THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
©imp
Statutes and Legislative History
Executive Orders
Regulations
Guidelines and Reports
I
55
UJ
CD
-------
-------
THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Statutes and Legislative History
Executive Orders
Regulations
Guidelines and Reports
JANUARY 1973
WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS
Administrator
-------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402 • Price $27.25 per 7-part set. Sold in sets only.
Stock Number 5500-0068
-------
FOREWORD
It has been said that America is like a gigantic boiler in that once
the fire is lighted, there are no limits to the power it can generate.
Environmentally, the fire has been lit.
With a mandate from the President and an aroused public concern-
ing the environment, we are experiencing a new American Revolu-
tion, a revolution in our way of life. The era which began with the
industrial revolution is over and things will never be quite the same
again. We are moving slowly, perhaps even grudgingly at times, but
inexorably into an age when social, spiritual and aesthetic values
will be prized more than production and consumption. We have
reached a point where we must balance civilization and nature
through our technology.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, formed by Reorganiza-
tion Plan No. 3 of 1970, was a major commitment to this new ethic.
It exists and acts in the public's name to ensure that due regard is
given to the environmental consequences of actions by public and
private institutions.
In a large measure, this is a regulatory role, one that encompasses
basic, applied, and effects research; setting and enforcing standards;
monitoring; and making delicate risks—benefit decisions aimed at
creating the kind of world the public desires.
The Agency was not created to harass industry or to act as a shield
behind which man could wreak havoc on nature. The greatest dis-
service the Environmental Protection Agency could do to American
industry is to be a poor regulator. The environment would suf-
fer, public trust would diminish and instead of free enterprise,
environmental anarchy would result.
It was once sufficient that the regulatory process produce wise and
well-founded courses of action. The public, largely indifferent to
regulatory activities, accepted agency actions as baing for the "public
convenience and necessity." Credibility gaps and cynicism make it
essential not only that today's decisions be wise and well-founded
but that the public know this to be true. Certitude, not faith, is
de rigueur.
In order to participate intelligently in regulatory proceedings, the
citizen should have access to the information available to the agency.
EPA's policy is to make the fullest possible disclosure of information,
iii
-------
iv FOREWORD
without unjustifiable expense or delay, to any interested party. With
this in mind, the EPA Compilation of Legal Authority was produced
not only for internal operations of EPA, but as a service to the public,
as we strive together to lead the way, through the law, to preserving
the earth as a place both habitable by and hospitable to man.
WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS,
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
PREFACE
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 transferred 15 governmental units
with their functions and legal authority to create the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Since only the major laws were cited
in the Plan, the Administrator, William D. Ruckelshaus, requested
that a compilation of EPA legal authority be researched and published.
The publication has the primary function of providing a working
document for the Agency itself. Secondarily, it will serve as a re-
search tool for the public.
A permanent office in the Office of Legislation has bsen established
to keep the publication updated by supplements.
It is the hope of EPA that this set will assist in the awesome task
of developing a better environment.
LANE WARD, J.D.,
Assistant Director /or Field Operations
Office of Legislation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The idea of producing a compilation of the legal authority of EPA
was conceived and commissioned by William D. Ruckelshaus, Admin-
istrator of EPA. The production of this compilation involved the
cooperation and effort of numerous sources, both within and outside
the Agency. The departmental libraries at Justice and Interior were
used extensively; therefore we express our appreciation to Marvin
P. Hogan, Librarian, Department of Justice; Arley E. Long, Land &
Natural Resources Division Librarian, Department of Justice; Fred-
eric E. Murray, Assistant Director, Library Services, Department of
the Interior.
For exceptional assistance and cooperation, my gratitude to: Gary
Baise, formerly Assistant to the Administrator, currently, Director,
Office of Legislation, who first began with me on this project; A. James
Barnes, Assistant to the Administrator; K. Kirke Harper, Jr., Special
Assistant for Executive Communications; John Dezzutti, Administra-
tive Assistant, Office of Executive Communications; Roland O. Soren-
sen, Chief, Printing Management Branch, and Jacqueline Gouge and
Thomas Green, Printing Management Staff; Ruth Simpkins, Janis
Collier, Wm. Lee Rawls, James G. Chandler, Jeffrey D. Light, Randy
Mott, Thomas H. Rawls, and John D. Whittaker, Peter J. McKenna,
Linda L. Payne, John M. Himmelberg, and Dana W. Smith, a beauti-
ful staff who gave unlimited effort; and to many others, behind the
scenes who rendered varied assistance.
LANE WARD, J.D.,
Assistant Director for Field Operations
Office of Legislation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
VI
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
The goal of this text is to create a useful compilation of the legal
authority under which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
operates. These documents are for the general uss of personnel of
the EPA in assisting them in attaining the purposes set out by the
President in creating the Agency. This work is not intended and
should not be used for legal citations or any use other than as ref-
erence of a general nature. The author disclaims all responsibility
for liabilities growing out of the use of these matsrials contrary to
their intended purpose. Moreover, it should be noted that portions
of the Congressional Record from the 92nd Congress were extracted
from the "unofficial" daily version and are subject to subsequent
modification.
EPA Legal Compilation consists of the Statutes with their legisla-
tive history, Executive Orders, Regulations, Guidelines and Reports.
To facilitate the usefulness of this composite, the Legal Compilation
is divided into the eight following chapters:
A. General E. Pesticides
B. Air F. Radiation
C. Water G. Noise
D. Solid Waste H. International
WATER
The chapter labeled "Water" and color coded blue contains the
legal authority of the Agency as it applies to water pollution abate-
ment. It is well to note that any law which is applicable to more than
one chapter of the compilation will appear in each of the chapters;
however, its legislative history will be cross referenced into the
"General" chapter where it is printed in full.
SUBCHAPTERS:
Statutes and Legislative History
For convenience, the Statutes are listed throughout the Compila-
tion by a one-point system, i.e., 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc., and Legislative His-
tory begins wherever a letter follows the one-point system.
Vll
-------
viii INSTRUCTIONS
Thtisly, any l.la, Lib, 1.2a, etc., denotes the public laws comprising
the 1.1, 1.2 statute. Each public law is followed by its legislative his-
tory. The legislative history in each case consists of the House Report,
Senate Report, Conference Report (where applicable), the Con-
gressional Record beginning with the time the bill was reported from
committee.
Example: 1.4 Amortization of Pollution Control Facilities, as
amended, 26 U.S.C. §169 (1969).
1.4a Amortization of Pollution Control Facilities,
December 30, 1969, P.L. 91-172, §704, 83 Stat.
667.
(1) House Committee on Ways and Means,
H.R. REP. No. 91-413 (Part I), 91st
Cong., 1st Sess. (1969).
(2) House Committee on Ways and Means,
H.R. REP. No. 91-413 (Part II), 91st
Cong., 1st Sess. (1969).
(3) Senate Committee on Finance, S. REP.
No. 91-552, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969).
(4) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP, No.
91-782, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969),
(5) Congressional Record, Vol. 115 (1969):
(a) Aug. 7: Debated and passed House,
pp. 22746, 22774-22775;
(b) Nov. 24, Dec. 5, 8, 9: Debated and
passed Senate, pp. 35486, 37321-
37322, 37631-37633, 37884-37888;
(c) Dec. 22: Senate agrees to conference
report, p. 40718;*
(d) Dec. 22: House debates and agrees
to conference report, pp. 40820,
40900.
This example not only demonstrates the pattern followed for legisla-
tive history, but indicates the procedure where only one ssction of a
public law appears. You will note that the Congressional Record
cited pages are only those pages dealing with the discussion and/or
action taken pertinent to the section of law applicable to EPA. In the
event there is no discussion of the pertinent section, only action or
passage, then the asterisk (*) is used to so indicate, and no text is
reprinted in the Compilation. In regard to the situation where only
one section of a public law is applicable, then only the parts of the
report dealing with same are printed in the Compilation.
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
IX
Secondary Statutes
Many statutes make reference to other laws and rather than have
this manual serve only for major statutes, these secondary statutes
have been included where practical. These secondary statutes are
indicated in the table of contents to each chapter by a bracketed cite
to the particular section of the major act which made the reference.
Citations
The United States Code, being the official citation, is used through-
out the Statute section of the compilation. In four Statutes, a parallel
table to the Statutes at Large is provided for your convenience.
TABLE OF STATUTORY SOURCE
STATUTES SOURCE
1.1 River and Harbor Act of 1899, 33
U.S.C. §§403, 407, 411 (1899).
1.2 Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. §1151
et seq. (1970).
1.3 Pollution of the Sea by Oil, as
amended, 33 U.S.C. §1001 et seq.
(1966).
1.4 Advances of Public Moneys, Pro-
hibition Against, as revised, 31
U.S.C. §529 (1946).
1.5 Public Contracts, Advertisements
for Proposals for Purchases and
Contracts for Supplies or Services
for Government Departments; App
Application to Government Sales
and Contracts to Sell and to Gov-
ernment Corporations, as amended,
41 U.S.C. §5 (1958).
1.6 Courts of Appeals, Certiorari;
Appeal; Certified Questions, as
amended, 28 U.S.C. §1254 (1948).
1.7 Davis-Bacon Act, as amended, 40
U.S.C. §276a-275a-5 (1964).
1.8 Per Diem, Travel and Transporta-
tion Expenses; Experts and
Consultants; Individuals Serving
Without Pay, as amended, 5 U.S.C.
§5703 (1966).
1.9 1909 Boundry Waters Treaty Be-
tween Canada and the United
States, and the Water Utilization
Treaty of 1944 Between Mexico and
the United States, 36 Stat. 2448
(1909), 59 Stat. 1219 (1944).
E.O. 11574 sets out EPA's function under
this Act.
Transferred to EPA in Reorg. Plan No. 3
of 1970.
Implements the Convention of
Referred to in the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act at §1155(g) (3) (A).
Referred to in Federal Water Pollution
Control Act in §1155(g) (3) (A).
Referred to in the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act at §1157 (g) (2).
Referred to in the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act at §1158(g).
Referred to in the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act at §1159(a) (2) (B),
1160 (c) (4), (i).
Referred to in the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act at §1160 (d) (2).
-------
X
INSTRUCTIONS
STATUTES
SOURCE
1.10 Disclosure of Confidential Infor-
mation Generally, as amended, 18
U.S.C. §1905 (1948).
1.11 Convention on the Territorial Sea
and the Contiguous Zone, Article
XXIV, 5 U.S.T. 1612, 1613 (1958).
1.12 International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution of the Sea
by Oil, 1954, Article IV, as
amended, 17 U.S.T. 1528 (1954).
1.13 Granting Clearances, as amended,
46 U.S.C. §91 (1951).
1.14 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act,
as amended, 43 U.S.C. §1331 et seq.
(1953).
1.15 Administrative Procedure Act, as
amended, 5 U.S.C. §§551-559, 701-
705 (1968).
1.16 Higher Education General Provi-
sion, Definitions, as amended, 20
U.S.C. §1141 (1970).
1.17 National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969, 42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.
(1970).
1.18 Public Health Service Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. §§241, 243, 246
(1970).
1.19 The Water Resource Planning Act,
as amended, 42 U.S.C. §1962 et seq.
(1970).
1.20 Appalachian Regional Develop-
ment Act of 1965, as amended, 40
App. U.S.C. §§212, 214 (1971).
1.21 The Disaster Relief Act, 42 U.S.C.
§4401 et seq. (1970).
1.22 Department of Transportation Act,
49 U.S.C. §1653 (f) (1968).
Referred to in the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act at §§1160 (f) (2), (k),
(1), 1163 (g) (3).
Referred to in the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act at §1161 (a) (9).
Referred to in the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act at §1161 (b) (2) (A).
Referred to in the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act at §1161 (b) (5).
Referred to in the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act at §1161(1) (2).
Referred to in the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act at §§1162 (b), 1163 (e).
Referred to in the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act at §1169(1) (B).
Direct reference in the Reorg. Plan No. 3
of 1970.
Directly cited in Reorg. Plan No. 3 of
1970.
E.G. 11613.
AH functions of the Secretary of the
Interior and the Department of the Inte-
rior administrative to the Federal Water
Quality Administration, all functions
which were transferred to the Secretary
of the Interior by Reorg. Plan No. 2 of
1966, and all functions vested in the Sec-
retary of the Interior of the Department
of the Interior by the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act were transferred to
the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency by Reorg. Plan No. 3
of 1970.
Direct reference made to the Water
Quality Administration at the Depart-
ment of the Interior by E.G. 11490,
§§703(3), 1102(1), 1103(2), etc., this
administration being transferred to EPA
through Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1970.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act
in section 1153 regarding the preserva-
tion of fish and wildlife.
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
XI
STATUTES
SOURCE
1.23 Federal Aid Highway Act, as
amended, 23 U.S.C. §109 (h) (1970).
1.24 Amortization of Pollution Control
Facilities, as amended, 26 U.S.C.
§169(d)(l)(B), (3) (1969).
1.25 Airport and Airway Development
Act, 49 U.S.C. §§1712(f), 1716(c) (4),
(e) (1970).
1.26 Interest on Certain Government
Obligations, as amended, 26 U.S.C.
§103 (1969).
1.27 Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. §§661-
666c (1965).
The Act at §109 (h) requires the Secre-
tary of Transportation to consult with
the appropriate agency dealing with
water pollution, in this case, the Admin-
istrator of EPA, before promulgating
guidelines for any proposed project on
any federal aid system.
The section cited in the Act refers di-
rectly to the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act and the Federal certifying
authority requirement filing to the Sec-
retary of the Interior in the case of
water pollution, both functions being
transferred through Reorg. Plan
Direct reference made to water pollution
and the appropriate agency to deal with
same in the Act.
The sections of the Act provide a tax re-
lief on industrial development bonds for
sewage or solid waste disposal facility
and water pollution control facilities, at
the section cited.
E.O. 11574, Administration of Refuse Act
Permit Program.
Executive Orders
The Executive Orders are listed by a two-point system (2.1, 2.2,
etc.). Executive Orders found in General are ones applying to more
than one area of the pollution chapters.
Regulations
The Regulations are noted by a three-point system (3.1, 3.2, 'etc.).
Included in the Regulations are those not only promulgated by the
Environmental Protection Agency, but those under which the Agency
has direct contact.
Guidelines and Reports
This subchapter is noted by a four-point system (4.1, 4.2, etc.). In
this subchapter is found the statutorily required reports of EPA, pub-
lished guidelines of EPA, selected reports other than EPA's and
inter-departmental agreements of note.
UPDATING:
Periodically, a supplement will be sent to the interagency distribu-
tion and made available through the U.S. Government Printing Office
in order to provide an accurate working set of EPA Legal Compilation.
-------
-------
CONTENTS
C. WATER
VOLUME I
1. STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Page
1.1 River and Harbor Act of 1899, U.S.C. §§403, 407, 411
(1899) .... . 3
l.la River and Harbor Act of 1886, August 5,1886, P.L. 49-929,
§§2, 3, 24 Stat. 329. . 6
(1) House Committee on Rivers and Harbors, H.R. REP.
'No. 1448, 49th Cong., 1st Sess. (1886). 7
(2) House Committee on Rivers and Harbors, H.R. REP.
No. 1565, 49th Cong., 1st Sess. (1886). 8
(3) Senate Committee on Commerce, S. REP. No. 1391,
49th Cong., 1st Sess. (1886). 9
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 17 (1886):
(a) May 6: Amended and passed House, pp.
4243-4247; . 9
(b) July 16: Amended and passed Senate, pp. 7035,
7037; 14
(c) Aug. 3: Conference report agreed to by Senate,
p. 7906; 15
(d) Aug. 3: Conference report agreed to by House,
p. 7934. 15
Lib New York Harbor Act of 1888, June 29, 1888, P.L. 50-469,
§1, 25 Stat. 209. 15
(1) Senate Committee on Commerce, S. REP. No. 224,
50th Cong., 1st Sess. (1888). 16
(2) House Committee on Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 1963,
50th Cong., 1st Sess. (1888). 16
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 19 (1888):
(a) March 21: Debated, amended and passed Senate,
p. 2300; 16
(b) June 4: Debated, amended and passed House,
pp. 4889-4890; 17
(c) June 14: Senate concurs in House amendments,
p. 5239. 19
l.lc River and Harbor Act of 1890, September 19, 1890, P.L.
51-907, §6 26, Stat. 453. 19
(1) House Committee on Rivers and Harbors, H.R. REP.
No. 1488, 51st Cong., 1st Sess. (1890). 20
(2) Senate Committee on Commerce, S. REP. No. 1378,
51st Cong., 1st Sess. (1890). 21
(3) Committee of Conference, 51st Cong., 1st Sess., Con-
gressional Record, Vol. 21 (1890), p. 9558. 21
xiii
-------
xiv CONTENTS
Page
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 21 (1890):
(a) May 28: Passed House, p. 5412; . 23
(b) Aug. 15, 16: Amended and passed Senate, pp.
8607, 8684-8685; 23
(c) Sept. 6: House agrees to conference report, p.
9822; .... 29
(d) Sept. 8: Senate agrees to conference report, p.
9830. . 29
l.ld River and Harbor Act of 1894, August 18,1894, P.L. 53-299,
§§6, 7,8,9, 28 Stat. 363. . 29
(1) Damage to Harbor Improvements, Letter from the
Acting Secretary of War, House Committee on Rivers
and Harbors, H.R. EX. DOC. No. 123, 53rd Cong., 2d
Sess. (1894). . 31
(2) House Committee on Rivers and Harbors, H.R. REP.
No. 639, 53rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1894). 34
(3) Senate Committee on Commerce, S. REP. No. 519,
53rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1894). . 35
(4) Committee of Conference, 53rd Cong., 2d Sess., Con-
gressional Record, Vol. 26, (1894), pp. 8173-8175. . . 35
(5) Congressional Record, Vol. 26 (1894):
(a) May 4: Amended and passed House, p. 4430; 35
(b) July 13: Amended and passed Senate, p. 7414; 35
(c) Aug. 6: Senate agrees to conference report, p.
8230; . . . .35
(d) Aug. 6: House agrees to conference report, p.
8251. 35
l.le River and Harbor Act of 1899, March 3, 1899, P.L. 55^25,
§§10, 13, 16, 30 Stat. 1151. 36
(1) House Committee on Rivers and Harbors, H.R. REP.
No. 1826, 55th Cong., 3rd Sess. (1899). . 38
(2) Senate Committee on Commerce, S. REP. No. 1686,
55th Cong., 3rd Sess. (1899). . . 38
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 2815-16,
55th Cong., 3rd Sess. (1899). 39
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 32 (1899) :
(a) Feb. 1, 2: Debated, amended and passed House,
pp. 1350; 1354; 1356-1357; 1410; 39
(b) Feb. 23, 24: Debated, amended and passed Sen-
ate, p. 2297; 41
(c) March 3: Senate agrees to conference report, pp.
2815-2816; 2843; . 44
(d) March 3: House agrees to conference report, p.
2923. 44
l.lf Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1971, January 8,1971,
P.L. 91-665, 84 Stat. 1981. . 45
(1) House Committee on Appropriations, H.R. REP. No.
91-1668, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 46
(2) Senate Committee on Appropriations, S. REP. No.
91-1430, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 47
-------
CONTENTS xv
Page
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-1794; 91st
Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). . . 49
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 116 (1970):
(a) Dec. 10: Passed House, p. 40926; 50
(b) Dec. 14: Amended and passed Senate, pp. 41317,
41322-41323, 41330; 50
(c) Dec. 22: House agrees to conference report, p.
43391; 52
(d) Dec. 28: Senate agrees to conference report, pp.
43706, 43709. 53
1.2 The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C.
§1151etseq. (1970). ' 55
1.2a The Water Pollution Control Act, June 30, 1948, P.L.
80-845, 62 Stat. 1155. 132
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No. 462,
80th Cong., 1st Sess. (1947). 141
(2) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP. No.
1829, 80th Cong., 2d Sess. (1948). 151
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 2399, 80th
Cong., 2d Sess. (1948). 172
(4) Congressional Record:
(a) Vol. 93 (1947), July 16: Amended and passed
Senate, pp. 9032; 9034-9035; 175
(b) Vol. 94 (1948), June 14: Amended and passed
House, pp. 8192; 8195-8203; 176
(c) Vol. 94 (1948), June 15: Senate disagrees to
House amendments and demands conference, pp.
8295-8296; 196
(d) Vol. 94 (1948), June 16: House agrees to confer-
ence, p. 8458; 196
(e) Vol. 94 (1948), June 18: House agrees to confer-
ence report, p. 8864; 196
(f) Vol. 94 (1948), June 18: Conference report sub-
mitted in Senate, p. 8772; 198
(g) Vol. 94 (1948), June 19: Senate agrees to confer-
ence report, pp. 9002-9003. 199
1.2b Reorganization Plan No. 14 of 1950, May 24, 1950, 15 Fed.
Reg. 3176, 64 Stat. 1267. . 200
1.2c Water Pollution Control Act Extension, July 17, 1952, P.L.
82-579, 66 Stat. 755. 200
(1) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP. No.
1990, 82nd Cong., 2d Sess. (1952). 201
(2) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No. 2092,
82nd Cong., 2d Sess. (1952). 205
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 98 (1952):
(a) June 12: Passed House, pp. 6364-6365; 211
(b) July 4: Passed Senate, p. 9317. 213
1.2d Water Pollution Control Act of 1956, July 9, 1956, P.L.
84-660, 70 Stat. 498. 213
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No. 543,
84th Cong., 1st Sess. (1955). 227
-------
xvi CONTENTS
Page
(2) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP. No.
1446, 84th Cong., 1st Sess. (1955). 250
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 2479, 84th
Cong., 2d Sess. (1956). 272
(4) Congressional Record:
(a) Vol. 101 (1955), June 17: Amended and passed
Senate, pp. 8623, 8627; 292
(b) Vol. 102 (1956), June 13: Amended and passed
House; House insists on its amendments and
asks for conference, pp. 10278, 10281; 293
(c) Vol. 102 (1956), June 14: Senate disagrees to
House amendments and agrees to conference, pp.
10323, 10327; 293
(d) Vol. 102 (1956), June 27: Conference report sub-
mitted in House and agreed to, pp. 11149, 11154; 295
(e) Vol.102 (1956), June 27: Conference report sub-
mitted in Senate, and agreed to, pp. 11075-11076. 296
1.2e Alaska's Water Pollution Control Act Amendments, June
25, 1959, P.L. 86-70, §28 (a), (b), 73 Stat. 148. 297
(1) House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
H.R. REP. No. 369, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959). 297
(2) Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, S.
REP. No. 331, 86th Cong., 1st Ssss. (1959). 300
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 105 (1959):
(a) June 1: Debated, amended and passed House, p.
9478; 302
(b) June 3: Amended and passed Senate, pp. 9676; 302
(c) June 11: House concurs in Senate amendments,
with amendment, p. 10570; 302
(d) June 12: Senate concurs in House amendments,
p. 10594. 302
1.2f Hawaii's Water Pollution Control Act Amendments, June
12, 1960, P.L. 86-624, §23 (a), 74 Stat. 417. 302
(1) House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
H.R. REP No. 1564, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. (1960). 303
(2) Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, S.
REP. No. 1681, 86th Cong., 2d Sess. (1960). 305
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 106 (1960):
(a) May 16: Passed House, p. 10355; . 307
(b) June 28: Amended and passed Senate, p. 14684; 307
(c) June 29: House concurs in Senate amendments,
p. 15009. 307
1.2g The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1931, July 20,
1961, P.L. 87-88, 75 Stat. 204. . 307
(1) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP. No.
306, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961). 316
(2) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No. 353,
87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961). 368
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 675, 87th
Cong., 1st Sess. (1961). 398
-------
CONTENTS xvii
Page
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 107 (1961):
(a) May 3, Debated in House, pp. 7140-7162;
7165-7172; 415
(b) May 3: Amended and passed House, pp.
7195-7196; 483
(c) June 22: Amended and passed Senate; Senate
insisted on its amendments and asks for confer-
ence, p. 11074; 484
(d) July 13: Conference report submitted to House
and agreed to, pp. 12471; 12475-12496; 485
(e) July 13: Conference report submitted to Sanate
and agreed to, pp. 12565-12567. 528
1.2h The Water Quality Act of 1965, October 2, 1965, P.L.
89-234, 79 Stat. 903. 533
(1) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP. No.
215. 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). 544
VOLUME II
(2) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No. 10,
89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). 579
(3) Committee of Conference, HR. REP. No. 1022, 89th
Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). 622
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. Ill (1965):
(a) Jan. 28: Considered and passed Senate, pp.
1503-1519; 1521; 1525-1545; 638
(b) April 28: Considered and passed House,
amended, pp. 8652-8690; 8736-8737; 703
(c) Sept. 21: House and Senate agree to conference
report, pp. 24560-24562; 24583; 24587-24592. 790
1.2i 1966 Reorganization Plan No. 2, May 10, 1966, 31 Fed. Reg.
6857, 80 Stat. 1608. 805
(1) Interdepartmental Agreement Concerning Consulta-
tion on Health Aspects of Water Pollution Control,
Secretary of the Interior, Secretary of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare, July 1, 1966. 809
1.2} The Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966, November 3,
1966, P.L. 89-753, 80 Stat. 1246. 812
(1) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP. No.
2021, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966). 824
(2) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP No. 1367,
89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966). 944
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 2289, 89th
Cong., 2d Sess. (1966). 1005
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 112 (1986):
(a) July 13: Considered and passed Senate, pp.
15585-15603; 15605-15620; 15624-15633; 1033
-------
xviii CONTENTS
Page
(b) Sept. 30: Considered and passed House, pp.
24546-24547; 24592-24619; 24622-24624; 24629; 1124
VOLUME III
(c) Oct. 17: House and Senate agree to conference
report, pp. 27131; 27137-27141; 27244-27247. 1195
1.2k The Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970, April 3,1970,
P.L. 91-224, 84 Stat. 91. 1212
(1) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP. No.
91-127, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969). 1247
(2) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
91-351, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969). 1324
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-940, 91st
Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 1470
(4) Congressional Record:
(a) Vol. 115 (1969), April 15, 16: Considered and
passed House, pp. 9015-9052; 9259; 9264-9292; 1611
VOLUME IV
(b) Vol. 115 (1969), Oct. 7, 8: Considered and passed
Senate, amended, pp. 28947; 28953-29008; 29046-
29065; 29089-29102; 1762
(c) Vol. 116 (1970), March 24: Senate agreed to con-
ference report, pp. 8975; 8983-8984; 9003-9008; 1964
(d) Vol. 116 (1970), March 25: House agreed to con-
ference report, pp. 9325-9334. 1976
(5) Message from the President of the United States
"Conservation and Water Management," H.R. REP.
Doc. No. 273, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968). 1997
1.21 Rivers and Harbors Act of 1970, December 31, 1970, P.L.
91-611, Title I, §§120, 123, 84 Stat. 1823. , 2017
(1) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP. No.
91-1665, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). . 2020
(2) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
91-1422, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 2023
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-1782,
91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 2024
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 116 (1970):
(a) Dec. 7: Passed House, pp. 40139; 40143; 40145-
40147; 40149; 2029
(b) Dec. 9: Amended and passed Senate, pp. 40594,
40598 . 2033
(c) Dec. 18: House agreed to conference report, pp.
42509, 42512; 2034
-------
CONTENTS xix
Page
(d) Dec. 19: Senate agreed to conference report, pp.
42724. 2035
1.2m Extension of Authorized Funds for Federal Water Pollu-
tio" To^trol Act of 1971, July 9, 1971, P.L. 92-50, §§2, 3,
85 Stat. 124. 2035
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
92-234, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971). 2036
(2) Congrebsional Record, Vol. 117 (1971):
(a) June 23: Considered and passed Senate, p. S9807; 2037
(b) July 1: Considered and passed House, pp. H6229-
H6230. 2038
1.2n Extension of Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1971,
October 13, 1971, P.L. 92-137, 85 Stat 379. 2040
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
92-383, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971). 2041
(2) Congressional Record, Vol. 117 (1971):
(a) Sept. 29: Passed Senate, p S15406; 2042
(b) Sept. 30: Passed House, pp. H8939-H8940. 2043
1.2o Extension of Certain Provisions of Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act of 1971, March 1, 1972, P.L. 92-240, 86
Stat. 47. 2044
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
92-602, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972). 2045
(2) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP. No.
92-812, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972). 2046
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 92-834, 92d
Cong., 2d Sess. (1972). 2051
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 118 (1972):
(a) Feb. 3: Considered and passed Senate, pp. S1165-
S1166; 2054
(b) Feb. 7: Considered and passed House, amended,
pp. H801-H808; 2055
(c) Feb. 16: House agreed to conference report, pp.
H1056-H1057; 2069
(d) Feb. 16: Senate agreed to Conference Report, p.
S1901. 2072
1.3 Pollution of the Sea by Oil, as amended, 33 U S.C. §1001, et seq.
(1966). 2073
1.3a The Oil Pollution Control Act of 1961, August 30, 1961,
P.L. 87-167, 75 Stat. 402. 2080
(1) Senate Committee on Commerce, S. REP. No. 666,
87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961). 2087
(2) House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
H.R. REP. No. 838, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961). 2099
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 107 (1961):
(a) Aug. 14: Amended and passed Senate, pp. 15663-
15665; 2108
(b) Aug. 21: Passed House, pp. 16520-16521. 2109
1.3b 1966 Amendments to the Oil Pollution Act of 1961, Sep-
tember 1,1966, P.L. 89-551, 80 Stat. 372. 2109
-------
xx CONTENTS
Page
(1) House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
H.R. REP. No. 1620, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966). 2113
(2) Senate Committee on Commerce, S. REP. No. 1479,
89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966). 2136
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 112 (1966):
(a) June 20: Considered and passed House, p. 13839-
13640; 2158
(b) Aug. 19: Considered and passed Senate, p. 19991. 2158
1.4 Advances of Pubi.c Moneys, Prohibition Against, as revised,
31 U.S.C. §529 (1946). 2158
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1155 (g) (3) (A) ]
1.4a Act of January 31, 1823, January 31, 1823, Chapter 9, §1,
3 Stat. 723. 2158
(1) House Committee on Public Expenditures, H.R. REP.
No. 100,17th Cong., 1st Sess. (1822) -1 2159
(2) Semite Committee on Finance, 17th Cong., 2d Sess.
(1823).2 2159
(3) Annals of Congress (1822-23):
(a) Dec. 9,17: Debated, amended, passed House, pp.
336-338, 391-394; 2159
(b) Jan. 21, 23: Amended and passed Senate, pp.
147-150; 2163
(c) Jan. 27: House concurs in Senate amendments,
pp. 699-700. 2163
1.4b To Authorize Certain Administrative Expenses in the
Government Services, and for Other Purposes, August 2,
1946, P.L. 79-600, §11, 60 Stat. 809. 2163
(1) Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Depart-
ments, H.R. REP. No. 2186, 79th Cong., 2d Sess.
(1946). . 2163
(2) Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Depart-
ments, S. REP. No. 1636, 79th Cong., 2d Sess. (1946). 2165
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 92 (1946) :
(a) June 3: Amended and passed House, p. 6166; 2166
(b) June 17: Amended and passed Senate, p. 9190; 2166
(c) July 26: House concurs in Senate amendments,
p. 10186. 2166
1.5 Public Contracts, Advertisements for Proposals for Purchases
and Contracts for Supplies or Services for Government Depart-
ments; Application to Government Sales and Contracts to Sell
and to Government Corporations, as amended, 41 U.S.C. §5
(1958). 2166
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1155 (g) (3) (A) ]
(See, "General 1.14a-1.14c(2) (b)" for legislative history)
1.6 Courts of Appeals, Certiorari; Appeal; Certified Questions, as
amended, 28 U.S.C. §1254 (1948). 2167
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1157 (g) (2) ]
1.6a An Act to Codify, Revise and Amend the Laws Relating to
i Document in Dept. of Interior Library, but in nonreproducible condition.
2 Report unpublished.
-------
CONTENTS xxi
Page
the Judiciary, March 3, 1911, P.L. 61-475, §§239, 240, 36
Stat. 1157. 2168
1.6b Act to Amend the Judicial Code and to Further Define
the Jurisdiction of Circuit Courts of Appeal and of the
Supreme Court and for Other Purposes, February 13,1925,
P.L. 68-415, §1, 43 Stat. 933-939. 2168
(1) Senate Committee on the Judiciary, S. REP. No. 362,
68th Cong., 1st Sess. (1924). 2174
(2) House Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. REP. No.
1075, 68th Cong., 2d Sess. (1925). 2178
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 66 (1925):
(a) Feb. 2: Amended and passed House, p. 2880; 2188
(b) Feb. 3: Amended and passed Senate, p. 2928; 2188
(c) Feb. 4: House concurs in Senate amendments,
p. 3005. 2189
1.6c An Act in Reference to Writs of Error, January 31, 1928,
P.L. 70-10, §1, 45 Stat. 54. 2191
(1) House Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. REP. No.
370, 70th Cong., 1st Sess. (1928). 2191
(2) Congressional Record, Vol. 69 (1928):
(a) Jan. 14: Passed Senate, p. 1486; 2192
(b) Jan. 25: Passed House, p. 2040. 2192
1.6d 1934 Amendments to 1893 Act, June 7, 1934, P.L. 73-298,
48 Stat. 926. . 2192
(1) Senate Committee on the Judiciary, S. REP. No. 917,
73rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1934). 2193
(2) House Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. REP. No.
1748, 73rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1934). 2194
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 78 (1934):
(a) May 10: Passed Senate, p. 8479; 2196
(b) June 5: Passed House, p. 10537. 2197
1.7 Davis-Bacon Act, as amended, 40 U.S.C. §§276a-276a-5 (1964). 2198
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1158 (g) ]
(See, "General 1.13a-1.13h" for legislative history)
1.8 Per Diem, Travel, and Transportation Expenses; Experts and
Consultants; Individuals Serving Without Pay, as amended, 5
U.S.C. §5703 (1966). 2202
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §§1159(a) (2) (B), 1160(c) (4), (i)]
(See, "General 1.15a-1.15d (3) (c)" for legislative history)
1.9 1909 Boundary Waters Treaty Between Canada and the United
States and the Water Utilization Treaty of 1944 Between Mexico
and the United States, 36 Stat. 2448 (1909), 59 Stat. 1219 (1944). 2203
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1160 (d) (2)]
1.9a Congressional Record, Vol. 91 (1945), April 18: Senate
advises and consents to treaty and supplementary proto-
col, pp. 3480-3492. 2247
1.10 Disclosure of Confidential Information Generally, as amended,
18 U.S.C. §1905 (1948). 2273
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §§1160 (f) (2), (k) (1); 1163 (g) (3)]
(See, "General 1.16a-1.16a(3) (c)" for legislative history)
-------
xxii CONTENTS
Page
1.11 Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone,
Article XXIV, 15 U.S.T. 1612, 1613 (1958). 2274
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1161 (a) (9)]
Ilia Congressional Record, Vol. 106 (1960), May 26: Ratifica-
tion Advised by Senate, pp. 11187, 11189-11192. 2274
1.12 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the
Sea by Oil, 1954, Article IV, as amended, 17 U.S.T. 1528 (1954). 2278
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1161 (b) (2) (A) ]
1.12a Congressional Record, Vol. 110 (1964), Feb. 2: Ratifica-
tion Advised by Senate, pp. 3471-3472, 3496. 2294
1.13 Granting Clearances, as amended, 46 U S.C. §91 (1954). 2295
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1161 (b) (5)]
1.13a Customs Enforcement Act of 1935, August 5, 1935, P.L.
74-238, Title II, §209, 49 Stat. 526. 2297
(1) House Committee on Ways and Means, H.R. REP. No.
868, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. (1935). 2297
(2) Senate Committee on Finance, S. REP. No. 1036, 74th
Cong., 1st Sess. (1935). 2300
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 78 (1935):
(a) June 11: Amended and passed House, p. 9077; 2302
(b) July 26: Passed Senate, p. 11939. 2302
1.13b 1938 Amendments to §§91, 92 of Title 46 U.S.C., June 16,
1938, P.L. 75-656, §1, 52 Stat. 758. 2302
(1) House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
H.R. REP. No. 2521, 75th Cong., 3rd Sess. (1938). 2304
(2) Senate Committee on Commerce, S. REP. No. 2020,
75th Cong., 3rd Sess. (1938). . 2306
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 83 (1938):
(a) June 6: Passed House, p. 8226; 2308
(b) June 13: Passed Senate, p 8492. 2308
1.13c 1946 Reorganization Plan No. 3, §§101-104, May 16, 1946,
11 Fed. Reg. 7875, 60 Stat. 1097. 2308
1.13d Customs Simplification Act of 1954, September 1, 1954,
P.L. 83-768, Title V, §501 (a), 68 Stat. 1140. 2310
(1) House Committee on Ways and Means, H.R. REP. No.
2453, 83rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1954). 2310
(2) Senate Committee on Finance, S. REP. No. 2326, 83rd
Cong., 2d Sess. (1954). 2312
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 100 (1954) :
(a) July 26: Passed House, p. 12036; 2312
(b) Aug. 12: Amended and passed Senate, p. 14264; 2312
(c) Aug. 16: House concurs in Senate amendments,
p. 14631.i 2312
1.14 Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, 43 U.S.C. §1331 et seq.
(1953). 2313
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1161 (i) (2) ]
1.14a Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, August 7, 1953, P.L.
82-212, §§2-15, 67 Stat. 462. 2328
(1) House Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. REP. No.
413, 83rd Cong, 1st Sess. (1953). 2340
-------
CONTENTS xxiii
Page
VOLUME V
(2) Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, S.
REP. No. 411, 83rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1953). 2349
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 1031, 83rd
Cong., 1st Sess. (1953). 2434
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 99 (1953):
(a) May 13: Amended and passed House, pp. 4881-
4895; 2450
(b) June 26: Amended and passed Senate, pp. 7250-
7265; 2481
(c) July 29: House agrees to conference report, p.
10420; 2514
(d) July 30: Senate agrees to conference report, pp.
10471-10476, 10478-10482, 10488-10490, 10492-
10500. 2514
1.15 Administrative Procedure, as amended, 5 U.S.C. §§551-559, 701-
705 (1968). 2556
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §§1162(b), 1163(e) ]
1.15a Act to Enact Title 5, United States Code, September 6,
1966, P.L. 89-554, 80 Stat. 381-388, 392-393. 2570
(1) House Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. REP. No.
901, 89th Cong , 1st Sess. (1965). 2581
(2) Senate Committee on the Judiciary, S REP. No. 1380,
89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966). 2591
(3) Congressional Record:
(a) Vol. 112 (1965), Sept. 7: Passed House, p. 22954; 2600
(b) Vol. 113 (1986), July 25: Amended and passed
Senate, p. 17010; 2600
(c) Vol. 113 (1966), Aug. 11: House concurs in Sen-
ate amendments, p. 19077. 2600
1.15b To Amend Section 552 of Title 5, United States Code, June
5,1967, P.L. 90-23, §1, 81 Stat. 54. 2601
(1) House Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. REP. No.
125, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967). 2604
(2) Senate Committee on the Judiciary, S. REP. No. 248,
90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967). 2611
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 113 (1967):
(a) April 3: Passed House, pp. 8109-8110; 2620
(b) May 19: Amended and passed Senate, pp. 13253-
13254; 2621
(c) May 25: House concurs in Senate amendments,
p. 14056. 2621
1.15c Act to Amend Title 5, 10, and 37, United States Code to
Codify Recent Laws, October 22, 1968, P.L. 90-623, §1(1),
82 Stat. 1312. 2622
(1) House Committee on the Judiciary, H.R. REP. No.
