 109. The Administrator is authorized to make grants to or
contracts with institutions of higher education, or combinations of such
institutions, to assist them in planning, developing, strengthening,
improving, or carrying out programs or projects for the preparation of
uindergraduate students to enter an occupation which involves the
design, operation, and maintenance of treatment works, and other
facilities whose purpose is water quality control. Such grants or
contracts may include payment of all or part of the cost of programs or
projects such as
"(A) planning for the development or expansion of programs or
projects for training persons in the operation and mainteance of
treatment works;
"(B) training and retraining of faculty members;
"(C) conduct of short term or regular session institutes for study by
persons engaged in, or preparing to engage in, the preparation of
students preparing to enter an occupation involving the operation and
mainteance of treatment works;
"(D) carrying out innovative and experimental programs of cooperative
education involving alteranate periods of fulltime or parttime academic
study at the institution and periods of fulltime or parrtime employment
involving the operation and maintenance of treatment works; and
"(E) research into, and devlopment of, methods of training students
or faculty, including the preparation of teaching materials and the
planning of curriculum.
OF GRANTS OR CONTRACTS
"SEC. 110. (1) A grant or contract authorized by section 109 may be
made only upon application to the Administrator at such time or times
and containing such information as he may prescribe, except that no such
application shall be approved unless it
"(A) sets forth programs, activities, research, or development for
which a grant is authorized under section 109 and describes the relation
to any program set forth by the applicant in an application, if any,
submitted pursuant to section 111;
"(B) provides such fiscal control and fund accounting procedures as
may be necessary to assure proper disbursement of and accounting for
Federal funds paid to the applicant under this section; and
"(C) provides for making such reports, in such form and containing
such information, as the Administrator may require to carry out his
functions under this section, and for keeping such records and for
affording such access thereto as the Administrator may find necessary to
assure the correctness and verification of such reports.
"(2) The Administrator shall allocate grants or contracts under
section 109 in such manner as will most nearly provide an equitable
distribution of the grants or contracts throughout the United States
among institutions of higher education which show promise of being able
to use funds effectively for the purpose of this section.
"(3)(A) Payment under this section may be used in accordance with
regulations of the Administrator, and subject to the terms and
conditions set forth in an application approved under subsection (a), to
pay part of the compensation of students employed in connection with the
operation and maintenance of treatment works, other than as an employee
in connection with the operation and maintenance of treatment works or
as an employee in any branch of the Government of the United States as
part of a program for which a grant has been approved pursuant to this
section.
"(B) Departments and agencies of the United States are encouraged, to
the extent consistent with efficient administration, to enter into
arrangements with institutions of higher education for the fulltime,
parttime, or temporary employment, whether in the competitive or
excepted service, of students enrolled in programs set forth in
applications approved under subsection (a).
"SEC. 111. (1) The Administrator is authorized to award scholarships
in accordance with the provisions of this section for undergraduate
study by persons who plan to enter an occupation involving the operation
and maintenance of treatment works. Such scholarships shall be awarded
for such periods as the Administrator may determine but not to exceed
four academic years.
"(2) The Administrator shall allocate scholarships under this section
among institutions of higher education with programs approved under the
provisions of this section for the use of individuals accepted into such
programs, in such manner and according to such plan as will insofar as
practicable
"(A) provide an equitable distribution of such scholarships
throughout the United States; and
"(B) attract recent graduates of secondary schools to enter an
occupation involving the operation and maintenance of treatment works.
"(3) The Administrator shall approve a program of any institution of
higher education for the purposes of this section only upon application
by the institution and only upon his finding
"(A) that such program has a principal objective the education and
training of persons in the operation and maintenance of treatment works;
"(B) that such program is in effect and of high quality, or can be
readilyput into effect and may reasonably be expected to be of high
quality;
"(C) that the application describes the relation of such program to
any program, activity, research, or development set forth by the
applicant in an application, if any, submitted pursuant to section 110
of this Act; and
"(D) that the application contains satisfactory assurances that (i)
the institution will recomend to the Administrator for the award of
scholarships under this section, for study in such program, only persons
who have demonstrated to the satisfaction of the institution a serious
intent, upon completing the program, to enter an occupation involving
the operation and maintenance of treatment works and (ii) the
institution will make reasonable continuing efforts to encourage
recipients of scholarships under this section, enrolled in such
programs, to enter occupations involving the operation and maintenance
of treatment works upon completing the program.
"(4)(A) The Administrator shallpay to persons awarded scholarships
under this section such stipends (including such allowances for
subsistence and other expenses for such persons and their dependents) as
he may determine to be consistent with prevailing practices under
comparable federally supported programs.
"(B) The Administrator shall (in addition to the stipends paid to
persons under subsection (A) pay to the institution of higher education
at which such person is pursuing his course of study such amount as he
may determine to be consistent with prevailing practices under
comparable federally supported programs.
"(5) A person awarded a scholarship under the provisions of this
secion shall continue to receive the payments provided in this section
only during such periods as the Administrator finds that he is
maintaining satisfactory proficiency and devoting full time to study or
research in the field in which such scholarship was awarded in an
institution of higher education, and is not engaging in gainful
employment other than employment approved by the Administrator by or
pursuant to regulation.
"(6) The Administrator shall be regulation provide that any person
awarded a scholarship under this section shall agree in writing to enter
and remain in an occupation involving the design, operation, or
maintenance of treatment works for such period after completion of his
course of study as the Administrator determines appropriate.
"SEC. 112. (a) As used in sections 109 through 112 of this Act
"(1) The term 'institution of higher education' means an educational
institution described in the first sentence of section 1201 of the
Higher Education Act of 1965 (other than an institution of any agency of
the United States) which is accredited by a nationally recognized
accrediting agency or association approved by the Administrator for this
purpose. For purposes of this subsection, the Administrator shall
publish a list of natioanlly recognized accrediting agencies or
associations which he determines to be reliable authority as to the
quality of training offered.
"(2) The term 'academic year' means an academic year or its
equivalent, as determined by the Administrator.
"(b) The Administrator shall annually report his activities under
sections 109 through 112 of this Act, incuding recommendations for
needed revisions in the provisions thereof.
"(c) There is authorized to be appropriated $25,000,000 per fiscal
year for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1973and June 30, 1974, to
carry out the provisions of sections 109 through 112.
"SEC. 113. (a) The Administrator is authorized to enter into
agreements with the State of Alaska to carry out one or more projects to
demonstrate methods to provide for cetnral community facilitiesfor safe
water and elimination or control of pollution in those native villages
of Alaska without such facilities. Such project shall incude provisions
for community safe water supply systems, toilets, bathing and laundry
facilities, sewage disposal facilities, and other similar facilities and
educational and informational facilities and programs relating to health
and hygiene. Such demonstration projects shall be for the further
purpose of developing preliminary plans for providing such safe water
and such elimination or control of pollution for all native villages in
such State.
"(b) In carrying out this section the Administrator shall cooperate
with the Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare for the purpose of
utilizing such of the personnel and facilities of that Department as may
be appropriate.
"(c) The Administrator shall report to Congress not laer than January
31, 1974 the results of the demonstration projects authorized by this
section together with his /(()) recommendations, including any necessary
legislation, relating to the establishment of a statewide program.
"(d) There is authorized to be appropriated not to exceed $2,000,000
to carry out this section.
"SEC. 114. In the case of any economic growth center designated
under section 143 of title 23, United States Code, the Administrator is
authorized to make a supplemental grant to such center in any case where
such center receives a grant for construction of treatment works under
this Act. Such supplemental grant shall be for such percentage of the
costs of such works as the Administrator determines. There is
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section not to exceed
$5,000,000.
"SEC. 201. (a) It is the purpose of this title to require, and to
assist the development and implementation of, waste treatment management
plans and practices.
"(b) Waste treatment management plans and practices shall provide for
the application of the best practicable waste treatment technology
before any discharge into receiving waters, including reclaiming and
recycling of water, and confined disposal of pollutants so they will not
migrate to cause water or other environemtnal pollution and shall
provide for consideration of advanced waste treatment technology and
aerated treatment spray irrigation technology.
"(c) To the extent practicable, waste treatment management shall be
on an areawide basis and provide control or treatment of all point and
nonpoint sources of pollution, including inplace or accumulated
pollution sources.
"(d) The Administrator shall encourage waste treatment management
which results in the construction of revenue producing facilities
providing for
"(1) the recycling of potential sewage pollutants through the
production of agriculture, silviculture, or aquacultrue products, or any
combination thereof;
"(2) the confined and contained disposal of pollutants not recycled;
"(3) the reclamation of wastewater; and
"(4) the ultimate disposal of sludge in a manner that willnot result
in environmental hazards.
"(e) The Administrator shall encourage waste treatment management
which results in integrating facilities for sewage treatment and
recycling with facilites to treat, dispose of or utilize other
industrial and municipal wastes, including but not limited to solid
waste and waste heat and thermal discharges. Such integrated facilities
shall be designed and operated to produce revenues in excess of capital
and operation and maintenance costs and such revenue shall be used by
the designated regional manaement agency to aid in financing other
environmental improvement programs.
"(f) The Administrator shall encourage waste treatment management
which combines 'open space' and recreational considerations with such
management.
"(g)(1) The Administrator is authorized to make grants to any State,
municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency for the
construction of publicly owned treatment works.
"(2) The Administrator shall not make grants from funds authorized
for any fiscal year beginning after June 30, 1974, to any State,
municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency for the erection,
building, acquisition, alteration, remodeling, improvement, or extension
of treatment works unless the grant applicant has satisfactorily
demonstrated to the Administrator that
"(A) alternative waste management techniques have been studied and
evaluated and the works proposed for grant assistance will provide for
the application of the best practicable waste treatment technology over
the life of the works consistent withttthe purposes of this title; and
"(B) as appropriate, the works proposed for grant assistance will
take into account and allow to the extent practicable the application of
technology at a later date which will provide for the reclaiming of
recycling or water or otherwise eliminate the discharge of pollutants.
"(3) The Administrator shall not approve any grant after July 1,
1973, for treatment works under this section unless the applicant shows
to the satisfaction of the Administrator that each sewer collection
system discharging into such treatment works is not subject to excessive
infiltration.
"(4) The Administrator is authorized to make grants to applicants for
treatment works grants under this section for such sewer system
evaluation studies as may be necessary to carry out the requirements of
paragraph (3) of this subsection. Such grants shall bve made in
accordance with rules and regulations promulgated by the Administrator.
Initial rules and regulations shall be promulgated under this paragraph
for later than 120 days after the date of enactment of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
SEC. 202 (a) The amount of any grant for treatment works made under
this Act from funds authorized for any fiscal year beginning after June
30, 1971, shall be 60 per centum of the cost of construction thereof (as
approved by the Administrator); except that the amount of such grant
shall be increased to 75 per centum of such cost if the State agency
agrees to pay at least 15 per centum of the cost of construction of each
treatment works for which Federal grants are to be made from funds
allocated to such State for such fiscal year. Any grant (other than for
reimbursement) made prior to the date of enactment of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 from any funds authorized for
any fiscal year beginning after June 30, 1971, shall, upon the request
of the applicant, be increased to the applicable percentage under this
section.
"(b) The amount of the grant for any project approved by the
Administrator ater January 1, 1971, and before July 1, 1971, for the
construcion of treatment works, the actual erection, building or
acquisition of which was not commenced prior to July 1, 1971, shall,
upon the request of the applicant, be increased to the applicable
percentages under subsection (a) of this section for grants for
treatment works from funds for fiscal years beginning ater June 30,
1971, with respect to the cost of such actual erection, building, or
acquisition. Such increased amount shall be apid from any funds
allocated to the State in which the treatment works is loacted without
regard to the fiscal year for which such funds were authorized. Such
increased amount shall be paid for such project only if
"(1) a sewage collection system that is part of the samne total waste
treatment system as the treatment works for which such grant was
approved is under construction or is to be constructed for use in
conjunction with such treatment works, and if the cost of such sewage
collection system exceeds the cost of such treatment works, and
"(2) the State water pollution control agency certifies that the
quantity of available future requirements for public water supply,
unless effluents from publicly owned treatment works, after adequate
treatment, are injected into the ground to replenish the supply of
ground water.
"SEC. 203 (a) Each applicant for a grant shall submit to the
Administrator for his approval, plans, specifications, and estimates for
such proposed project for the construction of treatment works for which
a grant is applied for under section 201(d)(1) from funds alloted to the
State under section 205 and which otherwise meets the requirements of
this Act. The Administrator shall act upon such plans, specifications,
and estimates as soon as practicable after the same have been submitted,
and his apporval of any such plans, specifications and estimates shall
be deemed a contractual obligation of the United States for the payment
of its proportional contribution to such project.
"(b) The Administrator shall, from time to time as the work
progresses, make payments to the recipient of a grant for costs of
construction incurred on a project. These payments shall at no time
exceed the Federal share of value of the materials which have been
stockpiled in the vicinity of such construction in conformity to plans
and specifications for the project.
"(c) After completion of a project and approval of the final voucher
by the Administrator, he shall pay out of the apropriate sums the unpaid
balance of the Federal share payable on account of such project.
"SEC. 204 (a) Before approving grants for any project for any
treatment works under section 201(d)(1) the Administrator shall
determine
"(1) That such works are included in any applicable areawide waste
treatment management plan developed under section 206 of this Act'
"(2) that such works are in conformity with any applicable State plan
under section 303(3) of this Act;
"(3) that such works have been certified by the appropriate State
water pollution control agency as entitled to priority over such other
works in the State in acordance with any applicable State plan under
section 303 of this Act.
"(4) that the applicant proposing to construct such works agree to
pay the nonFederal costs of such works and has made adequate provisions
satisfactory to the Administrator for assuring proper and efficient
operation, inlcuding the employment of trained management and operations
personnel, and the mainteance of such works in accordance with a plan of
operation approved by the State water pollution control agency or, as
appropirate, the interstate agency, after construction thereof;
"(5) that the size and capacity of such works relate directly to the
needs to be served by such works, including sufficient reserve capacity.
The amount of reserve capacity provided shall be approved by the
Administrator on the basis of a comparison of the cost of constructing
such reserves as a part of the works to be funded and the anticipated
cost of providing expanded capacity at a date when such capacity will be
required;
"(6) that no specification for bids in connection with such works
shall be written in such a manner as to contain proprietary,
exclusionary, or discriminatory requirements other than those based upon
performance, unless such requirements are necessary to test or
demonstrate a specific thing or to provide for necessary
interchangeability of parts and equipment, or at leat two brand names or
trade names of comparable quality or utility are listed and are followed
by the wors 'or equal'.
"(b)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the
Administrator shall not approve any grant for any treatment works /(())
under section 201(d)(1) after June 30, 1973, unless he shall first have
determined that the applicant (A) has adopted or will adopt a system of
charges to assure that each recipient of waste treatment services with
the applicant's jurisdiction as determined by the Administrator, will
pay its proportionate share of the costs of operation, maintenance
(including replacement), and expansion of any waste treatment services
provided by the applicant; (B) has made provision for the payment to
such applicant by the industrial users of the treatment works, of that
portion of the cost of construction of such treatment works (as
determined by the Administrator) which is allocable to the treatment of
such industrial wasts to the extent attributable to the Federl share of
the cost of construction; and (C) has legal, institutional, managerial,
and financial capabiltiy to insure adequate construction, operation,
maintenance and expansion of treatment works throughout the applicant's
jurisdiction, as determined by the Administrator.
"(2) The Administrator shall, within one hundred and eighty days
after the date of enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972, and after consultation with appropriate State,
interstate, municipal, and intermunicipal agencies, issue guidelines
applicable to payment of waste treatment costs by industrial and
nonindustrial recipients of wast treatment services which shall
establish (A) classes of users of such services, including categories of
industrial users; (B) criteria against which to determine the adequacy
of charges imposed on classes and categories of users reflecting all
factors that influence the cost of waste treatment, including strength,
volume, and delivery flow rate characteristics of waste; and (C) model
systems and rates of user charges typical of various treatment works
serving municipal/industrial communities.
"(3) Revenues derived from the payment of costs by industrial users
of waste treatment services, to the extent of costs are attributable to
the Federal share of eligible project costs provided pursuant to this
title, as determined by the Administrator, shall be retained by the
grantee for use solely for the operation, maintenance, expansion, and
construction of treatment works which are publicly owned, in accordance
with regulations promulgated by the Administrator.
"(4) Approval by the Administrator of a grant to an interstate agency
establsihed by interstate compact for any treatment works shall satisfy
any other requirements that such works be authorized by Act of Congress.
"SEC. 205 (a) All sums authorized to be appropriated pursuant to
section 207 for each fiscal year beginning after June 30, 1972, shall be
allotted by the Administrator not later than the January 1st immediately
preceding the beginning of the fiscal year for which authorized, except
that the allotment for fiscal year 1973 shall be made not later than 30
days after the date of enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972. Such sums shall be alloted among the States by
the Administrator in accordance with regulations promulgated by him in
the ratio that the estimated cost of constructing all needed publicly
owned treatment works in each State bears to the estimated cost of
construction of all needed publicly owned treatment works in all of the
States. For the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, and June 30, 1974,
such ratio shall be determined on the basis of the table on page 18 of
volume 1 of Senate Document 92-23 entitled 'The Cost of Clean Water'.
Allotments for fiscal years which begin after the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1974, shall be made only in accordance with a revised cost
estimate made and submitted to Congress in accordance with section
516(b) of this Act and only after such revised cost estimate shall have
been approved by law specifically enacted hereafter.
"(b)(1) Any sums alloted to a State under subsection (a) shall be
available for obligation under section 203 on and after the date of such
allotment. Such sums shall continue available for obligation in such
State for a period of one year after the close of the fiscal year for
which such sums are authorized. Any amounts so alloted which are not
obligated by the end of such one year period shall be immediately
realloted by the Administrator, in accordance with regulations
promulgated by him, generally on the basis of the ratio used in making
the last allotment of sums under this section. Such realloted sums
shall be added to the last allotments made to the States. Any sum made
available to a State by reallotment under this subsection shall be in
addition to any funds otherwise alloted to such State for grants under
this title during any fiscal year.
"(2) Any sums which have been obligated under section 203 and which
are released by the payment of the final voucher for the project shall
be immediately credited to the State to which such sums are last
allotted. Such released sums shall be added to the amounts last
allotted to such State and shall be immediately available for obligation
in the same manner and to the same extent as such last allotments.
"SEC. 206 (a) Any publicly owned treatment works in a State on which
construction was initiated after June 30, 1966, but before July 1, 1972,
which was approved by the appropriate State water pollution control
agency and which the Administrator finds an aplication was made prior to
initiation of construction for financial assistance under this Act and
which the Administrator finds meets the requirements of section 8 of
this Act in effect at the time of the initiation of construction but
which was constructed (1) without financial assistance authorized by
section 8 solely because of the lack of authority or of Federal funds or
(2) with financial assistnace authorzed by such section 8 shall qualify
for payment and reimbursement of State or local funds used or committed
(including retroactive use or commitment of State funds) for such
project prior to July 1, 1974, from sums allocated to such State under
thjis section for any fiscal year ending prior to July 1, 1974, to the
maximum extent that assistance could have been provided under such
section 8 and for which it would have qualified if such project had been
approved thereunder and authority for and adequate funds has been
available (including retroactive State participation).
"(b) Any publicly owned treatment works constructed with or eligible
for Federal financial assistance under this Act in a State between June
30, 1956, and June 30, 1966, which was approved by the State water
pollution control and which the Administrator finds meets the
requirements of section 8 of this Act immediately prior to the date of
enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
but which was constructed without assistance under such section 8 or
which received such assistance in an amount less than 30 per centum of
the cost of such project shall qualify for payments and reimbursement of
State or local funds used for such project from sums allocated to such
State under this section in an amount which shall not exceed the
difference between the amount of such assistance, if any, received for
such project and 30 per centum of the costs of such project.
"(c) There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out subsection
(a) of this section not to exceed $2,000,000,000 and, to carry out
subsection (b) of this section, not to exceed $750,000,000. The
authorization contained in this subsection shall be the sole source of
funds for reimbursement authorized by thius section.
"(d)(1) In any case where all funds alloted to a State under this
title have been obleigated under section 203 of this Act, and there is
construction of any treatment works project without the aid of Federal
funds and in accordance with all procedures and all requirements
applicable to treatment works projects, except those procedures and
requirements which limit construction of projects to those constructed
with the aid of previously alloted Federal funds, the Administrator,
upon his approval of an application made under this subsection therefor,
is authorized to pay the Federal share of the cost of construction of
such project when additional funds are allotted to the State under this
title if prior to the construction of the project the Administrator
approves plans, specifications, and estimates therefor in the same
manner as other treatment works projects. The Administrator may not
approve an application under this subsection unless an authorization is
in effect for the future fiscal year for which the application requests
payments, which authorization will insure such payment without exceeding
the State's expected allotment from such authorization.
"(2) In determining the allotment for any fiscal year under this
title, any treatment works project constructed in accordance with this
section and without the aid of Federal funds shall not be considered
completed until an application under the provisions of this subsection
withrespect to such project has been approved by Administrator; or the
availability of funds from which this project is eligible for
reimbursement has expired, whichever first occurs.
"SEC. 207. There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
title, other than sections 208 and 209, for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1973, $5,000,000,000, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974,
$6,000,000,000, and for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975,
$7,000,000,000.
"SEC. 208 (a) For the purpose of encouraging and facilitating the
development and implementation of areawide waste treatment management
plans --
"(1) The Administrator, within ninety days after the date of
enactment of this Act and after consultation with appropriate Federal,
State, and local authorities, shall by regulation publish guidelines for
the identification of those areas which, as a result of urban industrial
concentrations or other factors, have substantial water quality control
problems.
"(2) The Governor of each State, within sixty days after publication
of the guidelines issued pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection
shall identify each area with the State which, as a result of urban
industrial concentrations or other factors, has substantial water
quality control problems. Not later than one hundred and twenty days
following such identifcation and after appropriate consultation with the
officials of all local governments having jurisdiction in such areas,
the Governor shall designate (A) the boundaries of each such area, and
(B) a single representative organization capable of developing effective
areawide waste treatment management plans for such area. The Governor
may in the same manner at any later time identify any additional area
(or modify an existing area) for wich he determines areawide waste
treatment management to be appropriate, designate the boundaries of such
area, and designate an organization /(()) capable of developing
effective areawide waste treatment management plans for such area.
"(3) With respect to any area which, pursuant to the guidelines
published under paragraph (1) of this subsection, is located in two or
more States, the Governors of the respective States shall consult and
cooperate in carrying out the provisions of paragraph (2), with a view
toward desginating the boundaries of the interstate area having common
wwater quality control problems and for which areawide waste treatment
management plans would be most effective, and toward designating, within
one hundred and eighty days after publication of guidelines issued
pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection, of a single representative
organization capable of developing effective areawide waste treatment
management plans for such area.
"(4) Existing regional agencies may be designated under paragraph (2)
and (3) of this subsection.
"(5) Designations under this subsection shall be subject to the
approval of the Administrator.
"(b)(1) No later than two years after the date of designation of any
organization under subsection (a) of this section such organization
shall have in operation a continuing areawide waste treatment management
planning process consistent with sectin 201 of this Act. Plans prepared
in accordance with this process shall contain alternatives for waste
treatment management, and be applicable to all wastes generated within
the area involved.
"(2) Any plan prepared under such process shall incude, but not be
limited to --
"(A) the identification of treatment works necessary to meet the
anticipated municipal and industrial waste treatment needs of the area
over a twenty year period, anually updated (including an analysis of
alternative waste treatment systems), including any requirements for the
acquisition of land for treatment purposes; the necessary waste water
collection and urban storm water runoff systems; and a prgram to
provide the necessary financial arrangements for the development of such
treatment works;
"(B) the estabilshment of construction priorities for such treatment
works and time schedules for the intiation and completion of all
treatment works;
"(C) the establishment of a regulatory program to
"(i) implement the waste treatment management requirements of section
201(c),
"(ii) regulate the location, modification, and construction of any
facilities within such area which may result in any discharge in such
area, and
"(iii) assure that any industrial or commercial wastes discharged
into any treatment works in such area meet applicable pretreatment
requirements;
"(D) the identification of those agencies necessary to construct,
operate, and maintain all facilities required by the plan and otherwise
to carry out the plan;
"(E) the identification of the measures necessary to carry out the
plan (including financing), the period of time necessary to carry out
the plan, the costs of carrying out the plan within such time, and the
economic, social, and environemntal impact of carrying out the plan
within such time;
"(F) a process to (i) identify, if appropriate, agriculturally
related nonpoint sources of pollution, including runoff from manure
disposal areas, and from land used for livestock and crop production,
and (ii) set forth procedures and methods (incuding land use
requrements) to control to the extent feasible such sources;
"(G) a process to (i) identify, if appropriate, mine related sources
of pollution including new, current, and abandoned surface and
underground mine runoff, and (ii) set forth procedures and methods
(including land use requirements) to control to the extent feasible such
sources;
"(H) a process to (i) identify construction activity related sources
of pollution, and (ii) set forth procedures and methods (including land
use requirements) to control to the extent feasible such sources; and
"(I) a process to (i) identify, if appropriate, salt water intrusion
into rivers, lakes, and estuaries resulting from the reduction of fresh
water flow from any cause, including irrigation, obstruction, ground
water extraction, and diversion, and (ii) set forth procedures and
methods to control such intrusion to the extent feasbile whre such
procedures and methods are otherwise a part of the waste treatment
management plan.
"(3) Areawide waste treatment management plans shall be certified
annually by the Governor or his designee (or Governors or their
designees, where more than one State is involved) as being consistent
with aplicable basin plans and such areawide waste treatment management
plans shall be submited to the Administrator for his approval.
"(c)(1) The Governor of each State, in consultation with the planning
agency designated under subsection (a) of this section, at the time a
plan is submitted to the Administrator, may designate one or more waste
treatment management agencies for each area desginated under subsection
(a) of this section and submit a list of such designations to the
Administrator.
"(2) The Administrator shall approve any such designation, within
ninety days of designation, only if he finds that the designated
management agency (or agencies) is authorized --
"(A) to carry out appropriate portions of an areawide waste treatment
management plan developed under subsection (b) of this section;
"(B) to manage effectively waste treatment works and related
facilities serving such area in conformance with any plan required by
subsection (b) of this section;
"(C) directly or by contract, to design and construct new works, and
to operate and maintain existing works as required by any plan developed
pursuant to subsection (b) of this section;
"(D) to accept and utilize grants, or other funds from any source,
for waste treatment management purposes;
"(E) to raise revenues, incuding the assessment of waste treatment
charges;
"(F) to incur shor and long term indebtedness;
"(G) to assure inimplementation of an areawide waste treatment
management plan that each participating community pays its proportionate
share of treatment costs;
"(H) to refuse to receive any wastes from any municipality or
subdivision therof, which does not comply with any provisions of an
approved plan under this section applicable to such area; and
"(I) to accept for treatment industrial wastes.
"(d) After a waste treatment management agency has been designated
under this subsection for an area and a plan for such area has been
approved under subsection (b) of this section, the Administrator shall
not make any grant for construction of a publicly owned treatment works
under section 201(d)(1) within such area except to such designated
agency and for works in conformity with such plan.
"(e) No permit under section 402 of this Act shall be issued for any
point sources which is in conflict with a plan approved pursuant to
subsection (b) of this section.
"(f)(1) The Administrator shall make grants to any agency designated
under subsection (a) of this section for payment of reasonable costs of
developing and operating a continuing areawide waste treatment
management planning process under subsection (b) of this section.
"(2) The amount granted to any agency under paragraph (1) of this
subsection shall be 100 per centum of the costs of developing and
operating a continuing areawide waste treatment management planning
process under subsection (b) of this section for each of the fiscal
years ending on June 30, 1973, June 30, 1974, and June 30, 1975, and
shallnot exceed 75 per centum of such costs in each suceeding fiscal
year.
"(3) There is authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator to
carry out this subsection not to exceed $100,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1973, and not to exceed $150,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1974.
"(g) The Administrator is authorized, upon request of the Governor or
the disgnated planning agency, and without reimbursement, to consult
with, and provide technical assistance to, any agency designated under
subsection (a) of this section in the development of areawide waste
treatment management plans under subsection (b) of this section.
"(h)(1) The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of
Engineers, in cooperation with the Administrator is authorized and
directed, upon request of the Governor or the designated planning
organization, to consult with, and provide technical assistance to, any
agency designated under subsection (a) of this section in developing and
operating a continuing areawide waste treatment management planning
process under subsection (b) of this section.
"(2) There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the
Army, to carry out this subsection, not to exceed $50,000,000 per fiscal
year for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1973 and June 30, 1974.
SEC. 209. (a) The President, acting through the Water Resources
Council, shall as soon as practicable, prepare a Level B plan under the
Water Resources Planning Act for all basins in the United States. All
such plans shall be completed not later than January 1, 1980, except
thatpriority in the preparation of such plans shall be given to those
basins and portions thereof which are within those areas designated by a
Governor or Governors under paragraphs (2) and (3) of subsection (a) of
section 208 of this Act.
"(b) The President, acting through the Water Resources Council, shall
report annually to Congress on progress being made in carrying out this
section. The first such report shall be submitted not later than
January 31, 1973.
"(c) There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section
not to exceed $200,000,000.
SEC. 210. The Administrator shall annually make a survey to
determine the efficiency of the operation and maintenance of treatment
works constructed with grants made under this Act, as compared to the
efficiency planned at the time the grant was made. The results of such
annual survey shall be included in the report required under section
516(a) of this Act.
SEC. 211. No grant shall be made under this title for a sewage
collection system unless such system is for an existing community and is
necessary to the integrity of a total waste treatment works system.
SEC. 212. As used in this title
"(1) The term 'construction' means any one or more of the following:
preliminary planning to determine the feasbility of treatment works,
engineering, architectural, legal, fiscal, or economic investigations or
studies, surveys, designs, plans, working drawings, specifications,
procedures, or other /(()) necessary actions, erection, building,
acquisition, alteration, remodeling, improvement, or extension of
treatment works, or the inspection or supervision of any of the
foregoing items.
"(2)(A) The term 'treatment works' means any devices and systems used
in the storage, treatment, recycling and reclamation of municipal sewage
or industrial wastes of a liquid nature to implement section 201 of this
Act, or necessary to recycle or reuse water at the most economical cost
over the estimated life of the works, incuding intercepting sewers,
outfall sewers, sewage collection systems, pumping, power, and other
equipment and their appurtenances; extensions, improvements,
remodeling, additions, and alterations thereof; elements esential to
provide a reliable recycled supply such as standby treatment units and
clear well facilities; and any works, including site acquisition of the
land that will be an integral part of the treatment process or is usd
for ultimate disposal of residues resulting from such treatment.
"(B) In addition to the definition contained in paragraph (A) of this
paragraph, 'treatment works' means any other method or system for
preventing, abating, reducing, storing, treating, separating, or
disposing of muncipal waste, including storm water runoff or industrial
waste, including waste in combined storm water and santiary sewer
systems. Any application for construction grants which includes wholly
or in part such methods or systems shall, in accordance with guidelines
published by the Administrator pursuant to subparagraph (C) of this
paragraph, contain adequate data and anlaysis demonstrating wuch
proposal to be, over the life of such works, the most cost efficient
alternative to comply with sections 301 or 302 of this Act, or the
requirements of section 201 of this Act.
"(C) For the purposes of subparagraph (B) of this paragraph, the
Administrator shall, within one hundred and eighty days after the
enactment of this title, publish and thereafter revise no less often
than annually, guidelines for the evaluation of methods, including cost
effective analysis, described in subparagraph B of this paragraph.
"(3) The term 'replacement' as used in this title means those
expenditures for obtaining and installing equipment, accessories, or
appurtenances during the useful life of the treatment works necessary to
maintain the capacity and performance for which such works are designed
and constructed.
"(4) The term 'inddstrial user' means those industries identified in
the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, Bureau of the Budget,
1967, as amended and supplemented, under the category 'Division
D-Manufacturing' and such other classes of significant waste producers
as, by regulations, the Administrator deems appropriate under this
title.
"SEC. 301. (a) Except as in compliance with this section and sections
302, 306, 307, 318, 402, and 404 of this Act, the discharge of any
pollutant by any person shall be unlawful.
"(b) lIn order to carry out the objective of this Act there shall bve
achieved
"(1)(A) snot later than January 1, 1976, effluent limitation for
point sources, other than publicly owned treatment works (i) which shall
require the application of the best practicable control technology
currrently available as defined by the Administrator prusuant to section
304(b) of this Act, or (ii) in the case of a discharge into a publicly
owned treatment works which meets the requirements of subprargraph (B)
of this paragraph, which shall require compliance with any applicable
pretreatment requirements and any requirements under section 307 of this
Act; and
"(B) for publicly owned treatment works in existence on January 1,
1976, or appreoved pursuant to section 203 of this Act prior to June 30,
1974 (for which construction must be completed within four years of
apporval), effluent limitations based upon secondary treatment as
defined by the Administrator pursuant to section 304(d)(1) of this Act;
or
"(C) not later than January 1, 1976, any more stringent limitation,
including those necessary to meet water quality standards, treatment
standards, or schedules of compliance, establish pursuant to any other
State or Federal law of regulation, or required to implement any
applicable water quality standard established pursuant to this Act.
"(2)(A) except as provided in section 315, not later than January 1,
1981, effluent limitations for point sources, other than publicly owned
treatment works, (i) which shall require the elimintation of the
discharge of pollutants, unless on the basis of facts presented by the
owner or operator of any such sources, among othe information, the State
under a program approved pursuant to section 402 of this Act (or, where
no such program is approved, the Administrator) finds, that compliance
is not attainable at a reasonable cost, in which event there shall be
applied an effluent limitation based on that degree of effluent control
achievable through the application of the best available demonstrated
technology, taking into account the coste of such controls, as
determined in accordance with regulatins issued by the Administrator
pursuant to section 304(b) of this Act, and th environmental impact, or
(ii) in the case of adischarge of a pollutant into a publicly owned
treatment works which meets the requirement of subparagraph (B) of this
paragraph, which shall require compliance with any applicable
pretreatment requirements and any requirement under section 307 of this
Act; and
"(B) not later than January 1, 1981, compliance by all publicly owned
treatment works with the requirements set for in section 201(d)(2)(A) of
this Act.
"(3) The Administrator may extend for any point source the dates
prescribed in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) of this
subsection. No extension or extensions of such date shall exceed a
total of two years from the date prescribed in such subparagraph.
Public hearings must be held by the Administrator in connection with any
such extension prior to granting such extension. No extension shall be
granted unless the Administrator determines (i) that it is not possible
either physically or legally to complete the necessary construction
within the stautory time limit, or (ii) that a longer time period is
provided in the plan of implementation for the applicable water quality
standard. An extension of dates under this authority may also include a
waiver for the same period of any applicable water quality standards.
"(c) Any effluent limitation required by paragraph (2) of subsection
(b) of this section shall be reviewed at least every five years and, if
appropriate, revised pursuant to the procedure established under such
paragraph.
"(d) Effluent limitations estabslihed pursuant to this section or
section 402 of this Act shall be applied to all point sources of
discharge of pollutants in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
"(e) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, it shall be
unlawful to discharge any radiological, chemical, or biological warfare
agent or high-level radioactive waste into navigable waters.
"(f) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, any point
source the construction or modification of which is commenced after the
date of enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972 and before the expiration of the one-year period which begins
oin the date of submission of the report required by section 315 of this
Act, and which is so constructed or modified as to meet effluent
limitations based upon the best available technology at the time of such
construction or modification, shall not be subject to any more stringent
effluent limitations with respect to such effluents during a 12 year
period beginning on the date of completion of such construtcion or
modification or during the period of depreciation or amortization of
such facility for the purposes of section 167 or 169 (or both) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1954, whichever period ends first.
"SEC. 302 (a) Whenever, in the judgment of a State or the
Administrator, discharges of pollutants from a point source or group of
point sources, with the application of effluent limitations required
under section 201(b)(2) of this Act, would interfere with the attainment
or maintenance of that water quality in a specific portion of the
navigable waters which shall assure protection of public water supplies,
agricultural and industrial uses, and the protection and propogation of
a balanced poulation of shellfish, fish and wildlife, and allow
recreational activities in and on the water, effluent limitation
(including alternative effluent control strategies) for suchpoint source
or sources shall be established which can reasonably be expected to
contribute to the attainment or maintenance of such water quality.
"(b)(1) Before establishing any effluent limitation under subsection
(a) of this section, the Administrator shall issue a notice of intent to
establish such limitation to the Chairman of the Council of Economic
Advisors, the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, and the
Director of the Office of Science and Technology. Each person so
notified shall have a ninety-day period to submit to the Administrator
written comments and recommendations which shall be made part of the
public record with respect to the establishment of such limitation. If
any part of such written recommendations are not accepted by the
Administrator, then the Administrator shall notify in writing, the
person submitting such recommendation, of his failure to so accept such
recommendations together with his reasons for so doing. Thereafter, the
Administrator shall issue notice of intent to establish such limitation
and within ninety days of such notice hold a public hearing to determine
the relationship of the economic, social, and environmental costs of
achieving any such limitation or limitations, including any economic or
social dislocation in the affected community or communities, to the
economic, social, and environmental benefits to be obtained (including
the attainment of the objective of this Act) and to determine whether or
not such effluent limitations can be implemented with available
technology or other alternative control strategies.
"(2) Prior to establishment of any effluent limitation pursuant to
subsection (a) of this section, the State shall issue notice of intent
to establish such limitation and within ninety days of such notice hold
a public hearing to determine the relationship of the economic, social,
and environmental costs of achieving any such limitation or limitations,
including any economic or social dislocation in the affected community
or communities, to the economic, social, and environmental benefits to
be obtained (including the attainment of the objective of this Act) and
to determine whether or not such effluent limitations can be implemented
with available technology or other alternative control strategies.
"(3) If a person affected by such limitation /(()) demonstrates at
such hearing that (whether or not such technology or other alternative
control strategies are available) there is no reasonable relationship
between the economic, social, and environmental costs and the benefits
to be obtained (including attainment of the objective ofthis Act), such
limitation shall not become effective and the State or the Administrator
shall adjust such limitation as it applies to such person. Whenever the
Administrator adjusts or refuses to adjust any limitation as it applies
to any person under this paragraph he shall, prior to the time such
limitation takes effect, set forth in writing his reasons for such
action, and such reasons shall be part of the public record with respect
to such limitation.
"(c) The establishment of effluent limitations under this section
shall not operate to delay the application of any effluent limitation
established under section 301 of this Act.
"SEC. 303. (a)(1) In order to carry out the purpose of this Act, any
water quality standard applicable to interstate waters which was adopted
by any State and submited to, and approved by, or is awaiting approval
by, the Administrator pursuant to this Act as in effect immediately
prior to the date of enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972, shall remain in effect unless the Administrator
determined that such standard is not consistent with the applicable
requirements of this Act. as in effect immediately prior to the date of
enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
If the Administrator makes such a determination he shall, within three
months after the date of enactment of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, notify the State and specify the changes
needed to meet such requirements. If such changes are not adopted by
the State within ninety days after the date of such notification, the
Administrator shall promulgate such changes in accordance with
subsection (b) of this section.
"(2) Any State which, before the date of enactment of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, has adopted, pursuant to
its own law, water quality standards, appllicable to intrastate waters
shall submit such standards to the Administrator within thrity days
after the date of enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972. Each such standard shall remain in effect, in the
same manner and to the same extent as any other water quality standard
established under this Act unless the Administrator determines that such
standard is inconsistent with the applicable requirements of this Act as
in effect immediately prior to the date of enactment of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. If the Administrator
makes such a determination he shall not later than the one hundred and
twentieth day after the date of submission of such standards, notify the
State and specify the changes needed to meet such requirements. If such
changes are not adopted by the State within the ninety days after such
notification, the Administrator shall promulgate such changes in
accordance with subsection (b) of this section.
"(3)(A) Any State which prior to the date of enactment of the Federal
Water Polution Control Act Amendments of 1972 has not adopted pursuant
to its own laws water quality standards applicable to intrastate waters
shall, not later than one hundred and eighty days after the date of
enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972,
adopt and submit such standards to the Administrator.
"(B) If the Administrator determines that any such standards are
consistent with the applicable requirements of this Act as in effect
immediately prior to the date of enactment of the Federal Water Polution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, he shall approve such standards.
"(C) If the Administrator determines that any such standards are not
consistent with the applicable requirements of this Act as in effect
immediately prior to the date of enactment of the Federal Water Polution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, he shall, not later than the ninetieth
day after submission of such standards, notify the State and specify the
changes to meet such requirements. If such changes are not adopted by
the State within ninety days after the date of notificateion, the
Administrator shall promulgate such standards pursuant to subsection (b)
of this secvtion.
"(b)(1) The Administrator shall promptly prepare and publish proposed
regulations setting for water quality standards for a State in
accordance with the applicable requirements of this Act as in effect
immediately prior to the date of enactment of the Federal Water Polution
Control Act Amendments of 1972, if --
"(A) the State fails to submit water quality standards within the
times prescribed in subsection (a) of this section.
"(B) a water quality standard submitted by such State under
subsection (a) of thjis secton is determined by the Administrator not to
be consistent with the applicable requirements of subsection (a) of this
section.
"(2) The Administrator shall promulgate any water quality standard
published in a proposed regulation not later than one hundred and ninety
days after the date he publishes any such proposed standard, unless
prior to such promulgation, such State has adopted a water quality
standard which the Administrator determines to be in accordance with
subsection (a) of this section.
"(c)(1) The Governor of a State or the State water pollution control
agency of such State shall from time to time (but at least once each
three year period beginning with the date of enactment of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972) hold public hearings for
the purpose of reviewing applicable water quality standards and, as
appropriate, modifying and adopting standards. Results of such review
shall be made available to the Administrator.
"(2) Whenever the State revises or adopts a new standard, such
revised or new standard shall be submitted to the Administrator. Such
revised or new water quality standard shall consist of the designated
uses of the navigable waters involved and the water quality criteria for
such waters based upon such uses. Such standards shall be such as to
protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water and
serve the purposes of this Act. Such standards shall be established
taking into consideration their use and value for public water supplies,
propgration of fish and wildlife, recreational purposes, and
agricultrual, industrial, andother legitimate uses, and also taking into
consideration their use and value of navigation.
"(3) If the Administrator, within sixty days after the date of
submission of the revised or new standard, determines that such standard
meets the requirements of this Act, such standard shall thereafter be
the water quality standard for the applicable waters of that State. If
the Administrator determines that any such revised or new standard is
not consistent with the applicable requirements of this Act, he shall
not later than the ninetieth day aftert the date of submission of such
standard notify the State and specify the changes to meet such
requirements. If such changes are not adopted by the State within
ninety days after the date of notification, the Administrator shall
promulgate such standard pursuant to paragraph (4) of this subsection.
"(4) The Administrator shall promptly prepare and publish proposed
regulations setting forth a revised or new water quality standard for
the navigable waters involved --
"(A) If a revised or new water quality standard submitted by such
State under paragraph (3) of this subsection for such waters is
determined by the Administrator not to be consistent with the applicable
requirements of this ACt, or
"(B) in any case where the Administrator determines that a revised or
new standard is necessary to meet the requirements of this Act.
The Administrator shall promulgate any revised or new standard under
this paragraph not later ninety days after he publishes such proposed
standards, unless prior to such promulgation, such State has adopted a
revised or new water quality standard which the Administrator determines
to be in accordance with this Act.
"(5) No revised or new standard under this subsection shall have any
application to thermal discharges in accordance with regulations issued
pursuant to section 316 of this Act.
"(d)(1) Each State shall identify thos waters within its boundaries
for which the effluent limitations required by section 301(b)(1)(A) and
section 301(b)(1)(B) are not stringent enough to implement any water
quality standard applicable to such waters. The State shall establish a
priority ranking for such waters, taking into account the severity of
the pollution and the uses to be made of such waters. Each State shall
establish for the waters so identified, and in accordance with the
priority ranking, the total maximum daily load, with seasonal variations
and margins of safety, for those pollutants which the Administrator
identifies under sectin 304(a)(2) as suitable for such calculation.
Such load shall be established at a level necessary to implement the
applicable water quality standards with a margin of safety which takes
into account any lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between
effluent limitations and water quality.
"(2) Each State shall submit to the Administrator from time to time,
with the first such submission not later than one hundred and eighty
days after the date of publication of the first identification of
pollutants under section 304(a)(2)(D), for his approval the waters
identified and the load established under paragraph (1) of this
subsection. The Administrator shall either approve or disapprove such
identification and load not later than thirty days after the date of
submission. If the Administrator approves such identification and load
such State shall incorporate them into its current plan under subsection
(e) of this section. If the Administrator disapproves such
identifcation and load, he shall not later than thirty days after the
date of such disapproval identify such waters in such State and
establish loads for such waters as he determines necessary to implement
the water quality standards applicable to such watrers and upon such
identification and establishment the State shall incorporate them into
its current plan under subsection (e) of this section.
"(3) For the purpose of developing information, each State shall
identify all waters within its boundaries which it has not identified
under paragraph (1) of this subsection and establish for such waters the
total maximum daily load, with seasonal variations and margins of
safety, for those pollutants which the Administrator identifies under
secton 304(a)(2) as suitable for such calculation, at a level that would
implement the water quality standards.
"(e)(1) Each State shall have a continuing planning process approved
under paragraph (2) of this subsection which is consistent with this
Act.
"(2) Each State shall submit not later than 120 days after the date
of the enactment of the Water Pollution Control Amendments /(()) of 1972
to the Administrator for his approval a proposed continuing planning
process which is consistent with this Act. Not later than thirty days
after the date of submission of such a process the Administrator shall
either approve or disapprove of such process. The Administrator shall
from time to time review such State's approved planning process for the
purpose of insuring that such planning process is at all times
consistent with this Act. The Administrator shall not approve any State
permit program under title IV of this Act for any State which does not
have an approved continuing planning process under this section.
"(3) The Administrator shall approve any continuing planning process
submittd to him under this section which will result in plans for all
navigable waters within such State, which inlcude, but are not limited
to, the following:
"(A) effluent limitations and schedules of compliance at least as
stringent as those required by section 301(b)(1), section 301(b)(2)(B),
section 306, and sectin 307, and at least as stringent as any
requirements contained in any applicable water quality standard in
effect under authority of this section;
"(B) the incorporation of all elements of any applicable areawide
waste management plans under section 208, and applicable basin plans
under section 209 of this Act;
"(C) total maximum daily load for pollutants in accordance with
subsection (d) of this section;
"(D) procedures for revision;
"(E) adequate authority for intergovernmental cooperation;
"(F) adequate implementation, including schedules of compliance, for
revised or new water quality standards under subsection (c) of this
section;
"(G) controls over the disposition of all residual waste from any
water treatment processing;
"(H) all inventory and ranking, in order of priority, of needs for
construction of waste treatment works required to meet the applicable
requirements of sections 301 and 302.
"(f) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect any
effluent limitation, or schedule of compliance required by any State to
be implemented prior to the dates set forth in sections 301(b)(1) and
301(b)(2) nor to preclude anyState from requiring compliance with any
effluent limitation or schedule of compliance at dates earlier than such
dates.
"SEC. 304. (a)(1) The Administrator, after consultation with
appropriate Federal and State agencies and other interested persons,
shall develop ;and publish, within one year after the date of enactment
of this teitle (and from time to time thereafter revise) criteria for
water quality accurately reflecting the latest scientific knowledge (a)
on the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on health and welfare
including, but not limited tok, plankton, fish, shellfish, wildlife,
plant life, shorelines, beaches, esthetics, and recration which may be
expected from the presence of pollutants in any body of water, including
ground water; (B) on the concentration and dispersal of pollutants, or
their byproducts, through June 30, 19 processes; and (C) on the effects
of pollutants on biolgoical community divrsity, productivity, and
stability, including information on the factors affecting rates of
eutrophication and rates of organic and inorganic sedimentation for
varying types of receiving waters.
"(2) The Administrator, after consultation with appropriate Federal
and State agencies and other interested persons, shall develop and
publish, within one year after the date of enactment of this title (and
from time to time revise) information (A) on the factors necessary to
restore and maintain the natural chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of all navigable waters, ground waters, waters of the
continuous zone, and the oceans; (B) on the factors necessary for
theprotection and propogation of shellfish, fish, and wlidlife and to
allow recreational activities in and on the water; and (C) on the
measurement and classification of water quality; and (D) on and the
identification of pollutants suitable for maximum daily load measurement
correlated with the achievement of water quality objectives.
"(3) Such criteria and information and revisions thereof shall be
issued to the States and shall be published in the Federal Register and
otherwise made available to the public.
"(b) For the purpose of adopting or revising effluent limitations
under this Act the Administrator shall, after consultation with
appropriate Federal and State agencies and other interested persons,
publish within one year of enactment of this title, regulations,
providing guidelines for effluent limitations, and, at least annually
thereafter, revise, if appropriate, such regulations. Such regulations
shall
"(1)(A) Identify, in terms of amounts of constituents and chemical,
physical, and biological characteristics of pollutants, the degree of
effluent reduction attainable through the application of the best
practicable control technology currently available for classes and
categories of point sources (other than publicly owned treatment works);
and
"(B) specify factors to be taken into acount in determining the
control measures and practices to be applicable to any point sources
(other than publicly owned treatment works) within such categories or
classes. Factors relating to the assessment of best practicable control
technology currently available to comply with subsection (b)(1) of
section 301 of this Act, shall take into account the age of equipment
and facilities involved, the process employed (including whether batch
or continuous), the engineering aspects of the application of various
types of demonstrated control techniques, process changes, the cost and
the economic, social, and environmental impact of achieving such
effluent reduction, foreign competition, and such other factors as the
Administrator deems appropriate;
"(2)(A) identify, in terms of amounts of constituents and chemical,
physical, and biological characteristics of pollutants, the degree of
effluent reduction attainable through the application of the best
available demonstrated control techniques, process and procedure
innovations, operating methods, and other alternatives for classes and
categories of point sources (other than publicly owned treatment works);
and
"(B) specify factors to be taken into account in determining the best
measures and practices available to comply with subsection (b)(2) of
section 301 of this Act to be applicable to any point source (other than
publicly owned treatment works) within such categories and classes.
Factors relating to the assessment of best available demonstrated
technology shall take into account the age of equipment and facilities
involved, the process employed (including whether batch or continuous),
the engineering aspects of the application of various types of
demonstrated control techniques, process changes, the cost and the
economic, social, and environmental impact of achieving such effluent
reduction, foreign competition, and such other factors as the
Administrator deems appropriate; and
"(3) identify control measures and practices available to eliminate
the discharge of pollutants from categories and classes of point
sources, taking into account the cost of achieving such elimination of
the discharge of pollutants.
"(c) The Administrator, after consultation with appropriate Federal
and State agencies and other interested persons, shall issue to the
States and appropriate water pollution control agencies within one year
after enactment of this title (and from time to time thereafter)
information on the processes, procedures, or operating methods which
result in the elimination or reduction of the discharge of pollutants to
implement standards of performance under section 306 of this Act. Such
inforamtion shall include technical and other data, including costs, as
available on alternative methods of elimination or reduction of
discharge of pollutants. Such information, and revisions thereof, shall
be published in the Federal Register and otherwise shall be made
available to the public.
"(d)(1) The Administrator, after consultation with appropriate
Federal and State agencies and other interested persons, shall publish
within sixty days after enactment of this title (and from time to time
thereafter) information, in terms of amounts of constituents and
chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of pollutants on the
degree of effluent reduction attainable through the application of
secondary treatment.
"(2) The Administrator, after consultation with appropriate Federal
and State agencies and other interested persons, shall publish within
nine months after the date of enactment of this title (and from time to
time thereafter) information on alternative waste treatment management
techniques and systems availabe to implement section 201 of this Act.
"(e) The Administrator, after consultation with appropriate Federal
and State agencies and other interested persons, shall issue to
appropriate Federal agencies, the States, water pollution control
agencies, and agencies designated under section 208 of this Act, within
one year after the effective date of this subsection (and from time to
time thereafter) information including (1) guidelines for identifying
and evaluating the nature and extent of nonpoint sources of pollutants,
and (2) processes, procedures, and methods to control pollution
resulting from --
"(A) agricultural and silvicultural activities, including runoff from
fields and crop and forest lands;
"(B) mining activities, including runoff from the facilities
resulting from such construction;
"(C) all construction activity, incuding runoff from the facilities
resulting from such construction;
"(D) the disposal of pollutants in wells or in subsuface excavations;
"(E) salt water intrusion resulting from reductions of fresh water
frlow from any cause, including extraction of ground water, irrigation,
obstruction, and diversion, and
"(F) changes in the movement, flow, or circulation of any navigable
waters or ground waters, incuding changes caused by the construction of
dams, levees, channels, causeways, or flow diversion facilities.
Such information and revisions thereof shall be published in the
Federal Register and otherwise made available to the public.
"(f)(1) For the purpose of assisting States in carrying out programs
under section 402 of this Act, the Administrator shall publish within
one hundred and twenty days after the date of enactment of this title,
and review at least annually thereafter and, if appropriate, revise
guidelines for pretreatment of pollutants which he determines are not
susceptible to treatment by publicly owned treatment works. Guidelines
under this subsection shall be established to control and prevent the
discharge into navigable waters, the contiguous zone, or the ocean
(either directly or through publicly owned treatment works) of any
pollutant which interferes with, passes through, or otherwise is
incompatible with such works. /(())
"(2) When publishing guidelines under this subsection, the
Administrator shall designate the catgory or categories of treatment
works to which the guidelines shall apply.
"(g) The Administrator shall, within one hundred and eighty days from
the date of enactment of this title, promulgate guidelines, establishing
test procedures for the analysis of pollutants that shall include the
factors which must be provided in any certification pursuant to section
401 of this Act or permit application pursuant to section 402 of this
Act.
"(h) The Administrator shall (1) within ninety days after the
enactment of this title promulgate guidelines for the purpose of
establishing uniform application forms and other minimum requirements
for the acquisition of information from owners and operators of point
sources of discharge subject to any State program under section 402 of
this Act, and (2) within ninety days from the date of enactment of this
title promulgate guidelines establishing the minimum procedural and
other elements of any State program under section 402 of this Act which
shall include:
"(A) monitoring requirements;
"(B) reporting requirements (including procedures to make information
available to the public);
"(C) enforcement provisions; and
"(D) funding, personnel qualifications, and manpower requirements
(including a requirement that no board or body which approves permit
applications or portions thereof shall incude, as a member, any person
who receives, or has during the previous two years received, a
significant portion of his income directly or indirectly from permit
holders or applicants for a permit).
"(i) The Administrator shall, within one year after the effective
date of this subsection (and from time to time thereafter), issue such
informationonmethods, procedures, and processes as may be appropriate to
restore and enhance the quality of the Nation's publicly owned fresh
water lakes.
"(j)(1) The Administrator shall, within six months from the date of
enactment of this title, enter into agreements wtih the Secretary of
Agriculture, the Secretary of the Army, and the Secretary of the
Interior to provide for the maximum utilization of the appropriate
programs authorized under other Federal law to be carried out by such
Secretaries for the purpose of achieving and maintaining water quality
through appropriate implementation of plans approved under section 208
of this Act.
"(2) The Administrator, pursuant to any agreement under paragraph (1)
of this subsection is authorized to transfer to the Secretary of
Agriculture, the Secretary of the Army, or the Secretary of the Interior
any funds appropriated under paragraph (3) of this subsection to
supplement any funds otherwise appropriated to carry out appropriate
programs authorize to be carried out by such Secretaries.
"(3) There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out the
provisions of this subsection $100,000,000 per fiscal year for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1973 and the fiscal year ending June 30,
1974. Sums so appropriated shall remain available until expended.
"SEC. 305. (a) The Administrator, in cooperation with the States and
with the assistance of appropriate Federal agencies, shall prepare a
report to be submitted to the Congress on or before July 1, 1973, which
shall --
"(1) describe the specific quality, during 1972, with appropriate
supplemental descriptions as sahll be required to take into account
seasonal, tidal, and other variations of all navigable waters and the
waters of the contiguous zone;
"(2) include an inventory of all point sources of discharge (based on
a qualitative and quantitative analysis of discharges) of pollutants
into all navigable waters and the waters of the contiguous zone; and
"(3) identify spcifically those navigable waters, the quality of
which
"(A) is adequate to provide for the protection and propogation of a
balanced populaton of shellfish, fish and wildlife and allow
recreational activities in and on the water;
"(B) can reasonably be expected to attain such level by 1976 or 1981;
and
"(C) can reasonably be expected to attain such level by any later
date.
"(b)(1) Each State shall prepare and submit to the Administrator by
July 1, 1974, and shall bring up to date each year thereafter a report
which shall include
"(A) a description of the water quality of all navigable waters in
such State during the preceding year, with appropriate supplemental
descriptions as shall be required to take into account seasonal, tidal
and other variations, correlated with the quality of water required by
the objective of this Act (as identified by the Administrator pursuant
to criteria published under section 304(a) of this Act) and the water
quality described in subparagrpah (B) of this paragraph;
"(B) an analysis of the extent to which all navigable waters of such
State provide for the protection and propogration of a balanced
population of shellfish, fish and wildlife, and allow recreational
activities in an on the water;
"(C) an analysis of the extent to which the elimination of the
discharge of pollutants and a level of water quality which provides for
the protection and propogration of a balanced population of shellfish,
fish and wildlife, and allow recreational activities in an on the water,
have been or will be achieved by the requirements of this Act, together
with recommendations as to additional action necessary to achieve such
objectives and for what waters such additional action is necessary;
"(D) an estimate of (i) the economic, social, and environmental costs
necessary to achieve the objectives of this Act in such State, (ii) the
economic, social, and environmental benefits of such achievement; and
(iii) an estimate of the date of such achievement; and
"(E) a description of the nature and extent of nonpoint sources of
pollutants and recommendations as to the programs which must be
undertaken to control each category of such sources, including an
estimate of the costs of implementing such programs.
"(2) The Administrator shall transmit such State reports, together
with an analysis thereof, to Congress on or before April 1, 1975 and
annually thereafter.
"SEC. 306. (a) For purposes of this section:
"(1) The term 'standard of performance' means a standard for the
control of the discharge of pollutants which reflects the greatest
degreee of effluent reduction which the Administrator determines to be
achievable through application of the best available demonstrated
control technology, processes, operating methods, or other alternatives,
including, where practicable, a standard permiting no discharge of
pollutants.
"(2) The term 'new source' means any source, the construction or
modification of which is commenced after the publication of proposed
regulations prescribing a standard of performance under this section
which will be applicable to such source, if such standard is therafter
promulgated in accordance with this section.
"(3) The term 'source' means anyu building, structure, facility, or
installation from which there is or may be the discharge of pollutants.
"(4) The term 'owner or operator' means any person who owns, leases,
operates, controls, or supervises a source.
"(5) The term 'modification' means and construction (other than
construction of pollution abatement facilities as determined by the
Administrator or appropirate State agency) which may alter the nature or
may increase the amounts of polutants, or combinations of such
pollutants, discharged by a source.
"(6) The term 'construction' means any placement, assembly, or
installation of facilities or equipment (including contractual
obligations to purchase such facilities or equipment) at the premises
where such equipment will be used, including preparation work at such
premises.
"(b)(1)(A) The Administrator shall, within ninety days after the date
of enactment of this title publish (and from time to time therafter
shall revise) a list of categories of sources, which shall, at the
minimum, include:
"pulp and paper mills;
"paperboard, builders paper and board mills;
"meat product and rendering processing;
"dairy products processing;
"grain mills;
"canned and preserved furits and vegetables processing;
"canned and preserved seafood processing;
"sugar processing;
"textile mills;
"cement manufacturing;
"feedlots;
"electroplating;
"organic chemicals manufacturing;
"inorganic chemicals manufacturing;
"plastic and synthetic materials manufacturing;
"soap and detergent manufacturing;
"fertilizer manufacturing;
"petroleum refining;
"iron and steel manufacturing;
"ironferrous metals manufacturing;
"phosphate manufacturing;
"steam electric powerplants;
"ferroalloy manufacturing;
"leather tanning and finishing;
"glass and asbestos manufacturing;
"rubber processing; and
"timber products processing.
"(B) As soon as practicable, but in no case more than one year, after
a category of sources is included in a list under subparagraph (a) of
this paragraph, the Administrator shalllpropose and publish regulations
establishing Federal standards of performance for new sources within
such category. The Administrator shall afford interested persons an
opportunity for written comment on such proposed regulations. After
considering the comments, he shall promulgate within one hundred and
twenty days after publication of such proposed regulations, such
standards with such adjustments as he deems appropriate. The
Administrator shall from time to time, as technology and alternatives
change, revise such standards following the procedure required by this
subsection for promulgation of such standards. Standards of performance
or revisions thereof shall become effective upon promulgation. In
establishing or revising Federal standards of performance for new
sources under this section, the Administrator shall take into
consideration factors relating to the age of equipment and facilities
involved, the process employed, the engineering aspects of the
application of various types of demonstrated control techniques, process
changes, the cost of and the economic, social, and environmental impact
of achieving such effluent reduction, foreign competition, and such
other factors as he determines appropriate.
"(C) Such standards of performance shall apply to all sources, within
such category, unless, upon application from an owner or operator of any
source which as a result of modification is subject to this section, the
Administrator determines, after public hearing, /(()) that the economic,
social, and environmental costs ob implementing such standard bear no
reasonable relationship to the economic, social, and environmental
benefits (including water quality objectives) to be obtained. Any such
determination shall be accompanied by an appropriate adjustment of such
standard for such source, which shall reflect the greatest degree of
effluent reduction which the Administrator determines can reasonably be
achieved by such source.
"(2) The Administrator may distinguish among classes, types and sizes
within categories of new sources for the purpose of establishing such
standards, and shall consider the type of process employed (including
whether batch or continuous).
"(3) The provisions of this section shall apply to any new source
owned or operated by the United States.
"(c) After the effective date of standards of performance promulgated
under this section, it shall be unlawful for any owner or operator of
any new source to operate such source in violation of any standard of
performance applicable to such source.
"SEC. 307. (a)(1) shall, within ninety days after the date of
enactment of this title, publish (and from time to time therafter
revise) a list which includes any toxic pollutant or combination of such
pollutants for which an effluent standard (which may include a
prohibition of the discharge of such pollutants or combination of such
pollutants) will be established under this section. The Administrator
in publishing such list shall take into account the toxicity of the
pollutant, its persistence, degradability, the usual or potential
presence of the affected organisms in the receiving waters, the
importance of the affected organisms and the nature and extent of the
effect of the toxic pollutant on such organisms.
"(2) Within one hundred and eighty days after the date of publication
of any list, or revision thereof, containing toxic polutants or
combination of pollutants under paragraph (1) of this subsection, the
Administrator, in accordance with section 553 of title 5 of the United
States Code, shall publish a proposed effluent standard (or a
prohibition) for such pollutant or combination of pollutants which shall
take into account the toxicity of the pollutant, its persistence,
degradability, the usual or potential presence of the affected organisms
in the receiving waters, the importance of the affected organisms and
the nature and extent of the effect of the toxic pollutant on such
organisms, and he shall publish a notice for a public hearing on such
proposed standard to be held within thirty days. As soon as possible
after such hearing, but not later thn six months after publication of
the proposed effluent standard (or prohibition), unless the
Administrator finds, on the record, that a modification of such proposed
standard (or prohibition) is justified based uon a preponderance of
evidence adduced at such hearings, such standard (or prohibition) shall
be promulgated.
"(3) If after a public hearing the Administrator finds that a
modification of such proposed standard (or prohibition) is justified, a
revised effluent standard (or prohibition) for such pollutant or
combination of pollutants shall be promulgated immediately. Such
standard (or prohibition) shall be reviewed and, if appropriate, revised
at least every three years.
"(4) Any effluent standard promulgated under this section shall be at
that level which the Administrator determines provides an ample margin
or safety.
"(5) When proposing or promulgating any effluent standard (or
prohibition) under this section, the Administrator shall designate the
catgory or categories of sources to which the effluent standard (or
prohibition) shall apply.
"(6) Any effluent standard (or prohibition) established pursuant to
this section shall take effect on such date or dates as specified in the
order promulgating such standard, but in no case more than one year from
the date of such promulgation.
"(7) Prior to publishing any regulations pursuant to this section,
the Administrator shall, to the maximum extent practicable, within the
time provided, consult with appopriate advisory committees, States,
independent experts, and Federal departments and agencies.
"(8) After the effective date of any effluent standard (or
prohibition) promulgated under this subsection, it shall be unlawful for
any owner or operator of any source to oeprate any source in violation
of any such effluent standard (or prohibition).
"(b)(1) The Administrator shall, within one hundred and eighty days
after the date of enactment of this title and from time to time
thereafter, publish proposed regulations establishing pretreatment
standards for introduction of pollutants into treatment works (as
defined in section 212 of this Act) which are publicly owned for those
pollutants which are determined not to be susceptible to treatment by
such treatment works. Not later than ninety days after such
publication, and after opportunity for public hearing, the Administrator
shall promulgate such pretreatment standards. Pretreatment standards
under this subsection shall specify a time for compliance not to exceed
three years from the date of promulgation and shall be established to
prevent the discharge of and pollutants through treatment works (as
defined in section 212 of this Act) which are publicly owned, which
pollutant interferes with, passes through, or otherwise is incompatible
with such works.
"(2) The Administrator shall, from time to time, as control
technology, processes, operating methods, or other alternatives change,
revise such standards following the procedure established by this
subsection for promulgation of such standards.
"(3) When proposing or promulgating anyu pretreatment standard under
this section, the Administrator shall designate the category or
categories of sources to which such standard shall apply.
"(4) Nothing in this subsection shall effect any pretreatment
requirement established by any State or local law not in conflict with
any pretreatment standard established under this subsection.
"SEC. 308. (a) Whenever required to carry out the objective of this
Act, including but not limited to (1) devloping or assisting in the
development of any effluent limitation, or other limitation,
prohibition, or effluent standard, pretreatment standard or standard of
performance under this Act; (2) determining whether any person is in
violation of any such effluent limitation, or other limitation,
prohibition, or effluent standard, pretreatment standard or standard of
performance; (3) any requirement established under this section; or
(4) carrying out sections 305, 311, 402, and 504 of this Act --
(A) The Administrator shall require the owner or operator of any
point source to (i) establish and maintain such records, (ii) make such
reports, (iii) install, use, and maintain any monitoring equipment or
methods (including where apprpirate, biological monitoring methods),
(iv) sample such effluents (in accordance with such methods, at such
locations, at such intervals, and in such manner as the Administrator
shall prescribe), and (v) provide such other information as he may
reasonably require; and
"(B) the Administrator or his authorized representative, upon
presentation of his credentials --
"(i) shall have a right of entry to, upon or through any premises in
which an effluent source is located or in which any records, required to
be maintained under clause (A) of this subsection are located, and
"(ii) may at reasonable times have access to and copy any records,
inspect any monitoring equipment or method required under clause (A) and
sample any effluents which the owner or operator of such source is
required to sample under such clause.
"(b) Any records, reports, or information obtained under this section
shall be available to the public, exept that upon a showing satisfactory
to the Administrator by any person that records, reports, or information
or particular thereof (other than effluent data), to which the
Administrator has access under this section, if made public would
divulge methods or processes entitled to protection as trade secrets of
such person, the Administrator shall consider such record, report, or
information or particular portion thereof confidential in acordance with
the pruposes of section 1905 of title 18 of the United States Code,
excpet that such record, report, or information may be disclosed to
other officers, employees, or authorized representatives of the United
States concerned with carrying out this Act or when relevant in any
proceeding under this Act.
"SEC. 309. (a)(1) Whenever, on the basis of any information available
to him, the Administrator finds that any person is inviolation of any
condition or limitation which implements section 301, 302, 306, 307,
308, or 316 of this Act in a permit issued by a State under an approved
permit program under section 402 of this Act, he shall proceed under his
authority in pararaph (3) of this subsection or he shall notify the
person in alleged violation and such State of such finding. If beyond
the thirtieth day after the Administrator's notification the State has
not commenced appropriate enforcement action, the Administrator shall
issue an order requiring such person to comply with such condition or
limitation or shall bring a civil action in accordance with subsection
(b) of this section.
"(2) Whenever, on the basis of information available to him, the
Administrator finds that violations of permit conditions or limitations
as set forth in paragraph (1) of this subsection are so widespread that
such violations appear to result from a failure of the State to enforce
such permit conditions or limitations effectively, he shall give public
notice of suchfinding. During the period beginning with such public
notice and ending when such State satisfies the Administrator that it
will enforce such conditions and limitations thereafter referred to in
this section as the period of 'federally assumed enforcements', the
Administrator shall enforce any permit condition or limitation with
respect to any person --
"(A) by issuing an order to comply with such conditions or
limitations, or
"(B) by bringing a civil action under subsection (b) of this section.
"(3) Whenever on the basis of any information available to him, the
Administrator finds that any person is in violation of sections 301,
302, 306, 307, 308, or 316 of this Act, or is in violation of any permit
condition or limitation implementing any of such sections, in a permit
issued under section 402 of this Act by him or by a State, he shall
issue an order requiring such person to comply with such section or
requirement, or he shall bring a civil action in accordance with
subsection (b) of this section.
"(4) A copy of any order under this subsection shall be sent
immediately to the(()) Administrator to the State in which the violation
occurs and other affected States. Any order issued under this
subsection shall be by personal service and shall state with reasonable
specificity the nature of the violation, specify a time for compliance,
not to exceed thirty days, which the Administrator determines is
reasonable, taking into acount the seriousness of the violation and any
god faith efforts to comply with applicable requirements. In any case
in which an order under this subsection (or notice to a violator under
paragraph (1) of this subsection) is issued to a coproration, a copy of
such order (or notice) shall be served on any appropriate corporate
officer. An order issued under this subsection relating to a violation
of section 308 of this Act shall not take effect until the person to
whom it is issued has had an opportunity to counter with the
Administrator concerning the alleged violation.
"(b) The Administrator is authorized to commence a civil action for
appropriate relief including a permanent or temporary injunction, for
any violation for which he is authorized to issue a compliance order
under subsection (a) of this section. Any action under this subsection
may be brought in the district court of the United States for the
district in which the defendant is located or resides or is doing
business, and such court shall have jurisdiction to restrain such
violation and to require compliance. Notice of the commencement of such
action shall be given immediately to the appropiriate State.
(c)(1) Any person who willfully or negligently violates section 301,
302, 306, 307, 308, or 316 of this Act, or any permit condition or
limitation implementing any of such sections in a permit issued under
section 402 of this Act by the Administrator or by a State shall be
punished by a fine of not less than $2,500 nor more than $25,000 per day
of violation, or by impreisonment for not more than one year or by both.
If the conviction is for a violation committed after a first conviction
of such person under this paragraph, punishment shall be a fine of not
more than $50,000 per day of violation or by imprisonment for not more
than two years, or by both.
"(2) Any person who knowingly makes any false statement,
representation, or certification in any application record report plan
or other document filed or required to be maintained under this Act or
who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any
monitoring evice or method required to be maintained under this Act,
shall upon conviction be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 or
by imprisonment for not more than six months or by both.
"(3) For the purposes of this subsection, the term 'person' shall
mean, in addition to the definition contained in section 505(5) of this
Act, any responsible corporate officer.
"(d) Any person who violates section 301, 302, 306, 308, or 316 of
this Act, or any permit conditions or limitations implementing any of
such sections in a permit issued under section 402 of this Act by the
Administrator, or by a State, and any person who violates any order
issued by the Administrator under sebsection (a) of this section, shall
be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000 per day of such
violation.
"(e) Whenever a municipality is a party to a civil action brought by
the United States under this section, the State in which such
municipality is located shall be joined as a party. Such State shall be
liable for payment of any judgment, or any expenses incurred as a result
of complying with any judgment, entered against the municipality in such
action to the extent that the laws of that State prevent the
municipality from raising revenues needed to comply with such judgment.
SEC. 310. (a) Whenever the Administrator upon receipts of reports,
surveys, or studies from any duly constituted international agncy, has
reason to believe that pollution is occurring which endangers the health
or welfare of persons in a foreign country, and the Secretary of State
requests him to abate such pollution, he shall give formal notification
thereof to the State water pollution control agency of the State or
States in which such discharge or discharges originate and to the
appropriate interstate agency, if any. He shall also promptly call such
a hearing, if he believes that such pollution is occurring in sufficient
quantity to warrant such action, and if such foreign country has given
the United States essentially the same rights with respect to the
prevention and control or pollution occurring in that country as is
given that country by this subsection. The Administrator, through the
Secretary of State, shall invite the foreign country which may be
adversely affected by the pollution to atend and participate inthe
hearing, and the representative of such country shall, for the purpose
of the hearing and any further proceeding resulting from such hearing,
have all the rights of a State water pollution control agency. Nothing
in this subsection shall be construed to modify, amend, repeal, or
otherwise affect the provision of the 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty
between Canada and the United States or the Water Utilization Treaty of
1944 between Mexico and the United States (59 Stat. 1219), relative to
the control and abatement of pollution in waters covered by those
treaties.
"(b) The calling of a hearing under this section shall not be
construed by the courts, the Administrator, or otherwise affecting the
functions and responsibilities of theAdministrator under this section to
establish and enforce water quality requirements under this Act.
"(c) The Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register a notice
of a public hearing before a hearing board of five or more persons
appointed by the Administrator. A majority of the members of the board
and the chairman who shall be designated by the Administrator shall not
be officers or employees of Federal, State, or local governments. On
the basis of the evidence presented at such hearing,ttthe board shall
within sixty days after completion of the hearing make findings of fact
as to whether or not such pollution is occurring and shall thereupon by
decision, incorporating its findings therein, make such recommendations
to abate the pollution as may be appropriate and shall transmit such
decision and the record of the hearings to the Administrator. All such
decisions shall be public. Upon receipt of such decision, the
Administrator shall promptly implement the board's decision in acordance
with the provisions of this Act.
"(d) In connection with any hearing called under this subsection, the
baord is authorized to require any person whose alleged activities
result in discharges causing or contributing to pollution to file with
it in such forms as it may prescribe, a report based on existing data,
furnishing such infomation as may reasonably be required as to the
character, kind, and quantity of such dischargs and the use of
facilities or other means to prevent or reduce such discharges by the
person filing such a report. Such report shall be made under oath or
otherwise, as the baord may prescribed, and shall be filed with the
board within such reasonable period as it may prescribe, unless
additional time is granted by it. Upon a showing satisfactory to the
board by the person filing such report that such report or portion
thereof (other than effluent data), to which the Administrator has
access under this section, if made public woiuld divulge trade secrets
or secret processes of suchperson, the board shall consider such report
or portions thereof confidential for the purposes of section 1905 of
title 18 of the United States Code. If any person required to file any
report under this paragraph shall fail to do so within the time fixed by
the board for filing the same, and such failure shall continue for
thirty days after notice of such default, such person shall forfeit to
the United States the sum of $1,000 for each and every day of the
continuance of such failure, which forfeiture shall be payable into the
Treasury of the United States and shall be recoverable in a civil suit
in the name of the United States in the district court of the United
States whre such person, has his principal office or in any district in
which he does business. The Administrator may upon application therefor
remit or mitigate any forfeiture provided for under this subsection.
"(e) Board memebers, other than officers or employees of Federal,
State, or local governments, shall be, for each day (including
traveltime) during which they are performing board business, entitled to
receive compensation at a rate fixed by the Administrator but not in
excess of the maximum rate of pay for grade GS18, as provided in the
General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5 of the United States
Code, and shall, notwithstanding the limitations of sections 5703 and
5704 of title 5 of the United States Code, be fully reimbursed for
travel, subsistence, and related expenses.
"(f) When any such recommendation adopted by the Administrator
involves the institution of enforcement proceedings against any person
to obtain the abatement of pollution subject to such recommendation, the
Administrator shall institute such proceedings if he believes that the
evdience warrants such proceedings. The district court of the United
States shall consider and determine de novo all relevant issues, but
shall receive in evidence the record of the proceedings before the
conference or hearing board. The court shall have jurisdiction to enter
such judgment and orders enforcing such judgment as it deems appropriate
or to remand such proceedings to the Administrator for such further
action as it may direct.
"SEC. 311. (a) For the purposes of this section, the term
"(1) 'oil' means oil of any kind or in any form, including but not
limited to, petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed ith
wastes other than dredged spoil;
"(2) 'discharge' includes but is not limited to any spilling,
leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying or dumping;
"(3) 'vessel' means every description of owatercraft or other
articifical contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of
transportation on water other than a public vessel;
"(4) 'public vessel' means a vessel owned or bareboard-chartered and
operated by the United States, or by a State or political subdivision
thereof, or by a foreign nation, except when such vessel is engaged in
commerce.
"(5) 'United States' means the States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Canal Zone, Guam, American Samoa, the
Virgin Islands; and th Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands;
"(6) 'owner or operator' means (A) in the case of a vessel, any
person owning, oprating, or charering by demise, such vessel, and (B) in
the cases of any onshore facility, and an offshore facility, any person
owning or operating such onshore facility or offshore facility, and (C)
in the case of any abandoned offshore facility, the person who owned
/(()) or operated such a facility, immediately prior to such
abandonment;
"(7) 'person' incudes an individual, firm, corporation, associaton,
and a partnership;
"(8) 'remove' or 'removal' refers to removal of the oil or hazardous
substances from the water and shorlines or the taking of such other
actions as may be necessary to minimize or mitigate damage to the public
health or welfare, including, but not limited to, fish, shellfish,
wildlife, and public and private property, shorelines, and beaches;
"(9) 'contiguous zone' means the entire zone established or to be
established by the United States uinder article 24 of the Convention on
the Territorial Sear and the Contiguous Zone;
"(10) 'onshore facility' means any facility (including, but not
limited to, motor vehicles and rolling stock) of any kind located in,
on, or under any land within the United States other than submerged
land;
"(11) 'offshore facility' means any facility of any knd located in,
on, or under, any of the navigable waters of the United States other
than a vessel or a public vessel;
"(12) 'act of God' means an act occasioned by an unanticipated grave
natural disaster;
"(13) 'barrel' means 42 United States gallons at 60 degrees
Fahrenheit;
"(14) 'hazardous substance' means any substance desginated pursuant
to subsection (b)(2) of this section.
"(b)(1) The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of the
United States that there should be no discharge of oil or hazardous
substances into or upon the navigable waters of the United States,
adjoining shorelines, or into or upon the waters of the contiguous zone.
"(3)(A) The Administrator shall develop, promulgate, and revise as
may be appropriate regulations desginating as hazardous substances,
other than oil as defined in this section, such elements and compounds
which, when discharged in any quantity into or oupon the navigable
waters of the United States or adjoinging shorelines or the waters of
the contiguous zone, present an imminent and substantial danger to the
public health or welfare, including, but not limited to, fish,
shellfish, wildlife, shorelines, and beaches.
"(B)(i) The Administrator shall incude in any designation under
subparagraph (A) of this subsection a determination whether any such
designated hazardous substance is itself actually removable.
"(ii) The owner or operator of any vessel, onshore facility, or
offshore facility from which there is discharged any hazardous substance
determined not removable under clause (i) of this subparagraph shall be
liable, subject to the defenses to liability provided under subsection
ILLEGIBLE of this section as appropriate, to the United States for
acivil penalty per discharge establsihed by the Administrator based on
toxicity, degradibility, and disposal characeristics of such substance,
in an amount not to exceed $50,000, except that where the United States
can show that such discharge was a result of willful negligence or
willful misconduct within the privity and knowledge of the owner, such
owner or operator shall be liable to the United States for a civil
penalty in such amount as the Administrator shall establish based on
toxicity, degradibility, and disposal characeristics of such substance.
"(3) The discharge of oil or hazardous substance into or upon the
navigable waters of the United States, adjoining shorelines, or into or
upon the waters of the contiguous zone in harmful quantities as
determined by the President under paragraph (4) of this subsection,
except (A) in the case of such discharges of oil into the contiguous
zone, where permitted under article IV of the International Convention
for the Prewvention of Polluiton of the Sea by Oil, 1954, as amended,
and (B) where permitted in quantities and at times and locations or
under such circumnstances or conditions as the President may, by
regulation, determine not to be harmful. Any regulations issued under
this subsection shall be consistent with maritime safety and with marine
and navigation laws and regulations and applicable water quality
standards.
"(4) The President shall by regulation, to be issued as soon as
possible after the date of enactment of this paragraph, determine for
the purposes of this section, those quantities of oil and any hazardous
substance the discharge of which, at such times, locations,
circumstances, and conditions, will be harmful to the public health or
welfare of the United States, including, but not limited to, fish,
shellfish, wildlife, and the public and private property and shorelines
and beaches except that in the case of the discharge of oil into or upon
the waters of the contiguous zone, only those discharges which threaten
the fishery resources of the contiguous zone or threaten to pollute or
contribute to the pollution of the territory or the territorial sea of
the United States may be determined to be harmful.
"(5) Any person in charge of a vessel or of an onshore facility or an
offshore facility shall, as soon as he has knowledge of any discharge of
oil or hazardous substance from such vessel or facility in violation of
paragraph (2) of this subsection, immediately notify the appropriate
agency of the United States Government of such discharge. Any such
person who fails to notify immediately such agencyof such discharge
shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned
for not more than one year, or both. Notification received pursuant to
this paragraph or information obtained by the exploitation of such
notification shall not be used against any such person in any criminal
case, except a prosecution for perjury or for giving a false statement.
"(6) Any owner or operator of any vessel, onshore facility, or
offshore facility from which oil or a hazardous substance is discharged
in violation of paragraph (2) of this subsection shall be assessed a
civil penalty by the Secretary of the department in which the Coast
Guard is operating of not more than $5,000 for each offense. No penalty
shall be assessed unless the owner or operator charged shall have been
given notice and opportunity for a hearing on such chare. Each
violation is a separate offense. Any such civil penalty may be
compromised by such Secretary. In determining theamount of the penalty,
or the amount agreed upon in compromise, the appropriateness of such
penalty to the size of thbusiness of the owner or operator charged, the
efect on the owner or operator's ability to continue in business, and
the gravity of the violation, shall be considered by such Secretary.
The Secretary of the Treasury shall withhold at the request of such
Secretary the clearance required by section 4197 of the Revised STatutes
of the United States, as amended (46 USC 91) of any vessel the owner or
operator of which is subject to the foregoing penalty. Clearance may be
granted in such cases upon the filing of a bond or other surety
satisfactory to such Secretary.
"(c)(1) Whenever any oil or hazardous substance is discharged into or
upon the navigable waters of the United States, adjoining shorelines, or
into or upon the waters of the contiguous zone, the President is
authorized to act to remove or arranged for the removal of such oil or
substance at any time, unless he determines such removal will be done
properly by the owner or operator of the vessel, onshore facility, or
offshore facility, from which the discharge occurs.
"(2) Within sixty days after the effective date of this section, the
President shall prepare and publish a National Contingency Plan for
removal of oil and hazardous substances, pursuant to this subsection.
Such National Contingency Plan shall provide for efficient, coordinated,
and efective action to minimize damage from oil and hazardous substance
discharges, including containment, dispersal, and removal of oil and
hazardous substances, and shall incude, but not be limited to
"(A) assignment of duties and responsibilities among Federal
departments and agencies in coordination with State and local agencies,
including, but not limited to, water pollution control, conservation,
and port authorities;
"(B) identification, procurement, maintenance, and storage of
equipment and supplies;
"(C) establishment or designation of a strike force consisting of
personnel who shall be trained, prepared, and available to provide
necessary services to carry out the Plan, including the establishment at
major ports, to be determined by the President, of emergency task
fordces of trained personnel, adequate oil and hazardous substance
pollution control equipment and material, and a detailed oil and
hazardous substance pollution prevention and removal plan;
"(D) a system or surveillance and notice designed to insure earliest
possible notice of discharges of oil and hazardous substances to the
appropriate Federal agency;
"(E) establishment of a national center teo provide coordination and
direction for operations in carrying out the Plan;
"(F) procedures and techniques to be employed in identifying,
containing, dispersing and removing oil and hazardous substances; and
"(G) a schedule, prepared in cooperation with the States, identifying
(i) dispersants and other chemicals, if any, that may be used in
carrying out the Plan, (ii) the waters in which such dispersants and
chemicals may be used, and (iii) the quantities of such dispersant or
chemical which can be used safely in such waters, which schedule shall
provide in the case of any dispersant, chemical, or waters not
specifically identified in such schedule that the President, or his
delegate, may, on a case by case basis, identify the dispersants and
other chemicals which may be used, the waters in which they may be used,
and the quantities which can be used safely in such waters.
The President may, from time to time, as he deems advisable revise or
otherwise amend the National Contingency Plan. After publication of the
National Contingency Plan, the removal of oil and hazardous substances
and actions to minimize damage from oil and hazardous substance
discharges shall, to the greatest extent possible, be in accordance with
the National Contingency Plan.
"(d) Whenever a marine disaster in or upon the navigable waters of
the United States has created a substantial threat of a pollution hazard
to the public health or welfare of the United States, including, but not
limited to, fish, shellfish, wildlife, and the public and private
shorelines and beaches of the United States, because of a discharge, or
an imminent discharge, of large quantities of oil or of a hazardous
substance from a vessel the United States may (A) coordinate and direct
all public and private efforts directed at the removal or elimination of
such threat, and (B) summarily remove and, if necessary, destroy such
vessel by whatever means are available without regard to any provisions
of law governing the emplyment of personnel or the expenditure of
appropriate funds. Any expense incurred by the United States Government
for the purposes of subsection (f) in the removal of oil or hazardous
substance.
"(e) In addition to any other action taken by a State or local
government, when the President determines there is an imminent and
substantial threat to the public health or welfare of the United States,
including, /(()) but not limited to, fish, shellfish, wildlife, and the
public and private property, shorelines and beaches within the United
States, because of an actual or threatened discharge of oil or hazardous
substance into or upon the navigable waters of the United States from an
onshore or offshore facility, the President may require the United
States attorney of the district in which the threat occurs to secure
such relief as may be necessary to abate such threat, and the district
courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction to grant such relief
as the public interest and the equities of the case may require.
"(f)(1) Except where an owner or operator can prove that a discharge
was caused solely by (A) an act of God, (B) an act of war, (C)
negligence on the part of the United States Government, or (D) an act or
omission of a third party without regard to whether any such act or
omission was or was not negligent, or any combination of the foregoing
clauses, such owner or operator of any vessel from which oil or a
hazardous substance is discharged in violation of subsection (b)(2) of
this section shall, nothwithstanding any other provision of law, be
liable to the United States Government for the actual costs incurred
under subsection (c) for the removal of such oil or substance by the
United States Government in an amount not to exceed $100 per gross ton
of such vessel or $14,000,000, whichever is lesser, except that where
the United States can show that such discharge was the result of willful
negligence or willful misconduct within the privity and knowledge of the
owner, such owner or operator shall be liable to the United States
Government for the full amount of such costs. Such cosers shall
constitute a maritime lien on such vessel which may be recovered in an
action in rem in the district court of the United States for any
district within which any vessel may be found. The United States may
also bring an action against the owner or operator of such vessel in any
court of competent jurisdiction to recover such costs.
"(2) Except where an owner or operator of an onshore facility can
prove that a discharge was caused solely by (A) an act of God, (B) an
act of war, (C) negligence on the part of the United States Government,
or (D) an act or omission of a third party without regard to whether any
such act or omission was or was not negligent, or any combination of the
foregoing clauses, such owner or operator of any such facility from
which oil or a hazardous substance is discharged in violation of
subsection (b)(2) of this section shall be liable to the United States
Government for the actual costs incurred under subsection (c) for the
removal of such oil or substance by the United States Government in an
amount not to exceed $8,000,000, except that where the United States can
show that such discharge was the result of willful negligence or willful
misconduct within the privity and knowledge of the owner, such owner or
operator shall be liable to the United States Government for the full
amount of such costs. The United States may bring an action against the
owner or operator of such facility in any court of competent
jurisdiction to recover such costs. The Secretary is authorized by
regulation, after consultation with the Secretary of Commerce and the
Small Business Administration, to establish reasonable and equitable
classifications of those onshore facilities having a total fixed storage
capacity of 1,000 barrels or less which he determines because of size,
type and location do not present a substantial risk of the discharge of
oil or hazardous substance in violation of subsection (b)(2) of this
section, and apply with respect to such classification differing limits
of liability which may be less than the amount contained in this
paragraph.
"(3) Except where an owner or operator of an offshore facility can
prove that a discharge was caused solely by (A) an act of God, (B) an
act of war, (C) negligence on the part of the United States Government,
or (D) an act or omission of a third party without regard to whether any
such act or omission was or was not negligent, or any combination of the
foregoing clauses, such owner or operator of any such facility from
which oil or a hazardous substance is discharged in violation of
subsection (b)(2) of this section shall be liable to the United States
Government for the actual costs incurred under subsection (c) for the
removal of such oil or substance by the United States Government in an
amount not to exceed $8,000,000, except that where the United States can
show that such discharge was the result of willful negligence or willful
misconduct within the privity and knowledge of the owner, such owner or
operator shall be liable to the United States Government for the full
amount of such costs. The United States may bring an action against the
owner or operator of such facility in any court of competent
jurisdiction to recover such costs.
"(g) In any case where an owner or operator of a vessel, of an
onshore facility, or of an offshore facility, from which oil or a
hazardous substance is discharged in violation of subsection (b)(2) of
this section proves that such discharge of oil or a hazardous substance
was caused solely by an act or omission of a third party, or was caused
by such an act or omission in combination with an act of God, an act of
war, or negligence on the part of the United States Government, such
third party shall, nothwithstanding anyother provision of law, be liable
to the United States Government for the full amount of such costs,
except where such third party can prove that a discharge was caused
solely by (A) an act of God, (B) an act of war, (C) negligence on the
part of the United States Government, or (D) an act or omission of a
another party without regard to whether any such act or omission was or
was not negligent, or any combination of the foregoing clauses. If such
party was the owner or operator of a vessel which caused the discharge
of oil or a hazardous substance in violation of subsection (b)(2) of
this section, the liability of such third party under this subsection
shall not exceed $100 per gross ton of such vessel or $14,000,000,
whichever is lesser. In any other case, the liability of such third
party shall not exceed the limitation which would have been applicable
to the owner or operator of the vessel or the onshore or offshore
facility from which the discharge actually occurred if such owner or
operator were liable. If the United States can show that the discharge
of oil or a hazardous substance in violation of subsection (b)(2) of
this section was the result of willful negligence or willful misconduct
within the privity and knowledge of such third party, such third party
shall be liable to the United States GRovernment for the full amount of
such removal costs. The United States may bring an action against the
third party in any court of competent jurisdiction to recover such
removal costs.
"(h) The liabilities established by this section shall in no way
affect any rights which (1) the owner or operator of a vessel or of an
onshore facility or an offshore facility may have against any third
party whose actions may in any way have caused or contributed to the
discharge of oil or hazardous substance.
"(i)(1) In any case where an owner or operator of a vessel or an
onshore facility or an offshore facility from whichoil or a hazardous
substance is discharged in violation of subsection (b)(2) of this
section acts to remove suchoil or substance in accordance with
regulations promulgated pursuant to this section, such owner or operator
shall be entitled to recover the reasonable costs incurred in such
removal upon establishing in a suit which may be brought against the
United States Government in the United States Court of Claims, that such
discharge was caused solely by (A) an act of God, (B) an act of war, (C)
negligence on the part of the United States Government, or (D) an act or
omission of a third party without regard to whether any such act or
omission was or was not negligent, or any combination of the foregoing
causes.
"(2) The provisions of this subsection shall not apply in any case
where liability is established pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act.
"(3) Any amount paid in accordance with a judgment of the United
States Court of Claims pursuant to this section shall be paid from the
fund established pursuant to subsection (k).
"(j)(1) Consistent with the National Contingency Plan required by
subsection (c)(2) of this section, as soon as practicable after the
effective date of this section, and from time to time thereafter, the
President shall issue regulations consistent with maritime safty and
with marine and navigation laws (A) establishing methods and procedures
for removal of discharged oil and hazardous substances, (B) establishing
criteria for the development and implementation of local and regional
oil and hazardous substance removal contingency plans, (C) establishing
procedures, methods, and equipment and other requirements for equipment
to prevent discharges of oil and hazardous substances from vessels and
from onshore facilities and offshore facilities, and to contain such
discharges and (D) governing the inspection of vessels carrying cargoes
of oil and hazardous substances and the inspection of such cargoes in
order to reduce the likelihood of discharges of oil from vessels in
violation of this section.
"(2) Any owner or operator of a vessel or an onshore facility or an
offshore facility and any other person subject to any regulations issued
under paragraph (1) of this subsection who fails or refuses to comply
with the provisions of such regulation, shall be liable for a civil
penalty of not more than $5,000 for each such violation. Each violation
shall be a separate offense. The President may assess and compromise
such penalty. No penalty shall be assessed until the owner, operator,
or other person charged shall have been given notice and an opportunity
for a hearing on such charge. In determining the amount of the penalty,
or the amount agreed uon in compromise, the gravity of the violation,
and the demonstrated good faith of the owner, operator, or other person
charged in attempting to achieve rapid compliance after notification of
a violation, shall be considered by the President.
"(k) There is authorized to be appropriated to a revolving fund to be
established in the Treasury not to exceed $35,000,000 to carry out the
provisions of subsections (c), (d), (i), and (l) of this section. Any
other funds received by the United States under this section shall also
be deposited in said fund for suchpurpose. All sums appropriated to or
deposited in said fund shall remain available until expended.
"(l) The President is authorized to delegate the administration of
this section to the heads of those Federal departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities which he determines teo be appropriate. Any moneys in
the fund established by subsection (k) of this section shall be
available to such Federal departments, agencies and instrumentalities to
carry out the provisions of subsections (c) and (i) of this section.
Each such department /(()) agency and instrumentality, in order to avoid
duplication of effort, shall whenever appropriate, utilize the prsonnel,
services, and facilities of other Federal departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities.
"(m) Anyone authorized by the President to enforce the provisions of
this section may, ecept as to public vessels, (A) board and inspect any
vessel upon the navigable waters of the United States or the waters of
the contiguous zone, (B) with or without a warrant arrest any person who
violates the provisions of this section or any regulation issued there
under in his presence or view, and (C) execute any warrant or other
process issued by an officer or court of competent jurisdiction.
"(n) The several district courts of the United States are invested
with jurisdiction for any actions, other than actions pursuant to
subsection (i)(1), arising under this section. In the case of Guam and
the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, such action may be brought
in the district court of Guam, and in the case of the Virgin Islands
such actions may be brought in the district court of the Virgin Islands.
In the case of American Samoa and the Trust Territory of the Pacific
Islands, such actions may be brought in the District Court of the United
States for the District of Hawaii and such court shall have jurisdiction
of such actions. In the case of the Canal Zone, such actions may be
brought in the United States District Court for the District of the
Canal Zone.
"(o)(1) Nothing in this section shall affect or modify in any way the
obligatons of any owner or operator of any vessel, or of any owner or
operator of any onshore facility, or of any owner or operator of any
offshore facility to any person or agency under any provision of law for
damages to any publicly owned or privately owned property resulting from
a discharge of any oil or hazardous substance of from the removal of any
such oil or hazardous substance.
"(2) Nothing in this section shall be construed as preempting any
State or political subdivision thereof from imposing any requirement or
liability with respect to the discharge of oil or hazardous substance
into any waters within such State.
"(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting or
modifying anyother existing authority of any Federal department, agency
or instrumentality, relative to onshore or offshore faciities under this
Act or any other provision of law, or to afect any State or local law
not in conflict with this section.
"(p)(1) Any vessel over three hundred gross tons, including any barge
of equivalent size, but not including any barge that is not
self-propelled and that does not carry oil or hazardous substances as
cargo or fuel, using any port or place in the United States or the
navigable waters of the United States for any purpose shall establish
and maintain under regulations to be prescribed from time to time by the
President, evidence of financial responsibility of $100 per gross ton,
or $14,000,000, whichever is lesser, to meet the liability to the United
States which such vessel could be subjected under this section. In
cases where an owner or operator owns, operates or charters more than
one such vessel, financial responsibility need only be established to
meet the maximum liability to which the largest of such vessels could be
subjected. Financial responsibility may be established by any one of,
or a combination of, the following methods acceptable to the President:
(A) evidence of insurance, (B) surety bonds, (C) qualification as a
self-insurer, or (D) other evidence of financial responsibility. Any
bond filed shall be issued by a bonding company authorized to do
business in the United States.
"(2) The provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be
effective April 3, 1971, with respect to oil and one year aftert the
date of enactment of this section with respect to hazardous substances.
The President shall delegate the responsibility to carry out the
provisions of this subsection to the appropriate agency head within
sixty days after the date of enactment of this seciton. Regulations
necessary to implement this subsection shall be issued within six months
after the date of enactment of this section.
"(3) Any claim for costs incurred by such vessel may be brought
directly against the insurer or anyother person providing evidence of
financial responsiblity as required under this subsection. In the case
of any action pursuant to this subsection such insurer or other person
shall be entitled to ionvoke all rights and defenses which would have
been available to the owner or operator if an action had been brought
against him by the claimant, and which would hve been available to him
if an action had been brought against him by the owner or operator.
"SEC. 312. (a) For the purpose of this section, the term
"(1) 'new vessel' includes every description of watercraft or other
artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used as a means of
transportion on the navigable waters, the construction of which is
initiated after promulgation of standards and regulations under this
section;
"(2) 'existing vessel' includes every description of watercraft or
other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used as a means
of transportion on the navigable waters, the construction of which is
initiated before promulgation of standards and regulations under this
section;
"(3) 'public vessel' means a vessel owned or bareboat chartered and
operated by the United States, by a State or political subdivision
thereof, or by a foreign nation, except when such vessel is engaged in
commerce;
"(4) 'United States' includes the States, the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American
Samoa, the Canal Zone, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands;
"(5) 'marine sanitation device' includes any equipment for
installation on board a vessel which is designed to receive, retain,
trat, or discharge sewage, and any process to treat such sewage;
"(6) 'sewage' means human body wastes and the wastes from toilets and
other receptacles intended to receive or retain body wastes;
"(7) 'manufacturer' means any person engaged in the manufacturing,
assembling, or importation of marine sanitation devices or of vessels
subject to standards and regulations promulgated under this section;
"(8) 'person' means an individual, partnership, firm, corporation, or
association, but does not include an individual on board a public
vessel;
"(9) 'discharge' includes, but is not limited to, spilling, leaking,
pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, or dumping.
"(b)(1) As soon as possible, after the enactment of this section and
subject to the provisions of section 104(j) of this Act, the
Administrator, after consultation with the Secretary of the department
in which the Coast Guard is operating, after giving appropriate
consideration to the economic costs involved, and within the limits of
available technology, shall promulgate Federal standards of performance
for marine sanitation device (hereafter in this section referred to as
'standards') which shall be designed to prevent the discharge of
untreated or inadequately treated sewage into or upon the navigable
waters from new vessels and existing vessels, exceptr vessels not
equipped withinstalled toilet facilities. Such standards shall be
consistent with maritime safety and the marine and navigation laws and
regulations and shall be coordinated with the regulations issued under
this subsection by the Secretary of the department in which the Coast
Guard is operating. The Secretary of the department in which the Coast
Guard is operating shall promulgate regulations, which are consistent
with standards promulgated under this subsection and with maritime
safety and the marine and navigation laws and regulations governing the
design, construction, installation, and operation of any marine
sanitation device on board such vessels.
"(2) Any existing vessel equipped with a marine sanitation device on
the date of promulgation of initial standards and regulations under this
section, which device is in compliance with such initial standards and
regulations, shall be deemed in compliance with this section until such
time as the device is replaced or is found not to be in compliance with
such initial standards and regulations.
"(c)(1) Initial standards and regulations under this section shall
become effective for new vessels two years after promulgation and for
existing vessels five years after promulgation. Revisions of standards
and regulations shall be effective upon promulgation, unless another
effective date is specified, except that no revision shall take effect
before the effective date of the standard or regulation being revised.
"(2) The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating with regard to his regulatory authority established by this
section, after consultation with the Administrator, may distinguish
among classes, type, sizes of vessels, as well as between new and
existing vessels, and may waive applicability of standards and
regulations as necessary or appropriate for such clases, types, and
sizes of vessels (including existing vessels equipped with marine
sanitation devices on the date of promulgation of the initial standards
required by this section), and upon aplication, for individual vessels.
"(d) The provisions of this section and the standards and regulations
promulgated hereunder apply to vessels owned and operated by the United
States unless the Secretary of Defense finds that compliance would not
be in the interest of national security. With respect to vessels owned
and operated by the Department of Defense, regulations under the last
sentence of subsection (b)(1) of this section and certifications under
subsection (g)(2) of this section shall be promulgated and issued by the
Secretary of Defense.
"(e) Before the standards and regulations under this section are
promulgated, the Administrator and the Secretary of the department in
which the Coast Guard is operating shall consult with the Secretary of
Health, Education and Welfare; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary
of the Treasury; the Secretary of Commerce; and other interested
Federal agencies; and the States and industries interested; and
otherwise comply with the requirements of section 553 of title 5 of the
United States Code.
"(f) After the effective date of the initial standards and
regulations promulgated under this section, if any State determines that
the protection and enhancement of the quality of some or all of the
waters within such State require greater environmental protection,
suchState may completelyprohibit the discharge from a vessel of any
sewage, whether treated or not, into such waters.
"(g)(1) No manufacturer of a marine sanitation device shall sell,
offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate
commerce, or ijport into the United States for sale or resale any marine
sanitation device manufactured after the effective date of the standards
and regulations promulgated under this section unless such device is in
all material respects substantially the same as a test device certified
under this subsection. /(())
"(2) Upon application of the manufacturer, the Secretary of the
department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall so certify a
marine sanitation device if he determines, in accordance with the
provisions of this paragrah, that it meets the appropriate standards and
regulations promulgated under this section. The Secretary of the
department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall test or require
such testing of the device in accordance with procedures set forth by
the Administrator as to standards of performance and for such other
purposes as may be approprate. If the Secretary of the department in
which the Coast Guard is operating determines that the device is
satisfactory from the standpoint of safety and any other requirements of
maritime law or regulation, and after consideration of the design,
installation, operation, material, or other appropriate factors, he
shall certify the device. Any device manufactured by such manufacturer
which is in all material respects substantially the same as the
certified test device shall be deemed to be in conformity with the
appropriate standards and regulations established under this section.
"(3) Every manufacturer shall establish and maintain such records,
make such reports, and provide such information as the Administrator or
the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating
may rasonably require to enable him to determine whether such
manufacturer has acted or is acting in compliance with this section and
regulations issued thereunder and shall, upon request of an officer or
employee duly designated by the Administrator or the Secretary of the
department in which the Coast Guard is operating, permit such officer or
employee at reasonable times to have access to and copy such records.
All information reported to or otherwise obtained by the Administrator
or the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating
or their representatives pursuant to this subsection which contains or
relates to a trade secret or other matter referred to in section 1905 of
title 18 of the United States Code shall be considered confidential for
thepurpose of that section, except that such information may be
disclosed to other officers or employees concerned with carrying out
this section. This paragraph shall not apply in the case of the
construction of a vessel by an individual for his own use.
"(h) After the effective date of standards and regulations
promulgated under this section, it shall be unlawful --
"(1) for the manufacturer of any vessel subject to such standards and
regulations to manufacture for sale, to sell or offer for sale, or to
distribute for sale or resale any such vessel unless it is equipped with
a marine sanitation device which is in all material respects
substantially the same as the as the appropriate test device certified
pursuant to this section;
"(2) for any person, prior to the sale or deliveryof a vessel subject
to such standards and regulations to the ultimate purchaser, wrongfully
to remove or render inoperative any certified marine sanitation device
or element of design of such device installled in such vessel;
"(3) for any person to fail or refuse to permit access to or copying
of records or to fail to make reports or provide information required
under this section;
"(4) for a vessel subject to such standards and regulations to
operate on the navigable waters of the United States if such vessel is
not equipped with an operable marine sanitation device certified
pursuant to this section.
"(i) The district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction
to restrain violations of subsection (g)(1) of this section and
subsection (h)(1) through (3) of this section. Actions to restrain such
violations shall be brought by and in the name of the United States. In
case of continuancy or refusal to obey a subpena served upon any person
under this subsection, the district court of the United States for any
distrrict in which such person is found or resides or transacts
business, upon application by the United States, and after notice to
suchperson, shall have jurisdiction to issue an order requiring such
person to appear and give testimony or to appear and produce documents,
and any failure to obey such order of the court may be punished by such
court as a contempt thereof.
"(j) Any person who violates subsection (g)(1) of this section or
clause (1) or (2) of subsection (h) of this section shall be liable for
a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each violation. Any person
who violates clause (4) of subsection (h) of this section or any
regulation issued pursuant to this section shall be liable to a civil
penalty of not more than $2,000 for each violation. Each violation
shall be a separate offense. The Secretary of the department in which
the Coast Guard is operatingR may assess and compromise any such
penalty. No penalty shall be assessed until the person charged shall
have been given notice and an opportunity for a hearing on such charge.
In determining the amount of the penalty, or the amount agreed upon in
compromise, the gravity of the violation, and the demonstrated good
faith of the person charged in attempting to achieve rapid compliance,
after notification of violation, shall be considered by said Secretary.
"(k) The provisions of this section shall be enforced by the
Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating and he
may utilize by agreement, with or without reimbursement, law enforcement
officers or other personnel and facilities of the Administrator, other
Federal agencies, or the States to carry out the provisions of this
section.
"(l) Anyone authorized by the Secretary of the department in which
the Coast Guard is operating to enforce the provisions of this section
may, except as to public vessels (1) board and inspect any vessel upon
the navigable waters of the United States and (2) excecute any warrant
or other process issued by an officer or court of competent
jurisdiction.
"(m) In the case of Guam and the Trust Territory of the Pacific
Islands, such action may be brought in the district court of Guam, and
in the case of the Virgin Islands such actions may be brought in the
district court of the Virgin Islands. In the case of American Samoa and
the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, such actions may be brought
in the District Court of the United States for the District of Hawaii
and such court shall have jurisdiction of such actions. In the case of
the Canal Zone, such actions may be brought in the United States
District Court for the District of the Canal Zone.
"SEC. 313. Each department, agency, or instrumentality of the
executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government
(1) having jurisdiction over any property or facility, or (2) engaged in
any activity resulting, or which may result, in the discharge or run of
of pollutants shall comply with Federal, State, interstate, and local
requirements respecting control and abatement of pollution to the same
extent that anyperson is subject to such requirements, including the
payment of reasonable service charges. The President may exempt any
effluent source of any department, agency, or instrumentality of the
executive branch from compliance with any such requirement if he
determines it to be in the paramount interest of the United States to do
so, except that no exemption may be granted from the requirements of
section 306 or 307 of this Act. No such exemption shall be granted due
to lack of appropriation unless the President shall have specifically
requested such appropriation as a part of the budgetary process and the
Congress shall have failed to make available such requested
appropriation. Any exemption shall be for a period not in excess of one
year, but additional exemptions may be granted for periods of not to
exceed one year upon the President's making a new determination. The
President shall report each January to the Congress all exemptions from
the requirements of this section granted during the preceding calendar
year, together with his reason for granting such exemption.
"SEC. 314. (a) Each State shall prepare or establish, and submit to
the Administrator for his approval
"(1) an identification and classification according to eutrophic
condition of all publicly owned fresh water lakes in such State;
"(2) procedures, processes, and methods (including land use
requirements) to control sources of pollution of such lakes; and
"(3) methods and plrocedures, in conjunction with appropriate federal
agencies, to restore the quality of such lakes.
"(b) The Administrator shall provide financial assistance to States
in order to carry out methods and procedures approved by him under this
section.
"(c)(1) The amount granted to any State for any fiscal year under
this section shall not exceed 70 per centum of the funds expended by
such State in such year for carrying out approved methods and procedures
under this section.
"(2) There is authorized to be appropriated $100,000,000 for the
fiscal yar ending June 30, 1973; and $150,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1974 for grants to States under this section which such
sums shall remain available until expended. The Administrator shall
provide for an equitable distribution of such sums to the States with
approved methods and procedures under this section.
"SEC. 315. (a) The National Academy of Sciences and the National
Academy of Engineering, acting through the National Research Council,
shall make a full and complete investigation and study of all of the
technological aspects of achieving, and all aspects of thetotal
economic, social, and environmental effects of achieving or not
achieving, the effluent limitations and goals set forth for 1981 in
section 301(b)(2) of this title. A report shall be submittd to Congress
of the results of suchinvestigation and study, together with
recommendations, not later than two years after the date of enactment of
this title. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 301(b)(2) of this
title or any other provision of this Act to the contrary, effluent
limitations, goals, and policies established for 1981 for point and
nonpoint sources (other than publicly owned treatment works) and later
years for point and nonpoint sources, by this Act shall not take effect
until such time as Congress shall, by statute enacted after the
submission of the report required by this subsection, specifically so
provide.
"(b) The hads of the departments, agencies, and instrumentalities of
the executive branch of the Federal Government shall cooperate with the
Academies in carrying ouit the requirements of subsection (a) of this
section, and shall furnish to such Academies such information as the
Academies deem necessary to carry out this section.
"(c) There is authorized to be appropriated to the President, for use
in carrying out this section, not to exceed $15,000,000. /(())
"SEC. 316. (a) As soon as practicable, but not later than one year
aftert enactment of this section, the Administrator shall issued
proposed regulations with respect to control of thermal discharges.
"(b) Such proposed regulations shall recognize that the optimum
method of control of any thermal discharge may depend upon local
conditions, including the type and size of the receiving body of water.
The regulations shall require any person proposing to make such a
discharge to consider all alternative methods for controlling such a
discharge, including, but not limited to (1) utilization of available
water bodies or cooling devices, including once-through cooling, mixing
zones, cooling ponds, spray ponds, evaporative or nonevaporative cooling
towers, (2) dilution of heated waters with cooler waters, and (3) an
alteration of the outlet configuration. In evaluating such alternative
methods of control consideration shall be given to (1) their relative
engineering and tehcnical feasibility, (2) their relative social and
economic costs and benefits, (3) their relatie impact on the
environment, considering not oly water quality but also air quality,
land use, and effective utilization and conservation of natural
resources, and (4) methods of minimizing adverse effects and maximizing
beneficial effects of such discharges.
"(c) The Administrator shall afford interested persons an
opportunity, not to exceed sixty days, for written comment on such
proposed regulations. After considering such comments, he shall
promulgate, within one hundred and twenty days after publication of such
proposed regulations, final regulations. The Administrator shall, from
time to time, as technology and alternatives change, revise such
regulations.
"(d) Such regulations shall apply to thermal discharges from all
sources, unless the Administrator determines, after a public hearing
requested by theowner or operator of a point source, that the economic
and social costs of imnplementing the regulations at a point source bear
no reasonable relationship to the economic and social benefits
(including water quality objectives) to be attained. Any such
determination shall be accompanied by an appropriate adjustment of such
regulations for such source, which shall reflect the greatest degree of
control which the Administrator determines can reasonably be achieved at
such source.
"(e) The provisins of this section shall apply to point sources owned
or operated by the United States or instrumentalities thereof.
"SEC. 317. (a) The Administrator shall continue to investigate and
studythe feasibility of alternative methods of financing the cost of
preventing, controlling and abating pollution as directed in the Water
Quality Improvement Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-224), including, but not
limited to, the feasibilityof establishing a pollution abatement trust
fund. The results of such investigation and study shall be reported to
the Congress not later than two years after enactment of this title,
together with recommendations of the Administrator for financing the
programs for preventing, controlling, and abating pollution for the
fiscal years beginning after fiscal year 1976, including any necessary
legislation.
"(b) There is authorized to be appropriated for use in carrying out
this section, not to exceed $1,000,000.
"SEC. 318. (a) The Administrator is authorized, after public
hearings, to permit the discharge of a specific pollutant or pollutants
under controlled conditions associated with an approved aquaculture
project under Federal or State supervision.
"(b) There is authorized to be appropriated not later than January 1,
1974, establish any procedures and guidelines he deems necessary to
carry out this section.
"SEC. 401. (a)(1) Any applicant for a Federal license or permit to
conduct any activity including, but not limited to, the construction or
operation of facilities, which may result in any discharge into
navigable waters, whall provide the licensing or permitting agency a
certification from the State inwhich the discharge originates or will
originate, or, if appropirate, from the interstate water pollution
control agency having jurisdiction over the navigable waters at the
point where the discharge originates or will originte, that naysuch
discharge will comply withthe applicable provisions of sections 301,
302, 306, 307, and 316 of this Act. In the case of anysuch activity for
which there is not an applicable effluent limitation or other limitation
uinder sections 301(b) and 302, and there is not an applicable standard
under section 316, the State shall so certify, except that any such
certification shallnot be deemed to satisfy section 511(c) of this Act.
Such State or interstate agency shall establish procedures for public
notice in the case of all applications for certification by it and, to
the extent it deems appropriate, procedurs for public hearings in
connectin with specific applications. In any case where a State or
interstate agency has no authority to give such a certification, such
certification shall be from the Administrator. If the State, interstate
agency, or Administrator, as the case may be, fails or refuses to act on
a request for certification, within a reasonable period of time (which
shall not exceed one year) after receipt of such request, the
certification requirements of this subsection shall be waived with
respect to such Federal application. No license or permit shall be
granted until the certification required by this section has been
obtained or has been waived as provided in the preceding sentence. No
license or permit shall be granted if certification has been denied by
the State, interstate agency, or the Administrator, as the case may be.
"(2) Upon receipt of such application and certification the licensing
or permitting agency shall immediately notify the Administrator of such
application and certification. Whenever such a discharge may affect, as
determined by the Administrator, the quality of the waters of any other
State, the Administrator within thirty days of the date of notice of
application for such Federal license or permit shall so notify such
other State, the licensing or permitting agency, and te applicant. If,
within sixty days after receipt of such notification, such other State
determines that such discharge will affect the quality of its waters so
as to violate any water quality requirement in such State, and within
such sixty-day period notifies the Administrator and the licensing or
permitting agency in writing of its objection to the issuance of such
license or permit and requests a public hearing on suchobjectin, the
licensing or permitting agency shall hold such a hearing. The
Administrator shall at such hearing submit his recommendations with
respect to anysuchobjection to the licensing or permitting agency. Such
agency, based upon the recommendations of such State, the Administrator,
and upon any additional evidence, if any, presented to the agency at the
haring, shall condition such license or permit in such manner as may be
necessary to insure compliance with applicable water quality
requirements. If the imposition of conditions cannot insure such
compliance such agency shll not issue such license or permit.
"(3) The certification obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of this
subsection with respect to the construction of any facility shall
fulfill the requirements of this subsection with respect to
certification in connection with any other Federal license or permit
required for the operation of such facility unless, after notice to the
certifying State, agency, or Administrator, as the case may be, which
shall be given by the Federal agency to whom application is made for
such operating license or permit, the State, or if appropriate, the
interstate agency or the Administrator, notifies such agency within
sixty days after receipt of suchnotice that there is no longer
reasonable assurance that there will be compliance with the applicable
provisions of sections 301, 302, 306, 307, and 316 of this Act because
of changes since the construction license or permit certification was
issued in (A) the construction or operation of the facility, (B) the
characeristics of the waters into which such discharge is made, (C) the
water quality criteria applicable to such waters or (D) applicable
effluent limitations or other requirements. This paragraph shall be
inaplicable in any case where theapplicant for such operating license or
permit has failed to provide the certifying State, or, if appropriate,
the interstate agency or the Administrator, with notice of any proposed
changes in the construction or operation of the facility with respect to
which a construction license or permit has been granted, which changes
may result in violation of section 301, 302, 306, 307, or 316 of this
Act.