1721, 90th Cong , 2d Sess. (1968). 2622
(2) Senate Committee on the Judiciary, S. REP. No. 1624,
90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968). 2623
-------
xxiv CONTENTS
Page
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 114 (1968):
(a) Sept. 16: Amended and passed House, pp. 26929-
26930; . 2624
(b) Oct. 11: Passed Senate, p. 30832. . 2624
1.16 Higher Education General Provisions, Definitions, as amended,
20 U.S.C. §1141 (1970). , 2625
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1169 (1) (B) ]
1.16a Higher Education Act of 1965, November 8, 1965, P.L.
89-329, Title XII, §801, 79 Stat. 1269. 2627
(1) House Committee on Education and Labor, H.R. REP.
No. 621, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). 2628
(2) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, S.
REP. No. 673, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). 2629
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 1178, 89th
Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). 2630
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. Ill (1965):
(a) Aug. 26: Debated, amended and passed House,
p. 21925; 2632
(b) Sept. 2: Debated, amended and passed Senate,
pp. 22714-22717; 2633
(c) Oct. 20: House agrees to conference report, p.
27678; .. 2633
(d) Oct. 20: Senate agrees to conference report, pp.
27595-27596. 2633
1.16b Higher Education Amendments of 1968, October 16, 1968,
P.L. 90-575, Title II, §§251, 293, 294, 82 Stat. 1042,1043,1050,
1051. 2633
(1) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, S.
REP. No. 1387, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968). 2636
(2) House Committee on Education and Labor, H.R. REP.
No. 1649, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968). . 2644
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 1919, 90th
Cong., 2d Sess. (1968). 2647
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 114 (1968) :
(a) July 15: Amended and passed Senate, p. 21272; 2651
(b) July 25: Amended and passed House, p. 23374; 2651
(c) Sept. 26: House agrees to conference report, pp.
28329, 28336-28337, 28339; 2651
(d) Oct. 1: Senate agrees to conference report, pp.
28975, 28982, 28983, 28985. 2651
1.16c Higher Education Act Amendments of 1970, April 13,1970,
P.L. 91-230, Title VIII, §806 (b), 84 Stat. 192. 2651
(1) House Committee on Education and Labor H.R. REP.
No. 91-114, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969). 2652
(2) Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, S.
REP. No. 91-634, 91st Cong, 2d Sess. (1970). 2653
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-937, 91st
Cong, 2d Sess. (1970). 2654
(4) Congressional Record:
(a) Vol. 115 (1969), April 23: Considered and passed
House, p. 10098; .. . . 2655
-------
CONTENTS xxv
Page
(b) Vol. 116 (1970), Feb. 19: Amended and passed
Senate, p. 4141; . 2655
(c) Vol. 116 (1970), April 1: Senate agreed to con-
ference report, p. 9999; 2655
(d) Vol. 116 (1970), April 7: House agreed to con-
ference report, p. 10623. 2655
1.17 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. §4321 et
seq. (1970). 2656
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1165a(a), (b)]
(See, "General 1.2a-1.2a(4) (e)" for legislative history)
1.18 Public Health Service Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§241, 243, 246
(1970). 2663
(See, "General 1.12a-1.12ae (3) (c)" for legislative history)
1.19 The Water Resource Planning Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §1962,
etseq. (1971). 2681
1.19a Water Resources Planning Act, July 22, 1965, P.L. 89-80,
79 Stat. 244. 2705
(1) House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
H.R. REP. No. 169, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). 2709
(2) Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, S.
REP. No. 68, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). 2736
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 603, 89th
Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). 2748
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. Ill (1965):
(a) Feb. 25: Passed Senate, pp. 3621, 3626; 2764
(b) March 31: Amended and passed House, pp. 6406,
6412; . 2766
(c) April 9: Senate request conference, p. 7676; 2766
(d) April 13: House appoints conferees, pp. 7926; 2766
(e) July 13: House agrees to conference report, pp.
16540, 16553-16554; . 2767
(f) July 14: Senate agrees to conference report, pp.
16733-16735. 2769
1.19b Rivers and Harbors Act of 1970, December 31, 1970, P.L.
91-611, Title II, §§209, 221, 84 Stat. 1829, 1831. 2773
(1) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP. No.
91-1665, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 2774
(2) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No. 91-
1422, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 2777
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-1782, 91st
Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 2778
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 116 (1970):
(a) Dec. 7: Amended and passed House, p. 40148; 2780
(b) Dec. 19: Amended and passed Senate, pp. 40593-
40599, 40613, 40619-40620; 2782
(c) Dec. 18: House agrees to conference report, pp.
42509-42510, 42513-42514; 2782
(d) Dec. 19: Senate agrees to conference report, pp.
42724, 42727, 42728. 2786
1.19c Water Resources Planning Act Amendments of 1971, June
17, 1971, P.L. 92-27,85 Stat. 77. . 2787
-------
xxvi CONTENTS
Page
(1) House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
H.R. REP. No. 92-197, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971). 2787
(2) Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, S.
REP. No. 92-139, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971). 2791
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 117 (1971):
(a) May 17: Considered and passed House, pp.
H3981-H3982; . 2795
(b) June 7: Considered and passed Senate, pp.
S8377-S8378. . 2796
1.20 Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, as amended,
40 App. U.S.C. §§212, 214 (1971). . . 2798
1.20a Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, March
9, 1965, P.L. 89-4, §§212, 214, 79 Stat. 16, 17. , 2800
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No. 13,
89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). 2802
(2) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP. No.
51, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). 2807
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. Ill (1965):
(a) Feb. 1: Amended and passed Senate, p. 1715;* 2809
(b) March 3: Passed House, p. 4030.* 2809
1.20b 1966 Reorganization Plan No. 2, May 10, 1966, 80 Stat.
1608. 2809
1.20c To Revise and Extend the Appalachian Regional De-
velopment Act of 1965, and to Amend the Public Works
and Economic Development Act of 1965, October 11, 1967,
P.L. 90-103, Title I, §§114,116, 81 Stat. 262, 263. 2812
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No, 159,
90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967). 2814
(2) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP. No.
548, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967). 2820
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 706, 90th
Cong., 1st Sess. (1967). 2829
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 113 (1967):
(a) April 26, 27: Debated, amended and passed Sen-
ate, p. 10964; 2831
(b) Sept. 13, 14: Debated, amended and passed
House, pp. 25286, 25288-25290, 25316-25317, 25578-
25579, 25618-25620; . 2832
(c) Sept. 28: House agrees to conference report, p.
27183; . 2832
(d) Sept. 29: Senate agrees to conference report, pp.
27327-27328. . 2832
1.20d 1969 Amendments to the Appalachian Regional Develop-
ment Act, November 25, 1969, P.L. 91-123, Title I, §107,
83 Stat. 215. . 2833
(1) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP. No.
91-336, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969). 2834
(2) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No. 91-
291, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969). 2835
* Denotes pertinent section is not discussed—page number provided only as complete
legislative history.
-------
CONTENTS xxvii
Page
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-614, 91st
Cong., 1st Sess. (1969). 2837
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 115 (1969):
(a) July 8: Passed Senate, p. 18556;* 2838
(b) July 15: Amended and passed House, p. 19607;* 2838
(c) Nov. 5: Senate agrees to conference report, p.
33031;* . 2838
(d) Nov. 19: House agrees to conference report, p.
34890.* 2838
1.20e Airport and Airway Development and Revenue Act of
1970, May 21, 1970, P.L. 91-258, Title I, §52 (b) (5), 84 Stat.
235. 2838
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, HR. REP. No. 91-601, 91st Cong., 1st Sess.
(1969). 2839
(2) Senate Committee on Commerce, S. REP. No. 91-565,
91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969). • 2840
(3) Senate Finance Committee, S. REP. No. 91-706, 91st
Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 2840
(4) Committee of Conference, HR. REP. No. 91-1074,
91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 2841
(5) Congressional Record:
(a) Vol. 115 (1969), Nov. 6: Passed House, p. 33312;* 2841
(b) Vol. 116 (1970), Feb. 26: Amended and passed
Senate, p. 5083;* 2841
(c) Vol. 116 (1970), May 12: Senate agrees to con-
ference report, p. 1513S;* 2842
(d) Vol. 116 (1970), May 13: House agrees to con-
ference report, p. 15297.* 2842
1.20f Appalachian Regional Development Act Amendments of
1971, August 5, 1971, P.L. 92-65, Title II, §210, 85 Stat. 171. 2842
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No. 92-
273, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971). 2843
(2) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP. No.
92-372, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971). 2844
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 117 (1971):
(a) July 21: Passed Senate, p. S11769;* 2846
(b) July 28: Passed House, p. H7328;* 2846
(c) July 30: Senate agrees to House amendments, p.
S12558.* 2846
1.21 The Disaster Relief Act, 40 U.S C. §4401, et seq. (1970). 2847
(See, "General 1.8a-1.8a(4) (f) " for legislative history)
1.22 Department of Transportation Act, 49 U S C. §1653 (f) (1968). 2867
(See, "General 15a-1.5a(3) (f)" for legislative history)
1.23 Federal Aid Highway Act, as amended, 23 U S.C. §109 (h) (1970). 2868
(See, "General 1.6a-1.6d(3) (f)" for legislative history)
1.24 Amortization of Pollution Control Facilities, as amended, 26
U.S.C. §169(d)(l)(B), (3) (1969). 2871
(See, "General 1.4a-1.4a(5) (c)" for legislative history)
1.25 Airport and Airway Development Act, 49 U.S.C. §§1712(f),
1716(c) (4), (e) (1970). . . 2875
(See, "General 1.7a-1.7a(4) (d)" for legislative history)
-------
xxviii CONTENTS
Page
1.26 Interest on Certain Government Obligations, as amended, 26
U.S.C. §103 (1969). . ., 2878
(See, "General 1.9a-1.9d(4) (d)" for legislative history)
1.27 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C.
§§661-666c (1965). 2880
1.27a To Promote the Conservation of Wildlife, Pish and Game,
and for Other Purposes, March 10, 1934, P.L. 73-121, 48
Stat. 401. 2889
(1) Senate Special Committee on Conservation of Wild-
life Resources, S. REP. No. 244, 73rd Cong., 2d Sess.
(1934). 2891
(2) House Committee on Agriculture, H.R. REP. No. 850,
73rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1934). 2892
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 78 (1934) :
(a) Feb. 6: Passed Senate, pp. 2010-2011; 2893
(b) March 5: Passed House, pp. 3725-3726. 2895
1.27b Reorganization Plan No. II, §4(e), (f), 53 Stat. 1433. 2899
(1) Message from the President of the United States,
H.R. DOC. No. 288, 76th Cong., 1st Sess. (1939). 2900
1.27c 1940 Reorganization Plan No. Ill, §3, 54 Stat. 1232. 2901
(1) Message from the President of the United States,
H.R. DOC. No. 681, 76th Cong., 3rd Sess. (1940). 2902
1.27d To Amend the Act of March 10, 1934, August 14, 1946,
P.L. 79-732, 60 Stat. 1080. 2903
(1) House Committee on Agriculture, H.R. REP. No. 1944,
79th Cong., 2d Sess. (1946). 2907
(2) Senate Committee on Agriculture, S. REP. No. 1698,
79th Cong., 2d Sess. (1946). 2912
(3) Senate Committee on Agriculture, S. REP. No. 1748,
79th Cong., 2d Sess. (1946). 2916
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 92 (1946):
(a) May 7: Passed House, pp. 4580-4561; . 2920
(b) July 17: Senate recommits, p. 9205; 2923
(c) July 29: Amended and passed Senate, p. 10349; 2924
(d) July 30: House concurs in Senate amendments,
p. 10489. 2925
1.27e To Amend the Act of March 10,1934, as amended, June 19,
1948, P.L. 80-697, 62 Stat. 497. 2926
(1) House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
H.R. REP. No. 504, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. (1947). ' 2927
(2) Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, S. REP. No. 1448, 80th Cong., 2d Sess. (1948). 2934
(3) Congressional Record:
(a) Vol. 93 (1947), June 16: Passed House, pp. 7086-
7087; 2938
(b) Vol. 94 (1948), June 10: Amended and passed
Senate, p. 7693; 2940
(c) Vol. 94 (1948), June 11: House concurs in Senate
amendments, p. 7889. , 2940
-------
CONTENTS xxix
Page
1.27f To Amend the Act of March 10, 1934, as amended, August
12, 1958, P.L. 85-624, §2,72 Stat. 563. . 2940
VOLUME VI
(1) House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries,
H.R. REP. No. 2183, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958). 2947
(2) Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, S. REP. No. 1981, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958). 2958
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 104 (1958):
(a) July 21: Passed House, pp. 1440-1442; 2979
(b) July 31: Passed Senate, p. 15713. 2979
1.27g Federal Water Project Recreation Act, July 9, 1965, P.L.
89-72, §6 (b), 79 Stat. 216. 2979
(1) Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, S.
REP. No. 149, 89th Cong., 1st Ssss. (1985). 2980
(2) House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
H.R. REP. No. 254, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). 2983
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 538, 89th
Cong., 1st Sess. (1965). 2984
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. Ill (1965):
(a) April 13: Amended and passed Senate, p. 7891; 2985
(b) May 18: Amended and passed House, p. 10881; 2985
(c) June 23: House agrees to conference report, p.
14464; 2985
(d) June 25: Senate agrees to conference report, p.
14814.* . . . 2985
1.28 Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C.
§3136 (1965). . 2986
1.28a Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1985,
August 26, 1965, P.L. 89-138, §106, 79 Stat. 554. 2986
(1) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No. 193,
89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965).* 2987
(2) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP. No.
539, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965) .* 2988
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. Ill (1965):
(a) June 1: Debated, amended and passed Senate,
p. 12183;* 2988
(b) Aug. 12: Debated, amended, and passed House,
pp. 20250-20251; . 2988
(c) Aug. 16: Senate concurs in House amendments,
p. 20571.* 2988
1.28b Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1966, 80 Stat. 1608. 2989
(1) Message from the President of the United States, H.R.
DOC. No. 388, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966). 2991
1.29 River and Harbor Act of 1910, 33 U.S.C. §421. 2994
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1371 (b) ]
1.29a River and Harbor Act of 1910, June 23, 1910, P.L. 61-245,
36 Stat. 593. . . 2995
-------
xxx CONTENTS
Page
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, H.R. REP. No, 1120, 61st Cong., 2d Sess.
(1910). . 2996
(2) Committee on Conference, H.R. REP. No. 1613, 61st
Cong., 2d Sess. (1910) .* . . 3003
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 45 (1910):
(a) May 2: Amended and passed House, p. 5672;* 3003
(b) May 12: Amended and passed Senate, p. 6119;* 3003
(c) June 16: Senate agrees to conference report, p.
8219;* . .. 3003
(d) June 17: House agrees to conference report, p.
8439.* . . 3003
1.30 Supervisory Harbors Act of 1888, as amended, 33 U.S.C. §§441-
451 (1958) 3003
[Referred to in 33 U.S.C. §1371.]
l.SOa. New York Harbor Act of 1888, June 29, 1888, P.L. 50-496,
25 Stat. 209. 3010
(1) Senate Committee on Commerce, S. REP. No. 224,
50th Cong., 1st Sess. (1888). 3012
(2) House Committee on Commerce, H.R. REP. No. 1963,
50th Cong., 1st Sess. (1888). 3015
(3) Congresiional Record, Vol. 19, (1888):
(a) March 21, April 6: Debated, amended and
passed Senate, pp. 2300-2301, 2775;* 3015
(b) June 4: Debated, amended and passed House,
pp. 4889-4890; 3015
(c) June 14: Senate concurs in House amendments,
p. 5239.* 3018
l.SOb River and Harbor Act of 1894, August 18, 1894, P.L.
53-299, §§3, 5, 28 Stat. 360 3018
(1) House Committee on Rivers and Harbors, H.R.
REP. No. 639, 53rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1894) .* 3023
(2) Senate Committee on Commerce, S. REP. No. 519,
53rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1894).* . 3023
(3) Committee of Conference, 53rd Cong., 2d Sess., Con-
gressional Record, Vol. 26 (1894), pp. 8173-8175.* 3023
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 26 (1894):
(a) May 4: Debated, amended and passed House,
pp. 4376,4430; .. . . ,. 3023
(b) July 13: Amended and passed Senate, p. 7414;* 3024
(c) Aug. 6: Senate agreed to conference report, p.
8230;* 3024
(d) Aug. 6: House agreed to conference report, p.
8251.* . . 3024
1.30c 1908 Amendments to 1894 Act, May 28, 1908, P.L. 60-
152, §8, 35 Stat. 426. . 3024
(1) House Committee on the Merchant Marine and
Fisheries, H.R. REP. No. 1672, 60th Cong., 1st Sess.
(1908). . . 3028
(2) Senate Committee on Commerce, 60th Cong., 1st
Sess., Congressional Record, Vol. 42 (1908), p. 6963.* 3030
-------
CONTENTS xxxi
Page
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 42 (1908):
(a) May 25: Considered and passed House, pp.
6901-6905; 3030
(b) May 26: Considered and passad Senate, pp.
6963-6972.* 3034
1.30d 1909 Amendments to 1908 Act, February 16, 1909, P.L.
60-231, 35 Stat. 623. 3034
(1) House Committee on the Merchant Marine and
Fisheries, H.R. REP. No. 2102, 60th Cong., 2d Sess.
(1909). . . 3035
(2) Congressional Record, Vol. 43 (1909) :
(a) Feb. 10: Amended and passed House, p. 2149;* 3036
(b) Feb. 11: Passed Senate, pp. 2195-2196.* 3036
l.SOe Repealing Certain Obsolete Provisions of Law Relating
to the Naval Service, June 29, 1949, P.L. 81-144, 63 Stat.
300. 3036
[No Relevant Discussion]
l.SOf 1952 Amendments to the New York Harbor Act of 1888,
July 12, 1952, P.L. 82-526, 66 Stat. 596. 3036
(1) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP. No.
2260, 82d Cong., 2d Sess. (1952). 3037
(2) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
2088, 82d Cong., 2d Sess. (1952). 3039
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 98 (1952):
(a) June 25: Passed House, p. 8079;* 3040
(b) July 4: Passed Senate, p. 9317.* 3040
l.SOg 1958 Amendments to Act of 1888, August 28, 1958, P.L.
85-802, §1, 72 Stat. 970. 3040
(1) House Committee on Public Works, H.R. REP. No.
2233, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958). 3042
(2) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
2383, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958). 3050
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 104 (1958):
(a) Aug. 4: Amended and parsed House, pp. 16021-
16022.* .... 3052
(b) Aug. 18: Passed Senate, p. 18033.* 3052
1.31 Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, as amended,
16 U.S.C. §1005 (1972). 3052
1.31a Rural Development Act of 1972, August 30, 1972, P.L.
92-419, §201 (g), 86 Stat. 669. 3053
(1) House Committee on Agriculture, H.R. REP. No.
92-835, 92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972). 3055
(2) Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, S.
REP. No. 92-734, 92d Cong., 2d Se?s. (1972). 3062
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 92-1129,
92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972). 3068
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 118 (1972):
(a) Feb. 23: Considered and passed House;* 3068
(b) April 19, 20: Considered and passed Senate,
amended, in lieu of S. 3462,* 3068
(c) July 27: House agreed to conference report;* 3068
-------
xxxii CONTENTS
Page
(d) Aug. 17: Senate agreed to conference report.* 3068
1.32 Reefs for Marine Life Conservation, 16 U.S.C. §1220 (1972). 3069
1.32a Commerce Department Maritime Programs, August 22,
1972, P.L. 92-402, §3 (b), 86 Stat. 617. . 3069
(1) House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fish-
eries, H.R. REP. No. 92-934, 92d Cong., 2d Sess.
(1972).* . 3070
(2) Senate Committee on Commerce, S. REP. No. 92-
841, 92d Cong., 2d Sers. (1972).* 3071
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 118 (1972):
(a) April 11: Considered and Passed House;* 3071
(b) July 26: Considered and passed Senate,
amended, S11935-S11937; 3071
(c) Aug. 14: House concurred in Senate amend-
ments.* . . 3077
1.33 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. §1451 et seq.
(1972). 3077
1.33a Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act of
1966, Amendments, October 27, 1972, P.L. 92-583,
§307 (3) (f), 86 Stat. 1286. 3087
(1) Senate Committee on Commerce, S. REP. No. 92-
753, 92d Cong., 2d Sees. (1972). 3099
(2) House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fish-
eries, H.R. REP. No. 92-1049, 92d Cong., 2d Se;s.
(1972). . 3104
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 92-1544,
92d Cong., 2d Sess. (1972). . 3111
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 118 (1972):
(a) April 25: Considered and passed Senate, pp.
S6654-S6673; . . 3112
(b) Aug. 2: Considered and passed, House, amended,
in lieu of H.R. 14146;* 3142
(c) Oct. 12: House and Senate agreed to conference
report.* . 3142
2. EXECUTIVE ORDERS
2.1 E.O. 11490, Assigning of Emergency Preparedness Functions to
Federal Agencies and Departments, October 30, 1969, 34 Fed.
Reg. 17567. 3145
2.2 E.O. 11507, Prevention, Control, and Abatement of Air and
Water Pollution at Federal Facilities, February 4, 1970, 35 Fed.
Reg. 2573. 3197
2.3 E.O. 11514, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental
Quality, March 5,1970, 35 Fed. Reg. 4247. 3203
2.4 E.O. 11548, Delegating Functions of the President Under the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, July 20,1970,
35 Fed. Reg. 11677. 3207
2.5 E.O. 11574, Administration of the Refuse Act Permit Program,
December 23, 1970, 35 Fed. Reg. 19627. 3211
2.5a Statement by the President on Signing an Executive
Order Providing for the Establishment of a Federal Permit
-------
CONTENTS xxxiii
Page
Program to Regulate the Discharge of Waste into the
Waters of the United States, Weekly Compilation of Presi-
dential Documents, December 23, 1970, p. 1724. 3212
2.5b Congressional Record, Vol. 117 (1971), Feb. 4: House dis-
cussion of the Refuse Act Permit Program, pp. 1754-1763. 3213
2.5c Congressional Record, Vol. 117 (1971), Feb. 4: Sanate dis-
cussion of the 1899 Refuse Act, pp. 1673; 1679-1684; 3233
2.6 E.O. 11575, Administration of the Disaster Relief Act of 1970,
December 31,1970, 36 Fed. Reg. 37. 3244
2.7 E.O. 11578, Ohio River Basin Commission, January 13, 1971, 36
Fed. Reg. 683. 3246
2.8 E.O. 11613, Membership of Environmental Protection Agency
on the Established River Basin Commissions, August 2, 1971,
36 Fed. Reg. 14299. 3248
2.9 E.O. 11331, Establishment of Pacific Northwest River Basins
Commission, March 6, 1967, 32 Fed. Reg. 3875, as amended by
E.O. 11613, Aug. 2, 1971, 36 Fed. Reg. 14299. , 3249
2.10 E.O.11345, Establishment of the Great Lakes Basin Commission,
April 20, 1967, 32 Fed. Reg. 6329, as amended by E.O. 11613,
Aug. 2, 1971, 36 Fed. Reg. 14299; E.O. 11646, Feb. 8, 1972, 37
Fed. Reg. 2925. 3251
2.11 E.O. 11359, Establishment of the Souris-Red-Rainy River Basin
Commission, June 20, 1967, 32 Fed. Reg. 8851, as amended
by E.O. 11613, Aug. 2, 1971, 36 Fed. Reg. 14299; E.O. 11635, Dec.
9, 1971, 36 Fed. Reg. 23615. . . 3253
2.12 E.O. 11371, Establishment of the New England River Basins
Commission, September 6, 1967, 32 Fed. Reg. 12903, as amended
by E.O. 11528, Apr. 24, 1970, 35 Fed. Reg. 6695; E.O. 11613,
Aug. 2, 1971. 3255
2.13 E.O. 11658, Establishment of the Missouri River Basin Commis-
sion, March 22, 1972, 37 Fed. Reg. 6045. 3257
2.14 E.O. 11659, Establishment of the Upper Mississippi River Basin
Commission, March 22, 1972, 37 Fed. Reg. 6047. 3259
3. REGULATIONS
3.1 Grants for Water Pollution Control, Environmental Protection
Agency, 18 C.F.R. §§501.1-601.125 (1971). . 3261
3.2 Certification of Facilities, Environmental Protection Agency, 40
C.F.R. §§20.1-20.10 (1971).
3.3 Water Pollution Control Planning, Environmental Protection
Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§35.001-35.002, 35.150 (1972).
3.4 Water Quality Management Planning Grants, Environmental
Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§35.200-35.240 (1972).
3.5 Water Pollution Control and Interstate Program Grants, Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§35.551-35.575 (1972).
3.6 Grants for Construction of Wastewater Treatment Works,
Environmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§35.800-35.850
(1972).
3.7 Grants for Construction of Treatment Works—Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Environmental
Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§35.910 (1972).
-------
xxxiv CONTENTS
Page
3.8 Standard Setting Conferences, Hearings and Notification of
Alleged Violators of Water Quality Standards, Environmental
Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§104.1-104.24 (1972).
3.9 Public Hearings Under Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
Environmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§106.1-108.13
(1972).
3.10 Filing of Reports with the Administrator by Persons Whose
Alleged Activities Result in Discharges Causing or Contributing
to Water Pollution, Environmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R.
§§107.1-107.7 (1971).
3.11 Criteria for State, Local, and Regional Oil Removal Contingency
Plans, Environmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§109.1-
109.6 (1971).
3.12 Discharge of Oil, Environmental Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R.
§§110.1-110.9 (1971).
3.13 Water Quality Standards, Environmental Protection Agency,
40 C.F.R. §§120.1-120.11 (1972).
3.14 Revision of Water Quality Standards, Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§122.1-122.14 (1971).
3.15 State Certification of Activities Requiring a Federal License
or Permit, Enrivronment Protection Agency, 40 C.F.R. §123
(1972).
3.16 Marine Sanitation Device Standards, Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, 40 C.F.R. §§140.1-140.5 (1972). ....
3.17 Control of Pollution by Oil and Hazardous Substances, Dis-
charge Removal, Department of Transportation, 33 C.F.R.
§§153.01-153.105 (1970).
3.18 Corps of Engineers Regulations Under Refuse Act, Permit for
Discharge or Disposal Into Navigable Waters, 33 C.F.R. §§209.10-
209.13 (1971).
3.19 Drinking Water Standards, Public Health Service, 42 C.F.R.
§§72.201-72.207 (1971).
3.20 Financial Responsibility for Oil Pollution Cleanup, Federal
Maritime Commission, 46 C.F.R. §§542.1-542.9 (1971).
3.21 Delegation of Authority With Respect to the Administration of
Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970, Department of Trans-
portation, 49 C.F.R. §1.46 (1971). .... ...
4. GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
4.1 EPA Annual Report on National Requirements and Costs of
Water Pollution Control, as required by 33 U.S.C. §1175 (a) as
amended (1970). . . .... 3267
4.1a Cost of Clean Water, Vol. I, Municipal Investment Needs,
Vol. II, Cost Effectiveness and Clean Water, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, March 1971. . . 3267
4.1b Economics of Clean Water, Vol. I & II, Environmental
Protection Agency, February 1972. 3391
4.2 Selected Reports:
4.2a Federal Laws Affecting Rivers and Harbors Works, A
Lecture Given by Judge G. W. Koonce, O.C.E. Before the
Company Officers Class, the Engineering School, Ft.
Humphreys, Va., April 23,1926. . . . 3517
-------
CONTENTS xxxv
Page
VOLUME VII
4.2b Our Waters and Wetlands: How the Corps of Engineers
Can Help Prevent Their Destruction and Pollution, Com-
mittee on Government Operations, H.R. REP. No. 91-917,
91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970). 3533
4.2c Qui tarn Actions and the 1899 Refuse Act, Citizen Law-
suits Against Polluters of the Nations Waterways, House
Subcommittee on Conservation and Natural Resources of
the Committee on Government Operations, 91st Cong.,
2d Sess. (1970). 3556
4.2d Clean Water for the 1970's, a Status Report, U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior, Federal Water Quality Administra-
tion, June 1970. . 3592
4.3 National Oil and Hazardous Material Pollution Contingency
Plan, Council on Environmental Quality, August 20, 1971. . 3706
4.4 Guidelines for Litigation Under the Refuse Act Permit Program,
Department of Justice, April 7, 1972. . . 3720
4.5 Water Quality Standards Summaries:
4.5a "Standards for Temperature," Environmental Protection
Agency, Division of Water Quality Standards, March 1971. 3722
4.5b "Standards for Disinfection," Environmental Protection
Agency, Division of Water Quality Standards, May 1971. 3732
4.5c "Standards for Mercury and Heavy Metals," Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Division of Water Quality
Standards, May 1971. . 3739
4.5d "Standards for Radioactive Materials," Environmental
Protection Agency, Division of Water Quality Standards,
May 1971. 3747
4.5e "Standards for Phosphates," Environmental Protection
Agency, Division of Water Quality Standards, June 1971. 3750
4.5f "Standards for Mixing Zones," Environmental Protection
Agency, Division of Water Quality Standards, Saptember
1971. 3767
4.5g "Standards for Radioactive Materials," Environmental
Protection Agency, Division of Water Quality Standards,
November 1971. 3775
4.5h "Standards for Nitrates," Environmental Protection
Agency, Division of Water Quality Standards, November
1971. 3782
4.5i "Standards for Antidegradation," Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Division of Water Quality Standards,
April 1972. 3813
4.6 Memorandum of Understanding Between, the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Department of Transportation, 36
Fed. Reg. 24080 (1971). 3831
4.7 Discharges of Oil for Research Development and Demonstra-
tion Purposes, Guidelines, Environmental Protection Agency, 36
Fed. Reg. 7326 (1971). 3834
4.8 Memorandum of Understanding Providing for Cooperation in
the Investigation of Violations of the Refuse Act Between Ad-
-------
xxxvi CONTENTS
ministrator of the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Secretary of the Army, 36 Fed. Reg. 3074 (1971) 3836
4.9 Report to Congress on Water Pollution Control Manpower De-
velopment and Training Activities, Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water Programs, March 1972. . . 3839
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1195
1.2j(4)(c) Oct. 17: House and Senate agree to conference report,
pp.27131, 27137-27141, 27244-27247
CLEAN WATER RESTORATION ACT
OF 1966—CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. BLATNIK. On October 15, 1966,
pursuant to the order of the House on
October 14, 1966, I submitted the follow-
ing concurrence report and statement on
the bill (S. 2947) to amend the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act in order to
improve and make more effective cer-
tain programs pursuant to such act:
* * * » *
[p. 27131]
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, I call up
the conference report on the bill
(S. 2947) to amend the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act in order to im-
prove and make more effective certain
programs pursuant to such act, and ask
unanimous consent that the statement of
the managers on the part of the House
be read in lieu of the report.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Minnesota?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the statement.
The SPEAKER. The Chair recognizes
the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
BLATNIK].
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, I am
proud and privileged to report back to
the House today with the conference re-
port on the "Clean Waters Restoration
Act of 1966," S. 2947. This House unan-
imously passed legislation covering the
field of water pollution several weeks
ago. As a result of amicable and far-
reaching meetings with conferees of the
other body we come before you today
with a conference report which has the
unanimous support of all Members of
the conferees on both sides of the aisle
and in both bodies.
This is a forward-looking and far-
reaching piece of legislation we present
for your approval today. It moves the
fight against the pollution of all of our
Nation's waters forward on a proper and
intelligently escalated scale. As the
New York Times said "it is a good piece
of legislation." I strongly recommend
the approval of this conference report.
I would like to pay particular tribute
to my fellow conferees on both sides of
the aisle; to our distinguished chairman,
another fighter in the field of water
pollution, the gentleman from Maryland
[Mr. FALLOW] ; one of the outstanding ex-
perts in the field of water pollution and
a man who has traveled all sections of
this country in an effort to help clean up
our waters, the gentleman from Alabama
[Mr. JONES]; another outstanding ad-
vocate in the field of water pollution, the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. KLTJCZYN-
SKI], and finally a man who has con-
tributed mightily over the years to the
drive for a stronger and more effective
Federal program in the field of water
pollution, the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. WRIGHT], as well as the ranking
minority Member, the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. CRAMER] and his associates,
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. HARSHA],
and the gentleman from Pennsylvania
[Mr. KUNKEL].
Some of the highlights of the confer-
ence report are as follows: This report
authorizes $3.4 billion for construction
grants for sewage treatment plants for
the fiscal years 1968 through 1971; $450
million for fiscal year 1968, $700 million
for fiscal year 1969, $1 billion for fiscal
year 1970, and $1,250 million for fiscal
year 1971. This represents an increase
of $1,100 million over the total amount
originally authorized by the House for 4
fiscal years and a decrease of some $2,450
million in the original version of the
other body for 5 fiscal years. Under the
conference report the dollar limitation
on individual grants and combined
grants is done away with and in all cases
the amount authorized for a Federal
share for a single project or a combined
-------
1196
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
one is 30 percent of the total cost. In
addition thereto we continue under the
conference report we present today to
make every effort to make the State a
partner in the program as was first
brought about by the Committee on
Public Works when it reported last
year's water pollution bill. If a State
agrees to match 30 percent of the total
cost of an individual or combined proj-
ect, the Federal share is increased to 40
percent and the municipal share, in turn,
becomes 30 percent, We thus have
a Federal-State-municipal partnership.
Further, if a State will match 25 percent
of the total cost of an individual or com-
bined project and agrees to establish in-
trastate standards covering streams
flowing wholly within its boundaries un-
der rules and regulations to be estab-
lished by the Governor of the State or a
State water pollution control board and
not subject to review by any Federal
agency, then in that case the Federal
share of an individual or combined proj-
ect becomes 50 percent and the local
share is 25 percent. This, we believe, is
another move forward to bring about a
working combination so that all levels
of government throughout this great
country can participate in this major ef-
fort to clean up our waters.
The report before you also contains
for the first time language to allow grants
to be made to industry for research in
the fields of water pollution.
It contains as well a section somewhat
similar to language now contained in
Federal aid highway legislation covering
reimbursement. This section would do
the following:
Section 204 of the conference substi-
tute amends section 8(c) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act to provide
that in the case of any project on which
construction was initiated after June 30,
1966, which was approved by the ap-
propriate State water pollution control
agency and which the Secretary finds
meets the requirements of section 8 but
which was constructed without Federal
financial assistance, the allotments for
construction grants for any fiscal year
ending before July 1, 1971, shall also be
available to make payments for reim-
bursement of State or local funds used
for that project before July 1,1971, to the
extent that financial assistance could
have been provided under section 8 if the
project had been approved pursuant to
section 8 and adequate funds had been
available to make a grant for the project.
In the case of a project on which con-
struction was initiated after June 30,
1966, and which was constructed with
financial assistance pursuant to section
8 but the amount of such assistance was
a lesser percent of the cost of construc-
tion than was allowable pursuant to sec-
tion 8, such allotments shall also be
available for payments and reimburse-
ment of State or local funds used for such
project before July 1, 1971, to the extent
that assistance could have been provided
under this section if adequate funds had
been available. Neither a finding by the
Secretary that a project meets the re-
quirements of this section nor any other
provision of section 8(c) is to be con-
strued to constitute a commitment or
obligation of the United States to provide
funds or to make or to pay any grant for
such project.
[p. 27137]
In the case of projects commenced
after June 30, 1966, which were con-
structed with assistance pursuant to sec-
tion 8 but which assistance was a lesser
percent of the cost than allowable pur-
suant to this section, the conferees intend
that reimbursement of amounts shall be
subject to the limitations of law in effect
at the time the project is initiated.
The conferees do not intend to create a
preferred class of projects that would
be entitled to reimbursement at these
higher percentages provided in the con-
ference substitute.
The conference report adds a new sec-
tion 16 to the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act to require the Secretary of
the Interior to make a detailed estimate
of the cost of carrying out the Federal
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1197
Water Pollution Control Act, a compre-
hensive study of the economic impact on
affected units of Government of the cost
of treatment facilities, and a compre-
hensive analysis of the national require-
ments for, and the cost of, treating waste
to attain such water quality standards as
are established pursuant to the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act or appli-
cable law.
Section 210 of the conference report
authorizes the Secretary of the Interior
to make a full and complete investiga-
tion and study of methods for providing
incentives to assist in constructing fpcili-
ties and works by industry to reduce or
abate water pollution, including possible
use of tax incentives. In making this
study he is required to consult with the
Secretary of the Treasury as well as
other department and agency heads.
The report shall be submitted to Con-
gress on this study not later than Janu-
ary 30, 1968.
It contains needed and necessary
amendments to the Oil Pollution Act
strengthening that section insofar as the
spillage of oil from vessels in our Na-
tion's waters are concerned and at the
same time transfers this jurisdiction to
the Secretary of the Interior.
The bill as agreed to by the House and
Senate conferees contains a "Clean
Waters Restoration" title. This is the
same title as suggested by the adminis-
tration except that the word "rivers" was
changed to "waters" to provide for those
towns and cities which might lie on the
coastlines of the oceans, the gulf, and the
Great Lakes, which might not normally
be considered to be within a specific
river basin.
The conferees adopted the principles
contained in the administration bill
which provided for the development of a
comprehensive pollution control and
abatement plan for a basin, coastal area,
estuary, inlet, and so forth. It includes
those provisions contemplated in the ad-
ministration proposal whereby the com-
prehensive plan would be consistent with
any applicable water quality standards;
would recommend such works as would
provide the most effective means of
treatment; recommends both municipal
and industrial use of such works; would
recommend maintenance and improve-
ments of water quality standards within
the basin and methods of adequately
financing these facilities.
To achieve the development of a com-
prehensive water pollution control and
abatement plan for a basin, coastal area,
the Secretary could assist if requested
by a Governor or Governors in the fi-
nancing of the administrative expenses
of the States of the development of such
a plan up to a total of 50 percent of the
cost of these expenses for a planning
agency for a period not to exceed 3 years.
This will, of course, encourage the Gov^
ernors of the various States affected to
do their utmost to assist in the develop-
ment of comprehensive plans for clean
waters. In this sense the establishment
of clean waters is the end goal of both
the administration concept and the bill
as agreed upon by the conferees.
Finally let me point out the following.
It is the intention of the conferees that
the existing contract authority which is
now available to the Secretary of the
Interior in various sections of the law
dealing with research in the fields of
water pollution should be continued.
Section 5 of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act presently gives the
Secretary a very broad authority in con-
ducting research for various purposes,
including but not limited to, research on
separate and combined sewers, on ad-
vanced waste treatment, and on indus-
trial wastes. He is authorized to conduct
this research directly and by grant, con-
tract, agreement or otherwise, with pub-
lic and private authorities, agencies and
institutions as well as individuals. This
authority, particularly as to conducting
research by contract, encompasses au-
thority to conduct research for which
grants are specifically authorized in sec-
tion 6, and the $20 million per fiscal year
which is authorized in section 6(e)(l) is
by the phrase "including contracts" in
-------
1198
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
that subsection made specifically avail-
able for the purpose of conducting this
research by contract.
This is a worthwhile conference report.
I urge the adoption of the conference
report.
Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he
may consume to the gentleman from
Florida.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I want to
thank the gentleman.