"(4) Prior to the initial operation of any federally licensed or
permitted facility or activity which may result in any discharge into
the navigable waters and with respect to which a certification has been
obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection, which facility or
actgivity is not subject to a Federal operating license or permit, the
licensee or permittee shall provide an opportunity for such certifying
State, or, if appropriate, interstate agency or the Administrator to
review the manner in which the facility or activity shall be operated or
conducted for the purposes of assuring that applicable effluent
limitations or other limitations or other applicable water quality
requirements will not be violated. Upon notification by the certifying
State, or, if appropriate, the interstate agency or the Administrator
that the operation of any such federally licnesed or permitted facility
or activity will violate applicable effluent limitations or other
limitations or other water quality requirements such Federal agency may,
after public hearing, suspend such license or permit. If such license
or permit is suspended, it shall reamin suspended until notification is
received from the certifying State, agency, or Administrator, as the
case may be, that there is reasonable assurance that such facility or
activity will not violate the applicable provisions of section 301, 302,
306, 307, or 316.
"(5) Any Federal license or permit with respect to which a
certification has been obtained under paragraph (1) of this subsection
may be suspended or revoked by the Federal agency issuing such license
or permit upon the entering of a judgment under this Act that such
facility or activity has been operated in violation of the applicable
provisions of section 301, 302, 306, 307, or 316 of this Act.
"(6) No Federal agency shall be deemed to be an applicant for
purposes of this section.
"(7) In any case where actual construction of a facility has been
lawfully commenced prior to April 3, 1970, no certification shall be
required under this subsection for a license or permit issued after
April 3, 1970 to operate such facility, except that any such license or
permit issued without certification shall terminate April 3, 1973,
unless prior to such termination date, the person having such license or
permit submits to the Federal /(()) agency which issued suchlicense or
permit a certification and otherwise meets the requirements of this
section.
"(b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit theauthority
of any department or agency pursuant to any other provision of law to
require compliance with any applicable water quality requirements. The
Administrator shall, upon the request of any Federal department or
agency, or State or interstate agency, or applicant, provide, for
thepurpose of this section, any relevant informatin on applicable
effluent limitations or other limitations, standards, requglations, or
requirements, or water quality criteria, and shall, when requested by
any such department or agency, or State or interstate agency, or
applicant, comment on anymethods to comply with such limitations,
standards, regulations, requirements or criteria.
"(c) In order to implement the provisins of this section, the
Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is
authorized, if he deems it to be in the public interest, to permit the
use of spoil disposal areas under his jurisdiction by Federal licensees
and permittees, and to make an appropriate charge for such use. Moneys
received from such licensees and permittees shall be deposited in the
Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
"(d) Any certification provided under this section shall set forth
anyeffluent limitations and other limitations, and monitoring
requirements necessaryto assure that any applicant for a Federal license
or permit will complywith any applicable effluent limitations and other
limitations, under section 301 or 302 of this Act, standard of
performance under section 306 of this Act, or prohibition, effluent
standard, or pretreatment standards under section 307 of this Act, or
any regulations under section 316 of this Act, and shall become a
condition on any Federal license or permit subject to the provisions of
this section.
"SEC. 402. (a)(1) Except as provided in sections 318 and 404 of this
Act, the Administrator may, after opportunity for public hearing, issue
a permit for the discharge of any pollutant, or combination of
pollutants or any thermal discharge, notwithstanding section 301(a),
upon condition that such discharge will meet either all applicable
requirements under section 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, and 316, and 403 of
this Act, or prior to the taking of nedcessary implementing actions
relating to all such requirements, such conditions as the Administrator
determines are necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.
"(2) The Administrator shall prescribe conditions for such permits to
assure compliance with the requirements of paragraph (1) of this
subsection, including conditions on data and information collection,
reporting, and such other requirements as he deems appropriate.
"(3) The permit program of the Administrator under paragraph (1) of
this subsection, and permits issued thereunder, shall be subject to the
same terms, conditions, and requirements as apply to a State permit
program and permits issued thereunder under subsection (b) of this
section.
"(4) All permits for discharges into navigable waters issued pursuant
to section 13 of the Act of March 3, 1899, shall be deemed to be permits
issued under this title, and permits issued under this title shall be
deemed to be permits issued under section 13 of the Act of March 3,
1899, and shall continue in force and effect for their term unless
revoked, modified, or suspended in accordance with the provisions of
this Act.
"(5) No permit for a discharge into navigable waters shall be issued
under section 13 of the Act of March 3, 1899, after the date of
enactment of this title. Each application for a permit under section 13
of the Act of March 3, 1899, pending on the date of enactment of this
Act shall be deemed to be an application for a permit under this
section. The Administrator may authorize a State, which he determines
has the capability of administering a permit program which will carry
out the objective of this Act, to issue permits for discharges into
navigable waters within the jurisdiction of such State. The
Administrator may exercise the authority granted him by the preceding
sentence only during the period which begins on the date of enactment of
this Act and ends either on the ninetieth day after the date of the
first promulgation of guidelines required by section 304(h)(2) of this
Act, or the date of approval by the Administrator of a permit program
for such State under subsection (b) of this section, whichever date
first occurs, and no such authorization to a State shall extend beyond
the last day of such period. Each such permit shall be subject to such
conditions as the Administrator determines are necessary to carry out
the provisions of this Act. No such permit shall issue if the
Administrator objects to such issuance.
"(b) At any time after the promulgation of the guidelines required by
subsection (h)(2) of sectin 304 of this Act, the Governor of each State
desiring to administer its own permit program for discharges into
navigable waters within its jurisdiction may submit to the Administrator
a full and complete description of the program it proposes to establish
and administer under State law or under an interstate compact. In
addition, such State shall submit a statement from the attorney general
(or the attorney for those State water pollution control agencies which
have independent legal counsel), or from the chief legal officer in the
case of an interstate agency, that the laws of such State, or the
interstate compact, as the case maybe, provide adequate authority to
carry out the described program. The Administrator shall approve each
such submitted program unless he determines that adequate authority does
not exist:
"(1) To issue permits which
"(A) apply, and insure compliance with, any applicable requirements
of sections 301, 302, 306, 307, and 403;
"(B) are for fixed terms not exceeding five years; and
"(C) can be terminated or modified for cause including, but not
limited to, the following:
"(i) violation of any condition of the permit;
"(ii) obtaining a permit by misrepresentation or failure to disclose
fully all relevant facts;
"(iii) change in any condition that requires either a temporary or
permanent reduction or elimination of the permanent discharge.
"(D) control the disposal of pollutants into wells;
"(2)(A) To issue permits which apply, and insure compliance with, all
applicable requirements of section 308 of this Act, or
"(B) Except with respect to sources owned or operated by the United
States, to inspect, monitor, enter, and require reports to at least the
same extent as required in section 308 of this Act;
"(3) To insure that the public, and any other State, the waters of
which may be affected, receive notice of each application for a permit
and to provide an opportunity for public hearing before a ruling on each
such application;
"(4) To insure that the Administrator receives notice of each
application (including a copy thereof) for a permit;
"(5) To insure that any State (other than the permitting State),
whose waters may be affected by the issuance of a permit may submit
written recommendations to the permitting State (and the Administrator)
with respect to any permit application and, if any part of such written
recommendations are not accepted by the permitting State, that the
permitting State will notify such affected State (and the Administrator)
in writing of its failure to so accept such recommendations together
with its reasons for so doing;
"(6)(A) To issue permits which apply, and insure compliance with, all
applicable requirements of section 316 of this Act; or
Except with respect to sources owned or operated by the United
States, to apply and enforce control of thermal discharges from point
sources located in such State to at least the same extent as is provided
in section 316 of this Act;
"(7) To insure that no permit will be issued if, in the judgment of
the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, after
consultation with the Secretary of the department in which the Coast
Guard is operating, anchorage and navigation of any of the navigable
waters would be substantially impaired thereby; and
"(8) To abate violations of permits or the permit program, including
civil and criminal penalties and other ways and means of enforcement.
"(c)(1) Not later than ninety days after the date on which a State
has submitted a progam (or revision thereof) pursuant to subsection (b)
of this section, the Administrator shall suspend the issuance of permits
under subsection (a) of this section as to those navigable waters
subject to such program unless he determines that the State permit
program does not meet the requirements of subsection (b) of this section
or does not conform to the guidelines issued under section 304(h)(2) of
this Act. If the Administrator so determines, he shall notify the State
of any revisions or modifications necessary to conform to such
requirements or guidelines.
"(2) Any State permit program under this section shall at all times
be in acordance with this section and guidelines promulgated pursuant to
section 304(h)(2) of this Act.
"(3) Whenever the Administrator determines after public hearing that
a State is not administering a program approved under this section in
accordance with requirements of this section, he shall so notify the
State and, if appropriate corrective action is not taken within a
reasonable time, not to exceed ninety days, the Administrator shall
withdraw approval of such program. The Administrator shall not withdraw
approval of any such program unless he shall first have made public, in
writing, the reasons for such withdrawal.
"(d)(1) Each State shall transmit to the Administrator a copy of each
permit application received by such State and provide notice to the
Administrator of every action related to the consideration of such
permit application, including each permit proposed to be issued by such
State.
"(2) No permit shall issue if the Administrator within sixty days of
the date of his notification under subsection (b)(5) of this section
objects in writing to the issuance of such permit.
"(3) the Administrator may, as to any permit application, waive
paragraph (2) of this subsection.
"(e) In accordance with guidelines promulgated pursuant to subsection
(h)(2) of section 304 of this Act, the Administrator is authorized to
waive the requirements of subsection (d) of this subsection at the time
he approves a program pursuant to subsection (b) of this section for any
category (including any class, type, or size within such category) or
point sources within the State submitting such program.
"(f) The Administrator shall promulgate regulations establishing
categories of point sources which he determines shall not be subject to
the requirements of subsection (d) of this section in any State with a
program /(()) approved pursuant to subsection (b) of this section. The
Administrator may distinguish among classes, types, and sizes within any
category of point sources.
"(g) The Administrator or any State shall not issue a permit under
this section for any point source unless such permit shall assure the
maintenance or enhancement of the quality of any affected waters.
"(h) Any permit issued under this section for the discharge of
pollutants into the navigable waters from a vessel or other floating
craft shall be subject to any applicable regulations promulgated by the
Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating,
establishing specifications for safe transportion, handling, carriage,
storage, and stowage of pollutants.
"(i) In the event any condition of a permit for discharges from a
treatment works (as defined in section 210 of this Act) which is
publicly owned is violated, a State with a program approved under
subsection (b) of this section or the Administrator, where no State
program is approved, may proceed in a court of competent jurisdiction to
restrict or prohibit the introduction of any pollutant into such
treatment works by a source not utilizing such treatment works prior to
the finding that such condition was violated.
"(j) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the
authority of the Administrator to take action pursuant to section 309 of
this Act.
"(k) A copy of each permit application and each permit issued under
this section shall be available to the public, in an appropriate place
(1) in each State; (2) in a regional office of the Environmental
Protection Agency; or (3) with the Administrator, whichever is
appropriate. Such permit application or permit, or portion thereof,
shall further be available on request for the purpose of reproduction.
"(l) Compliance with a permit issued pursuant to this section shall
be deemed compliance, for purposes of sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 316,
and 403, except any standard imposed under section 307 for a toxic
pollutant injurious to human health. Until January 1, 1976, in any case
where a permit for discharge has been applied for pursuant to this
section, but fianl administrative disposition of such application has
not been made, and such discharge is not in violation of any applicable
water quality standard under subsections (a) and (b) of section 303 of
this Act, and is not in violation of any applicable regulation under
section 316 of this Act, such discharge shall not be a violation of (1)
this Act (other than an order under section 504), or (2) section 13 of
the Act of March 3, 1899, unless the Administrator or other plaintiff
provies that final administrative disposition of such application has
not been made because of the failure of the applicant to furnish
information reasonably required or requested in order to process the
application.
"SEC. 403. (a) No permit under section 402 of this Act for the
discharge into the territorial sea, the waters of the contiguous zone,
or the oceans shall be issued, after promulgation of guidelines
established under subsection (c) of this section, except in compliance
with such guidelines.
"(b) The requirements of subsection (d) of section 402 of this Act
may not be waived in the case of permits for discharges into the
territorial sea.
"(c)(1) The Administrator shall, within one hundred and eighty days
after enactment of this Act (and from time to time thereafter),
promulgate guidelines for determining the degradation of the waters of
the territorial seas, the contiguous zone, and the oceans, which shall
include:
"(A) the effect of disposal of pollutants on human health or welfare,
including but not limited to plankton, fish, shellfish, wildlife,
shorelines and beaches;
"(B) the effect of disposal of pollutants on marine life including
the transfer, concentration, and dispersal of pollutants or their
byproducts through chemical, physical, and biological processes;
changes in marine ecosystem diversity, productivity, and stability; and
species and commmunity populations changes;
"(C) the effect of disposal of pollutants on esthetic, recreation,
and economic values;
"(D) the persistence and permanence of the efects of disposal of
pollutants;
"(E) the effect of the disposal of varying rates, or particular
volumes, and concentrations of pollutants;
"(F) other possible locations and methods of disposal or recycling of
pollutants including land based alternatives; and
"(G) the effect on alternate uses of the oceans, such as mineral
exploitation and scientific study.
"(2) In any event where insufficient information exists on any
proposed discharge to make a reasonable judgment on any of the
guidelines estabslised pursuant to this subsection no permit shall be
issued under section 402 of this Act.
"SEC. 404. (a) The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of
Engineers, may issue permits, after notice and opportunity for public
hearing, for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the
navigable waters, where the Secretary determines that such discharge
will not unreasonably degrade or endanger human health, welfare, or
amenities, or the marine, environmental, ecological systems, or economic
potentialities.
"(b) In making the determination required by subsection (a) of this
section as to whether a permit may be issued, the Secretary shall apply
any guidelines which have been promulgated by the Administrator pursuant
to section 403(c)(1), together with an evaluationby the Secretary of the
effect on navigation, economic and industrial development, and foreign
and domestic commerce of the United States. In applying the guidelines
established by the Administrator, the Secretary shall consult with the
Administrator and shall give due consideration to the views and
recommendations of the Administrator in that regard and also in regard
to the designations of the Administrator of recommended sites fdor
disposal. The Secretary may issue no permit for discharge of dredged or
fill material which would violate the designation of the Administrator
founcd necessary to protect critical areas, of a site within which
certain materail may not be discharged. In regard to the designation of
recommended sites or sites where certain materail may not be discharged,
the Secretary after consultation with the Administrator, need not follow
the designation of the Administrator where the Secretary certifies that
there is no economically feasible alternative reasonably available.
"(c) In connection with Federal projecs involving dredged or fill
material the Secretary may, in lieu of the permit procedure, issued
regulations to govern the discharge of dredged or fill material into the
navigable waters which shall require the application to such projects of
the same criteria, other factors to be evaluated, the same procedures,
and the same requirements which are made applicable to the issuance of
permits under subsection (a) and (b) of this section.
"SEC. 501. (a) The Administrator is authorized to prescribe such
regulations as are necessary to carry out his functions under this Act.
"(b) The Administrator, with the consent of the head of any other
agency of the United States, may utilize such officers and emnployees of
such agency as may be found necessary to assist in carrying out the
purposes of this Act.
"(c) Each recipient of financial assistance under this Act shall keep
such records as the Administrator shall prescribe, including records
which fully disclose the amount and disposition by such recipient of the
proceeds of such assistance, the total cost of the project or
undertaking in connection with which such assistance is given or used,
and the amount of that portion of the cost of the project or undertaking
supplied by other sources, and such other records as will facilitate an
effective audit.
"(d) The Administrator and the Comptroller General of the United
States, or any of their duly authorized representatives, shall have
access, for the purpose of audit and examination, to any books,
documents, papers, and records of the recipients that are pertinent to
the grants received under this Act.
"(e)(1) It is the purpose of this subsection to authorize a program
which will provide official recognition by the United States Government
to those industrial organizatons and political subdivisions of States
which during the preceding year demonstrated an outstanding
technological achievement or an innovative process, method, device in
their waste treatment and pollution abatement programs. The
Administrator shall, in consultation with the appropriate State water
pollution control agencies, establish regulations under whch such
recognition may be applied for and granted, except that no applicant
shall be eligible for an award under this subsection if such applicant
is not in total compliance with all applicable water quality
requirements under this Act, or otherwise does not have a satisfactory
record with respect to environemtnal quality.
"(2) The Administrator shall award a certificate or plaque of
suitable design to each industrial organization or political subdivision
which qualifies for such recognition under regulations established under
this subsection.
"(3) The President of the United States, the Governor of the
appropriate State, the Speaker of the House of Representaties, and the
President pro tempore of the Senate shall be notified of the award by
the Administrator and the awarding of such recognition shall be
published in the Federal Register.
"(f) Upon the request of a State water pollution control agency,
personnel of the Environmental Protection Agency may be detailed to such
agency for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of this Act.
"SEC. 502. Except as otherwise spcifically provided, when used in
this Act:
"(1) The term 'State water pollution control agency' means the State
agency designated by the Governor having responsibility for enforcing
State laws relating to the abatement of pollution.
"(2) The term 'interstate agency' means an agency of two or more
States establsihed by or pursuant to an agreement or compact approved by
the Congress, or any other agency of two or more States having
substantial powers or duties pertaining to the control of pollution as
determined and approved by the Administrator.
"(3) The term 'State' means a State, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa,
and th Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
"(4) The term 'municipality' means a city, town, borough, county,
parish, district, association, or other public body created by or
pursuant to State law and having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage,
industrial /(()) wastes, or other wastes, or an Indian tribe or an
authorized Indian tribal organization, or a designated and approved
managmeent agency under section 208 of this Act.
"(5) The term 'person' means an individual, corporation, partnership,
association, State, municipality, commission, or political subdivision
of a State, or any interstate body.
"(6) The term 'pollutant' means, but is not limited to, dredged
spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge,
munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials,
heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and
industrial, municipal, agricultural, and other waste discharged into
water. The term does not mean (A) 'sewage from vessels' within the
meaning of section 312 of this Act; or (B) water, gas, or other
material which is injected into a well to facilitate production of oil
or gas, or water derived in association with oil or gas production and
disposed of in a well, if the well used either to facilitate production
or for disposal purposes is approved by authority of the State in which
the well is located, and if such State determines the injection or
disposal of such water, gas, or other material will not result in the
degradation of ground or surface water resources; or (C) thermal
discharges in accordance with regulations issued pursuant to sectin 316
of this Act; or (D) organic fish wastes.
"(7) The term 'pollution' means the manmade or man/industrial
alteration of the natural chemical, physical, biological, and
radiological integrity of water.
"(8) The term 'navigable waters' means the navigable waters of the
United States, including the territorial seas.
"(9) The term 'territorial seas' means the belt of the seas measured
from the line of ordinary low water along that portion of the coast
which is in direct contact with the open sea and the line marking the
seaward limit of inland waters, and extending seaward a distance of
three miles.
"(10) The term 'contiguous zone' means the entire zone established or
to be established by the United States under article 25 of the
Convention of the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone.
"(11) The term 'ocean' means any portion of the high seas beyond the
contiguous zone.
"(12) The term 'effluent limitation' means any restriction
established by a State or the Administrator on quantities, rates, and
concentrations of chemical, physical, biological, and other constituents
(other than thermal discharges) which are discharged from point sources
into navigable waters, the waters of the contiguous zone, or the ocean ,
including schedules and timetables for compliance.
"(13) The term 'discharge of a pollutant' and the term 'discharge of
pollutants' each means (A) any addition of any pollutant to navigable
waters from any point source, (B) any addition of any pollutant to the
waters of the contiguous zone or the ocean from any point source other
than a vessel or other floating craft.
"(14) The term 'toxic pollutant' means those pollutants, or
combination of pollutants, including disease causing agents, which after
discharge and upon exposure, ingestion, inhalation or assimilation into
any organism, either directly from the environment or indirectly by
ingestion through food chains, will, on the basis of information
available to the Administrator, cause death, disease, behavorial
abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutations, physiological malfunctions
(including malfunctions in reproduction) and physical deformations, in
such organisms or their offspring.
"(15) The term 'point source' means any discernable, confined, and
discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch,
channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling
stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other
floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged, or from
which there is or may be a thermal discharge.
"(16) The term 'biological monitoring' shall mean the determination
of the effects on aquatic life, including accumulation of pollutants in
tissue, in receiving waters due to the discharge of pollutants (A) by
techniques and procedures, including samnpling of organisms
representative of appropirate levels of the food chain, appropriate to
the volume and the chemical, physical, and biological characteristics of
the effluent, and (B) at appropriate frequencies and locations.
"(17) The term 'thermal discharge' means the introducton of water
into the navigable waters or waters of the contiguous zone from a point
source at a temperature different from the ambient temperature of the
receiving waters.
"(18) The term 'discharge' when used without qualification includes a
discharge of a pollutant, a discharge of pollutants, and a thermal
discharge.
"SEC. 503. (a)(1) There is hereby established in the Environmental
Protection Agency a Water Pollution Control Advisory Board, composed of
the Administrator or his designee, who shall be Chairman, and nine
members appointed by the President, none of whom shall be Federal
officers or employees. The appointed memembers, having due regard for
the purposes of this Act, shall be selected from among representatives
of various State, interstate, and local governmental agencies, of public
or private interests contributing to, affected by, or concerned with
pollution, and of other public and private agencies, organizations, or
groups demonstrating an active interest in the field of pollution
prevention and control, as well as other individuals who are expert
inthis field.
"(2)(A) Each member appointed by the President shall hold office fdor
a term of three years, except that (i) any member apointed to fill a
vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for which his
predecessor was appointed shall be appointed fdor the remainder of such
term, and (ii) the terms of office of themembers first taking office
after June 30, 1956, shall expire as follows: three at the end of two
years after such date, and three at the end of three years after such
date, as designated by the President at the time of appointment is
effective. None of the members appointed by the President shall be
eligible for reappointment within one year after the end of his
preceding term.
"(B) The members of the Board who are not officers or emplyees of the
United States, while attending conferences or meetings of the Board or
while otherwise serving at the request of the Administrator, shall be
entitled to receive compensation at a rate to be fixed by the
Administrator, but not exceeding $100 per diem, including travel time
and while away from their homes or regular places of business they may
be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence,
as authorzed by law (5 USC 73b2) for persons in the Government service
employed intermittently.
"(b) The Board shall advise, consult with, and make recommendations
to the Administrator on matters of policy relating to the activities and
functions of the Administrator under this Act.
"(c) Such clerical and technical assistance as may be necessary to
discharge the duties of the Board shall be povided from the personnel of
the Environmental Protection Agency.
"SEC. 504. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the
Administrator upon receipt of evidence that a pollution source or
combination of sources is presenting an imminent and substantial
endangerment to the health of persons, may bring suit on behalf of the
United States in the appropriate district court to immediately restrain
any person causing or contributing to the alleged pollution to stop the
discharge of pollutants causing or contributing to such pollution or to
take such other action as may be necessary.
"SEC. 505. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section,
anycitizen may commence a civil action on his own behalf
"(1) against any person (including (i) the United States, and (ii)
any other governmental instrumentality or agency to the extent permitted
by the eleventh amendment to the Constitution who is alleged to be in
violation of (A) an effluent standard or limitation under this Act, or
(B) an order issued by the Administrator or a State with respct to such
a standard or limitation, or
"(2) against the Administrator where thre is alleged a failure of the
Administrator to perform any act or duty under this Act which is not
discretionary with the Administrator.
The district courts shall have jurisdiction, without regard to the
amount in controbversy or the citizenship of the parties, to enforce
such an effluent standard or limitation, or such an order, or to order
the Administrator to perform such act or duty, as the case may be, and
to aply any appropriate civil penalties under section 309(b) of this
Act.
"(b) No action may be commenced
"(1) under subsection (a)(1) of this section
"(A) prior to sixty days after the plaintiff has given notice of the
alleged violation (i) to the Administrator, (ii) to the State in which
the alleged violation occurs, and (iii) to any alleged violator of the
standard, limitation, or order, or
"(B) if the Administrator or State has commenced and is diligently
prosecuting a civil or criminal action in a court of the United States
or a State to require compliance with the standard, limitation, or
order, but in any such action in a court of the United States any
citizen may intervene as a matter of right.
"(2) under subsection (a)(2) of this section prior to sixty days
after the plaintiff has given notice of such action to the
Administrator, except that such action may be brought immediately after
such notification in the case of an action under this section respecting
a violation of sections 301, 302, 306, and 307 of this Act, or in
violation of a permit, or conditions thereunder, issued by the
Administrator under section 402 of this Act, or in violation of an order
issued by the Administrator pursuant to section 309 of this Act. Notice
under this subsection shall be given in such manner as the Administrator
shall prescribe by regulation.
"(c)(1) Any action respecting a violation by a discharge source of an
effluent standard or limitation or any order respecting such standard or
limitation may be brought under this section only in the judicial
district in which such source is located.
"(2) In such action under this section, the Administrator, if not a
party, may intervene as a matter of right.
"(d) The court, in issuing any final order in any action brought
pursuant to this secton, may award costs of litigation (including
reasonable attorney and expert witness fees) to any party, whenever the
court determines such award is appropriate. The court may, if a
temporary restraining order or preliminary /(()) injunction is sought,
require the filing of a bond or equivalent security in accordance with
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
"(e) Nothing in this section shall restrict any right which any
person (or class of persons) may have under any statute or common law to
seek enforcement of any effluent standard or limitation or to seek
anyother relief (including relief against the Administrator or a State
agency).
"(f) For purposes of this section, the term 'effluent standard or
limitation under this Act' means (1) effective July 1, 1973, an unlawful
act under subsection (a) of section 301 of this Act; (2) an effluent
limitation or other limitation under section 301 or 302 of this Act;
(3) standard of performance under section 306 of this Act; (4)
prohibition, effluent standard or pretreatment standard under section
307 of this Act; (5) certification under section 401 of this Act; or
(6) a permit or condition therof issued under this Act (including a
requirement applicable by reason of section 313 of this Act).
"(g) For the purposes of this section the term 'citizen' means (1) a
citizen (A) of the geographic area and (B) having a direct interest
which is or may be affected, and (2) any group of persons which has been
actively engaged in the administrative process and has thereby shown a
special interest in the geographic area in controversy.
"(h) A Governor of a State may commence a civil action under
subsection (a), without regard to the limitation of subsection (b) of
this section, against the Administrator where there is alleged a failure
of the Administrator to enforce an effluent standard or limitation under
this Act, the violation of which is occurring in another State and is
causing an adverse effect on the public health or welfare in his State,
or is causing a violation of any water quality requirement in his State.
"SEC. 506. The Administrator shall request the Attorney General to
appear and represent the United States in any civil or criminal action
instituted under this Act to which the Administrator is a party. Unless
the Attorney General notifies the Administrator within a reasonable
time, that he will appear in a civil action, attorneys who are officers
or employees of the Environmental Protection Agency shall appear and
represent the United States in such action.
"SEC. 507. (a) No person shall fire, or in any other way discriminate
against, or cause to be fired or discriminated against, any employee or
any authorized representative of employees by reason of the fact that
such employees or representatives has filed, instituted, or caused to be
filed or instituted any proceeding under this Act, or has testified or
is about to testify in any proceeding resulting from the administration
or enforcement of the provisions of this Act.
"(b) Any employee or a representative of employees who believes that
he has been fired or otherwise discriminated against by any person in
violation of subsection (a) of this section may, within thirty days
after such alleged violation occurs, apply to the Secretary of Labor for
a reviw of such firing or alleged discrimination. A copy of the
application shall be sent to such person who shall be the respondent.
Upon receipt of such application, the Secretary of Labor shall cause
such investigation to be made as he deems appropriate. Such
investigation shall provide an opportunity for a pulic hearing at the
request of any party to such review to enable the parties to present
information relating to such alleged violation. The parties shall be
given written notice of the time and place of the hearing at least five
days prior to the hearing. Any such hearing shall be of record and
shall be subject to section 554 of title 5 of the United States Code.
Upon receiving the report of such investigation, the Secretary of Labor
shall make findings of fact. If he finds that such violation did occur,
he shall issue a decision, incorporating an order therein and his
findings, requiring the party committing such violation to take such
affirmative action to abate the violation as the Secretary of Labor
deems appropriate, including, but not limited to, the rehiring or
reinstatement of the employee or representative of employees tohis
former position with compensation. If he finds that there was no such
violation, he shall issue an order denying the application. Such order
issued by the Secretary of Labor under this subparagraph shall be
subject to judicial review in the same manner as orders and decisions of
the Administrator are subject to judicial review under this Act.
"(c) Whenever an order is issued under this section to abate such
violation, at the request of the applicant, a sum equal to the aggregate
amount of all costs and expenses (including attorney's fees), as
determined by the Secretary of Labor, to have been reasonably incurred
by the applicant for, or in connection with, the institution and
prosecution of such proceedings, shall be assessed against the person
committing such violation.
"(d) This section shall have not application to any employee who,
acting without direction from his employer (or his agent) deliberately
violates any prohibition of effluent limitation or other limitation
under section 301 or 302 of this Act, standards of performance under
section 306 of this Act, effluent standard, prohibition or pretreatment
standard under section 307 of this Act, thermal discharge regulation
under section 316 of this Act, or any other prohibition or limitation
established under this Act.
"(e) The Administrator shall conduct continuing evaluations of
potential loss or shifts of employment which may result from the
issuance of any effluent limitation or order under this Act, including,
where appropriate, investigating threatened plant closures or reductions
in employment allegedly resulting from such limitation or order. Any
employe who is discharged or laid off, threatened with discharge or
layoff, or otherwise discriminated against by any person because of the
alleged results of any effluent limitation or order issued under this
Act, or any representative of such employee, may request the
Administrator to conduct a full investigation of the matter. The
Administrator shall thereupon investigate the matter and, at the rquest
of any party, shall hold public hearings on not less than five days
notice, and shall at such hearings require the parties including the
employer involved, to present information relating to the actual or
potential effect of such limitation or order on employment and on any
alleged discharge, layoff, or other discrimination and the detailed
reasons or justification therefor. Any such hearing shall be of record
and shall be subject to section 554 of title 5 of the United States
Code. Upon receiving the report of such investigation, the
Administrator shall make findings of fact as to the effect of such
effluent limitation or order on employment and on the alleged discharge,
layoff, or discrimination, and shall make such recommendations as he
deems appropriate. Such report, findings, and recommendations shall be
available to the public. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed
to require or authorize the Administrator to modify or withdraw any
effluent limitation or order issued under this Act.
"SEC. 508. (a) No Federal agency may enter into any contract with any
person who has been convicted of any offense under section 309(c) of
this Act for the procurement of goods, materials, and services if such
contract is to be performed at any facility at which the violation which
gave rise to such conviction occurred, and if such facilityis owned,
leased, or supervised by such person. The prohibition in the preceding
sentence shall continue until the Administrator certifies that the
condition giving rise to such convictin has been corrected.
"(b) The Administrator shall establish procedures to provide all
Federal agencies with the notificiation necessary for the purposes of
subsection (a) of this section.
"(c) In order to implement the purposes and policy of this Act to
protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's water, the President
shall, not more than one hundred and eighty days after enactment of this
Act, cause to be issued an order (1) requiring each Federal agency
authorized to enter into contracts and each Federal agency which is
empowered to extend Federal assistance by way of grant, loan, or
contract to effectuate the purpose and policy of this Act in such
contracting or assistance activities, and (2) setting forth procedures,
sanctions, penalties, and such other provisions as the Prsident
determines ncessary to carry out such requirements.
"(d) The President may exempt any contract, loan, or grant fromall or
part of the provisions of this section where he determines such
exemption is necessary in the paramount interest of the United States
and he shall notify the Congress of such exemption.
"(e) The President shall annuallyreport to the Congress on measures
taken in compliance with the purpose and intent of this section,
including but not limited to, the progress and problems associated with
such compliance.
"SEC. 509. (a) In connection wth any determination under section
301(b)(3) of this Act, or for purposes of obtaining information under
section 305 of this Act, or carrying out section 507(e) of this Act, the
Administrator may issued supbenas for the attendance and testimony of
wiitnesses and the production of relevant papers, books, and documents,
and he may administer oaths. Except for effluent data, upon a showing
satisfactory to theAdministrator that such papers, books, documents, or
information or particular part thereof, if made public, would divulge
trade secrets or secret processess, the Administrator shall consider
such record, report, or information or particular portion thereof
confidential in accordance with the purposes of section 1905 of title 18
of theUnited States Code, except that such paper, book, document, or
information may be disclosed toother officers, employees, or authorized
representatives of the United States concerned with carrying out this
Act, or when relevant in any proceeding under this Act. Witnesses
summoned shall be paid the same fees and mileage that are paid witnesses
in the courts of the United States. In case of contunancy or refusal to
obey a subpena served upon any person under this subsection, the
district court of the United States for any district in which such
person is found or resides or transacts business, upon application by
the United States and after notice to such person, shall have
jurisdiction to issue an order requiring such person to appear and give
testimony before the Administrator, to appear and produce papers, books,
and documents before the Administrator, or both, and any failure to obey
such order of the court may be punished by such court as a contempt
thereof.
"(b) Review of the Administration's action (1) in promulgating any
standard of performancve under section 306, (2) in making any
determination pursuant to section 306(b)(1)(C), (3) in promulgating any
effluent /(()) standard, prohibition, or treatment standard uinder
section 307, (4) in making any determination as to a State permit
program submitted under section 402(b), (5) in approving or promulgating
any effluent limitation or other limitation under section 301, 302, or
306, and (6) inissuing or denying any permit under sectin 402, may be
had byany interested person in the ditrict court of the United States
for the district in which such person resides or transacts such business
upon application by such person. Any such application shall be made
within thirty days from the date of such determination, approval,
promulgation, issuance or denial, or after such date only if such
applicatio is based solely on grounds which arose after such thirty day
period.
"(c) In any judicial proceeding brought under subsection (b) of this
section in which review is sought of a determination under this Act
rquired to be made on the record aftrer notice and opportunity for
hearing, if any party applies to the court for leave to adduce
additional evidence, and shows to the satisfaction of the court that
such additional evidence is material and that there were reasonable
grounds for the failure to adduce such evidence in the proceeding before
the Administrator, the court may order such additional evidence (and
evidence in rebuttal thereof) to be taken before the Administrator, in
suchmanner and uon such terms and conditions as the court may deem
proper. The Administrator maymodify his findings as to the facts,
ormake new findings by reason of the additional evidence so taken and he
shall file such modified or new findings, and his recommendations, if
any, for the modification or setting aside of his original
determination, with the return of such additional evidence.
"SEC. 510. Except as expressly provided in this Act, nothing in this
Act shall (1) preclude or deny the right of any State or political
subdivision thereof or interstate agency to adopt or enforce (A) any
standard or limitation respecting discharges of pollutants, or (B) any
requirement respecting control or abatement of pollution; except that
if any effluent limitation or other limitation, effluent standard,
prohibition, pretreatment standard, standard of performance, or thermal
discharge regulation is in effect under this Act, such State or
political subdivision thereof or interstate agency maynot adopt or
enforce any effluent limitation, or other limitation, effluent standard,
prohibition, pretreatment standard, standard of performance, or thermal
discharge regulation which is less stringent than the effluent
limitation or other limitation, effluent standard, prohibition,
pretreatment standard, standard of performance, or thermal discharge
regulation is in effect under this Act; or (2) be construed as
impairing or in anymanner affecting any right or jurisdiction of the
State with respect to the waters (including boundary waters) of such
States.
"SEC. 511. (a) This Act shall not be construed as (1) limiting the
authority or functions of anyofficer or agencyof the United States under
any other law or regulation not inconsistent with this Act; (2)
affecting or impairing the authority of the Secretary of the Army (A) to
maintain navigation or (B) under the Act of March 3, 1899 (30 Stat.
1112); except that any permit issued under section 404 of this Act
shall be conclusive as to the effect on water quality of any discharge
resulting from any activity subjsect to section 10 of the Act of March
3, 1899, or (3) affecting or impairing the provisions of any treaty of
the United States.
"(b) Discharges of pollutants into the navigable waters subject to
the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1910 (36 Stat. 593; 33 USC 421) and the
Supervisory Harbors Act of 1888 (25 Stat. 209; 33 USC 441-451b) shall
be regulated pursuant to this Act, and not subject to such Act of 1910
and the Act of 1888 except as to effect on navigation and anchorage.
"(c) The requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (83 Stat. 852) as to water quality considerations shall be deemed
to be satisfied --
"(1) by certification pursuant to section 401 of this Act with
respect to any Federal license or permit for the construction of any
activity; and
"(2) by certification pursuant to section 401 of this Act and the
issuance of a permit pursuant to section 13 of the Act of March 3, 1899,
or section 402 of this Act with respect to any Federal license or permit
for the operation of any activity.
"SEC. 512. If any provision of this Act, or the application of any
provision of this Act to any person or circumstance, is held invalid,
the application of such provision to other persons or circumstances, and
the remainder of this Act, shall not be affected thereby.
"SEC. 513. The Administrator shall take such action as may be
necessary to insure that all laborers and mechnaics employed by
contractors or subcontractors on treatment works for which grants are
made under this Act shall be paid wages at rates not less than those
prevailing for the same type of work on similar construction in the
immediate locality, as determined by the Secretary of Labor, in
accordance with the Act of March 3, 1931, as amended, known as the
Davis-Bacon Act (46 Stat. 1494; 40 USC sec. 276a through 276a-5). The
Secretary of Labor shall have, with respect to thelabor standards
specified in this subsection, the authority and functions set forth in
Reorganization Plan Number 14 of 1950 (15 FR 3176) and section 2 of the
Act of June 13, 1935, as amended (48 Stat. 948; 40 USC 276c).
"SEC. 514. In the case of any water pollution control facility
required to be constructed for any property used for any agricultural
purpose, no owner or operator of any such property shall be required to
expend any funds fdor the construction of such facility (A) until a plan
for such facility and its operation shall have been aprpoved by the
Administrator; and (B) until a certification by the Administrator that
such plan, and the construction and operation of any facility in
accordance with such plan, will not result in a violation of the laws or
regulations of any local, State or Federal health agency or other
governmental agency.
"SEC. 515 (a)(1) There is established an Effluent Standards and Water
Quality Information Advisory Committee, which shall be composed of a
Chairman and eight members who shall be appointed by the Administrator
within sixty days after the date of enactment of this Act.
"(2) All members of the committee shall be selected from the
scientific community, qualified by education, training, and experience
to provide, assess, and evaluate scientific and technical information on
effluent standards and limitations.
"(3) Members of the Committee shall serve for a term of four years,
and may be reappointed.
"(b)(1) No later than one hundred and eighty days prior to the date
on which the Administrator is required to publish any proposed
regulations required by section 304(b) of this Act, any proposed
standard of performance for new sources required by section 306 of this
Act, or any proposed toxic effluent standard required by section 307 of
this Act, he shall transmit to the Committee a notice of intent to
propose such regulations. The Chairman of the Committee within ten days
after receipt of such notice may publish a notice of a public hearing by
the Committee, to be held within thirty days.
"(2) No later than one hundred and twenty days after receipt of
suchnotice, the Committee shall transmit to the Administrator such
scientific and technical information as is in its possession, incuding
that presented at any public hearing, related teo the subject matter
contained in such notice.
"(3) Information so transmitted to the Administrator shall constitute
a part of the administrative record and comments on any proposed
regulations or standards as information to be considered with other
comments and information in making any final determination.
"(4) In preparing information for transmittal, the Committee shall
avail itself of the technical and scientific services of any Federal
agency, including the United States Geological Survey and any national
environmental laboratories which may be established.
"(c)(1) The Committee shall appoint and prescribe the duties of a
Secretary, and such legal counsel as it deems necessary. The Committee
shall appoint such other employees as it deems necessary to exercise and
fulfill its powers and responsibilities. The compensation of all
employees appointed by the Committee shall be fixed in accordance with
chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of title V of the United
States Code.
"(2) Members of th Committee shall be entitled to receive
compensation at a rate to be fixed by the President but not in excess of
the maximum rate of pay for grade GS18, as provided in the General
Schedule under section 5332 of title V of the United States Code.
"(d) Five members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum, and
official actions of the Committee shall be taken only on the affirmative
vote of at least five members. A special panel composed of one or more
members upon order of the Committee shall conduct any hearing authorized
by this section and submit the transcript of such hearing to the entire
Committee for its action thereon.
"(e) The Committee is authorized to make such rules as are necessary
for the orderly transaction of its business.
"SEC. 516. (a) Within ninety days following the convening of each
session of Congress, the Administrator shall submit to the Congress a
report, in addition to any other report required by this Act, on
measures taken toward implementing the objective of this Act, incuding,
but not limited to, (1) the progress and problems associated with
developing comprehensive plans under section 102 of this Act, areawide
plans under section 208 of this Act, basin plans under section 209 of
this Act, and plans under section 303(e) of this Act; (2) a summary of
actions taken and results achieved in the field of water pollution
control research, experiments, studies, and related matters by the
Administrator and other Federal agencies and by other persons and
agencies under Federal grants or contracts; (3) the progress and
problems associated with the development of effluent limitations and
recommended control techniques; (4) the status of State programs,
including a detailed summary of the prgress obtained as compared to that
planned under State program plans for development and enforcement of
water quality requirements; (5) the identification and status of
enforcement actions pending or completed under such Act during the
preceding year; (6) the status of State, interstate, and local
pollution control programs established pursuant to, and assisted by,
/(()) this Act; (7) a summary of the results of the survey rquired to
be taken under section 210 of this Act; (8) his activities including
recommendations under sections 109 through 111 of this Act; and (9) all
reports and recommendations made by the Water Pollution Control Advisory
Board.
"(b) The Administrator, in cooperation with the States, including
water pollution control agencies and other water pollution control
planning agencies, shall make (1) a detailed estimate of the cost of
carrying out the provisions of this Act; (2) a detailed estimate,
biannually revised, of the cost of construction of all needed publicly
owned treatment works in all of the States and of the cost of
construction of all needed publicly owned treatment works in each of the
States; (3) a comprehensive study of the economic impact on affected
units of government of the cost of installation of treatement
facilities; and (4) a comprehensive analysis of the national
requirements for and the cost of treating municipal, industrial, an
other effluent to attain the water quality objectives as established by
this Act or applicable State law. The Administrator shall submit such
detailed estimates and such comprehensive study of such cost to the
Congress no later than February 10 of each odd-numbered year. Whenever
the Administrator, pursuant to this subsection, requests and receives an
estimate of cost from a State, he shall furnish copies of such estimate
together with such detailed estimate to Congress.
"SEC. 517. There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
Act, other than sections 104, 105, 106(a), 107, 108, 112, 113, 114, 206,
207, 208(f) and (h), 209, 304, 311(c), (d), (i), (l), and (k), 314, 315,
and 317, $250,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973;
$300,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1974; $350,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975.
"SEC. 518. This Act shall be cited as the 'Federal Water Pollution
Control Act'."
SEC. 3. (a) There is authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1972, not to exceed $11,000,000 for the purpose of
carrying out section 5(n) (other than for salaries and related expenses)
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as it existed immediately
prior to the date of enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972.
(b) There is authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1972, not to exceed $350,000,000 for thepurpose of making
grants under section 8 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as it
existed immediately prior to the date of enactment of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
(c) The Federal share of all grants made under section 8 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act as it existed immediately prior to
the date of enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 from sums herein and heretofore authorized for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, shall be that authorized by section
202 of such Act as established by the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972.
(d) Sums authorized by this section shall be in addition to any
amounts heretofore autehorized for such fiscal year for sections 5(n)
and 8 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as it existed
immediately prior to the date of enactment of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
SEC. 4. (a) No suit, action, or other proceeding lawfully commenced
by or against the Administrator or any other officer or employee of the
United States inhis official capacity or in relation to the discharge of
his official duties under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as in
effect 1972 immediately prior to the date of enactment of this Act shall
abate by reason of the taking effect of the amendment made by section 2
of this Act. The court may, on its own motion or that of any party made
at any time within twelve months after such taking effect, allow the
same to be maintained by or against the Administrator or such officer or
employee.
(b) All rules, regulations, orders, determinations, contdracts,
certifications, authorizations, delegations, or other actions duly
issued, made, or taken by or pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act as in effect immediately prior to the date of enactment of
this Act until modified or rescinded in accordance with the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act as amended by this Act.
(c) Federal Water Pollution Control Act s in effect immediately prior
to the date of enactment of this Act shall remain applicable to all
grants made from funds authorized for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1972, and prior fiscal years, including any increases in the monetary
amount of any such grant which may be paid from authorizations for
fiscal years beginning afer June 30, 1972, except as specifically
otherwise provided in sectin 202 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act as amended by this Act and in subsection (c) of section 3 of this
Act.
SEC. 5. In order to assist the Congress in the conduct of oversight
responsibilities the Comptroller General of the United States shall
conduct a study and review of the research, pilot, and demonstration
programs related to prevention and control of water pollution, including
waste treatment and disposal techniques, which are conducted, supported,
or assisted by any agency of the Federal Government pursuant to any
Federal law or regulation and assess conflicts between, and the
coordination and efficacy of, such programs, and make a report to the
Congress thereon by October 1, 1973.
SEC. 6. (a) The Secretary of Commerce, in cooperation with other
interested Federal agencies and with representatives of industry and the
public, shall undertake immediately an investigation and study to
determine --
(1) the extent to which pollution abatement and control programs will
be imposed on, or voluntarily undertaken by United States manufacturers
in the near future and the probably short and long range effects of the
costs of such programs (computed to the greatest extent practicable on
an industry by industry basis) on (A) the production costs of such
domestic manufacturers, and (B) the market prices of the goods produced
by them;
(2) the probably extent to which pollution abatement and control
programs will be implemented in foreign industrial nations in the near
future and the extent to which the production costs (computed to the
greatest extent practicable on an industry by industry basis) of foreign
manufacturers will be affected by the costs of such programs;
(3) the probable competitive advantage which any article manufactured
in a foreign nation will likely have in relation to a comparable article
made in the United States if that foreign nation
(A) does not require its manufacturers to implement pollution
abatement and control programs;
(B) requires a lesser degree of pollution abatement and control in
its programs; or
(C) in any way reimburses or otherwise subsidize its manufacturers
for the cost of such programs;
(4) alternative means by which any competitive advantage accruing to
the products of any foreign nation as a result of any factor described
in paragraph (3) may be (A) accurately and quickly determined and (B)
equalized, for example, by the imposition of a surcharge or duty on a
foreign product in an amount necessary to compensate for such advantage;
and
(5) the impact, if any, which the imposition of a compensating tariff
or other equalizing measure may have in encouraging foreign nations to
implement pollution abatement and control programs.
(b) The Secretary shall make an initial report to the President and
Congress within six months after the date of enactment of this section
of the results of the study and investigation carried out pursuant to
this section and shall make additional reports thereafter at such times
as he deems appropriate taking into account the development of related
data, but not less than once every twelve months.
SEC. 7. The President shall undertake to enter into international
agreements to apply uniform standards of performance for the control of
the discharge and emission of pollutants from new sources, uniform
controls over the discharge and emission of toxic pollutants, and
uniform controls over the discharge of pollutants into the ocean. For
this purpose the President shall negotiate multilateral agreements, and
formulate, present, or support proposals at the 1972 United Nations
Conference on the Human Environment and other appropriate international
forums.
SEC. 8. (a) Section 7 of the Small Business Act is amended by
inserting at the end thereof a new subsection as follows:
"(g)(1) The Administration also is empowered to make loans (either
directly or in cooperation with banks or other lenders through
agreements to participate on an immediate or deferred basis) to assist
any small business concern in affecting additions to or alterations in
the equipment, facilities (including the construction of pretreatment
facilities and interceptor sewers), or methods of operation of such
concern to meet water pollution control requirements established under
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, if the Administration
determines that such concern is likely to suffer substantial economic
injury without assistance under this subsection.
"(2) Any such loan --
"(A) shall be made in accordance with provisions applicable to loans
made pursuant to subsection (b)(5) of this section, except as otherwise
provided in this subsection;
"(B) shall be made only if the applicant furnishes the Administration
with a statement in writing from the Environmental Protection Agency or,
if appropriate, the State, that such additions or alterations are
necessary and adequate to comply with requirements established under the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
"(3) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall,
as soon as practicable after the date of enactment of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 and not later than one hundred
and eighty days thereafter, promulgate regulations establishing uniform
rules for the issuance of statements for the purpose of paragraph (2)(B)
of this subsection.
"(4) There is authorized to be appropriated teo the disaster loan
fund established pursuant to section 4(c) of this Act not to exceed
$800,000,000 solely for the purpose of carrying out this subsection.
/(())
(b) Section 4(c)(1)(A) of the Small Business Act is amended by
striking out "and 7(c)(2)" and inserting in lieu thereof "7(c)(2), and
7(g)".
SEC. 9. The President, acting through the Attorney General, shall
make a full and complete investigation and study of the feasbility of
establishing a separate court, or court system, having jurisdiction over
environmental matters and shall report the results of such investigation
and study together withhis recommendations to Congress not later than
one year after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 10. The President shall make a full and complete investigation
and study of all of the national policies and goals established by law
for the purpose of determining what the relationship should be between
these policies and goals, taking into account the resources of the
Nation. He shall report the results of such investigation and study
together with his recommendations to Congress not later than two years
after the date of enactment of this Act. There is authorized to be
appropriated not to exceed $5,000,000 to carry out the purposes of this
section.
SEC. 11. The President shall conduct a full and complete
investigation and study of ways and means of utilizing in the most
effective manner all of the various resources, facilities, and personnel
of the Federal Government in order most efficiently to carry out the
objective of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. He shall report
the results of such investigation and study together with his
recommendations to Congress not later than two hundred and seventy days
after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 12. (a) This section may be cited as the "Environmental
Financing Act of 1972".
(b) There is hereby created a body corporate to be known as the
Environmental Financing Authority, which shall have succession unteil
dissolved by Act of Congress. The Authority shall be subject to the
general supervision and direction of the Secretary of the Treasury. The
Authority shall be an instrumentality of the United States Government
and shall maintain such offices as may be necessary or appropriate to
conduct its business.
(c) The purpose of this section is to assure that inability to borrow
necessary funds on reasonable terms does not prevent any State or local
public body from carying out any project for construction of waste
treatment works determined eligible for assistance pursuant to
subsection (e) of this section.
(d)(1) The Authority shall have a Board of Directors consisting of
five persons, one of whom shall be the Secretary of the Treasury, or his
designee as Chairman of the Board, and four of whom shall be appointed
by the President from among the officers or employees of the Authority
or of any department or agency of the United States Government.
(2) The Board of Directors shall meet at the call of its Chairman.
The Board shall determine the general policies which shall govern the
operations of the Authority. The Chairman of the Board shall select and
effect the appointment of qualified persons to fill the offices as may
be provided fdor in the bylaws, with such executive functions, powers,
and duties as may be prescribed by the bylaws or by the Board of
Directors, and such persons shall be the executive officers of the
Authority and shall discharge all such excutive functions, powers, and
duties. The members of the Board, as such, shall not receive
compensation for their services.
(e)(1) The Authority is authorized to make commitments to purchase,
and to purchase on terms and conditions determined by the Authority, any
obligations or participation therein which is issued by a State or local
public body to finance the nonFederal share of the cost of anyproject
for the costruction of waste treatment works which the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency has determined to be eligible for
Federal financial assistance under the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act.
(2) No commitment shall be entered into, and no purchase shall be
made, unless the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
(A) has certified that the public body is unable to obtain on reasonable
terms sufficient credit to finance its actual needs; (B) has approved
the project as eligible under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act;
and (C) has agreed to guarantee timely payment of principal and interest
on the obligation. The Administrator is authorized to guarantee such
timely payments and to issue regulations as he deems necessary and
proper to protect such guarantees. Appropriations are hereby authorized
to be made to theAdministrator in such sums as are necessary to make
payments under such guarantees, and such payments are authorized to be
made from such appropriations.
(3) No purchase shall be made of obligations issued to finance
projects, the permanent financing of which occurred prior to the
enactment of this section.
(4) Any purchase by the Authority shall be upon such terms and
conditions as to yield a return at a rate determined by the Secretary of
the Treasury taking into consideration (A) the current average yield on
outstanding marketable obligations of the United States of comparable
maturity or in its stead whenever theAuthority has sufficient of its own
long term obligations outstanding, the current average yield on
outstanding obligations of the Authority of comparable maturity; and
(B) the market yields on municipal bonds.
(5) The Authority is authorized to charge fees for its commitments
and other services adequate to cover all expenses and to provide for the
accumulation of reasonable contingency reserves and such fees shall be
included in the aggregate project costs.
(f) To provide initial capital to the Authority, the Secretary of the
Treasury is authorized to advance the funds necessary for this purpose.
Each such advance shall be upon such terms and conditions as to yield a
return at a rate not less than a rate determined by the Secretary of the
Treasury taking into consideration the current average yield on
outstanding marketable obligations of theUnited States of comparable
maturities. Interest payments on such advances may be deferred, at the
discretion of the Secretary, but any such deferred payments shall
themselves bear interest at the rate specified in this section. There
is authorized to be appropriated not to exceed $100,000,000, which shall
be available for the purposes of this subsection without fiscal year
limitation.
(g)(1) The Authority is authorized, with the approval of the
Secretary of the Treasury, to issue and have outstanding obligations
having such maturities and bearing such rate or rates of interest as may
be determined by the Authority. Such obligations may be redeemable at
the option of the Authority before maturity in such manner as may be
stipulated therein.
(2) As authorized in appropriation Acts, and such authorizations may
be without fiscal year limitation, the Secretary of the Treasury may in
his discretion purchase or agree to purchase any obligations issued
pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection, and fdor such purpose the
Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to use as a public debt
transactions the proceeds of the sale of any securities hereafter issued
under the Second ILLEGIBLE /(()) thereof. All obligations issued by the
Authority pursuant to this section shall be deemed to be exempt
securities within themeaning of laws administered bythe Securities and
Exchange Commission, to the same extent as securities which are issued
by the United States.
(l) In order to furnish obligations for delivery by the Authority,
the Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to prepare such obligations
in suchform as the Authority may approve, such obligations when prepared
to be held in the Treasury subject to delivery upon order by the
Authority. The engraved plates ILLEGIBLE pieces, and so forth, executed
in connection therewith shall remain in the custody of the Secretary of
the Treasury. The Authority shall reimburse the Secretary of the
Treasury for any expenditures made in preparation, custody, and delivery
of such obligations.
(m) The Authority shall, as soon as practicable after the end of each
fiscal year transmit to the President and the Congress an annual report
of its operations and activities.
(n) The sixth sentence of the seventh paragraph of section 5136 of
the Revised Statutes, as amended (12 USC 24), is amended by inserting
"or obligations of the Environmental Financing Authority" immediately
after "or obligations, participations, or other instruments of or issued
by the Federal National Mortgage Association or the Government National
Mortgage Association".
(o) The budget and audit provisions of the Government Corporation
Control Act (31 USC 546) shall be applicable to the Environmental
Financing Authority in the same manner as they are applied to the wholly
owned Government corporations.
(p) Section ILLEGIBLE of the Revised Statutes, as amended (31 USC
711), is further amended by adding a new paragraph following the last
paragraph appropriating moneys for the purposes under the Treasury
Department to read as follows:
"Payment to the Environmental Financing Authority: For payment to
the Environmental Financing Authority under subsection (h) of the
Environmental Financing Act of 1972."
SEC. 13. No person in the United States shall on the ground of sex
be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits ofe, or be
subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving
Federal assistance under this Act, Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
or the Environmental Financing Act. This section shall be enforced
through agency provisions and rules similar to those already
established, with respect to racial and other discrimination, under
title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, this remedy ios not
exclusive and will not prejudice or cut off any other legal remedies
available to a discriminatee.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I move that the Senate disagree to the
amendment of the House on S. 2770, and ask for a conference with the
House on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon, and that the
Chair be authorized to appoint the conferees on the part of the Senate.
The motion was agreed to; and the Presiding Officer appointed Mr.
MUSKIE, Mr. RANDOLPH, Mr. BAYH, Mr. EAGLETON, Mr. BOGGS, Mr. COOPER,
and Mr. BAKER conferees on the part of the Senate.
HSM
720410
W. S. (BILL) STUCKEY
US REPRESENTATIVE, GEORGIA
--
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1972, THE FEDERAL
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT (P 7988)
--
--
92-500
--
CW181590 CW181590 /
03814
(())
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD EXTENSION OF REMARKS
Proceedings and Debates of the 92d Congress
LD-4b (Rev. Jan. 71)
BILL DATE PAGE(S)
H.R. 11896 4/10/72 E 3486
REMARKS:
by Mr. Stuckey of Georgia.
Mr. STUCKEY. Mr. Speaker, on March 23 and 29, I was on the floor of
the House almost constantly because of my sincere interest in H.R.
11896, amendment of the Federal Water Pollution Act. I have supported
projects, both State and Federal, to help combat pollution of our air,
land, and water resources and helped pass this bill through the House
Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee. I realize the great need for
a pollution abatement bill to protect our environment which would
require Federal standards and enforcement and also allow industry
reasonable time to conform.
I voted on all of the amendments in such a way that would keep this
bill intact as reported from the House Interstate and Foreign Commerce
Committee on which it is my privilege to serve. It was necessary for me
to leave the floor to talk with some constituents and when I returned
after hearing the two bells I did not realize that the vote had already
closed and, therefore, missed the opportunity to vote for this very
important piece of legislation. Although after checking with fellow
colleagues, I was not concerned about its chance of passage, I just want
to be on record as one of those that has supported this legislation both
in committee and on the floor of the House.
HSM
720405
BEN B. BLACKBURN
US REPRESENTATIVE, GEORGIA
--
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1972, FEDERAL WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL ACT (PP 7989 TO 7991)
--
--
92-500
--
CW181591 CW181593 /
03815
(())
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD EXTENSION OF REMARKS
Proceedings and Debates of the 92d Congress
LD-4b (Rev. Jan. 71)
BILL DATE PAGE(S)
H.R. 11896 April 5, 1972 E3436-37
REMARKS:
by Mr. Blackburn /(())
Mr. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, we have considered today a bill dealing
with one of the most emotional issues which we face as a Nation. The
great and justified demand of the American public that abuses of our
waterways be dealt with has created an atmosphere which requires action.