I too think that this is one of the most
significant pieces of legislation that has
been brought before the House in recent
years in relation to cleaning up the
streams throughout America. I think
the tools are here along with the Water
Pollution Control Act of 1965 for even-
tually cleaning up all of the streams in
this Nation. I think tremendous head-
way legislatively is being made, and this
bill will provide the needed incentive to
the States to participate in the program,
which has been an objective of many
members of the committee for some time
to provide an incentive to the local com-
munities to build treatment plants and
the States to come in with matching
State funds.
This is a concept that I think will
result in a true partnership approach to
this problem, Federal, State, and local
governments. Only with all levels of
government participating can the pro-
gram be a success. This has been much
needed for some time.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of this
conference report on S. 2947, the Clean
Waters Restoration Act of 1966, because
I think it is a fair compromise between
the House-passed and the Senate-passed
versions of the legislation and because I
sincerely feel that the House in many
ways, if not in most, was able to retain
the provisions of the legislation which it
felt essential throughout the full and free
discussions in the conference committee
on this bill. I am confident that the pro-
visions of S. 2947, as agreed upon by the
conference committee, will improve and
make more effective certain programs
under the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act, as amended.
BASINWIDE PLANNING PROVISIONS
Mr. Speaker, the section of the con-
ference substitute which provides for the
establishment of basinwide planning
agencies is a substantial improvement
over the proposal made earlier this year
by the administration.
Section 101 of title I of the proposed
substitute amends section 3 of the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act by
adding a new subsection (c) which re-
quires the Secretary of the Interior to
make a grant to pay up to 50 percent of
the administrative expenses of a basin-
wide planning agency for a period of not
to exceed 3 years if such agency provides
for adequate representation of appropri-
ate State, interstate, local, or, when ap-
propriate, international interests in the
basin or portion thereof involved, and if
it is capable of developing an effective,
comprehensive water quality control and
abatement plan for the basin. This
grant is to be made only upon the request
of the Governor of a State or a majority
of the Governors when more than one
State is involved.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that this is in keep-
ing with the intent of the House that the
State and local bodies not only should
but must be brought into the water pol-
lution control program to the fullest
extent if the nationwide effort is to be
successful. Unfortunately, the other
body has not always sought to bring non-
Federal entities fully into the water pol-
lution control and abatement program.
The House position was further upheld
by retaining provisions that the grant is
to be made only, and I repeat only, upon
the request of the Governor of a State or
a majority of the Governors when more
than one State is involved.
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Speaker, the conferees were able
to agree upon provisions expanding the
research and development authority of
the existing law. The intent of the House
that industries should be brought into
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1199
the research and development program
under the Federal act has been retained.
The conference substitute amends sec-
tion 6 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act to authorize the Secretary
to make grants to States, municipalities,
or intermunicipal or interstate agencies
for the purpose of assisting in developing
projects to demonstrate new or im-
proved methods of controlling the dis-
[p. 27138]
charge of untreated or inadequately
treated sewage of other wastes from
sewers carrying storm water or both
storm water and sewage or other wastes.
The conference substitute also authorizes
the Secretary to make grants to those
entities to assist in developing projects to
demonstrate advanced waste treatment
and water purification methods, includ-
ing temporary use of nev/ or improved
chemical additives, or new or improved
methods of joint treatment systems for
municipal and industrial wastes and to
make grants for the purpose of reports,
plans, and specifications in connection
therewith.
These grants are subject to limitations
that the project must have been ap-
proved by the appropriate State water
pollution control agencies and the Sec-
retary, that no grant shall be made in an
amount exceeding 75 percent of the esti-
mated reasonable cost of the project, and
that no grant shall be made for a project
unless it will serve as a useful demon-
stration for the purposes set forth in this
section.
The conference substitute subsection
(b) of the proposed new section 6 brings
into focus the industrial problems asso-
ciated with water pollution control by
authorizing the Secretary to make grants
for research and demonstration projects
for prevention of pollution of water by
industry including the treating of indus-
trial waste. These grants shall be sub-
ject to limitations that no grant shall be
made in excess of $1 million, that no
grant shall be made for more than 70
percent of the cost of the project, and
that no grant shall be made for any
project unless it will serve a. useful pur-
pose in developing or demonstrating a
new or improved method of treating in-
dustrial wastes or otherwise preventing
pollution by industry, which method
must have industrywide application.
The provisions of this portion of the
conference substitute are almost identi-
cal to the House-passed version, and
they clearly reflect the intent of the
House that the industries be brought into
the research and development program
to such an extent that there will be posi-
tive results in the near future.
Section 5 of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act presently gives the
Secretary a very broad authority in con-
ducting research for various purposes,
including but not limited to, research
on separate and combined sewers, on
advanced waste treatment, and on indus-
trial wastes. He is authorized to conduct
this research directly and by grant, con-
tract, agreement, or otherwise, with pub-
lic and private authorities, agencies, and
institutions as well as individuals. This
authority, particularly as to conducting
research by contract, encompasses au-
thority to conduct research for which
grants are specifically authorized in sec-
tion 6, and the $20 million per fiscal year
which is authorized in section 6(e)(l) is
by the phrase "including contracts" in
that subsection made specifically avail-
able for the purpose of conducting this
research by contract.
I think that each Member can clearly
ascertain that the House position that
rdditional research end development is
needed in this field, that the industries
should be brought into the research pro-
grsm, and that these research and devel-
opment efforts should contribute toward
the control of water pollution in as effec-
tive a way as possible has been upheld.
GRANTS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF SEWAGE
TREATMENT WORKS
Mr. Speaker, the figures which the
conference committee agreed upon with
respect to authorizations for appropria-
-------
1200
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
tions for the construction of sewage
treatment works and other water pollu-
tion control programs are not those
which the House passed. However, they
are far below the Senate-passed authori-
zation levels.
I personally think, and I believe the
record bears me out on this, that the
authorization levels agreed upon by
the conference committee may prove to
be too high; however, in light of other
provisions retained in the bill and the
studies and cost estimate required, and
with a view toward reaching an agree-
ment in conference so that the bill could
be reported out and acted upon by both
Houses, the Senate figures are palatable,
and we should not vote down this confer-
ence report on the basis of those figures
being higher than the House figures and
in excess of the proven needs according
to the House hearings.
The cost estimate which is required to
be submitted to the Congress by the Sec-
retary of the Interior not later than July
1, 1967, should give the Congress a de-
tailed presentation of the actual needs for
authorizations for construction grants
for treatment works, and appropriate
adjustments can be made in the authori-
zations next Congress.
RETENTION OF STATE MATCHING
Mr. Speaker, the minority members of
the Committee on Public Works have
advocated, since 1959 that the States be
brought into the effort to meet the finan-
cial burden of constructing necessary
sewage treatment works. Last year's
act, the Water Quality Act of 1965, made
provision for waiving the dollar ceiling
on grants for the construction of sewage
treatment works, if the States match
equally Federal grants from the addi-
tional authorization increase of $50 mil-
lion per annum over the then ceiling of
$100 million per annum. This was an
outstanding achievement on the part of
the minority and the House, but we felt
that the procedure needed to be ex-
panded to include all funds authorized
for the construction program.
This year's act, as passed by the House,
provided for increased Federal grants in
those cases where the State agreed to
contribute toward the cost of construct-
ing all sewage treatment works financed
out of Federal monies allocated to a State
for a particular fiscal year. This was a
great step forward. If this measure had
been adopted when the minority mem-
bers of the committee first officially
proposed it in 1959, the overall national
effort to control water pollution would
be much further along now than it is.
The total amount contributed toward the
cost of constructing sewage treatment
works by all levels of government would
have been accelerated, and, thereby, the
construction program would have moved
ahead much more rapidly.
This past March, I introduced a bill to
provide for the reimbursement to States,
municipalities, intermunicipal, and in-
terstate agencies by the Federal Govern-
ment for the construction of sewage
treatment works where those agencies
wanted to construct such works in ad-
vance of the availability of Federal par-
ticipating funds. This had nationwide
application, whereas many similar pro-
posals were limited entirely to reim-
bursement where the States had bonded
themselves to meet the extra cost of con-
structing these works. The text of my
bill was passed by the House as a section
of this bill. The conference substitute
carries out the concept of Federal reim-
bursement, and I think this is another
step forward of which the House can be
proud. Such claims for reimbursement,
however, are not claims against the
Treasury, unless approved by the State
agency, the Secretary and the funds must
be appropriated.
Mr. Speaker, the House conferees have
upheld the House's position on this bill
to the best of their ability and to the ex-
tent that an agreement could be reached
to permit final action on the bill. While
the authorizations are too high, in my
opinion, the cost estimate should make
it possible for the Congress to take what-
ever steps might be necessary in the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1201
future to properly adjust trie conference
substitute figures.
I urge the adoption of this conference
report.
This is a most significant conference
report and bill that we have before us.
I wholeheartedly support it as does the
gentleman from Minnesota and I con-
gratulate the conferees for a difficult,
long 3-week conference and finally com-
ing to a successful conclusion which I
think is in the best interest of the
country.
Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLATNIK. I yield to the gentle-
man from New Hampshire, a member of
the committee.
Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Speaker, I
have asked for this time simply to in-
quire with reference to and to make
clear that the 10-percent incentive which
we wrote into the bill in the Committee
on Public Works is still in the bill.
This is a matter of particular interest
to me and we discussed this when the bill
was being considered on the floor of the
House. I just want to be sure that this
10-percent incentive feature is still in
the bill as it comes to us from the
conference.
Mr. BLATNIK. The gentleman is re-
ferring to the 10 percent for State par-
ticipation in the cost of the project; is
that what the gentleman is referring to?
Mr. CLEVELAND. I am referring to
the 10-percent incentive provision that
goes to those States that are contributing
at least 30 percent as New Hampshire
does, in fact, New Hampshire contributes
40 percent.
Mr. BLATNIK. That is what I
meant—that is to the States that are
participating. Yes; it is still in the bill.
[p. 27139]
Mr. CLEVELAND. That is still in the
bill?
Mr. BLATNIK. Yes, sir.
Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to revise and extend
my remarks and include extraneous
matter.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from New
Hampshire?
There was no objection.
Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Speaker, I
would like to commend the leadership of
the House Public Works Committee and
their entire staff for their excellent work
in writing the Water Pollution Control
Act of 1966. Needless to say, I am
pleased that I was able to make a contri-
bution to the drafting of this legislation—
particularly in connection with the 10-
percent incentive bonus for States. In
the future, we will have to devise incen-
tives for industry to more fully join the
battle. Probably the best way would be
through the tax-credit route, which, un-
fortunately, is not under the jurisdiction
of our committee.
Mr. Speaker, as has been frequently
stated, this is a matter of broad national
interest. Just today I received from my
district office a letter from Edward S.
LeBlanc, city clerk of Nashua, N.H., en-
closing a resolution passed by the board
of aldermen and approved by my friend,
Mayor Dennis J. Sullivan. This resolu-
tion is so timely that I enclosed it at this
point in the RECORD, as it points up the
widespread public interest and support
for our continuing battle against water
pollution.
RESOLUTION ENDORSING PROJECT PUKE
WATEB, CITY OF NASHUA
In the Year of Our Lord One Thousand
Nine Hundred and Sixty-six.
Resolved, By the Board oj Aldermen of the
City of Nashua, That the City of Nashua en-
dorse Project Purewater and its drive to abate
pollution of the Nashua and Merrimack Riv-
ers, and to clear out the pollution and im-
purities which now are allowed to be
discharged into them
And that whereas the Federal Government
has seen fit to enact a public law designed to
enhance the purity of waters and to abate the
pollution of our waters, it is urged that the
proper authorities of our State Government
take immediate action to put into execution
the said law so that the State may avail it-
self of any and all funds provided by the
Federal Government under said law for the
purpose of abating pollution in ojr interstate
waterways.
-------
1202
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Speaker, I yield
to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr.
JONES] who has played a major role in
this legislation from its inception 10
years ago.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Speaker,
I want to add my support to the con-
ference report on S. 2947, the water
pollution control bill of 1966. The distin-
guished gentleman from Minnesota [Mr.
BLATNIK] who has presided over the
deliberations in the committee and in
conference, and who has managed the
bill on the floor is to be commended for
the energy and dedication which he has
given to this legislation.
As I am sure the Members know, Mr.
BLATNIK has been considered the father
of the water pollution program in the
House of Representatives from the day
that the first authorization for appro-
priations was made in 1956. Since that
time he has been at hand whenever he
was needed to introduce and to secure
the passage of necessary amendatory
legislation. Last year the Water Quality
Control Act of 1965, with which he is
credited, represents the most substantial
monetary step ever made in this field.
Today I am proud to see that this bill
takes a major step in the provision of
construction grants for this problem
which has grown so tremendously in
magnitude. It will provide approxi-
mately $3V2 billion for construction
grants for sewage treatment works,
which is many times in excess of the
grants previously authorized. It will
also remove the dollar limitations on the
smaller projects, thereby permitting the
larger towns and cities to receive grants
which will be of some significance in
their financing of sewage treatment
works. It will broaden and at the same
time focus activities devoted to research
and development which are badly needed
to solve the many problems in this field.
I think that Mr. BLATNIK deserves a
great deal of credit, since he more than
anyone else has been the- architect of
this very worthwhile and much needed
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I would also like to call
attention at this point to one of the
strongest members of our committee in
the field of water pollution, Congressman
JIM WRIGHT, of Texas. He has been
actively interested in pollution control
since he has been in Congress and has
been of great assistance to the commit-
tee in solving the many complex prob-
lems that have come before us in this
exceedingly complex field. As a mem-
ber of the Committee on Government
Operations on which I also serve he has
had the advantage of becoming familiar
with the problems of water pollution
control and abatement on both that com-
mittee and the Public Works Committee.
Therefore, I am taking this opportunity
to commend him for his dedication to
this most important activity.
I also want to pay tribute at this time,
Mr. Speaker, to Congressman ROBERT
McCLORY, of Illinois, who as a former
member of the House Committee on
Government Operations has been so
helpful in supplying information to the
committee that has been of great value
in its deliberations on the subject of
water pollution.
Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BLATNIK. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to give my support to the confer-
ence report on the Clean Waters Resto-
ration Act of 1966 (S. 2947).
The diligent work of the House and
Senate conferees reflects the many con-
tributions of time and effort which have
been made by National, State, local, and
civic leaders—all of whom are concerned
about the pollution of our Nation's
waters.
I am proud to note a number of pro-
visions consistent with various recom-
mendations made by the Subcommittee
on Natural Resources of the House Com-
mittee on Government Operations. I
had the privilege of serving for 2 years
on this subcommittee under the chair-
manship of the distinguished gentleman
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1203
from Alabama [Mr. JONES]. The Jones
subcommittee conducted a thorough
study into all types of water pollution
in various sections of the country.
The conference committee report
reconciles the differences between the
House and Senate versions for augment-
ing the attack against water pollution.
Under the bill, the Federal Government
commits $3% billion of its funds. In
addition, States and local governments
receive substantial encouragement to
contribute to this solution of pollution
problems.
The conference committee report re-
enacts the Oil Pollution Control Act with
certain amendments along lines recom-
mended by the Jones committee.
The conferees have also given support
to a bill which several of my colleagues
and I introduced earlier in the session to
encourage industry to solve its pollution
problems. My bill (H.R. 17253) would
provide tax incentives to industries
which provide water pollution facilities.
As the conference committee report re-
cites the Secretary of the Interior shall
"make a full and complete study of
methods for providing incentives to as-
sist in constructing facilities and works
by industry to reduce or abate water
pollution, including possible use of tax
incentives."
I am pleased that this study will be
made, and I feel confident that it will
support tax incentives as an appropriate
part of a nationwide attack on water
pollution.
Mr. Speaker, the conference report
represents a great forward step in com-
bating water pollution. I am proud to
give this landmark legislation my full
support.
Mr. MATTHEWS. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the gentleman
from Illinois [Mr. KLUCZYNSKI] may ex-
tend his remarks at his point in the
RECORD.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Speaker, the
Clean Waters Restoration Act which is
before us in the conference report is an
outstanding example of what the House
and the Senate, working together to cre-
ate legislation that will be of lasting and
substantial benefit to all the people, can
accomplish.
This legislation, based on the more
than 10 years' experience since the Fed-
eral Government actively assumed its
responsibility to provide both leadership
and funds in the effort to bring an end
to pollution of our water resources and
to restore the already polluted waters,
probably marks the first time that any-
thing approaching a sufficient amount of
money has been authorized for either
treatment facilities or much-needed
research.
This legislation is a benchmark, not
only because it at last recognizes the
tremendous financial commitment that
pollution control and abatement require,
[p. 27140]
but because it recognizes that our cities
and States must be given every possible
encouragement and assistance in meet-
ing their part of the obligation in this
program. This legislation can substan-
tially alleviate the difficulties the larger
cities have had in financing the con-
struction of their treatment facilities at
the same time providing for the small
municipalities on small streams that also
face serious pollution problems.
It was a privilege to have had the op-
portunity to serve on the conference
from which this legislation developed. It
would not be possible to exaggerate my
respect for all the participants and par-
ticularly my admiration for Representa-
tive BOB JONES, of Alabama, and JOHN
BLATNIK, of Minnesota, for the patience,
wisdom, and vision with which they
worked with this most critical of our
resource problems.
Mrs. DWYER. Mr. Speaker, I an,
pleased to support the amendments to
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
as embodied in the conference report on
H.R. 16076.
-------
1204
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
If this is a compromise, Mr. Speaker,
then it is a good one.
The conference report does not pur-
port to do the whole job, but the clean
rivers restoration program passed as a
new title to the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act is another step along the
right road.
Requiring the combined efforts of all
levels of government and assuring an ex-
panded role for industry in solving the
problem, the report authorizes $3.6 bil-
lion over the next 5 years to help States
and localities build sewage treatment
plants for the Nation's water resources
that have for so long been neglected.
Further, the conference report elim-
inates the ceiling of $1.2 million per
project which will permit larger cities
and their suburbs, where the need is
great, to become eligible for grants up
to 30 percent of project cost.
The water pollution abatement pro-
gram is now on its way. The stake
which America has in its river basins,
every one of which is so badly polluted,
warrants this effort, Mr. Speaker, and
more.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
agreeing to the conference report.
The question was taken.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I object
to the vote on the ground that a quorum
is not present, and make the point of
order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum
is not present.
The Doorkeeper will close the doors,
the Sergeant at Arms will notify absent
Members, and the Clerk will call the roll.
The question was taken; and there
were—yeas 247, nays 0, not voting 185,
as follows:
*****
[p. 27141]
CLEAN WATERS RESTORATION ACT
OF 1966—CONFERENCE REPORT
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I sub-
mit a report of the committee of con-
ference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the
House to the bill (S. 2947) to amend the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act in
order to improve and make more effec-
tive certain programs pursuant to such
act. I ask unanimous consent for the
present consideration of the report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The re-
port will be read for the information of
the Senate.
The legislative clerk read the report.
(For conference report, see House
proceedings of today.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the present consideration of
the report?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the report.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Sen-
ate has before it today the Conference
Report on the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1966, in-
cluding the Clean Rivers Restoration
Act.
The Senate version of this legislation,
passed on July 13 by a vote of 90-0, in-
cluded, among other things, a 5-year,
$6 billion authorization for the Federal
share of the cost of construction of sew-
age treatment works. I am disappointed
to announce that we were unable to hold
that figure in conference. In order to
reach an agreement, the Senate accepted
a 4-year, $3.4 billion total. This is a de-
crease of approximately $2.5 billion from
the Senate bill, however, $1.5 billion of
that difference was absorbed by cutting
back the authorization for 1 year.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent to insert at this point in the RECORD
a chart which shows the differences be-
tween the Senate and the House passed
bills and the compromise reached:
Fiscal year
House
Senate Conference
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
150
300
400
650
950
150
600
1,000
1,250
1,500
150
450
700
1,000
1,250
It is important to note that neither
the House nor the Senate increased the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1205
existing authorization for 1967 and, thus,
no damage was done to the President's
budget.
The House and Senate split the differ-
ence in the first 2 years of the new
authorization but the conference amount
for the final 2 years indicates an increase
by the House of $350 million and $300
million, respectively, while the Senate
decreased only $250 million for each
year.
Mr. President, there was general rec-
ognition throughout the conference that
the $1.5 billion level authorized by the
Senate for 1971 and 1972 was realistic.
It, therefore, must be our next task to
increase the authorization to this more
realistic level. The $6 billion authorized
by the Senate was passed on the assump-
tion that, first, the Federal share should
be at least 30 percent of the total cost
of treatment facilities with no dollar
limitation and, second, that in order to
provide secondary treatment for 80 per-
cent of the population and advanced
waste treatment to approximately 20
percent of the population, $20 billion
would be required. I ask unanimous
consent to have printed in the RECORD
at this point a memorandum which
shows how the Ssnate arrived at that
estimate.
There being no objection, the memo-
randum was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
U S. SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS,
October 5, J966.
MEMORANDUM
To: Senator MUSKIE.
From. Leon G. Billings.
Subject: Justification of $20 billion cost
estimate.
CONFERENCE OF SANITARY ENGINEERS SURVEY
The survey of State pollution control
agencies conducted by the Committee, 48
responses to which were received, indicates
that less than 10 States confirmed the data
made available by the Conference of State
Sanitary Engineers Two of those States,
Oregon and Rhode Island, indicated costs less
than estimated by the Sanitary Engineers
The remaining 38 States provided estimates
ranging from a slight difference to a differ-
ence of as much as 80 times the Conference
estimate The following list is indicative:
(In thousands of dollars)
Connecticut
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
New York . .
Ohio
Conference
of State
sanitary
engineers
estimate
$ 39,931
. . 61,528
11,860
41 557
5,596
65,648
86,054
820,321
38,626
Committee
survey data
$ 200,000
250,000
127,900
300,000
430,409
215,648
450,000
1,708,000
1,000,000
It is therefore obvious that either the
Conference of State Sanitary Engineers does
not use the information made available to
them or determines its projected cost on a
different basis than the Committee consid-
ered in its Steps Toward Clean Water when
it arrived at a $20 billion cost estimate.
The Steps Toward Clean Water estimate is
based on certain assumptions, the first being
that 80% of the 1975 population will require
secondary treatment, the remaining 20%
will require tertiary treatment.
Because the statistical life of a secondary
treatment facility is 20 years, it must be
assumed further that projects constructed
between now and 1972 must be designed to
provide for at least a 1980 population. The
census estimates that the population in the
United States in 1980 will be approximately
250 million. If we provide secondary treat-
ment for 80% of that population, this will
equal ZOO million. It is assumed now that
61 million people have secondary treatment
and that by 1972 50% of this secondary treat-
ment will have to be replaced. Therefore,
between now and 1972, secondary treatment
must be provided for 170 million people.
The per capita construction cost of sewage
treatment facilities, associated interceptors
and other appurtenances, is approximately
$100 per person This will increase as con-
struction costs increase over the six year
period; but without assuming any change
in construction cost past August of 1966,
the -:ost for secondary treatment for 170 mil-
lion i*eople will be about $16','2 billion. As-
suming that 20C~, of the population must be
served by advance waste treatment by 1972,
such facilities must be provided for 50 mil-
lion people. The best available estimate of
per capita cost is $75 00 This would increase
the cost $3.75 billion, bringing total to $20 25
bil'ion In order that these facilities be
available for the 1980 population, and that
the associated economies of scale be taken
-------
1206
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
advantage of, this investment must be made
now, water quality notwithstanding.
The Committee Survey of Cities produced a
number of interesting results In several
instances where the Committee Survey of
States data confirmed estimates of the Con-
ference of State Sanitary Engineers, the city
responses debunked both these figures. The
two most surprising examples are Illinois
and Wisconsin. The State confirmed ihe
Sanitary Engineers estimate but failed to
note, in the instance of Illinois, that Chicago
costs were not included. While the State of
Illinois confirmed estimate is $54 million,
Chicago has an estimate of $702 million.
Wisconsin confirmed the Sanitary Engi-
neers estimate of $40 million but noted that
Milwaukee was not included in this estimate.
The city of Milwaukee estimates its cost at
$246 million.
Other city reports manifested similar dis-
agreements with the States. In Florida for
example, the State estimate is $54 million.
The city of Miami alone estimates its costs at
$130 million. The city of Jacksonville esti-
mates its cost at $59 million or $5 million
in excess of the total State figure.
The State of New Mexico confirmed an
estimate of $51/2 million while the city of
Albuquerque cited its cost at over $18 \'2
million.
The State of Missouri confirmed an esti-
mate of slightly over $28 million while the
city of St. Louis cited needs in excess of $116
million and Kansas City of nearly $48.5 mil-
lion.
Finally, the State of Washington confirmed
a figure of $28 million but noted that the
estimate submitted to the Conference of
State Sanitary Engineers did not include $78
million for interceptor sewers. The city of
Seattle reported that its needs alone would
exceed $98 million.
The data accumulated by the Committee
in its two surveys tends to confirm the esti-
mate of per capita cost referred to in the
above analysis of the $20 billion figure. The
following table is for that purpose"
[Per capita cost]
City:
Hartford, Conn $ 528.22
New Haven, Conn 122 66
Miami, Fla 446.73
(Dade County estimate 1,069.51)
[p.27244]
[Per capita cost]
City:
Jacksonville, Fla 294 68
(Duval County estimate 130.18)
Atlanta, Ga 156 47
Chicago, 111 113.54
(Cook County estimate 188 86)
Kansas City, Kans 182.94
Detroit, Mich 103.15
Jackson, Miss 159.25
St. Louis, Mo 154.99
Kansas City, Mo 101.96
Omaha, Nebr 97.66
Albuquerque, N. Mex 92.51
Rochester, N.Y 127.42
Syracuse, N.Y 93.17
Albany, N.Y
(Albany County estimate 280.29)
Charlotte, N.C 146.05
Greensboro, N C 108.21
Cincinnati, Ohio 216.69
Oklahoma City, Okla 171.16
Providence, R.I ' 226.50
Seattle, Wash 176.65
(King County estimate 105.23)
Milwaukee, Wis 344.45
(Milwaukee County estimate . . 237.50)
' Includes separation of storm and sanitary
sewers.
While there were no cities in Maine polled,
the estimate per capita cost for the State as a
whole is $129 35 The average per capita cost
in Ohio is $103.02 and in New York, $101.78.
These figures from three States which have
inventoried their water pollution control
needs indicate that, if anything, the estimate
by the Committee that $20 billion will be re-
quired is extremely conservative. If and
when we get to the question of authorization
for storm and sanitary sewer separation, these
costs can be expected to skyrocket and, when
increased funds become available, other States
are going to begin adequately inventorying
their needs.
The final point, and I think it is an impor-
tant point, is that of the existing allocation
formula, the States are limited in the amount
they can receive from whatever amount we
authorize. Some States are ready to go ahead.
Massachusetts, Wisconsin, New York and
Maine have authorized 30% matching pro-
grams. Connecticut and Ohio will soon fol-
low. The costs these States are confronted
with are tremendous and they will need the
full allocation available from a $6 billion
authorization if they are to receive even 30%
Federal matching funds.
LEON G. BILLINGS.
Mr. MUSKIE. This estimate of $20
billion, confirmed by a recently com-
pleted committee survey of States and
major cities, shall continue to guide the
efforts of the Subcommittee on Air and
Water Pollution.
There are several other disappointing
aspects the conference agreement which
I would like to discuss before outlining
the positive accomplishments of the
legislation.
The Senate-passed measure had a loan
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1207
provision which provided funds for thosa
communities unable to obtain their share
of construction costs from other sources,
this provision was deleted.
The Senate bill provided that, in con-
nection with any enforcement confer-
ence, the Secretary could require reports
from alleged polluters in order that the
conference could have more adequate
information on which to base pollution
control recommendations. This provi-
sion was modified to the extent that the
information can now only be required if
a majority of the conferees request it.
In essence, this means that the informa-
tion will not be available before a con-
ference but must await a positive action
by the conferees.
The Senate provided an automatic in-
centive of 10 percent of the total cost of
any treatment facilities constructed in
metropolitan areas which practice re-
gional planning. This provision was
deleted.
Finally, the Senate provided strength-
ening amendments to the Oil Pollution
Act. The Senate amendments would
have extended the scope of that act to
shore installations and terminal facili-
ties and provided that boats, vessels,
shore installations, and terminal facili-
ties depositing oil on coastal, navigable
and interstate waters and adjoining
shorelines would be responsible for the
removal of that oil. The legislation re-
ported from conference limits this re-
moval feature to boats and vessles by
eliminating application of the Oil Pollu-
tion Act to shore installations and ter-
minal facilities. However, the Senate
conferees were assured that both shore
installations and terminal facilities were
subject to the enforcement provisions of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
The net effect of the amendments to
the Oil Pollution Act, strictly enforced,
will be first, the extension of its enforce-
ment provision to all navigable waters
of the United States; second, a method of
requiring removal or payment of the cost
of removal of oil deposited on navigable
waters; and third, a protection for the
adjoining shorelines against the grossly
negligent spillage of oil which has del-
eteriously affected both the recreational
values of thess shorelines and has seri-
ously damaged coastal fisheries.
The Senate also receded from its
amendments to the Refuse Act of 1899
which provided for the Secretary of the
Interior to determine whether deposits
of refuse in navigable waters should be
cons.stent with the purposes of the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act. It is
the position of the Senate conferees that
mere amendment of this legislation
would not be satisfactory, that review of
the existing law is essential.
Mr. President, the bill before the Sen-
ate today establishes a landmark in the
Federal water pollution control effort.
Beginning next year there will be no
discrimination against major cities in the
construction grants program. The House
receded from its position that there
should be dollar limitations applied to
the construction grant program. When
this year's amendments become effective
and funds are made available, every
municipality will be able to receive a
maximum 30-percent Federal grant re-
gardless of the total cost. This means
that the big cities which have the worst
problems will have an equitable share
of the Federal water pollution control
dollar.
The conferees also agreed that there
should be an incentive for those States
willing to provide 30 percent of the proj-
ect's cost and, therefore, the conferees
agreed to increase the Federal share in
that instance to 40 percent. Further, if
the States agree to provide 25 percent of
the project's cost, and have established
enforcible water quality standards for
the waters into which the project dis-
charges, the Federal Government will
provide 50 percent of the cost of a
project.
This 30-40-50 Federal share approach,
without dollar limitations, commits the
Federal Government to increasing the
Federal investment in water pollution
control. It means that if the Federal
-------
1208
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Government is to meet its responsibility
to the States and their local govern-
ments, the $6 billion figure initially au-
thorized by the Senate will have to be
substantially increased.
Parenthetically, Mr. President, there
was no change in the provision in exist-
ing law which provides an incentive of
10 percent of the Federal grant in those
metropolitan areas practicing regional
planning. In essence, this means that
metropolitan areas may receive up to 33
percent, 44 percent, and 55 percent if
they comprehensively plan together.
Mr. President, there are a number of
other provisions to which the conference
agreed which I would like to summarize:
The Secretary of the Interior is au-
thorized to carry out a study of the
Nation's estuarine areas and $3 million
is provided for this purose. This pro-
vision was initially authored by Senator
TYDINGS of Maryland.
The conferees agreed to include both
the Cooper and the Kennedy of Massa-
chusetts amendments relating to pollu-
tion control personnel requirements.
The conferees agreed to provide a
method to deal with the problems of pol-
lution across international boundaries
The conferees agreed to the necessity
of a comprehensive study of the cost of
pollution control.
The conferees also agreed that there
was a necessity to study the problems
of pollution created by the recreational
watercraft and of the need for a study
of incentives to assist industrial pollu-
tion control.
The conferees reached agreement on
an expanded program for research and
development. A total of $305 million
was authorized for a 3-year period for
demonstration of industrial waste treat-
ment methods, advanced waste treat-
ment, joint municipal and industrial
treatment, and other pollution control
technicalities. Included in that $305 mil-
lion is a limitation of $125 million on the
general research activities of the Federal
Pollution Control Administration.
Section 5 of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act presently gives the
Secretary a very broad authority in
conducting research for various pur-
poses, including but not limited to, re-
search on separate and combined sewers,
on advanced waste treatment, and on
industrial wastes. He is authorized to
conduct this research, directly and by
grant, contract, agreement, or otherwise,
with public and private authorities,
agencies, and institutions as well as indi-
viduals. This authority, particularly as
to conducting research by contract, en-
compasses authority to conduct research
for which grants are specifically author-
ized in section 6, and the $20 million per
fiscal year which is authorized in section
6(e) (1) is by the phrase "including con-
tracts" in that subsaction made specifi-
cally
[p. 27245]
available for the purpose of conducting
this research by contract.
Finally, Mr. President, the conferees
agreed to expand the enforcement pro-
visions of the existing law. Previously
I referred to the compromise reached on
reports from alleged polluters at the
conference stage. The Senate accepted
House language which allows the Sec-
retary to require such reports from
alleged polluters in the hearing stage
of an enforcement proceeding. The most
significant change in the enforcement
procedure will be, especially to the con-
servationists, the provision that persons
affected by pollution can make a state-
ment to both the enforcement conference
and the hearing. The legislation before
you also provides that alleged polluters
may have an opportunity to make a full
statement of views at these two levels of
the enforcement procedure. It is not the
intent of the conferees that this become
a means whereby the enforcement pro-
cedure may be delayed. In fact, it is the
intent of the conferees that the chair-
man of the conference or the hearing
board my require any statements to be
filed rather than given orally.
Mr. President, there is only one re-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1209
maining provision in the conference bill
that I would like to discuss.
Earlier this year the President asked
for a method whereby entire river basins
could be cleaned up. In order to carry
out this purpose, he transmitted to the
Congress the Clean Rivers Restoration
Act of 1966. Both the House and Senate
bills contained specific titles to carry out
the purposes expressed by the Presi-
dent's legislation. However, the ap-
proach in each bill was entirely different.
The conferees agreed that the basic
purpose and intent of the President's
proposal could be carried out by amend-
ing the existing comprehensive planning
section of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act. A compromise was reached
whereby States in a basin may join to-
gether for the purpose of planning for
pollution control and should they desire
to do so, the Federal Government will
pay 50 percent of the expenses of the
designated planning agency. This pro-
vision for comprehensive planning, com-
bined with the 50-percent Federal grant
for construction of treatment works if
the States set intrastate as well as inter-
state water quality standards, more than
accomplishes the objectives of ths ad-
ministration.
Mr. RANDOLPH. If the Senator will
yield, I would like to pose a question.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am happy to yield to
the distinguished chairman of the Public-
Works Committee who has provided
tireless leadership in achieving passage
of this landmark legislation which we
are considering today.
Mr. RANDOLPH. It is my under-
standing that the compromise Clean
Waters section of S. 2947 provides the
means for more effectively implementing
the Water Quality Act of 1965. Am I
correct in this and, that the Senate's
position is that the comprehensive plan-
ning—river basin approach is funda-
mental to any water quality standards
program? Further, is it not true that the
Secretary of the Interior has sufficient
authority under sections 3 and 10 of the
act as amended by this bill to develop
or assist the development of realistic
comprehensive basin plans for any
hydrologic unit in the United States?
Mr. MUSKIE. The Sanator is quite
correct in his understanding of the legis-
lation before us. I have said time and
again that the Water Quality Act of 1965
required a river basin type approach if
adequate water quality standards are to
be effectuated. With the tools provided
by these amendments to the comprehen-
sive planning section, which provides for
development of comprehensive pro-
grams, the intrastate standards require-
ment for a 50-percent grant, and the
extensive authority granted under last
year's act, the administration, if it is
vigorous and dedicated to pollution con-
trol, can achieve all that it intended in
the President's proposed clean rivers
restoration program.
POLLUTION CONTROL REQUIRES BOLD STEPS
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President,
the Senate has taken another step for-
ward toward the control of pollution of
our Nation's water supplies with passage
today of the conference report on S.
2947.
Although the bill's provisions are not
as extensive as I should like to see en-
acted, significant improvements are in-
cluded in the legislation with the clean
rivers restoration program and the in-
centives offered for the States to join in
a comprehensive river basin pollution
control and abatement plan.
Current Federal grants to States for
help in financing their own programs,
from $5 million annually to $10 million,
are provided. This doubling of assist-
ance for research should encourage
strong action by the States in moving
to clean up the contamination of our
water before we strangle in our own
filth.
Even bolder action will be needed if
we are to win this battle. The problem
of correcting and preventing pollution is
staggering, but we cannot continue to
foul our waters and destroy our land.
The substantial increase in grant pro-
-------
1210
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
grams for pollution control is commend-
able, but it still falls short of the goals
passed unanimously earlier by the Sen-
ate. We must do more in the future if
the music of our streams is to be a pure
melody, and not a funeral dirge.
Mr. KUCHEL. I ask unanimous con-
sent to have printed in the RECORD at this
point a statement prepared by my col-
league, Senator COOPER.
There being no objection, the state-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENT BY SENATOR COOPER
I support the Conference report on S. 2947
and urge its adoption by the Senate.
The bill authorizes Federal water pollution
control programs totalling approximately $3.5
billion over the next 5 years. This new au-
thorization represents a substantial increase
from the $150 million now authorized for fis-
cal 1967 to $450 million in fiscal 1968 and
increasing to $1.25 billion in 1971, although
substantially below the $6.4 billion authorized
by the Senate. Besides lifting the dollar limi-
tations on individual sewage treatment proj-
ects, the bill recommended by the conferees
provides incentives for state-matching grants
and accelerated application of water quality
standards. It authorizes reimbursement for
local communities that have taken the incen-
tive on qualified projects and encourages joint
industrial municipal waste-treatment systems.
As a member of the Public Works Commit-
tee, I would like to pay my respects to the
distinguished Senator from Maine [Mr. Mus-
KIE], Chairman of the Subcommittee on Air
and Water Pollution, and to the ranking
minority member of the subcommittee, the
able Senator from Delaware (Mr. BOGCS], for
the leadership they have given this bill and
to the entire committee who have worked
hard and conscientiously on it.
It has been my view that we must do more
to increase the participation of private indus-
try in assisting to combat and control water
pollution. Conservative estimates of the total
cost for controlling industrial pollution have
been placed at $75 billion over the next 15
years, or the large sum of $5 billion per year.
At the base of this estimate rests the progres-
sively increased use of water by industry. In
1900, the average daily use of water for indus-
trial purposes was $15 billion gallons, but by
1960 industry was employing some 160 billion
gallons per day. The amount of money re-
quired for installations to control pollution in
just two industries alone—the paper and
chemical industries—is indeed staggering.
When the Air and Water Pollution Subcom-
mittee of the Public Works Committee an-
nounced that it would hold hearings in April
and May of this year to consider amendments
to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, I
wrote representatives of private Industry who
where scheduled to testify and pointed out
that, although the Public Works Committee
is without jurisdiction in fiscal matters, I
thought it would be helpful to the Committee
to have comments and viewpoints of industry
on needed tax incentives. As a result of their
testimony and the substantial interest created
among the committee members, the Public
Works Committee, in reporting out its bill,
included a strong recommendation to the
Committee on Finance to consider tax legis-
lation applicable to the acquisition and instal-
lation of pollution control facilities. The
pertinent section of the report of the Senate
Public Works Committee reads as follows:
INCENTIVE ASSISTANCE FOR INDUSTRIES
"A number of witnesses testified on the
need for tax incentives as a means of reducing
the cost of noneconomic pollution control fa-
cilities. This is not a matter over which the
Senate Public Works Committee has jurisdic-
tion but it affects the overall effort to meet
water pollution control and abatement needs.