The House today indicated that when action is demanded, action will
follow in the Congress.
For myself, however, I must look upon the purposes of this bill and
the ambitions of its framers and ask if the action which the Congress is
taking today is as much the result of a reasoned approach as it is a
nervous reaction.
Several years ago we established the Environmental Protection Agency.
We granted to this new organization broad powers reaching into every
facet of environmental concern, as well as into the functions of State
and local governments in the area of clean environment. We combined in
one agency authorities dealing with every facet of environmental
protection where previously such authorities had been spread among many
departments. I supported this reorganization, because I felt that the
time had come when expertise in the field of environmental protection
should be concentrated into one agency for a more efficient effort.
Today, we are granting to this same organization contract authority
over the next 3 years totaling $17 billion for the construction of waste
treatment facilities. The Environmental Protection Agency has many fine
and dedicated persons in its employ, but to assume that this relatively
new agency, with very little experience, is not qualified to commit the
tzxpayers of the country to expenditures of $17 billion is to me
extremely questionable.
Have we forgotten so soon the lessons from the Great Socity days when
new agencies were created and huge sums of money placed at their
disposal to abolish poverty in America. No serious student of
government today argues that the war on poverty was won or that any
major engagement was successful. The lesson to have been learned from
that approach to government was to warn us that new agencies with broad
and noble purposes, manned by dedicated and sincere people and armed
with hugh sums of money, did not necessarily achieve the result
intended.
The responsibility of the Congress to exercise a continuing review of
executive agencies is just as great in areas dealing with the
environment as it is in areas dealing with social programs, or any of
the other areas now considered proper for governmental action.
In the past few months my personal experience with an oversight of
operations of the Department of Housing and Urban Development and its
various FHA and public housing programs only affirms the necessity for
alert congressional oversight into the operations of executive agencies.
I see no reason to believe that EPA with its still new organizational
and untried methods, can or should operate apart from congressional
oversight.
Only today, the newspapers carried an article calling to our
attention the fact that the balance-of-trade deficit was more seriious
during the past months than during any time in the history of our
Nation. This legislation could jeopardize the jobs of American workers
by compelling industries to purchase equipment that is extremely costly,
if not prohibitive, at a time when the economy needs a boost. Workmen
without jobs by reason of plant closings, by reason of precipitous and
unreasonable demands upon their employers, or by reason of lack of
orders for the goods being produced, because they are priced out of the
international market, will show little patience with a Congress that
failed to take these factors into account. /(())
It is a well-known fact that the incremental cost of achieving
successively higher levels of discharge removal accelerates rapidly once
your standards exceed 85 percent of the pollutants in the discharge.
Former Chairman Paul McCracken, of the Council of Economic Advisers,
cautioned that pollution removal costs will skyrocket as we approach 100
percent removal of all pollutants. Specifically, Chairman McCracken
argued that to remove 85 to 90 percent of all discharge pollutants would
cost the Nation about $61 billion, or $700 million for each percentage
point of removal. Howwever, when you get into the 95 to 99 percent
removal range, the cost would double, or come to nearly $120 billion --
about $6 billion per percentage point of removal. To more one more
percentage point to 100 percent removal, or no discharge, would cost the
Nation about 2 1/2 times the previously mentioned amount, or $317
billion. As you can easily see, this figure is many times more costly
than if we stayed in the 85 to 90 percent range. It has been estimated
that if we were somehow able to achieve no discharge over a 25-year
period, the total cost to the Nation would be about $2.34 trillion.
Undoubtedly, the cost of cleaning up our rivers and streams is going to
be expensive and will have a significant impact upon our economy.
In light of the above-mentioned facts, it must be remembered that the
United States is today facing an ever-increasing trade deficit.
American industry is finding it extremely difficult to compete in world
markets. The requirement that we attempt to have zero discharge into
our waterways by 1985 could cause economic havoc: unemployment would
increase; American industry would not be able to compete: and the cost
of goods to the consumer would rise astronomically. I believe that for
this reason we should impose those limits which will still allow
American industry to compete while making a serious effort to clean up
our rivers and streams at the same time. It hoped that technology will
be developed within the next few years which will allow the recycling of
our liquefied wastes in a manner which will alleviate the need for
complete reliance upon the "no discharge" method of water pollution
abatement.
As all Members of this body are aware, laws already exist to regulate
what can and cannot be discharged into the Nation's waterways. The
present regulations are going to have a significant affect on the
Nation's economy. Recently, the Council on Environmental Quality
released a report summarizing the economic impact of present pollution
control requirements. They studied the effects of these requirements on
approximately 12,000 plants currently operating in the industrial sector
of our national economy. The study concluded that 300 of these plants
will be forced to close because of present pollution abatement
requirements. These plant closings and production curtainments, because
of pollution abatement requirements will have both a direct and indirect
impact on the Nation's economy. There will be a significant loss of
jobs and a reduction of equity in plants and equipment. Furthermore, an
indirect impact is that certain suppliers and related firms will be
forced to close or reduce production. The study indicates that because
of present environmental regulations, prices in the affected industries
are expected to rise over 10 percent in the period from 1972 to 1976.
Furthermore, the study suggests that job losses directly attributable to
environmental regulations will be between 50,000 to 125,000 over the
1972-76 period. This will create a 1-percentage point increase in the
Nation's unemployment rate.
Pollution control devices will have a direct affect on the national
economy in the form of higher produce prices and new demands for
investment in pollution control equipment. It is expected that in order
to comply with today's regulations, industry must immediately invest in
$26 billion worth of additional equipment. Undoubtedly, prices will
rise as a result of the cost push impact of pollution control costs. It
is a well-known economic fact that as prices increase, this tends to
slow down the growth of demand in the economy. Consequently, the growth
of our gross national product will be severely retarded. Furthermore,
unemployment will increase, because of the slow-down in real product
work. The current amount balance of our international trade position
will deteriorate primarily as a result of increasing domestic prices
when compared with world market prices. Beyond the shadow of a doubt,
foreign prices will not increase due to environmental regulations
overseas. It is clear that net exports from the United States will
decline.
Mr. Speaker, the reason I point out these facts regarding present
regulations is to emphasize the devastating economic impact that the
changes proposed in this bill would have.
There are several other portions of this bill that gravely concern
me. The position of States with regard to initiative in the water
pollution abatement area would be seriously eroded. We see a good
example in my own State of Georgia, where the Georgia Water Quality
Control Board has made continuing progress in cleaning up and preserving
Georgia's waterways. I believe that the States have a valuable role
which they could play in this area. However, the provisions of this
bill would allow EPA to overrule many of the State programs if they did
not conform to Federal guidelines. We had the situation in Georgia
where the State guidelines were stronger than those of the Federal
Government and where the State had to reduce its standards in order to
conform with Federal guidelines.
Finally, the bill would allow the Environmental Protection Agency to
make contracts for a 3-year period with ILLEGIBLE units of State and
local governments for construction of waste treatment facilities. By
giving this contract authority to EPA, we have placed another
uncontrollable expenditure provision on our budget. In a time of
continuing deficits which are being fostered because of continuing
uncontrollable expenditures. I do not believe this is the time or place
to give such commitment authority to an executive agency.
We recognize a noble cause, and to demonstrate our degree of concern
for the cause, we obligate the Treasury for huge sums of money with
little thought as ot its availability in the coffers. The uncontrolled
items in the budget now constitute 71 percent of the Federal budget.
Although we hope to come ot grips with this most serious problem, the
procedures adopted here today have made any serious congressional effort
toward fiscal control almost impossible.
I believe that we should do everything reasonable to clean up the
Nation's water systems and I have consistently cosponsored legislation
which I feel would do this. During this session of Congress I have
cosponsored legislation to increase grant authorizations for State and
interstate water pollution prevention and control programs; a bill to
provide financial assistance for the construction of waste treatment
facilities and for the development of financial and other capabilities
responsive to future waste treatment needs; a bill to strengthen and
clarify the authority of the Administrator of EPA to establish and
enforce water quality standards; and the Environmental Financing Act.
In addition, I have voted for the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970
and the Water Resources Planning Act of 1971. Furthermore, I have
consistently worked to preserve and protect our Nation's wetlands from
unnecessary destruction by stream alteration.
Our hope to successfully upgrade the quality of our Nation's
waterways lies in a continuing evolution of improved technology. I fear
that the Fedeal Water Pollution Control Act will force commitments for
huge expenditures by industry, as well as Government bodies, based on
present technology which could well become obsolete in the very near
future. For example, this bill has an overwhelming emphasis on limiting
discharges into our streams. However, this fails to take into account
the increasing appeal of recycling liquid instead of the "no discharge"
approach. If we had more certain congressional oversight each year
errors in policies enunciated by this act could be more readily
corrected.
In summary, I fear that Congress has gone too far in this
legislation. I fear that we have granted too much authority to a
relatively new Federal agency, promised far more money that we can
reasonably hope to make available, and abdicated congressional
responsibilities to the executive branch of the Government to a degree
which is not necessary.
HSM
720330
EDWARD I. KOCH
US REPRESENTATIVE, NEW YORK
--
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1972, FEDERAL WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL ACT (PP 7992 TO 7993)
--
--
92-500
--
CW181594 CW181595 /
03816
(())
CONGRESSIONIAL RECORD
Proceedings and Debates of the 92d Congress
LD-4b (Rev. Jan. 71)
BILL DATE PAGE(S)
H.R. 11896 3/30/72 E 3404
REMARKS:
by Mr. Koch of New York. /(())
Mr. KOCH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 11896, the 1972
amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Act. While I believe that
this proposal, as prepared by the Public Works Committee, is generally a
sound and progressive bill, I think that certain areas of the bill must
be strengthened, if this country is truly going to commit itself to a
clean water program, and I intend to support all those amendments which
will most rapidly and effectively restore our lakes, rivers, and
seashores to their natural beauty.
The newspapers have lately been filled with articles prophesying
ecological doom, and, certainly, the evidence for these predictions
stands very alarmingly before us. The Great Lakes, supposedly the
world's largest body of fresh water, are rapidly being poisoned. Lake
Erie, which once supported a thriving freshwater fishing industry, is
virtually dead. The Cuyahoga River near Cleveland, Ohio, burst into
flames in 1969. How many of us have noticed that the beaches, lakes,
and rivers we always have sum in have in the last few years been closed
or posted dangerous to human health? Not only our recreational refuges
are being destroyed, however, for our supply of safe drinking water is
also being seriously endangered. A 1970 Public Health Service report
found that 30 percent of the Nation's drinking water contains
potentially hazardous amounts of chemicals. The clean water crisis is
not a specter of the future; it is here with us right now.
There are certain aspects of the committee bill which represent a
real advance in our Nation's approach to clean water. Especially
important is the shift of emphasis from water quality standards to
effluent limitations, for this would strike pollutants at their source.
And since the power to set national standards for effluent control lies
with the Federal Government, New York State is assured that other States
are being compelled to move ahead at the same pace in their water
pollution control programs and will be making sacrifices comparable to
those New Yorkers are already making.
I am also pleased that the bill provides for the Federal
reimbursement of States like New York, which have been in the forefront
of pollution ccontrol efforts, for those funds which have been used to
prefinance the promised but undelivered Federal share of waste treatment
facilities. In addition, the bill's increased authorization for the
construction of these facilities is vitally needed and the increase of
the Federal share from 30 to 60 percent should ease the financial burden
on local communities. The cost of waste treatment itself is made more
equitable by that section of the bill instituting a system of user
charges under which industries will pay for their use of water treatment
facilities in proportion to the volume and strength of the waste
products which they discharge.
While the committee bill sets the admirable national goal of
eliminating the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters by 1985,
with an interim goal of achieving a water quality suitable for swimming
and fish propagation by 1981, these goals would not be implemented
unless Congress enacts affirmative legislation after a 2-year
feasibility study by the National Academy of Sciences. One of the
excellent strengthening amendments offered by Representatives REUSS and
DINGELL in their clean water package would allow the 1981 effluent
standards to go intoi effect without further congressional action and
would thus allow industry to undertake long-range planning.
Other amendments in this package would require industry to use the
best available waste treatment technology by 1981 -- with costs taken
into consideration; would empower the Environmental Protection Agency
to review and, when appropriate, veto individual discharge permits
issued by the States; would allow any citizen, rather than only those
directly affected, to bring suit against polluters or against the
administrators of EPA; and would protect workers by preventing
industries from shopping for less strict State pollution regulations and
by establishing an equitable system of economic assistance to those
workers and communities affected by plant closures due to environmental
regulations.
I believe there are several other areas of the bill which need
strengthening, and I urge my colleagues to join in support of amendments
which will make this a landmark piece of legislation, leading this
Nation's antipollution efforts.
Indeed, when we consider that the intestinal bacteria concentration
in the Hudson River is 170 times the safe limit set by EPA, due to the
dumping there of more than 400 million gallons of human waste, how can
we possibly delay any longer in enacting the strongest water pollution
bill available to us? Rather than abandon our waters and waterways to
sewage disposal, let us restore them and our pride in them as our
Nation's most valuable resource.
DEB
720329
THOMPSON MARTIN JONES HEINZ HARSHA DON H. CLAUSEN MEEDS ABZUG FRASER
REUSS GUBSER ANDERSON VANDER JAGT WIGGINS HOSMER PIKE TERRY GALLAGHER
GRAY PICKLE BOLAND EVINS MCCLOSKEY EDMONDSON VANIK MILLER WALDIE JOHNSON
WILLIAM D. FORD DULSKI RONCALIO BLATNIK GROSS RHODES FINDLEY MICHEL
MCEWEN JAMES V. STANTON HENDERSON SIKES TERRY GIAIMO MAHON GERALD R.
FORD ROE GROVER LONG CEDERBERG JONAS WHITTEN CASEY RAILSBACK COLLINS
WRIGHT DINGELL HANLEY MOLLOHAN ROBISON RANDALL DICKINSON CULVER
SCHWENGEL DELLUMS CRANE DRINAN FRENZEL KYL HORTON
US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE
US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE
US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE
US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE
US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE
US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE
US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE
US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE
US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE
US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE
US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE
US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE
US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE
US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE
US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE
US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE
US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE US REPRESENTATIVE
--
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT 1972 FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1972 (PP 661 TO 702)
--
--
92-500
--
CW181596 CW181637 /
03817
(())
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE
Proceedings and Debates of the 92d Congress
LD-4 (Rev. Jan. 71)
BILL DATE PAGE(S)
H.R. 11896 (General Accounting Office References) 3/29/72
Pages: H 2748(1), H 2772(2), H 2795(2), H 2718-2800
ACTION:
Water Pollution: By a record vote of 380 yeas to 14 nays, the House
passed H.R. 11896, to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
Agreed to the following amendments to the committee amendment:
Two technical amendments;
An amendment that increases the amount for fiscal year 1972 from $6
million to $11 million;
An amendment that provides public hearings to be held for employees
who lose their employment in the case of an industry moving to meet the
alleged results from any effluent limitation or order issued under this
act (agreed to by a record teller vote of 274 ayes to 118 noes);
An amendment that directs EPA to encourage regional resource
management that utilizes spray irrigation and recycling of wastes
(agreed to by a record teller vote of 250 ayes to 130 noes); and
An amendment that would preserve the rights of States to control
discharges from vessels (agreed to by a record teller vote of 210 ayes
to 173 noes).
Agreed to the committee amendment.
A point of order was ILLEGIBLE against an amendment that sought to
provide for the imposition of effluent charges on polluters.
Rejected the following amendments to the committee amendment:
An amendment that sought to strike the contract authority provision
for $18 billion for waste treatment grants and to substitute
authorization for "no-year" appropriations but on a 1-year advance basis
(rejected by a record teller vote of 161 ayes to 232 noes);
A preferential motion that the committee rise and report the bill
with the recommendation that the enacting clause be stricken;
An amendment that sought to authorize $6 million for demonstration
programs and development of plans to protect Lake Tahoe Basin and EPA to
review and comment on all actions by the Federal agencies affecting the
ecology of the Tahoe Basin (rejected by a division vote of 16 yeas to 65
nays);
An amendment that would exempt discharges of pollutants resulting
from agricultural irrigation from the permit requirements;
An amendment that sought to provide that any person may bring suit
against polluters or against the Administrator of EPA; and
An amendment that sought to authorize $17 million for reimbursement
to publicly owned treatment works in a State where construction was
initiated after June 30, 1952 and before June 30, 1956 (rejected by a
division vote of 16 yeas to 72 nays).
Subsequently, this passage was vacated and a similar Senate passed
bill S. 2770, was passed in lieu, after being amended to contain the
language of the House bill as passed. Pages H 2718-H2800
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Speaker. I move that the House resolve
itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union
for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 11896) to amend the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
The SPEAKER. The question is on that motion offered by the gentleman
from Alabama.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the
bill H.R. 11896, with Mr. SMITH of Iowa in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Before the Committee rose on yesterday the Clerk had
read the section 2 of the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, ending on line 25, page 396, and it had been agreed that
debate on all amendments to the bill would be limited to 2 hours.
Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
If I may have the attention of my distinguished colleague from
Alabama (Mr. JONES) I have a question for the gentleman.
At section 204(b) (4) of the committee bill, at page 50, concerning
the terms and conditions to govern the Administrator in making the
financial grants authorized by the bill to the States and interstate
agencies for the construction of "treatment works," the bill states, and
I quote:
Approved by the Administrator of a grant to an interstate agency
established by interstate compact for any treatment works shall satisfy
any other requirement that such works be authorized by Act of Congress.
/(())
We have such an interstate compact agency in my district, the
Delaware River Basin Commission, comprised of the States of Delaware,
New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania as well as the Federal
Government, which has substantial powers and duties pertaining to the
control of water pollution.
With funds provided by the EPA's predecessor agency, the DRBC
recently completed a regional waste treatment program for the protection
and enhancement of the waters of the Upper Delaware Basin, including the
authorized Tocks Island Reservoir project. The commissioner recently
adopted a resolution committing itself to undertake construction of this
regional system, if need be, in the interests of insuring the protection
and enhancement of those basin and reservoir waters.
The commission's regional approach in this par;ticular matter was
commended by the Council on Environmental Quality on February 3, and the
commission specific plan to implement this regional system, that is, its
so-called alternative V, was endorsed unreservedly by the Environmental
Protection Agency in the DRBC's public hearing last February 22.
I now come to the point of my question: Last February 3 the Council
on Environmental Quality stated that the Governors of the concerned
Delaware River Basin States should make a committment or affirmation
that their respective States will provide their share of the DRBC cost
of implementing this regional plan. My question is, Does the /(())
committee's language at sectioin 204(b) (4), intend that the
Administrator may make a grant to the DRBC, of the full Federal share of
from 60 to 75 percent, of the cost of this regional program for the
protection of Upper Delaware Basin and Tocks Island Reservoir waters?
Mr. JONES of Alabama. The answer to the gentleman's question is
"yes," provided, as he explained it, the EPA has endorsed the program,
or that it meets the regional and other standards of the committee's
bill. The intent of section 204(b) (4) is to make it clear to the
States, and to their interstate compact agencies in the water pollution
area, that the Federal Government will bear the bulk of the cost of
these costly, necessary programs, and that the States or their
interstate agencies may move ahead as quickly as possible, confident
that the Federal Government is going to pay the lion's share of the way.
That is the intent of section 204(b) (4).
Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. I thank the gentleman very much, and I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. HEINZE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
Amendment offered by Mr. HEINZ: On page 350 following line 6:
"SEC. 319(a) It is the purpose of this Section to supplement the
enforcement procedures of this Act by providing for desirable economic
incentives to water users to conserve water and to minimize pollution
through reduction in the quantity of waste products dumped into these
waterways. It is also the purpose of this Section to encourage the
formation of regional waste treatment management organizations pursuant
to section 208(a) of this Act.
"(b) (1) In furtherance of the purpose of this Section, the
Administrator and the Secretary of the Treasury shall prescribe such
regulations as are necessary to establish and put into effect two years
after the enactment of this Act a schedule of national effluent charges
for all those discharges including municipal sewage which detract from
the quality of the water for municipal agricultural, industrial,
recreational, sport, wildlife, and commercial fish uses. These
discharges shall include, but not be limited to, biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD), suspended solids, thermal discharges, and toxic wastes.
The charges shall be set at a level which will provide for the
attainment of the standards and goals of this Act. Such regulations
shall also provide for making available as public information all
amounts collected pursuant to such charges.
"(2) Any person who willfully fails to pay any charge as required by
regulations established pursuant to this Section or who willfully fails
to make any return, keep any records, supply any information, or to do
any other act required by such regulations shall be guilty of a
misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than
$10,000, or imprisoned not more than one year or both, together with
costs of prosecution.
"(3) The United States district courts shall, upon petition by the
appropriate United States attorney or the Attorney General on behalf of
the United States, have jurisdiction to restrain violations of
regulations established pursuant to this Section.
"(c) Revenues collected by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to
such charges shall be deposited in a trust fund (hereinafter referred to
as the 'fund') in the Treasury to be available without further
appropriation to the Administrator for use as prescribed in subsection
(d).
"(d) Money from the fund shall be available for distribution by the
Administrator in each year for the purpose of funding Section 106 of
this Act (to assist water pollution control programs of States and
interstate agencies), except that any owner or operator of a point
source of pollution including publicly-owned treatment plants, who
installs pollution abatement equipment or revises production methods to
comply with standards shall receive a rebate of 50% of the aggregate
amount of effluent charges paid prior to the installation or revision,
such rebate not to exceed 100% of the cost of the pollution control
facility. Money in the fund in excess of the amounts required to fund
Section 106 shall be available for the general purposes of Title II, of
this Act (grants for construction of treatment works).
"(e) Organizations established pursuant to Section 208(a) of this Act
shall, not later than two years after the enactment of this Act, or, in
the case of organizations designated two years or later after the
enactment of this Act, not later than 180 days after they are
designated, provide for a schedule of effluent charges covering all
navigable waterways within the boundaries of the area designated
pursuant to Section 208(a) (2). Charges may be set at or above the
level and on substances in addition to those designated by the
Administrator pursuant to subsection (b) (1) of this Section. After
approval by the Administrator, the charges may be imposed by the State
of interstate agency, and all revenues therefrom shall henceforth accrue
to the State or interstate agency to be used for the purposes of
attaining the standards and goals of this Act."
Mr. HEINZ (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent to dispense with the reading of the amendment and ask that it be
printed at this point in the RECORD.
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I want to
make a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. SMITH of Iowa). The gentleman will state it.
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, I intend to make a point of order against
this amendment and, if the unanimous-consent request is granted, do I
then waive my right to make that point of order at the appropriate time?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will not waive his right if he makes it
immediately after the unanimous consent is granted.
Mr. HARSHA. I reserve a point of order against the amendment, and if
the waiver of the reading of the amendment will not waive my right to a
point of order --
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman can make his point of order immediately
following the granting of the unanimous-consent request.
Mr. HEINZ. I am willing, certainly, to let the gentleman reserve his
point of order until after discussion.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
Mr. HEINZ. May the gentleman reserve his point of order?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio reserves a point of order.
Mr. HEINZ: I thank the gentleman for reserving the point of order.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make the same
reservation on the point of order against the amendment that the
gentleman just offered.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 5 minutes.
Mr. HEINZ. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment to add effluent charges to this bill, I
believe, can effectively insure that the promise of clean water becomes
a reality. It would provide the necessary incentive to industry and
municipalities alike to halt the waste and degradation of this Nation's
precious and irreplaceable water resources.
In effect, the effluent charge in the amendment I propose places part
of the burden for a pollution clean -- up where it belongs -- on the
polluter himself -- and ultimately in the marketplace where the cost
structure and price of the product or service can be judged by the
consumer.
I support this bill and many of the strengthening amendments. I am
well aware that a thorough job of investigation and preparation went
into this legislation, and I applaud the committee, its distinguished
chairman, and, especially, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. HARSHA), for a
sincere and generally successful attempt to protect our Nation's water.
However, I see the effluent charge as a necessary and vital extension of
this bill in order to save the taxpayers' dollars, to attack pollution
at its source, and to provide a more responsive and flexible incentive
to adopt innovative and less costly methods of pollution abatement.
My amendment requires that the Administrator of EPA establish a
reasonable and appropriate schedule of effluent charges to be paid by
polluters on all discharge, including municipal sewage, which detract
from the quality and serviceability of using water for municipal,
agricultural, recreational, wildlife propagation, and other important
purposes.
As an added incentive to reduce the amounts of discharge to a point
within and below the limits of the law, owners or operators may claim a
50-percent rebate of those charges after installing proper facilities,
including changed production methods, to abate pollution. Rebates would
at not time exceed 100 percent of the total cost of the capital
expenditures.
I have just sent out a questionnaire to my constituents on the water
pollution bill and have talked to a great many people about their
willingness to spend the billions of dollars required by this bill. The
returns are running overwhelmingly in the affirmative. They realize as
we all must, that generations of neglect of our water will not be
inexpensive to reverse.
I contend, however, that there is a wiser way to implement this
objective than simply through spending billions of dollars on vast
public works projects to /(()) build water treatment facilities. I
submit this is through the use of effluent charges.
Effluent charges can save taxpayer money in several ways.
First, and most important, I would like to emphasize that the
increased incentive to industry, in particular, as provided by effluent
charges and their partial rebate, will have the desirable and necessary
effect on reducing the need to spend the very large amounts authorized
to construct water treatment plants. This means a substantial savings
in tax dollars. Second, half or more of the effluent charges paid would
be used to fund section 106 and title II of this bill, which, as it
stands now, would authorize the expenditure of $7 billion in the first
year alone. We must either raise taxes or futher increase the vast
Federal deficit, unless we find another mans to pay for this bill, and
that is why I propose the self-financing vehicle of effluent charges. I
am firmly convinced we must make every effort to minimize or reduce the
devastating tax burden the people of this country now bear.
The administration and effectiveness of this bill also are of concern
to me.
I am aware that this bill and its amendments commit us to the
principle of environmental restoration. But I believe there is also a
crying need for an effective bridge between the administration of
pollution control, as set by law, and the goal of a pollution-free
environment.
Let us be as realistic as possible. It is not simply a question of
passing laws that we face, but how to administer the law. The
procedures of this bill are necessarily complex at both Federal and
State levels. The effluent charge I propose will minimize the need to
further expand the bureaucracy by applying to all polluters -- across
the board -- a built-in and easily administered incentive to meet or
surpass our water quality goals.
There is one final and additional concern that I believe we must take
into account, and that is our economy and the effect of this legislation
on jobs.
I would add that there is a real added benefit to be derived from my
amendment, to add effluent charges to this bill, and that is that the
economy of this Nation could well be greatly expanded by the creation of
a whole new generation of technology, the role of which would be to
realize the need for polluters to pay effluent charges by finding and
applying the means to control pollution through the elimination of
damaging discharges. Countless new jobs could and would be developed
throiugh the demand for the manufacture and installation of devices, and
other capital equipment, to halt the free flow of effluents into our
water. The creation of a new industry to employ our expanding work
force is urgent business if this country is to avoid the specter of
unemployment.
Mr. Chairman. I submit that my amendment complements and improves
this bill, and I urge my colleagues who are interested in lower taxes,
increased employment, a smaller bureaucracy, and meeting the goals of
this legislation, to support this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Ohio insist upon his point of
order?
Mr. HARSHA. I do insist upon my point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will hear the gentleman from Ohio.
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, my point of order is as follows:
First, the amendment proposed is nongermane and therefore violates
rule XVI, clause 7. The purposes of the amendment as contained in a
letter circulated by the proponent on March 22, 1972, includes the
purpose of producing revenues. Now, the production of revenues is
completely alien to this committee, and is properly a matter for the
consideration of the Committee on Ways and Means under rule XI.
Moreover, another purpose stated in the letter is to permit industry to
choose the most cost-effective means of reducing pollutants. This too
is nongermane to the bill, which concerns itself with the control of
pollution and enforcement. Another stated purpose in the letter is to
encourage industry to sell products which take a smaller environmental
toll. This too is not germane to the bill, as the encouragement of
business practice is not necessarily related to any item within the
bill.
Second, this amendment is not within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Public Works. It proposes a tax on effluents, and raises
revenues, and therefore violates rule XI, which places jurisdiction of
revenue raising in the Committee on Ways and Means.
Section 319(c). Mr. Chairman, categorically refers to revenues
collected by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to such charges.
Third, the amendment violates rule XXI, clause 4 prohibiting
appropriations in legislative bills. Section 319(c) and (d) of the
amendment directs the action to be taken with the revenues raised in
accordance with the amendment. In addition to the clear language of the
amendment, the stated purpose of the amendment in the proponent's March
22, 1972, letter demonstrates the intent that these funds be used for a
specific purpose in violation of rule XXI, clause 4.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I insist upon my point of order.
Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HARSHA. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairman, as many of us on the committee
recognize, there are certain alternate methods of studying the means and
values that might be available, and in so doing we did address ourselves
to this proposition in section 317(a), wherein we state:
"SEC. 317 (a) The Administrator shall continue to investigate and
study the feasibility of alternate methods of financing the cost of
preventing, controlling and abating pollution as directed in the Water
Quality Improvement Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-224), including, but not
limited to, the feasibility of establishing a pollution abatement trust
fund. The results of such investigation and study shall be reported to
the Congress not later than two years after enactment of this title,
together with recommendations of the Administrator for financing the
programs for preventing, controlling and abating pollution for the
fiscal years beginning after fiscal year 1976, including any necessary
legislation.
So we are addressing ourselves to that, and it is in the report, as
well as part of the bill under section 317 for the financing of that.
Mr. HEINZ. Mr. Chairman, would the gentleman yield so that I may
address an inquiry to the gentleman from California?
Mr. HARSHA. I yeild to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. HEINZ. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the gentleman from California
would state whether this subject is addressed to the National Academy of
Scientists for the purpose of studying this?
Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. My suggestion to the gentleman would be that he
convey his ideas to the administrator during the course of the study.
Mr. HEINZ. I thank the gentleman.
May I speak to the point of order?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will hear the gentleman from Pennsylvania
(Mr. HEINZ) on the point of order.
Mr. HEINZ. Mr. Chairman, I would argue, in response to the statement
of the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. HARSHA) in urging his
point of order, that effluent charges are basically user charges, and
user charges are fundamental to the bill. The bill would not work
without them; they are the primary means of financing the operation and
construction of the water treatment works herein.
And I would add further that this in itself is an important
consideration in ruling on this.
Also I would hasten to add that clearly under sections 204(b) (2) and
204(b) (3) that in fact the purpose of this bill is to raise revenues
for the purposes of the bill, and withoiut this we could not possibly
construct any water treatment facilities.
Finally -- and to be brief -- there are two historical precedents
that I believe are important that establish the principle that user
charges are germane to the legislation.
Volume IV, section 4119 of Hinds' Precedents of the House of
Representatives -- no relation, I would add-state that on February 23,
1905, the River and Harbor Appropriations Bill was under consideration,
and included in such bill was a section permitting the collection of
tolls on freight and passengers. A point of order was made to that.
The point of order was not sustained.
Similarly, at a later date, in Volume VII, section 1929 of the same
precedents, a bill that included a provision calling for fines and
penalties for offenses on lands of the public domain was reported from
the Committee on Public Lands, now called the Department of the
Interior, and it was determined that those charges might properly be
considered by the Committee of the House as a Whole.
Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request that the Chair consider these
precedents in ruling on the point of order raised by the gentleman from
Ohio.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. SMITH of Iowa). The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania has /(()) submitted an amendment to
which a point of order has been raised on the ground that it is not
germane and that it violates rule XXI, clause 4 prohibiting
appropriations on legislative bills.
The Chair has examined the amendment.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania states that the bill contains similar
provisions. However, the rule under which we are operating specifically
waives all points of order against sections 2, 8, and 12 of the
committee amendment, but it does not waive such points of order against
an amendment to the committee amendment.
So far as nongermaneness is concerned, the Chair finds in clause 3(c)
of the amendment submitted a provision for collecting revenues or taxes.
Also in section 3(d) it provides for money collected from the fund
shall be available for distribution -- in other words, an appropriation.
So the Chair finds it is not germane for the reason that it provides
for raising revenue, or a tax, and appropriates money. Therefore, the
amendment is in violation of clause 7, rule XVI and also it is in
violation of clause 4, rule XXI, prohibiting appropriations on
legislative bills.
The Chair sustains the point of order.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. MAHON: On page 245, in line 13, strike out
all after the word "submitted"; strike out all of lines 14 and 15, and
all of line 16 down to the period.
On page 250, strike out all of line 18 after the word "shall";
strike out all of line 19; and strike out the words "for obligation" in
line 20.
On page 251, strike out the words "for obligation" in line 12.
On page 254, add the following at the end of line 18: "To the end of
affording eligible recipients of grants for costs of construction
adequate notice of available Federal financial assistance therefor,
appropriations pursuant to this section with respect to the fiscal years
ending June 30, 1974 and June 30, 1975, as the case may be.
Appropriations made pursuant to this section are authorized to be made
available without fiscal year limitation."
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, the amendment which has just been read
appears on page H2713 of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of yesterday's date.
I had hoped, Mr. Chairman, that the committee itself would offer this
amendment which retains the full 3-year authorization in the committee
bill, but provides for annual funding by the Congress -- but on an
advance basis -- in lieu of the 3-year contract authorization proposed
by the committee.
Thus the amendment would keep Congress where it ought to be -- in the
center of the action on this vital and momentous issue each year --
annually, not once every 3 years.
Water pollution control activities are vital and will become more so
from year to year. They require profound and lively debate and action
by Congress each year.
My amendment provides for 1-year advance funding in order to
accommodate sound planning by the cities and localities and to achieve
the objectives of the bill. Under my amendment, the money would remain
available from year to year until expended, further facilitating
administration of the program. Funding by Congress each year -- a year
in advance -- would provide maximum impact to keep the issue alive in
Congress and among the people, and would have far more impact on the
executive branch than the one-shot, 3-year contract authority.
The 3-year contract authority provided in the bill would tend to
shelve the issue for 3 years. It would send it to the legislative
graveyard rather than keep it alive and dynamic and before us an annual
issue.
Some seem to think that contract authority will guarantee full
funding of the authorization. Of course, nobody is so naive as to think
that you can bypass the President or the executive branch. The
President is the top official in all departments and agencies, and he
would permit or not permit full-scale application of the contract
authority -- or appropriations, for that matter. But if we deal with
the question annually, we in Congress can have maximum impact and we can
better monitor the program.
The highway program is funded by contract authority, and on the
matter of full fudning there is no magic to it. In the current budget,
the executive branch is proposing to impound about $1.3 billion of the
1973 amount, bringing the total accumulated impounding in the highway
fund to about $8 billion. So there is no magic in a contract
authorization. A 3-year contract authority just takes Congress out of
the picture for the next two sessions, and puts the Executive in there
with both feet.
I think experience shows that it is less painful for the Executive to
impound contract authority. I say to you without fear of successful
contradiction that Members who want to get something big and meaningful
done -- I mean really want to get something big and meaningful done --
about water pollution should support a program of lively and profound
debate on annual appropriations, keeping us in the act where we ought to
be, where the people expect us to be. Yes, this would keep Congress in
the picture, have a greater impact on the Executive and, importantly,
tend to create national public sentiment to get an effective job done.
Congress, for the current fiscal year 1972, under the leadership of
the Committee on Appropriations, has already appropriated $2 billion in
the appropriations bill handled by Mr. WHITTEN -- $2 billion for waste
treatment construction grants -- which is $350 million more than has
ever yet been authorized by law.
Why should we then abdicate for 3 years, my friends?
Take note of this: Already 71 percent of the spending budget
submitted in January of 1973 is classified as "relatively uncontrolled
under existing law." This 3-year contract authority would put more of
the annual budget in that category. What next?
Pollution is a big and a growing problem. Shall we further surrender
our authority and power to annually work our collective will on
Government spending?
The American people demean Contress for giving too much power to the
Executive. Shall we continue to march toward congressional oblivion,
surrendering our real authority to the Executive, or shall we take the
ball and run with it? The power of the purse is our supreme power over
government in behalf of the American people and annual review and
control is at the very heart of that power.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlemen from Texas has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. MAHON was allowed to proceed for 1
additional minute.)
Mr. MAHON. My amendment is a vital step toward preserving
congressional prestige, dignity and power, and I urge you to support it.
It would greatly improve the pending bill. It would fully facilitate
carrying out the big program we have launched in recent years. While
the amendment is procedural, it is also fundamental.
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MAHON. If I have time remaining, I yield to the distinguished
minority leader.
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. As I understand the gentleman's amendment, the
Committee on Appropriations would recommend full funding for fiscal year
1973 of $5 billion and the full funding for fiscal year 1974 of $6
billion. Thereafter it would only require one-year funding, because you
have the advance funding in the one instance. Is that correct?
Mr. MAHON. The amendment specifically contemplates one-year advance
funding, and the Congress itself would decide this year, next year, and
every year how much the funding would be. Congress ought to be willing
to trust itself to deal appropriately with this vitally important and
expanding issue. We cannot of course say today with any certainty what
the situation will be during the forthcoming 3-year period and
thereafter. But the advance funding contemplated by the amendment is
designed to give appropriate certainty and flexibility to the program.
I prefer to trust the Congress each year, not leave it entirely up to
the executive branch for the 3 years.
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. But in the first year there would be double
funding under the gentleman's proposal.
Mr. MAHON. Double funding is what the amendment comtemplates.
(Mr. ROE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ROE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I am honored to follow the most distinguished gentleman
from Texas, the chairman of the Appripriations Committee, Mr. GEORGE
MAHON, in his eloquent presentation made in this House, but let me
present something for the attention of the Members.
The moment of truth is at hand. The heart of the bill is involved:
Whether or not this Congress is going to make a full commitment to the
people of the United /(()) States or whether it is not. That is the
point involved. We talk about priorities. Yes, there is ending the
Vietnam war, as priority No. 1 but the second priority is the very
health and safety of the people of the United States. We cannot live
more than 3 minutes without air and we cannot live more than 4 days
without water. It is not a queston of what priority comes first. The
first priority is the health and safety of the people of this country.
That is what this commitment is all about.
Whether we make that commitment now or in the future is the question
before the House. We know we are systematically poisoning ourselves.
We know the situation we are faced with right now is literally involved
in the survival of our society. The determination we make, the order of
financial authoization voted here today means the success or failure of
this particular bill.
Previous water pollution legislation -- every bit of it -- failed,
and it failed because of the fact that this Government, our Federal
Government, built in acres and acres of redtape. The States cannot
function under it and the municipalities cannot function under it. They
are burdened with bureaucracy. The people of America are tired of being
had. They want the truth. They want the truth, and they want what they
want as the citizens of this country.
The legislation before this House has been debated before this House
and before the Senate.
Some people say the States are not participating and the States did
not do anything and the States are to blame. This is not the truth.
The State of New York voted a $1 billion bond issue, and the State of
New Jersey voted a half billion dollar issue, and a half dozen other
States have also acted.
The fact of the matter, as I see it, which must be said, is that the
Federal Government has not appropriated the money to do the job and they
are using the fiscal resources of every single State that is
participating in the development of this vital water pollution control
program. That is the truth.
When we talk about precontract authority, we are talking basically
about paying the States back on the money they are providing to build
the program, the Federal water pollution control program.
So to anybody who says the States are not doing their job, I have to
reply that it is not true. The States are tired of taking the blame and
being had and being the "black hats" in this issue.
I know the time is short and I know it appears we are saying we need
more money. But we give it with one hand and take it away with the
other. We put our hand in one pocket and say, hooray, look at the
testimony today, the headlines in the papers, see what a great job we
did in the Congress of the United States -- except for one thing. We
did not provide the money to the job. The States are biked again. They
cannot go any further.
Who is the servant and who is the master? Were we not elected from
the States to serve the States of this country? Were we not elected to
be the Representatives in the Congress of the United States of the
people of this country? We are not here to fight the executive branch
and the President of the United States. We are here to serve the
people.
The priority No. 1 in this country of ours is the health and safety
of the people of this country. They should not be manipulated
politically as a counterpressure on the Executive. Every day we fritter
away and waste our time, costs on construction will be going up. They
go up year after year after year. Then who pays through the nose? It
is the American taxpayer. Congress cannot fritter away time on this
issue while the people of our country drown in their own swill.
Woe to any Member of this Congress who votes for this amendment,
because if he does he will be voting against the health and safety of
every man, woman, and child in his district and in this country, and
voting against priority No. 1, against the health and environment and
safety for our people. I say the precontract provision must be retained
and this amendment should be soundly defeated.
Mr. GROVER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROE. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. GROVER. I want to compliment the gentleman on that statement. I
do believe this amendment will indeed "gut" the spirit of the bill.
I do not believe that all the Members of the House realize the
gentleman who just presented this statement is one of the most
distinguished and knowledgeable persons in this field, as a former
commissioner of conservation and economic development in New Jersey. I
want to compliment him again on a very fine statement.
Mr. ROE. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. JONAS. I move to strike the last two words.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I take this time to
express my support of the amendment of the chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations, the distinguished gentleman from Texas. I associate
myself with the remarks he made in support of his amendment.
I am sure the gentleman from Texas is not parochial in his attitude,
nor is he oversolicitious of the prerogatives of the Committee on
Appropriations; but he is seeking to preserve the prerogatives of the
House of Representatives and of the Congress. He just does not believe
it would be wise for the Congress to vote $18 billion in a blank check
to the executive branch of the Government. He feels that Congress
should retain some oversight over this program, to see how it functions
and to see what progress is being made.
There is not a word in the amendment that would reduce the total
commitment.
The gentleman from New Jersey made a very eloguent speech about
priorities. There was not one syllable uttered by the gentleman from
Texas in support of his amendment, and there is not one line in the
amendment that would take anything whatsoever on the total commitment to
proceed vigorously with this program.
The gentleman from Texas believes, and I concur in that belief, that
the Congress should not abdicate all of its responsibilities and all of
its prerogatives to the executive branch of the Government.
We hear the charge made frequently that the Congress is surrendering
prerogatives to the executive branch of the Government. This is an
effort to retain some jurisdiction in the Congress of the United States
to supervise and oversee the development of this program.
The language of the amendment itself is very clear. I should like to
read the final part of it:
To the end of affording eligible recipients of grants for costs of
construction adequate notice of avilable Federal financial assistance
therefor, appropriations pursuant to this section with respect to the
fiscal years ending June 30, 1974 and June 30, 1975, respectively, are
authorized to be included in the applicable appropriation Act for the
fiscal year next proceeding the fiscal year 1974 or 1975, as the case
may be. Appropriations made pursuant to this section are authorized to
be made available without fiscal year limitation.
I believe the position of the gentleman from Texas is sound. I
concur in his argument. I believe it ought to appeal to the good
judgment of the House, and I believe it ought to be adopted.
Mr. LONG of Maryland. Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JONAS. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. LONG of Maryland. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina for
yielding.
Anyone who has studies the evolution of the parliamentary process
over 700 years knows that the power of the parliaments has arisen out of
the control of the purse. If we give up this power of the purse --
control authority feature of this bill is one more significant part of
the erosion of that power -- we might as well give up the idea that the
American Congress is an equal and coordinate branch of the Government.
I support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. JONAS. The gentleman from Maryland is absolutely correct, and I
was glad to yield to him to make a profound contribution in support of
the Mahon amendment. I fully concur in the views he so eloquently
expressed.
Mr. CEDERBERG. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the
gentleman from North Carolina and also those of the gentleman from
Texas, and I share the sentiments expressed by the gentleman from
Maryland.
We have been talking about many, many times -- about how the Congress
is abdicating its responsibility to the Executive -- here we are going
to have to make a decision as to whether or not /(()) we are going to
take that step. In my opinion we should not do that. We have gone too
far already.
Mr. JONAS. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion let me emphasize the language
of the last sentence I read:
Appropriations made pursuant to this section are authorized to be
made available without fiscal year limitation.
This means there is no limitation on the availability of the funds
appropriated. They continue to be available until spent.
The Mahon amendment deserves support from all who believe in the
doctrine of separation of powers and I urge the committee to adopt it.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is a rather useless discussion. The
reason I think so is based on the letter of the gentleman from Texas.
We have a 3-year program for the expenditure of $18 billion. The
gentleman from Texas in his letter says that he does not object to those
appropriations: that he is reconciled to the fact that we will pay $18
billion in the next 3 years. Consequently, I ask what are we talking
about? If he is agreeable to these appropriations, why cannot the
States in an orderly fashion then proceed, with his agreement, to
schedule the works and make the plans and make the useful and necessary
programs available?
Let me remind you of something. Since 1916 we have had contractual
authorizations under the Federral-Aid Highway Act. There has not been a
single dissent from the Committee on Appropriations to the fact that
that was a contractual obligation. It was necessary in order that the
States could make the necessary arrangements or that the contracts could
be made for this construction, which was gigantic in nature.
We recognize this again in 1956 with the Federal Interstate highway
program. This was a tremendous undertaking, to the extent of spending
many, many billions of dollars on the part of the Federal Government.
We invited the States to come in and make the appropriate plans as long
ago as 1946.
Now, when they come to these conclusions, why are we here now talking
about not giving the States the contractual obligations that they need
in order to pursue a building program amounting to $18 billion?
A decade ago we made an estimate of the flood control and river and
harbor projects, and we found out that they were 10 years and 2 months
behind the authorization in the first appropriation that they received.
I do not understand why we need to have these consequential delays in
programing and execution. The Committee on Public Works came back here
in cooperation with the Committee on Appropriations and modified the
basin authorizations in order to cut down the time, the delay, and the
delinquencies on the approved projects.
Now do we want to go back to that same situation? Do we want to tell
the people of this country we have established this high priority for
these great needs and for the desirability of the people to have a high
degree of water quality and then have them come back here every year in
large groups as they do on flood control and river and harbor projects
to attest to the validity of their claims?
Why of course not.
Here, Mr. Chairman, we are providing the same proposition that the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. MAHON) suggests, that we are going to
appropriate the money. We are authorizing it and providing contract
authority which would accomplish the job.
Mr. Chairman, to adopt such an amendment is not a question of
trespassing upon the constitutionality and the sovereignty of the people
on the Appropriations Committee.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Alabama has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. JONES of Alabama was allowed to proceed
for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, what we are trying to do in our
bill is give assurances to the American people that we are dedicated to
the proposition of action in preserving and enhancing the waters of our
Nation.
Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. WHITTEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. WHITTEN asked and was given permission to
proceed for 5 additional minutes.)
Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Chairman, I happen to be the chairman of the
Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture, Environmental and Consumer
Protection which will handle the appropriations for this program.
Some of you will recall that when this jurisdiction was assigned to
our subcommittee there were quite a number of eyebrows raised about the
experience and objectivity of our subcommittee, wrongfully I feel.
Luckily for me, in 1966 I had written a book, "That We May Live" a half
capter -- page 176-81 -- of which is devoted to the absolute necessity
that we do something to restore and protect the environment. In that
book I pointed out many of the factors with which we have to deal to get
the job done; the help, the cooperation we would need; the cost we
would incur; the decisions we would have to make separating the
undesirable from the downright dangerous; pointing out that we had to
maintain our day-to-day business as we proceeded.
For instance, we could not ask the people of New York City to move
out of town for a month while we clean up the Hudson River. We could
not ask the factories to close down and thus throw many people out of
work, for hungry people will not care about the environment. At the
conclusion of my remarks I shall read to you the statements I made in
that book, published in 1966.
Mr. Chairman, there is no finer groups of Americans or a better
informed group in this Congress than the members of the Committee on
Public Works which brings this bill here today. There is not a harder
working groups that I know of than the chairman, the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. BLATNIK), the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. JONES), the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. WRIGHT), and all the rest. However in this
bill heeding public clamor we are trying to do overnight that which
cannot be done that quickly without proper plans but with purpose we
commit billions of dollars -- as through that alone will get the job
done. We provide penalties as though we could force people to stay in
business. The committee would lead us to believe you can write into any
law provisions for self-execution.
May I say to the surprise of some, but not to those who know me, when
our subcommittee held hearings on the request of the EPA and the various
agencies for funds recommended by the Office of Budget and Management,
we recommended those funds to the Congress after trying to tie them down
to get maximum results.
So far as grants are concerned, our committee recommended, and
Congress approved funds, "to be made available when authorized." We did
our part to ward carrying out all our commitments.
This $2 billion, to be available as soon as the appropriate
legislative committee got the authorization through Congress shows our
attitude, and our effective efforts.
As chairman of the subcommittee, I have met with Mr. Ruckelshaus, Mr.
Train, and the others and we are working together. I sincerely believe
we are making mistakes here in leaving too much latitude to the
Administrator. Because the need is so urgent, the desire so strong and
the press and news media so powerful in forming public opinion, we are
trying to legislate to do by force that which cannot be done that way at
least not successfully.
The Congress cannot force people to stay in business, to stay on the
farm, to stay away from the bathroom or to keep paying employees until
the employer goes broke, if the purpose be to eliminate undesirable
pollution.
If you were to bring together all the authority, all the
responsibility you have give to William Ruckelshaus yoiu would be
amazed: He has the power of life and death over our economy.
As I told Mr. Ruckelshaus when he was before my subcommittee:
Mr. Ruckelshaus, I feel sorry for you. Congress has given you far
more power than a good man would want, or a bad man should have, or that
any 10 men could handle.
I understand he has come to realize that fact. You all know the
basic fact that you cannot change the sum total of matter. You can
change its form. You can move from water to the land and bury it, you
may move it from land, put it in the water, or in the air. You break it
into its different parts but you cannot change the sum total of it.
Incidentally -- and this is beside the the point -- but my friend,
the gentleman from New Jersey, which is in the vicinity of New York
City, will remember that we /(()) had the representative from the State
of New York who had the overall job of pollution control for New York
State, come before our committee this past year.
I asked him:
What can we as the Congress do, or what can our committee do to help
you folks in New York?
He answered:
Well, if you can find somebody to pick up the garbage it would do
more good than anything I can think of.
I tell you we support the good intentions of the Committee on Public
Works. We should support their overall program but we can proceed only
at a practical rate to get the most done to restore and protect the
environment.
To this end we need the most complete annual reviews by our
committee.
We need to know the contracts are necessary; that the contractors
are qualified and the plans sound.
I tell you -- and I say this to my friend, the gentleman from
Minnesota -- there are not 10 men who together could carry out this act
and discharge responsibly the authority that is given under it to the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
But in addition to that we have the other environmental acts which
have given additional duties, powers, and responsibilities to one man
whom most of you don't know. The EPA is still trying to get organized
so that one branch knows what the other is doing and we keep adding all
this power and all this money without thought or at least wihtout proper
restriction for its use.
The fact is that we cannot move as fast as the press, the extremists
and some organizations would like us to: we can only move as far as we
can on a sound basis. The bill without the Mahon amendment, lessens our
opportunity to review, to recommend or to require sound progress in an
orderly manner.
It is not humanly possible to move as fast as we all want to or, as I
say, as the public wants us to do. We need to do the day-by-day hard
work, taking detailed testimony, to find out just how best we can
possibly help Mr. Ruckelshuas to meet the terrific responsibility that
is his. I repeat, our subcommittee and the full committee for the
current year appropriated $2 billion in advance of authorization, so
that there would be no delay in meeting commitments to the cities. And
may I say that notwithstanding that fact that $350 million have never
been authorized yet.
So I am just saying let us not surrender the obligation that we have
to conduct annual hearings so that we can go over their problems with
the different departmental witnesses so that we can work out together
how we can do the job most effectively. We could change this law and
make it 10 times as strong, but yoiu would still have the job of
administering it. You would still have to find out where qualified
engineers and other experts are. You would still have to find out who
is doing what, and where, and you would still have to find out what
laboratories we have, what they are doing and can do and work out plans
for carrying out the act. All of those things involve long, hard, and
grueling work, but your committee and, indeed, the subcommittees, are
willing to do this. The Environmental Protection Agency does not have
this information now.
Whatever we do we want to do our best. But I say let us reserve full
commitment until we can find out; until Mr. Ruckelshaus can find out.
Let us retain the annual review so necessary in every other area on how
much can be done in the coming 2 years.
Mr. CASEY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTEN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. CASEY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with
the remarks of the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. WHITTEN).
I would also like to ask the gentleman if it is not true that if we
do not adopt this amendment we will have no means in the future to
control this program; we will not have the oversight or the ability to
hold hearings after the program is started, once we pass this bill
without this amendment, and in fact we are just turning it all over to
the executive branch.
Mr. WHITTEN. The gentleman makes a sound point. With all due
deference to the Administrator, neither he nor any 10 people could set
up a sound organization or fully understand all the responsibilities we
have given to him. The Administrator needs us to review with his
proposed program annually as much as Congress needs to do so. For this
Congress to push all this power on him and wash our hands of it is not
to get the job done but can waste billions of dollars and get less than
half the relief from water pollution we need.
Mr. CASEY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WHITTEN. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. CASEY of Texas. I am sure most Members agree with me. I want
Congress to say each year where the emphasis should be put. This we can
do with an annual review, but not otherwise. I want us to have that
opportunity.
Mr. WHITTEN. I thank my friend and colleague from Texas. He is
right.
Let us wake up to the fact that we could waste half of the money
provided in this bill, money we do not have, and lose half the benefits
we so badly need.
I think the gentleman's amendment is reasonable in that funds will
not lapse, and if we appropriate for a full year in advance, which means
2 years, we thereby provide for forward planning.
Let us keep all the supervision that is possible. Let us keep all
the review that is possible in order that we may reap the maximum
results from our efforts and really get ahead in eliminating pollution.
I hope that you will vote for this amendment. I think the records
show that our committee will use its position to go over the record each
year with those who are charged with the responsibility to make this
program work effectively.
It is easy to pass this law and say that it does everything in the
world. It will not unless we work to make it work.
Mr. Chairman, I repeat my words written in 1966 in my book "That We
May Live":
EXCERPT FROM "THAT WE MAY LIVE," WRITTEN BY JAMIE WHITTEN, MEMBER OF
CONGRESS, PUBLISHED 1966
This is not to say that pollution of air and water does not exist,
for, of course, it does. Pollution is part and parcel of man's
unplanned and unthinking change of his environment; and particularly is
it a part of the subject under discussion in Silent Spring and here.
Public opinion here seems to be on the move toward action. This public
temper can be good if held in balance. It can do more harm than good if
not kept on an even keel.
Pollution comes from many sources and becomes greater as our
population increases; unless we take corrective action, it will become
worse as we become more and more industrial. We do have pollution of
the air and water and apparently are going to do something about it.
These facts lead me to point to some of the factors with which we must
deal as we attempt to meet this problem.
The fact that air is essential to life is as old as knowledge. The
fact that polluted air can cause discomfort is probably just as old. As
soon as primitive man moved his fire into his cave, he certainly became
aware of air pollution in the form of smoke. He also probably soon
learned to reduce the smoke in his cave by careful placement and
stoking. He then decided to accept some smoke in return for the warmth
and convenience of the fire nearby.
We have been weighing pollution against convenience ever since. Now
we are beginning to realize that more than convenience is involved and
that the air around us is not a limited sea into which we can continue
to pour wast without serious consequences.
Our health and our well-being are threatened.
Thus did the Agriculture Yearbook of 1963, A Plea To Live, describe
one of the serious problems of our day, air pollution.
The increasing pollution of our water unquestionably is a threat to
fish and health. This becomes a matter of public concern in the United
States in the last nineteenth century, when virulent typhoid epidemics
appeared in various cities. The then new science of bacteriology
identified many of these outbreaks as the result of contaminated water
supplies. The public outcry against pollution was great. Public health
officers attempted to meet this challenge in two principal ways.
The first was to select certain streams for waste disposal and the
reserve other, and protected, streams for municipal supplies. This is
the method followed by communities fortunate enough to own or control
adequate watersheds. However, with our increasing population, it is
virtually impossible today for one city to live separately and apart
from another. While one city may protect its water supply, it will be
adversely affected if those in adjoining areas do not do likewise.
The other method was the filtration and disinfection of water. This
has permitted many cities to have reasonably safe and palatable water,
even from such heavily polluted sources as the Missouri, the
Mississippi, and the Ohio rivers.
While these systems have worked for many years we now face a period
when we must give full attention to water pollution, or else pay
substantial penalties in the future. We have some 30,000 sewerage
systems and industrial complexes pouring waste into our streams.
Included are 10,00 municipal sewerage systems, serving more than 100
milliion people, which dump sewage into the waterways. Twenty-five per
cent of this load is without any treatment whatsoever.
Pollution degrades the physical, chemical, biological, and esthetic
qualities of the water. /(()) The degree depends upon the kind and
amount of pollution in relation to the extent and nature of reuse.
Pollution can be just as effective as a drought, or excessive
withdrawals, in reducing or eliminating water resources.
Over 2600 new or enlarged sewage treatment works are needed to serve
27.8 million persons living in communities presently discharging
untreated or inadequately treated sewage. Another 2508 new sewage
collection systems and treatment works are required to serve a
population of 5 million living in urban areas where individual disposal
systems have failed to function properly.
By the year 2000, thirty-four years from now, we will be around 330
million Americans as against today's 194 million. We will have nearly
doubled the quantity of sewage going into our streams and protecting the
public health will really be a problem.
Today's 194 million Americans are ILLEGIBLE our resources so far as
our use and handling of water is concerned. Our lakes and rivers have
become catch basins for the residues of our factories, automobiles,
household and agricultural chemicals, for human wastes from thousands of
villages, towns, and cities. How well we clear up this situation and
learn to handle it without restricting man's means of providing our high
standard of living may well determine the future of our nation.
As we approach this problem we must keep in mind that the power to
control water quality or quantity is not only the power to make or break
business but is a power over the life of the nation itself.