This committee strongly recommends that the
appropriate congressional committee give
consideration to tax relief proposals for in-
dustrial pollution control activities.
"For the most part, pollution control does
not provide a return on an investment to an
industry. Installation of pollution control
devices is costly and, in many cases, nonre-
munerative. The billion dollars of capital
investment which will have to be made by
the industrial sector for the benefit of the
entire society will place a substantial burden
on corporate resources, and ultimately on the
general public. The committee suggests that
there are several alternative methods of aid-
ing industry in meeting its pollution control
obligations.
"Investment tax credits as proposed by
Senator JOHN SHERMAN COOPER of Kentucky in
legislation cosponsored by the chairman of
the Senate Public Works Committee Senator
JENNINGS RANDOLPH of West Virginia is one
method whereby industry could recoup the
cost of control and abatement of pollution.
Senator ABRAHAM RIBICOFF of Connecticut, in
legislation cosponsored by among others, the
chairman of the subcom-
[p. 27246]
mittee. Senator EDMUND S. MUSKIE of Maine,
provides for accelerated amortization of the
cost of pollution control facilities. This may
also provide a means of offsetting industry's
cost of pollution control. However, both of
these methods do not consider the problem
confronting those industries with plants hav-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1211
ing great pollution problems and marginal
economic efficiency.
"The committee has recommended greater
emphasis on joint municipal-industrial treat-
ment systems operated by public agencies.
Such systems are eligible for assistance under
the sewage treatment grant program.
"The proposal by the American Paper Insti-
tute for specific Federal grants to municipali-
ties to construct industrial waste treatment
facilities would provide an effective means o£
meeting the needs of both the marginal indus-
tries as well as the profitable industries. Such
a Federal grant approach would not be incon-
sistent with public policy because the grant
would, in effect, be made to a unit of govern-
ment. This approach differs from that pro-
posed by Senators COOPEH and RIBICOFF and is
a matter which can and will be considered by
this committee. However, realizing that there
is no final answer to the problem of financial
industrial pollution control, the committee
reiterates its strong recommendation that the
appropriate committees consider tax relief
legislation."
I would particularly like to draw attention
to two amendments contained in the House
bill which were agreed to by the Senate con-
ferees and which I strongly support. Section
201 of the bill authorizes for the first time the
Secretary of the Interior to make grants to
industry for research in the prevention and
treatment of water pollution. The need /or
expanded industrial research is discussed in
detail in the House report at pages 25-26:
"INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
"The reason for the addition of industrial
grants is recognition of the fact that industry,
which was at one time less of a polluter than
municipalities and communities, has now be-
come a major polluter. The complexity of
some industrial waste problems requires the
active involvement of industry itself which
has intimate knowledge of manufacturing
and other industrial processing operations.
The stipulation that 70 percent of the cost of
such investigations be borne by the Federal
government should be an inducement to have
industrial support and participation in the
studies.
"The committee is not inclined to belabor
industry for its growing contribution to this
problem. Nothing will be gained by attempt-
ing to fix blame. The problem is here and it
must be solved or some future generation will
be worrying about clean oceans. The com-
mittee does feel, however, that more should
be done by industry, and it is very pleased to
note that during the hearings evidence was
presented to show that industry is attempting
to do its part.
"The Federal Government should do its
part, too, in helping in the solution of this
problem, certainly, in developing means for
controlling it. The inclusion of specific grants
to industry for research is based upon the
same concept as in existing law for grants to
public and private agencies and institutions
for research in this field. It would be of little
value if we solved the technical means of
preventing or alleviating the sewage from
municipalities and failed to lend necessary
assistance to research for the disposal of waste
emanating from the various types of indus-
trial and manufacturing processes.
"Industrial research should not be limited
to the technology of waste treatment. It
should also include an investigation of pos-
sible financial methods of providing for this
treatment, including methods of providing
treatment works to the smaller industries on
an installment basis. If a small company is
faced with the necessity of putting in exten-
sive treatment works as a result of Federal
and State laws or public pressure, such fi-
nancing could be helpful."
Another provision of the House bill adopted
by the conferees requires the Secretary of the
Interior to make a full and complete investi-
gation and study of methods for providing
incentives to assist in constructing facilities
and works by industry to reduce or abate
water pollution, including possible use of tax
incentives and to report to the Congress by
January 30, 1968.
I believe that these two provisions of the
bill will enlist a greater participation of in-
dustry in Federal programs designed to abate
or control industrial pollution.
When the Senate Finance Committee held
hearings on H.R. 17607. a bill that would
temporarily suspend investment credit and
accelerated depreciation, I submitted a state-
ment and urged the Committee to continue
the availability of the present 7% investment
credit for the acquisition of air and water
pollution control facilities. This provision had
been included in the House bill as a floor
amendment.
In my testimony I said, "I am hopeful that
when the present inflationary pressures in our
economy have subsided this Committee will
consider increasing the present investment
credit or provide additional tax incentives to
industry to assist in the acquisition and instal-
lation of pollution controls. But for the
present, however, I believe it would be a
backward step for the Congress not to con-
tinue at least the present investment credit as
provided in the House bill."
I am pleased to note that this provision was
included in the bill recommended by the Fi-
nance Committee and passed by the Senate,
and was commented on in the committee
report in the following language:
5 Exemption of water and air pollution
control facilities
"An amendment adopted on the floor of the
-------
1212
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
House specifies that water and air pollution
control facilities are, under certain conditions,
not to be considered suspension period prop-
erty even though constructed or ordered dur-
ing the suspension period. Thus, facilities of
this nature will continue to remain eligible,
for the investment credit
"The exception is provided in recognition
of the importance of stimulating private in-
dustry to undertake expenditures for facilities
which will help to abate water and air pollu-
tion. There is a clear need to step up efforts
to purify the air we breathe and the water in
our streams and lakes.
"Suspension of the credit, even for a short
time, would discourage private efforts to
abate water and air pollution and would sim-
ply impose a larger direct burden on ihe
government
"This provision of the bill specifies that
water and air pollution control facilities will
not be treated as suspension period property
if they are used primarily to control either
water pollution or atmospheric oollution by
removing, altering, or disposing of pollutants
The facilities must conform to the State pro-
gram or to State requirements in regard Lo
the control of water or air pollution and they
must be in compliance with the applicable
regulations of Federal agencies and with the
general policies of the United States, in coop-
eration with the States, for the prevention
and abatement of water and air pollution
Certification to this effect must be made by
the State water or air pollution control
agency, as denned in the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act or the Clean Air Act. In
addition, such a facility must be constructed
or acquired in furtherance of Federal, State,
or local standards for the control of water or
air pollution."
A number of Members of the Senate have
introduced bills which would amend the In-
ternal Revenue Code so as to give a tax incen-
tive to industry to construct air and water
pollution control facilities. While many of
these bills differ as to method, each has the
purpose of providing industry with a financial
incentive for acquiring and installing neces-
sary equipment. On February 1 of this year,
I introduced a bill, S. 2857, for myself and on
behalf of Senator RANDOLPH, which would
increase the investment credit allowable from
the present 7 percent to 14 percent for those
industries purchasing and installing air and
water pollution facilities The bill is cospon-
sored by Senators ALLOTT, KUCHEL, LAUSCHE,
LONG of Missouri, PEARSON, SALTONSTALL,
SCOTT and JAVCTS, and is pending before ihe
Finance Committee.
I have gone to this great length to indicate
the many steps that are being taken now by
the Committees of the Congress to combat air
and water pollution. I believe that this bill
is another demonstration of the determined
effort of the Congress to advance solutions to
the most challenging problem facing our
country today—pollution in the air and in the
water.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I move
the adoption of the conference report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the motion of
the Senator from Maine.
The motion was agreed to.
[p.27247]
1.2k THE WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1970
April 3, 1970, P.L. 91-224, 84 Stat. 91
AN ACT To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, and for
other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled,
TITLE I—WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
SEC. 101. This title may be cited as the "Water Quality Improve-
ment Act of 1970".
SEC. 102. Existing sections 17 and 18 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended, are hereby repealed. Section 19 of such
Act is redesignated as section 27. Sections 11 through 16 of such Act
are redesignated as sections 21 through 26, respsctively. Such Act is
further amended by inserting after section 10 the following new
sections:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1213
"CONTROL OF POLLUTION BY OIL
"SEC. 11. (a) For the purpose 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 rsfuse, and oil mixed
with 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 watercraft or other
artificial 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 bare-boat char-
tered and operated by the United States, or by a State or political
subdivision thereof, or by a foreign nation, excspt when such
vessel is engaged in commerce;
" (5) 'United States' means the States, the District of Colum-
bia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Canal Zone, Guam,
American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of
the Pacific Islands;
"(6) 'owner or operator' means (A) in the case of a vessel, any
person owning, operating, or chartering by demise, such vessel,
and (B) in the case of an onshore facility, and an offshore facil-
ity, any person owning or operating such onshore facility or off-
shore facility, and (C) in the case of any abandoned offshore
facility, the person who owned or operated such facility
immediately prior to such abandonment;
" (7) 'person' includes an individual, firm, corporation, asso-
ciation, and a partnership.
" (8) 'remove' or 'removal' refers to removal of the oil from
the water and shorelines or the taking of such other action 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 under article 24 of the Con-
vention on the Territorial Sea 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;
[p. 91]
" (11) 'offshore facility' means any facility of any kind located
in, on, or under, any of the navigable waters of the United States
other than a vessel or a public vessel;
-------
1214 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
" (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.
" (b) (1) The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of the
United States that there should be no discharges of oil into or upon
the navigable waters of the United States, adjoining shorelines, or into
or upon the waters of the contiguous zone.
" (2) The discharge of oil 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 (3) of this subsection, is prohibited, except (A) in
the case of such discharges into the waters of the contiguous zone,
where permitted under article IV of the International Convention for
the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954, as amended, and
(B) where permitted in quantities and at times and locations or under
such circumstances or conditions as the President may, by regulation,
determine not to be harmful. Any regulations issued under this sub-
section shall be consistent with maritime safety and with marine and
navigation laws and regulations and applicable water quality
standards.
" (3) 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 the discharge of
which, at such times, locations, circumstances, and conditions, will bs
harmful to the public health or welfare of the United States, includ-
ing, but not limited to, fish, shellfish, wildlife, and public and private
property, shorelines, and beaches, except that in the case of the dis-
charge 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.
" (4) 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 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 agency of such discharge shall, upon con-
viction, be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned for not more
than one year, or both. Notification received pursuant to this para-
graph 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.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1215
" (5) Any owner or operator of any vessel, onshore facility, or off-
shore facility from which oil is knowingly 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 oper-
ating of not more than $10,000 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 charge. Each violation
is a separate offense. Any such civil penalty may be compromised by
such Secretary. In determining the amount of the psnalty, or the
amount agreed upon in compromise, the appropriateness of such
penalty to the size of the business of the owner or operator charged,
the effect 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
[p. 92]
Treasury shall withhold at the request of such Secretary the clear-
ance required by section 4197 of the Revised Statutes of the United
States, as amended (46 U.S.C. 91), of any vessel the owner or op-
erator 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 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 arrange for the removal of such oil 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 pursuant to this subsection. Such National Contin-
gency Plan shall provide for efficient, coordinated, and effective action
to minimize damage from oil discharges, including containment, dis-
persal, and removal of oil, and shall include, 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
-------
1216 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
establishment at major ports, to be determined by the President,
of emergency task forces of trained personnel, adequate oil pollu-
tion control equipment and material, and a detailed oil pollution
prevention and removal plan;
" (D) a system of surveillance and notice designed to insure
earliest possible notice of discharges of oil to the appropriate
Federal agency;
" (E) establishment of a national center to 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
" (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 dis-
persant, 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 publica-
tion of the National Contingency Plan, the removal of oil and actions
to minimize damage from oil 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
[p. 93]
limited to, fish, shellfish, and wildlife and the public and pri-
vate shorelines and beaches of the United States, because of a dis-
charge, or an imminent discharge, of large quantities of oil 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 provi-
sion of law governing the employment of personnel or the expenditure
of appropriated funds. Any expense incurred under this subsection
shall be a cost incurred by the United States Government for the
purposes of subsection (f) in the removal of oil.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1217
" (e) In addition to any other action taken by a State or local gov-
ernment, 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, and wildlife and public
and private property, shorelines, and beaches within the United
States, because of an actual or threatened discharge of oil 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 dis-
charge 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 is discharged in violation of subsection (b) (2) of this section shall,
notwithstanding 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 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 mis-
conduct 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 costs shall constitute a maritime lien
on such, vessel which may be recovered in an action in rem in the dis-
trict court of the United States for any district within which any ves-
sel may be found. The United States may also bring an action against
the owner or operator of such vessel in any court of competent juris-
diction 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 is discharged in violation of sub-
section (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 by the United States Government in an amount
not to exceed $8,000,000, except that where the United States can
-------
1218 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
show that such discharge was the result of willful negligence or will-
ful 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
[p. 94]
against the owner or operator of such facility in any court of com-
petent 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 in violation of subsection (b) (2) of this section, and
apply with respect to such classifications 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 is discharged in violation of sub-
section (b) (2) of this section shall, notwithstanding any other pro-
vision of law, be liable to the United States Government for the actual
costs incurred under subsection (c) for the removal of such oil 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 priv-
ity 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 a 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 is discharged
in violation of subsection (b) (2) of this section proves that such dis-
charge of oil was caused solely by an act or omission of a third party,
or was caused solely 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, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, be liable to the United States Government for the
actual costs incurred under subsection (c) for removal of such oil by
the United States Government, except where such third party can
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1219
prove 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 another party without re-
gard to whether such act or omission was or was not negligent, or any
combination of the foregoing clauses. If such third party was the
owner or operator of a vessel which caused the discharge of oil in vi-
olation 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 the 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 oc-
curred, if such owner or operator were liable. If the United States
can show that the discharge of oil in violation of subsection (b) (2)
of this section was the result of willful negligence or willful miscon-
duct within the privity and knowledge of such third party, such third
party shall be liable to the United States Government for the full
amount of such removal costs. The United States may bring an ac-
tion against the third party in any court of competent jurisdiction to
recover such removal costs.
[p. 95]
" (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 on-
shore facility or an offshore facility may have against any third party
whose acts may in any way have caused or contributed to such dis-
charge, or (2) the United States Government may have against any
third party whose actions may in any way have caused or contributed
to the discharge of oil.
" (i) (1) In any case where an owner or operator of a vessel or an
onshore facility or an offshore facility from which oil is discharged in
violation of subsection (b) (2) of this section acts to remove such oil
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 such act or omission was or was not negli-
gent, or of any combination of the foregoing clauses.
" (2) The provisions of this subsection shall not apply in any case
where liability is established pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act.
-------
1220 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
" (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 safety and
with marine and navigation laws (A) establishing methods and pro-
cedures for removal of discharged oil, (B) establishing criteria for
the development and implementation of local and regional oil removal
contingency plans, (C) establishing procedures, methods, and re-
quirements for equipment to prevent discharges of oil from vessels
and from onshore facilities and offshore facilities, and (D) governing
the inspection of vessels carrying cargoes of oil and the inspection of
such cargoes in order to reduce the likelihood of discharges of oil
from such 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 regulation issued
under paragraph (1) of this subsection who fails or refuses to comply
with the provisions of any such regulation, shall be liable to a civil
penalty of not more than $5,000 for each such violation. Each viola-
tion shall be a separate offense. The President may assess and com-
promise 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 upon 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 hereby authorized to ba 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), (i), and (1) of this section
and section 12 of this Act. Any other funds received by the United
States under this section shall also be deposited in said fund for such
purposes. All sums appropriated to, or deposited in, said fund shall
remain available until expended.
[p. 96]
"(1) The President is authorized to delegate the administration of
this section to the heads of those Federal departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities which he determines to be appropriate. Any
moneys in the fund established by subsection (k) of this section shall
be available to such Federal departments, agencies, and instrumen-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1221
talities to carry out the provisions of subsections (c) and (i) of this
section and section 12 of this Act. Each such department, agency,
and instrumentality, in order to avoid duplication of effort, shall,
whenever appropriate, utilize the personnel, services, and facilities of
other Federal departments, agencies, and instrumentalities.
" (m) Anyone authorized by the President to enforce the provisions
of this section may, except 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 regula-
tion issued thereunder 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 sub-
section (i) (1), arising under this section. In the case of Guam, such
actions 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 obligations of any owner or operator of any vessel, or of any
owner or operator of any onshore facility or 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 dis-
charge of any oil or from the removal of any such oil.
" (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 into any waters within
such State.
" (3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting or modi-
fying any other existing authority of any Federal department, agency,
or instrumentality, relative to onshore or offshore facilities under this
Act or any other provision of law, or to affect 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, 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
-------
1222 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
per gross ton, or $14,000,000 whichever is the lesser, to meet the lia-
bility 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 bs
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.
[p. 97]
" (2) The provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be
effective one year after the effective date of this section. The Presi-
dent 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 section. Regulations necessary to imple-
ment 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 any other person providing evidence
of financial responsibility as required under this subsection. In the
case of any action pursuant to this subsection such insurer or other
person shall be entitled to invoke 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 have been
available to him if an action had been brought against him by the
owner or operator.
" (4) The Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the
Secretaries of Interior, State, Commerce, and other interested Federal
agencies, representatives of the merchant marine, oil companies, in-
surance companies, and other interested individuals and organizations,
and taking into account the results of the application of paragraph
(1) oi this subsection, shall conduct a study of the need for and, to
the extent determined necessary—
" (A) other measures to provide financial responsibility and
limitation of liability with respect to vessels using the navigable
waters of the United States;
" (B) measures to provide financial responsibility for all on-
shore and offshore facilities; and
" (C) other measures for limitation of liability of such
facilities;
for the cost of removing discharged oil and paying all damages result-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1223
ing from the discharge of such oil. The Secretary of Transportation
shall submit a-report, together with any legislative recommendations,
to Congress and the President by January 1, 1971.
"CONTROL OF HAZARDOUS POLLUTING SUBSTANCES
"SEC. 12. (a) The President shall, in accordance with subsection
(b) of this section, develop, promulgate, and revise as may be appro-
priate, regulations (1) designating as hazardous substances, other
than oil as defined in section 11 of this Act, such elements and com-
pounds which, when discharged in any quantity into or upon the
navigable waters of the United States or adjoining 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; and (2) establishing,
if appropriate, recommended methods and means for the removal of
such substances.
" (b) Sections 551 through 559, inclusive (other than section 553
(c)), and 701 through 706, inclusive, of title 5, United States Code,
shall apply to regulations issued under authority of this section.
" (c) In order to facilitate the removal, if appropriate, of any
hazardous substance any person in charge of a vessel or of an onshore
or offshore facility of any kind shall, as soon as he has knowledge of
any discharge of such substance from such vessel or facility, immedi-
ately notify the appropriate agency of the United States of such
discharge.
[p. 98]
" (d) Whenever any hazardous substance is discharged into or
upon the navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines
or the waters of the contiguous zone, unless removal is immediately
undertaken by the owner or operator of the vessel or onshore or
offshore facility from which the discharge occurs or which caused
the discharge, pursuant to the regulations promulgated under this
section, the President, if appropriate, shall remove or arrange for the
removal thereof in accordance with such regulations. Nothing in this
subsection shall be construed to restrict the authority of the President
to act to remove or arrange for the removal of such hazardous sub-
stance at any time.
" (e) Nothing in this section shall affect or modify in any way the
obligations of any owner or operator of any vessel, onshore or offshore
facility to any person or agency under any provision of law for
damages to any publicly- or privately-owned property resulting from
a discharge of any hazardous substance or from the removal of any
such substance.
" (f) (1) For the purpose of this section the definitions in subsec-
-------
1224 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
tion (a) of section 11 of this Act shall bs applicable to the provisions
of this section, except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection:
" (2) For the purpose of this section, the term—
" (A) 'remove' or 'removal' refers to removal of the hazardous
substances from the water and shorelines 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;
" (B) 'owner or operator' means any person owning, operating,
chartering by demise, or otherwise controlling the operations of,
a vessel, or any person owning, operating, or otherwise controlling
the operations of an onshore or offshore facility; and
" (C) 'offshore or onshore facility' means any facility of any
kind and related appurtenances thereto which is located in, on,
or under the surface of any land, or permanently or temporarily
affixed to any land, including lands beneath the navigable waters
of the United States and which is used or capable of use for the
purpose of processing, transporting, producing, storing, or trans-
ferring for commercial purposes any hazardous substance desig-
nated under this section.
" (g) The President shall submit a report to the Congress, together
with his recommendations, not later than November 1, 1970, on the
need for, and desirability of, enacting legislation to impose liability
for the cost of removal of hazardous substances discharged from ves-
sels and onshore and offshore facilities subject to this section including
financial responsibility requirements. In preparing this report, the
President shall conduct an accelerated study which shall include, but
not be limited to, the method and measures for controlling hazardous
substances to prevent this discharge, and the most appropriate meas-
ures for (1) enforcement (including the imposition of civil and crimi-
nal penalties for discharges and for failure to notify) and (2) recovery
of costs incurred by the United States if removal is undertaken by the
United States. In carrying out this study, the President shall consult
with the interested representatives of the various public and private
groups that would be affected by such legislation as well as other
interested persons.
" (h) Any moneys in the funds established by section 11 of this Act
shall be available to the President to carry out the purposes of this
section. In carrying out this section the President shall utilize the
personnel, services, and facilities of Federal departments, agencies,
and instrumentalities in such manner as will avoid duplication of
effort.
[p. 99]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1225
"SEC. 13. (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 transportation on the navigable waters of the United
States, 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 baing used, as a
means of transportation on the navigable waters of the United
States, the construction of which is initiated before promulgation
of standards and regulations under this section;
" (3) 'public vessel' means a vessel owned or bareboat chart-
ered 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 Colum-
bia, 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,
treat, 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) 'manufacture' means any person engaged in the manu-
facturing, 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, corpora-
tion, or association, but does not include an individual on board
a public vessel;
" (9) 'discharges' includes, but is not limited to, any 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 5 (j) of this Act, the Secretary,
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 tech-
nology, shall promulgate Federal standards of performance for marine
sanitation devices (hereafter in this section referred to as 'standards')
which shall be designed to prevent the discharge of untreated or in-
adequately treated sewage into or upon the navigable waters of the
United States from new vessels and existing vessels, except vessals
-------
1226 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
not equipped with installed toilet facilities. Such standards shall be
consistent with maritime safety and the marine and navigation laws
and regulations and shall bs 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
[p. 100]
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 Secretary, may distinguish among
classes, types, and 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 classes, 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 application, for individual vessels.
" (d) The provisions of this section and the standards and regula-
tions promulgated hereunder apply to vessels owned and operated by
the United States unless the Secretary of Defense finds that compli-
ance would not be in the interest of national security. With respect
to vessels owned and operated by the Department of Defense, regu-
lations under the last sentence of subsection (b) (1) and certifications
under subsection (g) (2) of this section shall be promulgated and is-
sued by the Secretary of Defense.
" (e) Before the standards and regulations under this section are
promulgated, the Secretary and the Secretary of the department in
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1227
which the Coast Guard is operating shall consult with the Secretary
of State; the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare; the Secre-
tary of Defense; the Secretary of the Treasury; the Secretary of
Commerce; 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, no State or political subdivision
thereof shall adopt or enforce any statute or regulation of such State
or political subdivision with respect to the design, manufacture, or
installation or use of any marine sanitation device on any vessel sub-
ject to the provisions of this section. Upon application by a State, and
where the Secretary determines that any applicable water quality
standards require such a prohibition, he shall by regulation completely
prohibit the discharge from a vessel of any sewage (whether treated
or not) into those waters of such State which are the subject of the
application and to which such standards apply.
" (g) (1) No manufacturer of a marine sanitation device shall sell,
offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate
commerce, or import 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 pro-
visions of this paragraph, 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
[p. 101]
the Secretary as to standards of performance and for such other pur-
poses as may be appropriate. 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 rec-
-------
1228 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATKR
ords, make such reports, and provide such information as the Secre-
tary or the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating may reasonably 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 Secretary or the Secre-
tary 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 Secretary 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 the purpose 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 promul-
gated under this section, it shall be unlawful—
" (1) for the manufacturer of any vessel subject to such stand-
ards 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 appropriate test device
certified pursuant to this section;
" (2) for any person, prior to the sale or delivery of a vessel
subject to such standards and regulations to the ultimate pur-
chaser, wrongfully to remove or render inoperative any certified
marine sanitation device or element of design of such device in-
stalled 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 informa-
tion required under this section; and
" (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 jurisdictions
to restrain violations of subsection (g) (1) and subsections (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 con-
tumacy or refusal to obey a subpena served upon any person under
this subsection, the district court of the United States for any district
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1229
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 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.
[p. 102]
"(j) Any person who violates subsection (g) (1) or clause (1) or
(2) of subsection (h) of this section shall be liable to 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 or 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 operating 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 a violation, shall be considered by said Secretary.
" (k) The provisions of this section shall be enforced by the Secre-
tary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating and he
may utilize by agreement, with or without reimbursement, law en-
forcement officers or other personnel and facilities of the Secretary,
other Federal agencies, or the States to carry out the provisions of
this section.
" (1) 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) execute
any warrant or other process issued by an officer or court of competent
jurisdiction.
" (m) In the case of Guam, actions arising under this section 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 District Court for the District of the
Canal Zone.
-------
1230 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
"AREA ACID AND OTHER MINE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
DEMONSTRATIONS
"SEC. 14. (a) The Secretary 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 elimination or con-
trol, within all or part of a watershed, of acid or other mine water
pollution resulting from active or abandoned mines. Such projects
shall demonstrate the engineering and economic feasibility and prac-
ticality of various abatement techniques which will contribute sub-
stantially to effective and practical methods of acid or other mine
water pollution elimination or control.
" (b) The Secretary, 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 wild-
life, 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
[p. 103]
that is needed for the project, or personal property or services,
the value of which shall be determined by the Secretary; and
" (2) that the State or interstate agency shall provide legal and
practical protection to the project area to insure against any ac-
tivities 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 section, 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.
"POLLUTION CONTROL IN GREAT LAKES
"SEC. 15. (a) The Secretary, 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 thereof, to carry out
one or more projects to demonstrate new methods and techniques and
to develop preliminary plans for the elimination or control of pollu-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1231
tion, within all or any part of the watersheds of the Great Lakes.
Such projects shall demonstrate the engineering and economic feasi-
bility and practicality 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 sub-
stantially to effective and practical methods of water pollution elimi-
nation 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 Secretary.
" (c) There is authorized to be appropriated $20,000,000 to carry out
the provisions of this section, which sum shall be available until
expended.
"TRAINING GRANTS AND CONTRACTS
"SEC. 16. The Secretary is authorized to make grants to or contracts
with institutions of higher education, or combinations of such institu-
tions, to assist them in planning, developing, strengthening, im-
proving, or carrying out programs or projects for the preparation of
undergraduate 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 maintenance
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 prep-
aration of students preparing to enter an occupation involving
the operation and maintenance of treatment works;
" (D) carrying out innovative and experimental programs of
cooperative education involving alternate periods of full-time or
part-time academic study at the institution and periods of full-
time or part-time employment involving the operation and main-
tenance of treatment works; and
[p. 104]
" (E) research into, and development of, methods of training
-------
1232 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
students or faculty, including the preparation of teaching ma-
terials and the planning of curriculum.
APPLICATION FOR TRAINING GRANT OR CONTRACT; ALLOCATION OF
GRANTS OR CONTRACTS
"SEC. 17. (1) A grant or contract authorized by section 16 may be
made only upon application to the Secretary 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 16, and describes
the relation to any program set forth by the applicant in an
application, if any, submitted pursuant to section 18;
" (B) provides such fiscal control and fund accounting pro-
cedures 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 Secretary may require to
carry out his functions under this section, and for keeping such
records and for affording such access thereto as the Secretary
may find necessary to assure the correctness and verification of
such reports.
" (2) The Secretary shall allocate grants or contracts under section
16 in such manner as will most nearly provide an equitable distribu-
tion 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 purposes of this section.
" (3) (A) Payment under this section may be used in accordance
with regulations of the Secretary, and subject to the terms and condi-
tions 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 treat-
ment 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 ap-
proved pursuant to this section.
" (B) Departments and agencies of the United States are encour-
aged, to the extent consistent with efficient administration, to enter
into arrangements with institutions of higher education for the full-
time, part-time, or temporary employment, whether in the competitive
or excepted service, of students enrolled in programs set forth in
applications approved under subsection (a).
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1233
"SEC. 18. (1) The Secretary 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 opera-
tion and maintenance of treatment works. Such scholarships shall
be awarded for such periods as the Secretary may determine but not
to exceed four academic years.
" (2) The Secretary 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—
[p. 105]
" (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 Secretary shall approve a program of an 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 as a principal objective the educa-
tion 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 readily put into effect and may reasonably be expected to be
of high quality;
" (C) that the application describes the relation of such pro-
gram to any program, activity, research, or development set
forth by the applicant in an application, if any, submitted pur-
suant to section 1 of this Act; and
" (D) that the application contains satisfactory assurances that
(i) the institution will recommend to the Secretary 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 program, to enter occupations in-
volving the operation and maintenance of treatment works upon
completing the program.
" (4) (A) The Secretary shall pay to persons awarded scholarships
-------
1234 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
under this section such stipends (including such allowances for sub-
sistence 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 Secretary shall (in addition to the stipends paid to per-
sons 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
section shall continue to receive the payments provided in this section
only during such periods as the Secretary 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 Secretary by or pursuant to
regulation.
" (6) The Secretary shall by 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 studies as the Secretary determines appropriate.
"DEFINITIONS AND AUTHORIZATIONS
"SEC. 19. (1) As used in sections 16 through 19 of this Act—
"(A) The term 'State' includes the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, the Canal Zone, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa,
and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
[p. 106]
" (B) The term 'institution of higher education' means an educa-
tional 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 Secretary for this
purpose. For purposes of this subsection, the Secretary shall publish
a list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies or associations
which he determines to be reliable authority as to the quality of
training offered.
" (C) The term 'academic year' means an academic year or its
equivalent, as determined by the Secretary.
" (2) The Secretary shall annually report his activities under sec-
tions 16 through 19 of this Act, including recommendations for needed
revisions in the provisions thereof.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1235
" (3) There are authorized to be appropriated $12,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, $25,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1971, and $25,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,1972,
to carry out sections 16 through 19 of this Act (and planning and
related activities in the initial fiscal year for such purpose). Funds
appropriated for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, under authority
of this subsection shall be available for obligation pursuant to the
provisions of sections 16 through 19 of this Act during that year and
the succeeding fiscal year.
"ALASKA VILLAGE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
"SEC. 20. (a) The Secretary is authorized to enter into agreements
with the State of Alaska to carry out one or more projects to demon-
strate methods to provide for central community facilities for safe
water and the elimination or control of water pollution in those native
villages of Alaska without such facilities. Such projects shall include
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 ba
for the further purpose of developing preliminary plans for providing
such safe water and such elimination or control of water pollution for
all native villages in such State.
" (b) In carrying out this section the Secretary 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 Secretary shall report to Congress not later than Janu-
ary 31, 1973, the results of the demonstration projects authorized by
this section together with his recommendations, including any neces-
sary legislation, relating to the establishment of a statewide program.
" (d) There is authorized to be appropriated not to exceed
$1,000,000 to carry out this section."
SEC. 103. Redesignated section 21 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended, is amended to read as follows:
"COOPERATION BY ALL FEDERAL AGENCIES IN THE CONTROL OF
POLLUTION
"SEC. 21. (a) Each Federal agency (which term is used in this
section includes Federal departments, agencies, and instrumentalities)
having jurisdiction over any real property or facility, or engaged in
any Federal public works activity of any kind, shall, consistent with
the paramount interest of the United States as determined by the
-------
1236 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
President, insure compliance with applicable water quality standards
[p. 107]
and the purposes of this Act in the administration of such property,
facility, or activity. In his summary of any conference pursuant to
section 10 (d) (4) of this Act, the Secretary shall include references to
any discharges allegedly contributing to pollution from any such
Federal property, facility, or activity, and shall transmit a copy of such
summary to the head of the Federal agency having jurisdiction of
such property, facility, or activity. Notice of any hearing pursuant to
section 10 (f) of this Act involving any pollution alleged to be effected
by any such discharges shall also be given to the Federal agency hav-
ing jurisdiction over the property, facility, or activity involved, and
the findings and recommendations of the hearing board conducting
such hearing shall include references to any such discharges which
are contributing to the pollution found by such board.
" (b) (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 the navigable
waters of the United States, shall provide the licensing or permitting
agency a certification from the State in which the discharge originates
or will originate, or, if appropriate, from the interstate water pollution
control agency having jurisdiction over the navigable waters at the
point where the discharge originates or will originate, that there is
reasonable assurance, as determined by the State or interstate
agency that such activity will be conducted in a manner which will not
violate applicable water quality standards. 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 appro-
priate, procedures for public hearings in connection with specific
applications. In any case where such standards have baen promul-
gated by the Secretary pursuant to section 10 (c) of this Act, or where
a State or interstate agency has no authority to give such a certifica-
tion, such certification shall be from the Secretary. If the State, inter-
state agency, or Secretary, 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 ob-
tained 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 Secretary, as the case may be.
" (2) Upon receipt of such application and certification the licensing
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1237
or permitting agency shall immediately notify the Secretary of such
application and certification. Whenever such a discharge may afffect,
as determined by the Secretary, the quality of the waters of any other
State, the Secretary within thirty days of the date of notice of appli-
cation for such Federal license or permit shall so notify such other
State, the licensing or permitting agency, and the applicant. If, within
sixty days after receipt of such notification, such other State deter-
mines that such discharge will affect the quality of its waters so as to
violate its water quality standards, and within such sixty-day period
notifies the Secretary and the licensing or permitting agency in writ-
ing of its objection to the issuance of such license or permit and
requests a public hearing on such objection, the licensing or permit-
ting agency shall hold such a hearing. The Secretary shall at such
hearing submit his evaluation and recommendations with respsct to
any such objection to the licensing or permitting agency. Such
agency, based upon the recommendations of such State, the Secretary,
and upon any additional evidence, if any, pressnted to the agency at
the hearing, shall condition such license or permit in such manner as
may be necessary to insure compliance with applicable water quality
standards. If
[p. 108]
the imposition of conditions cannot insure such compliance such
agency shall 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 con-
nection with any other Federal license or permit required for the
operation of such facility unless, after notice to the certifying State,
agency, or Secretary, as the case may be, which shall bs 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 Secretary, notifies such agency within sixty days after receipt of
such notice that there is no longer reasonable assurance that there
will be compliance with applicable water quality standards because
of changes since the construction license or permit certification was
issued in (A) the construction or operation of the facility, (B) the
characteristics of the waters into which such discharge is made, or
(C) the water quality standards applicable to such waters. This
paragraph shall be inapplicable in any case where the applicant for
such operating license or permit has failed to provide the certifying
State, or if appropriate, the interstate agency or the Secretary, with
notice of any proposed changes in the construction or operation of the
facility with respect to which a construction license or permit has
-------
1238 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
been granted which changes may result in violation of applicable
water quality standards.
" (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 of the United States and with respsct to which a
certification has been obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of this sub-
section, which facility or activity is not subject to a Federal operating
license or permit, the licensee or permittee shall provide an oppor-
tunity for such certifying State or, if appropriate, the interstate
agency or the Secretary to review the manner in which the facility
or activity shall be operated or conducted for the purposes of assuring
that applicable water quality standards will not be violated. Upon
notification by the certifying State or, if appropriate, the interstate
agency or the Secretary that the operation of any such federally
licensed or permitted facility or activity will violate applicable water
quality standards, such Federal agency may, after public hearing,
suspend such license or permit. If such license or permit is sus-
pended, it shall remain suspended until notification is received from
the certifying State, agency, or Secretary, as the case may be, that
there is reasonable assurance that such facility or activity will not
violate applicable water quality standards.
"(5) Any Federal license or permit with respect to which a certifi-
cation 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 section 10 (h) of
this Act that such facility or activity has been operated in violation
of applicable water quality standards.
" (6) No Federal agency shall be deemed to be an applicant for the
purposes of this subsection.
" (7) In any case where actual construction of a facility has been
lawfully commenced prior to the date of enactment of the Water
Quality Improvement Act of 1970, no certification shall be required
under this subsection for a license or permit issued after the date of
enactment of such Act of 1970 to operate such facility, except that any
such license or permit issued without certification shall terminate at
the end of the three-year period beginning on the date of enactment
of such Act of 1970 unless prior to such termination date the person
having such license or permit submits to the Federal agency which
issued such license or permit a certification and otherwise maets the
requirements of this subsection.
[p. 109]
" (8) Except as provided in paragraph (7), any application for a
license or permit (A) that is pending on the date of enactment of the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1239
Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970 and (B) that is issued within
one year following such date of enactment shall not require certifica-
tion pursuant to this subsection for one year following the issuance of
such license or permit, except that any such license or permit issued
shall terminate at the end of one year unless prior to that time the
licensee or permittee submits to the Federal agency that issued such
license or permit a certification and otherwise meets the requirements
of this subsection.
" (9) (A) In the case of any activity which will affect water quality
but for which there are no applicable water quality standards, no
certification shall be required under this subsection, except that the
licensing or permitting agency shall impose, as a condition of any
license or permit, a requirement that the licensee or permittee shall
comply with the purposes of this Act.
" (B) Upon notice from the State in which the discharge originates
or, as appropriate, the interstate agency or the Secretary, that such
licensee or permittee has been notified of the adoption of water qual-
ity standards applicable to such activity and has failed, after reason-
able notice, of not less than six months, to comply with such standards,
the license or permit shall be suspended until notification is received
from such State or interstate agency or the Secretary that there is
reasonable assurance that such activity will comply with applicable
water quality standards.
" (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the author-
ity of any department or agency pursuant to any other provision of
law to require compliance with applicable water quality standards.
The Secretary shall, upon the request of any Federal department or
agency, or State or interstate agency, or applicant, provide, for the
purpose of this section, any relevant information on applicable water
quality standards, and shall, when requested by any such department
or agency or State or interstate agency, or applicant, comment on any
methods to comply with such standards.
" (d) In order to implement the provisions of this section, the Sec-
retary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is author-
ized, if he deems it to be in the public interest, to permit the use of
spoil disposal areas under his jurisdiction by Federal licensees or
permittees, and to make an appropriate charge for such use. Moneys
received from such licensees or permittees shall be deposited in the
Treasury as miscellaneous receipts."
SEC. 104. Redesignated section 22 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended, is amended by adding at the end thereof the
following:
" (f) (1) It is the purpose of this subsection to authorize a program
which will provide official recognition by the United States Govern-
-------
1240 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
ment to those industrial organizations and political subdivisions of
States which during the preceding year demonstrated an outstanding
technological achievement or an innovative process, method or device
in their waste treatment and pollution abatement programs. The Sec-
retary shall, in consultation with the appropriate State water pol-
lution control agency, establish regulations under which such
recognition may be applied for and granted, except that no applicant
shall be eligible for an award under this subssction if such applicant
is not in total compliance with all applicable water quality standards
under this Act, and otherwise does not have a satisfactory record
with respect to environmental quality.
[p. 110]
" (2) The Secretary shall award a certificate or plaque of suitable
design to each industrial organization or political subdivision which
qualifies for such recognition under regulations established by this
subsection.
"(3) The President of the United States, the Governor of the
appropriate State, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and
the President pro tempore of the Senate shall be notified of the award
by the secretary, and the awarding of such recognition shall be
published in the Federal Register."
SEC. 105. Section 5 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended, is amended as follows:
" (1) by redesignating subsections (g) and (h) as (m) and
(n), respectively, including all references thereto;
(2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following new sub-
sections:
" (g) (1) For the purpose of providing an adequate supply of
trained personnel to operate and maintain existing and future treat-
ment works and related activities, and for the purpose of enhancing
substantially the proficiency of those engaged in such activities, the
Secretary shall finance a pilot program, in cooperation with State
and interstate agencies, municipalities, educational 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 program and any funds expended for such a program shall sup-
plement, not supplant, other manpower and training programs and
funds available for the purposes of this paragraph. The Secretary 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.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1241
4
" (2) The Secretary is authorized to enter into agreements with
public and private agencies and institutions, and individuals to de-
velop and maintain an effective system for forecasting the supply of,
and demand for, various professional and other occupational cate-
gories needed for the prevention, control, and abatement of water
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 Secretary is
authorized to—
" (A) make grants to public or private agencies and institu-
tions 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 De-
partment of the Interior with such stipends and allowances, in-
cluding traveling and subsistence expenses, as he may deem
necessary to procure the assistance of the most promising re-
search fellowships; and
" (C) provide, in addition to the program established under
paragraph (1) of this subsection, training in technical matters
relating to the causes, prevention, and control of water pollution
for personnel of public agencies and other persons with suitable
qualifications.
" (4) The Secretary shall submit, through the President, a report
to the Congress within eighteen months from the date of enactment
of this subsection, summarizing the actions taken under this subsec-
tion and the effectiveness of such actions, and setting forth the num-
bar of persons trained, the occupational categories for which training
was
[p. Ill]
provided, the effectiveness of other Federal, State, and local training
programs in this field, together with estimates of future needs, rec-
ommendations on improving training programs, and such other
information and recommendations, including legislative recommenda-
tions, as he deems appropriate.
" (h) The Secretary is authorized to enter into contracts with, or
make grants to, public or private agencies and organizations and in-
dividuals for (A) the purpose of developing and demonstrating new
or improved methods for the prevention, removal, and control of
natural or manmade pollution in lakes, including the undesirable
effects of nutrients and vegetation, and (B) the construction of pub-
licly owned research facilities for such purpose.
-------
1242 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
" (i) The Secretary shall—
" (A) 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 and control of oil
pollution;
" (B) publish from time to time the results of such activities;
and
" (C) from time to time, develop and publish in the Federal
Register specifications and other technical information on the
various chemical compounds used as dispersants or emulsifiers
in the control of oil spills.
In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary may enter into con-
tracts with, or make grants to, public or private agencies and organi-
zations and individuals.
" (i) The Secretary shall engage in such research, studies, experi-
ments, 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 vessels. The Secretary shall report to Con-
gress the results of such research, studies, experiments, and demon-
strations prior to the effective date of any standards established under
section 13 of this Act. In carrying out this subsection the Secretary
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 Secretary of demonstration projects and the develop-
ment of field laboratories and research facilities, the Secretary 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 dis-
position. 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 grantor or to
the Secretary as the circumstances require.
" (1) (1) The Secretary shall, after consultation with appropriate
local, State, and Federal agencies, public and private organizations,
and interested individuals, as soon as practicable but not later than
two years after the effective date of this subsection, develop and issue
to the States for the purpose of adopting standards pursuant to ssc-
tion 10 (c) 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
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1243
quantities. He shall revise and add to such information whenever
necessary to reflect developing scientific knowledge.
[p. 112]
" (2) For the purpose of assuring effective implementation of
standards adopted pursuant to paragraph (1) the President shall, in
consultation with appropriate local, State, and Federal agencies,
public and private organizations, and interested individuals, conduct
a study and investigation of methods to control the release of pesti-
cides into the environment which study shall include examination
of the persistency of pesticides in the water environment and alterna-
tives thereto. The President shall submit a report on such in-
vestigation to Congress together with his recommendations for any
necessary legislation within two years after the effective date of this
subsection."
(3) in redesignated subsection (m) (4) by striking out the
words "and June 30, 1969," and inserting in lieu thereof "June
30, 1969, June 30, 1970, and June 30, 1971,";
(4) by amending the first sentence of redesignated subsection
(n) to read as follows: "There is authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this section, other than subsection (g) (1) and (2),
not to exceed $65,000,000 per fiscal year for each of the fiscal
years ending June 30, 1969, June 30, 1970, and June 30, 1971.
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out subsection
(g) (1) of this section $5,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1970, and $7,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971.
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out subsection
(g) (2) of this section $2,500,000 per fiscal year for each of the
fiscal years ending June 30, 1970, and June 30, 1971.".
SEC. 106. Section 6 (e) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 466c-l) is amended as follows:
(1) Paragraph (1) is amended by striking out "three succeed-
ing fiscal years" and inserting in lieu thereof "five succeeding
fiscal years,".
(2) Paragraph (2) is amended by striking out "two succeed-
ing fiscal years," and inserting in lieu thereof "four succeeding
fiscal years,".
(3) Paragraph (3) is amended by striking out "two succeed-
ing fiscal years," and inserting in lieu thereof "four succeeding
fiscal years,".
SEC. 107. Redesignated section 24 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended, is amended by deleting the following: "the
Oil Pollution Act, 1924, or".
SEC. 108. The Oil Pollution Act, 1924 (43 Stat. 604), as amended
-------
1244 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(80 Stat. 1246-1252), is hereby repealed.
SEC. 109. The Secretary of the Interior shall conduct a full and
complete investigation and study of the feasibility of all methods of
financing the cost of preventing, controlling, and abating water pollu-
tion, other than methods authorized by existing law. The results of
such investigation and study shall be reported to Congress no later
than December 31, 1970, together with the recommendations of the
Secretary for financing the programs for preventing, controlling, and
abating water pollution for the fiscal years beginning after fiscal year
1971, including any necessary legislation.
SEC. 110. (a) The first sentence of section 2 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 466-1) is amended by striking out
"Federal Water Pollution Control Administration" and inserting in
lieu thereof "Federal Water Quality Administration".
(b) Any other law, reorganization plan, regulation, map, docu-
ment, record, or other paper of the United States in which the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Administration is referred to shall be
held to refer to the Federal Water Quality Administration.
SEC. 111. Section 8 (c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
is amended in the fourth sentence by inserting after "because of lack
[p. H3]
of funds" the following: "including States having projects eligible
for reimbursement pursuant to the sixth and seventh sentences of
this subsection".
SEC. 112. Section 10 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended, is amended by adding at the end of subsection (c) (3) the
following new sentence: "In establishing such standards the Secre-
tary, the hearing board, or the appropriate State authority shall take
into consideration their use and value for navigation."
TITLE II—ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
SHORT TITLE
SEC. 201. This title may be cited as the "Environmental Quality
Improvement Act of 1970."
FINDINGS, DECLARATIONS, AND PURPOSES
SEC. 202. (a) The Congress finds—
(1) that man has caused changes in the environment;
(2) that many of these changes may affect the relationship
between man and his environment; and
(3) that population increases and urban concentration
contribute directly to pollution and the degradation of our
environment.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1245
(b) (1) The Congress declares that there is a national policy for
the environment which provides for the enhancement of environ-
mental quality. This policy is evidenced by statutes heretofore
enacted relating to the prevention, abatement, and control of environ-
mental pollution, water and land resources, transportation, and
economic and regional development.
(2) The primary responsibility for implementing this policy rests
with State and local governments.
(3) The Federal Government encourages and supports implemen-
tation of this policy through appropriate regional organizations es-
tablished under existing law.
(c) The purposes of this title are—
(1) to assure that each Federal department and agency con-
ducting or supporting public works activities which affect the
environment shall implement the policies established under
existing law; and
(2) to authorize an Office of Environmental Quality, which,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, shall provide the
professional and administrative staff for the Council on En-
vironmental Quality established by Public Law 91-190.
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
SEC. 203. (a) There is established in the Executive Office of the
President an office to be known as the Office of Environmental Qual-
ity (hereafter in this title referred to as the "Office"). The Chairman
of the Council on Environmental Quality established by Public Law
91-190 shall be the Director of the Office. There shall be in the
Office a Deputy Director who shall be appointed by the President,
by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
(b) The compensation of the Deputy Director shall be fixed by the
President at a rate not in excess of the annual rate of compensation
payable to the Deputy Director of the Bureau of the Budget.
(c) The Director is authorized to employ such officers and em-
ployees (including experts and consultants) as may be necessary to
enable the
[p. H4]
Office to carry out its functions under this title and Public Law
91-190, except that he may employ no more than ten specialists and
other experts without regard to the provisions of title 5, United
States Code, governing appointments in the competitive service, and
pay such specialists and experts without regard to the provisions of
chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to
classification and General Schedule pay rates, but no such specialist
-------
1246 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
or expert shall be paid at a rate in excess of the maximum rate for
GS-18 of the General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5.
(d) In carrying out his functions the Director shall assist and
advise the President on policies and programs of the Federal Govern-
ment affecting environmental quality by—
(1) providing the professional and administrative staff and
support for the Council on Environmental Quality established
by Public Law 91-190;
(2) assisting the Federal agencies and departments in apprais-
ing the effectiveness of existing and proposed facilities, programs,
policies, and activities of the Federal Government, and those
specific major projects designated by the President which do not
require individual project authorization by Congress, which
affect environmental quality;
(3) reviewing the adequacy of existing systems for monitoring
and predicting environmental changes in order to achieve effec-
tive coverage and efficient use of research facilities and other
resources;
(4) promoting the advancement of scientific knowledge of the
effects of actions and technology on the environment and encour-
age the development of the means to prevent or reduce adverse
effects that endanger the health and well-being of man;
(5) assisting in coordinating among the Federal departments
and agencies those programs and activities which affect, protect,
and improve environmental quality;
(6) assisting the Federal departments and agencies in the de-
velopment and interrelationship of environmental quality criteria
and standards established through the Federal Government;
(7) collecting, collating, analyzing, and interpreting data and
information on environmental quality, ecological research, and
evaluation.
(e) The Director is authorized to contract with public or private
agencies, institutions, and organizations and with individuals without
regard to sections 3618 and 3709 of the Revised Statutes (31 U.S.C.
529; 41 U.S.C. 5) in carrying out his functions.
REPORT
SEC. 204. Each Environmental Quality Report required by Public
Law 91-190 shall, upon transmittal to Congress, be referred to each
standing committee having jurisdiction over any part of the subject
matter of the Report.
AUTHORIZATION
SEC. 205. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated not to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1247
exceed $500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, not to ex-
ceed $750,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, not to exceed
$1,250,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and not to exceed
$1,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973. Thesa authoriza-
tions are in addition to those contained in Public Law 91-190.
Approved April 3, 1970.
[p. 115]
1.2k(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
H.R. REP. No. 91-127, 91st Con., 1st Sess. (1969)
WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1969
MARCH 25, 1969.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. FALLON, from the Committee on Public Works, submitted the
following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 4148]
The Committee on Public Works, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 4148) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill
as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
The amendment strikes out all after the enacting clause and in-
serts a substitute text which appears in italic type in the reported bill.
PART I
CONTROL OF POLLUTION BY OIL AND OTHER MATTER
The water pollution problem is a large and complex one. Previous
reports submitted by this committee in support of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1948, the amendments enacted in 1961, the
Water Quality Act of 1965, and the Clean Water Restoration Act of
1966, have dealt in detail with what is happening to our water, what
permitting the damage to continue will do to the Nation's health,
safety, and development, and what must be done to stop the continu-
ing damage and reverse the pollution process.
-------
1248 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Repeatedly, increasing scientific and technical expertise have
brought to the fore aspects of the broad problem of which we were
not aware, or with which we had dealt inadequately in the past.
Events of catastrophic proportions have confronted us with dramatic
evidence of the need for new or better preventive or control laws
and procedures.
[p. 1]
It is in this context that the committee recommends—urges—the
enactment of H.R. 4148, the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1969.
Recognition that oil is a potentially serious water pollutant is not
new. The Congress recognized the need for control in the Oil Pollu-
tion Act of 1924 reported by this committee. But by almost any rele-
vant yardstick, 1924 was an altogether different life. The breakup
of the tanker Torrey Canyon, with its incalculable damage to the
coast of England and its nearly $8 million cleanup cost, warned us
that existing Federal oil pollution control programs would be inade-
quate to handle a similar catastrophe if it occurred here. Devasta-
tion of California's beaches 2 months ago by oil from an offshore
drilling rig made the lesson loud and clear. It may not even be possi-
ble to assess the vast damage to marine life and recreation. This
committee made an on-the-site investigation at Santa Barbara and
found the physical situation appalling.
The Oil Pollution Act of 1924 is simply not sufficient to cope with
such problems. It applies only to discharges and spills that are
grossly negligent or willful; limited to vessels, it does not apply at all
to spills from fixed installations such as pipelines, oil deposits, refiner-
ies, or manufacturing plants or other types of industrial activity using
and storing large quantities of oil. Confined to oil, the 1924 act pro-
vides no protection against dozens of other potentially hazardous
substances.
In addition to its contamination of water, shoreline, and bsaches,
oil often has severe effects on fish and wildlife, shellfish, and recrea-
tion. Untold ecological damage can result not only from the oil itself
but also from chemicals used in attempting to deal with the oil. We
must be able to combat this type pollution and prevent, wherever
possible, catastrophies like these. It is in large part to that need that
H.R. 4148 is addressed.
H.R. 4148 is not simple legislation. A section-by-ssction analysis
is essential to its adequate presentation. That analysis appears as
part II of this report. Part I of the report, here, is therefore confined
to elaboration not appropriate in the bill itself.
OIL POLLUTION
Section 17 (a) sets forth the definitions of the terms used in the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1249
bill. Subsection 17 (a) (2) is a general definition of matter which
would present an imminent and substantial hazard. The term could
extend to more than 200 substances. The Secretary of the Interior is
now reviewing a list of over 200 substances to determine what should
in fact be held to be hazardous. Before this subsection can become
meaningful, the Secretary will have to issue regulations, following
the usual administrative procedures governing such issuance, iden-
tify in hazardous matter. The committee expects that the Secretary
will proceed as rapidly as possible in this regard. Specific note
should be made of the fact that the definition of matter does not in-
clude by-product material, source material, and special nuclear mate-
rial as defined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
The requirement that notice of discharge of oil or matter be given
to appropriate authority, contained in subsection 17 (b), is essential
to expeditious and efficient cleanup action. It is a requirement placed
upon the individual who is operationally responsible for the vessel or
facility involved. It is not intended to include seamen, in the case of a
[p. 2]
vessel, for example, or to a night watchman or janitor in the case of
a facility. By this clarification, however, we do not mean that the
requirement is limited to the president of a large corporation or the
owner of a vessel. The emphasis is on operationally responsible at
the time of discharge.
This provision does not extend to private waters such as landlocked
ponds specifically built, for instance, to receive drilling refuse, or for
similar purposes.
Public vessels are exempt from the penalty for failure to give notice
but the committee expects that public agencies will by appropriate
regulation or instruction require that operational personnel give the
notice of discharge the bill demands.
The committee is aware that the term "substantial" as it appears in
subsection 17 (b) and in subsequent subsections of the bill is subject
to varying interpretation and judgments. It is, as a practical matter,
impossible to substitute a more specific term. What is a "substantial"
discharge into a river or a harbor, for exampla, might bs insignificant
if discharged into the Atlantic when turbulent water would result in
rapid dispersal. By the same token, an insignificant discharge at sea
might well be overwhelming in another area.
With respect to the cleanup authority vested in the Federal Gov-
ernment under subsection 17 (d) (1), the committee calls attention to
the fact that the Federal Government is responsible for discharge
cleanup without regard to the cause of the discharge (including acts
of God) or the location of the waters of the United States into which
-------
1250 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
it occurs. The committee urges that to the extent feasible in the par-
ticular situation the State and local groups already formed for con-
tinuing cleanup programs will be called upon for assistance.
The authority of the United States to remove or destroy a vessel
where a marine disaster situation has created a substantial threat of
pollution follows closely both the philosophy and the language of the
same authority vested in the Corps of Engineers, by law in 1899, in
situations where the vessel constitutes a threat to navigation. It
should be noted that liability for the cost of such removal is limited
to vessels negligently operated and thereby the cause or contributory
to the cause of the disaster involved.
Subsection 17 (e) (1) requires that the owner or operator immedi-
ately remove any discharge. If he fails to do so and the United States
performs the cleanup, the willful or negligent owner or operator and
vessel is liable for up to $10 million of the cleanup cost, or a sum
equal to $100 per gross registered ton, whichever is less. This liabil-
ity is a liability per vessel, per owner, except that in the case of a
barge tow, each barge in the tow is considered to be a separate vessel.
Under subsection 17 (e) (1), the United States may proceed against
the owner or operator of any vessel that causes or contributes to the
cause of the discharge, even though the discharge actually comes
from another vessel.
The cleanup liability provision with respect to onshore and offshore
facilities, contained in subsection 17 (f) (3), sets a maximum possible
liability of $8 million. As to onshore facilities, it requires that the
Secretary of the Interior, through full public hearing procedure and
in consultation with interested Federal agencies, including the Small
Business Administration, establish classifications of onshore facilities
and activities and set differing limits of liability for each classifica-
tion,
[p. 3]
none of which may be in excess of $8 million. This subsection
is so written as to provide a high liability for a large discharge from a
major facility and at the same time insure that reasonable low lia-
bility will be set for the hundreds of small businesses and other
facilities along our waters whose potential discharge would bs small
and upon whom a large liability could very well impose a ruinous
burden. The subsection does not apply to any onshore facility until
the Secretary establishes its classification, and the Secretary must
submit intended classifications and liability limitations to the Con-
gress at least 60 days before they are to bscome effective.
Subsection 17 (g) requires that the Secretary of the Interior issue
regulations "establishing environmental quality" criteria relating to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1251
the methods and procedures for the removal of oil and matter. The
words "establishing environmental quality" refer solely to ecological
protection and the chemicals, substances, or conceivable devices that
may or may not, because of their efficacy on the one hand or deleteri-
ous effects on the other, be used in cleanup. These words do not
extend in any sense, to the subject of environmental quality generally.
Subsection 17 (g) (2) prescribes the civil penalty for violation of
cleanup regulations. It protects the vessel owner or operator, and
the person who owns or operates an onshore or offshore facility by
requiring that notice be given and an administrative hearing be held
before the penalty may be assessed. If the individual concerned
disagrees with the assessment of the penalty, he has full de novo
judicial protection in that the United States would have to bring an
action in an attempt to collect the penalty.
Subsection 17 (h) (1) authorizes a revolving fund to cover Federal
cleanup costs. The "other funds" referred to in the subsection would
be derived from reimbursements of cleanup costs and penalties. The
fund may be used, under subsection 17 (h) (2), to reimburse the
States for their assistance in cleanup operations.
The reference to the "national contingency plan" in subsection
17 (h) (2) includes the regional contingency plans provided for in the
national plan.
Barges are specifically included in subsection 17 (k) (1), requiring
evidence of financial responsibility, because many barges are not
registered.
The study of requirements for financial responsibility and limits of
liability called for in subsection 17 (k) (3) is necessary because
neither the affected industries nor international underwriters have
had previous experience in this area of discharge cleanup, and they
were unable to supply the committee with adequate factual informa-
tion in this regard. It is hoped that the results of the study, plus any
experience gained in the interim, will disclose any need for amend-
ment that may exist.
CONTROL OF SEWAGE FROM VESSELS
Wastes from ships and boats are still another cause of pollution.
It is most severe in bays, inlets, lakes, harbors, and marinas. These
pollutants include sewage, oils, chemicals, and other wastes. Most
vessels are not equipped to provide even minimal treatment. The
growing popularity of recreation craft is almost certain to increase
this source of pollution to significant proportions if corrective and
preventive action is not set in motion now.
[p. 4]
-------
1252 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Section 18, contained in H.R. 4148, seeks to provide the corrective
and preventive potential.
The definition of "marine sanitation device" includes chemicals,
biochemicals, etc., that may be found to be sufficient for the necessary
sewage treatment.
The committee wishes to make it clear that it expects the Secretary
of the Interior to hold full administrative hearings before he issues
the regulations with respect to standards of performance for marine
sanitation devices required by subsection 18 (b).
The committee also wishes to make it clear that in the application
of the standards and regulations for existing vessels, the most care-
ful consideration should be given to the problem of economic costs.
The American-flag merchant marine is already in a critical position.
More than 80 percent of the nonpassenger vessels are more than 20
years old, and if they are still in operation when the regulations be-
come effective, the cost of their refitting would almost certainly be
prohibitive. American-flag passenger vessels are few and are a mar-
ginal operation at best. It is obvious that a reasonable approach in
these circumstances is called for.
In enforcing the prohibitions contained in subsection 18 (b) (4)
the committee expects reason to prevail. If the marine sanitation
device on a given vessel stops operating while the vessel is out on
the water, for example, enforcement action would certainly be
inappropriate.
It should be emphasized that the research authority granted the
Secretary of the Interior in H.R. 4148 is not intended to eliminate or
otherwise affect research activities in similar areas being conducted
by the Coast Guard, the enforcement arm for much of the control
contained in this bill.
AREA ACID AND OTHER MINE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
DEMONSTRATIONS
Acid mine drainage is another longstanding source of water pollu-
tion. The chemical quality of water is altered in streams receiving
such drainage. The acid flow destroys fish and fish food organisms,
damages recreational and esthetic values, corrodes transport equip-
ment, bridges, and other structures exposed to the water. Waters so
polluted require extra and expensive treatment when utilized for
municipal and industrial water supplies. Acid drainage is associated
with active as well as abandoned coal mining operations; the latter
continue to produce acid for indefinite periods after mining is discon-
tinued. An estimated 3.5 million tons of acid mine waters drain into
the streams of the United States annually, damaging approximately
4,000 miles of streams.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1253
Although we know what acid mine drainage does, we do not yet
know what to do about it. The problem is substantial and possible
solutions must be found. Section 19 contained in H.R. 4148 is a
straightforward, self-explanatory authorization of a $15 million
demonstration research program to seek those solutions.
TRAINING GRANTS AND CONTRACTS
Sections 20 through 23 of the bill expand the training grants pro-
gram already authorized in the Water Quality Act in an effort to
alleviate
[p. 5]
a critical shortage of skilled engineering aides, scientific technicians,
and treatment plant operators. The need for this expansion is
clearly supported by the report on the study of manpower and
training needs in water pollution control. The recommended ex-
pansion is clearly set forth and the committee sees no interpretation
problems.
COOPERATION BY ALL FEDERAL AGENCIES IN THE CONTROL OF
POLLUTION
Section 3 of H.R. 4148, in subsections 11 (a) and 11 (b), requires
maximum feasible cooperation by all Federal agencies in the control
and prevention of water pollution.
Subsection 11 (a) deals directly with procedures for control of
pollution caused by the administration or actual operation, either
directly or by contract, of federally held real property or facilities
In attempting to insure that Federal facilities will be in compliance
with the applicable water quality standards, the problems to be
considered, the priorities to be assessed, and the relative values and
public interests to be weighed, are very much akin to the problems,
priorities, and interests which must be taken into account by a State
when it is establishing water quality standards for a given area, by
industries when they are making decisions on how and where they
will expand capital investment, and by local governments in attempt-
ing to achieve a balance among health and welfare, economic develop-
ment potential, and supportable tax structure.
The Federal Government obviously must balance much the same
factors, within the limits of the funds available and within the broad
and complex context of the national interest.
The disposition of dredged spoil is currently the most highly
publicized of the possible sources of pollution from a Federal activity.
Research is underway seeking to determine whether dredged spoil is
in actuality an active pollutant, or if it is, to what extent its introduc-
-------
1254 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
tion into any given body of water does in fact lower the quality of
that water. Whatever the answers are, the continuing viability of the
rivers and harbors that produce the spoil are essential to the econo-
mies of the regions they serve and hence to the total national interest.
Transporting the spoil to available land disposition sites is ex-
tremely expensive; the land is costly and the transportation is costly.
The States and localities would much prefer to preserve their land
for more economically productive use. The Federal Government
must allocate its available tax revenues among a great many equally
clamorous public demands. The dilemma is clear; the attainable
solutions are dimly seen at this point. Section 11 (a) sets forth its
present requirements accordingly, subject to future amendment as
technology and available money increase and as more definitive local
determinations, supportable in the national interest, are made.
Subsection 11 (b) requires, first, that any applicant for a Federal
license or permit to conduct an activity which may discharge into the
navigable waters of the United States provide the Federal agency
issuing the license or permit with a certification from the affected
State or States or interstate water pollution control agency that the
activity will be conducted in a manner that will not reduce the qual-
ity of the water below applicable water quality standards; second,
that where water quality standards are issued by the Secretary under
the
[p. 6]
Water Quality Act of 1965 or where a State or interstate agency
lacks authority to issue certification, the Secretary shall provide the
certification; third, that in the case of multiple licenses or permits by
one or more Federal agencies for the same activity, if the applicant
receives a certification for one agency, it need not obtain a certifica-
tion for the other agency or for succeeding permits or licenses unless
the Secretary or the State, upon receipt of notice, objects, except that
this provision does not apply to an application for an operating license
or permit; and fourth, that no Federal license or permit may be issued
until certification is received, except that in any case where actual
physical construction of the facility itself has been lawfully com-
menced prior to the enactment of this act (and by this is meant actual
excavation or building; site acquisition, construction of access roads,
or similar preliminary or collateral activity would not satisfy the
requirement) no certification shall be required under this subsection
for a license or permit for the activity after the date of enactment
and except, further, that any such license or permit issued without
certification shall terminate at the end of the 2-year period beginning
on the date of enactment of the Water Quality Improvement Act of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1255
1969 unless prior to such termination date the person having the
license or permit submits to the licensing Federal agency a certifica-
tion which otherwise meets the requirements of this subsection.
A wide variety of licenses and permits (construction, operating
and otherwise) are issued by various Federal agencies. Many of
them involve activities or operations potentially affecting water qual-
ity. The purpose of subsection 11 (b) is to provide reasonable assur-
ance (as determined by the affected State, States, or the Secretary of
the Interior) that no license or permit will be issued by a Federal
agency for an activity that through inadequate planning or otherwise
could in fact become a source of pollution.
The language of the legislation is intended to eliminate duplicating
certification requirements, and to afford a safeguard against too broad
a use of the single certification.
On March 11 last, our esteemed colleague, the chairman of the
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, expressed his concern about
possible conflict between this proposed legislation and the regulatory
authority and responsibilities of the Atomic Energy Commission.
The legislation here reported, as it relates to nuclear-generating
facilities, concerns itself with thermal pollution. Thirty-four of the
Nation's 54 jurisdictions now have approved thermal standards for
water quality. Heat pollution from industrial and powerplant sources
can be expected to increase at a very substantial rate, based on
projections of industrial growth and electric power demands. In-
creased water temperatures affect a stream's capacity to assimilate
wastes. Temperature changes also can ruin water for fishing and
recreation.
The chairman of the Joint Committee raised, essentially, six points.
First, he was fearful that an undesirable competitive factor would
develop by virtue of the possibility that a significant fraction of all
new electrical generating capacity (other than nuclear) would not
be covered by subsection 11 (b). The committee believes this con-
cern is met by the fact that a Federal license or permit of some kind
is required for almost all electric generating plants, and any Federal
agency granting the relevant license can and should condition the
grant upon compliance with applicable water quality standards.
[p. 7]
Second, the chairman questioned the need for certification for both
the construction license and the operating license which the Commis-
sion grants. Based on testimony by the Commission, the committee
has concluded that the very different character of the two applica-
tions, the long period of time that elapses between their issuance, and
the uncertainty as to the finality of plans at the construction license
-------
1256 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
stage, all support the requirements for certification with respect to
both applications.
Third, the chairman of the Joint Committee recommended that
where construction licenses have already been issued, those facilities
be exempt from any certification requirement. The problem of a
construction permit already issued when the act is passed is of course
not peculiar to nuclear facilities, and the committee recognizes that
some relief must be accorded in such cases. The subsection therefore
provides, as has been outlined above, that where actual physical
construction of a plant is already underway, certification is postponed
for a period of 2 years, which the committee believes is sufficient time
to permit whatever action may be necessary to comply with the water
quality standards and obtain the certification.
Fourth, the chairman recommended that judicial authority to sus-
pend a permit on license should be discretionary rather than manda-
tory, and that recommendation has been followed.
Fifth, the chairman recommended that the certifying agency be
required to state "reasonable assurance" of compliance with water
quality standards, rather than guaranteeing compliance, and that
recommendation has been followed.
And finally, the chairman was concerned that the subsection might
in some way, through the water quality standards, alter the Commis-
sion's preemptive authority as to radiological health and safety
standards, as it is contained in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. The
committee is informed that nothing in subsection 11 (b) could be
construed as an amendment to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
The Atomic Energy Commission has informed the committee that
doctors, hospitals, universities, and research institutions are licensed
by the Commission to possess and use limited quantities of nuclear
materials that might, in minute quantities, be disposed of through a
waste treatment system. It is not intended that subsection 11 (b)
apply to these specific types of licenses or permits.
Section 8 of H.R. 4148 changes the name of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration to the National Water Quality Ad-
ministration. The committee believes that the agency should bear a
designation that bespeaks its positive goals.
H.R. 4148 authorizes the following appropriations:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1257
Item
Acid mine drainage reserve
Training grants and contracts
Estuary research extension
General research, investigation, and
training extension.
Total
Section
identifi-
cation
17(h)(l)
. 19(d)(l) .
23(c)(3)
. 5(k)(4) . .
5(1)
6(e)
1970
$20 000 000
. 15,000,000
. . 12,000,000
1,000,000
. . 65,000,000
60,000,000
173,000,000
1971
25,000,000
62,000,000
60,000,000
150,000,000
Total
1972 amount
$20 000 000
15,000,000
$25,000,000 62,000,000
1,000,000
130,000,000
120,000,000
. . 348,000,000
25 000,000
[p. 8]
In the water pollution control laws enacted in earlier years, the
Congress has authorized the expenditure of approximately $3 billion
for all phases of the program. Thus far about two-thirds of that has
actually been appropriated at the Federal level. Progress in develop-
ment of the technology for dealing effectively with water pollution
has made tremendous strides. Progress in applying the technology
creeps along, and achieving clean water becomes more and more a
life and death matter with each passing year. The committee, there-
fore, respectfully urges that the authorizations contained in this bill
be fully funded, and that as to the water pollution control program
as a whole, Federal, State, and local governments and the Nation's
industries carefully reexamine their present positions in terms of the
national jeopardy inherent in the failure to act affirmatively on a
large scale.
PART II
SECTION-BY-SECTION EXPLANATION OF H.R. 4148, AS REPORTED
Section 1
This section would cite the act as the "Water Quality Improvement
Act of 1969."
Section 2
This section would add seven new sections (17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22,
and 23) to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
CONTROL OF POLLUTION BY OIL AND OTHER MATTER
Section 17 (a) would define various terms used in this new section.
Paragraph (1) would define the term "oil" to include fuel oil,
sludge, and oil refuse, but to exclude oil mixed with dredged spoil.
Paragraph (2) would define the term "matter" to include any sub-
stance which, when discharged in substantial quantities, presents, in
the judgment of the Secretary of the Interior, an imminent and sub-
stantial hazard to the public health or welfare. The definition specifi-
-------
1258 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
cally excludes from this term oil, dredged spoil, and sanitary wastes,
and certain material now covered by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
In the latter case, the committee is advised by the AEC that it has
adequate authority to require its licensees to take measures to prevent
damage from discharges of these materials. Under this definition,
the Secretary would be expected to publish a list from time to time
of the types of substances included in this definition in order to in-
form the public in accordance with established administrative
procedures.
Paragraph (3) defines the term "discharge."
Paragraph (4) defines the term "remove or removal" to mean the
taking of reasonable and appropriate measures to mitigate the poten-
tial damage that a discharge of oil or matter might have on the public
health or welfare including fish, shellfish, wildlife, and private and
public beaches and shorelines.
Paragraphs (5) and (6) define the terms "vessel" and "public
vessel."
Paragraph (7) defines the term "United States."
Paragraph (8) defines the term "owner or operator."
[p. 9]
Paragraph (9) defines the term "person."
Paragraph (10) defines the term "contiguous zone" which means
the zone established by the United States under article 24 of the
Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone.
Section 17 (b) would require that any individual in charge of a
vessel, other than a public vessel or an offshore or onshore facility
or a Federal or State facility, at the time of a discharge of oil in sub-
stantial quantities into the navigable waters of the United States or
into the waters of the contiguous zone must immediately notify either
the Secretary of the Interior or the Coast Guard as soon as he has
knowledge of the discharge. While the language of the section does
not require notification by individuals in charge of public vessels or
federally or State-owned facilities, it is expected that the Federal
Government and the States will take appropriate measures to insure
that some procedure is adopted to provide notification where there
are discharges from such vessels or facilities.
This section would also provide a criminal penalty for any indi-
vidual in charge of such vessel or facility who fails to notify the
Secretary or the Coast Guard of a discharge. The term "individual
in charge" is deliberately designed to cover only supervisory person-
nel who have the responsibility for the particular vessel or facility
and not to include other employees.
Section 17 (c) (1) would prohibit the discharge of oil or matter in
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1259
substantial quantities from any vessel into or upon the navigable
waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines or beaches, or
into or upon the waters of the contiguous zone, if such oil threatens
to pollute or contribute to the pollution of the territorial sea of the
United States, and subjects violators to the penalties in section
17 (c) (2). The section excepts from this prohibition various circum-
stances such as acts of war or sabotage or acts of God, or unavoidable
accidents, collisions, or strandings, or discharges permitted under
article IV of the 1954 International Convention for the Prevention
of Pollution of the Sea by Oil.
Section 17 (c) (2) would provide a civil penalty against the owner
or operator of a vessel, except a public vessel, and against the vessel
of up to $10,000 where there is a willful or negligent discharge of oil
or matter in substantial quantities from such vessel. No penalty can
be assessed unless the owner or operator or vessel is given notice and
an opportunity for a hearing. Each violation is a separate offense.
The penalties will be assessed by the Coast Guard. In determining
the amount of the penalty or in compromising the penalty, the Coast
Guard must take into consideration the size of the business, the
ability of the owner or operator to continue in business, and the
gravity of the violation. Provision is made for withholding clearance
of the vessel until the penalty is paid and for the filing of bonds or
other sureties. The penalty will constitute a lien on the vessel which
may be recovered in an action in rem.
Section 17 (d) (1) would require that the United States remove or
arrange for the removal of any oil or matter discharged into any
waters, shorelines, or beaches, when in the judgment of the Secretary
of the Interior, such discharged oil or matter presents an actual or
threatened pollution hazard without regard to any question of fault.
Under this section, the United States would only exercise this author-
ity if the United States determines that the owner or operator or a
[p. 10]
vessel or facility has not made adequate arrangements for removal of
the oil or matter as required by this legislation.
Section 17 (d) (2) would provide authority similar to that found
in an 1899 statute administered by the Secretary of the Army (33
U.S.C. 415). The section in many respects is patterned after the 1899
statute. The section would authorize the United States, in the case
of a marine disaster within the navigable waters of the United States
which has created a substantial threat of a pollution hazard because
of an actual or imminent discharge of oil or matter from the vessel,
to coordinate and direct public and private efforts in the removal or
alleviation of the threat, and to remove summarily and if necessary
-------
1260 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
destroy the vessel by whatever means are available. The expense
of removing the vessel shall be charged against the vessel's cargo
and the owner or operator where it is shown that negligent operation
of the vessel caused or contributed to the marine disaster. If the
owner or operator fails to reimburse the United States of such ex-
pense within a specified time, the United States may sell the vessel
or its cargo, and deposit the proceeds in the revolving fund estab-
lished by this section.
Section 17 (e) (1) would require that the owner or operator of a
vessel who willfully or negligently discharges or permits or causes
or contributes to the discharge of oil or matter into the navigable
waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines or beaches, or into
the waters of the contiguous zone, immediately remove the dis-
charged oil or matter in accordance with the regulations prescribed
by this section. In any case where the United States removes the
oil or matter, the vessel and the owner or operator shall be liable to
the United States for the cost thereof. The liability to the United
States, however, with respect to each offending vessel and the owner
or operator of each offending vessel shall not exceed $10 million or
$100 per gross registered ton, whichever is the lesser amount. The
term "registered" should not be construed to mean that the vessel is
listed in the official register of vessels of a country. Thus, it need not
be registered. This limitation on liability is intended to be the only
limitation on liability for discharge of oil or matter under this section,
notwithstanding any other provisions of law. This section would pro-
vide for the withholding of clearance of a vessel until these costs are
paid and for posting of bonds or other sureties. It also provides for
the establishment of a maritime lien on the vessel which may be re-
covered in an action in rem.
This section would also authorize the United States to bring an
action against the owner or operator in any court of competent juris-
diction to recover such costs. The United States shall also have
a cause of action against any other owner or operator or vessel whose
willful act or negligence was found to cause or contribute to the
discharge of the oil where there has been a collision or other casualty.
Section 17 (e) (2) would provide that, in case of any action in-
stituted by the United States to recover its cost of cleanup and
certain penalties under this section, the evidence of a discharge of
oil or matter shall constitute a prima facie case of liability to the
United States on the part of the owner or operator of the vessel or the
person owning or operating an onshore or offshore facility. The
burden of rebutting such prima facie case would be on the owner or
operator or person as appropriate. This burden, however, shall
not affect any rights which such owner or operator or person may
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1261
have against other vessels or facilities or owners or operators or
[p. 11]
persons whose willful act or negligence may in some way have caused
or contributed to the discharge.
Section 17 (f) (1) would require that any person who owns or
operates an onshore facility other than a Federal- or State-owned
facility and who willfully or negligently discharges or permits the
discharge of oil or matter into any waters must immediately remove
the oil or matter in accordance with the regulations prescribed under
this section.
Section 17 (f) (2) would require that any person who owns or op-
erates an offshore facility other than a Federal or State facility which
is located within the seaward boundaries of a State as defined in the
Submarginal Lands Act of 1953, and who willfully or negligently
discharges or permits the discharge of oil or matter from such facility
into any waters or shorelines or beaches, must immediately remove
the oil or matter under the regulations prescribed under this section.
Section 17 (f) (3) would provide that if the United States removes
oil or matter discharged from any onshore or offshore facility just
mentioned, the person who owns or operates the facility shall be
liable to the United States for the cost incurred therein provided that
such liability shall not exceed $8 million. The Secretary shall estab-
lish by regulation, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce
and the Small Business Administration, reasonable and equitable
classifications of onshore facilities and activities and apply with re-
spect to such classifications differing limits of liability which may be
less than such $8 million limitation and none of which shall be in
excess of $8 million. The classifications would take into account the
types of businesses and other facilities affected. The provisions of
section 17 (f) (3) shall not apply to any onshore facility until it comes
within the classification established by the Secretary. The Secre-
tary's classification, however, shall not be established until the expira-
tion of at least 60 days after notification to the Congress of such
intended classification.