Since water is an absolute essential to health and to all man's
activities, any group we set up to control water on any basis, by
restrictions for protection of its quality or quantity and use, must
have not only the cooperation and co-ordination of all departments and
agencies, but all interests must be represented. The Department of
Agriculture and the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, whose
interests are tied together, should have a place in any such group, as
should the Department of Commerce; but these are not enough. The
states and municipalities must be represented so that the varied
interests of all our citizens may be recognized and provided for,
including riparian rights, established use, and the determination of
priority to use. All this need carries with it the problem of built-in
bureaucracy, of too many cooks, yet there is seldom an easy answer to a
difficult problem.
If we closed all our manufacturing plants, that would greatly improve
the purity of the water in our streams; if we stopped driving
automobiles, just think what that would do to improve the atmosphere --
and a single departmental head could have done that under several bills.
If we could return to the 800,000 population level of this country at
the time it was discovered by Columbus, nature would be able to largely
eliminate the pollution problem. But with 194 million people we could
never live in the simplified way of that day. Neither can we ask nor
could we force the residents of New York City to quit eating, quit
living, and quit breathing while we clean up the Hudson. The same is
true for Washington and the Potomac, as well as the people of thousands
of towns and villages. The power to set standards is the power to
control, yet some Members of Congress have urged that such power be
granted to a single government department.
Agriculture's claims and responsibilities for the use of water are
second to none, for agriculture provides our food, clothing, and
shelter, the basic necessities for lie. In addition, agriculture has a
great responsibility in the use of water, for land is the great
gathering place and reservoir for storage of water. Just a few years
from now we will need three times the water we use today, all of which
points up the need to protect and manage the quality and quantity of our
water supply.
In our work with the Appropriations Subcommittee for Agriculture, we
find the close cooperation and coordination of efforts by both the Corps
of Engineers and the Soil Conservation Service are necessary in
watershed and flood control programs, both of which are highly essential
to water protection. We would not expect a skilled surgeon to use only
one instrument for all operations, nor a mechanic to fix our car with a
sledge hammer. Thus it is with water pollution; we must use the tools
required for the job; and most importantly, we must keep the factory
running in the process and not turn the surgeon's scalpel over to the
mechanic or vice versa.
To do this cleaning up job on pollution, we must call on industry, on
the federal, state, and city governments, and on individuals. We need
financing and regulations, in the meantime, we must maintain a sense of
balance, so that we do not tear up more than we correct. We are not
merely limited to the practical but to the possible.
I believe all of you agree on that. My presentation is here today.
My efforts shall be along that line.
Mr. COLLINS of Illinois. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, never during my public life have I seen a more
dedicated and well-directed committee than the House Committee on Public
Works.
We have throughout our deliverations on this bill taken into account
as many problems as were presented and resolved them, in my opinion, in
a most satisfactory arrangement.
I take pride in ouir accomplishments for the Great Lakes, the
interceptor sewer systems, and all the other necessary devices to deal
with water quality.
Our problems in Chicago and Illinois, through neglect and inattention
as in other parts of the country, have come to a pitiful state of
affairs. Unless we have this contractual authority, this bill with its
magnificent forward thrust will not be very meaningful.
If the contractual authority is removed, as the amendment proposes,
we woulid raise grat doubts as to the sincerity of the Congress to meet
our obligations for the improvement of our Nation's waters.
We must reject the amendment.
Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COLLINS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. RAILSBACK. I want to commend my colleague for his remarks and I
join with him in his remarks. As the State of Illinois has, I think,
been extremely progressive in trying to do something about the serious
problems that confront communities, not only the Chicago area but also
literally hundreds and hundreds of small towns that have been attempting
to meet their responsibilities. The States come up with their fair
share, but the Federal Government, which has mandated the programs by
law, has not done its fair share. It is about time that we did
something so that cities could rely on the Federal Government, which did
mandate them to come up with these clean-water programs. I agree 100
percent. It seems to me the amendment would be bad.
Mr. RONCALIO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. COLLINS of Illinois. I yield to the gentleman from Wyoming.
Mr. RONCALIO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.
Mr. RONCALIO. Mr. Chairman. I rise in reluctant opposition to the
amendment, but I rise also to drive a deal or a bargain. It would take
a tremendous amount of appeal for me to depart from my colleagues on
this great Public Works Committee and to support the amendment offered
by the eminent chairman of the full Appropriations Committee. But I
would do so if I thought for 1 minute that what is good in this Chamber
for the goose will also be good for the gander.
Last fall a military appropriation of $21.5 billion was proposed.
Some of us wanted to know where $2.5 billion of that request was to be
spent. We never were able to find out. Later last fall we were again
asked to appropriate moneys in a "continuing resolution" bill, a
relatively new procedure to me, and at which time we discovered that we
were unable to separate the hundreds of millions of dollars requested
for the Pentagon from money requested for the George Washington
Bicentennial Commission, of all things, and a dozen other wholly
unrelated expenditures proposed at the time.
If I thought the principle of making multiannual appropriations for
the Pentagon was responsible for the waste that we have there in the
last 10 years, and that it was going to be repeated in this water
pollution program, then I would be constrained to follow the chairman of
the full committee.
If we could be given some assurance that what would be good in
relation to this program would apply to every military dollar that we
spend and that we will have the right to look into it instead of being
told, as my colleague from Ohio (Mr. SEIBERLING) was told last year that
you cannot do that, that it had to be voted up or down. I would be
constrained to vote for it.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WRIGHT. I yield to the chairman.
Mr. BLATNIK. Following the speech by the gentleman from Texas and
the very able leader of the committee, can we get an agreement to have a
time limitation of 10 minutes on the amendment following the conclusion
of his speech.
Mr. SIKES. I object.
Mr. BLATNIK. I should like to attempt to come to some understanding.
I regret even suggesting a time limitation, but we have less than 1
hour and we have how many more amendments on the table?
The CHAIRMAN. Fourteen.
Mr. BLATNIK. That is correct. I would like some other Members to be
heard on their amendments in the time available, which has been limited.
That is why, with great reluctance, I made the proposal. /(())
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WRIGHT. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. GROSS. Would it be possible for a Member who is not a member of
the Public Works Committee or the Appropriations Committee to get 1
minute on this subject?
Mr. BLATNIK. That is what I am trying to provide. I was trying to
get some agreement.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, some of the amendments offered yesterday
were predicated upon the argument that the bill is too weak, that it
does not do enough.
Now, interestingly, we have an amendment deriving from the premise
that the bill is too strong, that it goes too far and does too much.
My wonderful friend and colleague (Mr. MAHON) is concerned -- and
understandably so -- with protecting the jurisdiction of the
Appropriations Committee of which he is the very able chairman.
He fears that the obligational authority contained in the bill will
commit the Congress in advance to appropriate moneys sufficient to
complete the construction of multiyear projects once they are approved
and undertaken by the cities and towns of this country.
And that is in truth what the bill sets out to do. Some
comprehensive pollution abatement projects, particular areawide projects
and those in our larger metropolitan sectors, may require as long as 3
or even 4 years to complete.
Your committee takes the position that we have a responsibility in
good faith to give solid assurance to the municipalities of this country
that we shall not luire them out onto a limb only to saw it off behind
them for want of available funds.
The bill requires that by 1976 every publicly owned plant in the
Nation must provide at least secondary treatment, and that by 1981 it
must employ as a minimum "the best practicable technology."
The bill promises that the Federal Government will contribute its pro
rata share of the cost.
But what good is that requirement, and what good is that promise, if
we do not absolutely intend to deliver upon our part of the bargain?
Why should advance obligational authority be necessary? The events
of the last few years suggest the answer.
The authorization for fiscal 1969 was $700 million, but the
appropriation was only $214 million -- less than one-third -- and the
amount actually spent was only $134 million.
For the 4 years, 1968 through 1971, the shortfall of appropriations
below the amounts held out in the authorization bill totaled
approximately $1.2 billion. And because of periodic administrative
freezes on construction grants, the shortfall in the amounts actually
granted came to approximately $1.6 billion.
Mr. RHODES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I cannot yield to the gentleman until I
have finished my statement.
Mr. RHODES. Will the gentleman yield? The gentleman is making a
misstatement.
Mr. WRIGHT. I cannot yield until I have finished my statement. But
I am certain of the facts that I am quoting and, if I had sufficient
time, I would be glad to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from
Arizona.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may have 2 additional
minutes, so that when I conclude, I may yield to this gentleman.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I object to that.
Mr. WRIGHT. Then I am sorry. Mr. Chairman, I cannot yeild. I have
5 minutes in which to say all this, and I am quoting the facts.
Mr. Chairman, many municipalities, faced with truly critical water
pollution problems and intent on solving those problems in a timely
fashion notwithstanding the failure of the Federal Government to live up
to its part of the bargain, went ahead on their own and built the
plants.
Obviously it would not be our intention to penalize those communities
for having demonstrated the initiative and the determination to move
ahead. And so this bill authorizes more than $2 billion to reimburse
them for that portion of the authorized Federal share that was withheld
from them.
But other communities waited, because they were unsure of the
strength of the congressional commitment. And because they waited, the
cost both to them and to the Federal Government is considerably greater
today than it would have been had they been encouraged to proceed 4
years ago.
So this is the acid test. We decide right now just how serious we
are about cleaning up the streams of this country. Do we mean it, or do
we not? Are we certain, or are we uncertain?
I for one am certain. I believe that most of the Members are. I am
ready to make that commitment. I think the Public Works Committee is
certain, and the majority of the House is certain. We can prove it by
voting down this amendment and saying to the communities of this Nation
that once they put their hands to the plow, they need not turn back.
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Chairman. I offer a preferential motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. FINDLEY moves that the Committee do now rise and report the bill
back to the House with the recommendation that the enacting clause be
stricken.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes in support of the preferential motion.
Mr. FINDLEY. I thank the chairman, and I thank the gentleman from
Iowa for coming through with proper language forthwith.
I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Texas. I believe it is an important step for the House to take in order
to retain some semblance of fiscal responsibility.
I know it is perhaps considered in bad taste to talk about budget
control and deficits at a time like this, when we are considering a bill
that does have such attractive and universally appealing label as clean
water, getting rid of pollution in water, but it was not too long ago
that the President sent forth this budget that showed a deficit of $25
billion.
During the course of consideration of this bill I looked up the item
in the President's budget that had to do with clean water. The
President asked for just a bit more than $2 billion in respect to water
quality control for fiscal year 1973.
As I understand the first year cost of this bill, it will be in the
neighborhood of $7 billion to $8 billion, at least $5 billion for the
grants and about $2 billion or more for research and development.
I hope the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas does
prevail. I believe it is an important step forward. But it would
certainly be a serious mistake for anyone to conclude that the
acceptance of that amendment will really bring us to the point of fiscal
responsibility in dealing with the Federal budget.
The gentleman from Texas heads the important Appropriations
Committee. We heard from the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. WHITTEN)
the chairman of the subcommittee which would ordinarily deal with
appropriation matters like clean water.
If we accept the amendment of the gentleman from Texas and report out
a bill with about a $8 billion first year price tag, that request will
go to the gentleman's subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. How
in the world will he adjust that figure to fit in to even the
President's budget, which is already $15 billion out of whack?
I would be glad to hear from the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee or from the chairman of the subcommittee of the Appropriations
Committee as to how they would deal with the dilemma they will face when
and if this amendment is adopted and when and if the appropriations
request does come before the Appropriations Committee.
You will face a tough problem. How are you going to meet it? What
are we going to do to bring this runaway budget under control?
As the gentlemen will recall, I have been urging that the House
change its procedures to require that we first adopt a budget for the
Federal Government before we can appropriate any money.
I believe it is a mistake for us to assume that the price tags on
authorization bills have no importance whatever, that we can go ahead
and authorize virtually without limit and assume that the Appropriations
Committee will take care of the problem. We seem glad to shift
responsibility to the Appropriations Committee. But is that really any
sollution at all?
Can the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. WHITTEN) shed any light on
how he will resolve the dilemma that soon may come before that
subcommittee? Are we not really feeding the lion of inflation by
passing out a bill like this that has an $8 billion price tax for the
first year, four times the President's request?
I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Mississippi. /(())
Mr. WHITTEN. May I say to my colleague, I hope I may shed some
light, but so far as solving the dilemma is concerned I do not know how
I can do that here.
I am certain the Congress has passed so much legislation requiring so
many things, and granting so much power that if we give to the
Administrator of the Environmental Agency billions of dollars to enter
into contracts, companies will be organized to accept the money, many
times without firm plans and a new organization. This may be through
the cities and it may be otherwise.
Of course, our subcommittee will do its best through our hearings,
through our reports and through our bill to see that projects are sound,
that they are planned and that Congress gets a look before hand.
If the Mahon amendment is not adopted our job will be just that much
harder, for Congress by denying the Mahon amendment will limit our
ability, to get full value for a dollar spent.
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the preferential
motion.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am glad to
have the gentleman who preceded me in the well (Mr. FINDLEY) raise the
very important questions about how we are going to pay for this bill.
Everybody has been talking about bestowing all of these goodies, these
benefits, upon the American people, but I have heard very little about
how much it is all going to cost the taxpayer.
The gentleman from New Jersey talked about being truthful. We also
want to be truthful with the people, and we think we can be just that by
making these amounts appropriated more visible each year.
As a matter of fact, if his is such a popular issue, just think of
the points that yoiu can make back home by going to the well every year
and appropriate bigger and bigger amounts of money to get this job done.
But, Mr. Chairman, we are only talking about water here today. Just
think what additional sums will be required to clean up the air and
solid waste disposal?
We have been talking today and in the previous 2 days about a
multi-multi-billion-dollar bill. There is no question about the
popularity of the cause, but it is expensive.
I said in our Republican converence the other morning and will repeat
it here that to be really fiscally responsible we should be down here
saying truthfully to the people, "We have to have a Federal tax
increase." I say that because we are talking about $18 billion here in
this bill over and above, as the gentleman said, a $25 billion deficit
this year. Where are we going to get the money for this? Well quite
obviously it has to first come out of the taxpayer's hide.
Mr. HARSHA. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MICHEL. In a minute I will.
With no more congressional control than what is inherent in contract
authority, I do fear the consequences. That is why I support the
chairman's amendment. We should retain our power to fund by
appropriating for this program in an orderly fashion. As the chairman
indicated, his amendment provides for forward funding of 1 year. We
have been doing this in the field of education. We can do that also in
this bill. The chairman's amendment also says "no year funds," which
means that once appropriated they do not lapse. So you will not be
short-circuiting your constiuents by supporting this amendment. By
taking the route advocated by our chairman, these expenditures will be
made much more visible.
As a matter of fact, if we have to have a tax increase, would it not
be better to have a vehicle, a popular vehicle like this as a means for
getting the tax increase to fund it? Somebody has to pay for it.
The gentleman from Illinois mentioned our environmental bond
referendum passed in Illinois of $1 billion. We are paying for it by
raising our own taxes. I do not think we should go back and reimburse
my State because we recognized the problem earlier than others, because
the job is so big that it will take billions and billions upon
additional billions of dollars, to complete the job. Before long
expenditures in this clean-up effort will rival all of the health
activities and conceivably the Department of Defense budget itself.
The chairman of the full committee (Mr. JONES) made mention of the
contract authority in the highway program. Bear in mind that in this
case there is a trust fund. People are being taxed for it with a cent a
gallon on gas and it is going into a trust fund and then is disbursed by
contract authority. We have to face up to the fact that we are talking
about untold billions of dollars here and there ought to be some
oversight of it.
How many times have we said that the legislative committees ought to
recognize their responsibility and engage more in oversight as we do on
a yearly basis in our Committee on Appropriations.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MICHEL. Yes, I yield to the chairman of the committee.
Mr. BLATNIK. The gentleman is right in his statement to the effect
that there should be oversight, and I pledge that there will be such
oversight.
First of all, the Committee on Appropriations justly should have
jurisdiction over the program of appropriations, and it is with
reluctance that I get into this question of jurisdiction. I would point
out that the bill authorizes $24 billion. Over $8 billion would still
be subject to the annual appropriations procedure.
However, the EPA is working with the States and municipalities in
planning waste treatment works. We know that in the next 3 years in
order for the States and municipalities to assemble the necessary data
and to submit specific projects they will have to have assurance that
the Federal grant money will be available. But to match that provided
by the local government each year, EPA will have to come before the
Committee on Appropriations and make a thorough accounting with
reference to their use of this grant money, and to submit a progress
report. In addition to this, we are going to have our own House
Investigating Committee involved in reviewing the manner in which the
program is operating and whether funds are being spent effectively.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the preferential motion offered by
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. FINDLEY).
The preferential motion was rejected.
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. HARSHA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, one must either have an overabundant
supply of intestinal fortitude or be foolhardy to get up here and oppose
the distinguished Appropriations Committee, but because I feel so
strongly about this issue, I am willing to take that risk.
Now certainly, there is a lot of money involved. We heard this from
the two gentleman from Illinois who referred to the deficit. I must
point out that under this amendment the gentleman from Texas would now
appropriate the $5 billion for 1973 and would also advance for 1974
another appropriation of $6 billion. In other words, he wouild
appropriate $11 billion, if I understand his amendment correctly. Add
that to the budget deficit and then you can see that this would
enormously expand our budgetary problems.
However, under contract authority, all that would be obligated for
1973 is $20 million and for fiscal 1974, $250 million.
Thus, if you are worried about the effect of this bill on the
deficit, the much better route is contract authority. This is because
in these years when the deficit is so great we would have very small
obligations, because the construction program would be stretched out
over a number of years.
Because of the magnitude of this program, it is essential that the
States, the interstate agencies and the cities have both the ability for
and a basis for long-range planning, construction scheduling and
financing waste treatment plants, including the ILLEGIBLE bonds that
they have to sometimes negotiate.
Now, this can only be accomplished if there is assured availability
of Federal grant funds for future years. This necessary assurance is
not provided by merely advancing appropriations for 1 year. That will
not meet the needed assurance of long-term planning. This is a
continuing program.
We must at this time, right now, set up the mechanism for future year
financing. Congress is not abdicating its authority. It has control
over the program, because this bill provides that we must approve a
needs estimate on the odd year, and every 2 years thereafter.
Next year we are coming back to the Congress and asking the Congress
to approve a needs report, and at that time we can review it. Then we
have to come back under this legislation every 2 years thereafter. So
we will have some control and some jurisdiction over it as the program
progresses. /(())
In addition to that, we are coming back here in 1974 after the
National Academies of Science and Engineering have completed their
studies, and we are going to have to take whatever action is necessary
at that time to further implment the program. We will again have an
opportunity to review it.
The construction of a waste treatment plant consists of planning;
economic and engineering feasibility studies; preliminary engineering
for the preparation of plans, specifications, and estimates; the
acquisition of land where appropriate; and the actual physical
construction of the building itself. Under this legislation each one of
these steps is ordinarily a separate project, a separate contract, and
it is funded as completed or as work progresses. This is not the case
under existing law where 25 percent of the total project must be
completed before any payment can be made.
At the time any one of these preliminary steps is taken, such as the
plans, specifications, and estimates, there is no assurance that
appropriated funds would be available for subsequent projects for land
acquisition and the actual building of this plant for which the plans,
specifications, and estimates are being prepared. This, therefore,
makes the orderly continuous planning and scheduling of work impossible.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio has expired.
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may be
permitted to proceed for 2 additional minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Ohio?
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, does it mean
that everybody else is going to be locked out from being allowed to
speak on this bill by virtue of these continual extensions of time?
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I am not
asking for any extension of time.
Mr. GROSS. I understand that, but the gentleman happens to be the
chairman of the committee, and the one who will be up here asking to cut
off debate.
Mr. BLATNIK. I would like to say that following the conclusion of
the remarks of the gentleman in the well that I would like to get some
agreement on a time limitation.
Mr. GROSS. That is exactly what I thought.
Mr. BLATNIK. But that is only because of the reason that we have
some 20 other amendments with less than an hour's time, and I would like
to be able to give a few minutes to each of the sponsors of those
amendments.
But that is the situation we are faced with.
Mr. GROSS. Let me say that very few of the committee members have
been permitted to speak on these amendments, practically only members of
the Committee on Appropriations have had any time, and I would like to
have a little assurance that some members of the committee will receive
a minute or two on this amendment.
Mr. BLATNIK. I understand that, but as the chairman of the committee
I do not have the authority to recognize the gentleman.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call the attention of the
House to the President's environmental message which the President sent
up in February of 1970, requesting legislation to implement a forceful
water quality control program.
In the message that he sent up he requested contract authority -- the
President of the United States in February of 1970 requested contract
authority.
I read from his environmental message supporting the legislation that
he sent up.
He said:
By thus assuring communities of full Federal support, we can enable
planning to begin now for all needed facilities and construction to
proceed at an accelerated rate.
That was the President of the United States.
Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HARSHA. Not at this time. I further point out that the
Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Hickle, testified before the Coingress in
favor of contract authority.
Now, here in 1972 I am advised that the administration is opposed to
the provisions for contract authority. I am also advised the
administration opposes all amendments. I submit that the position of
the administration is untenable. If this was a good proposal in 1970 it
is a better proposal in 1972.
The administration sent up legislation requesting contract authority.
I point out to my friends on this side of the aisle, which 143
Republican Members introduced including 12 Republican members of the
Committee on Appropriations. I have the bills here. If you would like
to see them, and if you would like to be identified, just ask me and I
will read out your name. I can show you where you committed yourselves
to contract authority.
Twelve members from the Committee on Appropriations on this side of
the aisle asked for contract authority.
I rest my case, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on
this amendment, and any amendments thereto, conclude in 15 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Minnesota?
There was no objection.
(By unanimous consent, Messrs. McEWEN and MARTIN yielded their time
to Mr. RHODES.)
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. RHODES) is recognized.
(Mr. RHODES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RHODES. Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the Committee on Public
Works on bringing out this bill, which I support. However, I also
support the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas to take
contract authority out of this bill and substitute therefor
authorization for appropriations which will assure that every community
in this country will know without a doubt how much money it can spend
for the very important purpose of insuring clean water for everyone.
We are all for clean water. But it just happens that the Members who
are in favor of this amendment feel that there is another important
issue before the House today. That is whether or not you are going to
keep the Committee on Appropriations in business to order the priorities
on expenditures.
If this amendment does not succeed and we get a bill with contract
authority, I can imagine that those who have their favorite programs,
whether they be in education, health, or whatever, and who ask for full
funding on these programs, will now ask for contract authority to
completely bypass the appropriations process. If we do that, we might
just as well abolish the Appropriations Committee. I think it would be
much more merciful if you do it openly in one fell swoop instead of
trying to do it in degrees the way you have been doing for the last
several years.
To me, it is very necessary and very important that this amendment be
adopted. Otherwise, I do not know how it is going to be possible for us
ever to make any fiscal sense in this country.
I suggest that we need fiscal sense just as much as we need clean
water.
(Mr. JAMES V. STANTON addressed the Committee. His remarks will
appear hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.)
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina
(Mr. HENDERSON).
(Mr. HENDERSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, this is a tough bill. This bill is
tough on American industry. We are saying to the business and industry
of our Nation in this bill that they have to spend billions of dollars
to clean up their effluent. So our commitment to clean up pollution in
the public sector ought to be as strong as the bill is on industry, and
for that reason, I am opposed to the amendment that is presently before
the committee and I support the committee bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
SIKES).
(By unanimous consent, Mr. EVINS of Tennessee yielded his time to Mr.
SIKES.)
(Mr. SIKES asked and was given permission to extend his remarks.)
Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, I want it understood that I support the
bill. I feel that the Committee on Public Works under its distinguished
chairman (Mr. BLATNIK) and the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. JONES
of Alabama, have done a very creditable job of restoring realism to a
major program, a necessary program, but one which must be a workable
program. We want the Nation to achieve water quality standards at the
highest possible level at the earliest practical date consistent with
technological advancement. I think this is /(()) possible under the
House bill. I feel that we would be courting serious danger if we were
to follow the procedures set up under the Senate bill. That program
could be unworkable and it could certainly be excessively costly in
dollars and in damage to the economy.
I support the proposed amendment for it is most important that we
reverse the trend of delegating to the administration our responsibility
for the annual review and control of Federal expenditures.
The language of the committee bill authorizes the administration to
make commitments over the next 3 years for $18 billion worth of waste
treatment works withoiut further control by the Congress. It takes
Congress out of the picture for the next 3 years, and yet leaves
flexibility to the administration as to the level of the program to be
carried out. The language of the committee bill seeks to delegate the
determination of the rate of obligation under the program to the
administrator of the act. It provides that the administrator shall act
upon project plans submitted by applicants "as soon as practicable after
the same have been submitted," and his approval shall be determined a
contractual obligation of the United States, "As soon as practicable"
leaves great latitude as to when the contract commitments are made.
There is nothing to prevent the administration from impounding the
funds, or slowing down the rate of obligation under the program and yet
the Congress as a practical matter would be powerless, for it would have
delegated its authority in this regard for the next 3 years.
The main reason set forth for granting the contract authority is to
provide State and local interests with adequate notice of funding levels
for their planning purposes. The pending amendment would assure such
advance notice by providing for 1 year advance funding of the grant
program on a direct appropriation basis. For example, in the
appropriation bill for fiscal year 1973 we would fund the grant program
not only for fiscal year 1973, but also for fiscal year 1974. States
would knoiw more than a year in advance the level of funding that they
could depend on in planning their projects. Yet this revised funding
procedure assures that Congress retains its prerogatives to take annual
action on this major grant program.
The track record of Congress in support of this program is excellent.
At the end of fiscal year 1970 there was a carryover balance of $440
million and at the end of last fiscal year there was a carryover balance
of $211 million. I believe this is ample evidence that we have provided
a funding level more than adequate to meet the local abilities to
participate in the grant program.
By adoption of this amendment we can meet the local requirements for
advance funding and, at the same time, retain in the Congress our
responsibility for exercising an annual review and control of the
program.
In other words, the Mahon amendment proposes only to retain
congressional control on expenditures for water pollution control. We
are embarking upon a gargantuan program in an effort to insure clean
water for America. It is going to be a costly program. It will touch
every corner of the Nation.
Unless there is congressional control, it should be obvious the
program could get completely out of hand as unchecked bureaucracy builds
itself a huge new empire.
The Mahon amendment would not injure the program for clean water of
hinder the orderly operation of any contract. It would simply insure
year by year congressional funding. Once projects are authorized and
funded, the money would remain available until each project is
completed.
We have all heard of the evils of "back-door spending." Without the
curbs contained in the Mahon amendment, I believe the bill represents an
invitation for back-door spending.
I had felt that the committee would accept this amendment for it is
intended only to help control the flow of taxpayers' dollars into sound
areas under the control of Congress. Now I urge the approval of the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. MICHEL) is
recognized.
(Mr. MICHEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Chairman, I just want to clear up one point that was
made here, that if we go the appropriating route, we would bring the
budget that much more out of balance. The two are treated the same,
whether it is authorized on a contract basis or under an appropriation.
There is no difference in the budget picture itself. But more
importantly is the fact that it makes visible what we are really
spending in this particular area, and I think that is a point to be made
here in support of the Mahon amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana is recognized.
Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Chairman, I support the Mahon amendment. I request
that the various Members of this House ask yourselves, When is the last
time you were invited to a meeting at the White House? Now, let me read
to you an old political formula: Reduction in the muber of White House
meetings with Members of Congress is in direct proportion to the amount
of constitutional authority surrendered to the White House by the
Congress. One of these days, if Congress keeps on this path of
authority giveway, this body might just wind up with all the authority
of the Saigon Legislature.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN yielded his time to Mr.
TERRY.)
(Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the
distinguished and competent Mr. MAHON's amendment to strike contract
authority from H.R. 11896.
Over the years, a great deal of misinformation about the States'
needs has been generated.
Just recently, for example, I was advised that, as of the end of
1971, the States had used on $200 million of their allocations for the
first $650 million which had been made available to them through October
31, 1971. New York, it was asserted, had used only $2 million of its
$54 million allocation: Pennsylvania had used only 3 percent of its $35
million allocation, and so on.
In checking for the reasons, I learned that New York had submitted
applications to EPA to use all but a fraction of its funds, and the
State was negotiating with municipalities to use its fractional balance.
Pennsylvania had submitted 25 applications last August to use its
entire allocation: by January, EPA had given final clearance to only $2
million for New York's projects, and 3 percent of Pennsylvania's request
-- the remainder of the applications were pending in EPA's regional
offices, and neither New York nor Pennsylvania could get them to budge
on giving further final approvals.
Now, when it comes to fiscal year 1973 funds, the EPA has budgeted $2
billion. In spite of the needs of the States, and the demands being
made upon them to step up their antipollution efforts, we can expect to
hear considerable justification for staying within the $2 billion
figure. If the justification is to stay within a budget, that is one
thing, but if the justification is based on alleged States' needs, that
is quite another matter.
I would like to give a short summary of New York's immediate needs.
The State recently withdrew 45 projects that had a total eligible
cost of $546 million. If the Federal share of these costs is to be 75
percent, as provided in H.R. 11896, New York will require $410 million
in Federal funds to resubmit all these projects.
In addition, New York has 112 projects in the pipeline, ready to be
submitted to EPA for approval, with a total eligible cost of $937
million. With Federal financing at the 75-percent level, New York will
require $563 million in Federal funds in finance these 112 projects.
In summary, New York could go ahead immediately on all these 157
projects if $873 million in Federal funds were available.
But, let us look at the $2 billion budgeted for fiscal year 1973.
Depending upon the allocation formula finally to be agreed upon, New
York will receive an allocation as little as $160 million, but no higher
than $220 million.
A $11 billion appropriation for fiscal year 1973 would be required if
New York were to receive an allocation of $873 million.
With a $2 billion Federal budget for fiscal year 1973, New York could
be able to submit, at the most, only three or four projects over the
next year -- the number of projects would depend upon their size. We
have a large project in Niagara Falls, another in New York City, ready
to go now -- they have a high priority, since raw sewage is being dumped
in both areas. Both projects together would consume our entire
allocation from the $2 billion allocation.
Mr. Chairman, if we are going to /(()) require the States to move at
a faster pace with their antipollution efforts, we must do all we can to
keep the faith with them that we in Congress are facing up to the costs
that will be required.
The States have not known from year to year what the appropriation
will be, so that they will be able to some reasonable degree to know
what kind of Federal funds they will be receiving. Without some kind of
assurance, such as contract authority as provided in H.R. 11896, the
States will continue to be called the "laggards." Let us give them the
assurance they must have.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. GIAIMO) is
recognized.
(Mr. GIAIMO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. MAHON). What is at issue here is not
the question of more or less money. Those who oppose this amendment
seem to think that they are automatically going to get the whole amount
of the contract authority set forth in the bill. Do not you believe it.
You are going to get as much money as the administration and the Office
of Management and Budget give yoiu each year. What you are doing by
having contract authority rather than an appropriation procedure is that
youi are cutting out congressional control, not Appropriations Committee
control, but congressional control over a program, and turning it over
to the bureaucrats and the Office of Management and Budget. I, for one,
do not want to give up congressional contact and I urge support of this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
GRAY).
(By unanimous consent, Mr. BLATNIK yielded his time to Mr. GRAY.)
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, I think what we must ask ourselves here
today is whether or not we want a smooth rolling program or a stumbling
program. If the Members have ever driven an automobile with water in
the gasoline tank, they know the car hesitates when it gets to that
water, and there is not a smooth running motor.
As the gentleman from Connecticut just pointed out, it is not just a
question of more or less money. It is a question of the communities,
the States and industry who are in this partnership arrangement knowing
what they can expect in the way of money for this program. Contract
authority give them that smooth running operation. That is all we are
trying to do. I have great respect for the Committee on Appropriations,
but we know some years it is September, October or later before
appropriations are made for a fiscal year that begins on July 1. In
most cases it is the fault of the other body, however, the year is
almost gone before a community will know how much money this Congress is
going to appropriate.
Let us do this in a smooth-running fashion and get on with the job of
cleaning up the Nation's waters. I can assure you we will save both
time and money for the taxpayers.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
GROSS).
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment
offered by the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. MAHON).
This bill provides a further vast delegation of power at a time when
we cannot have too many checks and balances as between Congress and the
White House. Why should we deliverately write ourselves out of
oversight in this matter of expenditure? I am surprised that the Public
Works Committee did not accept this amendment in the first instance for
the committee has no crystal ball by which it can gage the future as to
the financial and economic health of the Nation.
If I have any criticism of this amendment, it is that it does not go
far enough and place full responsibility on the Appropriation Committee.
Not a single Member of this House knows what the situation will be a
year from now, much less 5 to 10 years, with respect to revenue and with
respect to deficits and debt.
Mr. Chairman, the total cost of this program for only 5 fiscal years,
as estimated in the report accompanying the bill, is $24,623,000.000 --
twenty-four billion, six hundred and twenty-three million dollars.
That is a huge amount of money and yet the Appropriations Committees
of the House and Senate, charged with the responsibility of guarding the
purse strings of the Federal Government, are, under the terms of the
bill, relegated to nthe role of rubber stamps. For all practical
purposes they will simply supply the money -- no questions asked; no
answers given.
Meanwhile, no such restrictions apply to the White House, its Office
of Management and Budget, and the bureaucracy which will dish out the
billions under contracting authority.
Mr. Chairman, every Member of the House wants every section of this
Nation to have an adequate supply of clean water. No one wants
pollution of any nature. But there is no such thing as instant
salvation from the neglect and mismanagement of the past. In view of
the financial crisis now confronting the country, the greatest prudence
must be exercised in the spending of these billions. In fact, no one
has bothered to even suggest from what source the billions here
authorized are to be obtained.
It is because I believe this legislation goes far beyond reason, and
because it denies the proper oversight to the House Appropriations
Committee that I must vote against it.
(Mr. GROSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
PICKLE).
(Mr. PICKLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Chairman, botht the Public Works Committee and the
Appropriations Committee, I think, are kidding themselves about the
effect of the pending amendment. No matter what we decide on this
particular amendment, the agency that is going to run the business of
Congress is the Office of Management and Budget. Every Member listening
to me knows the heavy hand of the Office of Management and Budget and
knows what they do to control all appropriations. We had a project in
Texas which had money authorized and appropriated for a basinwide survey
in the Colorado River, but it is 8 months later and the OMB has not
released those funds. This type of delay has happened to every Member
of this House. Until the Appropriations Committee can address itself to
who does control the appropriations, we will have this debate again and
again. The OMB must be harnessed, and we the Congress must give some
time to that debate later and in full measure.
The OMB has set itself up to be both judge and jury on how all
appropriations are handled. That is for the Congress to decide.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chairman, I have seen a badly needed multibillion
dollar bond issue for a badly needed treatment plant voted down because
the taxpayers were uncertain about whether the Government share was
going to be there and forthcoming. Hundreds of our communities around
the country have charters which require the taxpayers to saddle
themselves with this burden through direct referendum, and they simply
are not going to do it if the Congress does not defeat this amendment,
because it is going to be known as the "uncertain funding amendment"
passed by an uncertain funding Congress.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. BOLAND).
(Mr. BOLAND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Chairman, all of us here, of course, seek the same
objectives, the objectives as outlined in the bill itself. This is not
a new problem, the problem of contract authority, and annual funding.
These halls reverberate with the arguments between the great Member from
Alabama, Al Rains and the late beloved Member from Texas, Albert Thomas.
We have fought this battle before, and the Congress has won the fight.
This is not the first time we have been engaged in a problem of contract
authority. When bills were broiught to the floor in the past for
housing and for urban renewal and for grants in airways and airports,
they were all brought to the floor under contract authority, and the
Congress exercised its own will.
We want to do that here. The power of the purse rests here, and if
we give it away, we give away the most important power this body has.
/(())
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
HARSHA).
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
Mr. EVINS of Tennessee, Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Public Works and for the
members of his committee, but rise in support of the amendment of the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. MAHON), chairman of the Committee on
Appropriations.
Under the present procedure Congress appropriates annually -- and
generously -- for waste treatment grants -- including a $2 billion
appropriation in the bill this year.
As a matter of fact, there have been large carryover balances of $440
million for fiscal year 1971 and $211 million for fiscal year 1972 -- a
total of more than $650 million in carryover funds.
This demonstrates that the funding level for this program has been
adequate and substantial.
Under the committee bill, contract authority for 3 years would be
authorized.
This represents another effort to evade the appropriations process
and meaningful congressional oversight.
There is constant pressure from many agencies and departments to
circumvent Congress in the matter of direct appropriations -- and
approval of this bill would open another hole in the dike.
This program needs review and oversight and Congress must continue to
exercise oversight and control through its constitutional appropriations
process.
Under the Mahon amendment, advance funding will be provided for 2
years -- 1973 and 1974 -- 1 year of advance funding thereafter. This
should be sufficient.
Advance funding will assure the continuity desired -- and at the same
time Congress will retain its control and oversight authority.
Congress should not continue to delegate its authority and
responsibility to executive administrators -- as capable as they may be.
This blank check endorsement procedure should be stopped.
I urge the adoption of the Mahon amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. MAHON).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
Tellers were ordered.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers with clerks.
Tellers with clerks were orderd: and the Chairman appointed as
tellers Messrs. MAHON, ROE, JONAS, and RHODES.
The Committee divided, and the tellers reported that there were --
ayes 161, noes 232, not voting 39, as follows:
AYES -- 161
Abbitt; Addabbo; Alexander; Andrews; Archer; Arends; Ashbrook;
Aspinall; Belcher; Bennett; Betts; Bevill; Blaggi; Blackburn;
Boland; Bray; Brinkley; Brown, Ohio; Burke, Fla.; Burleson, Tex.;
Burlison, Mo.; Byrnes, Wis.; Byron; Camp; Casey, Tex.; Cederberg;
Clancy; Collins, Tex.; Colmer; Conable; Conte; Crane; Daniel, Va.;
Danielson; Davis, Wis.; Delaney; Dellenback; Dennis; Derwinski;
Devine; Dowdy; Edwards, Ala.; Erlenborn; Evans, Colo.; Evins, Tenn.;
Findley; Fisher; Flood; Flynt; Ford, Gerald R.; Giaimo; Goodling;
Griffin; Griffiths; Gross; Gubser; Hagan; Haley; Hall; Hansen,
Idaho; Hansen, Wash.; Harvey; Hathaway; Hebert; Heckler, Mass.;
Hosmer; Hungate; Hunt; Hutchinson; Ichord; Jacobs; Jarman;
Johnson, Pa.; Jonas; Jones, N.C.; Keith; King; Kyl; Landrum;
Lennon; Lent; Lloyd; Long, La.; Long, Md.; Lujan; McClory; McClure;
McCollister; McDade; McEwen; McFall; McKay; McKevitt; McMillan;
Mahon; Mailliard; Mann; Martin; Mathias, Calif.; Mathis, Ga.;
Michel; Mills, Md.; Montgomery; Myers; Natcher; Patten; Pelly;
Pirnie; Ponge; Poff; Powell; Price, Tex.; Purcell; Quillen;
Randall; Rhodes; Robinson, Va.; Robison, N.Y.; Rooney, N.Y.; Roush;
Rousselot; Roybal; Runnels; Ruppe; Ruth; Satterfield; Schmitz;
Schneebeli; Scott; Sebelius; Shipley; Shoup; Shriver; Sikes;
Skubitz; Slack; Smith, Calif.; Smith, Iowa; Springer; Staggers;
Steed; Steiger, Ariz.; Stubbiefield; Talcott; Teague, Calif.; Teague,
Tex.; Thompson, Ga.; Veysey; Waggonner; Wampler; Ware; Whalley;
Whitten; Wiggins; Williams; Wilson, Bob; Wilson, Charles H.; Winn;
Wyatt; Wydler; Wyman
NOES -- 232
Abourezk; Abzug; Adams; Albert; Anderson, Calif.; Anderson, Ill.;
Anderson, Tenn.; Annunzio; Ashley; Aspin; Badillo; Baker; Barrett;
Begicb; Bell; Bergland; Blester; Bingham; Blatnik; Boggs;
Bolling; Brademas; Brasco; Brooks; Broomfield; Brotzman; Brown,
Mich.; Broyhill, N.C.; Broyhill, Va.; Buchanan; Burke, Mass.; Burton;
Byrne, Pa.; Cabell; Cafery; Carey, N.Y.; Carney; Celler;
Chamberlain; Clausen, Don H.; Clay; Cleveland; Coller; Collins Ill.;
Conyers; Corman; Cotter; Coughlin; Culver; Curlin; Daniels, N.J.;
Davis, Ga.; Davis, S.C.; de la Garza; Dellums; Denholm; Dent; Diggs;
Dingell; Donohue; Dorn; Dow; Downing; Drinan; Dulski; Duncan;
du Pont; Eckhardt; Edmondson; Edwards, Calif.; Elberg; Esch;
Eshleman; Fascell; Fish; Flowers; Foley; Ford, William D.;
Forsythe; Fountain; Fraser; Frelinghuysen; Frenzel; Frey; Fulton;
Fuque; Gallflanakis; Garmatz; Gettys; Gibbons; Gonzalez; Grasso;
Gray; Green, Oreg.; Green, Pa.; Grover; Gude; Halpern; Hamilton;
Hammerschmidt; Hanley; Hanna; Harrington; Harsha; Hastings;
Hechler, W. Va.; Heinz; Helstoski; Henderson; Hicks, Mass.; Hicks,
Wash.; Hillis; Hogan; Horton; Howard; Johnson, Calif.; Jones, Ala.;
Jones, Tenn.; Karth; Kastenmeier; Kazen; Keating; Kee; Kemp;
Kluczynski; Koch; Kyros; Landgrebe; Latta; Leggett; Link;
McCloskey; McCormack; McDonald, Mich.; McKinney; Macdonald, Mass.;
Madden; Mallary; Matsunaga; Mayne; Mazzoli; Meeds; Melcher;
Metcalfe; Mikva; Miller, Calif.; Miller, Ohio; Minish; Mink;
Minshall; Mitchell; Mizell; Monagan; Moorhead; Morgan; Mosher;
Moss; Murphy, Ill.; Murphy, N.Y.; Nedzi; Nelson; Nichols; Nix;
Obey; O'Hara; O'Konski; O'Neill; Pepper; Perkins; Pettis; Peyser;
Pickle; Pike; Podell; Preyer, N.C.; Price, Ill.; Pucinski; Quie;
Railsback; Rees; Reuss; Riegie; Roberts; Rodino; Roe; Rogers;
Roncalio; Rooney, Pa.; Rosenthal; Roy; Ryan; St Germain; Sarbanes;
Schweugel; Seiberling; Sixk; Smith, N.Y.; Snyder; Stanton J.
William; Stanton James V.; Steele; Steiger, Wis.; Stephens; Stokes;
Stratton; Stuckey; Sullivan; Symington; Taylor; Terry; Thompson,
N.J.; Thomson, Wis.; Thone; Tiernan; Udall; Ullman; Vander Jagt;
Vanik; Vigorito; Waldie; Whalen; White; Whitehurst; Widnall;
Wolff; Wright; Wylie; Yatron; Young, Fla.; Zablocki; Zion; Zwach
NOT VOTING -- 39
Abernethy; Barling; Blanton; Bow; Carter; Chappell; Chisholm;
Clark; Clawson, Del; Dickinson; Dwyer; Edwards, La.; Gallagher;
Gaydos; Goldwater; Hawkins; Hays; Hollfield; Hull; Kuykendall;
McCulloch; Mills, Ark.; Mollohan; Morse; Passman; Patman; Pryor,
Ark.; Rangel; Rarick; Reid; Rostehkowski; Sandman; Saylor;
Scherle; Scheuer; Spence; Van Deerlin; Yates; Young, Tex.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. McCLOSKEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. McCLOSKEY: on p. 241 add new section as
follows:
"SEC. (115) (a) The Administrator is authorized, in consultation with
the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (established pursuant to an
interstate compact approved in Public Law 91-148, 83 Stat. 360,
hereinafter referred to in this section as 'Agency') and other Federal
and State agencies, to design and carry out projects to develop and
demonstrate comprehensive water pollution control programs in areas
subject to the jurisdiction of the Agency. Such demonstration programs
and projects shall provide controls over nonpoint sources and shall
maintain and enhance water quality within the Lake Tahoe Basin, and may
include --
"(1) the preparation of detailed plans for development and
conservation of the region's water resources, accompanied by a study of
possible alternative sources of water for municipal uses;
"(2) the development of reliable and economical programs for
recycling of pollutant and reclamation of water for municipal and
recreational purposes within the interstate area;
"(3) the development of comprehensive programs for storm water
collection and treatment; /(())
"(4) the development of data on the impact of urban development in
the area on regional water quality through soil siltation and other
runoff; and
(5) assist the Agency in the development of plans for meeting the
demands of user populations with the limits imposed upon the area by its
fragile ecology.
(b) With respect to the area subjecvt to the jurisdiction of the
Agency, the Administrator shall review, in consultation with the Agency,
any Federal or federally assisted public works project, any expenditures
of Federal funds, any Federal licenses or permits, any Federal
insurance, and Federal guarantees of loans where in the judgment of the
Administrator such projects, licenses or permits, or activities may
result directly or indirectly in discharge or runoff into the navigable
waters of such area. No such project shall be undertaken, no such funds
shall be expended or licenses or permits granted and no such insurance,
guarantees or loans shall be provided in the area subject to the
jurisdiction of such Agency until the Administrator shall review and
comment in writing on the environmental impact of any matter relating to
duties and responsibilities granted pursuant to this Act or other
provisions of the authority of the Administrator, contained in any
Federal action to which section 102(2) (C) of Public Law 91-190 applies.
Such written comment shall be made public at the conclusion of any such
review. In the event the Administrator determines that any such action
is unsatisfactory from the standpoint of public health or welfare or
environmental quality he shall publish his determination and the matter
shall be referred to the Council on Environmental Quality.
(c) The Administrator shall report to the Congress, within one
hundred and eighty days after the date of enactment of this Act and
annually hereafter, on (1) the environmental impact of development in
the Tahoe Basin; (2) the adequacy of plans developed by the Agency and
the status of implementation of such plans; and (3) demonstration
projects authorized by this section, including an analysis of the
results.
(d) There is authorized to be appropriated $6,000,000 to carry out
the provision of subsection (a) of this section, which sum shall be
available until expended."
Mr. McCLOSKEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the further reading of the amendment be dispensed with, and
that it be printed in the RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. McCLOSKEY. Mr. Chairman, this amendment relates to Lake Tahoe,
which is the location of the single successful federally supported
tertiary sewage treatment system in the United States. With respect to
the details of this amendment, I defer and yield to my colleague, the
geneleman from California (Mr. WALDIE).
Mr. WALDIE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I had introduced the amendment which is known as the Tahoe amendment,
but because of the restrictions on time, the gentleman from California
(Mr. McCLOSKEY) agreed to introduce the amendment so that it might be
debated on the floor.
What this amendment seeks to do is to prevent what happened to Lake
Erie from happening to Lake Tahoe. You will note that in the bill there
is a great deal of attention paid to Lake Erie by the provisions of the
bill to attempt to restore Lake Erie to a situation where it is
tolerable.
Lake Tahoe is one of the two lakes perhaps in the world presently
that is unique in the clarity and quality of the water it contains. If
prompt, efficient and effective measures are not taken, Lake Tahoe is
confronted with the same fate every lake and every body of water in this
Nation is presently experiencing, massive deterioration.
This amendment was heard in the other body, and was supported by both
of the California Senators, by both of the Nevada Senators, and by the
Governor of Nevada, and was voted upon and acted upon unanimously.
What it does is to recognize that Lake Tahoe is presently jeopardized
by sources of pollution that are essentially what are described as
non-point pollution, the major part of that pollution being siltation
from construction projects.
This amendment will permit the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency to support the efforts being made locally to protect
Lake Tahoe from pollution.
There is at the present time, by reason of an inter-State compact, a
body known as the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency comprise of 10 members,
three of whom are from local government divisions that surround the
lake, from Nevada and California, and four of whom are appointed, two
each, by the respective Governors of Nevada and California. They have
done a reasonably good job in protecting the lake, but this bill
recognizes that the protection of Lake Tahoe is not solely and
exclusively the responsibility, nor is it within the purview and
province, of local authorities.
Lake Tahoe is an asset that belongs to others than those who own land
surrounding the lake. It is an asset so unique and so priceless, that
it has attained national stature. Therefor, a national interest in its
preservation ought to be implemented into this act.
This amendment which was adopted by the Senate imposes a national
interest in terms and provisions that are aimed to protect the lake from
further pollution.
The national control, very frankly, is expressed as a very, very
light national interest that has no authority whatsoever to overrule or
change any decision of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, the local
body that has presently control of the administration of the problems of
pollution of the lake.
What this bill does is to say that any Federal activity that in any
way threatens pollution of that lake, and most of the activity around
the lake is Federal activity, will be required to have an environmental
protection statement filed by the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency. That statement shall be published and publicly
disclosed.
It is hoped that if an environmental impact statement is sufficiently
adverse as to polluting the lake that the local agency will refrain from
what acts it might contemplate contrary to that environmental impact
statement.
But if they do not, there is not a single thing the Administrator can
do to compel them to change their decision. All they can do with the
environmental impact statement is to forward it to the Environmental
Quality Council where it can come to the attention of the President and,
conceivably but unlikely, the President could reverse the decision of
the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency if the President felt those decisions
were inconcsistent with the interest of the Nation in preserving the
lake.
So it would be very difficult to suggest that this amendment in any
way limits and curtails the local control of pollution of Lake Tahoe.
Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, everybody recognizes that Lake Tahoe is a beautiful
lake. Everybody recognizes that every lake that is beautiful and unique
in its beauty has special ecological and environmental problems
associated with it.
But this amendment would authorize a special allocation of $6 million
for demonstration programs and development of plans to protect the Lake
Tahoe basin and would authorize EPA to review and to comment on all
actions by Federal agencies affecting the ecology of the Tahoe basin.
The bill we have before us allots water pollution grants to the
States on the basis of actual waste treatment needs and it should
adequately meet the problems associated with water pollution in the Lake
Tahoe region which originate from point sources. The other needs which
include real estate development and the environment should be undertaken
by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency in cooperation with other Federal
programs dealing with land and with air. There is no justification for
dealing with problems not associated with water pollution in this bill.
There is no justification to go into this particular authorization to
get $6 million for what is an overall and comprehensive program going
far beyond a mere water pollution problem.
We do have research studies on nonpoint sources authorized in this
bill which should aid in arriving at a solution, but we hope that the
basic approach under this bill dealing with the States alike and giving
to the States responsibility for their allocation of resources within
the States and to the municipalities as well will be kept intact and
will not be disturbed by this amendment.
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDMONDSON. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to address myself to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. WRIGHT) in order to inquire about the "point
source" definition in section 502(15).
In section 502(15) which defines "point source," we find the language
"concentrated animal feeding operation."
I have had some inquiries about the extent of the definition of this
term as it related to a "point source." /(())
It is my understanding that only those concentrated animal feeding
operations which would collect and concentrate waste for discharge
through a definite point source outlet are covered under this definition
and that it does not apply to nonpoint source discharge, associated with
a feelot operation.
Mr. EDMONDSON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. WRIGHT).
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, in response to the question of the
gentleman from North Carolina, the gentleman is exactly correct. It
does not apply to nonpoint source discharge.
I would like to point out that subsection 304(e) does call for the
development of guidelines, processes, procedures, and methods to control
nonpoint sources of pollutants including those from agricultural
activities. That would include discharge from livestock operations
other than the "point source" discharge covered in section 502(15).
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his response
and I and I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. VANIK. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. VANIK. Mr. Chairman, I take this time to ask the chairman of the
committee whether section 7 of this bill in its present form gives the
President the authority to enter into international agreements affecting
the Great Lakes.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. I am sorry. I did not understand the
gentleman.
Mr. VANIK. My question is whether section 17 in its present form
gives the President of the United States the authority to enter into
international agreements affecting the Great Lakes.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Yes, the President has ample constitutional
and statutory authority at the present time to negotiate and enter into
such international agreements such as the gentleman proposes.
Mr. VANIK. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, my distinguished colleague from Ohio, the Honorable
JOHN F. SEIBERLING, and I intended to introduce the following amendment
to section 7 of this bill:
Page 402, strike lines 2 through 12, and insert the following:
"SEC. 7. The President shall undertake to enter into international
agreements for the control of the discharge and emission of pollutants
into the oceans and the Great Lakes. Such agreements should endeavor to
control not only existing pollutants but activities including, but not
limited to, oil, gas, sand, and mineral exploration, drilling,
development, extraction, and transportation which have the potential for
producing or allowing a discharge of pollutants. For this purpose, the
President should encourage the use of existing international
organizations including the International Joint Commission and shall
negotiate treaties, conventions, resolutions, or other agreements and
formulate, present, or support proposals at the 1972 United Nations
Conference on the Human Environment and other appropriate international
forums."
The principal purpose of this amendment was to give the President the
express authority to enter into international agreements to curb
pollution of the Great Lakes not only by the discharge of pollutants but
by the extraction and transportation of oil, sand, and other minerals.
During the dabate on this bill, I asked the Chairman of the House
Public Works Committee whether the language of Section 7 of the bill, in
its present form, gives the President the authority to enter into
international agreements on the Great Lakes.
In view of the assurances given by the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
JONES) and the legislative history which it establishes -- the fact that
the bill, in its present form, gives the President the authority to
enter into such international agreements -- Mr. SEIBERLING and I
decided not to offer our amendment.
(Mr. VANIK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HORTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
I take this time to ask the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. HARSHA) a
question: Section 312(f) (3) of section 2. H.R. 11896 states:
If the Administrator determines upon application by a State that the
protection and enhancement of the quality of specified waters within
such State requires such a prohibition, he shall by regulation
completely prohibit the discharge from a vessel of any sewage (whether
treated or not) into such waters.
The language is identical in both Senate and House bills.
Would the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. HARSHA) give me his interpretation
of the meaning of the new language of section 312(f) (3) of section 2 of
H.R. 11896 in order to establish to what extent it can be used to grant
exemptions for waters within a particular State?
Mr. HARSHA. The gentleman will remember that the purpose of Congress
in enacting vessel pollution laws is to establish uniformity among the
States. When the House considered this legislation during the 90th
Congress, it was very reluctant to include small boats used for
recreational purposes in the same category as larger vessels. During
the 91st Congress extensive hearings were held from which it became
clear that the wide variety of State laws presented a very difficult
problem interfering with the movement of those vessels in interstate
commerce. It was for that purpose that we enacted in the Water Quality
Improvement Act of 1970 legislation to provide for a uniform Federal law
for vessel pollution control.
The no discharge exception was, of course, necessary to protect
sensitive waters within a State. These included from the drinking water
supply, shellfish beds and areas designated for body contact, and the
legislative history clearly limited the law in that regard.
The language in the form we have before us today retains that basic
concept by limiting the exceptions to "specified waters." In addition,
it requires that the Administrator find that the protection and
enhancement of the quality of these waters required such a prohibition.
The intent of this language is clear on its face and does not go
beyond it. The suggestion that a State may receive a blanket
prohibition for all of its waters -- its rivers, its lakes -- its
coastal waters -- clearly would act to negate not only the preemptive
clause contained in 312 (f) (1) and (2), but, indeed the entire section
dealing with vessel pollution control. The purpose and intent of
section 312(f) (3) is to provide a safeguard for those waters which do,
in fact, as determined by the Administrator, need special and extra
protection, and is not a blanket authority for a State to impose its
requirements on all vessels that enter its waters.
(Mr. HARSHA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Ohio is recognized.
Mr. MILLER of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, the committee is opposed to the
amendment because the general provisions of the pending bill are
sufficient to carry out any pollution control involving Lake Tahoe.
There are present efforts being made in the Lake Tahoe area for
pollution control which specifically the Lake Tahoe regional planning
agency is involved in, a pollution control program for the Tahoe area.
The Committee recognizes the natural wonder of Lake Tahoe, and it is
our firm intent to enhance its natural beauty and repair any involvement
done by discharge of pollutants into the lake. We believe the general
provisions under the pending bill will adequately take care of Lake
Tahoe. It is the committee's intent to allow the States to receive the
grants on the basis of need.
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MILLER of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
HARSHA).
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the aisle rise in
opposition to nthe amendment offered. I would just like to point out
this amendment singles out a special problem in the entire United States
and gives preferential treatment to it. We think the language we have,
setting forth studies and demonstration projects and authority of the
Administrator, can cover it without giving preferential treatment to one
particular area or pinpointing it.
Mr. WALDIE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MILLER of Ohio. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. WALDIE. Mr. Chairman, the problem is not unique to this bill.
The bill has singled out and properly so, the tremendous problem
presented by Lake Erie. All this amendment seeks to do is to take care
of Lake Tahoe. The millionos of dollars which will be necessary to
restore Lake Erie may not be necessary to restore Lake Tahoe if we act
now. I think it is utterly consistent with what we have done with Lake
Erie.
Mr. MILLER of Ohio. The committee feels that under section 104,
research, investigations, training, and information: and section 105,
grants for research and development; and section 106, grants /(()) for
pollution control programs; and section 314, clean lakes; and the
entire title II, the grants title, that Lake Tahoe will be protected.
Mr. WALDIE. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, I
appreciate the gentleman's assurances. I only suggest to the gentleman
that those who are deeply concerned with the preservation of Lake Tahoe
in the other body, as well as the Governor of the State of Nevada,
though, unhappily, not the Governor of California, did not feel the bill
places sufficient emphasis on the effort to protect Lake Tahoe.
Mr. JOHNSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
(Mr. JOHNSON of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Chairman will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JOHNSON of California. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, we have members of the Committee
on Public Works and Committee on Government Operations who have been out
to Lake Tahoe on two different occasions in order to try to make some
assessment of the injury or pollution in that lake. We have had, I
think, very intimate knowledge about the problems with Lake Tahoe. We
have not been indifferent to those problems. In this bill I think we
are trying to make the necessary repairs that will bring Lake Tahoe up
to the same standards of the rest of our streams and lakes.
Mr. JOHNSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman of our
committee for his statement.
I merely want to say, Mr. Chairman, to all the Members here in the
Committee of the Whole that I have been acquainted with Lake Tahoe since
I was 10 years old. I have served now for 24 years in State and Federal
Government. We have had many studies authorized and many studies made
of Lake Tahoe. Recently there was an action taken by the State
legislature, ratified by the Congress of the United States, to set up a
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. That was perfected and signed into law
by the President. The memberships were appointed within the authority.