Under existing law under the terms of the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act of 1953 the Secretary of the Interior now has the authority
to impose such rules and regulations by lease agreements as he de-
termines necessary for the operation of offshore drilling in that
particular area. The Secretary has implemented such rules and
regulations by departmental action in February of this year.
Section 17 (f) (5) would provide that the provisions in section 17 (f)
relative to the imposition of any requirement or liability limitations
on onshore or offshore facilities with respect to the discharge of oil or
-------
1262 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
matter into any waters within the jurisdiction of a State shall not be
considered as an attempt to preempt the authority of the State or
any political subdivision thereof to impose additional requirements
on such facilities.
Section 17 (g) (1) would require that within 60 days after the en-
actment of this section the Secretary of the Interior must issue regu-
lations establishing environmental quality criteria relative to methods
and procedures of removing discharged oil and matter and that the
Coast Guard must by regulations establish procedures, methods, or
equipment consistent with such regulations for the removal of such
discharged oil or matter. The objective of these regulations would
be to insure that the waters, beaches, and shorelines, including the
marine environment, will not be damaged through the use of harm-
ful chemicals
[p. 12]
or other materials. This section would also provide for the issuance,
by the Coast Guard of regulations establishing procedures, methods,
and equipment to prevent discharges of oil from vessels, within 60
days after enactment. These regulations may be revised from time
to time.
Section 17 (g) (2) would establish civil penalties for the violation
of any regulations issued under subsection 17 (g) (1) relative to the
removal of discharged oil or matter. Each violation would be a sepa-
rate offense and the Coast Guard would assess the penalty and other
compromise. The penalty shall not bs assessed until notice and an
opportunity for a hearing have been given. In order to collect the
penalty finally, the United States would have to file a civil action
in the U.S. district courts which will provide a de novo proceeding.
Section 17 (h) (1) of the bill would establish a revolving fund in
the Treasury to be administered by the Coast Guard of not to exceed
$20 million and authorize appropriations in that amount to the fund
as well as the depositing of other revenues received by the United
States under this section 17 of the act. Sums deposited into the fund
shall be available to reimburse a State or political subdivision thereof
that assists in the removal of any discharged oil or matter. The
moneys in the fund shall be available until expended.
Section 17 (h) (2) would provide for the delegation by the Presi-
dent within 90 days after the enactment of this section of the author-
ity for the United States to remove discharged oil or matter to the
Coast Guard or to the Secretaries of Defense or Interior or other
Federal agencies in accordance with any national contingency plan
or revision thereof which has been approved by the President, in-
cluding regional contingency plans. Each agency to which this
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1263
authority is delegated will be able to utilize the personnel, services,
and facilities of other Federal and State agencies.
Section 17 (h) (3) would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
issue regulations in consultation with the Coast Guard permitting
discharges of oil or matter under such conditions as he may prescribe
and at times and locations deemed appropriate by him.
Section 17 (h) (4) would provide that the provisions prohibiting
discharges of oil or matter from vessels and the regulations issued
under section 17 (g) of this section shall be enforced by the Coast
Guard and that the Coast Guard may utilize the services of other
Federal and State agencies in carrying out these provisions.
Section 17 (h) (5) would authorize the Coast Guard to board and
inspect facilities and to make arrests in connection with any viola-
tions of this act.
Section 17 (h) (6) would provide for the bringing of actions in
certain courts where violations have occurred in Guam, the Virgin
Islands, American Samoa, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific
Islands.
Section 17 (i) would provide that the provisions of section 17 shall
not affect or modify the obligations of any owner or operator of any
vessel or onshore or offshore facility under other provisions of law for
damages to public or privately owned property which might occur
as a result of a discharge of oil or matter or as a result of actions taken
in the removal of such discharges.
Section 17 (j) would provide that the provisions of section 17 shall
not be construed as authorizing either the Secretary of the Interior
[p. 13]
or the Coast Guard to regulate the operations or construction of any
onshore or offshore facility. This section also would provide that the
provisions of section 17 shall not be construed as affecting or modify-
ing any other existing authorities of either Secretary relative to such
facilities under this act or any other provision of law.
Section 17 (k) (1) would provide that any vessel over 100 gross
registered tons which uses any port or place in the United States or
the navigable waters of the United States for any purpose must
establish evidence of financial responsibility to meet the maximum
potential liability to the United States which the vessel could be
subjected to for the willful or negligent discharge of oil or matter
under this section. In any case where the owner or operator of the
vessel owns, operates, or charters a fleet of vessels, he need only
establish financial responsibility to meet the maximum liability to
which the largest of these vessels could be subjected. The financial
responsibility should be established pursuant to regulations to be
-------
1264 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
prescribed from time to time by the agency head to which the Presi-
dent has delegated this responsibility. Financial responsibility may
include insurance policies, bonds, evidence of self-insurance, or evi-
dences of such responsibility that the agency head deems appropriate.
All bonds filed must be issued by a bonding company authorized to do
business in the United States. Provisions of financial responsibility
also apply to barges that are equivalent in size to vessels over 100
tons. The term "registered" does not mean that the vessel itself must
be registered in the official listing of vessels of a country.
Section 17 (k) (2) would provide that the financial responsibility
provisions of section 17 (k) (1) shall become effective 1 year after
enactment of this section. The President is required to delegate this
responsibility to the appropriate agency head within 60 days after
enactment. In addition, the necessary regulations to implement this
section must be issued within 6 months after the effective date of
the section.
Section 17 (k) (3) directs that the Secretary of Transportation, in
consultation with the Secretaries of Interior, State, Commerce, and
other Federal agencies such as the Small Business Administration
and representatives of various industries such as the merchant
marine, oil, and insurance industries and other interested persons
conduct a study relative to other measures to provide financial re-
sponsibility and limitations of liability with regard to vessels and
measures to provide financial responsibility for onshore and offshore
facilities, and finally measures relative to the limitations of liability
on such facilities in relation to the cost of removing discharged oil
or matter and the payment of all damages that may result from the
discharge of oil or matter and from the removal of the discharges.
The study is to be completed by January 1, 1971, and a report sent to
the Congress with appropriate recommendations, including legislative
recommendations.
CONTROL OF SEWAGE FROM VESSELS
Section 18 would provide for the control of sewage from vessels
including foreign vessels using our waterways and commercial and
recreational vessels.
Section 18 (a) would define various terms used in the new section.
[p. 14]
Section 18 (b) would direct the Secretary of the Interior to promul-
gate Federal standards of performance for marine sanitation devices
to be installed and operated on board vessels subject to this new
section. The term "marine sanitation device" is defined to include
equipment on board the vessel which is designed to receive, retain,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1265
treat, or discharge sewage. It is intended that this definition could
include chemical treatment as a device for treating sewage. The
objectives of the standards would be to insure that these devices will
prevent the discharge of untreated or inadequately treated sewage
into or upon U.S. waterways. The standards must be consistent with
maritime safety and other marine laws and regulations. In -addition,
the Coast Guard must also promulgate regulations governing the
design, construction, installation, and operation of these devices on
board these vessels. It is expected that both agencies will conduct
appropriate public hearings to afford interested persons and indus-
tries and the States an opportunity to comment on proposed standards
and regulations. It is also expected that both agencies will work
closely together in the development and promulgation of the stand-
ards and regulations.
Section 18 (c) would provide that the initial standards and regula-
tions will be effective for new vessels—that is, vessels constructed
after such standards and regulations are promulgated—2 years after
promulgation, but not earlier than December 31, 1971, and for exist-
ing vessels—that is, vessels constructed prior to promulgation of the
standards and regulations—5 years after promulgation.
Both Interior and Coast Guard, in issuing standards and regula-
tions, may distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of vessels as
well as between new and existing vessels. Both may exempt such
vessels from the applicability of the standards and regulations for
such periods of time as may be necessary and upon application for
individual vessels. This waiver authority could be accomplished at
the time the standards and regulations are promulgated.
Section 18 (d) would provide that this new section and the stand-
ards and regulations issued thereunder would apply to vessels owned
and operated by the United States unless the Secretary of Defense
finds that such compliance would be contrary to the interests of na-
tional security. The regulations required by this section and the
certifications required under section 18 (g) of this section shall be
promulgated and issued by the Secretary of Defense rather than by
the Coast Guard.
Section 18 (e) would require that before the standards and regula-
tions are promulgated, the Secretary of the Interior and the Coast
Guard will consult with other interested Federal agencies, the States,
and appropriate representatives of the various industries affected and
shall comply with the rulemaking provisions of title 5 of the United
States Code, formerly known as the Administrative Procedures Act.
Section 18 (f) would provide that once the initial standards and
regulations are effective a State or a political subdivision thereof
may not adopt or enforce any law or regulation governing the design,
-------
1266 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
manufacture, or installation of any marine sanitation device on board
any vessel subject to the Federal standards and regulations. The
section would not, however, affect the State's authority to prohibit
completely all sewage discharges from vessels in particular intrastate
waters of the State, regardless of whether the sewage is treated or
not.
[p. 15]
In such cases however, the State must also prohibit waste discharges
from all other sources.
Section 18 (g) would prohibit the sale or delivery into interstate
commerce or importation into the United States of any marine sani-
tation device unless such device is in all material respects substan-
tially the same as the test device certified by the Coast Guard under
this section. The subsection would require the Coast Guard to certify
upon application of each manufacturer of these devices if he finds that
they meet the standards and regulations promulgated under this
section. The Coast Guard would require the manufacturer to test the
device in accordance with procedures set forth by the Secretary of
the Interior as to performance or he shall test it himself. It would
be up to the Coast Guard to determine if the results of the test are in
accordance with the appropriate performance standards. If the
Coast Guard finds that the device is satisfactory from the standpoint
of safety and other requirements of maritime law or regulation, and
after considering the design, installation, operation, and material, and
other appropriate factors, he would certify it.
Every manufacturer would be required to maintain records and
provide such information as the Secretary or the Coast Guard may
need to enable them to determine whether the manufacturer has
acted or is acting in compliance with this section and regulations
thereunder.
Section 18 (h) would provide that after the effective date of stand-
ards and regulations promulgated by Interior and Coast Guard it
shall be unlawful (1) to manufacture for sale vessels subject to the
standards and regulations without a certified device; (2) for a vessel
to operate on the navigable waters of the United States subject to
the standards and regulations, if it is not equipped with an operable
marine sanitation device; (3) to refuse Federal authorities access to
records; and (4) to move or render inoperative, wrongfully, a
certified device installed prior to sale or delivery to the ultimate
purchaser.
Section 18 (j) would establish civil penalties for violation of section
18 (h) to be assessed by the Coast Guard. The maximum penalty
against the manufacturer and dealer is $5,000 and against other per-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1267
sons violating 18 (h) (4) $2,000. The penalty cannot be assessed
until there is notice and an opportunity for a hearing.
Sections 18 (k) and (1) would provide that the enforcement of this
new section would be carried out by the Coast Guard and that the
Coast Guard may utilize the services, personnel, and facilities of
the Secretary of the Interior and other Federal agencies where
appropriate.
Section 18 (m) would provide jurisdiction in the courts of Guam
and the Virgin Islands in the case of actions arising under this section.
In the case of American Samoa and the Trust Territory of the Pacific
Islands, these actions may be brought in the district court for the
district of Hawaii.
ACID MINE POLLUTION CONTKOL
Section 19 would authorize a demonstration program regarding
acid, or other mine water pollution control.
Section 19 (a) would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
carry out an areawide program within all or part of a watershed to
demonstrate methods for the elimination or control of acid or other
mine water pollution resulting from active or abandoned mines. The
work
[p. 16]
would be done under agreements with the interested States or
interstate agencies acting jointly or severally depending on where
the project is located. The projects must demonstrate the engineer-
ing and economic feasibility and practicality of using single or multi-
ple abatement techniques.
Section 19 (b) would provide that the project area be all or part of
a watershed. In selecting such an area, the Secretary must (1)
require, to the extent needed, a feasibility study which may be car-
ried out by the Secretary or the States, (2) give a preference to those
areas with the greatest public values and uses either present or fu-
ture, and (3) be satisfied that the project area will not be affected to
any serious degree from other polluting sources.
Section 19 (c) would provide that the State share of a project shall
be at least 25 percent of the total project costs. This payment may
be in the form of land or interests therein actually acquired by the
State or a subdivision thereof for the project after the enactment of
this new section, facilities, and personal services, and money. The
value of the land, facilities, and services will be determined by the
Secretary. It is the purpose of this section to encourage the States
to participate to the greatest extent possible so that there may be
-------
1268 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
developed meaningful projects which will produce the experience
needed to develop an effective control program.
The bill would require the State to establish adequate mechanisms
and controls, including plans of enforcement, to prevent any activity
that may cause future mine water pollution and destroy or severely
damage the work carried out in the project area.
Section 19 (d) would authorize a maximum appropriation of $15
million for this program. The funds would be available until ex-
pended. It would also limit the total Federal grant to any one State
in any one year to 25 percent of the funds actually appropriated to
carry out this program.
TRAINING OF PERSONS IN WATER QUALITY CONTROL
Section 20 would authorize grants and contracts with institutions
of higher education to assist these institutions with programs or
projects to train undergraduate students interested in the design,
operation, including supervision, inspection, and evaluation, and
maintenance of waste treatment works and other facilities for water
quality control. The grants or contracts may be used to plan pro-
grams or projects to train persons in the operation of such works, to
train and retrain faculty, to conduct institutes, to carry out new
cooperative work-study programs involving the operation and main-
tenance of such works, and to conduct research and development
projects to train students or faculty.
Section 21 would provide that a grant or contract under section
20 may be made only upon application to the Secretary, submitted
at such time or times and containing such information as the Secre-
tary determines necessary. The Secretary shall not approve an
application unless it (1) sets forth a program for carrying out two or
more projects or activities which meet the requirements of section 20
and provide for proper and efficient methods of administration, (2)
provides the necessary fiscal control and further accounting pro-
cedures, and (3) provides for such reports as the Secretary may
require to
[p. 17]
carry out his functions under this section and for the keeping of ap-
propriate records.
It is expected that the applications would also set forth policy and
procedures which would assure that the Federal funds dispersed
under this section in any fiscal year will be used, not to supplant, but
to supplement, and, to the extent practicable, increase the funds that
might be available to the institution in the absence of the Federal
funds.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1269
The section would direct the Secretary to allocate section 20 grants
or contracts in a manner that would equitably distribute them nation-
wide among the qualified educational institutions that show, in his
judgment, promise that they can use the funds effectively to obtain
the goals of this program. Payments made by the Secretary will be
available under the Secretary's regulations and in accordance with
such conditions as he may prescribe to pay a portion of the compen-
sation of a student employed to a work-study program in connection
with the operation or maintenance of waste treatment works. The
payments, however, could not apply to regular employees of such
works or Government employees.
Section 22 would provide a program of scholarships for under-
graduate study by persons who plan to enter into the field of opera-
tion and maintenance of waste treatment works. The duration of the
scholarship will be the period, not in excess of 4 academic years, re-
quired by the recipient to complete his undergraduate course of
study at the institution. The scholarship will entitle the recipient to
payments only if he (1) is maintaining satisfactory progress in the
course of study which he is pursuing, and (2) is devoting full time to
that course of study or research and not engaging in any gainful em-
ployment other than employment approved by the Secretary under
regulations prescribed by him. In addition, the Secretary shall by
regulation provide that recipients of a scholarship must agree in writ-
ing in advance to enter and remain in an occupation involving the
design, operation, or maintenance of waste treatment works after the
completion of the recipient's studies for such period as the Secretary
determines appropriate. The Secretary must allocate scholarships
among institutions of higher education for the use of individuals
accepted into approved programs of such institutions according to a
plan which, to the extent practicable, will provide an equitable
distribution of the scholarships nationwide and attract recent gradu-
ates from secondary schools to enter the field of operating and
maintaining waste treatment works.
The Secretary will approve a program of an educational institution
for the purposes of section 22 upon application by the institution and
upon the finding that the principal objective of the program is to train
and educate persons in the maintenance and operation of treatment
works, that the program is of high quality and can readily be put
into effect, that the application describes the relation of the program
to any program activity, research, or development set forth by the
institution in any application it may have under section 20 of this
act, and finally that, the application contains assurance satisfactory
to the Secretary that the institution will recommend to the Secretary
for scholarships only persons who have clearly demonstrated a seri-
-------
1270 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
ous intent upon entering the program to enter into the operation and
maintenance of waste treatment works, and that the institution will
[p. 18]
develop programs to encourage scholarship recipients to enter into
such an occupation upon completion of their studies.
The Secretary shall pay to scholarship recipients such stipends as
he determines to be consistent with the prevailing practices under
comparable federally supported programs. In addition to the sti-
pends, the Secretary shall pay to the educational institution at which
such person is pursuing his course of study, an amount he determines
to be consistent with prevailing practices under comparable federally
supported programs in support of the student.
To guide participating institutions it is expected the Secretary will
prescribe basic criteria or schedules for the determination of the
scholarship amounts. These criteria or schedules will take into
account the objective of the program, the need of the student, and
other factors that the Secretary determines relevant.
Section 23 would define various terms used in sections 20 through
23 including the definition of an institution of higher education and
directs that the Secretary publish a list of nationally recognized
accredited agencies or associations which he determines to be reliable
authorities as to the qualities of training offered by an educational
institution.
This section also requires an annual report of the activities under
sections 20 through 23 to the Congress, including recommendations
for needed revisions thereof. In addition, this section would author-
ize appropriations for fiscal years 1970, 1971, and 1972 to carry out
sections 20 through 23 including such planning and implementation
activities that may be needed to carry out the purposes of these
sections. Funds appropriated for fiscal year 1970 shall be available
for obligation in that fiscal year and the succeeding fiscal year. The
total authorized appropriations for the 3 fiscal years is $62 million.
It should be emphasized that the provisions of sections 20 through
23 are in addition to those provisions of section 5 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act and are not intended to supplant those pro-
visions which relate to the training of persons in the field of water
quality control. Under those sections a number of persons are now
receiving training in the field of water quality control which will be
useful not only in the operation and maintenance of treatment works,
but in the entire field of water quality control including research,
investigations, and planning.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1271
Section 3
This section would amend section 11 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended.
Section 11 (a) is designed to put into statutory terms the provisions
of the President's Executive Order 11288 for the prevention, control,
and abatement of water pollution by Federal activities, either directly
or by contract. This section would require that every Federal agency
having jurisdiction over any real property or facility shall take imme-
diate and appropriate steps to insure compliance with applicable
Federal, State, and local water quality standards and the purposes of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in the administration of the
property or facility. This section would recognize, however, that this
requirement is subject to the availability of appropriations and the
needs of the United States, but it is intended that every effort be made
[p. 19]
to carry out its directives and to seek the necessary appropriations to
do so. In any summary of a conference made pursuant to section
10 (d) (4) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Secretary
must also include references to discharges which might cause or con-
tribute to the pollution of any waters from Federal property or facili-
ties and transmit a copy of his summary to the appropriate Federal
agency head. Also, notice of any hearing under section 10 (f) of the
act shall be given to the Federal agency having jurisdiction over the
property or facility involved and the finding and recommendations of
the hearing board shall include references to the discharges from
such Federal facility or property.
Section 11 (b) would require that applicants, other than a Federal
agency, seeking a Federal license or permit to conduct any activity
of any kind or nature which may result in discharges into the nav-
igable waters of the United States must provide the Federal licensing
or permitting agency with a certification from the affected State or
States or interstate water pollution control agency that there is rea-
sonable assurance, as determined by that agency, that such activity
will be conducted in a manner that will not reduce the quality of such
waters below applicable Federal or State or local water quality stand-
ards. In any instance where the water quality standards have been
promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior under section 10 (c) (2)
of the act or where a State agency or interstate agency lacks authority
to provide such a certification, then the certification shall be obtained
from the Secretary of the Interior. In any case where an activity
requires two or more licenses or permits by a single Federal agency
or multiple Federal agencies and the applicant receives a certification
under this section in connection with any one of those licenses or
-------
1272 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
permits, then any Federal agency considering an application for a
subsequent license or permit for that same activity, such Federal
agency may accept the first certification as meeting the requirements
of this section if, after notice to the affected State or States or inter-
state agencies or to the Secretary, as appropriate, no written objec-
tion is made to the granting of such license or permit without a
subsequent certification. This exception, however, shall not apply
to any application for an operating license or permit even if certifica-
tion was obtained in the issuance of a construction permit or license
by a Federal agency for the same activity.
In addition, once a license or permit has been issued it may be sus-
pended if a court of competent jurisdiction subsequently finds that
such licensee or permittee is not in compliance with applicable water
quality standards. The provisions of this section are intended to
apply to renewals of existing licenses or permits for any activities
which discharge into the navigable waters of the United States.
In any case where the actual construction of a facility for the con-
duct of any activity has been lawfully commenced prior to the effec-
tive date of this legislation, no certification shall be required under
section 11 (b) for a Federal license or permit issued after the effective
date of this legislation to conduct such activity. Any license or permit
issued without the certification, however, shall terminate at the
expiration of 2 years following the effective date of this legislation
unless prior to such termination date the licensee or permittee sub-
mits to the Federal licensing or permitting agency a certification as
required under section 11 (b). The term "actual construction" is
intended to mean the actual
[p. 20]
building, erecting, excavation of a structure or other facility and
does not include site acquisition, construction of access roads, engi-
neering, architecture, legal, fiscal, economic investigation and study-
ing, surveying, designing, or planning or other procedures not directly
connected with the actual building of the facility.
This section prescribes that no Federal permit or license may be
granted except in the manner just mentioned without a certification
as prescribed by this section.
Section 4
This section amends section 5 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act by adding four new subsections and by extending the
provisions authorizing appropriations for 2 additional fiscal years at
the level of authorization provided for fiscal year 1969, that is $65
million.
Section 5 (g) authorizes the Secretary to enter into contracts and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1273
grants with various individuals, agencies, and organizations, for
research and development on the problems of lake eutrophication
and other lake pollution problems.
Section 5 (h) would authorize the Secretary to acquire lands and
interests therein by purchase with appropriated or donated funds,
by donation, or by exchange, lands or interests therein in connection
with development of field laboratories, research facilities, and demon-
stration projects.
Section 5 (i) would direct that the Secretary shall engage in re-
search studies, experiments, and demonstrations by grant, contract,
or otherwise, in the prevention and control of oil pollution, including
the removal of oil discharges.
Section 5 (g) would direct that the Secretary engage in a program
of research, studies, experiments, and demonstrations by grants,
contracts, or otherwise relative to the equipment which is to be in-
stalled on board a vessel and which is designed to receive, retain,
treat, or discharge sewage from vessels with particular emphasis on
equipment for use on recreational vessels. The Secretary is directed
to file a report of his findings prior to the effective date of any
standards to be established under section 18 of the act.
Section 5
This section would amend section 6 of the act by extending the
authorization for appropriations 2 additional fiscal years at the level
of appropriation authorizations for fiscal year 1969, which is $60
million.
Sections 6 and 7
These sections are technical amendments.
Section 8
This section would change the name of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration to the National Water Quality Administra-
tion. The purpose of this change is to provide a more positive
approach to the program and to eliminate the negative approach
attendant to the idea of control.
[p. 21]
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the House
of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, as
reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted
is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing
law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):
-------
1274 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATKR
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
AN ACT To provide for water pollution control activities in the Public Health
Service of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and for other
purposes
DECLARATION OF POLICY
SECTION 1. (a) The purpose of this Act is to enhance the quality
and value of our water resources and to establish a national policy
for the prevention, control, and abatement of water pollution.
(b) In connection with the exercise of jurisdiction over the water-
ways of the Nation and in consequence of the benefits resulting to the
public health and welfare by the prevention and control of water
pollution, it is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress to recog-
nize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of
the States in preventing and controlling water pollution, to support
and aid technical research relating to the prevention and control of
water pollution, and to provide Federal technical services and finan-
cial aid to State and interstate agencies and to municipalities in con-
nection with the prevention and control of water pollution. The
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (hereinafter in this Act
called "Secretary") shall administer this Act through the Adminis-
tration created by section 2 of this Act, and with the assistance of an
Assistant Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare designated by
him, shall supervise and direct (1) the head of such Administration
in administering this Act and (2) the administration of all other
functions of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare re-
lated to water pollution. Such Assistant Secretary shall perform
such additional functions as the Secretary may prescribe.
(c) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as impairing or in any
manner affecting any right or jurisdiction of the States with respect
to the waters (including boundary waters) of such States.
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
SEC. 2. Effective ninety days after the date of enactment of this
section there is created within the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare a [Federal Water Pollution Control Administration]
National Water Quality Administration (hereinafter in this Act re-
ferred to as the "Administration"). The head of the Administration
shall be appointed, and his compensation fixed, by the Secretary.
The head of the Administration may, in addition to regular staff of
the Administration, which shall be initially provided from the per-
sonnel of the Department, obtain, from within the Department or
otherwise as authorized by law, such professional, technical, and
clerical assistance as may be necessary to discharge the Administra-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1275
tion's functions and may for that purpose use funds available for
carrying out such functions;
[p. 22]
and he may delegate any of his functions to, or otherwise authorize
their performance by, an officer or employee of, or assigned or de-
tailed to, the Administration.
COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAMS FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
SEC. 3. (a) The Secretary shall, after careful investigation, and
in cooperation with other Federal agencies, with State water pollu-
tion control agencies and interstate agencies, and with the munici-
palities and industries involved, prepare or develop comprehensive
programs for eliminating or reducing the pollution of interstate
waters and tributaries thereof and improving the sanitary conditions
of surface and underground waters. In the development of such
comprehensive programs due regard shall be given to the improve-
ments which are necessary to conserve such waters for public water
supplies, propagation of fish and aquatic life and wildlife, recreational
purposes, and agricultural, industrial, and other legitimate uses. For
the purpose of this section, the Secretary is authorized to make joint
investigations with any such agencies of the condition of any waters
in any State or States, and of the discharges of any sewage, industrial
wastes, or substance 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, consid-
eration shall be given to inclusion 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 bs
determined by these agencies, with the advice of the Secretary, and
his views on these matters shall be set forth in any report or presenta-
tion 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 deter-
mining 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 equita-
bly in the benefits of multiple-purpose construction.
(4) Costs of water quality control features incorporated in any
Federal reservoir or other impoundment under the provisions of this
Act shall be determined and the beneficiaries identified and if the
-------
1276 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
benefits are widespread or national in scope, the costs of such features
shall be nonreimbursable.
(c) (1) The Secretary 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 3 years, if such agency provides for adequate representation
of appropriate State, interstate, local, or (when appropriate) interna-
tional, interests in the basin or portion thereof involved and is capable
of developing an effective, comprehensive water quality control and
abatement plan for a basin.
(2) Each planning agency receiving a grant under this subsection
shall develop a comprehensive pollution control and abatement plan
for the basin which—
[p. 23]
(A) is consistent with any applicable water quality standards
established pursuant to current law within the basin;
(B) recommends such treatment works and sewer systems as
will provide the most effective and economical means of collec-
tion, storage, treatment, and purification of wastes and recom-
mends means to encourage both municipal and industrial use of
such works and systems; and
(C) recommends maintenance and improvement of water
quality standards within the basin or portion thereof and recom-
mends methods of adequately financing those facilities as may be
necessary to implement the plan.
(3) For the purposes of this subsection the term "basin" includes,
but is not limited to, rivers and their tributaries, streams, coastal
waters, sounds, estuaries, bays, lakes, and portions thereof, as well as
the lands drained thereby.
INTERSTATE COOPERATION AND UNIFORM LAWS
SEC. 4. (a) The Secretary shall encourage cooperative activities by
the States for the prevention and control of water pollution; encour-
age the enactment of improved and, so far as practicable, uniform
State laws relating to the prevention and control of water pollution;
and encourage compacts between States for the prevention and
control of water 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) coopera-
tive effort and mutual assistance for the prevention and control of
water pollution and the enforcement of their respective laws relat-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1277
ing thereto, and (2) the establishment of such agencies, joint or
otherwise, as they may deem desirable for making effective such
agreements and 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.
RESEARCH, INVESTIGATIONS, TRAINING, AND INFORMATION
SEC. 5. (a) The Secretary shall conduct in the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare and encourage, cooperate with, and
render assistance to other appropriate public (whether Federal,
State, interstate, or local) authorities, agencies, and institutions,
private agencies and institutions, and individuals in the conduct of,
and promote the coordination of, research, investigations, experi-
ments, demonstrations, and studies relating to the causes, control, and
prevention of water pollution. In carrying out the foregoing, the
Secretary is authorized to—
(1) collect and make available, through publications and other
appropriate means, the results of and other information as to
research, investigations, and demonstrations relating to the
prevention and control of water pollution, including appropriate
recommendations in connection therewith;
(2) make grants-in-aid to public or private agencies and insti-
tutions and to individuals for research or training projects and
for demonstrations, and provide for the conduct of research,
[p. 24]
training, and demonstrations by contract with public or private
agencies and institutions and with individuals without regard
to sections 3648 and 3709 of the Revised Statutes;
(3) secure, from time to time and for such periods as he deems
advisable, the assistance and advice of experts, scholars, and
consultants as authorized by section 15 of the Administrative
Expenses Act of 1946 (5 U.S.C. 55a);
(4) establish and maintain research fellowships in the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare with such stipends and
allowances, including traveling and subsistence expenses, as he
may deem necessary to procure the assistance of the most prom-
ising research fellowships: Provided, That the Secretary shall
report annually to the appropriate committees of Congress on
his operations under this paragraph; and
(5) provide training in technical matters relating to the
causes, prevention, and control of water pollution to personnel
of public agencies and other persons with suitable qualifications.
(b) The Secretary may, upon request of any State water pollution
control agency, or interstate agency, conduct investigations and
-------
1278 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
research and make surveys concerning any specific problem of water
pollution confronting any State, interstate agency, community,
municipality, or industrial plant, with a view of recommending a
solution of such problem.
(c) The Secretary shall, in cooperation with other Federal, State,
and local agencies having related responsibilities, collect and dis-
seminate basic data on chemical, physical, and biological water
quality and other information insofar as such data or other informa-
tion relate to water pollution and the prevention and control thereof.
(d) In carrying out the provisions of this section the Secretary
shall develop and demonstrate under varied conditions (including
conducting such basic and applied research, studies, and experiments
as may be necessary):
(A) practicable means of treating municipal sewage and other
waterborne wastes to remove the maximum possible amounts of
physical, chemical, and biological pollutants in order to restore
and maintain the maximum amount of the Nation's water at a
quality suitable for repeated reuse;
(B) improved methods and procedures to identify and meas-
ure the effects of pollutants on water uses, including those pollu-
tants created by new technological developments; and
(C) methods and procedures for evaluating the effects on
water quality and water uses of augmented streamflows to con-
trol water pollution not susceptible to other means of abatement.
(e) The Secretary shall establish, equip, and maintain field labora-
tory 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 mid-
western area, one in the southwestern area, one in the Pacific North-
west, and one in the State of Alaska, for the conduct of research,
investigations, experiments, field demonstrations and studies, and
training relating to the prevention and control of water pollution.
[p. 25]
Insofar as practicable, each such facility shall be located near insti-
tutions of higher learning in which graduate training in such research
might be carried out.
(f) The Secretary shall conduct research and technical develop-
ment 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 con-
ditions of waste treatment and disposal, an evaluation of the water
quality needs of those to be served by such waters, an evaluation of
municipal, industrial, and vessel waste treatment and disposal prac-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1279
tices with respect to such waters, and a study of alternate means
of solving water pollution problems (including additional waste
treatment measures) with respect to such waters.
(g) The Secretary is authorized to enter into contracts with, or
make grants to, public or private agencies and organizations and indi-
viduals for the purpose of developing and demonstrating new or im-
proved methods for the prevention, removal, and control of natural
or manmade pollution in lakes, including the undesirable effects of
nutrients and vegetation.
(h) In carrying out the provisions of this section relating to the
conduct by the Secretary of demonstration projects and the develop-
ment of field laboratories and research facilities, the Secretary 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 disposi-
tion. 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 grantor or to
the Secretary as the circumstances require.
(i) The Secretary shall engage in such research, studies, experi-
ments, and demonstrations as he deems appropriate relative to the
removal of oil from any waters and to the prevention and control of
oil pollution, and shall publish from time to time the results of such
activities. In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary may enter
into contracts with, or make grants to, public or private organizations
and individuals.
(j) The Secretary shall engage in such research, studies, experi-
ments, and demonstrations as he deems appropriate relative to equip-
ment 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 vessels. The Secretary shall report to Congress
the results of such research, studies, experiments and demonstrations
prior to the effective date of any standards established under section
18 of this Act. In carrying out this subsection the Secretary may
enter into contracts with, or make grants to, public or private
organizations and individuals.
l(S)](k) (1) The Secretary shall, in cooperation with the Secre-
tary 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, a comprehen-
sive study of the effects of pollution, including sedimentation, in the
-------
1280 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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 study shall also
consider the effect of demographic trends, the exploitation of mineral
[p. 26]
resources and fossil fuels, land and industrial development, naviga-
tion, flood and erosion control, and other uses of estuaries and
estuarine zones upon the pollution of the waters therein.
(2) In conducting the above study, the Secretary shall assemble,
coordinate, and organize all existing pertinent information on the
Nation's estuaries and estuarine zones carry out a program of investi-
gations and surveys to supplement existing information in represent-
ative estuaries and estuarine zones and indentify the problems and
areas where further research and study are required.
(3) The Secretary shall submit to the Congress a final report of
the study authorized by this subsection not later than three years
after the date of enactment of this subsection. Copies of the report
shall be made available to all interested parties, public and private.
The report shall include, but not be limited to—
(A) an analysis of the importance of estuaries to the economic
and social well-being of the people of the United States and of the
effects of pollution upon the use and enjoyment of such estuaries;
(B) a discussion of the major economic, social, and ecological
trends occurring in the estuarine zones of the Nation;
(C) recommendations for a comprehensive national program
for the preservation, study, use, and development of estuaries of
the Nation, and the respective responsibilities which should be
assumed by Federal, State, and local governments and by public
and private interests.
(4) There is authorized to be appropriated the sum of $1,000,000
per fiscal year for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1967, June 30, 1968,
[and June 30, 1969,], June 30, 1969, and June 30, 1970, to carry out
the purposes of this subsection.
(5) For the purpose of this subsection, the term "estuarine Zones"
means an environmental system 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 navigable or interstate 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.
-------
STATUTES AND .LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1281
[(h)](0 There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
section, other than subsection [(g)J(fc), not to exceed $60,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, [and $65,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1969] and $65,000,000 per fiscal year for each
of the fiscal years ending June 30, 1969, June 30, 1970, and June 30,
1971. Sums so appropriated shall remain available until expended.
GRANTS FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
SEC. 6. (a) The Secretary is authorized to make grants to any
State, municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency for the
purpose of—
(1) assisting in the development of any project which will
demonstrate a new or improved method of controlling the dis-
charge into any waters of untreated or inadequately treated
sewage or other wastes from sewers which carry storm water or
both storm water and sewage or other wastes, or
[p. 27]
(2) assisting in the development of any project which will
demonstrate advanced waste treatment and water purification
methods (including the temporary use of new or improved chem-
ical 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 for the purpose of reports, plans, and specifications in connection
therewith.
(b) The Secretary is authorized to make grants to persons for
research and demonstration projects for prevention of pollution of
waters by industry including, but not limited to, treatment of indus-
trial waste.
(c) Federal grants under subsection (a) of this section shall be
subject to the following limitations:
(1) No grant shall be made for any project pursuant to this
section unless such project shall have been approved by the
appropriate State water pollution control agency or agencies and
by the Secretary;
(2) No grant shall be made for any project in an amount
exceeding 75 per centum of the estimated reasonable cost thereof
as determined by the Secretary; and
(3) No grant shall be made for any project under this section
unless the Secretary determines that such project will serve as a
useful demonstration for the purpose set forth in clause (1) or
(2) of subsection (a).
(d) Federal grants under subsection (b) of this section shall be
subject to the following limitations:
-------
1282 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(1) No grant shall be made under this section in excess of
$1,000,000;
(2) No grant shall be made for more than 70 per centum of
the cost of the project; and
(3) No grant shall be made for any project unless the Secre-
tary determines that such project will serve a useful purpose in
the development or demonstration of a new or improved method
of treating industrial wastes or otherwise preventing pollution
of waters by industry, which method shall have industry-wide
application.
(e) For the purposes of this section there are authorized to be
appropriated—
(1) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, and for each of the
next [three] five succeeding fiscal years, the sum of $20,000,000
per fiscal year for the purposes set forth in subsections (a) and
(b) of this section, including contracts pursuant to such
subsections for such purposes;
(2) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, and for each of the
next [two] four succeeding fiscal years, the sum of $20,000,000
per fiscal year for the purpose set forth in clause (2) of subsection
(a); and
(3) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, and for each of the
next [two] four succeeding fiscal years, the sum of $20,000,000
per fiscal year for the purpose set forth in subsection (b).
[p. 28]
GRANTS FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAMS
SEC. 7. (a) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1957, and for each succeeding fiscal year
to and including the fiscal year ending June 30, 1961, $3,000,000, for
each succeeding fiscal year to and including the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1967, $5,000,000, and for each succeeding fiscal year to and
including the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, $10,000,000 for grants
to States and to interstate agencies to assist them in meeting the costs
of establishing and maintaining adequate measures for the prevention
and control of water pollution, including the training of personnel of
public agencies.
(b) The portion of the sums appropriated pursuant to subsection
(a) for a fiscal year which shall be available for grants to interstate
agencies and the portion thereof which shall be available for grants to
States shall be specified in the Act appropriating such sums.
(c) From the sums available therefor for any fiscal year the Secre-
tary shall from time to time make allotments to the several States,
in accordance with regulations, on the basis of (1) the population, (2)
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1283
the extent of the water pollution problem, and (3) the financial need
of the respective States.
(d) From each State's allotment under subsection (c) for any
fiscal year the Secretary shall pay to such State an amount equal to
its Federal share (as determined under subsection (h)) of the cost of
carrying out its State plan approved under subsection (f), including
the cost of training personnel for State and local water pollution con-
trol work and including the cost of administering the State plan.
(e) From the sums available therefor for any fiscal year the Sec-
retary shall from time to time make allotments to interstate agencies,
in accordance with regulations, on such basis as the Secretary finds
reasonable and equitable. He shall from time to time pay to each
such agency, from its allotment, an amount equal to such portion of
the cost of carrying out its plan approved under subsection (f) as
may be determined in accordance with regulations, including the cost
of training personnel for water pollution control work and including
the cost of administering the interstate agency's plan. The regula-
tions relating to the portion of the cost of carrying out the interstate
agency's plan which shall be borne by the United States shall be
designed to place such agencies, so far as practicable, on a basis
similar to that of the States.
(f) The Secretary shall approve any plan for the prevention and
control of water pollution which is submitted by the State water
pollution control agency or, in the case of an interstate agency, by
such agency, if such plan—
(1) provides for administration or for the supervision of
administration of the plan by the State water pollution control
agency or, in the case of a plan submitted by an interstate agency,
by such interstate agency;
(2) provides that such agency will make such reports, in such
form and containing such information, as the Secretary may
from time to time reasonably require to carry out his functions
under this Act;
(3) sets forth the plans, policies, and methods to bs followed
in carrying out the State (or interstate) plan and in its adminis-
tration;
[p. 29]
(4) provides for extention or improvement of the State or
interstate program for prevention and control of water pollution;
(5) provides such accounting, budgeting, and other fiscal
methods and procedures as are necessary for the proper and
efficient administration of the plan; and
(6) sets forth the criteria used by the State in determining
priority of projects as provided in section 8 (b) (4).
-------
1284 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
The Secretary shall not disapprove any plan without first giving
reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing to the State water
pollution control agency or interstate agency which has submitted
such plan.
(g) (1) Whenever the Secretary, after reasonable notice and op-
portunity for hearing to a State water pollution control agency or
interstate agency finds that—
(A) the plan submitted by such agency and approved under
this section has been so changed that it no longer complies with
a requirement of subsection (f) of this section; or
(B) in the administration of the plan there is a failure to
comply substantially with such a requirement.
the Secretary shall notify such agency that no further payments will
be made to the State or to the interstate agency, as the case may be,
under this section (or in his discretion that further payments will not
be made to the State, or to the interstate agency, for projects under
or parts of the plan affected by such failure) until he is satisfied that
there will no longer be any such failure. Until he is so satisfied, the
Secretary shall make no further payments to such State, or to such
interstate agency, as the case may be, under this section (or shall
limit payments to projects under or parts of the plan in which there
is no such failure).
(2) If any State or any interstate agency is dissatisfied with the
Secretary's action with respect to it under this subsection, it may
appeal to the United States court of appeals for the circuit in which
such State (or any of the members States, in the case of an interstate
agency) is located. The summons and notice of appeal may be served
at any place in the United States. The findings of fact by the Secre-
tary, unless contrary to the weight of the evidence, shall be con-
clusive; but the court, for good cause shown, may remand the case
to the Secretary to take further evidence, and the Secretary may
thereupon make new or modified findings of fact and may modify his
previous action. Such new or modified findings of fact shall likewise
be conclusive unless contrary to the weight of the evidence. The
court shall have jurisdiction to affirm, the action of the Secretary or
to set it aside, in whole or in part. The judgment of the court shall
be subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States upon
certiorari or certification as provided in title 28, United States Code,
section 1254.
(h) (1) The "Federal share" for any State shall be 100 per centum
less that percentage which bears the same ratio to 50 per centum as
the per capita income of such State bears to the per capita income of
the United States, except that (A) the Federal share shall in no case
be more than 66% per centum or less than 33% per centum, and (B)
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1285
the Federal share for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands shall be
66% per centum.
(2) The "Federal shares" shall be promulgated by the Secretary
between July 1 and September 30 of each even-numbered year, on
[p. 30]
the basis of the average of the per capita incomes of the States and of
the continental United States for the three most recent consecutive
years for which satisfactory data are available from the Department
of Commerce.
(3) As used in this subsection, the term "United States" means
the fifty States and the District of Columbia.
(4) Promulgations made before satisfactory data are available
from the Department of Commerce for a full year on the per capita
income of Alaska shall prescribe a Federal share for Alaska of 50 per
centum and, for purposes of such promulgations, Alaska shall not be
included as part of the "United States". Promulgations made there-
after but before per capita income data for Alaska for a full three-
year period are available for the Department of Commerce shall be
based on satisfactory data available therefrom for Alaska for such one
full year or, when such data are availble for a two-year period, for
such two years.
(i) The population of the several States shall be determined on the
basis of the latest figures furnished by the Department of Commerce.
(j) The method of computing and paying amounts pursuant to
subsection (d) or (e) shall be as follows:
(1) The Secretary shall, prior to the beginning of each calendar
quarter or other period prescribed by him, estimate the amount to be
paid to each State (or to each interstate agency in the case of sub-
section (e)) under the provisions of such subsection for such period,
such estimate to be based on such records of the State (or the inter-
state agency) and information furnished by it, and such other investi-
gation, as the Secretary may find necessary.
(2) The Secretary shall pay to the State (or to the interstate
agency), from the allotment available therefor, the amount so esti-
mated by him for any period, reduced or increased, as the case may
be, by any sum (not previously adjusted under this paragraph) by
which he finds that his estimate of the amount to be paid such State
(or such interstate agency) for any prior period under such subsec-
tion was greater or less than the amount which should have been
paid to such State (or such agency) for such prior period under such
subsection. Such payments shall be made through the disbursing
facilities of the Treasury Department, in such installments as the
Secretary may determine.
-------
1286 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION
SEC. 8. (a) The Secretary is authorized to make grants to any
State, municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency for the
construction of necessary treatment works to prevent the discharge
of untreated or inadequately treated sewage or other waste into any
waters and for the purpose of reports, plans, and specifications in
connection therewith.
(b) Federal grants under this section shall be subject to the fol-
lowing limitations: (1) No grant shall be made for any project pur-
suant to this section unless such project shall have been approved by
the appropriate State water pollution control agency or agencies and
by the Secretary and unless such project is included in a compre-
hensive program developed pursuant to this Act; (2) no grant shall
be made for any project in an amount exceeding 30 per centum of the
estimated
[p. 31]
reasonable cost thereof as determined by the Secretary; (3) no
grant shall be made unless the grantee agrees to pay the remaining
cost; (4) no grant shall be made for any project under this section
until the applicant has made provision satisfactory to the Secretary
for assuring proper and efficient operation and maintenance of the
treatment works after completion of the construction thereof; and
(5) no grant shall be made for any project under this section unless
such project is in conformity with the State water pollution control
plan submitted pursuant to the provisions of section 7 and has
been certified by the appropriate State water pollution control
agency as entitled to priority over other eligible projects on the basis
of financial as well as water pollution control needs; (6) the percent-
age limitation of 30 per centum imposed by clause (2) of this sub-
section shall be increased to a maximum of 40 per centum in the
case of grants made under this section from funds allocated for a
fiscal year to a State under subsection (c) of this section if the State
agrees to pay not less than 30 per centum of the estimated reasonable
cost (as determined by the Secretary) of all projects for which Fed-
eral grants are to be made under this section from such allocation;
(7) the percentage limitations imposed by clause (2) of this subsec-
tion shall be increased to a maximum of 50 per centum in the case
of grants made under this section from funds allocated for a fiscal
year to a State under subsection (c) of this section if the State agrees
to pay not less than 25 per centum of the estimated reasonable costs
(as determined by the Secretary) of all projects for which Federal
grants are to be made under this section from such allocation and if
enforceable water quality standards have been established for the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1287
waters into which the project discharges, in accordance with section
10 (c) of this Act in the case of interstate waters, and under State law
in the case of intrastate waters.
(c) In determining the desirability of projects for treatment works
and of approving Federal financial aid in connection therewith,
consideration shall be given by the Secretary to the public benefits
to be derived by the construction and the propriety of Federal aid
in such construction, the relation of the ultimate cost of constructing
and maintaining the works to the public interest and to the public
necessity for the works, and the adequacy of the provisions made or
proposed by the applicant for such Federal financial aid for assuring
proper and efficient operation and maintenance of the treatment
works after completion of the construction thereof. The sums appro-
priated pursuant to subsection (d) for each fiscal year ending on or
before June 30, 1965, and the first $100,000,000 appropriated pursuant
to subsection (d) for each fiscal year beginning on or after July 1,
1965, shall be allotted by the Secretary from time to time, in accord-
ance with regulations, as follows: (1) 50 per centum of such sums
in the ratio that the population of each State bears to the population
of all the States, and (2) 50 per centum of such sums in the ratio
that the quotient obtained by dividing the per capita income of the
United States by the per capita income of each State bears to the
sum of such quotients for all the States. All sums in excess of
$100,000,000 appropriated pursuant to subsection (d) for each fiscal
year beginning on or after July 1, 1965, shall be allotted by the Secre-
tary from time to time, in accordance with regulations, in the ratio
that the population of each State bears to the population of all States.
Sums allotted to a State under the two preceding sentences which are
not obligated
[p. 32]
within six months following the end of the fiscal year for which
they were allotted because of a lack of projects which have been
approved by the State water pollution control agency under sub-
section (b) (1) of this section and certified as entitled to priority
under subsection (b) (4) of this section, shall be reallotted by the
Secretary, on such basis as he determines to be reasonable and
equitable and in accordance with regulations promulgated by him,
to States having projects approved under this section for which
grants have not been made because of lack of funds: Provided, how-
ever, That whenever a State has funds subject to reallocation and the
Secretary finds that the need for a project in a community in such
State is due in part to any Federal institution or Federal construction
activity, he may, prior to such reallocation, make an additional grant
-------
1288 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
with respect to such project which will in his judgment reflect an
equitable contribution for the need caused by such Federal institu-
tion or activity. Any sum made available to a State by reallotment
under the preceding sentence shall be in addition to any funds other-
wise allotted to such State under this Act. The allotments of a State
under the second, third, and fourth sentences of this subsection shall
be available, in accordance with the provisions of this section, for
payments with respect to projects in such State which have been
approved under this section, except that in the case of any project
on which construction was initiated in such State after June 30, 1966,
which was approved by the appropriate State water pollution control
agency and which the Secretary finds meets the requirements of this
section but was constructed without assistance, such allotments for
any fiscal year ending prior to July 1, 1971, shall also be available
for payments in reimbursement of State or local funds used for such
project prior to July 1, 1971, to the extent that assistance could have
been provided under this section if such project had been approved
pursuant to this section and adequate funds had been available. In
the case of any project on which construction was initiated in such
State after June 30, 1966, and which was constructed with assistance
pursuant to this section but the amount of such assistance was a lesser
per centum of the cost of construction than was allowable pursuant to
this section, such allotments shall also be available for payments in
reimbursement of State or local funds used for such project prior to
July 1, 1971, to the extent that assistance could have been provided
under this section if adequate funds had been available. Neither a
finding by the Secretary that a project meets the requirements of this
subsection, nor any other provision of this subsection, shall be con-
strued to constitute a commitment or obligation of the United States
to provide funds to make or pay any grant for such project. For
purposes of this section, population shall be determined on the basis
of the latest decennial census for which figures are available, as
certified by the Secretary of Commerce, and per capita income for
each State and for the United States shall be determined on the basis
of the average of the per capita incomes of the States and of the
continental United States for the three most recent consecutive years
for which satisfactory data are available from the Department of
Commerce.
(d) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal
year through and including the fiscal year ending June 30, 1961, the
[p. 33]
sum of $50,000,000 per fiscal year for the purpose of making grants
under this section. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1289
for the purpose of making grants under this section, $80,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1962, $90,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1963, $100,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964,
$100,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1965, $150,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, $150,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1967; $450,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1968; $700,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 3, 1969; $1,000,-
000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 3, 1970; and $1,250,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971. Sums so appropriated shall
remain available until expended. At least 50 per centum of the funds
so appropriated for each fiscal year ending on or before June 30, 1965,
and at least 50 per centum of the first $100,000,000 so appropriated for
each fiscal year beginning on or after July 1, 1965, shall be used for
grants for the construction of treatment works servicing municipali-
ties of one hundred and twenty-five thousand population or under.
(e) The Secretary shall make payments under this section through
the disbursing facilities of the Department of the Treasury. Funds so
paid shall be used exclusively to meet the cost of construction of the
project for which the amount was paid. As used in this section the
term "construction" includes preliminary planning to determine the
economic and engineering feasibility of treatment works, the engi-
neering, architectural, legal, fiscal, and economic investigations and
studies, surveys, designs, plans, working drawings, specifications,
procedures, and other action necessary to the construction of treat-
ment works; and the erection, building, acquisition, alteration, re-
modeling, improvement, or extension of treatment works; and the
inspection and supervision of the construction of treatment works.
(f) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, the Sec-
retary may increase the amount of a grant made under subsection
(b) of this section by an additional 10 per centum of the amount of
such grant for any project which has been certified to him by an offi-
cial State, metropolitan, or regional planning agency empowered
under State or local laws or interstate compact to perform metropoli-
tan or regional planning for a metropolitan area within which the
assistance is to be used, or other agency or instrumentality designated
for such purposes by the Governor (or Governors in the case of inter-
state planning) as being in conformity with the comprehensive plan
developed or in process of development for such metropolitan area.
For the purposes of this subsection, the term "metropolitan area"
means either (1) a standard metropolitan statistical area as defined
by the Bureau of the Budget, except as may be determined by the
President as not being appropriate for the purposes hereof, or (2)
any urban area, including those surrounding areas that form an eco-
nomic and socially related region, taking into consideration such
-------
1290 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
factors as present and future population trends and patterns of urban
growth location of transportation facilities and systems, and distribu-
tion of industrial, commercial, residential, governmental, institutional,
and other activities, which in the opinion of the President lends itself
as being appropriate for the purposes hereof.
(g) The Secretary shall take such action as may be necessary to
insure that all laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or
subcontractors on projects for which grants are made under this
[p. 34]
section 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 U.S.C., sees. 276a through 276a-5). The Secre-
tary of Labor shall have, with respect to the labor standards specified
in this subsection, the authority and functions set forth in Reorganiza-
tion Plan Numbered 14 of 1950 (15 F.R. 3176; 64 Stat. 1267; 5 U.S.C.
133z-15) and section 2 of the Act of June 13, 1934, as amended
(48 Stat. 948; 40 U.S.C. 276c).
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADVISORY BOARD
SEC. 9. (a) (1) There is hereby established in the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, a Water Pollution Control Advisory
Board, composed of the Secretary or his designer, who shall be chair-
man, and nine members appointed by the President, none of whom
shall be chairman, and nine members appointed by the President, none
of whom shall be Federal officers or employees. The appointed mem-
bers, having due regard for the purposes of this Act, shall be selected
from among representatives of various State, interstate and local gov-
ernmental agencies, of public or private interests contributing to,
affected by, or concerned with water pollution, and of other public and
private agencies, organizations, or groups demonstrating an active
interest in the field of water pollution prevention and control, as well
as other individuals who are expert in this field.
(2) (A) Each member appointed by the President shall hold office
for a term of three years, except that (i) any member appointed to fill
a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for which his
predecessor was appointed shall be appointed for the remainder of
such term, and (ii) the terms of office of the members first taking office
after June 30, 1956, shall expire as follows: three at the end of one
year after such date, 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, and (iii) the term of any member
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1291
under the preceding provisions shall be extended until the date on
which his successor's 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 but terms commencing
prior to the enactment of the Water Pollution Control Act Amend-
ments of 1956 shall not be deemed "preceding terms" for purposes of
this sentence.
(B) The members of the Board who are not officers or employees
of the United States, while attending conferences or meetings of the
Board or while otherwise serving at the request of the Secretary, shall
be entitled to receive compensation at a rate to be fixed by the Secre-
tary, but not exceeding $50 per diem, including travel time, and while
away from their homes or regular places of business they may be al-
lowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as
authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 73b-2) for persons in the Government
service employed intermittently.
(b) The Board shall advise, consult with, and make recommenda-
tions to the Secretary on matters of policy relating to the activities
and functions of the Secretary under this Act.
[p. 35]
(c) Such clerical and technical assistance as may be necessary to
discharge the duties of the Board shall be provided from the personnel
of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
ENFORCEMENT MEASURES AGAINST POLLUTION OF INTERSTATE OR
NAVIGABLE WATERS
SEC. 10. (a) The pollution of interstate or navigable waters in or
adjacent to any State or States (whether the matter causing or con-
tributing to such pollution is discharged directly into such waters or
reaches such waters after discharge into a tributary of such waters),
which endangers the health or welfare of any persons, shall be subject
to abatement as provided in this Act.
(b) Consistent with the policy declaration of this Act, State and
interstate action to abate pollution of intersate or navigable waters
shall be encouraged and shall not, except as otherwise provided by or
pursuant to court order under subsection (h), be displaced by Federal
enforcement action.
(c) (1) If the Governor of a State or a State water pollution control
agency files, within one year after the date of enactment of this sub-
section, a letter of intent that such State, after public hearings, will
before June 30, 1967, adopt (A) water quality criteria applicable to
interstate waters or portions thereof within such State, and (B) a plan
for the implementation and enforcement of the water quality criteria
-------
1292 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
adopted, and if such criteria and plan are established in accordance
with the letter of intent, and if the Secretary determines that such
State criteria and plan are consistent with paragraph (3) of this sub-
section, such State criteria and plan shall thereafter be the water
quality standards applicable to such interstate waters or portions
thereof.
(2) If a State does not (A) file a letter of intent or (B) establish
water quality standards in accordance with paragraphs (1) of this
subsection, or of the Secretary or the Governor of any State affected
by water quality standards established pursuant to this subsection
desires a revision in such standards, the Secretary may, after reason-
able notice and a conference of representatives of appropriate Federal
departments and agencies, interstate agencies, States, municipalities
and industries involved, prepare regulations setting forth standards of
water quality to be applicable to interstate waters or portions thereof.
If, within six months from the date the Secretary publishes such regu-
lations, the State has not adopted water quality standards found by
the Secretary to be consistent with paragraph (3) of this subsection,
or a petition for public hearing has not been filed under paragraph (4)
of this subsection, the Secretary shall promulgate such standards.
(3) Standards of quality established pursuant to this subsection
shall be such as to protect the public health or welfare, enhance the
quality of water and serve the purposes of this Act. In establishing
such standards the Secretary, the Hearing Board, or the appropriate
State authority shall take into consideration their use and value for
public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational
purposes, and agricultural, industrial, and other legitimate uses.
(4) If at any time prior to 30 days after standards have been promul-
gated under paragraph (2) of this subsection, the Governor of any
State affected by such standards petitions the Secretary for a hearing,
[p. 36]
the Secretary shall call a public hearing, to be held in or near one or
more of the places where the water quality standards will take effect
before a Hearing Board of five or more persons appointed by the
Secretary. Each State which would be affected by such standards
shall be given an opportunity to select one member of the Hearing
Board. The Department of Commerce and other affected Federal
departments and agencies shall each be given an opportunity to select
a member of the Hearing Board and not less than a majority of the
Hearing Board shall be persons other than officers or employees of
the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The members
of the Board who are not officers or employees of the United States,
while participating in the hearing conducted by such Hearing Board
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1293
or otherwise engaged on the work of such Hearing Board, shall be
entitled to receive compensation at a rate fixed by the Secretary, 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 authorized
by law, (5 U.S.C. 73b-2) for persons in the Government service em-
ployed intermittently. Notice of such hearing shall be published in the
Federal Register and given to the State water pollution control agen-
cies, interstate agencies and municipalities involved at least 30 days
prior to the date of such hearing. On the basis of the evidence pre-
sented at such hearing, the Hearing Board shall make findings as so
whether the standards published or promulgated by the Secretary
should be approved or modified and transmit its findings to the Secre-
tary. If the Hearing Board approves the standards as published or
promulgated by the Secretary, the standards shall take effect on re-
ceipt by the Secretary of the Hearing Board's recommendations. If
the Hearing Board recommends modifications in the standards as pub-
lished or promulgated by the Secretary, the Secretary shall promul-
gate revised regulations setting forth standards of water quality in
accordance with the Hearing Board's recommendations which will
become effective immediately upon promulgation.
(5) The discharge of matter into such interstate waters or portions
thereof, which reduces the quality of such waters below the water
quality standards established under this subsection (whether the
matter causing or contributing to such reduction is discharged directly
into such waters or reaches such waters after discharge into tributaries
of such waters), is subject to abatement in accordance with the provi-
sions of paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (g) of this section, except
that at least 180 days before any abatement action is initiated under
either parargaph (1) or (2) of subsection (g) as authorized by this
subsection, the Secretary shall notify the violators and other inter-
ested parties of the violation of such standards. In any suit brought
under the provisions of this subsection the court shall receive in evi-
dence a transcript of the proceedings of the conference and hearing
provided for in this subsection, together with the recommendations of
the conference and Hearing Board and the recommendations and
standards promulgated by the Secretary, and such additional evidence,
including that relating to the alleged violation of the standards, as it
deems necessary to a complete review of the standards and to a deter-
mination of all other issues relating to the alleged violation. The court,
giving due consideration to the practicability and to the physical and
economic feasibility of complying with such
[p. 37]
standards, shall have jurisdiction to enter such judgment and orders
-------
1294 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
enforcing such judgment as the public interest and the equities of
the case may require,
(6) Nothing in this subsection shall (A) prevent the application
of this section to any case to which subsection (a) of this section would
otherwise be applicable, or (B) extend Federal jurisdiction over water
not otherwise authorized by this Act.
(7) In connection with any hearings under this section no witness
or any other person shall be required to divulge trade secrets or secret
processes.
(d) (1) Whenever requested by the Governor of any State or a State
water pollution control agency, or (with the concurrence of the Gov-
ernor and of the State water pollution control agency for the State in
which the municipality is situated) the governing body of any munici-
pality, the Secretary shall, if such request refers to pollution of waters
which is endangering the health or welfare of persons in a State other
than that in which the discharge or discharges (causing or contrib-
uting to such pollution) originates, give formal notification thereof to
the water pollution control agency and interstate agency, if any, of the
State or States where such discharge or discharges originate and shall
call promptly a conference of such agency or agencies and of the
State water pollution control agency and interstate agency, if any,
of the State or States, if any, which may be adversely affected by such
pollution. Whenever requested by the Governor of any State, the
Secretary shall, if such request refers to pollution of interstate or
navigable waters which is endangering the health or welfare of persons
only in the requesting State in which the discharge or discharges
(causing or contributing to such pollution) originate, give formal
notification thereof to the water pollution control agency and inter-
state agency, if any, of such State and shall promptly call a conference
of such agency or agencies, unless, in the judgment of the Secretary,
the effect of such pollution on the legitimate uses of the waters is not of
sufficient significance to warrant exercise of Federal jurisdiction under
this section. The Secretary shall also call such a conference whenever,
on the basis of reports, surveys, or studies, he has reason to believe
that any pollution referred to in subsection (a) and endangering the
health or welfare of persons in a State other than that in which the
discharge or discharges originate is occurring; or he finds that sub-
stantial economic injury results from the inability to market shellfish
or shellfish products in interstate commerce because of pollution re-
ferred to in subsection (a) and action of Federal, State, or local
authorities.
(2) Whenever the Secretary, upon receipt of reports, surveys, or
studies from any duly constituted international agency, has reason to
believe that any pollution referred to in subsection (a) of this section
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1295
which endangers the health or welfare of persons in a foreign country
is occurring, 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 in which such discharge or dis-
charges originate and to the interstate water pollution control agency,
if any, and shall call promptly a conference of such agency or agencies,
if he believes that such pollution is occurring in sufficient quantity to
warrant such action. The Secretary, through the Secretary of State,
shall invite the foreign country which may be adversely affected by the
pollution to attend and participate in the conference, and the repre-
[p. 38]
sentative of such country shall, for the purpose of the conference and
any further proceeding resulting from such conference, have all the
rights of a State water pollution control agency. This paragraph
shall apply only to a foreign country which the Secretary determines
has given the United States essentially the same rights with respect to
the prevention and control of water pollution occurring in that country
as is given that country by this paragraph. Nothing in this paragraph
shall be construed to modify, amend, repeal, or otherwise affect the
provisions 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 water pollution in waters covered by those treaties.
(3) The agencies called to attend such conference may bring such
persons as they desire to the conference. In addition, it shall be the
responsibility of the chairman of the conference to give every person
contributing to the alleged pollution or affected by it an opportunity
to make a full statement of his views to the conference. Not less than
three weeks' prior notice of the conference date shall be given to such
agencies.
(4) Following this conference, the Secretary shall prepare and
forward to all the water pollution control agencies attending the
conference a summary of conference discussions including (A) occur-
rence of pollution of interstate or navigable waters subject to abate-
ment under this Act; (B) adequacy of measures taken toward
abatement of the pollution; and (C) nature of delays, if any, being
encountered in abating the pollution.
(e) If the Secretary believes, upon the conclusion of the conference
or thereafter, that effective progress toward abatement of such pollu-
tion is not being made and that the health or welfare of any persons
is being endangered, he shall recommend to the appropriate State
water pollution control agency that it take necessary remedial action.
The Secretary shall allow at least six months from the date he makes
-------
1296 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
such recommendations for the taking of such recommended action.
(f) (1) If, at the conclusion of the period so allowed, such remedial
action has not been taken or action which in the judgment of the
Secretary is reasonably calculated to secure abatement of such pol-
lution has not been taken, the Secretary shall call a public hearing,
to be held in or near one or more of the places where the discharge or
discharges causing or contributing to such pollution originated, before
a Hearing Board of five or more persons appointed by the Secretary.
Each State in which any discharge causing or contributing to such
pollution originates and each State claiming to be adversely affected
by such pollution shall be given an opportunity to select one member
of the Hearing Board and at least one member shall be a representa-
tive of the Department of Commerce, and not less than a majority
of the Hearing Board shall be persons other than officers or employees
of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. At least three
weeks' prior notice of such hearing shall be given to the State water
pollution control agencies and interstate agencies, if any, called to
attend the aforesaid hearing and the alleged polluter or polluters.
It shall be the responsibility of the Hearing Board to give every person
contributing to the alleged pollution or affected by it an opportunity
to make a full statement of his views to the Hearing Board.
[p. 39]
On the basis of the evidence presented at such hearing, the Hearing
Board shall make findings as to whether pollution referred to in sub-
section (a) is occurring and whether effective progress toward abate-
ment thereof is being made. If the Hearing Board finds such pollution
is occurring and effective progress toward abatement thereof is not
being made it shall make recommendations to the Secretary concern-
ing the measures, if any, which it finds to be reasonable and equitable
to secure abatement of such pollution. The Secretary shall send such
findings and recommendations to the person or persons discharging
any matter causing or contributing to such pollution, together with
a notice specifying a reasonable time (not less than six months) to
secure abatement of such pollution, and shall also send such findings
and recommendations and such notice to the State water pollution
control agency and to the interstate agency, if any, of the State or
States where such discharge or discharges originate.
(2) In connection with any hearing called under this section the
Secretary is authorized to require any person whose alleged activities
result in discharges causing or contributing to water pollution to file
with him, in such form as he may prescribe, a report based on existing
data, furnishing such information as may reasonably be required as
to the character, kind, and quantity of such discharges and the use
of facilities or other means to prevent or reduce such discharges by
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1297
the person filing such a report. Such report shall be made under
oath or otherwise, as the Secretary may prescribe, and shall be filed
with the Secretary within such reasonable period as the Secretary
may prescribe, unless additional time be granted by the Secretary.
No person shall be required in such report to divulge trade secrets or
secret processes, and all information reported shall be considered
confidential for the purposes of section 1905 of title 18 of the United
States Code.
(3) If any person required to file any report under paragraph (2)
of this subsection shall fail to do so within the time fixed by the Secre-
tary 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 $100 for each and every day of the contin-
uance 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 brought in the district where such
person has his principal office or in any district in which he does
business. The Secretary may upon application therefor remit or
mitigate any forfeiture provided for under this paragraph and he
shall have authority to determine the facts upon all such applications.
(4) It shall be the duty of the various United States attorneys,
under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States, to
prosecute for the recovery of such forfeitures.
(g) If action reasonably calculated to secure abatement of the
pollution within the time specified in the notice following the public
hearing is not taken, the Secretary—
(1) in the case of pollution of waters which is endangering the
health or welfare of persons in a State other than that in which
the discharge or discharges (causing or contributing to such pol-
lution) originate, may request the Attorney General to bring a
suit on behalf of the United States to secure abatement of pol-
lution, and
[p. 40]
(2) in the case of pollution of waters which is endangering the
health or welfare of persons only in the State in which the dis-
charge or discharges (causing or contributing to such pollution)
originate, may, with the written consent of the Governor of such
State, request the Attorney General to bring a suit on behalf of
the United States to secure abatement of the pollution.
(h) The court shall receive in evidence in any such suit a transcript
of the proceedings before the Board and a copy of the Board's recom-
mendations and shall receive such further evidence as the court in its
discretion deems proper. The court, giving due consideration to the
practicability and to the physical and economic feasibility of securing
-------
1298 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
abatement of any pollution proved, shall have jurisdiction to enter
such judgment, and orders enforcing such judgment, as the public
interest and the equities of the case may require.
(i) Members of any Hearing Board appointed pursuant to subsec-
tion (f) who are not regular full-time officers or employees of the
United States shall, while participating in the hearing conducted by
such Board or otherwise engaged on the work of such Board, be
entitled to receive compensation at a rate fixed by the Secretary, 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 au-
thorized by law (5 U.S.C. 73b-2) for persons in the Government serv-
ice employed intermittently.
(j) As used in this section the term—
(1) "person" includes an individual, corporation, partnership,
association, State, municipality, and political subdivision of a
State, and
(2) "municipality" means a city, town, borough, county,
parish, district, or other public body created by or pursuant to
State law.
(k) (1) At the request of a majority of the conferees in any con-
ference called under this section the Secretary is authorized to request
any person whose alleged activities result in discharges causing or
contributing to water pollution, to file with him a report (in such form
as may be prescribed in regulations promulgated by him) based on
existing data, furnishing such information as may reasonably be re-
quested as to the character, kind, and quantity of such discharges
and the use of facilities or other means to prevent or reduce such dis-
charges by the person filing such a report. No person shall be required
in such report to divulge trade secrets or secret processes, and all
information reported shall be considered confidential for the purposes
of section 1905 of title 18 of the United States Code.
(2) If any person required to file any report under this subsection
shall fail to do so within the time fixed by regulations for filing the
same, and such failure shall continue for thirty days after notice of
such default, such person may, by order of a majority of the conferees,
be subject to a forfeiture of $100 for each and every day of the continu-
ance 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 brought in the district where such person has his
principal office or in any district in which he does business. The
Secretary may upon application therefor remit or mitigate any for-
feiture
[p. 41]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1299
provided for under this subsection and he shall have authority to
determine the facts upon all such applications.
(3) It shall be the duty of the various United States attorneys,
under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States, to
prosecute for the recovery of such forfeitures.
[COOPERATION TO CONTROL POLLUTION FROM FEDERAL INSTALLATIONS
[SEC. 11. It is hereby declared to be the intent of the Congress that
any Federal department or agency having jurisdiction over any build-
ing, installation, or other property shall, insofar as practicable and
consistent with the interests of the United States and within any
available appropriations, cooperate with the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, and with any State or interstate agency or
municipality having jurisdiction over waters into which any matter
is discharged from such property, in preventing or controlling the
pollution of such waters. In his summary of any conference pursuant
to section 10 (d) (3) of this Act, the Secretary shall include references
to any discharges allegedly contributing to pollution from any Federal
property. Notice of any hearing pursuant to section 10 (f) involving
any pollution alleged to be effected by any such discharges shall also
be given to the Federal agency having jurisdiction over the property
involved and the findings and recommendations of the Hearing Board
conducting such hearing shall also include references to any such
discharges which are contributing to the pollution found by such
Hearing Board.]
COOPERATION BY ALL FEDERAL AGENCIES IN THE CONTROL
OF POLLUTION
SEC. 11. (a) Each Federal agency having jurisdiction over any real
property or facility of any kind shall, within available appropriations
and consistent with the interests of the United States, insure compli-
ance with applicable water quality standards and the purposes of this
Act in the administration of such property or facility. In his summary
of any conference pursuant to section 10 (d) (4) of this Act, the Secre-
tary sh-all include references to any discharges allegedly contributing
to pollution from any such Federal property or facility, and shall trans-
mit a copy of such summary to the head of the Federal agency having
jurisdiction of such property or facility. Notice of any hearing pur-
suant to section 10 (f) of this Act involving any pollution alleged to be
effected by any such discharges shall also be given to the Federal
agency having jurisdiction over the property or facility involved, and
the findings and recommendations of the hearing board conducting
such hearing shall include references to any such discharges which are
contributing to the pollution found by such board.
-------
1300 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(b) Any applicant for a Federal license or permit to conduct any
activity which may result in discharges into the navigable waters of the
United States shall provide the licensing or permitting agency with
certification from each affected State or interstate water pollution
control agency that there is reasonable assurance, as determined by
the State or interstate agency, that such activity will be conducted in
a manner which will not reduce the quality of such waters below ap-
plicable water quality
[p. 42]
standards. In any case where such standards have been promulgated
by the Secretary pursuant to section 10 (c) of this Act, or where a
State or interstate agency has no authority to give such a certifica-
tion, such certification shall be from the Secretary. If an applicant
for a Federal license or permit receives a certification under this
subsection in connection with such application, then the Federal
agency to whom such application is made, and any other Federal
agency may accept such certification for the purposes of this sub-
section in connection with any other application made to it by such
applicant for a license or permit, except that (1) if any affected State
or the Secretary, if his certification is involved, after notice, which
shall be given by such Federal agency, makes written objection, such
certification may not be so accepted, and (2) this sentence shall not
apply to any application for an operating license or permit. No license
or permit shall be granted until such certification has been obtained.
In any case where actual construction of a facility for the conduct of
any activity has been lawfully commenced prior to the date of enact-
ment of the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1969, no certification
shall be required under this subsection for a license or permit issued
after the date of enactment of the Water Quality Improvement Act of
1969 to conduct such activity, except that any such license or permit
issued without certification shall terminate at the end of the two-year
period beginning on the date of enactment of the Water Quality Im-
provement Act of 1969 unless prior to such termination date the person
having such license or permit submits to the Federal agency which
issued such license or permit a certification which otherwise meets the
requirements of this subsection. Such license or permit may be sus-
pended if a court of competent jurisdiction finds that such licensee or
permittee is not in compliance with applicable water quality standards.
Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit any other authority
pursuant to this Act or any other provision of State or Federal law to
require compliance with applicable water quality standards. No Fed-
eral agency shall be deemed to be an applicant for the purposes of this
subsection. The Secretary shall, upon the request of any State or
Federal department or agency, provide any technical assistance to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1301
such department or agency for the purpose of carrying out this section.
ADMINISTRATION
SEC. 12. (a) The Secretary is authorized to prescribe such regula-
tions as are necessary to carry out his functions under this Act.
(b) The Secretary, with the consent of the head of any other agency
of the United States, may utilize such officers and employees of such
agency as may be found necessary to assist in carrying out the purposes
of this Act.
(c) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare such sums as may be neces-
sary to enable it to carry out its functions under this Act.
(d) Each recipient of assistance under this Act shall keep such
records as the Secretary 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 con-
nection 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.
[p. 43]
(c) The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and the Comp-
troller General of the United States, or any of their duly authorized
representatives, shall have access for the purpose of audit and examina-
tion to any books, documents, papers, and records of the recipients
that are pertinent to the grants received under this Act.
DEFINITIONS
SEC. 13. When used in this Act:
(a) The term "State water pollution control agency" means the
State health authority, except that, in the case of any State in which
there is a single State agency, other than the State health authority,
charged with responsibility for enforcing State laws relating to the
abatement of water pollution, it means such other State agency.
(b) The term "interstate agency" means an agency of two or more
States established by or pursuant to an agreement or compact ap-
proved by the Congress, or any other agency of two or more States,
having substantial powers or duties pertaining to the control of pollu-
tion of waters.
(c) The term "treatment works" means the various devices used
in the treatment of sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature,
including the necessary intercepting sewers, outfall sewers, pumping,
power, and other equipment, and their appurtenances, and includes
-------
1302 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
any extensions, improvements, remodeling, additions, and alterations
thereof.
(d) The term "State" means a State, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.
(e) The term "interstate waters" means all rivers, lakes, and other
waters that flow across or form a part of State boundaries, including
coastal waters.
(f) The term "municipality" means a city, town, borough, county,
parish, district, or other public body created by or pursuant to State
law and having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial wastes,
or other wastes, and an Indian tribe or an authorized Indian tribal
organization.
OTHER AUTHORITY NOT AFFECTED
SEC. 14. This Act shall not be construed as (1) superseding or limit-
ing the functions, under any other law, of the Surgeon General or of
the Public Health Service, or of any other officer or agency of the
United States, relating to water pollution, or (2) affecting or impair-
ing the provisions of [the Oil Pollution Act, 1924, or] sections 13
through 17 of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for the
construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on
rivers and harbors and for other purposes", approved March 3, 1899,
as amended, or (3) affecting or impairing the provisions of any treaty
of the United States.
SEPARABILITY
SEC. 15. If any provision of this Act, or the application of any pro-
vision 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. 16. (a) In order to provide the basis for evaluating programs
authorized by this Act, the development of new programs, and to fur-
[p. 44]
nish the Congress with the information necessary for authorization of
appropriations for fiscal years beginning after June 30, 1968, the
Secretary, in cooperation with State water pollution control agencies
and other water pollution control planning agencies, shall make a
detailed estimate of the cost of carrying out the provisions of this Act;
a comprehensive study of the economic impact on affected units of
government of the cost of installation of treatment facilities; and a
comprehensive analysis of the national requirements for and the cost
of treating municipal, industrial, and other effluent to attain such
water quality standards as established pursuant to this Act or appli-
cable State law. The Secretary shall submit such detailed estimate
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1303
and such comprehensive study of such cost for the five-year period
beginning July 1, 1968, to the Congress no later than January 10,
1968, such study to be updated each year thereafter.
(b) The Secretary shall also make a complete investigation and
study to determine (1) the need for additional trained State and local
personnel to carry out programs assisted pursuant to this Act and
other programs for the same purpose as this Act, and (2) means of
using existing Federal training programs to train such personnel. He
shall report the results of such investigation and study to the Presi-
dent and the Congress not later than July 1, 1967.
[SEC. 17. The Secretary of the Interior shall, in consultation with
the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the department in which
the Coast Guard is operating, the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare, and the Secretary of Commerce, conduct a full and complete
investigation and study of the extent of the pollution of all navigable
waters of the United States from litter and sewage discharged, dumped,
or otherwise deposited into such waters from watercraft using such
waters, and methods of abating either in whole or in part such pollu-
tion. The Secretary shall submit a report of such investigation to
Congress, together with his recommendations for any necessary legis-
lation, not later than July 1, 1967.
[SEC. 18. The Secretary of the Interior shall conduct a full and com-
plete investigation and study of methods for providing incentives
designed to assist in the construction of facilities and works by indus-
try designed to reduce or abate water pollution. Such study shall
include, but not be limited to, the possible use of tax incentives as well
as other methods of financial assistance. In carrying out this study
the Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of the Treasury as well
as the head of any other appropriate department or agency of the
Federal Government. The Secretary shall report the results of such
investigation and study, together with his recommendations, to the
Congress not later than January 30, 1968.]
CONTROL OF POLLUTION BY OIL AND OTHER MATTER
SEC. 17. (a) For the purpose 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, and oil refuse, but does
not include oil mixed with dredged spoil;
(2) "matter" means any substance of any description or origin,
other than oil, dredged spoil, and human body wastes and the
wastes from toilets and other receptacles intended to receive or
retain human body wastes, which, when discharged into the navi-
gable waters of the
[p. 45]
-------
1304 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
United States or the waters of the contiguous zone in substantial
quantities, presents, in the judgment of the Secretary, an imminent
and substantial hazard to public health or welfare, including fish,
shellfish, and wildlife, and shorelines and beaches, but such term
does not include byproduct material, source material, and special
nuclear material as defined in the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (42
U.S.C.2013).