They are working very well, and just recently they have adopted their
first master plan.
Certainly I want to do everything I possibly can to save the beauty
and the purity of Lake Tahoe. It has now become a year-round resort
area. It used to be just a summer resort prior to the advent of the
snowplow, but today it is a year-round recreation area. We have about
30,000 people living within the area at the present time year-round. We
have a maximum population there of 150,000 in the summertime and
probably 70,000 in the wintertime.
At the present time, the National Science Foundation, through the
University of California, is making studies there. The California State
Division of Highways is making several studies there as they relate to
the transportation grid.
The California Fish and Game Department is making studies. Save the
Lake Tahoe League, a private organization, is funding many foundations
and private enterprises to come in and make certain studies. The Forest
Service and the Soil Conservation District are studying all of their
lands.
I might say that the Federal Government owns a major part of the
lands surrounding Lake Tahoe. The need for additional acquisition of
lands is much more important than anything here, and we are going to ask
the Congress again for a sum of money to acquire private lands, so that
it will balance out 85 percent public in the area and 15 percent
private.
Now, the Secretary of Transportation is also making a study, along
with the Bureau of Public Roads, as to the relocation of highways
througout this area.
When we passed the Environmental Control Act of 1969, we brought into
being the Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency. They have
been working with all the gruops at Tahoe in previous studies, and they
have effected a very fine control there on many of the problems at the
present time.
With the Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 and its provisions they
are going to follow up and do away with all source point pollution at
Lake Tahoe. This is a mandate on the area of Lake Tahoe as well as it
is throughout the rest of the Nation.
There is $18.350 billion in the bill for construction. There is a
sizable amount of money for planning. There is a sizable amount of
money for studies. We have asked the National Academies of Sciences and
Engineering to make these additional studies.
We are coming to Congress to require a huge sum of money for land
acquisition, but I believe as far as source point pollution is
concerned, the bill before us, which comes form the committee, will do
the job. I ask all Members to vote down the amendment.
Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
This is a very difficult amendment for those of us, who come from
California, to comment on what appears to be a desirable amendment,
because we all recognize the beauty of Lake Tahoe and want to preserve
that unique beauty, but I want to point out that the committee has not
ignored the problem of water quality of our lakes.
Under section 314, which is a section of the bill on page 345, there
is language devoted to clean lakes specifically.
Because of the fact that we are moving in the direction of adopting a
new needs formula study, by the time we could gear up for an action
program under the new allocation formula. I am convinced Lake Tahoe
would be more than adequately taken care of in any instance. This need
formula study, based upon estimates, is also to be considered because of
the language contained in section 314(b), wherein it related to "methods
and procedures, in conjunction with appropriate Federal agencies, to
restore the quality of such lakes." It says:
The Administrator shall provide financial assistance to States in
order to carry out methods and procedures approved by him under this
section.
Then we go to the final subsection (2), which says:
There is authorized to be appropriated $100,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1973; and $150,000,000 for the fiscal year 1974
for grants to States under this section which such sums shall remain
available until expended. The Administrator shall provide for an
equitable distribution of such sums to the States with approved methods
and procedures under this section.
With the above stated provisions in the legislation before us,
coupled with the new needs study allocation formula, I will do
everything within my power to assist the Tahoe regional area compact,
created by this Congress and approved as Public Law 91-148, to control
pollution in Lake Tahoe -- in addition to restoring and or enhancing the
water quality and environment of the lakes in my congressional district
and others throughout the Nation.
I look forward to working with my California colleagues toward this
worthwhihle objective and am pleased to provide this legilative history.
(Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. McCLOSKEY).
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr. WALDIE)
there were -- ayes 16, noes 65.
So the amendment was rejected.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered byk Mr. WRIGHT: Page 251, line 17, strike out
"1971," and insert "1972.".
Page 251, line 25, after "lack of" insert "authority or of".
Page 252, line 10, after "and" insert "authority for and".
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, this is a corrective amendment and I offer
it in behalf of the committee.
This amendment has been cleared with both sides. There is an
inadvertence in which we left the date of 1971 in as the cut-off date
for reimbursement, and we are simply correcting that.
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, we accept
this amendment on this side.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the
purpose of the amendment, as the gentleman from Texas has stated, is
corrective in nature, and we accept it.
Mr. EDMONSON. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WRIGHT. Yes. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's offering
this amendment.
The State Department of Health of the State of Oklahoma has been very
much concerned about implications of this particular date, and the
corrections are very, very helpful. I hope it will be unanimously
approved. /(())
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. WRIGHT).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I offer a second amendment in the nature
of a committee amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. WRIGHT: Page 389, strike out lines 17
through 22 and reletter succeeding subsections and references thereto
accordingly.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, this, too, is a corrective amendment which
I understand has been cleared on both sides of the aisle. It would make
the Fish and Wildlife Act applicable in every respect that it applies by
its own terms to all sections of the bill. There was an inadvertence by
which this particular section was put in the bill that renders the Fish
and Wildlife Act inapplicable in certain instances. This was not the
intention of the committee to do this.
Mr. DINGELL. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WRIGHT. Of course I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. DINGELL. This is one of the amendments my colleagues and I were
going to offer although in slightly different form. It is eminently
satisfactory to us. I thank the committee and commend them for it and
rise in support of it.
(Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
(Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN addressed the Committee. His remarks will appear
hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.)
(Mr. HARSHA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, I join with the distinguished gentleman
from Texas in urging the adoption of his amendment. We on this side of
the aisle support it wholeheartedly.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. WRIGHT).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. RONCALIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. RONCALIO: Page 372, section 502(6), after
line 24 insert the following:
"(E) As used in Sections 301(a), 302 and 402, this term does not mean
irrigation water which is introduced into water fromm a point source
when such irrigation water has been used solely for agricultural
irrigation purposes."
(Mr. RONCALIO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RONCALIO. Mr. Chairman, I, too, have submitted this amendment to
both sides and it meets with the approval of both sides of the
committee.
I offer my amendment so that a serious omission to H.R. 11896 can be
corrected before we end up with a law that would be virtually impossible
to enforce. My amendment would specifically exempt irrigated
agriculture from section 301 (a), 302 and 304 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act.
I think my colleagues will agree that the type of salinity problems
created by irrigation runoff are simply not as alarming as the more
common pollutants discharged by industrial and municipal facilities.
Substantial salinity concentrations have little effect on recreational
use of water or its suitability for the propagation of fish.
My amendment is necessary, Mr. Chairman, because at the present time
we could not enforce pollution control on irrigation systems. It is
virtually impossible to trace pollutants to specific irrigation lands,
making these pollutants a nonpoint source in most cases. Second, we do
not have the technology to deal with irrigation runoff (as contrasted to
industrial pollution and if we begin making laws to control something
that cannot be handled with our given technological knowledge, we will
be doing many thousand farmers and ranchers a great disservice. In
fact, we will be doing the Federal Government a great disservice if we
actually pass a Federal water pollution control bill that cannot be
fully enforced.
Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I sincerely believe that our constituents
in rural areas are fed up with Federal controls. I know this is the
case with my Wyoming constituents. We have tried to do too much in too
short of time. During the three short months of 1972 my constituents
have been hit with the following: First, the beginning of the
enforcement of the Occupational Safety and Health Act which was passed
in 1970 when I was not a Member of Congress, but which has resulted in a
profusion of Department of Labor inspectors running around the
countryside issuing fines for violations even before the Department has
gotten around to supplying each and every person who is affected by the
act with information on what he must do to comply with the new law;
second, a Bald Eagle Protection Act passed by the House of
Representatives which would not allow a farmer or rancher to shoot an
eagle even if he should see one in the process of attacking his
livestock; and third, a White House ban on predator control on all
Federal lands, without any consideration to alternatives such as a
Federal insurance plan that would at least reimburse a stockman for
losses suffered by predators.
Mr. Chairman, a Federal water pollution control bill that would
include irrigation runoff, when it is unrealistic to even meet the law,
would be the last straw in my State of Wyoming.
Even though I wholeheartedly support effluent control as the best
method of controlling pollution contributed by industrial and municipal
waste, I submit that it is not now, at the present time, a practical
method of controlling irrigation runoff.
If you had any irrigated farming in your State, whether on a
reclamation project or otherwise, my amendment is vital to your
constiuents. I urge my colleagues to exclude from the definition of
"pollutant" irrigated water which is introduced into water from a point
source when such irrigation water has been used solely for agricultural
irrigation purposes.
I respectfully ask all Members of the House of Representatives to
support this amendment.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I am
in full agreement with the gentleman's statement, and we urge its
adoption on this side.
Mr. WALDIE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. WALDIE asked and was give permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WALDIE. Mr. Chairman, I take this time in order to ask a
question of the gentleman from Wyoming relative to the amendment.
In California there is a vast irrigation basin that collectes all the
waste resident of irrigation water in the Central Valley and places it
in a drain -- the San Luis Draining -- and transport it several hundreds
of miles and then dumps it into the San Joaquin River which flows into
the estuary and then into San Francisco Bay.
It is highly polluted water that is being dumped in waters already
jeopardized by pollution.
Will the gentleman's amendment establish that as a nonpoint source
pollution or will it come under the point-source solution discharge?
Mr. RONCALIO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, my
amendment would not require Federal permits to remove that water. I do
this to try and avoid irreparable harm to one part of the country from
laws welcomed in another.
Mr. WALDIE. I suggest not only to the Members from California but to
Representatives of other States that have massive irrigation waste
drains that are dumped into navigable waters, if you do not require that
as a point-source pollution and require a permit, you will jeopardize
those waters.
This residue that is dumped into the San Joaquin River is desperately
polluting the river and the bay, and if a permit is not required to dump
it, you will have no control over the quality of water that you are
dumping into rivers and lakes from these sources.
Mr. RONCALIO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield. I
appreciate the gentleman's concern, but if you are going to impose upon
the small agricultural farmers of Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, and Colorado,
Federal permits on top of the other Federal inspections, and agents
prevalent today, we are presenting small irrigation farmers a matter
with which they cannot cope.
Mr. WALDIE. That was not the question I asked.
The permit is not for the individual farmer who dumps it into the
drain but the question I asked is at the end of that drain with hundreds
of thousands of farmers dumping into it, does the drain itself require a
permit to dump that into the water?
Mr. RONCALIO. Most discharges as the result of irrigation damage is
a most /(()) difficult thing to handle and is a nonpoint source
discharge, but is percolation.
Mr. WALDIE. I understand the gentleman's amendment. What he says is
that these hundreds of thousands of farmers that will be dumping their
residue into a pipe and that pipe transports it out of the basin and
dumps it into a waterway, you no longer will require a permit for the
waterway dumping of that material? I think that is desperately
dangerous to every one of our States.
Mr. WIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WALDIE. Yes. I yield to my colleague from California.
(Mr. WIGGINS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to associate myself with the
remakrs of the gentleman from California (Mr. WALDIE).
This is potentially a very dangerous amendment and at least it is
entitled to the careful and mature consideration of a legislative
committee. It should not be enacted too hastily on the floor at this
time.
I would urge that this amendment be voted down and that the
legislative committee give careful consideration to the problem of
irrigation runoff as a source of pollution.
Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.)
(Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. Will this come under the effluent limitation
provisions of the bill?
Mr. RONCALIO. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, let me say
to the gentleman that this amendment does not do what has been
indicated. It does not remove irrigation waters from the provisions of
this bill, except in those two specific instances, one, from the
effluent water quality standards and, second, from the Federal permit
section.
It is still in the study program, there still has to be the
methodology developed to remove high salinity from such water after its
use and re-use for irrigation purposes, and this would be continued
under this legislation, without wrecking havoc in California or other
areas where you have huge irrigation programs.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Wyoming (Mr. RONCALIO).
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. HARSHA: On page 397, lines 3 and 4, strike
out "$6,000,000", and insert in lieu thereof "$11,000,000".
(Mr. HARSHA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, I have cleared this amendment with the
majority side, and they are willing to accept it in the nature of a
committee amendment.
This is at the request of the administration. The money has already
been appropriated.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HARSHA. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Ohio had good
justification for offering his amendment, and we certainly accept it on
this side of the aisle.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. HARSHA).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. WILLIAM D. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. WILLIAM D. FORD: Page 384, between lines 7
and 8 insert the following:
"(e) The Administrator shall conduct continuing evaluations of
potential loss or shifts of employment which may result from the
issuance of any effluent limitation or order under this Act, including,
where appropriate, investigating threatened plant closures or reductions
in employment allegedly resulting from such limitation or order. Any
employee who is discharged or laid-off, threatened with discharge or
lay-off, or otherwise discriminated against by any person because of the
alleged results of any effluent limitation or order issued under this
Act, or any representative of such employee, may request the
Administrator to conduct a full investigation of the matter. The
Administrator shall thereupon investigate the matter and, at the request
of any party, shall hold public hearings on not less than five days
notice, and shall at such hearings require the parties, including the
employer involved, to present information relating to the actual or
potential effect of such limitation or order on employment and on any
alleged discharge, lay-off, or other discrimination and the detailed
reasons or justification therefor. Any such hearing shall be of record
and shall be subject to section 554 of title 5 of the United States
Code. Upon receiving the report of such investigation, the
Administrator shall make findings of fact as to the effect of such
effluent limitation or order on employment and on the alleged discharge,
lay-off, or discrimination and shall make such recommendations as he
deems appropriate. Such report, findings, and recommendations shall be
available to the public. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed
to require or authorize the Administrator to require or authorize the
Administrator to modify or withdraw any effluent limitation or order
issued under this Act."
Page 385, line 21, after the comma, insert the following: "or
carrying out section 507 (e) of this Act".
Mr. WILLIAM D. FORD. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is designed to
free workers from the fear that an employer or corporation may cite
environmental standards and orders as a reason for threatening to close
their plants or reduce employment. It is also designed to protect
environmental protection legislation from being rendered partially
ineffective due to misguided or self-serving threats by any employer or
corporation. And finally, it is designed to protect communities from
any adverse economic effects which might also arise from these types of
threats.
In other words Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to
insure that the burdens and sacrifices resulting from legislation
designed to protect our environment and ebnefit all Americans shall not
be borne disproportionately by some Americans.
Our amendment simply provides a mechanism to determine whether or not
an employer or corporation is threatening to discharge employees or
curtail its activities because of alleged results which might possibly
arise from an effluent limitation or order which may be issued under the
provisions of this act. I want to emphasize that it provides only for a
determination of this issue. It does not involve any cease and desist
powers and it does not involve any civil or criminal penalties.
The amendment states that any person discharged or threatened with
discharge may request thke Administrator to conduct a full investigation
of the matter. Following such a request the Administrator is merely
required to conduct a public hearing and review the information relating
to the actual or potential effect of any limitation or order on
employment and to inquire into the reasons for any alleged discharge or
layoff.
Upon receipt of this information the Administrator is required to
make findings of fact and make any recommendations which he deems
appropriate. These findings and recommendations would then be available
to the public.
Mr. Chairman, in offering this amendment we are only seeking to
protect workers and communities from those very few in industry who
refuse to face up to the fact that they are polluting our waterways, and
who hope, that by pressuring their employees and frightening communities
with economic threats, they will gain relief from the requirements of
any effluent limitation or abatement order.
We need only recall, I am sure, how on company -- Union Carbide -- in
West Virginia, threatened massive job loss if EPA insisted that it
comply with air pollution control standards. But when public pressure
was brought to bear, the company finally admitted that it could comply
without such job loss occurring. It is our contention that is a
mechanism exists to investigate actions such as this, and make the
findings available to the public, we will be able to achieve similar
results in the future and therefore avoid the enactment of more
stringent Federal regulations in this area.
This amendment has received widespread support from many civic-minded
organizations, as well as the environmental groups and labor
organizations such as the United Auto Workers, the United Steelworkers,
and the AFL-CIO.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of this amendment.
Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? /(())
Mr. WILLIAM D. FORD. I yield to the gentleman.
(Mr. DULSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendments
offered by my colleague from Michigan (Mr. WILLIAM D. FORD).
In the pending bill, we have the opportunity to deal once again --
and more effectively as a result of experience -- with one of the great
domestic problems of our day: Water pollution.
Because of years of neglect and a refusal to recognize the many
warning signs, our Nation's waters have reached the crisis stage. We
are forced to take drastic steps to try to bring the situation under
control as fast as possible.
We have had laws on the books as far back as the end of the 19th
century. Of more recent vintage is the current comprehensive Federal
Water Pollution Control Act. This latter act -- the current basic law
-- has given us an excellent start on modern control mechanism. We have
gained broad experience, and now we are moving forward with necessary
refinements and adjustments.
Water pollution control is expensive -- indeed, to a degree often not
easily understood. For the homeowner who finds it necessary, he finds
it plenty costly to install a septic tank in his backyard or to hook up
to a new municipal sewage system.
As one might suspect, the outlay rises in direct proportion when
industrial firms are required to install treatment works to handle their
huge volume of waste.
No longer can industry be allowed to dump raw sewage into our
Nation's waters. Neither can we any longer accept halfhearted or
partial attempts to treat waste.
Corrective steps not only are expensive, but also are disruptive in
long-established major industrial installations. Old-style plants,
although they may still be able to do an acceptable production job,
often do not adapt easily to efficient pollution control systems and
devices. As a result, management understandably is required to face up
to changing circumstances. In particular, management must look at the
broad-range factor of economics and the likely effect on the company
balance sheet.
For me, these industrial facts of life are very fundamental. They
strike home in a very practical sense. The Niagara frontier is one of
the older and foremost industrial areas in our country. My
congressional district is entirely urban and contains much of the basic
industry which has become the backbone of our highly developed Niagara
frontier over the years.
There is no question about the need to halt water pollution of all
kinds, including industrial pollution. Effective pollution control is
essential if we are to protect our vital water supply and rescue our
lakes and rivers from stagnation beyond repair.
In dealing with industrial pollution, we must recognize that some
industries are going to use the pollution control rules as an excuse for
phasing out or sharply curtailing certain operations. Either action
would cost jobs. We can ill-afford more unemployment -- particularly in
my home are of Buffalo, N.Y., where the current rate already if
half-again larger than the national average.
The pending amendments deal with industrial pollutionl. In
particular, they deal with employee protection. Certain employee
protections are included in the bill as it came from the committee. But
those protections unfortunately do not go far enough.
The committee bill deals only with protections for those employees
who face loss of their jobs or discriminatory action for having filed
pollution complaints against their employers. We have no quarrel with
these provisions as far as they go.
But there is no protection provided for industrial employees who are
laid off or threatened with layoffs because their employers claim they
must cut back or close shop as a result of pollution control
requirements.
What we are proposing in simplest terms is that the Environmental
Protection Agency constantly monitor the economic effect on industry of
pollution control rules. In this way, hopefully, the Agency can
anticipate trouble spots.
Further, when an industry claims it must cut back or close down
because of pollution control regulations, an employee can ask the Agency
to conduct a full study of the facts on the industry decision.
Perhaps, even more important, this study can be expanded to include
public hearings on the request of the employee or any other party so
that all the facts can be spread upon the public record for everyone to
see. In other words, answers to the question as to exactly why a
shutdown or cutback was ordered.
It seems to me vital that the "employee protection" section of the
pending bill be expanded to provide protection for employees facing loss
of their jobs through plant shutdowns as well as protection for the
employees who face firing or discrimination because they filed or
participated in a complaint against their employer.
Mr. Chairman, these pending amendments are essential to the "employee
protection" section of the bill before us. I urge their adoption as a
simple matter of equity for the workers who may become the "job or
no-job" pawns in the antipollution drive.
Mr. MEEDS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WILLIAM D. FORD. I yield to the gentleman.
(Mr. MEEDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MEEDS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. The
major city of my congressional district has just received the
announcement of a pulp mill shutdown. The company in question announced
that the shutdown was "strictly environmental." A closer examination of
the facts show that environmental requirements played only a small part
in the closure decision. Other factors including obsolescence, source
of market, source of supply, and labor costs all added up to a hard
decisive decision based on economics.
The effect upon our community has been almost disastrous. People are
engaged in the windmill tilting exercise of attempting to roll back the
pollution efforts thus far advanced. This company is being required to
meet standards which any pulp mill, anywhere in the United States will
be required to meet. Yet they have convinced the citizenry that they
are somehow being discriminated against.
When this situation arises, or is threatened, the workers and other
people of the community have a right to know the truth. If indeed, the
closure is caused by pollution controls, there shoiuld be no difficulty
in establishing that fact. If, on the other hand, there are other
factors involved, pollution controls ought not to be made the scapegoat
for an unpopular decision.
The amendment of the gentleman from Michagan (Mr. WILLIAM D. FORD)
furnishes a forum for a disclosure of the facts. Hopefully it will
place industry on notice that if pollution controls are to be blamed,
they had better be prepared to substantiate that fact.
Mrs. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WILLIAM D. FORD. I yield to the gentlewoman.
(Mrs. ABZUG asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of the
amendment, which would require the Environmental Protection
Administration to study and evaluate, on a continuing basis, the effects
of effluent limitations upon employment.
One argument commonly raised in opposition to strong antipollution
efforts is the claim that enforcement of antipollution laws will lead to
the closing of manufacturing facilities and a resulting loss of jobs. I
believe that this argument is little more than a red herring, suggested
by industry as a device to play upon the economic concerns of working
people and I lead them to join with corporate interests in their fight
against cleaning up the environment.
It may be that there are instances in which corporations have moved
their facilities to avoid compliance with antipollution requirements;
to combat this, we should have national minimum standards, leaving their
ecological blackmailers with no place to go. Alternatively, there is
the suggestion of Leonard Woodcock that employers who move to avoid
environmental protection requirements be required to pay the workers who
suffer as a result.
This amendment will allow the Congress to get a close look at the
effects on employment of legislation such as this, and will thus place
us in a position to consider such remedial legislation as may be
necessary to ameliorate those effects. This is a good amendment and I
urge its adoption.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?(())
Mr. WILLIAM D. FORD. I yield to the chairman of the committee.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, though I do not speak in opposition to
the intent of the amendment, I do hope it will not be adopted at this
time and in this manner. The problem is a real one. There is no
question about that. The Public Works Committee is presently holding
hearings on legislation concerning economic development and the Economic
Development Administration. The entire matter of employee protection
brought about by the need for industry to comply with environmental
standards requires a comprehensive examination. This matter will
definitely be considered, and I assure you that we will come up with a
measure to take care of the problem which the gentleman has noted.
(Mr. BLATNIK asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The effect of the amendment would be merely to authorize public
hearings regarding threatened plant shutdowns or worker layoffs
resulting from pollution control requirements. The committee is
presently conducting hearings on the Public Works and Economic
Development Act, as amended, and is in the process of drafting a bill to
extend this act. The committee has purposefully left these hearings
open so that following action on the pending bill we may look into the
problem of potential plant shutdowns and worker layoffs due to pollution
control requirements. It is the committee's intention to include a
comprehensive section regarding layoffs, plant shutdowns, and other
economic hardships to communities resulting from the pending Water
Pollution Control Act amendments.
The committee realizes that some economic hardship, especially in
smaller communities who rely on single, older plants, may result from
the requirements of the pending bill. Since economic relief properly
comes under EDA, it would be more appropriate to include comprehensive
language in the EDA extension to take care of this matter. It is not
the intent of the committee to establish within EPA an office to deal
with economic impact, a subject property belonging within EDA. The
committee and I personally, does stress its sympathy and support for the
intent of the amendment.
Mr. FRASER. Mr. Chairman, I rise for the purpose of clarifying the
intent of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Minnesota is recognized.
Mr. FRASER. As I understand it, the purpose of the amendment is to
provide for a public hearing in the case of an industry claim that
enforcement of these water-control standards will force it to relocate
or otherwise shut down operations. I do not understand that it has to
do with economic adjustment assistance, which would or might properly
come up under another legislative area. Since this deals just with the
public hearings, I would hope that the amendment would be adopted.
I think too many companies use the excuse of compliance, or the need
for compliance, to change operations that are going to change anyway.
It is this kind of action that gives the whole antipollution effort a
bad name and causes a great deal of stress and strain in the community.
I would think that this is the right place for the amendment to be
adopted. It is a very limited amendment. I strongly urge that it be
supported.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. WILLIAM D. FORD).
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. REUSS. Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
Tellers were ordered.
Mr. REUSS. Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers with clerks.
Tellers with clerks were ordered; and the Chairman appointed as
tellers Messrs. WILLIAM D. FORD, BLATNIK, HARSHA, and FRASER.
The Committee divided, and the tellers reported that they were --
ayes 274, noes 118, not voting 40, as follows:
AYES -- 274 Abourezk; Abzug; Adams; Addabbo; Alexander;
Anderson, Calif.; Anderson, III.; Anderson, Tenn.; Andrews; Annunzio;
Arends; Ashley; Aspin; Badillo; Barrett; Begich; Bell; Bennett;
Bergland; Betts; Bevill; Biaggi; Biester; Bingham; Boland;
Brademas; Brasco; Bray; Brooks; Broomfield; Brotzman; Brown, Ohio;
Broyhill, N.C.; Broyhill, Va.; Buchanan; Burke, Fla.; Burke, Mass.;
Burlison, Mo.; Burton; Byrne, Pa.; Carney; Chamberlain; Clancy;
Clausen, Don H.; Clay; Cleveland; Collins, Ill.; Conable; Conte;
Conyers; Corman; Cotter; Coughlin; Culver; Daniels, N.J.;
Danielson; de la Garza; Dellenback; Dellums; Denholm; Dent;
Derwinski; Devine; Diggs; Dingell; Donohue; Dow; Downing; Drinan;
Dulski; Duncan; du Pont; Eckhardt; Edwards, Calif.; Eiberg;
Erienborn; Esch; Eshleman; Evans, Colo.; Fascell; Findley; Fish;
Flood; Foley; Ford, Gerald R.; Ford, William D.; Forsythe; Fountain;
Fraser; Frelinghuysen; Frenzel; Fulton; Galifianakis; Gallagher;
Gibbons; Gonzalez; Gooding; Grasso; Green, Oreg.; Green, Pa.;
Griffiths; Gude; Halpern; Hamilton; Hanley; Hanna; Hansen, Wash.;
Harrington; Harvey; Hathaway; Hechier, W. Va.; Heinz; Helstoski;
Hicks, Mass.; Hicks, Wash.; Hollfield; Horton; Hosmer; Howard;
Hungate; Hunt; Hutchinson; Ichord; Jacobs; Johnson, Pa.; Jonas;
Jones, Tenn.; Karth; Kastenmeier; Kazen; Keating; Kemp; King;
Koch; Kyl; Kyros; Landgrebe; Lennon; Lent; Link; Long, Md.;
Lujan; McCloskey; McClure; McCollister; McCormack; McDade;
McDonald, Mich.; McEwen; McFall; McKay; McKevitt; McKinney;
Macdonald, Mass.; Madden; Mahon; Malliard; Mallary; Mathias, Calif.;
Matsunaga; Mayne; Mazzoli; Meeds; Melcher; Metcalfe; Michel;
Mikva; Miller, Calif.; Mills, Md.; Minish; Mink; Minshall; Mitchell;
Monagan; Moorhead; Morgan; Morse; Mosher; Moss; Murphy, Ill.;
Murphy, N.Y.; Myers; Natcher; Nedzl; Nelsen; Nix; Obey; O'Hara;
O'Kenski; O'Neill; Pelly; Pepper; Perkins; Pettis; Peyser;
Pickle; Pike; Poage; Podell; Poff; Preyer, N.C.; Price, Ill.;
Pucinski; Quie; Rallshack; Randall; Reuss; Rhodes; Riegle;
Robinson, N.Y.; Rodino; Roe; Rogers; Rooney, N.Y.; Rooney, Pa.;
Rosenthal; Roush; Rousselot; Roy; Roybal; Runnels; Ruppe; Ryan;
St Germain; Sarbanes; Schneebeli; Sebelius; Seiberling; Shoup;
Shriver; Skubitz; Smith, Iowa; Smith, N.Y.; Staggers; Stanton, J.
William; Steed; Steele; Steiger, Ariz.; Stratton; Stubblefield;
Sullivan; Symington; Talcott; Taylor; Teague, Calif.; Terry;
Thompson, Ga.; Thompson, N.J.; Thomson, Wis.; Tiernan; Udall; Ullman;
Vanik; Veysey; Vigorito; Waldie; Wampler; Ware; Whalen; Whitten;
Widnall; Wiggins; Williams; Wilson, Bob; Wilson, Charles H.; Winn;
Wolff; Wydler; Wylie; Yatron; Young, Fla.; Young, Tex.; Zabiocki;
Zwach
NOES -- 118
Abbitt; Albert; Archer; Ashbrook; Aspinall; Baker; Belcher;
Blackburn; Blatnik; Boggs; Bolling; Brinkley; Brown, Mich.;
Burleson, Tex.; Byrnes, Wis.; Byron; Cabeil; Caffery; Camp; Carey,
N.Y.; Carter; Casey, Tex.; Cederberg; Celler; Collier; Collins,
Tex.; Colmer; Crane; Curlin; Daniel, Va.; Davis, Ga.; Davis, S.C.;
Davis, Wis.; Delaney; Dennis; Dorn; Dowdy; Edmondson; Edwards,
Ala.; Evins, Tenn.; Fisher; Flowers; Flynt; Frey; Fuqua; Garmatz;
Gettys; Giaimo; Gray; Griffin; Gross; Grover; Gubser; Hagan;
Haley; Hall; Hammerschmidt; Hansen, Idaho; Harsha; Hastings;
Hebert; Henderson; Hillis; Hogan; Jarman; Johnson, Calif.; Jones,
Ala.; Jones, N.C.; Kee; Kluczynski; Landrum; Latta; Leggett; Lloyd;
Long, La.; McClory; McMillan; Mann; Martin; Mathis, Ga.; Miller,
Ohio; Mizell; Montgomery; Nichols; Patten; Pirnie; Powell;
Purcell; Quillen; Rees; Roberts; Robinson, Va.; Roncalio; Ruth;
Satterfield; Schmitz; Schwengel; Scott; Shipley; Sikes; Slack;
Smith, Calif.; Snyder; Spence; Springer; Stanton, James V.; Steiger,
Wis.; Stephens; Teague, Tex.; Thorne; Vander Jagt; Waggonner;
Whalley; White; Whitehurst; Wyatt; Wyman; Zion
NOT VOTING -- 40
Abernethy; Baring; Blanton; Bow; Chappell; Chisholm; Clark;
Clawson, Del.; Dickinson; Dwyer; Edwards, La.; Gaydos; Goldwater;
Hawkins; Hays; Heckler, Mass.; Hull; Keith; Kuykendall; McCulloch;
Mills, Ark.; Mollohan; Passman; Patman; Price, Tex.; Pryor, Ark.;
Rangel; Rarick; Reid; Rostenkowski; Sandman; Saylor; Scherie;
Scheuer; Sisk; Stokes; Stuckey; Van Deerlin; Wright; Yates
Messrs. BROOKS, STEIGER of Wisconsin, and YOUNG of Texas changed;
their votes from "no" to "aye."
So the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. GUBSER. Mr. Chairman, within the next two hours we will be
voting upon one of the most significant bills of all time. For more
than two centuries /(()) the balance of nature in this continent has
been violated by man. Today we will take a meaningful step toward
correcting the wrongs we have committed in the past hundreds of years.
Because this bill does so much for the environment and because it is
well within the bounds of reason, I intend to vote for it.
Like any hallmark legislation, some will think the bill before us
goes too far while others will believe it does not go far enought. I
sincerely hope the American public in its seious concern for our
environment will not look upon the limitations of reason which we have
written into the bill as less than a complete dedication by this
Congress to improving the environment in which we live. I hope the
public will never lose sight of the positive things which this bill
accomplishes. It is a meaningful and far-reaching step which we take
today.
H.R. 11896 establishes for the first time a national goal in removing
pollutants from our water supply. It establishes an interim goal for
1981 to achieve water quality suitable for recreation purposes and the
propagation of marine life in all waters. It establishes a 1985 goal of
"zero discharge" of pollutants into the nation's waters. The bill
sharply increases Federal grants for municipal waste treatment
facilities in the amount of $18,000,000 for the next 3 fiscal years. It
preserves the right and responsibility of the States to prevent
pollution and in so doing, it preserves the considerable expertise
available at the State level. It allows States which are ahead of the
national standards to remain ahead. It does not allow any State to drag
its feet but provides national standards which each State must meet if
it is to retain its right to issue discharge permits.
The bill grants the Environmental Protection Agency broad authority
to participate in and encourage research in pollution. It provides for
demonstration projects aimed at developing new pollution control and
waste treatment techniques. For fiscal year 1974, $315,000,000 is
authorized for these programs.
For fiscal year 1973, $5 billion, $6 billion for fiscal year 1974,
and $7 billion for fiscal year 1975 is authorized for construction of
municipal waste treatment works. Under this legislation the Federal
share of such project costs will be 75 percent instead of 55 percent as
at present. Retroactive payments of between 30 percent and 55 percent
are authorized for local communities which have already constructed
waste treatment works.
This landmark bill established a national discharge permit system and
requires that by 1976 the "best practical control technology" be
utilized by private industry. A further requirement is that industry
achieve zero discharge by 1981 or utilize the "best available
demonstrated technology" if the cost of achieved zero discharge is
unreasonable.
The bill quite reasonably calls for a study by the National Academies
of Science and Engineering on the effectiveness of the 1981 and 1985
water quality goals so that future congressional action can be taken on
the basis of scientific data. Though some feel that the Congress should
have sailed blindly into the scientific unknown and mandated goals which
might prove unrealistic, I feel that the authorized study is oine of the
bill's strongest features. If the study is not made and if the future
goals prove to be unrealistic, Congress woulid be floundering in
scientific ignorance. The National Academies are well qualified and we
need the information which their study will produce. Personnel of the
National Academies are as dedicated to a clean environment as anyone. I
have no fear of the truths they will develop.
As I have previously stated, this bill does not abdicate
responsibility for pollution-free water by handing it over to the States
with no strings attached. The States must submit acceptable plans and
demonstrate a capacity to administer their program oif issuing permits
effectively. The EPA can terminate the delegation of this authority to
the States if the State program is not run in accordance with EPA
regulations.
Many of remember the concern of Californians when national
legislation to prevent air pollution was far behind the steps California
has already taken. California Congressmen of both parties fought and
won the right to exceed national standards. This bill will allow State
discharge standards more stringent than those required by Federal law.
Penalties for those who violate the act are provided up to $10,000
per day and criminal penalties of $2,500 to $25,000 per day and/or 1
year imprisonment are provided for. This shows what a tough
antipollution measure we are passing today.
Citizens will be allowed to bring a civil action against individuals
or government agencies who violate thie act. The fact that suits must
be brought by residents of the geographical area affected by the
violation is not an unreasonable diminution of the right to sue.
Conservation groups should experience no difficulty in finding a
qualified local citizen to bring a suit. On the other hand, harassing
lawsuits which would glut court calenders could not be filed across the
entire Nation by individuals from areas not affected.
Of great significance is the portion of the bill which provides an
environment financing agency to purchase municipal bonds to finance the
local share of waste treatment plant construction projects. Also
important is the authorization of $800 million assistance to small
businesses to help them meet the pollution abatement requirements of the
act.
No person could deny the fact that this bill is a wholesale attack
upon pollution. By going further than anything we have ever passed, it
truly reflects the proper concern for our environment, which has swept
the Nation.
Some have argued for exclusive Federal responsibility for
administration and enforcement of the water pollution program and say
the bill is deficient in this regard. This is a false issue. As I have
previously states, the bill assigns overriding authority to the Federal
Government and gives administration responsibility to the States only
when they demonstrate the ability and reliability to live up to their
responsibility. When a State fails to discharge its responsibility, the
Federal authority can take complete charge of that State's program.
I have already addressed myself to the objections raised by some
conservation groups to the 2-year study by the National Academies of
Science and Engineering. So I will only ask the question -- what is
there to fear from learning scientific truth from the groups most
qualified to seek it out? Had we such knowledge years ago, perhaps we
could have avoided the current level of pollution of our environment.
The fact that Congress must take affirmative action following
completion of the study is certainly not a weakness in the bill. What
Congress passes today, it could repeal next year. But with the
scientific facts before it, Congress will be in a strong position to
take affirmative action to protect our environment and to rebut the
arguments of those who place profit above a clean environment.
The House bill is estimated by some to involve a price tage of at
least $300 billion. Governor Rockefeller has estimated the cost of the
Senate bill to excees $2 trillion. Others estimate the 25-year cost
will be $2.34 trillion. Testimony before the public Works Committee was
received indicating that it would cost $700 million per incremental
percentage point to remove 85-90 percent of pollutants. To achieve the
last percentage point of removal or not discharge would cost $317
billion and raise the total cost from $700 million per incremental
percentage point to $66 billion. Let us hope that by 1985 science will
have drastically reduced these costs but, in the meantime, we must
recognize current realitiy.
Objections to the House bill are simply not realistic. We must
remember that we are passing a law which people must live with. I want
to go full speed ahead in cleaning up our environment, but to vote for
something which ignores reality is to run the risk of sabotaging
responsible, long-range action.
Even though H.R. 11896 is an excellent bill, it nevertheless could
have been improved had certain amendments been adopted.
I voted for the Hechler amendment that required a recycling of mine
waste water.
I voted for the Abzug amendment to eliminate the provision that
compliance with the National Environmental Protection Act could be
certified by States. Personally, I believe that compliance with a
Federal law should be determined by the Federal officials responsible
for administering that law. /(())
I also voted for that provision in the so-called Dingell-Reuss clean
water package, which would have prvented a transfer of authority to
issue discharge permits prior to the time that national standards are
developed. This same amendment would have allowed 60 days for the
Environmental Protection Agency to review discharge permits granted by
the States. It would also have eliminated immunity until 1976 from
national standards. I feel that this amendment would have improved the
bill.
I also voted for an amendment by Representative ASPIN which would
have applied the same standards to water discharged into the underground
as apply to surface discharge. I come from an area which depends
completely upon storage of water in the underground basin and I would
like to see that type storage given equal protection.
I felt the amendment to do more about cleaning up Lake Tahoe should
have passed and there were others which could have improved the bill.
But despite the fact that I voted for these strengthening amendments,
and I was on the losing side, I still say that the bill we will pass
today is a great and a meaningful step toward the goal of providing
clean water for this and future generations. This is a proud moment in
the history of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Mr. ANDERSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last
word.
(Mr. ANDERSON of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. ANDERSON of California. Mr. Chairman I would like to direct a
question to the gentleman from Alabana (Mr. JONES).
Mr. JONES, I understand that during hearings before the Rules
Committee, the gentleman from Alabama stated that the allocation of
funds under title II would be based on the most recent study conducted
by the Environmental Protection Agency.
The bill, as reported, allocates grants under title II according to a
1970 needs survey. The Senate bill allocates grants according to
population.
Am I correct that in conference, the managers of the House bill will
make every effort to use the EPA study conducted in 1971 as the basis
for the allocation of grants under title II, and not the outdated 1970
study?
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, the
gentleman is correct. We are making every effort to bring up to date
the figures and calculations for the 1971 needs survey and that
information will be submitted to us.
Mr. ANDERSON of California. I am sure that the gentleman is aware
that the substance of the 1971 needs survey has been released to the
Public Works Committee.
According to a response that I received from the White House
regarding the 1971 survey, "the substance of the report containing the
survey of State needs to implement clean water measures has been
released" to the Public Works Committee.
Even if the formal report is not available by the time H.R. 11896 is
considered by conference. I would anticipate that the House conferees
would base title II allocations on the 1971 survey, the substance of
which they now possess.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the unanimous-consent agreement of yesterday,
all time has expired.
Are there further amendments to this section of the bill?
Mr. VANDER JAGT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. VANDER JAGT: Page 241, between lines 23 and
24 insert the following:
"(d) The Administrator shall encourage waste treatment management
which results in the construction of revenue producing facilities
providing for --
"(1) the recycling of potential sewage pollutants through the
production of agriculture, silviculture or aquaculture products, or any
combination thereof;
"(2) the confined and contained disposal of pollutants not received:
"(3) the reclamation of wastewater; and
"(4) the ultimate disposal of sludge in a manner that will not result
in environmental hazards.
"(c) The Administrator shall encourage waste treatment management
which results in integrating facilities for sewage treatment and
recycling with facilities to treat, dispose of or utilize other
industrial and municipal wastes, including but not limited to solid
waste and waste heat and thermal discharges. Such integrated facilities
shall be designed and operated to produce revenues in excess of capital
and operation and maintenance costs and such revenues shall be used by
the designated regional management agency to aid in financing other
environmental improvement programs.
"(f) The Administrator shall encourage waste treatment management
which combines 'open space' and recreational considerations with such
management.
Page 241, line 24, strike "(d)" and insert "(g)".
(Mr. VANDER JAGT asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. VANDER JAGT. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I am
delighted that the committee has finally recognized that there is no
bill so perfect that it cannot be improved upon at least a little bit.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is designed to ask the Administrator to
encourage the development in areas of resources management system the
recycling of pollutants into resources, thereby producing income rather
than just incurring operating costs.
Actually, in my opinion, of the package of three amendments I plan to
offer, this is the easiest one to support and the most difficult to
oppose.
It simply asks people to take a look at the problem as to whether it
is technically feasible and economically beneficial to recycle our
wastes. Who could be opposed to that? Certainly not the administration
which is supporting this system with the largest demonstration grant in
its history, and certainly not the committee, because throughout the
committee report the language of the report indicates this approach to
be a desirable one.
Mr. Chairman, this will enable us to do something about the split
personality in the bill before us, because in the opening section of
this bill we proclaim the goal of zero discharge of pollutants by 1985,
but then we turn around and make this an open-ended program of billions
and billions of dollars through the use of conventional equipment which
can only give us dirty water, in effect a goal of dirty water by 1976.
This conventional equipment will be virtually useless to us if we
ever decide that we meant anything when we talked about the clean water
goal of 1985. If we do mean that, then we will have to start from
scratch and write off most of the money that we will have spent between
now and then as wasted billions of dollars of the taxpayers' money.
If that proclamation of 1985 is to mean really to stop pollution by
1985, if it is to mean anything more than the wishful dream of a drunk
lying in a gutter who mutters that he is going to stop getting boiled by
some certain day, then we ought to take a much more careful look at the
alternative systems.
The committee also contends, on page 83 of the report, that if the
goal of zero discharge is to be attained, then land treatment systems
will be necessary. So then what is wrong with encouraging just taking a
look at land treatment system costs, as long as we are trying to reach a
zero discharge of pollutants when we can only wring out of the ILLEGIBLE
of conventional equipment those systems which probably will cost
hundreds of billions and even trillions of dollars?
Let me point out that in my congressional district in Muskegon we are
constructing a system that will provide zero discharge of pollutants
today for all the industries and municipalities in that entire county,
and we are doing it at a lower unit cost than a convention system being
constructed now just 20 miles away.
The Corpos of Army Engineers in an extensive 2-year study has
conducted feasibility studies for Boston, Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago,
and San Francisco, and concluded that land treatment systems were
feasible in all of these regions. At my urgent request 43 days ago the
CCorpos of Army Engineers did an in-depth study with respect to the
Chicago region and its 8 million people, and the conclusion of that
study is that this system can provide substantially cleaner water than
any alternative at significantly lower cost than any altenative.
To those who are concerned about costs, I would say can we not just
take a careful look at this system? In addition the Corps of Engineers
study in Chicago said that because of the likelihood of a location of a
nuclear plant there, because this system solves the thermal pollution
problem, that just by paying normal user charges to the system for the
cooling water services rendered it would be possible to retire a bond
issue far in excess of the total cost of the construction. Can we not
strongly encourage a look at the possibility of the total elimination of
pollutants now, through the use of a system which in effect will not
cost anything?
The concept of clean water for America /(()) is a new concept, and we
need to encourage our people all we can to look at anything that is new
and promising.
James Russell Lowell told us years ago that:
New occasions teach new ideas; we Cannot make their creed our
jailer. They must forever onward sweep, and upward, Who would keep
abreast of truth. Not attempt a future's portal with A past's outdated
key.
Today we stand before the future's portal of a new America. To open
tht door we should not automatically pass one of nature's own keys. Can
we not choose the key of tomorrow? If it does not fit then nothing is
lost, but if it does fit then for heaven's sake let us open the door and
walk into the future of clean water for America.
Is that too much to ask this House to encourage? I hope not, for the
House's sake as well as America's.
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
(Mr. HARSHA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, in this bill we are doing everything that
the distinguished gentleman from Michigan asks for. We recognize the
system -- we recognize its merits. We require that every grant
application must have considered the method that the gentleman is
interested in. It is a fine method. The only problem is that it is not
applicable to every area in the United States.
We provide that every application for a grant must consider the
method that the gentleman is describing. We further provide that every
application must contain an analysis that the proposed system is the
most cost efficient -- the most cost efficient system under the intent
of this act over the life of the project. So thus, if it should develop
in the analysis of the various systems to be employed that the system of
the gentleman from Michigan is the most cost efficient system, then
grant applications cannot be approved unless that system is utilized.
Mr. GROVER. Mr. Chairman, weill the gentleman yield?
Mr. HARSHA. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. GROVER. Is it not true that the very mesmerizing persuasion of
the gentleman from Michigan before our committee impelled us to put
language in the bill which you refer to which does give access to this
Muskegon type of innovative technique.
Mr. HARSHA. That is quite right. The gentleman came before the
committee and made a very persuasive argument, as he did here today. As
a matter of fact, because of his interest and concern for this type of
method, we changed the definition of treatment plants so that you can
include the cost of the land necessary to dispose of the sludge or the
spray irrigation system that he has up in Michigan.
In addition to that, we provide in this bill that the Corps of
Engineers shall design and describe a pilot project for the entire Lake
Erie region to see if that is one of the most workable and effective
systems to eliminate pollution.
Thus, we have recognized everything the gentleman says about this
legislation. His amendment is unnecessary.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of the amendment.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
(Mr. JONES of Alabama asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, the Muskegon approach to the
treatment of water pollution has far-reaching possibilities for the
future. I congratulate the Congressman for the interest and support
that he has given to this approach.
The committee devoted extensive time to hearing testimony by those
who were knowledgeable regarding the Muskegon plan. However, research
has not yet been completed and demonstrated technology established.
Until this has been done, the committee does not believe that a special
priority should be given to any one method of treatment as contrasted
with others.
The committee firmly believes that applicants' must in the future
examine a much broader range of alternatives for the treatment of
pollutants than they have heretofore typically done. Research must be
encouraged by EPA to insure the development and application of new
treatment technologies which must give full consideration to the impact
of a proposed technology not only on the water but also on land and air
resources.
The committee has incorporated in the bill a requirement that the
consideration of all alternatives for the treatment of pollutants must
be fully considered in connection with any application for a waste
treatment grant. The bill also includes specific language which would
authorize grants to be made for waste treatment systems which adopt the
Muskegon technology.
Accordingly, I see no need for the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. VANDER JAGT).
Mr. VANDER JAGT. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. VANDER JAGT. Mr. Chairman, if the statement of the ranking
minority Member about the 10-percent Federal contribution went to a
second amendment to be offered, but did not relate in any way to the
amendment that is before the House and we are voting on, would there by
any way that I could get time to make that clear for the record.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman does not state a parliamentary inquiry.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Michigan.
The question was taken: and the Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. VANDER JAGT. Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
Tellers were ordered.
Mr. VANDER JAGT. Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers with clerks.
Tellers with clerks were orderd: and the Chairman appointed as
tellers Messrs. VANDER JAGT, JONES of Alabama, HARSHA, and McCLOSKEY.
The Committee divided, and the tellers reported that there were --
ayes 250, noes 130, not voting 52, as follows:
AYES -- 250 Abbitt; Abourezk; Abzug; Adams; Anderson, Calif.;
Anderson, Ill.; Andrews; Archer; Arends; Ashbrook; Aspin; Badillo;
Belcher; Bell; Bennett; Bergland; Biester; Bingham; Blackburn;
Brademas; Brasco; Bray; Brinkley; Broomfield; Brotzman; Brown,
Mich.; Brown, Ohio; Broyhill, N.C.; Broyhill, Va.; Buchanan; Burke,
Fla.; Burton; Byrnes, Wis.; Byron; Camp; Carney; Carter; Cederberg;
Chamberlain; Clancy; Clay; Collier; Collins, Tex.; Conable; Conte;
Conyers; Cotter; Coughlin; Crane; Culver; Daniel, Va.; Davis,
Wis.; Dellenback; Dellums; Denholm; Dennis; Dent; Derwinski;
Devine; Diggs; Dingell; Dow; Dowdy; Downing; Drinan; Dulski;
Duncan; du Pont; Eckhardt; Edwards, Ala.; Edwards, Calif.; Eiberg;
Erienborn; Esch; Eshleman; Fascell; Findley; Fish; Flood; Flynt;
Foley; Ford, Gerald R.; Ford, William D.; Forsythe; Fraser;
Frelinghuysen; Frenzel; Frey; Galiflanakis; Gooding; Grasso;
Green, Pa.; Gross; Gubser; Gude; Hall; Halpern; Hamilton;
Hammerschmidt; Hanley; Hanna; Harrington; Harvey; Hastings;
Hechler, W. Va.; Heckler, Mass.; Heinz; Hicks, Mass.; Hicks, Wash.;
Hillis; Horton; Hosmer; Hungate; Hunt; Hutchinson; Ichord;
Jarman; Johnson, Pa.; Karth; Kastenmeier; Keating; Kemp; King;
Koch; Kyros; Langrebe; Latta; Leggett; Lent; Link; Lloyd; Lugan;
McCloskey; McClure; McCollister; McCulloch; McDade; McDonald,
Mich.; McEwen; McKevitt; McKinney; Maddonald, Mass.; Madden;
Malliard; Maliary; Mathias, Calif.; Matsunaga; Mazzoli; Meeds;
Melcher; Metcalfe; Michel; Mikva; Minish; Mink; Minshall;
Mitchell; Montgomery; Morgan; Mosher; Moss; Murphy, Ill.; Murphy,
N.Y.; Nedzi; Nelsen; Obey; O'Hara; O'Konski; O'Neill; Pelly;
Pepper; Pettis; Peyser; Pike; Pirnie; Poage; Podell; Powell;
Preyer, N.C.; Price, Ill.; Price, Tex.; Pucinski; Quie; Railsback;
Randall; Reuss; Rhodes; Riegle; Robinson, Va.; Robinson, N.Y.;
Rodino; Rogers; Rooney, N.Y.; Rooney, Pa.; Rosenthal; Rousselot;
Roy; Roybal; Runnels; Ruppe; Ruth; Ryan; St Germain; Sarabnes;
Satterfield; Schmitz; Schneebeli; Sebelius; Shoup; Shriver;
Skubitz; Smith, N.Y.; Spence; Springer; Staggers; Stanton, J.
William; Steed; Steele; Steiger, Ariz.; Steiger, Wis.; Stokes;
Stratton; Stuckey; Talcott; Teague, Calif.; Teague, Tex.; Thompson,
Ga.; Thompson, Wis.; Udall; Vanik; Veysey; Vigorito; Wampler; Ware;
Whalen; Whalley; Whitehurst; Widnall; Williams; Wilson, Bob;
Wilson, Charles H.; Winn; Wyatt; Wylie; Wyman; Yatron; Young, Fla.;
Zion; Zwach /(())
NOES -- 130
Addabbo; Alexander; Anderson, Tenn.; Annunzio; Aspinall; Baker;
Barrett; Begich; Betts; Bevill; Boggs; Boland; Boling; Brooks;
Burke, Mass.; Burleson, Tex.; Burlison, Mo.; Byrne, Pa.; Cabell;
Caffery; Casey, Tex.; Clausen, Don H.; Cleveland; Collins, Ill.;
Colmer; Corman; Curlin; Daniels, N.J.; Danielson; Davis, Ga.; Davis,
S.C.; de la Garza; Delaney; Donohue; Dorn; Edmondson; Evans, Colo.;
Fisher; Flowers; Fountain; Fulton; Fuqua; Gettys; Giaimo;
Gonzalez; Gray; Green, Oreg.; Griffin; Griffiths; Grover; Hagan;
Haley; Hansen, Idaho; Hansen, Wash.; Harsha; Hathaway; Helstoski;
Henderson; Hollfield; Howard; Jacobs; Johnson, Calif.; Jonas;
Jones, Ala.; Jones, N.C.; Jones, Tenn.; Kanzen; Kee; Kluczynski; Kyl;
Landrum; Lennon; Long, La.; Long, Md.; McCormack; McFall; McKay;
McMillan; Mahon; Mann; Martin; Mathis, Ga.; Mayne; Miller, Ohio;
Mills, Md.; Mizell; Monagan; Moorhead; Myers; Natcher; Nichols;
Nix; Passman; Patten; Perkins; Pickle; Poff; Purcell; Quillen;
Roberts; Roe; Roncalio; Roush; Schwengel; Seiberling; Shipley;
Sikes; Slack; Smith, Calif.; Smith, Iowa; Snyder; Stanton James V.;
Stephens; Stubblefield; Sullivan; Symington; Taylor; Terry;
Thompson, N.J.; Thone; Tiernan; Ullman; Waggonner; White; Whitten;
Wiggins; Wright; Wydler; Young, Tex.; Zablocki
NOT VOTING -- 52
Abernethy; Ashley; Baring; Biaggi; Blanton; Blatnik; Bow;
Carey, N.Y.; Celler; Chappell; Chisholm; Clark; Clawson, Del.;
Dickinson; Dwyer; Edwards, La.; Evins, Tenn.; Gallagher; Garmatz;
Gaydos; Gibbons; Goldwater; Hawkins; Hays; Hebert; Hogan; Hull;
Keith; Kuykendall; Miller, Calif.; Mills, Ark.; Mollohan; Morse;
Patman; Pryor, Ark.; Rangel; Rarick; Rees; Reid; Rostenkowski;
Sandman; Saylor; Scherie; Scheuer; Scott; Sisk; Van Deerlin;
Vander Jagt; Waldie; Wolff; Yates
Messrs. ARCHER and TEAGUE of California changed their votes from;
"no" to "aye."
So the amendment was agreed to.
Mr. McCLOSKEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. McCloskey: Page 377, line 24, strike; the
word "citizen" and insert the word "person".
Page 379, line 5, strike the word "citizen" and insert the word;
"person".
Page 379, line 14, strike the words "issued by the; Administrator".
Page 381, strike lines 1 through 6; and in line 7, change "(h)"; to
"(g)".
The CHAIRMAN. Did the gentleman have the amendment printed in; the
RECORD?
Mr. McCLOSKEY. It is printed at page H2400 of the RECORD, Mr.
Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentlemen from California is recognized for 5;
minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. McCLOSKEY. Mr. Chairman, this is a simiple amendment, which; is
intended to clarify the citizen litigation section of the bill.
I commend the distinguished committee for placing in this bill a;
very strong provision for citizen litigation, but I point out that; the
bill, in the language in which it is framed, adds a new; definition of
"citizen" for the first time in history.
I invite the Judiciary Committee to comment upon this. In my;
judgment, I believe the distinction made between citizens who can sue;
under the bill and citizens who cannot, to be an improper, if not an
unconstitutional distinction.
In all other actions where this House has recently provided for;
citizen litigation we have provided that any "person" may bring suit.
In the Clean Air Act Amendment of 1970, passed less than 2 years
ago,; we described the standing to sue precisely:
Any person may commence a civil action on his own behalf +++
When we enacted the Noise Control Act 2 months ago we said again:
"Any person" can sue. ILLEGIBLE in this bill the committee; attempts
to say that only a citizen can sue and then defines a; citizen in terms
that are extremely strained. Instead of using the; simple language
based on a body of evolving law over the last 100; years as to who has
standing to sue, the committee put in the bill; the limitation that
suit can be brought only by a citizen who is "a; citizen of the
geographic area and has a direct interest which is or; may be
affected," or by "any group off persons which has been; actively
engaged in the administrative process and has thereby shown; a special
interest in the geographic area in controversy." These; terms are
susceptible of different interpretation by reasonable men.
When we complicate legislation by attempting to define a simple;
term in new and complex language we invite litigation. If there is;
one area where we lawmakers should fee an obligation, it is that of;
clarity in the language we write into law so that such language can; be
clearly understood and does not require lawsuits to define or;
interpret.
The bill uses the term: "a citizen of a geographic area." Does;
this mean a citizen of a county, a State, or of a watershed? The;
citizen "who has a direct interest;" does that mean a man who lives;
alongside of a waterway or a man who lives within sight of the water;
or one who lives within sight of the waste or one who swims in it or;
one who drinks the water? I suggest that it will require lawsuits to;
determine the interpretation of this kind of language.
When we talk about a group of persons who "has been actively;
engaged in the administrative process," it may be that no one is;
actively engaged in the administrative process other than;
administrators themselves.
What this law does is to take a simple area of law which is well;
known to citizens and attorneys, the question of who has standing to;
sue, and make a complex definition which can be interpreted;
differently by different judges.
In out other enactments, the Clean Air Act and the noise control;
bill, any person can sue.
Moreover, when the administration gave its approval to this bill, if
you will look at page 169 of the report, when the Environmental;
Protection Agency submitted its letter of approval to the committee;
bill it said:
Section 505 provides that any person may commence a civil action.
Yet when the bill was finally drafted several weeks late, the;
bill's language had been changed to say that only a citizen may sue, and
defined a citizen in this strange way.
I think, if we have any obligation to our constituents, it is to pass
laws that use clear language and do not invite litigation.
As a matter of fact, I think this particular jaw will hurt the
orderly processes of justice. I can understand, oif course, the
committee being concerned somewhat with the fact that someone 3,000
miles away might come into an area and bring a lawsuit. Yet by its
terms the bill requires that nonprofit corporations such as the Sierra
Club or the Audubon Society cannot sue unless there has been an
administrative process in which they were one of a group of persons
actively participating in such process. This section of the bill may
well be unconstitutional both for vagueness and for making a
classification between individuals which cannot reasonably be sustained.
Mr. WIGGINS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCLOSKEY. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. WIGGINS. I intend to support the gentleman's amendment and I do
so although I frankly oppose the expansion of citizen suits in class
actions. This is an abuse that we will have to deal with one day, but
we will have to do it in a constitutional manner.
This section creates a cause of action in favor of some plaintiffs
and denies it to others without any apparent good reason for it. The
record of the committee's deliberations is completely absent of any
justification for that classification.
For example, the only plaintiffs permitted to sue here are natural
persons as I read the act. I do not understand a corporate plaintiff
will be permitted to maintain a cause of action even though he may be as
seiously and genuinely aggrieved as an individual. That classification
to me is at best constitutionally suspect, and the gentleman's amendment
has the virtue of removing that error.
Mr. McCLOSKEY. I may say in conclusion that all my amendment does is
to put in the act the same language which we carefully considered and
which we put in the clean air amendments and the noise pollution control
bill. Ther term "person" is a term that has been carefully defined by
the courts; it is understood by citizens and courts alike and we as
lawmakers can take pride in the fact that it will not further burden an
already overburdened judicial system with a variety of problems of
definition which can easily be avoided.
Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
(Mr. EDMONDSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, let me say this: I make no claim to being a
constitutional lawyer. The gentleman from California (Mr. McCLOSKEY)
has in one portion of his /(()) amendment a provision that in my opinion
has some appeal because I can see some justification for substituting
the word "person" for the word "citizen" in this language used by the
committee. But when the gentleman says that you can adopt his amendment
and not have any major effect on way or the other on this legislaton and
upon the scope of the rights of citizens provided in it, I think he
neglects to consider at all the second part of the amendment which he
has offered. The second part of the amendment which he has offered --
and I have it here before me -- would strike from the bill the language
appearing at the top of page 381, lines 1 through 6. That is the
language that requires that the plaintiff maintaining one of these
citizen suits or "person" suits if you want to call it that, must be a
citien of the geographic area having a direct interest which is or may
be affected, and second, any group of persons which has been actively
engaged in the administrative process and has thereby shown a special
interest in the geographical area in controversy.
These are words of definite limitation and if you remove these words
-- while the gentleman says he does not propose to have someone 3,000
miles away bring a lawsuit, he certainly will open the door to anyone
3,000 miles away who wants to come in and file one of thse lawsuits.
That is what he is going to do if he eliminates this language.
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yieldf?
Mr. EDMONDSON. Yes. I yield to the gentleman from California.
(Mr. HOSMER asked and was given permisson to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOSMER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman has
stated the situation precisely as it is. We already have itinerant
intervenors who go around the country and persons meddling in problems
that have significance locally and not nationally for purposes where
they are worthy. However, if this amendment were adopted, they could
take over an installation and hold it for ransom because of the delay in
time involved in the litigation and cause the expenditure of millions of
dollars while this litigation is going on.
This kind of provision is really required for the protection of the
country.
Mr. EDMONDSON. I thank the gentleman for his contribution.
I am a lawyer and I do not want to do anything that unfairly takes
the fees out of the pockets of lawyers, but I am telling you that if you
do not keep these words of limitation -- and I do not care whether you
call the litigants "persons" or "citizens" -- you will have some people
making a business of traveling all over the country and going into your
part of the country when they do not live within 1,500 or 3,000 miles of
you and intervening in matters that do not directly concern them, but
who will try to block the development of these water-treatment plants,
who will try to block the development of sewage-treatment plants and
thus interfere with the orderly development of this program.
Mr. Chairman, we have a door open as wide as a barn door for the
intervention in these lawsuits by persons or citizens, whichever you
want to call them, who are in the area of who have become involved in
the administrative process and who want to take it into court. But we
are trying to put some reasonable limitation upon the scope of the right
to bring these citizen suits.
That is the intend of this language and I hope the gentleman's
amendment will be defeated.
Mr. McCLOSKEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDMONDSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. McCLOSKEY. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I understood the gentleman to state that he was not a constitutional
lawyer. I do not claim to be the greatest expert in this field, but I
know of no other case in America where we have attempted to segregate
those who can sue and those who cannot sue on one of these questions.
Is the gentleman familiar with any constitutional law or precedent
which would justify defining who could bring this kind of lawsuit and
who could not?
Mr. EDMONDSON. I could call the attention of the gentleman to two
cases in which the limitation theory is mentioned by the court as a
theory with validity: 354 F. 2d 608 (2 cir. 1965), the case of Scenic
Hudson Preservation Conference v. Federal Power Commission, and the case
of Smith Hill Neighborhood Association v. Romney, 421 F. 2d 454, 1969.
Mr. McCLOSKEY. I will say to the gentleman that those two cases do
not stand for the kind of limitation placed in this bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. McCLOSKEY).
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. WILLIAM D. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. WILLIAM D. FORD:
On page 338, amend lines 4 through 25 to read as follows:
"(f) After the effective date of the initial standards and
regulations promulgated under this section, if any State determines that
the protection and enhancement of the quality of some or all of the
waters within such state require greater environmental protecton, such
State may completely prohibit the discharge from a vessel of any sewage
whether treated or not, into such waters."
(Mr. WILLIAM D. FORD asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will ask the gentleman from Michigan whether
the amendment just offered by the gentleman has been printed in the
RECORD?
Mr. WILLIAM D. FORD. Yes, Mr. Chairman, it has, at page H2962 on
March 22.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized for 5
minutes in support of his amendment.
Mr. WILLIAM D. FORD. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this
is a simple amendment designed to preserve the rights of individual
States to prohibit discharge of sewage from vessels. I might attempt to
explain it on the basis of a lengthy argument in defense of States
rights. Some of my distinguished colleagues might find it surprising
that my cosponsor, the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
FRASER) and I would be making an argument on thebasis or States rights,
but I think the States rights approach would be appropriate at this
point.
I could also make, I believe, a strong argument on the basis of the
overall wisdom of this approach to pollution control. But I would like
to make a more direct approach, and that is, to ask you to consider the
Detroit River, which is a major connection between the Great Lakes, and
realize that now with the St. Lawrence Seaway open we carry more tonnage
of shipping through that river in its short season than the annual
tonnage which passes through the Panama and Suez Canals combined.
Then I would like you to think about what happens to our drinking
water in Michigan each time somebody flushes a toilet on one of those
ships. If you do this, I am sure that will understand the kind of
appeal that I am making to you here today and I think you will want to
support this amendment.
It is not necessary to talk about States rights in order for you to
understand, and you do not need, as has been suggested, a Geiger counter
to tell you what kind of pollution contamination is going into the water
supplies of some 4 million people in the immediate area of my
congressional district.
Twenty of the States, particularly around the Great Lakes, and along
the Mississippi River, have now adopted and have in effect stringent
regulations with regard to equipping all boats that carry toilet
equipment with them, so that they will retain on board their sewage and
waste and take it to the shore, and have it pumped out. If we do not
adopt this amendment these existing statutes will in effect be wiped
out.
Mr. Chairman, I know my time is running out, but I would like to
close by reading a telegram from Governor William Miliken, of Michigan,
which shows very clearly what the dilemma is for these states:
Concerning H.R. 11896 which is now before you, we have not been able
to obtain assurances from the EPA that Michegan's position concerning
marine pollution would be protected under the new Federal Water
Pollution Act. Therefore, I support amending the bill as reported to
preserve the right for a State under a State law to adopt restrictions
which are more stringent than those adopted by the Federal Government of
Michigan's "no-discharge" boat pollution law.
The other Governors are joining with Governor Miliken of Michigan in
asking us not to bar their right to enforce such legislation in the
future, or enact legislation which can bar programs already under way,
and not by virtue of the provisions of this act, suspend these State
laws for any length of time. /(())
As I read the act, unless we adopt this amendment, laws like
Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin laws could become automatically
suspended until such time as the EPA decided to write regulations to
replace it and that could be up to 5 years. There are 45,000 boats
registered in the State of Michigan now and we expect 75,000 by the end
of the next 5 years -- boats that are big enough to be equipped with
toilets or, as some of my navy friends say -- have "heads" on them.
Mr. Chairman, by adopting this amendment we will simply be permitting
Michigan and other States which determine the necessity, to enforce as
they see fit, the control of vessel discharges within their own lakes
and rivers.
Mr. FRASER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WILLIAM D. FORD. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. FRASER. Mr. Chairman, I want to join the gentleman in urging
support for this amendment, permitting States to completely prohibit the
discharge from a vessel of any sewage, wether treated or not.
The bill before us marks a new and much needed approach to water
pollution abatement. It sets admirable goals, provides generous funds,
and employes some genuinely innovative and effective administrative
procedures, such as the practices of "contract authority" and "user
charges." Why then, does it take a backward step with regard to State
regulation of marine sanitation devices?
We are still waiting for the final issuance of the Federal
regulations required under existing law -- Federal Water Quality Act of
1970, section 13f -- when issued, these regulations will become
effective 5 years after promulgation for existing vessels, and 2 years
after promulgation for new vessels. States have had to act. They could
not wait 5 years from some indefinite date in the future to stop
waterborne polluters from dumping sewage.
Some have traditionally opposed State sanity codes, health
regulations, factory inspections, and such, on the grounds that it
interfered with interstate commerce. Federal courts have, just as
traditionally, upheld the right of States to protect the health and
safety of their citizens.
The most recent Federal District Court decision New York State
Waterways Ass'n v. Diamond, F. Supp. (W.D.N.Y. Jan. 12, 1972) has found
that "there is no merit to the claim of the plaintiffs that the statute
-- New York's law banning sewage-discharge from boats -- constitutes an
unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce."
The argument is raised that a no-discharge requirement is impractical
inasmuch as pumpout facilites do not exist. Pumpout facilities have
sprung up wherever and whenever there was a need for them. Michigan,
which had 75 pumpout facilities a year ago, has 175 today. On the St.
Croix River, within 12 miles of a spot where I have a summer place,
there are six pumpout stations, with charges ranging from $3 to $4.50.
In addition, "midstreamer services" on the Mississippi are beginning to
add pumpout facilities to their other services. They can service
vessels on the move. Pumpout facilities are economically viable. When
a boatowner stops to have his holding tank pumped out, he probably gets
fuel and possibly provisions as well.
As to the cry of "chaos," the amendment I am proposing will not
permit 50 gradations of standards. It will permit only two -- a
no-discharge policy for those States that need it, and whatever
standards the EPA sets for others.
Without the threat of Federal preemption, I am convinced that many
other States will follow the example of the 20 or so which already
prohibit dumping sewage from boats.
The State I refer to are the States of Arizona, California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Vermont, and
Wisconsin.
We need this amendment to preserve the right of the States to require
holding tanks, otherwise those State laws are going to be wiped out and
boats are going to be dumping into the waters that we swim in.
In a way, the stuggle over this small issue is a microcosm of the
larger struggle to clean up our environment. We all realize the gravity
of the water pollution problem. It may already be too late in the case
of Lake Erie. But the temptation is still to put off the personal
commitment that is necessary if we are to succeed in averting the doom
being predicted so graphically by such authorities as Dr. Commoner and
the Club of Rome.
Our amendment will cost the Federal Government nothing. But it will
require some effort and expense on the part of individual boatowners.
It is easier, after all, to eject wastes into the water. The facts are
that the actual costs for boatowners to avoid polluting the waters upon
which they navigate are within reason. For larger commercial vessels
the Ford Motor Co. has set an example. It took only 4 weeks to install
a $20,000 retention system in each of its six Great Lakes vessels in
order to comply with Michigan law.
If we back down on this one -- take this step backward in the
struggle to clean up our waters, we will have done a double harm. We
will have undone the good word of those States which have had the
courage and initiative to pioneer in this field, and we will have
indicated to an administration already subject to much pressure that the
Congress is willing to go along with weaker regulations.
I urge you to support the marine sanitary devices amendment.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I will not belabor the point of
the gentleman's amendment, but I would like to point out that we here in
1970 did exactly what the gentleman from Michigan, the author of this
amendment, asked us to do. That was to preempt the States' rights in
these circumstances in order that we could have some uniform approach to
this problem.
So it seems to me we are coming back here today and saying -- Well,
in 1970 you were not correct in your judgment of voting for the Water
Quality Act and you want to come back and preempt the Federal Government
and give it back to the States.
So it seems to me, that is a total inconsistency with what we are
dealing with here in this proposition.
The committee recognizes that after the Federal preemption goes into
effect, there could be such situations where the need for prohibiting
discharges in certain bodies of waters outweighs the need for uniformity
among the States.
Where those circumstances occur, subsection F3 of section 312 permits
the Administrator, at the request of a State, to require a complete
prohibition of discharge from a vessel of any sewage whether treated or
not into any portions of the waters within the State.
Mr. Chairman, I regret to oppose the gentleman's amendment, but in
all good conscience I do not see how we can march in here one day and
take a position and come back and renege on it the next day.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JONES of Alabama. I yield to the gentleman.
(Mr. WRIGHT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I can sympathize with what the gentleman
from Michigan seeks to achieve. Surely a State should not be prevented
from improving upon the quality of its navigable waters. It is clearly
the intention of the committee that the standards to be promulgated by
the Administrator for marine sanitation devices shall be strong and
forceful standards, coming as near as technology will permit to zero
discharge. It also is the intention that the Administrator shall give
full and due consideration to the application of any State, as set forth
in the committee bill to require no discharge within its own waters
wherever available on-shore treatment and disposal warrant it.
Mr. PIKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JONES of Alabama. I yield to the gentleman.
(Mr. PIKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PIKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, everyone is for pure water, but I expect those who use
it most care most about it.
No one needs, appreciates, or is more willing to make sacrifices to
achieve clean water than the boatmen who use it and love it.
But enough of generalities -- here are some specifics. There were
428,114 boats registered in New York last year. All of them combined
contribute less sewage to the waters of our State in 2 years than the
City of New York does in 1 day. The Army Engineers tell me that
approximately 450 million gallons of raw sewage is dumped into New York
Harbor by New York City every single day. But boats shall have holding
tanks.
In my own county there were 58,993 boats last year -- and all of them
combined contributed less sewage to the /(()) waters of my county than
just one State institution -- the State University at Stormy Brook. The
State, nevertheless, says boats must have holing tanks.
Because they are an easy target -- a cheap shot -- the State has
singled out the boatowners. Not the huge ocean liners or cargo ships.
New York would not think of enforcing its holding tank law against them
-- just the private boatowners and fishermen and clamdiggers. Sewage is
meither better nor worse when it comes out of a boat instead of a house
or an apartment or a school. It should be treated exactly the same way.
When we are ready to stop sewage or put stringent controls on -- fine,
hallelujah? But let us not create the illusion of a solution by
whipping a scapegoat.
Finally, of course, there has to be uniformity. We who live on Long
Island like to sail across Long Island Sound to Connecticut and across
Block Island Sound to Rhode Island. But these States have a different
law, so when I comply with the law in New York I can not take my boat on
a vacation across the Sound for they have no facilities for pumping out
the holding tanks. I have a boat -- and I also have a car. I use my
boat in interstate trips in the same manner I use my car or a train on
interstate trips. For each State to use its own judgment, not on
effluent, but on boat effluent alone, not on sewage treatment equipment,
but on boat equipment alone, makers no more sense than to have 50
different guages of railroad tracks or 50 different requirements for
automobile carburetors. This amendment should be defeated.
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JONES of Alabama. I yield to the gentleman.
(Mr. TERRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the present law, which we enacted in 1970, and the
regulations promulgated thereunder are so strict that at the present
time the only item that would be approved would be a holding tank.
The intent of Congress was set forth when we passed the Federal
preemption whichn was established in 1970. We would be totally
repealing that if we would adopt the amendment that is before us.
Those provisions were passed by the Congress because we recognized
that vessels in interstate commerce and also many pleasure boats were
faced with changing laws from one State to another.
I remember my own State of New York where we first passed the holding
tank provision and then did not have holding tanks on certain lakes in
order to accommodate the effluent.
We cannot afford to go back to the point of having situations where
it cannot be a pleasurable experience to pass from one State to another.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment should be defeated.
We recogize that this amendment is unnecessary. We see that nothing
that the gentleman has proposed will not be contained in the new law.
The administrator has the right, and as the gentleman from Alabama
stated, he can exercise that right where they find a situation that is
not covered within the present exemption.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I should like to make one
observation in relation to the attitude of Governors. There has not
been a single Governor of any State who has not advocated passage of
this bill.
Mr. WILLIAM D. FORD. I agree.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. So I do not think that any petition on behalf
of any Governor to change any portion of our bill should cause us to do
so. If the National League of Cities, the Governors and county
government agencies come in asking us to pass this bill without
amendment, why should we now hear about Governors requesting a change in
one portion of this bill?
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan.
The question was taken; and the chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.
Mr. FRASER. Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers.
Tellers were ordered.
Mr. FRASER. Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers with clerks.
Tellers with clerks were ordered; and the Chairman appointed as
tellers Messrs. WILLIAM D. FORD, GROVER, WRIGHT, and FRASER.
The Committee divided, and the tellers reported that there were --
ayes 210, noes 173, not voting 49, as follows:
AYES -- 210
Abourezk; Abzug; Adams; Anderson, Ill.; Anderson, Tenn.; Andrews;
Archer; Arends; Ashley; Aspin; Badillo; Bell; Bergland; Bingham;
Blackburn; Brademas; Brasco; Brinkley; Broomfield; Brotzman;
Brown, Mich.; Brown, Ohio; Broyhill, N.C.; Broyhill, Va; Buchanan;
Burke, Fla.; Burke, Mass.; Burlison, Mo.; Burton; Byrnes, Wis; Byron;
Carney; Carter; Cederberg; Chamberlain; Clancy; Clay; Collier;
Conte; Conyers; Corman; Cotter; Coughlin; Crane; Culver; Daniels,
N.J.; Danielson; Davis, Wis.; Dellenback; Dellums; Dennis;
Derwinski; Diggs; Dingell; Donohue; Dow; Downing; Drinan; Dulski;
Duncan; du Pont; Edwards, Calif.; Esch; Fascell; Fish; Foley;
Ford, Gerald R.; Ford, William D.; Fraser; Frelinghuysen; Frenzel;
Frey; Fulton; Gallagher; Gibbons; Gooding; Green, Pa.; Griffiths;
Gross; Gude; Hagan; Halpern; Hamilton; Hanna; Harrington; Harvey;
Hechler, W. Va.; Heckler, Mass.; Helstoski; Hicks, Mass.; Hicks,
Wash.; Hillis; Hogan; Hunt; Hutchinson; Jacobs; Johnson, Pa.;
Karth; Kastenmeier; Keating; Kemp; Koch; Kyl; Kyros; Landgrebe;
Leggett; Lent; Link; Lloyd; Long, Md.; Lujan; McCloskey; McClure;
McDade; McDonald, Mich.; McKay; McKevitt; McKinney; Macdonald,
Mass.; Madden; Mailliard; Mallary; Mann; Mathis, Ga; Matsunaga;
Mazzoli; Meeds; Melcher; Metcalfe; Michel; Mikva; Mills, Md.;
Minish; Mink; Mitchell; Mizell; Monagan; Morgan; Murphy, Ill.;
Nedza; Obey; O'Hara; O'Konski; Pelly; Pepper; Pettis; Peyser;
Pickle; Poague; Podell; Poff; Price, Ill.; Price, Tex.; Quie;
Railsback; Randall; Rees; Reuss; Rhodes; Riegle; Rodino; Rogers;
Rooney, Pa.; Rosenthal; Roush; Rousselot; Roybai; Ruppe; Ryan;
Sarbanes; Schmitz; Schneebeli; Seiberling; Shipley; Shoup;
Shriver; Smith, Calif.; Smith, Iowa; Spence; Springer; Steele;
Steiger, Wis.; Stokes; Stuckey; Sullivan; Symington; Teague, Calif.;
Thompson, Ga.; Thomson, Wis.; Tiernan; Udall; Ullman; Vannik;
Vigorito; Waldie; Wampler; Ware; Whalley; White; Whitehurst;
Widnall; Williams; Wilson, Charles H.; Winn; Wyatt; Wylie; Yatron;
Young, Fla.; Zablocki; Zwach
NOES -- 173
Abbitt; Addabbo; Albert; Alexander; Anderson, Calif.; Annunzio;
Ashbrook; Aspinal; Baker; Barrett; Begich; Belcher; Bennett;
Betts; Bevill; Biaggi; Biester; Boggs; Boland; Bolling; Bray;
Brooks; Burleson, Tex.; Byrne, Pa.; Cabell; Caffery; Camp; Casey,
Tex; Celler; Clausen, Don H.; Cleveland; Collins, Ill.; Collins,
Tex.; Colmer; Conable; Curlin; Daniel, Va.; Davis, S.C.; de la Garza;
Delaney; Denholm; Dent; Devine; Dorn; Dowdy; Eckhardt;
Edmondson; Edwards, Ala.; Eiberg; Erlenborn; Eshleman; Evans, Colo.;
Evins, Tenn.; Findley; Fisher; Flood; Flowers; Flynt; Forsythe;
Fountain; Fuqua; Galiflanakis; Garmatz; Gettys; Giaimo; Gonzalez;
Grasso; Gray; Green, Oreg.; Griffin; Grover; Gubser; Haley; Hall;
Hammerschmidt; Hanley; Hansen, Idaho; Harsha; Hastings; Hathaway;
Henderson; Hollfield; Horton; Hosmer; Howard; Hungate; Ichord;
Jarman; johnson, Calif.; Jonas; Jones, Ala.; Jones, N.C.; Jones,
Tenn.; Kazen; Kee; King; Kluczynski; Landrum; Latta; Lennon;
Long, La.; McClory; McCollister; McCormack; McEwen; McFall;
McMillan; Mahon; Martin; Mathias, Calif.; Mayne; Miller, Calif.;
Miller, Ohio; Minshall; Montgomery; Moorhead; Mosher; Myers;
Natcher; Nichols; Nix; O'Neill; Passman; Patten; Perkins; Pike;
Pirnie; Powell; Preyer, N.C.; Purcell; Quillen; Roberts; Robinson,
Va.; Robison, N.Y.; Roe; Roncalio; Rooney, N.Y.; Roy; Runneis; Ruth;
St Germain; Satterfield; Schwengel; Scott; Sebelius; Sikes; Sisk;
Skubitz; Slack; Smith, N.Y.; Snyder; Staggers; Stanton, J. William;
Steiger, Ariz.; Stephens; Stratton; Stubblefield; Talcott; Taylor;
Teague, Tex.; Terry; Thompson, N.J.; Thone; Waggonner; Whalen;
Whitten; Wiggins; Wilson, Bob; Wolff; Wydler; Wyman; Young, Tex.;
Zion
NOT VOTING -- 49
Abernethy; Baring; Blanton; Blatnik; Bow; Carey, N.Y.; Chappell;
Chisholm; Clark; Clawson, Del.; Davis, Ga.; Dickinson; Dwyer;
Edwards, La.; Gaydos; Goldwater; Hansen, Wash.; Hawkins; Hays;
Hebert; Heinz; Hull; Keith; McCulloch; Mills, Ark.; Mollohan;
Morse; Moss; Murphy, N.Y.; Nelsen; Patman; Pryor, Ark.; Pucinski;
Rangel; Rarick; Reid; Rostenkowski; Sandman; Saylor; Scherie;
Scheuer; Stanton, James V.; Steed; Van Deerlin; Vander Jagt; Veysey;
Wright; Yates /(())
Mr. GALLAGHER changed his vote from "no" to "aye."
So the amendment was agreed to.
(Mr. MAHON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, the vote on my amendment to the pending
water pollution control bill has been taken. The amendment did not
prevail, although a very substantial number of Members of the House
voted for it -- in fact, 161 Members.
It was, as I said, a procedural amendment, but as I pointed out in my
remarks on the amendment -- and otherwise on Monday and Tuesday of this
week -- it involved a very fundamental question: the orderly process of
legislative consideration and actions annually. Not every few years,
but each year, each session of each Congress.
I had hoped -- indeed planned -- to support the pending measure,
especially since in many respects it is, in my opinion, far superior to
the Senate version of the bill. On further consideration of the whole
matter, and especially in view of the defeat of the procedural and yet
fundamental amendment which I offered, I feel reluctant to vote to
approve a 3-year, $18-billion expenditure program without requiring
further action by the Congress.
In the debate today, reference has been made to a letter which I
wrote on Monday of this week to all Members of the House. In view of
the references made, I submit the letter for the RECORD at this point:
DEAR COLLEAGUE: Let me make two points very clear about the pending
Water Pollution Control Bill, H.R. 11896:
1. I have not had the remotest thought of offering any amendment to
alter the dollar figures for waste treatment construction grants or any
other program involved in the bill. It is within the province of the
Committee on Public Works to recommend whatever levels of authorization
it deems appropriate.
2. My concern arises over the multi-year contract authority
provision. I have now decided to offer an amendment to substitute
one-year advance appropriation funding for the three year contract
provision. With multi-year contract authority we downgrade Congress --
abrogate our annual authority -- more or less write the next two
congresssional sessions out of the act. To me it makes no sense for us
to abdicate our power.
One-year advance funding of the waste treatment grant program with
direct appropriations would assure that State and local interests would
have adequate notice for their planning purposes. Congress would act
every year and be solidly in the picture from the standpoint of our
people. Why detract from the power and prestige of the Legislative
Branch by besting authority for a 3-year period in the Executive Branch?
Why surrender the right and -- as I see it -- the duty of annual action
on this momentous issue?
Just prior to World War II, 18% of the spending budget was classified
as relatively uncontrollable. The current budget classifies 71% of
spending as relatively uncontrollable under present law] Contract
authorizations for waste treatment would continue to move us toward
almost complete abdication to the Executive Branch. This is
unnecessary. Let's not do it]
Please give this problem your best attention and let's work out an
approach which will be acceptable to the House and retain the power and
dignity of Congress.
Sincerely,
The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will rise informally in order that the
House may receive a message.
The Speaker resumed the chair.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will receive a message.
A message in writing from the President of the United States was
communicated to the House by Mr. Leonard, one of his secretaries.
The SPEAKER. The Committee will resume its sitting.
The Committee resumed its sitting.
Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offere by Mr. GALLAGHER: Page 254, immediately after line
12 insert the following:
"(c) Any publicly owned treatment works in a State on which
construction was initiated after June 30, 1952, but before June 30,
1956, as a result of a court order, or a ruling by an interstate agency,
or both, shall qualify for payments and reimbursements of State or local
funds used for such project from sums allocated to such State under this
subsection in an amount which shall not exceed the difference between
the amount of such assistance, if any, received for such project and 30
per centum of the total cost of such project. There is authorized to be
appropriated to carry out this subsection not to exceed $17,000,000."
Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment was printed in the RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the long hours and hard
toil of the Public Works Committee that went into the bill before us
today. It is an altogether impressive legislative accomplishment, and I
intend to support H.R. 11896 on final passage.
Viewed in the context of this $24.6 billion package my amendment
designed to provide equal treatment under the law for Bayonne and Jersey
City may seem like small potatoes. But I assure the House that this
amendment matterrs a great deal to these two communities in my district.
What my amendment does is to enable Bayonne and Jersey City to
receive Federal reimbursements for sewerage treatment plants they
constructed prior to the June 30, 1956, cutoff as a direct result of
governmental mandates.
The background is straightforward enough. Bayonne initiated its
sewarage facility in November 1952 -- and Jersey City did likewise in
September 1954. In moving out in front in responding to the needs of
their citizens these two communities showed commendable public spirit.
By the same token, these communities could have dragged their feet in
responding to the imperative of water pollution control. And that is
the irony. By being early birds in meeting their obligations in the
water pollution field, Bayonne and Jersey City merit commendations. But
instead they are being penalized cruelly by being cut out altogether of
reimbursements under subsection 206(b) of this bill.
Moreoever, it is not as if either city had a meaningful choice in the
matter. Each community, of course, wanted to do its best for its
citizens. But this high motivation was reinforced by governmental
mandates that neither Bayonne nor Jersey City could ignore.
The Interstate Sanitation Agency ordered both cities to invest in
modern sewerage systems. And the agency's orders were backed by court
orders.
Thus once again we encounter a deplorable breach of faith between the
governors and the governed. Bayonne and Jersey City responded to
ordered of the Government to start in on modern sewerage facilities at a
prematurely early date. But instead of being rewarded, these two
communities are penalized for obeying the orders of their Government.
How does one explain this anomaly to the communities involved?
Bayonne raised $16 million through a bond issue. That is $16 million
that is now not available for improving Bayonne schools, hiring more
police and judges, upgrading hospitals, and so forth.
Jersey City raised $39.4 million through three bond issues. That is
$39.4 million that is now not available for drug rehabilitation programs
for outhful addicts, dealing with other water as well as air pollution
problems in the community, and doing something about traffic snarls.
The fact is that my amendment will not be especially costly. It
provides just $17 million as the 30-percent Federal reimbursement for
the two communities that would otherwise be available under subsection
206(b).
This $17 million, moreover, is especially important for Bayonne and
Jersey City. Both are hosts for Federal installation, and this has had
the effect of shrinking their tax bases.
Were these installationos not there Bayonne and Jersey City would
have significantly greater tax revenues available for public works
projects. But as it stands, both sewerage treatment facilities had to
be financed from bond issues rather than tax revenues.
For these reasons I urgently ask that the House grant appropriate
relief to Bayonne and Jersey City by approving my amendment.
Quite apart from the fate of this amendment, however, it appears to
me that Jersey City is entitled to partial reimbursement under
subsection 206(b) for its sewerage treatment facility. I refer
specifically to the $4.4 million that Jersey City committed for this
project after June 30, 1956.
An examination of the language of subsection 206(b) is instructive.
In both the House and Senate bills the pertinent language is the same.
This subsection does not talk in terms of projects /(()) "initiated"
after June 30, 1956, but rather in terms of projects "constructed or
eligible for assistance" between June 30, 1956, and June 30, 1966. This
suggests strongly that the legislative intent was to finance both
projects -- and segments of projects -- that were constructed after the
June 30, 1956, cutoff.
The first rule of legislative interpretation is to look at the
language of the bill itself. Subsection 206(b) could have been drafted
in terms of projects "initiated" after June 30, 1956. But it was not.
By way of contrast, subsection 206(a) in both the Senate and House
versions talks in terms of projects "initiated" after a particular date.
If "initiated" was used in subsection 206(a), why was it not in
subsection 206(b)? Apparently, the legislative intent was to provide
under 206(b) for projects underway as well as projects initiated after
June 30, 1956. Otherwise, why not use "initiated" in both subsections?
The only other likely explanation is inconsistency in legislative
drafting. But given the many hours of expert draftsmanship involved in
this omnibus bill, this sems improbable.
What I would urge, therefore, is that in the conference report the
managers address themselves to this inconsistency in language between
the two subsection, and furnish an authoritative interpretation of the
inconsistency. I hope and trust this interpretation will hold that
segments of projects underway after June 30, 1956, are eligible for
reimbursement.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
(Mr. JONES of Alabama asked and was given permission to extend his
remarks.)
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, it is with reluctance that I oppose the gentleman's
amendment because I can appreciate the great difficulties which the
gentleman has described with reference to these two cities located in
the gentleman's congressional district which was occasioned by the fact
that they did not have ample money.
However, under our bill we go back to the 1956 act in making
retroactive payments. If they had made an application and had received
approval of a plan prior to 1956, we would not have a grant program.
Prior to 1956, we did not have a grant program. We had a very meager
loan program.
So, consequently, there were no applications for loans which were
made.
Now, at this time we could not have any reliance on any kind of
figures if we are going to make some kind of reasonable estimate to
reimburse every community that has improved and has carried out the
construction which the gentleman has described out of their own
resources.
Accordingly, as I say -- I am reluctant to oppose the amendment. I
hope the amendment is not adopted.
Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JONES of Alabama. I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. GALLAGHER. I would like to point out Mr. Chairman, that we have
made a study and there are not other communities affected. If there are
some at a future point, the limitation of $17 million would apply.
Actually, if this amendment is voted down it means that these two
cities that complied with the court orders -- while all the other cities
along the Hudson River did not -- will, in effect, be penalized for
complying with the law.
I hope that the committee will understand the equity involved here,
so that these two cities might benefit as the rest of the country will
from this $24 billion program.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. As I explained yesterday in our conversation
to the gentleman, the author of the amendment, the committee would be
glad to make an inquiry into the subject matter. However, we have not
had an opportunity to go back retroactively and consider anything beyond
the 1956 act.
So, I hope the gentleman realizes that we have not made a study and
we would not know how to bring in an amendment of $17 million in order
to accommodate the two cities. Further, we do not know the other
municipalities throughout the country which are in a similar situation.
It may be that there is an equal need for it in other locations.
Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further. I
would say to the gentleman that my amendment limits the amount that
could be distributed to all cities who may qualify. These are the first
two cities in the country where a Federal court ordered them to pay for
their sewerage systems out of their own funds -- funds, incidentally,
that should have been used for many other important purposes.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. I do not see how the committee could have been
more generous. If you examine the bill, you will see that there is
$2,750,000,000 for reimbursements from 1956 up until the present time.
We did not have an opportunity to go into the matter to which the
amendment offered by the gentleman from New Jersey's amendment gives
rise to, so that our committee isnot informed upon this; we have not
had the opportunity to make a total examination of the problem the
gentleman poses. I would hope that the gentleman would not insist upon
his amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. GALLAGHER).
The question was taken; and on a division (demanded by Mr.
GALLAGHER) there were -- ayes 16, noes 72.
So the amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to section 2? If not,
the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
SEC 3. (a) There is authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1972, not to exceed $6,000,000 for the purpose of
carrying out section 5(n) (other than for salaries and related expenses)
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as it existed immediately
prior to the date of the enactment of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972.
(b) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1972, not to exceed $35,000,000 for the purpose of
making grants under section 8 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
as it existed immediately prior to the date of the enactment of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
(c) The Federal share of all grants made under section 8 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act as it existed immediately prior to
the date of enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 from sums herein and heretofore authorized for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, shall be that authorized by section
202 of such Act as established by the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972.
(d) Sums authorized by this section shall be in addition to any
amounts heretofore authorized for such fiscal year for sections 5(n) and
8 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as it existed immediately
prior to the date of enactment of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972.
Mr. JONES of Alabama (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that section 3 be considered as read, printed in the
RECORD, and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Alabama?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to be proposed to section 3?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
SEC. 4. (a) No suit, action, or other proceeding lawfully commenced
by oir against the Administrator or any other officer or employee of the
United States in his official capacity or in relation to the discharge
of his official duties under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as
in effect immediately prior to the date of enactment of this Act shall
abate by reason of the taking effect of the amendment made by section 2
of this Act. The court may, on its own motion or that of any party made
at any time within twelve months after such taking effect, allow the
same to be maintained by or against the Administrator or such officer or
employee.
(b) All rules, regulations, orders, determinations, contracts,
certifications, authorizations, delegations, or other actions duly
issued, made, or taken by or pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act as in effect immediately prior to the date of enactment of
this Act, and pertaining to any functions, powers, requirements, and
duties under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as in effect
immediately prior to the date of enactment of this Act, shall continue
in full force and effect after the date of enactment of this Act until
modified or rescinded in accordance with the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act as amended by this Act.
(c) The Federal Water Pollution Control Act as in effect immediately
prior to the date of enactment of this Act shall remain applicable to
all grants made from funds authorized for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1972, and prior fiscal years, including any increases in the
monetary amount of any such grant which may be paid from authorizations
for fiscal years beginning after June 30, 1972, except as specifically
otherwise provided in section 202 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act as amended by this Act and in subsection (c) of section 3 of this
Act.
Mr. JONES of Alabama (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that section 4 be considered /(()) as read, printed in
the RECORD, and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Alabama?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to be proposed to section 4?
If not, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
SEC 5. In order to assist the Congress in the conduct of oversight
responsibilities the Comptroller General of the United States shall
conduct a study and review of the research, pilot, and demonstration
programs related to prevention and control of water pollution, including
waste treatment and disposal techniques, which are conducted, supported,
or assisted by any agency of the Federal Government pursuant to any
Federal law or regulation and assess conflicts between, and all
coordination and efficacy of, such programs, and make a report to the
Congress thereon by October 1, 1973.
SEC 6. (a) the Secretary of Commerce, in cooperation with other
interested Federal agencies and with representatives of industry, and
the public, shall undertake immediately an investigation and study to
determine --
(1) the extent to which pollution abatement and control programs will
be imposed on, or voluntarily undertaken by United States manufacturers
in the near future and the probable short- and long-range effects of the
costs of such programs (computed to the greatest extent practicable on
an industry-by industry basis) on (A) the production costs of such
domestic manufacturers, and (B) the market prices of the goods produced
by them:
(2) the probable extent to which pollution abatement and control
programs will be implemented in foreign industrial nations in the near
future and the extent to which the producvtion costs (computed to the
greatest extent practicable on an industry-by-industry basis) of foreign
manufacturers will be affected by the costs of such programs;
(3) the probable competitive advantage which any article manufactured
in a foreign nation will likely have in relation to a comparable article
made in the United States if that foreign nation --
(A) does not require its manufacturers to implement pollution
abatement and control programs.
(B) requires a lesser degree of pollution abatement and control in
its programs, or
(C) in any way reimburse or otherwise subsidizes its manufacturers
for the costs of such programs;
(4) alternative means by which any competitive advantage accruing to
the products of any foreign nation as a result of any factor described
in paragraph (3) may be (A) accurately and quickly determined, and (B)
equalized, for example, by the imposition of a surcharge or duty, on a
foreign product in an amount necessary to compensate for such advantage;
and
(5) the impact, if any, which the imposition of a compensating tariff
or other equalizing measure may have in encouraging foreign nations to
implement pollution and abatement control programs.
(b) The Secretary shall make an initial report to the President and
Congress within six months after the date of enactment of this section
of the results of the study and investigation carried out pursuant to
this section and shall make additional reports thereafter at such times
as he deems appropriate taking into account the development of relevant
data, but not less than once every twelve months.
SEC. 7. The President shall undertake to enter into international
agreements to apply uniform standars of performance for the control of
the discharge and emission of pollutants from new sources, uniform
controls over the discharge and emission of toxic pollutants, and
uniform controls over the discharge of pollutants into the ocean. For
this purpose the President shall negotiate multilateral treaties,
conventions, resolutions, or other agreements, and formulate, present,
or support proposals at the 1972 United National Conference on the Human
Environment and other appropriate international forums.
SEC. 8. (a) Section 7 of the Small Business Act is amended by
inserting at the end thereof a new subsection as follows:
"(g) (1) The Administration also is empowered to make loans (either
directly or in cooperation with banks or other lenders through
agreements to participate on an immediate or deferred basis) to assist
any small business concern in affecting additions to or alterations in
the equipment, facilities (including the construction of pretreatment
facilities and interceptor sewers), or methods of operation of such
concern to meet water pollution control requirements established under
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, if the Administration
determines that such concern is likely to suffer substantial economic
injury without assistance under this subsection.
"(2) Any such loan --
"(A) shall be made in accordance with provisions applicable to loans
made pursuant to subsection (b) (5) of this section, except as otherwise
provided in this subsection;
"(B) shall be made only if the applicant furnishes the Administration
with a statement in writing from the Environmental Protection Agency or,
if appropriate, the State, that such additions or alterations are
necessary and adequate to comply with requirements established under the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
"(3) The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall,
as soon as practicable after the date of enactment of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 and not later than one hundred
and eighty days thereafter, promulgate regulations establishing uniform
rules for the issuance of statements for the purpose of paragraph (2)
(B) of this subsection.
"(4) There is authorized to be appropriated to the disaster loan fund
established pursuant to section 4(c) of this Act not to exceed
$800,000,000 solely for the purpose of carryiing out this subsection."
(b) Section 4(c) (1) (A) of the Small Business Act is amended by
striking out "and 7 (c) (2)" and inserting in lieu thereof "7(c) (2),
and 7(g)"
SEC. 9. The President, acting through the Attorney General, shall
make a full and complete investigation and study of the feasibility of
establishing a separate court, or court system, having jurisdiction over
environmental matters and shall report the results of such investigation
and study together with his recommendations to Congress not later than
one year after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 10. The President shall make a full and complete investigaton
and study of all of the national policies and goals established by law
for the purpose of determining what the relationship should be between
these policies and goals, taking into account the resources of the
Nation. He shall report the results of such investigation and study
together with his recommendations to Congress not later than two years
after the dte of enactment of this Act. There is authorized to be
appropriated not to exceed $5,000,000 to carry out the purposes of this
section.
SEC 11. The President shall conduct a full and complete
investigation and study of ways and means of utilizing in the most
effective manner all of the various resources, facilities, and personnel
of the Federal Government in order most efficiently to carry out the
objective of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. He shall report
the results of such investigation and study together with his
recommendations to Congress not later than two hundred and seventy days
after the date of enactment of this Act.
SEC. 12. (a) This section may be cited as the "Environmental
Financing Act of 1972".
(b) There is hereby created a body corporate to be known as the
Environmental Financing Authority, which shall have succession until
dissolved by Act of Congress. The Authority shall be subject to the
general supervision and direction of the Secretary of the Treasury. The
Authority shall be an instrumentality of the United States Government
and shall maintain such offices as may be necessary of appropriate in
the conduct of its business.
(c) The purpose of this section is to assure that inability to borrow
necessary funds on reasonable terms does not prevent any State or local
public body from carrying out any project for construction of waste
treatment works determined eligible for assistance pursuant to
subsection (e) of this section.
(d) (1) The Authority shall have a Board of Directors consisting of
five persons, one of whom shall be the Secretary of the Treasury or his
designee as Chairman of the Board, and four of whom shall be appointed
by the President from among the officers or employees of the Authority
or of any department or agency of the United States Government.
(2) The Board of Directors shall meet at the call of its Chairman.
The Board shall determine the general policies which shall govern the
operations of the Authority. The Chairman of the Board shall select and
effect the appointment of qualified persons to fill the offices as may
be provided for in the bylaws, with such executive functions, powers,
and duties as may be prescribed by the bylaws or by the Board of
Directors, and such persons shall be the executive officers of the
Authority and shall discharge all such executive functions, powers, and
duties. The members of the Board, as such, shall not receive
compensation for their services.
(c) (1) The Authority is authorized to make commitments to purchase,
and to purchase on terms and conditions determined by the Authority, any
obligation or participation therein which is issued by a State or local
public body to finance the non-Federal share of the cost of any project
for the construction of waste treatment works which the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency has determined to be eligible for
Federal financial assistance under the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act.
(2) No commitment shall be entered into, and no purchase shall be
made, unless the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
(A) has certified that the public body is unable to obtain on reasonable
terms sufficient credit to finance its actual needs; (B) has approved
the project as eligible under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act;
and (C) has agreed to guarantee timely payment of principal and interest
on the obligation. The Administrator is authorized to guarantee such
timely payments and to issue regulations as he deems necessary and
proper to protect such /(()) guarantees. Appropriations are hereby
authorized to be made to the Administrator in such sums as are necessary
to make payments under such guarantees, and such payments are authorized
to be made from such appropriations.
(3) No purchase shall be made of obligations issued to finance
projects, the permanent financing of which occurred prior to the
enactment of this section.
(4) Any purchase by the Authority shall be upon such terms and
conditions as to yield a return at a rate determined by the Secretary of
the Treasury taking into consideration (A) the current average yield on
outstanding marketable obligations of the United States of comparable
maturity or in its stead whenever the Authority has sufficient of its
own long-term obligations outstanding, the current average yield on
outstanding obligations of the Authority of comparable maturity; and
(B) the market yields on municipal bonds.
(5) The Authortiy is authorized to charge fees for its commitments
and other services adequate to cover all expenses and to provide for the
accumulation of reasonable contingency reserves and such fees shall be
included in the aggregate project costs.
(f) To provide initial capital to the Authority the Secretary of the
Treasury is authorized to advance the funds necessary for this purpose.
Each such advance shall be upon such terms and conditions as to yield a
return at a rate not less than a rate determined by the Secretary of the
Treasury taking into consideration the current average yield on
outstanding marketable obligations of the United States of comparable
maturities. Interest payments on such advances may be deferred, at the
discretion of the Secretary, but any such deferred payments shall
themselves bear interest at the rate specified in this section. There
is authorized to be appropriated not to exceed $10,000,000, which shall
be available for the purposes of this subsection without fiscal year
limitation.
(g) (1) The Authority is authorized, with the approval of the
Secretary of the Treasury, to issue and have outstanding obligations
having such maturities and bearing such rate or rates of interest as may
be determined by the Authority. Such obligations may redeemable at the
option of the Authority before maturity in such manner as may be
stipulated therein.
(2) As authorized in appropriation Acts, and such authorizations may
be without fiscal year limitation, the Secretary of the Treasury may in
his discretion purchase or agree to purchase any obligations issued
pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection, and for such purpose the
Secretary of the Treasury is authorized to use as a public debt
transaction the proceeds of the sale of any securities hereafter issued
under the Second Liberty Bond Act, as now or hereafter in force, and the
purposes for which securities may be issued under the Second Liberty
Bond Act as now or hereafter in force, are extended to include such
purchases. Each purchase of obligations by the Secretary of the
Treasury under this subsection shall be upon such terms and conditions
as to yield a return at a rate not less than a rate determined by the
Secretary of the Treasury, taking into consideration the current average
yield on outstanding marketable obligations of the United States of
comparable maturities. The Secretary of the Treasury may sell, upon
such terms and conditions and at such price or prices as he shall
determine, any of the obligations acquired by him under this paragraph.
All purchases and sales by the Secretary of the Treasury of such
obligations under this paragraph shall be treated as public debt
transactions of the United States.
(h) The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to make
annual payments to the Authority in such amounts as are necessary to
equal the amount by which the dollar amount of interest expense accrued
by the Authority on account of its obligations exceeds the dollar amount
of interest income accrued by the Authority on account of obligations
purchased by it pursuant to subsection (c) of this section.
(1) The Authority shall have power --
(1) to sue and be sued, complain and defend, in its corporate name;
(2) to adopt, after, and use a corporate seal, which shall be
judicially notices;
(3) to adopt, amend, and repeal bylaws, rules, and regulations as may
be necessary for the conduct of its business;
(4) to conduct its business, carry on its operations, and have
offices and exercise the powers granted by this section in any State
without regard to any qualification or similar statute in any State;
(5) to lease, purchase, or otherwise acquire, own, hold, improve,
use, or otherwise deal in and with any property, real, personal, or
mixed, or any interest therein, wherever situated;
(6) to accept gifts or donations of services, or of property, real,
personal, or mixed, tangible, or intangible, in aid of any of the
purposes of the Authority;
(7) to sell, convey, mortgage, pledge, lease, exchange, and otherwise
dispose of its property and assets;
(8) to appoint such officers, attorneys, employees, and agents as may
be required, to define their duties, to fix and to pay such compensation
for their services as may be determined, subject to the civil service
and classification laws, to require bonds for them and pay the premium
thereof; and
(9) to enter into contracts, to execute instruments, to incur
liabilities, and to do all things as are necessary or incidental to the
proper management of its affairs and the proper conduct of its business.
(j) The Authority, its property, its franchise, capital, reserves,
surplus, security holdings, and othe funds, and its income shall be
exempt from all taxation now or hereafter imposed by the United States
or by any State or local taxing authority; except that (A) any real
property and any tangible personal property of the Authority shall be
subject to Federal, State, and local taxation to the same extent
according to its value as other such property is taxed, and (B) any and
all obligations issued by the Authority shall be subject both as to
principal and interest to Federal State, and local taxation to the same
extent as the obligations or private corporations are taxed.
(k) All obligations issued by the Authority shall be lawful
investments, and may be accepted as security for all fiduciary, trust,
and public funds, the investment or deposit of which shall be under
authority or control of the United States or of any officer or officers
thereof. All obligations issued by the Authority pursuant to this
sedtion shall be deemed to be exempt securities within the meaning of
laws administered by the Securities and Exchange Commission, to the same
extent as securities which are issued by the United States.
(l) In order to furnish obligations for delivery by the Authority,
the Secretary of the Treasury is autnorized to prepare such obligations
in such forms as the Authority may approve, such obligations when
prepared to be held in the Treasury subject to delivery upon order by
the Authority. The engraved plates, dies, bed pieces, and so forth,
executed in connection therewith, shall remain in the custody of the
Secretary of the Treasury. The Authority shall reimburse the Secretary
of the Treasury for any expenditures made in the preparation, dustody,
and delivery of such obligations.
(m) The Authority shall, as soon as practicable after the end of each
fiscal year, transmit to the President and the Congress an annual report
of its operations and activities.
(n) The sixth sentence of the seventh paragraph of section 5136 of
thie Revised Statutes, as amended (12 U.S.C. 24), is amended by
inserting "or obligations of the Environmental Financing Authority"
immediately after "or obligations, participations, or other instruments
of or issued by the Federal National Mortgage Association".
(o) The budget and audit provisions of the Government Corporation
Control Act (31 U.S.C. 846) shall be applicable to the Environmental
Financing Authority in the same manner as they are applied to the wholly
owned Government corporations.
(p) Section 3689 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (31 U.S.C.
711), is further amended by adding a new paragraph following the last
paragraph appropriating moneys for the purposes under the Treasury
Department to read as follows:
"Payment to the Environmental Financing Authority: For payment to
the Environmental Financing Authority under subsection (h) of the
Environmental Financing Act of 1972."
SEC. 13. No person in the United States shall on the ground of sex
be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be
subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving
Federal assistance under this Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, or the Environmental Financing Act. This section shall be enforced
through agency provisions and rules similar to those already
established, with respect to racial and other discrimination, under
title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. However, this remedy is not
exclusive and weill not prejudice or cut off any other legal remedies
available to a discriminatee.
Mr. JONES of Alabama (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the remainder of the bill be considered as read,
printed in the RECORD, and open to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman
from Alabama?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to be proposed to the other
sections of the bill?
If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended,
was agreed to.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I am deeply concerned the H.R. 11896 as
reported by the committee has not been amended to take care of the many
serious weaknesses in the bill, particularly:
Elimination of the unreasonable and unnecessary provision in section
315 of the bill which calls for a delay in establishing, in the next
decade, a requirement for the use of the best available technology,
taking into consideration costs, by all polluters.
Failure to adopt the clean water amendment, which would have deleted
this backward provision, was a mistake. I sincerely hope that in
conference the Senate's more progressive version of the law establishing
the 1891 requirements will prevail.
Moreover, even in providing for a study I believe it is essential
that we insure a mechanism which will provide a broader based study by
organizations and /(()) institutions other than just the National
Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. The study
provision in the committee's bill was placed there at the insistance of
the National Association of Manufacturers -- NAM.
The prosision in the bill relating to the establishment of the permit
program.
It is my firm belief that we must provide, as Governor Anderson of
Minnesota strongly recommended last December to the Public Works
Committee, that EPA be given an opportunity for a veto over individual
permits, where appropriate. It is incomprehensible to me that the only
way that the Federal Government can review a permit program, once it has
been transferred to the State, is by totally taking back that program.
It seems to me that any State Governor would be opposed to such a
Federal takeover provision except in the most dire of circumstances. It
seems much more reasonable to me to have EPA review the permit
applications that it will, after all, be receiving even under the
committee bill, and to make comments and recommendations on those permit
applications, when appropriate.
The present Federal Refuse Act permit program is far superior to the
one included in the committee bill and I hope that, if a more workable
solution cannot be reached on section 402 of the bill which provides
greater Federal control over individual permits, section 402 will be
deleted from the bill and that the present and very successful Refuse
Act permit program established in December 1970 be retained.
The provisions in the bill for the issuance of subpenas.
It seems unfortunate, as I have stated before, that the House
committee bill would not adopt a recommendation of the Senate by
providing for the issuance of subpenas in support of enforcement actions
under the bill. Certainly such subpena power should be included in the
bill on final passage.
Provisions in the bill for citizen suits quite obviously must be
revised to conform with the more realistic provisions of the Clean Air
Act and the Noise Control Act.
It is unfortunate that the committee saw fit to restrict the rights
of citizens to bring suits against polluters when they violate the law
and against EPA when it fails to comply with the law. It is also
unfortunate that in employing restrictive language in the definition of
citizen, the committee bill used such vague and ambiguous terms. Again,
I hope that the conferees will resolve this matter in favor of the
Senate version of the citizen suit provision of the bill which leaves
the question of "standing" to the courts where it belongs.
There are many other provisions of the bill which I and my colleagues
have pointed ouit in the debate on this bill in the last 3 days, and in
the additional views by Representatives ABZUG and RANGEL, that deserve
careful study by the conferees and substantial revision if we are to
have a truly clean water bill.
I am, however, particularly pleased that both the House and Senate
versions of the bill have recognized that the Refuse Act of 1899 should
be continued as an antipollution tool. I note with great pleasure that
Mr. ROE said on page H2636 of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of March 28 that
--
The Refuse Act is continued without modification as a valuable
enforcement tool.
I know that all environmentalists join with me and Representative
REUSS in praising the committee for retaining this important statute.
At this point in the record, I would like to insert a statement by
the assistant U.S. attorney for the southern district of New York, Mr.
Ross Sandler, who last January explained how valuable and important the
Refuse Act is:
For persons genuinely interested in the environment and the abatement
of pollution, the last year or possibly two years must surely look like
the dawning of a new age. Never before, at least in recent history,
have as many people been motivated to do something to save our
environment; never before have so many candidates for political office
run on platforms calling for massive abatements of water pollution; and
never before has so many enforcement agencies at various levels of
government been actively and methodically prosecuting polluters.
The distinction in my opinion between today's relatively optimistic
picture, and the past, is the emerging concensus that government must
use its enforcement powers to bring a halt to pollution and to reclaim
our natural environment. By enforcement I mean simply the power to
order that something be done, and that, if not done, the imposition of
sanctions. A few examples might help explain the distinction.
It is one thing for the federal government to purchase or retain
ownership of forest land for recreation and protection of a watershed --
it is quite another to enforce pollution abatement by criminally
indicting an otherwise reputable industry for using a watershed for its
private waste disposal system. It is one thing for the government to
spend millions of dollars to build sewers and plants to treat the waste
of industries, and homes as well -- but it is quite another to enforce
sewer codes by cutting off a company's water until the company installs
adequate and costly pre-treatment facilities. It is one thing for the
government to give industry a tax break for installing pollution control
equipment -- and it is quite another to enforce pollution abatement by
seeking an injunction against the company halting full operation of its
plant until the adequate pollution control machinery is installed.
Although bills currently pending in Congress would give the Federal
government a comprehensive and detailed shceme of enforcement, the
actual work of enforcement currently being carried out by the federal
government through the Department of Justice, the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers is built upon what is
almost a common law of water pollution abatement. The primary federal
statute remains the Refuse Act of 1899. That statute says simply, in
language that approaches a Biblical commandment, that no one may
discharge refuse into the navigable waters of the United States. While
there is some legislative history to the contrary it is fairly clear
that the refuse to which the statute referred to was primarily the type
of refuse which would tend to affect navigation, and not refuse causing
pollution. Even as late at 1970, J. Clarence Davies in his book The
Politics of Pollution could dismiss the Refuse Act with one sentence
stating that the 1899 Act was designed only to prevent impediments to
navigation, "not to clean up the water." (page 38).
But the Refuse Act has emerged as the primary pollution abatement
statute on the federal level for the simple reason that it, alone, has
proven enforcible.
In my law school criminal class, the professor repeatedly taught that
in criminal law, it was the certainty of being caught and punished that
caused people to conform to the law, even more than the harshness of the
penalty.
The professor gave as his example of the rule the reputed fact that
the Norwegian people during the World War II would engage in the most
dangerous partisan activities, but would not turn on their lights during
blackouts to lead in Allied aircraft. While there is of course many
differences, the analogy holds true; The Refuse Act of 1899 has emerged
as the premier anti-pollution statute because of the certainty that
persons violating its simple command will be caught and punished.
The certainty is not seen entirely by even a careful reading the
statute. It has taken the courts and imaginative litigation by numerous
prosecutors to round out the full meaning of the statute. Let me list
some of the clauses which have been judicially read into the statute and
which have made real enforcement possible.
1. The Refuse Act appears on first reading to create nothing more
than a middemeanor penal provision and is therefor a statute essentially
lacking in a credible punishment. The statute provides that if
convicted, a defendant can be fined a minimum of $500 and a maximum of
$2500, and, if a natural person, can receive a term of imprisonment of
not less than 30 days nor more than one year. Yet the statute has ample
teeth, since prosecutors may charge defendants with multiple counts
based on the actual workings of the defendant's plants. Thus, if a
plant has one shift a day, and the polluting discharge virtually stops
with the ending of that shift, each day becomes a separate count in the
indictment or information.
Recently in the Southern District a defendant felt the full impact of
this aspect of the Refuse Act. Anaconda Wire & Cable Co., a division of
Anaconda Company, routinely discharged large amounts of copper from its
plant in Hastings-on-Hudson. The metal, which is highly toxic to
virtually all life, was discharged from the plant as traces in its
process water. After hearing the evidence our Special Grand Jury
charged Anaconda with 100 counts -- an alleged violation of the Act on
practically every working day in the first half of 1971. Anacounda
pleaded guilty to the indictment, and was fined $200 per count for a
total fine of $200,000. There is no doubt that a fine of such severity
has the desired impact of deterrence. The fine, of course, buys no
capital equipment, and the corporation must still pay for and install
abatement equipment. Other fines in the Southern District have been
relatively as severed, running on the order of $25,000, $50,000 and, in
the case of Standard Brands, $125,000.
2. The Refuse Act makes no provision for civil relief. It reads as
if it were only a criminal provision. It would appear that the statute
was defective as the corner stone of federal enforcement in that it
contains no provision for the federal government to require a polluter
to abate his pollution. But judicial interpretation has entirely filled
that void. Relying on Supreme Court cases under companion sections of
the Rivers and Harbors Act which held that the government could sue to
enjoin violations, the Department of Justice brought, in March, 1970,
the first two cases seeking civil relief under the Refuse Act -- one in
Florida against Florida Powe and Light, and the second in the Southern
District of New York, against Oceana Terminals. In both cases, the
courts upheld the federal government's right to sue to enjoin pollution.
Since March of 1970, the /(()) Department of Justice has brought 90
additional civil actions. These suits were often brought in conjunction
with a criminal action. In all of the approximately fifteen criminal
cases brought in the Southern District, we initiated a civil action
calling for abatement of the pollution. The only exceptions were cases
where the pollution resulted from a one time operation or accident, or
where the State or local agencies stepped in with an adequate abatement
order.
The civil relief obtained has been designed to abate the particular
pollution at issue. In Ocean Terminals, where the problem was oil
leaching into the East River from an oil saturated shore, the defendant
was required to maintain an adequate boom and to continuously clean the
oil from the water, while at the same time he was required to repair the
underground leaks from his tanks. In Marathon Battery, the defendant
was required to install pre-treatment equipment to clean the toxic metal
cadmium from its effluent.
Marathon Battery is a particularly interesting case. Marathon and
its predecessor companies operated a cadmium-nickel battery plant at
Cold Spring, and routinely discharged waste water into a sluggish tidal
marsh area in Foundry Cove. The cadmium and nickel built up in the area
over a 20-year period, so that today, in some areas the bottom muds are
almost 16% cadmium. We have asked the Court to order Marathon and its
predecessors to dredge the bottom muds -- virtually cadmium ore -- out.
The issue is still in litigation; but if we are successful we will have
firmly established the principle that a polluter can be held to correct
the damange he has caused.
3. The Refuse Act appear defective because it has no standards of
any kind written into it. It merely states that is is unlawful to
discharge refuse. The absence of fixed standards bothers many people,
and in larg measure the so-called Muskie Bill is an attempt to create
standards. But I really doubt that the Muskie Bill in fact says more in
the way oif standards than that which has already been developed as
standards under the Refuse Act. There have been no Court decisions to
deal directly with this problem, yet the prosecutor in enforcing the
Refuse Act, works with the only standards that as a practical matter can
work -- the maximum feasible abatement under the present technology.
That is the standard for the relief that we seek in our civil suits;
and that is the abatement sought by the EPA, as I understand it, in
evaluating permit applications.
While I do not wish to seem too cavalier about standards, there
really is to my mind much too much made of the fact that no one has
precisely stated as law what standards are applicable to each and every
discharge under each and every condition. It is ludicrous to observe
responsible enforcement, officials discussing whether 5 parts or .5
parts per million of copper, for instance, should be the standard for
industrial discharge. The fact is that many companies are discharging
50 and 100 parts per million, and that technology exists which can
reduce the discharge down to about 5 parts per million or less without
exorbitant costs.
In my judgment, the absence of absolute standards is, and has been,
no bar to adequate enforcement. As Martin Lang, the Commissioner of
Water Resources of New York City stated recently, the only certainty
about standards is that they are going to get tougher. Logic and
practicality dictate, as a result, that the only acceptable standard for
abatement, is the maximum feasible abatement under the present
technology.
4. The Refuse Act appears defective in another regard. It created
no laboratories, no investigative arms and no enforcement machinery. No
administrative program is included to process and evaluate permit
applications. These defects were, of course, in large measure corrected
with the executive order establishing the Refuse Act Permit Program and
by the creation and reorganization of the EPA. But one of the strongest
tools of enforcement comes directly from the Refuse Act itself without
special proclamations or funding. The Refuse Act is a criminal statute
and violation of it may be investigated in same manner as any criminal
conduct -- by Grand Jury investigation. In the Southern District of New
York we have had a Special Grand Jury sitting since September, 1970. It
has indicted 15 companies, and investigated many more. It has the power
to subpoena anyone it wishes to hear testify. This is a significant
power. Most potential defendants are corporations, and do not enjoy a
Fifth Amendment privilege. In the past, and even today, much of the
investigative work by the Corps of Engineers begins and ends with a boat
ride and the dipping of a glass jar into some noxious smelling liquid.
But the Grand Jury can circumvent that procedure of evidence gathering
entirely. It simply subpoenas the corporation's responsible officials
before it and askes them to explain under oath just what chemicals and
other refuse the plant discharges.
The actual investigation may well take many months, however, since
often detailed laboratory tests must be made by the defendant before it
can adequately report to the Grand Jury the content of its discharge.
This method of investigation has, for the prosecutor, the added
advantage that the defendant cannot readily challenge the evidence
against him. Most indictments are based on admissions by corporate
officials in the Grand Jury, or on tests made by the defendant at the
request of the Grand jury. By the end of the investigation, there is
little left for the defendant to dispute, and, as has been our
experience, practically all defendants enter guilty pleas.
It should be obvious that I am of the opinion that the Refuse Act has
developed into a superior enforcement tool for the betterment of our
environment. An examination of the record of enforcement bears this
out.
Criminal indictments are increasingly being voted by Grand Juries
around the country. In the two years ending July 1, 1969 a total of 87
ciminal cases were brought under the Refuse Act. In the next two years
ending July 1, 1971, almost four times as many criminal actions were
brought -- a total of 320. Once convicted, defendants can expect a
substantial fine. As Judge Croake stated when he imposed the $200,000
fine upon Anaconda, no longer can pollution fines be viewed as merely a
cost of doing business.
Such actions by the Department of Justice and the United States
Attorneys bring credibility to the commitment to clean up. Without the
certainty of being caught and punished, there is little left to that
commitment, no matter how grand the administrative machinery or how
stringent the standards. Business Week magazine reported in its first
issue of this year that Dow Chemical spent $30.5 million on capital
equipment and operations in 1971 for pollution abatement. GM reported
to the Southern District that it was spending $43.7 million on abatement
equipment to be completed by 1973. These kind of expenditures will only
be made when strong enforcement action creates a climate in which
businessmen sense that they must abate or face even sterner action by
the government.
Strong enforcement of the Refuse Act, along with the growing momentum
brought on by knowledgeable and concerned private citizens and
organizations, has in addition created the climate in which local and
state governments must now emphasize enforcement to a greater extent
than ever before. Practically every municipality running a sewage
treatment plant has enacted codes which, if enforced, would reduce the
amount of toxic metals and oils passing through these plants into the
water.
The State has vast powers and resources both for preventing direct
pollution and indirect pollution of the waterways. A United States
Attorney who vigorously enforces the Refuse Act, such as has Whitney
North Seymour, Jr., in this District cannot help but cause the
competitive fires to ignite in these local and state agencies. The same
competition works between the EPA and the United States Attorney
offices, as well as between United States Attorneys in neighboring
districts. While it may not be obvious to even the most well informed
people, this has been one of the most important products of the Refuse
Act. Competition in the form of concurrent jurisdiction is of course
not unusual in law enforcement. But there is probably no other area
where the competition fostered by concurrent jurisdiction had a more
beneficial effect. The Refuse Act is necessary and has been successful
on this basis alone -- actions under it have proven enforcement is
possible and desirable, and have made others uncomfortable if they were
not being equally as tough.
If I were to grade the importance of the Refuse Act and enforcement
under it I would list these things as the most important, about even the
significant successes of individual cases:
It has and is creating a climate in which industry -- the potential
defendants -- now feels a growing certainty that it can no longer
pollute with impunity, and;
It has and is creating a climate in which industry -- the potential
defendants -- now feels a growing certainty that it can no longer
pollute with impunity, and;
It has and is creating a climate in which local and state agencies
can become more stern in their enforcement policies.
Much remains to be done. But in my opinion, there could not be a
more explicit mandate than is now found in the Refuse Act; nor could
that be a more workable scheme of enforcement than has evolved under the
present statute.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I bring to the attention of the Committee a
matter of utmost importance which will need study by the conferees. It
related to the definition in the bill of the term "contiguous zone."
In 1970 Congress passed the Water Quality Improvement Act. Among
other things, that law provided for the prevention and removal of oil
spills. The provisions of that law are restated in section 311 of title
III of the committee bill.
The 1970 law applies to the contiguous zone of the United States
which is the 9-mile belt extending from our territorial seas seaward.
When we enacted that law, we all understood from the State Department
and other executive branch witnesses that this zone had been established
pursuant to article 24 of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the
Contiguous Zone. Thus, the 1970 law defined the term "contiguous zone"
to mean "the entire zone established or to be established by the United
States" under the Convention.
The committee bill also contains that same definition, section 311,
for oil spills and the spills of hazardous substances. The committee
bill also makes other provisions of the bill applicable to the zone, and
thus repeats this definition in section 502 of the bill.
A few days ago Congressman REUSS and I learned from the Coast Guard
that this zone has not been established. They told us that, in August
of 1970, /(()) Secretary Volpe had sent a propose Presidential
Proclamation to the Office of Management and Budget which, if issued,
would establish the contiguous zone. The Transportation Department
letter to OMB and proposed proclamation follow:
Hon. GEORGE P. SHULTZ,
Director, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. SHULTZ: Enclosed for your approval is a draft of proposed
regulations which provide procedures and reporting requirements for the
expenditure of funds from and the collection of monies for deposit into
the revolving fund, established by the President on May 20, 1970 in
accordance with the provisions of the Water Quality Improvement Act of
1970. The President announced on May 20, 1970 that he was delegating
responsibility for the administration of the funds to the Secretary of
Transportation and that he will forward to Congress a request for $35
million to finance its operations as soon as regulations governing the
operation of the funds are completed. The regulations are to be
codified in Subchapter O (Pollution) of Title 33, Code of Federal
Regulations and have been tentatively included in Part 150.
Also enclosed for your approval is a proposed Presidential
Proclamation which establishes the contigous zone of the United States,
in consonance with the provisions of Article 24 of the Convention on the
Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone. The formal establishment of the
contiguous zone is necessary since it is specifically referred to in the
Act and has not been previously established.
It is requested that the two enclosures be reviewed for your
approval.
Sincerely,
Whereas the Proclamation of September 8, 1964 did proclaim and make
public the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone to the
end that the same and every article and clause thereof shall be observed
and fulfilled with good faith by the United States of America and by the
citizens of the United States of Amnerica and all other persons subject
to the jurisdiction thereof; and
Whereas the enactment of certain statutes by the Government of the
United States of America to control pollution of the sea by oil and
other hazardous polluting substances, as well as for other purposes,
comtemplate the exercise of control by the United States of America in a
zone of the high seas contiguous to its territorial sea as provided for
in the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Congiguous Zone;
Now therefore be it known that I, Richard M. Nixon, President of the
United States of America, do hereby proclaim and establish a zone
contiguous to the territorial sea of the United States of America
extending twelve miles from the baseline from which the breadth of the
territorial sea is measured, in consonance with the provisions of
Article 24 of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone
in which the United States of America shall exercise the control
necessary to prevent infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration
and sanitary regulations within its territory or territorial sea.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal
of the United States of America to be affixed.
Done at the city of Washington this day of in the year of our Lord
one thousand nine hundred and seventy and of the Independence of the
United States of America the one hundred ninety-fifth.
The OMB has failed to act on that proclamation. Once more, the
executive branch has apparently failed to tell Congress that the zone
has never been established. Thus, today we are including in the bill,
according to the executive branch, what amounts to a defenctive
definition of the zone.
On March 23, Congressman REUSS wrote to Secretary Volpe and asked:
First, if he still believes, despite strong legislative history to
the contrary, that the zone has not been established as yet, and
Second, why OMB failed to act on the proclamation for nearly 2 years.
Secretary Volpe responded late Monday afternoon.
He told Congressman REUSS that the 1970 Act "does not thereby set the
outer limits of such zone for enforcement purposes as has been the
practice of Congress" in other legislation for fisheries and customs.
He concludes therefore that:
This Department is of the opinion that an outer limit must be
established to assure enforcement of sanctions and other measures.
Mr. Chairman, Congressman REUSS and myself believe that the zone is
established. But the fact is that the Coast Guard and the executive
branch does not agree. I urge the conference committee to consider this
problem. We cannoit and should not let this opportunity pass to correct
this situation.
At this juncture, I insert the letter of my colleague, HENRY S.
REUSS, to the Secretary of Transportation, John A. Volpe, dated March
23, 1972:
Secretary, Department of Transportation,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR Mr. VOLPE: On February 2, 1972, we requested the Coast Guard to
provide us data on its actions in enforcing the Refuse Act of 1899 (33
U.S. Code 407) and the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970 (Public Law
91-224) concerning the discharge of oil into navigable waterways and the
waters of the contiguous zone.
On March 7, 1972, Vice Admiral T. R. Sargent of the Coast Guard
replied that there were more than 10,000 recorded oil spills into these
waters in the period from September 11, 1970 to November 30, 1971. He
also said that the Federal Government had spent, as of May 31, 1971,
over $170,000 to remove spilled oil and had not recovered any of this
sum.
In subsequent discussions with Coast Guard officials, we were
informed (a) that nearly one-third of all oil spills occur in ocean
waters between the 3-mile limit and the 12-mile limit (here referred to
as the contiguous zone), and (b) that the Coast Guard has not assessed
civil penalties, as authorized under the 1970 Act, against anyone
responsible for any spills in the contiguous zone.
Upon further inquiry, we learned that the Coast Guard apparently
assumes that it lacks authority to assess civil penalties for spills
into the contiguous zone, on the ground that the contiguous zone has not
been established. Acting on this assumption, Under Secretary of
Transportation J. M. Beggs sent to the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, on August 24, 1970, for his "approval", (a) a
draft of a proposed Presidential proclamation to "establish the
contiguous zone", and (b) a draft of proposed regulations to provide
procedures for using money from the revolving fund to contain and remove
spilled oil, and for collecting money from oil dischargers to deposit
into that fund, as authorized by the 1970 Act. The fund was established
by the President on May 20, 1970 (H. Doc 91-340).
We understand that the Office of Management and Budget has not
approved the proclamation. The Coast Guard, on the assumption that it
lacks authority in the contiguous zone until that proclamation is
issued, has apparently suspended its efforts to enforce in the zone the
oil pollution provisions of the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970
which is now almost two years old. We doubt whether any Member of
Congress knows that the Coast Guard is failing to enforce the 1970 Act
on the assumption that the contiguous zone had not yet been established.
Article 24 of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the
Contiguous Zone simply states the powers of each coastal nation in that
zone and specifies that the contiguous zone may not extend beyond the
12-mile limit. It does not expressly require a Proclamation to make the
contiguous zone come into being.
Section 11(a) (9) of the 1970 Act defines the "contiguous zone" to
mean:
"The entire zone established or to be established by the United
States under article 24 of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the
Contiguous Zones."
The legislative history of the 1970 Act clearly indicates that the
Congress thought then that this zone had already been established.
The Senate Committee on Public Works stated in its report (S. Rept.
91-351) p. 66), as follows:
"The definition of a 'contiguous zone' is the zone established by the
United States under article 24 of the Convention on the Territorial Sea
and the Contiguous Zone (TI AS 5639). The authority under which the
United States may regulate, with regard to pollution by oil, the conduct
of foreign vessles beyond the territorial sea and impose sanctions for
violation of such regulations is contained in article 24 of the
Convenstion on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, Article
24(a) allows the coastal State "In a zone of the high seas contiguous to
its territorial seas" to exercise the control necessary to 'prevent
infringement of its +++ sanitary regulations within its territory or
territorial sea.'
"Article 24 1(b) allows the State to 'punish infringement of the
above regulations committed within its territory or territorial sea.'
The Department of State, in testifying before the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, took the position that article 24 confirmed the
U.S. practice of exercising customs jurisdiction in a zone beyond the
territorial sea and extended such jurisdiction to fiscal, immigration
and sanitary matters as well. (Hearing before the Committee on Foreign
Relations, U.S. Senate, 86th Cong., second seas., Jan. 20, 1960, pp. 82.
93). Such customary practice included the right to arrest and impose
criminal sanctions for violations of U.S. customs laws in the zone
beyond the territorial sea."
The report of the House Committee on Public Works (H. Report 91-127)
refers to the "contiguous zone" as the "zone established by the United
States under article 24 of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the
Contiguous Zone" (p. 10). An identical statement was also made in the
Conference report (H. Rept. 91-940. p. 34).
It is our understanding that the words "to be established" were
included in the law to allow for future expansion of the contiguous zone
through possible future changes in the Convention.
The Coast Guard, despite the above legislative history, apparently
has chosen to /(()) ignore the first part of that definition which
states that the zone has already been "established", and has assumed
that the contiguous zone must be established by some further
proclamation. That assumption is inconsistent with the views of the
Navy Department. In a letter to the Director of OMB, dated October 19,
1970, the Navy Department pointed out that, in the six years since the
United States ratified the Convention on the Territorial Sea and
Contiguous Zone, the Navy has "clearly demonstrated adherence to and
compliance with Article 24 of the Convention." The ILLEGIBLE
Department's letter commented on the proposed proclamation as follows:
"Execution of the proclamation will in no way enhance the position of
the United States in international law under Article 24 of the
Convention. Neither international nor domestic law requires that the
United States establish a contiguous zone by Executive proclamation.
Perhaps the reason for offering this proclamation can be found in
section 11(a)(9) of the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970. That
section indicates that the contiguous zone is to be defined as the
entire zone established or to be established by the United States under
Article 24 of the Convention. Use of the phrase "to be established" is
unfortunate. It appears to require domestic implementing action. As
earlier indicated, this is not the case. Since there are potential
detriments if the proclamation is in fact made, issuance of the proposed
proclamation creates unnecessary problems. Accordingly, the Department
of the Navy, on behalf of the Department of Defense, opposes the
issuance of the proposed Executive proclamation." (Emphasis in Navy's
letter.)
We agree with the Navy's view that the proclamation is unnecessary.
Moreover, the Coast Guard Commandant on March 31, 1971 approved
regulations governing the administration of the pollution revolving fund
(presumably on regulations which had been forwarded in August 1970 to
OMB for its review and approval). These regulations, printed in the
Federal Register of April 13, 1971 (36 F.R. 7009) specifically state in
section 153 303(a) (1) that the fund may be used to contain or remove
oil discharged "into or upon the waters of the contiguous zone".
Furthermore, sec. 153.315 specifically directs "the cognizant District
Commander" to assert claims against the responsible party for the costs
of these actions, and sec. 153.317 directs him to deposit in the fund
all moneys received as payment for fines, civil penalties, and claims
for reimbursement of the Coast Guard's costs in containing and removing
oil spills.
It is evident that this regulation constitutes ample directive to the
Coast Guard's operating personnel to enforce the oil pollution laws and
regulations "In the contiguous zone". We do not understand how or why
the Coast Guard's operating pesonnel now fail to enforce the law in the
contiguous zone.
But even is the Coast Guard is correct in its interpretation of the
law -- and we think it is not -- the public interest in assuring
effective enforcement of our laws against oil pollution, and in the
collection of fines and penalties and moneys owed to the government, was
certainly not served during the period that the OMB pigeon-holed the
Transportation Department's proposed proclamation. It is apparent that
our country's oil pollution enforcement program is being frustrated
until either OMB approves the proposed proclamation, or the Coast Guard
re-examines its assumption that is has no authority to enforce these
laws in the contiguous zone and adopts our view that it does have such
authority.
Next week the House is scheduled to vote on H.R. 11896 -- the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. That bill makes a
number of changes in the oil pollution control provisions of existing
law and is applicable to the contiguous zone. In doing so, the bill
uses the current definition of the term "contiguous zone."
We are unable to discover, in the testimony last year by the
Administration officials, any reference to the problem raised by the
proposed proclamation. Apparently, it is the intention of your
Department and OMB to allow the House to vote on the bill, in full
belief that the contiguous zone is already established.
If the Coast Guard's previous assumption is correct, it seems
imperative to amend the pending bill to clarify the Coast Guard's
authority. If the Coast Guard's previous assumption is erroneous, it is
imperative that it promptly begin enforcing the law in the contiguous
zone.
We request that you provide to us by noon Monday, March 27, 1972;
(a) Your views on whether or not further executive or legislative
action is needed to establish the contiguous zone, and
(b) If no such action is needed, please state when the Coast Guard
will begin enforcing the law in the contiguous zone.
Sincerely.
Chairman, Conservation and Natural
Resources Subcommittee.
At this point in the RECORD I insert matters of significant
importance to this legislation:
The water-pollution control bill, which Senator Muskie sponsored and
his colleagues long ago approved by a vote of 86 to 1, is even more
far-reaching and hence in worse trouble. Between heavy fire from
industry and moderate fire from the Administration the Senate bill may
be shot down, or existing controls may be seriously weakened in the name
of improvement.
Of the changes made by the House Public Works Committee, one of the
sharpest setbacks is the drastic modification of the Senate's objective
to decrease effluents into the nation's waters for the next thirteen
years, by which time (at least this is the goal) they would be
eliminated altogether. The House committee, while theoritically
retaining the goal, would subject the plan to a study by the National
Academy of Sciences, to be followed by a second vote in Congress -- by
which time a lot of foul water will have flowed under the bridge. Not
content to weaken the Senate bill, the committee would also reduce the
effectiveness of the EPA by shifting primary responsibility for the
issuing of effluent permits to the states, a grave backward step.
Representatives Reuss of Wisconsin and Dingell of Michigan are
striving to reverse these stulifying changes with a "clean-water
package" of amendments. Unless the efforts of these two outstanding
conservationists succeed, there may be no clean water legislation in
this Congress at all -- a disastrous setback to a cause that cannot
afford any delay.
What happens on the federal level to curb water pollution will be
determined by whether the Senate of House has its way. Last November
the Senate passed a bill (S2770) that has been described as the toughest
water pollution control measure ever written in Congress, although even
this bill leaves some things to be desired. But the House bill
(HR11896) isn't even a pale shadow of the Senate measure.
The most important feature of the Senate bill is that it would set a
date -- 1985 -- for achieving zero water pollution, although the
senators (they approved the bill 86-0) were realistic enough to
recognize that this might be beyond achieving. The important point is
that the Senate bill has a goal -- and goals can be changed if time and
experience prove them beyond reach.
The House bill would actually have no goal. Instead, it would in
effect call a halt for two years while still another study was being
made of the problem. Meanwhile water pollution, which some estimate is
causing losses amounting to $13 billion a year, would continue except
where states were making a stern effort on their own to eliminate it.
That brings us to another vital difference between Senate and House
bills. The Senate bill would not in effect nullify the stringent
antipollution laws written by Michigan and some other states but would
make their provisions generally applicable on a national basis. As an
example, under Michigan law any citizen, whether directly affected or
not, can bring suit against an alleged water-polluter. The Senate bill
would extend this powerful deterrent to all states. But the House bill
would give the separate states extraordinary latitude in dealing with
the water pollution problem. Under this kind of setup, some states
would be sorely tempted to adopt weak antipollution bills to entice
polluting industries away from those states -- such as Michigan, that
have strong laws.
All citizens would suffer from this kind of rank competition;
pollution might well be encouraged rather than discouraged in some
states for the sake of temporary economic gain. We say "temporary"
becuase by now everyone should realize that the long-range costs of
water pollution not only can totally offset any economic savings or
advantages that may result from it -- that, in fact, pollution can
destroy waterways for recreational and scenic attractions, can make them
carriers of disease and permanently alter the environment for the worse.
No citizen who views the protection of the environment as one of our
most ugent duties or who wishes to see our natural assets preserved for
its children and those who come after them should be content with
accepting anything less than the Senate bill. The House bill is an
outrage and a fraud on the public.
The House of Representatives will decide, perhaps today, whether to
support or to undermine the Senate's unanimous and unequivocal move to
clean up this country's wates. A Senate bill aims to eliminate all
discharge of pollutants by 1985. It would give the Federal Government
enough authority, through a veto power over discharge permits issued by
the states, to assure uniformity and thus to prevent industries from
shopping around for indulgent regulations. And it would allow any
citizen to sue polluters, and even the authorities themselves, where
standards are not enforced.
The corresponding measure that came out of the House Public Works
Committee would eliminate or gravely compromise all of these objectives,
although it does have the merit of providing more money than the Senate
bill for waste treatment plants. Led by Representatives Dingell of
Michigan and Reuss of Wisconsin, a large contingent of Congressmen is
pressing on the House a "clean water package" of amendments that would
rid the committee bill of its deficiencies, giving the 92d Congress a
rare chance to score a historic achievement.
A look at the poisonous Potomac before the final voting should be
enough to stiffen the resolve of any Congressman to do right not only by
that decaying river but by all the rivers, lakes and streams of America
that once sparkled in the sun and now, in polluted gray, offend the eye,
the nose and the very spirit of man. /(())
(From the Wall Street Journal, Jan. 7, 1972)
WASHINGTON -- The oil industry has drilled itself a loophole in the
clean water bill that Congress is due to pass early in its 1972 session.
Down this loophole, some pollution-fighters fear, could flow enough
contaminants to foul water and water-bearing rock in oil-producing
states for centuries to come.
Oil's loophole is tucked away near the end of the pending Federal
Water Pollution Control Act amendments in a harmless-sounding section
called "general definitions." The section resembles the fine print on an
insurance policy. Section 502(F) says that the term "pollutant," as
used in the bill, means "dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator
residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes" and
a lot of other dirty things. But it does not mean:
"+++ water, gas or other material which is injected into a well to
facilitate production of oil or gas or water derived in association with
oil ILLEGIBLE production and disposed of in a well, ILLEGIBLE the well
used either to facilitate production or for disposal purposes is
approved by authority of the state in which the well is located."
That's a lawyer's way of saying that while the federal government is
going to crack down on other industries, it will let oil producers
continue to dump all sorts of chemicals -- some of them harmful to
humans -- as well as very salty water into the ground. Only the states
we left to watch out for trouble, and by the oil industry's own
admission, some states watch less sharply than others.
When carefully done, even environmentalists agree, these oil
operations are safe. Careless done, they can poison, and have poisoned,
well water and the rock formations through which water creeps.
Democratic Rep. Les Aspin of Wisconsin urged the House Public Works
Committee to treat oil like other industries. "I don't want the charge
that (oil) process I think the process is right." Rep. Aspin told the
committee, "I just want to protect the groundwater in the process."
"You want to subject the oil and petroleum industry to regulation by
EPA," snapped Rep. Ray Roberts, a Texas Democrat. The EPA is the
Environmental Protection Agency, the federal government's antipollution
arm.
The Robers view prevailed. Just before the Christmas recess, the
committee, 31 of whose 37 members hail from oil states, okayed the bill,
loophole intact. The full House will take up the legislation soon, and
the loophole is expected to remain. The Senate passed a similar measure
in November, 86-to-0.
Oil's exemption was largely the work of another Texas Democrat, Sen.
Lloyd Bentsen, and of industry representatives, including officials of
the American Petroleum Institute. Ron Kaiz, Sen. Bentsen's pollution
specialist, defends the exemption largely on the ground that oil wells
are already regulated under state law, and oil industry spokesmen hammer
on the same point.
"The states exercise extremely close control over the thousands of
wells into which materials are injected," contends P. N. Gammelgard of
the petroleum institute. "These states feel they have things in hand."
He stresses that they require producers to get permits for injection
operations and that they deploy hundreds of field inspectors to watch
for trouble.
An EPA official says that behind the exemption for oil is "the
presumption that the states are doing a good job". But he concedes that
the exemption is a protection of existing practices in oil-producing
states" and "pehaps a little bit of weakenss."
Groundwater, the stuff that Rep. Aspin wants to protect, is the water
beneath the earth's surface that supplies wells and springs. There's
more water underground than on the surface in the U.S. and groundwater
is usually purer than surface water.
According to Jack Keeley, an EPA water expert, about 20% of the
nation is entirely dependent on groundwater. About a third of the 100
largest U.S. cities get all or part of their drinking water from wells.
Nine of 10 rural families drink groundwater. More than half the water
used for irrigation and livestock comes from underground. Industry
consumes more than seven billion gallons of groundwater a day.
Unlike surface water, groundwater once polluted stays polluted long
after the source of contamination has come under control. Mr. Keeley
told a Senate Public Works subcommittee. "The restoraton of a polluted
groundwater resource is very expensive, very lengthy and very
difficult," he said.
In its report on the antipollution bill, the Senate committee said
that polluted groundwater, because it lacks living organisms and flows
slowly, "could remain polluted for centuries."
The loophole in the bill exempts a number of oil operations from the
kind of federal-state supervision that other industries will face. In
drilling a well, for example, oil men lubricate the drill bit with
"muds," which can contain phosphates, caustic soda, formaldehyde and
other chemicals. Once a well is drilled, oil geologists explain, they
may pump hydrochloric acid down it to enlarge the little spaces in the
oil-bearing rock. Often, when a well appears to have stopped producing,
they'll force oil, gas, water or chemicals down to flush out more oil.
Finally, when a well is deemed dry, it may be used for disposal of
the brine that often comes up a well along with oil. Oil-field brine is
a lot saltier than sea water and may contain lithium, potassium,
bromine, sulphur and iodine in amounts that exceed acceptable levels for
drinking water.
Oil men used to get rid of brine by putting it in evaporation pits on
the surface. But according to Mr. Gammelgard, state officials saw long
ago that this was fouling lakes and streams. Many states then told oil
producers to put their brine wastes deep underground. Now, each day
some nine million gallons of brine are pumped into 40,000 wells.
These methods of producing oil and disposing of brine are recognized
as useful and legitimate. The EPA's Mr. Keeley told the subcommittee
that all other ways of getting rid of brine are "less satisfactory."
David Evans, a geologist at the Colorado School of Mines, recently wrote
that injecting brine back into the rock formation from which it came
helps kee the ground above from sinking.
Nevertheless, these operations risk polluting the groundwater,
environmentalists say. Brine, acid, chemicals and other things are
pumped down wells under great pressure to force them out intoi the rock
formations at the bottom. In most places, groundwater lies at a
shallower level than oil and is separated from it by layers of
impenetrable rock. Still, when an oil well is improperly constructed or
when the rubing gets rusty, pollutants can escape into the groundwater
on their way down to the deeper oil layers.
Because groundwater moves so slowly, it may be a long time before
pollution shows up in a water well -- 20 to 30 years, according to Jay
Lehr, executive director of the National Water Well Association.
Some oil men pooh-pooh the danger. Rep. Roberts of Texas told the
House committee that "there is no way" leaks could happen "in any of the
reasonable oil-producing states." Wilson Land, director of the Petroleum
Institute's committee on exploration, said that each of the nation's 33
oil-producing states regulates brine injection. But in some states, he
conceded, regulation "is probably not as stringent as in some of the
other states."
And accidents do occur. In a statement submitted to the Senate
subcommittee last year, the National Water Well Association said that
"instances of water pollution +++ have been reported in operations
involving injection of oil-field brines." EPA experts say brine has
polluted groundwater in Texas, Kansas, Arkansas, Ohio, California and
Oklahoma.
According to a U.S. Public Health Service study, about 10
brine-injection failures are reported to Kansas state authorities each
year. Ralph O'Connor, a geologist with the Kansas Board of Health, says
there have been "some instances" of groundwater pollution from brine
injection wells, usually cider wells that lack an inner rubing providing
extra safety.
Mr. Evans of the Colorado School of Mines reports that injected brine
has erupted from the ground "like geysers" in Michigan, Texas and
Kansas. And Frank Conselman, past president of the American Association
of Petroleum Geologists, while stressing that underground injection of
brine is safe if properly done, says the process can cause trouble if
precautions aren't taken to insure that the brine gets to its
destination. Monitoring is essential, he adds.
Despite these warnings, Congress' approach to the groundwater problem
has been ambiguous at best.
Acting on behalf of the Nixon administration, Republican Sen. John
Sherman Cooper of Kentucky introduced a bill that would have set up a
program of federal-state water quality standards for groundwater as well
as navigable waters. The Senate Public Works Committee rejected this
approach because "the jurisdiction regarding groundwaters is so complex
and varied from state to state."
Both the pending Senate and House clean wate bills establish a
federal-state system of permits for the discharge of pollutants "into
the navigable waters" but not into groundwater. In the next breath,
however, both bills say that the permits must "control the disposal of
pollutants in wells" -- to protect groundwater, according to the Senate
committee's report.
And elsewhere the legislation requires the EPA to prepare programs
for "eliminating pollution of navigable waters and grounswaters." It
requires states and localities by 1974 to develop areawide
waste-treatment management plans that control the "disposal of
pollutants on land or in subsurface excavations +++ to protect ground
and surface water quality."
The EPA is required to publish information on how health and welfare
are affected by "the presence of pollutants in any body of water,
including groundwater," and to issue information on how to control
pollution resulting from "the disposal of pollutants in wells or in
subsurface excavations."
This is bad news for chemical, steel, paper and other companies that
have a small but growing number of waste-injection wells. They'll have
to meet federal or federally approved standards. But the oil industry
won't have to. For oil, the saving word is "pollutants" -- defined as
not including the stuff oil producers put in the ground. /(())
A group of environmental-minded legislators in the U.S. House of
Representatives has mounted a campaign for a "clean water package" of
amendments to a water pollution bill written by the House Public Works
Committee.
The bill, much weaker in its present form than the water pollution
bill that cleared the Senate last fall, is tentatively scheduled for
House vote next Monday.
The environmentalists, who include U.S. Rep. Charles A. Vanik, D-22,
Cleveland, hope to bring it nearer to the Senate version with a package
of floor amendments. We hope other Ohio congressmen will join in the
effort.
The amendments seek to correct four major weaknesses in the House
bill.
One -- It abdicates to the states nearly all federal authority over
water ppollution control. Both Senate and House versions establish a
national pollution permit system to be operated by the states, but the
Senate bill allows the federal Environmental Protection Agency to veto a
permit issued by a state; the House bill does not, except in very
limited circumstances. This veto power should be retained to discourage
industries from "shopping around" for a state that is soft on pollution
control, and to encourage uniform standards around the nation.
Two -- It fudges on the target date for eliminating water pollution.
Each bill fixes 1981 as the year when all discharges must cease unless
it is technically impossible, in which case polluters are required to
use the best available technology to minimize pollution. The House
bill, though, adds two qualifiers; a two-year study by the National
Academy of Sciences, and what in effect is reenactment by a later
Congress of the 1981 requirements. The House "clean water package"
would go along with the study, bill eliminate the requirements for
reenactment. This requirement would only encourage polluters to
procrastinate in solving pollution problems in the hope that a later
Congress would eliminate the tough deadline.
Three -- Its language on the citizens' right to sue EPA or polluters
is vague and restrictive. It would bar suits by citizens who do not
live in the "geographic area" of the pollution, who do not have a direct
interest at stake and who have not been "actively engaged" in any
administrative procedures related to the pollution. This seems to be
designed to hit at environmental groups whose legal activities have
achieved much of the progress that has been attained in recent years in
environmental cleanup.
Four -- It weakens the National Environmental Policy Act by exempting
many federally licensed activities, such as the construction of power
plants, from its requirements (so does the Senate bill). This is the
act that requires environemtal impact statements from federal agencies.
It should not be weakened with exclusions.
Environmental groups are waging their first major battle since they
helped defeat the SST.
This time they have their eye on the water pollution bill reported
out of the House Public Works Committee. Environmentalists maintain the
House version is considerably weakened from the version passed 86.0 by
the Senate.
They hope to have the weaker bill strengthened when it comes up
before the full House, probably next week.
The Dingle-Reuss-Saylor Clean Water Package, sponsored by congressmen
whose names it bears, is what they are plugging. And rightfully so.
Probably the worst element in the doctored bill is its almost total
relianze on state water pollution agencies to control issuance of
permits to waste dischargers.
The sorry history of state control is strong evidence of the need for
a strong federal presence. The Government should have the right to veto
individual permist where necessary as in the Senate bill.
The Senate set goals of zero discharge of pollutants by 1985 and best
available treatment by 1981. The House version calls only for a study
-- not good enough for a country with such seriously threatened waters
as those of Lake Erie.
The limitation on citizens who may file waste pollution lawsuits in
the House Bill is wrong. Any person may sue under the Senate bill. And
properly so.
It's unfortunate, too, that the House proposes in effect to repeal
the 1899 Refuse Act which has proven to be the only potent tool against
industrial polluters.
The Dingle-Reuss-Saylor Clean Water Package would correct these and
other deficiencies in the legislation that will help govern this
nation's environmental future. It deserves and should get the support
of congressmen from Cleveland, from Ohio and from the rest of the U.S.
Why should the 1981 "best available" technology requirements for
industry and the 1985 goal of eliminating dischargess of pollutants into
the navigable waters be established in this legislatiion, rather than
requiring further Congressional action after the Section 315 study?
I. Astronomical cost estimates for the implementation of the 1981
best available technolgoy requirements of secction 301 are misleading in
light of the bill's specific requirement that State and Federal
officials take costs into account in setting control requirements. The
1985 date for the elimination of all discharges into the navigable
waters is not a rigid legislatively enforceable deadline, but rather a
target date for planning purposes.
Section 101 declares it a "national goal" that "the discharge of
pollutants into the navigable waters be eliminated by 1985." This is not
enforceable, bukt is a target to stimulate research and planning.
Section 301(b)(2) requires industries to eliminate their discharges
of pollutants by 1981, provided they can do it at a "reasonable cost."
If zero-discharge can't be achieved at a reasonable cost by a particular
industrial polluter, than that industry must use the "best available
demonstrated technology," which is to be determined "taking into account
the cost of such controls."
Section 304 lists the factors to be taken into consideration in
determining what is "best available" technology in 1981 as including
"the age of equipment +++ engineering aspects of the application of
various types of demonstrated control techniques +++ the cost +++
foreign competition +++ and such other factors as the Administrator
deems appropriate." Section 302's requirement that, by 1981, controls
for point sources provide for water of high enough quality for swimming
and fish propagation is qualified by a cost-benefit balancing
requirement. This section specifically provides that if the costs of
going to that level of control are greater than the benefits, then these
high water quality requirements do not go into effect.
Thus, even without the provisions of Section 315, the bill bends over
backwards to insure that any unreasonable costs are avoided. But
Section 315 then provides that none of these basic requirements take
effect unless Congress enacts them in new legislation, after a
feasibility study by the National Academy of Sciences and the National
Academy of Engineering.
The requirements are all reasonable ones -- each containing specific
provisions to fuard against exorbitant costs -- and they should be
established now, as in the Senate version.
II. The "zero discharge" provisions are aimed at stimulating
recycling, which will produce net benefits in the long run. Low cost
recycling techniques are available now which were ignored by the
administration in making their inflated estimates of cleanup costs.
Administration cost projections were based on traditional treatment
technolgoy which filters wastes out of the water by physical, chemical
and or biological means before dumping the partially cleansed wastewater
stream back into nthe lake or river. The aim of the policy of
elimination of discharges is not to promote finer and finer
technological filtering prior to dumpting (which, it is true, becomes
increasingly more expensive with the removal of each additional
percentage point of waste), but rather to stimulate entirely new ways of
looking at the waste disposal problem, so that wastes and wastewater can
be reused and recycled where possible rather than simply discarded. The
goal of eliminating discharges is, in other words, intended to spark a
search for, and the implementation of, ecologically sound waste disposal
methodology.
Recycling waste control methods -- methods that the Administration
and other critics of the "zero discharge" policy ignored in making their
cost protections -- are already available. One alternative is spraying
wastewater on the land; the wastewater is purified by the soil
(typically to drinking water quality) before it ILLEGIBLE the
groundwater. A recently-completed survey of land disposal methodology
contains detailed descriptions of 27 of these systems in this country
alone (Green Land -- Clean Streams, The Beneficial Use of Waste Water
Through Land Treatment, Temple University, 1971). Many of these systems
have been operating for twenty years or more. The land disposal systems
reviewed are, in general, much more cost-effective than the conventional
treatment systems the Administration and other critics had in mind in
making their protections of exorbitant costs. Note alsos that, unlike
conventional treatment, a land treatment project can provide benefits to
offset the costs. The land treatment system in Muskegon County,
Michigan, for example, will fertilize the land and provide new crops and
new jobs. The phosphates in detergents (a fertilizer) become a blessing
instead of a curse. It is planned that an electric power plant will
locate on the waste water lagoon. The thermal discharges improve the
biological treatment process while the power company saves the cost of
colling towers.
Another waste control method which avoids the heavy costs of
inccreased percentage removal prior to dumping is the closed cycle
system, in which "waste" products are reclaimed from the wastewater
stream, which is then reused. Because the products retrived from the
stream are often valuable, this kind of system has achieved cost savings
for a number of companies. Dow Chemical expects to make a point from it
(Business Week, January 1, 1972). Closed cycle systems are becoming
available to most industries in this country (Hearings of Senate
Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, March 1971), Part I: Lacey and
Cvwin and George, "Industrial Water Reuse: Future Pollution Solution."
Environmental Science and Technology. Vol. V, 1971).
Another system which uses wastes for constructive purposes is
controlled aquaculture, using "waste" nutrients to support underwater
farming, with "crops" and "livestock," under confined and controlled
conditions. /(())
All of these systems avoid the problem of exponentially increasing
costs with higher percentage removal.
The point is not that one or more of these control methods which can
provide "zero discharge" is currently available "at a reasonable cost"
(in the language of the House and Senate bills) to use in every single
situation, though they may be The point is rather that we need to being
to apply these methods and improve upon them where they are available at
a reasonable cost and to begin looking hard for new ones.
III. By not establishing the post-1976 requirements of the Senate
bill, the House committee version perpetuates indefinitely the existing
water quality standards approach to water pollution control, under which
streams are given different usse classifications which are then supposed
to be reflected in the amount of pollution that is permitted.
Numerical standards are, in many cases arbitrary (since we don't know
enough about our complex ecosystem), deal with only a few of the many
pollutants and combinations of pollutants, and do not provide for
sufficient protection of our sensitive estuarine areas. In addition,
relating a given level of water quality to the specific discharge levels
needed to attain it is difficult; where it can be done, it places a
tremendous technical burden on the government to make these complicated
computations before imposing control requirements, a burden the
government has not been capable of meeting.
IV. Establishing 1981 and 1985 requirements and goals now, as the
Senate bill does, will save money by stimulating rational long-run
planning: Postponing a decision, as the House version does, will waste
money. Polluters will be encourage to install minimal treatment
equipment now which would not be compatible with future recycling
systems that will become mandatory sooner or later.
Up to now, polluters have tightened their controls on pollution
increment by increment, not anticipating even more stringent controls
that growth in our population's industrial capacity would necessitate
further down the road. Each incremental improvement (e.g. installing a
device that will strain out an additional percentage point of waste) may
look like the cheapest way to meet the control requirement of the
moment. When the cost of a series of these short-run incremental
improvements is added together, however, it begins to add up to a great
deal more money than would have been spent had the polluter shifted over
to a better methodology (e.g., recycling) to begin with. If we push
polluters along that incremental path to cleanup, they will not only
have to bear the heavy cost of straining fine and finer particles out of
their wastewater, but also will have to bear the wasteful cost of
eventually scrapping their expensive old-technology treatment facilities
anyway. Telling polluters to shift to recycling ("zero discharge")
systems when they can make the shift at a reasonable cost is aimed at
avoiding these excessive costs that will otherwise occur.
Thus by postponing a decision to go ahead with tougher controls until
after the NAS study, the Hoiuse committee is increasing the costs of
eventually cleaning up (since polluters will be encouraged to install
minimal treatment equipment now which they will have to get rid of later
on when higher control requirements are imposed). Similarly, research
by polluting companies and by the "pollution control industry" which
could reduce the costs of "zero discharge" waste handling methodology
will not really begin to take place in earnest until the requirement to
eventually shift to "zero discharge" making the decision, as the House
committee version does, we will forego sayings which research and
planning for the future could otherwise produce. Industry needs to know
what will be expected of them later on, to avoid making wasteful
expenditures.
Note that immediate establishment of the 1981 and 1985 requirements
and goals would make many industries see that it is in their advantage
to join togehter with municipalities in regional treatment systems. On
the other hand, if industries face only low control requirements and can
see no higher ones on the horizon, may of them will think they can
handle their wastes more cheaply by themselves, thus forcing our
municipalities to operate alone in these regional systems and
sacrificing savings that can come with larger scale operation. Thus by
relaxing controls on industry, the House committee version forces higher
cost on municipalities.
V. Postponing the establishment of the Senate bill's goals and
requirements also biases the NAS study itself in the wrong direction.
The cleanup costs the study projects will be higher because of our
indecision. We should give the environment a fair chance to come out on
top by deciding now and letting the results of the study alter our
course later if need be.
VI. The burden of proof should not be on the public to prove that
eliminating pollution is feasible: the burden should be on the
polluters to prove why they should not have to install the most
pollution-free systems.
The public should not have the burden of proving that the polluters
can afford to clean up before making them do it. The polluters shoiuld
have to make their own case, since it is they who have all the data
(about their cleanup costs, for example) under lock and key. We should
start with the presumption that polluters must eliminate their pollution
and place the burden on them to demonstrate that the social and economic
costs are so great that the requirements should be temporarily relaxed.
Setting high cleanup requirements noiw rather than later, as the
Senate bill does, would help force heretofore tightly-guarded cost
information out into the open, by placing the burden of producing it on
those who have it -- the polluters. By waiting to give the go-ahead
until after a National Academy of Science study of the costs involved,
the House committee bill would, on the other hand, give the public, in
effect, the burden of proving that we can afford cleanup before we
require it. Under this approach, industries will have the same
incentive they have always had to exaggerate the costs of cleanup and
keep information which might show that waste handling can be
accomplished at lower costs concealed.
If we really want our NAS NAE study to produce accurate information
about the costs of cleanup, we should establish the requirements and
goals now. Congress will respond if the study shows there is any need
for change.
When Senate bill S. 2770 came to a vote last Nov. 2, it roared
through on a rollcall vote of 86-to-0. Such Senatorial unanimity is
usally reserved for nonbinding resolutions in support of motherhood, and
the casual observer might well have thought that S. 2770 was an
innocuous piece of legislation. He would have been dead wrong. S.
2770, the Federal Water Polution Control Act, now stands as the
toughest, most controversial environmental legislation. It states
unequivocally that no one has the right to pollute, and establishes a
right timetable to achieve an ambitious goal; the total elimination of
all effluent discharges into the nation's waterways by 1985.
This month, as the legislative action shifts to the House floor, a
belated fight has erupted, focusing on the 1985 goal, popularly known as
"zero discharge." Arrayed against the bill are the Nixon Administration,
some economists, and virtually all business groups. Supporting the bill
are the environmentalists and, as the Senate vote indicates, large
sectors of the public. And since the bill's principal author happens to
be Senator Edmud Muskie, the issue is smack in the middle of
election-year politics.
The critical barrage, like a high-powered fusilade, is well under
way. New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller calls zero discharge "totally
impossible." Allied Chemical Chairman John T. Connor says "the Muskie
bill +++ raises hopes on which it can't possibly deliver." Paul
McCracken, recently departed head of the Council of Economic Advisers,
warns that the benefits of zero discharge are not worth the
multibillion-dollar costs. And Willard Rockwell, chairman of North
American Rockwell, recently proclaimed is "enough to shake the economic
foundations of this country."
Industry groups, too, have weighed in with dire predictions. The
American Paper Institute says that zero discharge would cause plant
closings, create unemployment, and drive paper prices up by 50%. The
American Iron & Steel Institute estimates that zero discharge would add
$1-billion to the industry's $3.5-billion cleanup bill over the next few
years. And the chemical industry figures it would cost $25-billion in
capital equipment by 1985, plus $10-billion a year for operating
expenses.
But judging from the language and intent of the Senate bill, much of
this gloomy outlook seems unwarranted. Though the legislation is ineed
tough, it sets zero discharge as a goal, not a legal requirement. And
every step toward achieving that goal is clearly circumscribed by cost
considerations.
The bill has two stages. During its first phase ending in 1976, all
companies must apply the "best practicable" technolgoy to control water
pollution. In its second phase companies must achieve zero discharge by
1981 unless they can show it cannot be done at "reasonable cost." In
that case, they must employ the "best available" technology. The aim:
to achieve water clean enough for swimming and fish propagation by 1981
and to eliminate all effluents by 1985.
But the language of the bill is careful not to eliminate affluence
along with effluents. The phrases "best practicable" and "best
available" are defined to consider the ages of the plants, their sizes,
their processes, and the cost of controls -- thereby ruling out
ruinously expensive techniques. Furthermore, the bill requires the
Environmental Protection Agency to study the cost and feasibility of
zero discharge. If the costs outweigh the benefits, Congress is charged
with making a "midcourse correction" by 1976, eliminating zero discharge
as a national goal altogether.
So why the fuss? Why is industry so adamantly opposed to a bill that
safeguards its economic interests? With all those constraints, why did
the Senate bother postulating the zero discharge goal? The answers lie
in the bill's shift away from the philosophy embodied in the last major
water pollution law, enacted in 1965. Under that law, each state is
allowed to determine how it wants its rivers and lakes used. Some
waterways might be zoned for industrial use, others for swimming. The
dtates next set water-quality standards consistent with the intended
uses, then translate these standards into specific effluent limits for
all polluters. The effluent limits would vary from stream to stream,
depending on its intended use, it assimilative capacity, the nature of
the pollutant and a host of other factors. No company would have to go
to zero /(()) discharge unless that were necessary to achieve the
desired water-quality standard.
In theory, the water-quality approach is sensible. It focuses not on
means but on ends; the cleanliness of a river or lake. And by linking
cause (effluent) to effect (water quality), it directly relates
abatement costs to benefits. But in practice, as experience with the
1965 act shows, the scheme is hard to implement. It is ecologically
difficult to link water-quality standards to scores of discharges, and
even more difficult to sustain such tenuous links in court. After six
years, many state still have not set water-quality standards, while
others are still struggling to establish complex relationships between
opllutants and water use.
Faced with these difficulties, the Senate Committee on Public Works
decided to shift from water-quality standards to direct effluent limits,
with the ultimate goal of zero discharge. That was a radical change,
for it ended the longstanding policy assumption that one legitimate use
of water ways is to asssimilate waste. Thou shalt not pollute became
the committee's commandment, constrained only by the availability of
suitable control technology. It is this basic shift that both the
Administration and industry oppose.
To apply the system of effluent limits, the bill requires all
polluters to apply for a discharge permit from the EPA. In the second
phase, for example, every company would have to show in its permit
application that it could not achieve zero discharge at reasonable cost.
Thus, the system shifts the burden of proof from the regulator to the
polluter, which will probably case the enforcement task.
The committee also decided that strict effluent limits were needed to
spur the development of recycling technology. With water-quality
standards, the traditional approach has been "treat and dump" -- treat
the wastes partially and dump the rest. In the long run, this is
ecologically unsound, for what is dumped eventually causes pollution
somewhere. Says a committee staffer, "What we want is 14 years of R&D
based on the assumption that closed-cycle systems are the norm, not
waste discharge."
The Administration, however, does not want a complete shift to
effluent limits. It argues that pollution legislation should balance
costs against benefits and not impose an arbitrary goal of zero
discharge on every stream. It is economically wasteful, the
Administration believes, to make the Houston Ship Channel clean enough
for swimming. Implicit in this reasining is the very assumption the
Senate rejected; that waste disposal is a desirable, use of at least
some waterways. Conceding that progress under the 1965 act has been
slow, the Administration nonetheless believes the water-quality approach
has worked on some waterways and can work elsewhere.
Like industry, the Administration fears the high cost of strict
effluent limits. Russell Train, head of the Council on Environmental
Quality, points out that cleanup costs rise exponentially with the
degree of cleanliness sought. "The last ILLEGIBLE of treatment costs as
much as the first 99%" he says. Preliminary CEQ data estimate the
current water program, aimed at reducing pollution by about 85%, would
eventually cost $60.8 billion. To achieve a 95% to 99% reduction would
nearly douhble the tab to $118-billion. And to go that last effortful
step to zero discharge woulid escalate the cost incredibly to
$16-billion or some $21 billion a year between now and 1985.
Senator Muskie conters that these estimates, admittedly based on
scanty data, are meaningless. "To apply a price tage to a 100%
elimination of pollution can serve no purpose other than to frighten the
people and intimidate the Congress," he said angrily on the Senate
floor. If the costs prove too high, Muskie emphasizes, the goal will be
abandoned. But he insists that the nation mut move in the direction of
zero discharge.
While no one knows precisely what zero discharge would eventually
cost, there are signs that the price tage will not be as high as some
fear. Several companies, including Dow Chemical and Hercules, are
already operating plants that have achieved zero discharge through
recycling. And General Motors plans to conver a Chevrolet assembly
plant on the Hudson River to complete recycling os waste water. Since
no one has compelled these companies to eliminate pollution, the costs
are obviously not prohibitive. Indeed, as Dow has found (by -- Jan. 1),
it is often cheaper to recycle wastes than to build expensive treatment
facilities. With recycling, the waste water need not be purged of all
pollutants; it need only be treated to a quality sufficient for the
plant's own manufacturing use. The EPA, despite its objections to the
Muskie bill, states that the technology for closed-loop recycling seems
within reach for many industries.
The toughest problems of all will confront municipalities. Under the
bill's first phase, they are required to have secondary treatment plants
under way by 1974. Then they face the same second-phase requirements as
industry. But strapped for funds and unable to recoup costs through
higher product prices, cities must rely on federal subsidy. The Senate
bill authorizes $14-billion over four years, but even if the entire sum
were budgeted, it would still fall far short of the cities' needs.
One hope is a land disposal system soon to be built in Muskegon
County, Mich. Municipal waste -- and some industrial effluent, too --
will be routed through relatively simple treatment, stored in holding
lagoons, then sprayed on 10,000 acres of nearby farmland. Ecologists
have long favored land disposal, for it returns valuable nutrients to
the soil, replenishes ground water tables, and minimizes the amount of
sludge dumped from treatment plans. Perhaps more important, the costs
look reasonable. The Muskegon system as contracted for $34-million for
a conventional system of smaller size now under construction in suburban
Chicago.
Can land disposal be applied in large metropolitan areas? Dr. John
Sheaffer, who helped design the Muskegon system and is now a consultant
to the Corps of Engineers, says, yes, based on studies of San Francisco,
Chicago, Boston, Detroit, and Cleveland. The EPA is more skeptical,
estimating that versions of the Muskegon system adpated nationally to
really large cities would require 77 million acres, assuming the land
could be found. But Sheaffer says that is only 1% of total farmland.
"Everywhere we looked for available land, we found it," he says.
As matters now stand, the House will vote on its version of the
zero-discharge bill this month. The House bill also includes the shift
to effluent limits and the zero discharge goal. But it calls on the
National Academy of Sciences to prepare a detailed cost study in 1974,
then requires new legilsation to implement the second phase. The House
bill also gives more enforcement power to the states at the expense of
the EPA, but ups the municipal ante to $20-billion. Environmentalists
are hoping to strike the new legilsation requirement, the Administration
is fighting to preserve some form of water quality standards. The
likely outcome. Both effluent limits and the zero discharge goal will
remain but the new legislation requirement may have to be resolved in a
House-Senate conference.
Ultimately zero discharge or anything close to it may end up costing
more than the nation is willing or able to pay. In that case, both
bills provide for a policy shift. For now, though, the goal will spur
both industry and municipalities in the direction they must go if the
nation is to purge pollution from its waterways.
Hon. DAVID E. ILLEGIBLE III,
Congress of the United States,
House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR DAVE: The Virginia State Water Control Board has actively
followed the proposed water pollution legilsation, and I have been kept
advised of the progress of both H.R. 11896 and S. 2770. Virginia
supports the concept of this ambitious legislation.
I would like to pass on to you the consensus of the State Water
Control Board as to this legislation:
"Specifically, we think that the requirements of "best available
technology" as passed by the Senate should be established in the
legislation now. Postponing the establishment of this goal will result
in continued confusion and groping for a national policy.
"It is likewise imperative that contract authorization be provided
for the municipal grant program of Title II. Unless state and local
governments are assured that matching funds will be available, pollution
abatement efforts will be seriously impaired. The $20 billion
authorized in H.R. 11896 should be retained. The proposed House
authorization is much more realistic than the smaller authorization in
the Senate legislation.
"Finally, a strong permit program is absolutely essential to the
fulfillment of the goals of this legislation. Virginia has an effective
permit program, but has no objection to the empowering EPA to review
selected permits. A review procedure seems preferable to EPA's being
required to revoke an entire state permit program."
If you have any questions on these or other aspects of the bill, I
suggest that you contact Mr. Norman Cole, Chairman, State Water Control
Board, 5917 River Drive, Lorton, Virginia 22079; Mr. Andrew W.
McThenia, Jr., State Water Control Board, 604 Marshall Street,
Lexington, Virginia 24450; Mr. Gerald L. McCarthy, Governor's Council
on the Environment, Eighth Street Office Building, Richmond, Virginia
23219.
Best wishes,
Cordially,
Hon. JOHN A. BLATNIK,
Chairman, Committee on Public Works House
of Representatives Washington D.C.
DEAR SIR: Your proposed "Federal Water Pollution Control Amendment
of 1971", H.R. 11896, represents a major step towards restoring the
integrity of the nation's water. I, as Commissioner of the Department
of Environmental Protection for the State of Connecticut, strongly
support the concept of nationwide effluent standards as the most
effective and equitable means for abating water pollution. Yet I am
concerned over the lack of a veto provision of specific state permits at
the Federal level.
Failure to include the veto provision not only weakens the Federal
bill, it undermines our program. While still a beginning, it is, I
believe, among the best in the country. The State of Connecticut now
requires municipalities and industry to install the best feasible
control technology. We fully expect to further define and tighten our
requirements wherever appropriate in the future. But as we press
forward, we are somtimes told that if we require additional effort,
polluters will move their operations to areas or where environmental
laws are nonexistent or not enforced. Citizens in our state -- and
/(()) all citizens -- deserve an assurance that an industry seeking to
abdicate its environmental responsibilities by moving elsewhere will
find no havens of lax enforcement anywhere in this country.
............................................... Millions
........... Blue Plains, D.C. - - - - - - - - - $62.0
........... Niagara Falls, N.Y. - - - - - - - - 55.0
........... St. Louis, Mo - - - - - - - - - - - 11.0
........... Kansas City, Mo - - - - - - - - - - 21.0
........... Seattle, Wash - - - - - - - - - - - . 9.5
........... Honolulu - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . 8.5
.............. Total - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 167.0
......................... Millions
Blue Plains, D.C ......... $62.0
Niagara Falls, N.Y ........ 55.0
St. Louis, Mo ............. 11.0
Kansas City, Mo ........... 21.0
Seattle, Wash ............. 9.5
Honolulu .................. 8.5
... Total ............... 167.0