(3) "discharge" means any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring,
emitting, emptying, or dumping;
(4) "remove or removal" refers to the taking of reasonable and
appropriate measures to mitigate the potential damage of the dis-
charge of oil or matter to the public health or welfare, including,
but not limited to, fish, shellfish, wildlife, shorelines, and beaches;
(5) "vessel" means every description of watercraft or other
artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means of
transportation on water;
(6) "public vessel" means a vessel owned or bareboat chartered
and operated by the United States, or by a State or political sub-
division thereof, or by a foreign nation or political subdivision
thereof, except where such vessel is engaged in commercial
activities;
(7) "United States" means the States, the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Canal Zone, Guam, Ameri-
can Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands;
(8) "owner or operator" means any person owning, operating,
or chartering by demise, a vessel;
(9) "person" includes an individual, firm, corporation, associa-
tion, or a partnership, except individuals or board public vessels;
and
(10) "contiguous zone" means the entire zone established or to
be established by the United States under article 24 of the Con-
vention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone.
(b) Any individual in charge of a vessel (other than a public ves-
sel) or of an onshore or offshore facility of any kind (other than one
owned or operated by the United States, a State, or any political subdi-
vision of a State) at the time of any discharge of oil or matter from such
vessel or facility in substantial quantities into or upon the navigable
waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines or beaches, or into
or upon the waters of the contiguous zone, shall, as soon as he has
knowledge of such discharge, immediately notify either the Secretary,
or the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operat-
ing of such discharge. Any such individual who fails to notify immedi-
ately such delegate of any such discharge of oil or matter into or upon
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1305
such, waters, shorelines, or beaches, shall, upon conviction, be fined not
more than $5,000, or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.
(c) (1) Except in case of an emergency imperiling life, or an act of
war or sabotage, or an unavoidable accident, collision, or stranding, or
an act of God, or except as otherwise permitted by regulations issued
by the Secretary under this section, or except where otherwise not
prohibited in the contiguous zone under the provisions of article IV of
the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the
Sea by Oil, 1954, as amended, any owner or operator who, either di-
rectly or through any person concerned in the operation, navigation,
or management of the vessel, discharges or permits the discharge of
oil or matter from a vessel in substantial quantities into or upon the
navigable waters of the United
[p. 46]
States or adjoining shorelines and beaches of the United States, or
into or upon the waters of the contiguous zone if such oil or matter
threatens to pollute or contribute to the pollution of the territory or
the territorial sea of the United States, shall be subject to the penalties
provided in this subsection.
(2) Any owner or operator who, or any vessel (other than a public
vessel) which, willfully or negligently, discharges oil or matter in sub-
stantial quantities in violation of paragraph (1) 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 $10,000 for each offense.
No penalty shall be assessed unless the owner, operator, or vessel
charged shall have been given notice and opportunity for a hearing
on such charge. Each violation is a separate offense. Any such civil
penalty may be compromised by such Secretary. In determining the
amount of the penalty, or the amount agreed upon in compromise, the
appropriateness oj such penalty to the size of the business of the owner
or operator of the vessel charged, the effect on the owner or operator's
ability to continue in business, and the gravity of the violation, shall be
considered by such Secretary. The district director of customs at the
port or place of departure from the United States shall withhold at the
request of such Secretary the clearance reqidred by section 4197 of the
Revised Statutes of the United States, as amended (46 U.S.C. 91), of
any vessel 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. Such penalty shall constitute a maritime lien on such
vessel which may be recovered by action in rera in the district court
oj the United States for any district within which such vessel may be
found.
(d) (1) Whenever any oil or matter is discharged into or upon any
waters, shorelines, or beaches, the United States shall remove or ar-
-------
1306 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
range for the removal thereof, in accordance with the regulations pre-
scribed under subsection (g) of this section, when, in the judgment of
the Secretary, such oil or matter presents an actual or threatened pol-
lution hazard to the public health or welfare of the United States, in-
cluding, but not limited to, fish, shellfish, and wildlife, or to public or
private shorelines and beaches in the United States, unless other ade-
quate arrangements for removal of such oil or matter have been made
as required by subsections (e) (1), (f) (1) or (f) (2) of this section.
(2) 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, and wildlife and the public and private shore-
lines and beaches of the United States, because of a discharge, or an
imminent discharge, of large quantities of oil or matter 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 provision of law governing
the employment of personnel or the expenditure of appropriated funds.
The expense of removing any such vessel, the negligent operation of
which caused or contributed to the marine disaster, shall be a charge
against such vessel and its cargo and the owner or operator of such
vessel. If the owner or operator thereof fails to reimburse the United
States for such expense within 30 days after notification thereof, the
United States may sell the vessel or cargo or any part that may not
have been destroyed
[p. 47]
in removal, and the proceeds of such sale shall be deposited in the
fund established in subsection (h) of this section.
(e) (1) The owner or operator of any vessel who, either directly or
through any person concerned in the operation, navigation, or manage-
ment of the vessel, willfully or negligently discharges or permits or
causes or contributes to the discharge of oil or matter into or upon the
navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines or
beaches, or into or upon the waters of the contiguous zone if the Secre-
tary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating finds that
such oil or matter threatens to pollute or contribute to the pollution
of the territory or the territorial sea of the United States shall immedi-
ately remove such oil or matter from such waters, shorelines, and
beaches in accordance with regulations prescribed under subsection
(g) of this section. If the United States removes oil or matter which
was willfully or negligently discharged by such owner or operator, the
vessel and such owner or operator shall be liable to the United States
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1307
for the full amount of the costs reasonably incurred under this subsec-
tion for the removal of the oil or matter, except that, notwithstanding
any other provision of law, with respect to each offending vessel
and the owner or operator thereof the aggregate liability for the cost
oj removal shall not exceed $10,000,000 or $100 per gross registered
ton of such offending vessel, whichever is the lesser amount, in the
case of such a willful or negligent discharge. The district director of
customs at the port or place of departure from the United States shall
withhold at the request of the Secretary the clearance required by
section 4197 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, as amended
(46 U.S.C. 91), of a vessel, other than a public vessel, liable for such
costs until such costs are paid or until a bond or other surety satis-
factory to the Secretary is posted. Such costs shall constitute a mari-
time 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
such vessel may be found. The United States may bring action
against the owner or operator in any court of competent jurisdiction
to recover such costs. The United States shall also have a cause of
action under this paragraph against any owner or operator of a vessel
whose willful act or negligence is found to have caused or contributed
to the discharge of oil or matter from a vessel involved in a collision
or other casualty.
(2) In any action instituted by the United States under this sub-
section, subsection (c), or subsection (f) of this section, evidence of a
discharge of oil or matter shall constitute a prima facie case of liability
to the United States on the part of the owner or operator of the vessel
or the person owning or operating the facility, as the case may be,
and the burden of rebutting such prima facie case shall be upon such
owner or operator or person, as the case may be. The burden of re-
butting the prima facie case of liability which the United States shall
have against a vessel or the owner or operator thereof, or against a
perso?i who owns or operates an onshore or offshore facility, from
which the oil or matter is discharged shall in no way affect any rights
which such owner or operator or person may have against any other
vessel or facility or owner or operator or other persons whose willful
act or negligence may in any way have caused or contributed to such
discharge.
(f) (1) Any person who owns or operates an onshore facility of any
kind (other than a facility owned or operated by the United States, a
State, or a political subdivision of a State) who, either directly or
through any other person concerned in th.e operation or management
of such facility, willfully
[p. 48]
or negligently discharges or permits the discharge of oil or matter
-------
1308 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
into or upon the navigable waters of the United States or adjoining
shorelines or beaches, or into or upon the waters of the contiguous
zone, or into or upon the waters beyond such zone, shall immediately
remove such oil or matter from such waters, shorelines, and beaches
in accordance with regulations prescribed under subsection (g) of
this section.
(2) Any person who owns or operates any offshore facility of any
kind (other than a facility owned or operated by the United States,
a State, or a political subdivision of a State) which facility is located
offshore but within the seaward boundary (within the meaning of the
Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1301 et sec.)) of a State, who,
either directly or through any other person concerned in the opera-
tion or management of such facility, willfully or negligently dis-
charges or permits the discharge of oil or matter into or upon the
navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines or
beaches, or into or upon the waters of the contiguous zone, or into
or upon the waters beyond such zone, shall immediately remove such
oil or matter from such waters, shorelines, and beaches in accordance
with regulations prescribed under subsection (g) of this section.
(3) If the United States removes any oil or matter required by
paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection to be removed by any other
person, such person shall be liable to the United States for the full
amount of the costs reasonably incurred for the removal of such oil
or matter except (A) that the aggregate liability for the costs of a
removal shall not exceed $8,000,000, and (B) that the Secretary shall,
by regulation, after consultation with the Secretary of Commerce and
the Small Business Administration, establish reasonable and equitable
classifications of onshore facilities and activities and apply with re-
spect to such classifications differing limits of liability which may be
less than the amount contained in this paragraph. This paragraph
shall not apply to any onshore facility until it shall come within a
classification established by the Secretary under the preceding sen-
tence, but no such classification shall be established without at least
sixty days notification to Congress of such intended classification.
The United States may bring action against any such person in any
court of competent jurisdiction to recover such costs.
(4) Nothing in this subsection 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 matter into any
waters within such State.
(g) (1) Within sixty days after the effective date of this section
and from time to time thereafter—
(A) the Secretary shall issue regulations, in consultation with
the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is op-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1309
erating and consistent with maritime safety and with marine and
navigation laws, establishing environmental quality criteria re-
lating to the methods and procedures for removal of discharged
oil and matter;
(B) the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard
is operating shall issue regulations, in consultation with the Sec-
retary, establishing procedures, methods, and equipment (i) to
prevent discharges of oil from vessels, and (ii) consistent with
regulations of the Secretary, to remove discharged oil or matter.
(2) Any owner or operator required under subsection (e), and any
person required under subsection (f), to remove any oil or matter
from any waters, shorelines, or beaches in accordance with regula-
tions pre-
[p. 49]
scribed under this subsection who violates any such regulation
shall be liable to a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each
such violation. Each violation shall be a separate offense. The Secre-
tary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating may
assess and compromise such penalty. No penalty shall be assessed
until the owner, operator, or person charged shall have been given
notice and an opportunity for a hearing on such charge. In deter-
mining the amount of the penalty, or the amount agreed upon in com-
promise, the gravity of the violation, and the demonstrated good faith
of the owner, operator, or person charged in attempting to achieve
rapid compliance, after notification of a violation, shall be considered
by such Secretary.
(h) (1) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to a revolv-
ing fund to be established in the Treasury not to exceed $20,000,000
to carry out the provisions of subsection (d) of this section. Any
other funds received by the United States under this section shall also
be deposited in said fund for such purposes, except that such funds
shall be available to reimburse a State or political subdivision thereof
that assists in the removal of any discharged oil or matter. All sums
appropriated to, or deposited in, said fund shall remain available until
expended.
(2) For the purpose of insuring the efficient and economic removal
of oil or matter under subsection (d) of this section, th,e President
shall within ninety days after the effective date of this subsection
delegate to the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard
is operating, to the Secretary, to the Secretary of Defense, and to
other appropriate Federal agencies, all or part of the responsibility
under subsection (d) of this section for removing discharged oil or
other matter, in accordance with a national contingency plan or revi-
sion thereof, approved by th,e Preside?it. The Secretary of the depart-
-------
1310 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
ment in which the Coast Guard is operating is authorized to make
available to such Federal agencies from the fund established by para-
graph (1) of this subsection such sums as may be necessary to effectu-
ate such removal. Each such agency, in order to avoid duplication of
effort, shall, whenever practicable, utilize the personnel, services, and
facilities of other Federal and State agencies.
(3) The Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of the de-
partment in which the Coast Guard is operating and consistent with
maritime safety and with marine and navigation laws and regulations,
may issue regulations authorizing the discharge of oil or matter from
a vessel in quantities, under conditions, and at times and locations
deemed appropriate by him, after taking into consideration various
factors such as the effect of such discharge on applicable water quality
standards, recreation, and fish and wildlife.
(4) The provisions of subsection (c) of this section and the regu-
lations issued under subsection (g) of this section shall be enforced
by the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is op-
erating. The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard
is operating may utilize by agreement, with or without reimburse-
ment, the personnel, services, and facilities of any other Federal
agency or State agency in carrying out these provisions and
regulations.
(5) 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, (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 thereunder in his presence or view,
[P- 50]
and (C) execute any warrant or other process issued by an officer
or court of competent jurisdiction.
(6) In the case of Guam, actions arising under this section 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.
(i) Nothing in this section shall affect or modify in any way the
obligations of any owner or operator of any vessel or onshore facility
or offshore facility under any provision of law for damages to any
publicly or privately owned property from a discharge of oil or matter
or from the removal of any oil or matter.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1311
(j) Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing the
Secretary or the Secretary of the department in which the Coast
Guard is operating to regulate the operations or construction of any
onshore or offshore facility, or as affecting or modifying any other
existing authority oj either Secretary relative to such facilities under
this Act or any other provision of law.
(k) (1) Any vessel over one hundred gross registered tons, includ-
ing any barge of equivalent size, 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 appropriate delegate of the President, evidence of
financial responsibility to meet the maximum potential liability to the
United States which such vessel could be subjected under this section
for willful or negligent discharges of oil or matter. 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 sub-
jected. Financial responsibility may be established by any one of,
or a combination of, the following methods acceptable to the delegate
of the President: (A) policies of insurance, (B) surety bonds, (C)
qualifications 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 oj paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be
effective one year after the effective date of this section. The Presi-
dent shall delegate the responsibility to carry out the provisions of
this subsection to the appropriate agency head within sixty days after
the effective date of this section. Regulations necessary to implement
this subsection shall be issued within six months after the effective
date of this section.
(3) The Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Secre-
taries of Interior, State, Commerce, and other interested Federal
agencies, representatives of the merchant marine, oil companies, in-
surance companies, and other interested individuals and organiza-
tions, and taking into account the results of the application of
paragraph (1) of this subsection, shall conduct a study of the need
for and, to the extent determined necessary—
(A) other measures to provide financial responsibility and
limitations of liability with respect to vessels using the navigable
waters of the United States;
(B) measures to provide financial responsibility for all onshore
and offshore facilities; and
[p. 51]
(C) other measures for limitations of liability of such facilities;
-------
1312 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
for the cost of removing discharged oil or matter and paying all
damages resulting from the discharge of such oil or matter. The
Secretary of Transportation shall submit a report, together with any
legislative recommendations, to Congress and the President by Janu-
ary 1, 1971.
"CONTROL OF SEWAGE FROM VESSELS
"SEC. 18. (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 transportation on the navigable waters of the United
States, 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 transportation on the navigable waters of the United
States, the construction of which is initiated before promulgation
of standards and regulations under this section;
(3) "public vessel" means a vessel owned or bareboat char-
tered and operated by the United States, by a State or political
subdivision thereof, or by a foreign nation or by a political sub-
division thereof, except where such vessel is engaged in com-
mercial activities;
(4) "United States" includes the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Trust
Territory of the Pacific Islands;
(5) "marine sanitation device" means any equipment for in-
stallation on board a vessel which is designed to receive, retain,
treat, or discharge 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 manu-
facturing, 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, corpora-
tion, or association, but does not include an individual on board
a public vessel;
(9) "discharge" means any spilling, leaking, pumping, pour-
ing, emitting, emptying, or dumping.
(b) As soon as possible after the enactment of this section, the
Secretary, after consultation with the Secretary of the department in
which the Coast Guard is operating, and after giving appropriate con-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1313
sideration to the economic costs involved, and within the limits of
available technology, shall promulgate Federal standards of per-
formance for marine sanitation devices (hereinafter 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 of the United States from new vessels and exist-
ing vessels, except vessels not equipped with installed 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
oj the department in which the Coast Guard is operating. The Sec-
retary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating shall
promulgate regulations,
[p. 52]
which are consistent with, standards promulgated under this sub-
section and with maritime safety and the marine and navigation
laws and regulations, governing the design, construction, installation,
and operation of any maritime sanitation device on board such
vessels.
(c) (1) Initial standards and regulations under this section shall
become effective for new vessels two years after promulgation; but
not earlier than December 31, 1971, 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 and the Secretary of the department in which
the Coast Guard is operating with regard to their respective regula-
tory authority established by this section, may distinguish among
classes, types, and 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 classes, types, and sizes of vessels,
and, upon application, for individual vessels.
(d) The provisions of this section and the standards and regulations
promulgated thereunder 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, regula-
tions under subsection (b) and certifications under subsection (g) (2)
oj this section shall be promulgated and issued by the Secretary of
Defense and not by the Secretary of the department in -which, the
Coast Guard is operating.
(e) Before the standards and regulations under this section are
promulgated, the Secretary and the Secretary of the department in
-------
1314 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
which the Coast Guard is operating shall consult with the Secretary
o'j State; the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare; the Sec-
retary of Defense; the Secretary of the Treasury; the Secretary of
Commerce; other interested Federal agencies; and the States and
industries interested; and otherwise comply with the requirements
oj 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, no State or political subdivision
thereof shall adopt or enforce any statute or regulation of such State
or political subdivision with respect to the design, manufacture, or
installation of any marine sanitation device on any vessel subject to
the provisions of this section, except that nothing in this section shall
be construed to affect or modify the authority or jurisdiction of any
State to prohibit discharges of sewage whether treated or not from a
vessel within all or part of the intrastate waters of such State if dis-
charges from all other sources are likewise prohibited.
(g) (1) No manufacturer of a marine sanitation device shall sell,
offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate
commerce, or import 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
[p. 53]
this paragraph, that it meets the appropriate standards and reg-
ulations 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 Secretary as to standards of performance and for such
other purposes as may be appropriate if such results are in accordance
with the appropriate performance standards promulgated under this
section, and 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, opera-
tion, material, or other appropriate factors, he shall certify the device.
Any device manufactured by such manufacturer which is in all ma-
terial 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.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1315
(3) Every manufacturer shall establish and maintain such records,
make such reports, and provide such information as the Secretary or
the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating
may reasonably 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 Secretary 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 rec-
ords. All information reported to, or otherwise obtained by, the
Secretary 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 the purpose of that section, except that such informa-
tion may be disclosed to other officers or employees concerned with
carrying out this section. This paragraph shall not apply in the case
o'j the construction of a vessel by an individual for his own use.
(h) After the effective date of standards and regulations promul-
gated under this section, it shall be unlawful—
(1) for the manufacturer of any vessel subject to such stand-
ards 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 appropriate test
device certified pursuant to this section;
(2) for any person, prior to the sale or delivery of a vessel
subject to such standards and regulations to the ultimate pur-
chaser, wrongfully to remove or render inoperative any certified
marine sanitation device or element of design of such device
installed in such vessel;
(3) for any person to fail or refuse to permit access to or copy-
ing of records or to fail to make reports or provide information
required under this section; and
(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 (h) (1) through (3) of this section.
Actions to restrain such violations shall be brought by, and in, the
name of the
[p. 54]
United States. In case of contumacy or refusal to obey a subpena
-------
1316 LEGAL COMPILATION —WATER
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 or to
appear and produce documents, and any failure to obey such order
oj the court may be punished by such court as a contempt thereof.
(j) Any person who violates clauses (1) or (2) of subsection (h)
of this section shall be liable to a civil penalty of not more than $5,000
for each violation. Any person who violates clause (4) of subsection
(h) of 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 oper-
ating 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 a violation, shall be considered by said Secretary.
(k) The provisions of this section shall be enforced by the Secre-
tary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating and he
may utilize by agreement with or without reimbursement law enforce-
ment officers or other personnel and facilities of the Secretary, other
Federal agencies, or the States to carry out the provisions of this
section.
(I) 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) execute any
warrant or other process issued by an officer or court of competent
jurisdiction.
(m) In the case of Guam, actions arising under this section 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
oj the United States for the District of Hawaii and such court shall
have jurisdiction of such actions.
AREA ACID AND OTHER MINE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL DEMONSTRATIONS
SEC. 19. (a) The Secretary, in cooperation with other Federal agen-
cies is authorized to enter into agreements with any State or interstate
agency to carry out one or more projects to demonstrate methods for
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1317
the elimination or control, within all or part of a watershed, of acid
or other mine water pollution resulting from active or abandoned
mines. Such projects shall demonstrate the engineering and economic
feasibility and practicality of various abatement techniques which
will contribute substantially to effective and practical methods of acid
or other mine water pollution elimination or control.
(b) The Secretary, in selecting watersheds for the purposes of this
section, shall (1) require such feasibility studies as he deems appro-
priate, (2) give preference to areas which have the greatest present or
potential value for public use for recreation, fish and wildlife, water
supply, and
[p. 55]
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, personal property, or services, the
value of which shall be determined by the Secretary; 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 pol-
lution.
(d) There is authorized to be appropriated $15,000,000 to carry out
the provisions of this section, which sum shall be available until ex-
pended. No more than 25 per centum of the total funds appropriated
under this section in any one year shall be granted to any one State.
TRAINING GRANTS AND CONTRACTS
SEC. 20. The Secretary is authorized to make grants to or contracts
with institutions of higher education, or combinations of such institu-
tions, to assist them in planning, developing, strengthening, improv-
ing, or carrying out programs or projects for the preparation of
undergraduate 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 maintenance
of treatment works;
-------
1318 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(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 prep-
aration of students preparing to enter an occupation involving
the operation and maintenance of treatment works;
(D) carrying out innovative and experimental programs of
cooperative education involving alternate periods of full-time
or part-time academic study at the institution and periods of
full-time or part-time employment involving the operation and
maintenance of treatment works; and
(E) research into, and development of, methods of training
students or faculty, including the preparation of teaching mate-
rials and the planning of curriculum.
APPLICATION FOR TRAINING GRANTS OR CONTRACT; ALLOCATION OF
GRANTS OR CONTRACTS
SEC. 21. (1) A grant or contract authorized by section 20 may be
made only upon application to the Secretary 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 20, and describes the
[p. 56]
relation to any program set forth by the applicant in an applica-
tion, if any, submitted pursuant to section 22;
(B) provides such fiscal control and fund accounting proce-
dures 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 con-
taining such information, as the Secretary may require to carry
out his functions under this section, and for keeping such records
and for affording such access thereto as the Secretary may find
necessary to assure the correctness and verification of such
reports.
(2) The Secretary shall allocate grants or contracts under section
20 in such manner as will most nearly provide an equitable distribu-
tion 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 purposes of this section.
(3) (A) Payment under this section may be used in accordance
with regulations of the Secretary, and subject to the terms and condi-
tions set forth in an application approved under subsection (a), to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1319
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, other than 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 encour-
aged, to the extent consistent with efficient administration, to enter
into arrangements with institutions of higher education for the full-
time, part-time, or temporary employment, whether in the competitive
or eoccepted service, of students enrolled in programs set forth in
applications approved under subsection (a).
SEC. 22. (1) The Secretary 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 oper-
ation and maintenance of treatment works. Such scholarships shall
be awarded for such periods as the Secretary may determine but not
to exceed four academic years.
(2) The Secretary 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 Secretary shall approve a program of an institution of
higher education for the purposes of this section only upon applica-
tion by the institution and only upon his finding—
(A) that such program has as a principal objective the educa-
tion and training of persons in the operation and maintenance of
treatment works;
[P- 57]
(B) that such program is in effect and of high quality, or can
be readily put 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 20 of this Act; and
(D) that the application contains satisfactory assurances that
-------
1320 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(i) the institution will recommend to the Secretary 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 treat-
ment works, and (ii) the institution will make reasonable con-
tinuing efforts to encourage recipients of scholarships under this
section, enrolled in such program, to enter occupations involving
the operation and maintenance of treatment works upon com-
pleting the program.
(4) (A) The Secretary shall pay to persons awarded scholarships
under this section such stipends (including such allowances for sub-
sistence 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 Secretary 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
section shall continue to receive the payments provided in this sec-
tion only during such periods as the Secretary finds that he is main-
taining 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 em-
ployment other than employment approved by the Secretary by or
pursuant to regulation.
(6) The Secretary shall by 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 studies as the Secretary determines appropriate.
DEFINITIONS
SEC. 23. (1) As used in sections 20 through 23 of this act—
(A) The term "State" includes the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, the Canal Zone, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa,
and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
(B) The term "institution of higher education" means an educa-
tional 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 Secre-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1321
tary for this purpose. For purposes of this subsection, the Secretary
shall publish a list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies or
associations which he determines to be reliable authority as to the
quality of training offered.
[p. 58]
(C) The term "academic year" means an academic year or its
equivalent, as determined by the Secretary.
(2) The Secretary shall annually report his activities under sec-
tions 20 through 23 of this Act, including recommendations for needed
revisions in the provisions thereof.
(3) There are authorized to be appropriated $12,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, $25,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30,1971, and $25,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,1972,
to carry out sections 20 through 23 of this Act (and planning and re-
lated activities in the initial fiscal year for such purpose). Funds
appropriated for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, under authority
of this subsection shall be available for obligation pursuant to the
provisions of sections 20 through 23 of this Act during that year and
the succeeding fiscal year.
SHORT TITLE
SEC. [19] 24. This Act may be cited as the "Federal Water Pollution
Control Act".
OIL POLLUTION ACT, 1924
[That this Act may be cited as the "Oil Pollution Act, 1924".
[SEC. 2. When used in this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires—
[(1) "oil" means oil of any kind or in any form, including fuel
oil, sludge, and oil refuse;
[(2) "person" means an individual, company, partnership,
corporation, or association; any owner, operator, master, officer,
or employee of a vessel; and any officer, agent or employee of the
United States;
[ (3) "discharge" means any grossly negligent, or willful
spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, or emptying of oil;
[(4) "navigable waters of the United States" means all por-
tions of the sea within the territorial jurisdiction of the United
States, and all inland waters navigable in fact; and
[(5) "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Interior.
[SEC. 3. (a) Except in case of emergency imperiling life or property,
or unavoidable accident, collision, or stranding, and excspt as other-
-------
1322 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
wise permitted by regulations prescribed by the Secretary as herein-
after authorized, it is unlawful for any person to discharge or permit
the discharge from any boat or vessel of oil by any method, means, or
manner into or upon the navigable waters of the United States, and
adjoining shorelines of the United States.
[(b) Any person discharging or permitting the discharge of oil
from any boat or vessel, into or upon the navigable waters of the
United States shall remove the same from the navigable waters of
the United States, and adjoining shorelines immediately. If such
person fails to do so, the Secretary may remove the oil or may ar-
range for its removal, and such person shall be liable to the United
States, in addition to the penalties prescribed in section 4 of this Act,
for all costs and expenses reasonably incurred by the Secretary in re-
moving the oil from the navigable waters of the United States, and
adjoining shorelines of the United States. These costs and expenses
shall constitute a lien on such boat or vessel which may be recovered
in proceedings by libel in rem.
[p. 59]
[ (c) The Secretary may prescribe regulations which—
[ (1) permit the discharge of oil from boats or vessels in such
quantities under such conditions, and at such times and places
as in his opinion will not be deleterious to health or marine life
or a menace to navigation, or dangerous to persons or property
engaged in commerce on navigable waters of the United States;
and
[(2) relate to the removal or cost of removal, or both, of oil
from the navigable waters of the United States, and adjoining
shorelines of the United States.
[SEC. 4. (a) Any person who violates section 3 (a) of this Act shall,
upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine not exceeding $2,500,
or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both such fine and
imprisonment for each offense.
[(b) Any boat or vessel other than a boat or vessel owned and
operated by the United States from which oil is discharged in viola-
tion of section 3 (a) of this Act shall be liable for a penalty of not more
than $10,000. Clearance of a boat or vessel liable for this penalty
from a port of the United States may be withheld until the penalty is
paid. The penalty shall constitute a lien on such boat or vessel which
may be recovered in proceedings by libel in rem in the district court of
the United States for any district within which such boat or vessel
may be.
[SEC. 5. The Commandant of the Coast Guard may, subject to the
provisions of section 4450 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (46
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1323
U.S.C. 239), suspend or revoke a license issued to the master or other
licensed officer of any boat or vessel found violating the provisions
of section 3 of this Act.
[SfiC. 6. In the administration of this Act the Secretary may, with
the consent of the Commandant of the Coast Guard or the Secretary
of the Army, make use of the organization, equipment, and agencies,
including engineering, clerical, and other personnel, employed by the
Coast Guard or the Department of the Army, respectively, for the
preservation and protection of navigable waters of the United States.
For the better enforcement of the provisions of this Act, the officers
and agents of the United States in charge of river and harbor im-
provements and persons employed under them by authority of the
Secretary of the Army, and persons employed by the Secretary, and
officers of the Customs and Coast Guard of the United States shall
have the power and authority and it shall be their duty to swear out
process and to arrest and take into custody, with or without process,
any person who may violate any of such provisions, except that no
person shall be arrested without process for a violation not committed
in the presence of some one of the aforesaid persons, Whenever any
arrest is made under the provisions of this Act the person so arrested
shall be brought forthwith before a commissioner, judge, or court of
the United States for examination of the offenses alleged against him
and such commissioner, judge or court shall proceed in respsct thereto
as authorized by law in cases of crimes against the United States.
[SEC. 7. This Act shall be in addition to other laws for the preserva-
tion and protection of navigable waters of the United States and shall
not be construed as repealing, modifying, or in any manner affecting
the provisions of such laws.]
[p. 60]
-------
1324 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
1.2k(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS
S. REP. No. 91-351, 91st Cong., 1st Sess. (1969)
AMENDING THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
ACT, AS AMENDED, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
AUGUST 7 (legislative day, AUGUST 5), 1969.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. Muskie, from the Committee on Public Works,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 7]
The Committee on Public Works, to which was referred the bill
(S. 7), having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with
amendments and recommends that the bill (as amended) do pass.
INTRODUCTION
S. 7, as reported, includes three titles, the first two of which would
amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, establish an en-
vironmental policy for Federal public works projects and provide for
the establishment of an Office of Environmental Quality.
Title I of this legislation would provide specific approaches for
dealing with particular kinds of water pollution problems and direct-
ing that additional studies be made with regard to some of their more
complex aspects.
For the first time the President would have power and authority
to deal with disastrous oil spills which threaten serious injury to the
Nation's waters and beaches.
The bill also breaks new ground by requiring compliance with
water quality standards by all activities over which the Federal
Government has direct control or for which Federal licenses or per-
mits are required. Discharges of sewage from vessels which foul
many of the Nation's marinas, harbors, and ports will be subject to
control measures.
Authority would be provided to designate those hazardous sub-
stances, the discharge of which into the Nation's waters, presents a
substantial endangerment to health and welfare.
Authorizations for continued research under the act are provided
as is new authority to solve specific pollution problems caused by
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1325
eutrophication (the natural process of aging of lakes) and acid mine
drainage.
[p. 1]
Title II of this bill sets forth a fundamental procedure to coordinate
Federal, and federally assisted public works activities to assure ade-
quate consideration of the environmental policies set by the Water
Quality Act, the Air Quality Act, and the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
This title of S. 7, as reported, is designed to bring coherent and inte-
grated management of those environmental policies into the programs
of the Federal Government.
Title III includes provisions for acquiring land for use of the U.S.
Senate.
The provisions, their ramifications and the intent of the committee
will be discussed in detail by title.
[p. 2]
DISCUSSION OF BILL
TITLE I.—WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1969
GENERAL STATEMENT
When the Congress adjourned last year, S. 3206, legislation similar
to this bill, was a part of its unfinished business. S. 7, the Water
Quality Improvement Act of 1969, was drafted to clarify some mis-
conceptions about its predecessor and to incorporate provisions passed
in both the House and the Senate versions of the bill. Except for de-
letion of the financing provision of last year's bill, the bill, as intro-
duced, followed the essential pattern of S. 3206.
Title I of this year's legislation is designed to deal with three major
sources of pollution which continue to damage our water resources:
oil pollution, vessel pollution, and thermal pollution.
Frequent oil spills from vessels and from on- and off-shore facilities
have ruined beaches and lowered the quality of our rivers and shore
waters and have jeopardized animal and vegetable life. The spills
from the Torrey Canyon and the Ocean Eagle have been spectacular
examples of this danger, but the damage from repeated but unpubli-
cized lesser incidents and intentional dumping is steadily increasing.
This can no longer be tolerated.
Too often, the Government has been unable to respond quickly
enough to control the situation, or has not been informed of the in-
cident. Frequently, the offenders have made no attempt to clean up
the spill and have gone unpunished. This bill attempts to correct
these deficiencies.
-------
1326 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
As pleasure boating becomes an increasingly popular recreation,
more and more untreated sewage is dumped into our rivers, lakes, and
coastal waters. Combined with increased wastes from commercial
vessels, this pollution has created health hazards in waters previously
known for their beauty and high quality.
Those who benefit from our water resources for trade or recreation
must also accept the responsibility for preserving and enhancing
water quality. Title I, the Water Quality Improvement Act provides
for the establishment of standards of performance for vessel waste
treatment systems to prevent the discharge of untreated or inade-
quately treated sewage from these sources.
This bill recognizes the responsibility of Federal agencies to protect
water quality wherever their activities affect public waterways.
For example, while thermal pollution which can seriously and ad-
versely affect the ecological balance of the receiving waters can be
controlled, the Atomic Energy Commission does not consider these
factors in passing on the site selection, construction, and design or
operation of nuclear powerplants.
Under the terms of S. 7, no Federal agency shall issue a license
or permit for any activity which may affect water quality until it
receives certification from the State in which the discharge originates
that the proposed activity will be designed to insure compliance with
applicable water quality standards. In the past, these licenses and
permits have been granted without any assurance that the standards
will be met or even considered.
[p. 3]
In the past 6 years, Congress has maintained that the effort to clean
up our Nation's waters requires the most urgent commitment of
organization, planning, engineering skill, and funds directed toward
improvement of the quality of our environment. We have acknowl-
edged the need for clean water in the broadest sense. But the de-
mand for clean water is so great and is growing so rapidly that we
cannot afford to overlook any opportunity to increase the available
supply of water, or to prevent and control sources of pollution which
threaten the existing supply.
MAJOR PROVISIONS OF TITLE I
The major provisions of title I include:
(1) Authority to set Federal standards for the performance of
marine sanitation devices to control sewage discharges from
vessels;
(2) Amendments to Federal oil pollution law to provide cen-
tralized authority to clean up oil spills regardless of source and,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1327
if such cleanup is performed by the Federal Government, provi-
sion for recovery of cost;
(3) Provision to insure compliance with water quality stand-
ards by Federal licensees and permittees which will require pre-
construction water quality planning and eliminate the potential
of Federal participation in activities which are inconsistent with
the Nation's water quality programs; and
(4) Provision for identification, designation, and cleanup of
discharge of hazardous substances other than oil;
(5) Extension of research authorizations in basic law and ad-
dition of four new areas of research emphasis: acid-mine drain-
age, lake eutrophication, control of pollution in the Great Lakes,
and oil-pollution removal.
OIL POLLUTION
S. 7 as introduced would have provided for liability on vessels and
on- and offshore facilities to be based on a test of negligence with the
burden of proof on the owner or operator of the vessel or on- or off-
shore facility to prove that any discharge of oil was not the result of
negligence.
Also the legislation would have assessed liability for any vessel to a
limit of $450 per gross ton or $15 million, whichever the lesser, and,
for on- and offshore facilities, $15 million. The figure of $450 per
gross ton was based on information provided by the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, indicating that the cost of clean up
of a barrel of oil was approximately $75 and that projected to a gross
ton (six to seven barrels of oil) would be approximately $450. The
$15 million figure established for onshore and offshore facilities was
intended to reflect the potentially catastrophic costs associated with
an uncontrolled blow-out from an oil well.
Evidence provided by witnesses indicated that while the cost com-
putation of clean up of a given barrel of oil might average $75, the
likelihood of any single vessel, even in the most catastrophic disaster,
discharging its entire cargo was remote. The figure finally decided
upon by the Committee, $125 per gross ton, would be ade-
[p. 4]
quate to pay the clean up cost for the largest and most disastrous of
oil spills on record.
The type of liability to be imposed presented the committee with a
great many questions. Extensive testimony was taken and subse-
quent extensive discussion occurred in executive session on the factors
which should be considered in determining the type of liability.
Among those factors were (1) the effect of too rigid a liability test
-------
1328 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
on maritime commerce; (2) the availability of insurance for any
specific amount or type of liability; (3) the economic impact of any
specific amount of liability on the owner of the vessel, the shipper of
the oil and the consumer; and (4) the impact of a burdensome liability
test on the U.S. Government and the people of the United States.
The committee determined, on the basis of the best information
available, including the general lack of relationship between the per-
son affected by an oil discharge and the operation of the discharging
source, that some form of absolute liability should be imposed.
It has been suggested that absolute liability is in conflict with the
basic body of American maritime law and that a shipper would be
held responsible for circumstances over which he has no control.
Heretofore, maritime liability has related to a vessel, its cargo, and
its employees. Insurance covers the hull, the cargo, personal injury,
and death, and has been designed to protect people who either work
for, use, own or operate a vessel. Were this the case with oil pollu-
tion, the imposition of liability based on negligence would not be
questioned. However, the discharge of oil can and usually does affect
the general public, and persons and property wholly unrelated to the
vessel, who have no control over it, and who have no interest in it.
The public interest, it can be argued, can be completely protected
only by absolute and unlimited liability; negligent and limited liabil-
ity would protect only private interests. If the Congress were to im-
pose negligence as the test, it would follow that there should be no
limits on such liability.
Under absolute liability with limits, a vessel owner would be abso-
lutely liable regardless of fault, but the injured party would be limited
in the amount of the damages which could be collected. This approach
avoids the difficult, if not impossible, task of proving negligence or
rebutting the case for nonnegligence made by the vessel owner. It
also places the risk on the responsible party, not on the general public.
It should be noted that the insurance industry and the oil industry
testified that they could not imagine a circumstance where a discharge
of oil would occur without some degree of negligence. Therefore, it
appears that negligent liability with a reverse burden of proof and
absolute liability are similar in practical application. The practical
advantage to absolute liability, of course, is that it would avoid litiga-
tion with the vessel owner on the question of responsibility.
The oil pollution section deals only with the matter of clean up of
discharges and costs associated therewith. The bill in no ways affects
the rights of third parties against the party causing the discharge.
After deciding on the nature of liability, the committee then con-
sidered the circumstances under which a vessel owner or on- or off-
shore facility owner should be exempt from the imposition of such
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1329
liability. The committee determined that one obvious area over
which
[p. 5]
an owner or operator would have no control would be a discharge
caused solely by an act of war.
Another area which the committee believed to be beyond the
control of an owner or operator would be any discharge caused solely
by an act of God about which the owner could have no foreknowl-
edge, could make no plans to avoid, or could not predict. Under this
exception, only discharges resulting from grave natural disasters,
which could not be anticipated in the design, location or operation of
the facility or vessel by reason of historic, geologic, or climatic cir-
cumstances or phenomena, would be outside the scope of the owner's
or operator's responsibility.
It was brought to the attention of the committee that there have
been circumstances in which a negligent act of Government caused
or contributed to the discharge of oil. The committee determined
that an owner or operator should not be held liable if he could prove
that such act of U.S. Government negligence was the sole cause of a
discharge. Examples of this type of situation would include a negli-
gently placed marker buoy in a channel, a well lighted and marked
offshore oil facility in the navigable waters rammed by a U.S. vessel,
or a tank farm into which a military aircraft crashed.
Finally, the committee considered the question of a discharge
which occurred solely due to an act of a third party. Among such
acts would be a discharge caused when a vessel collided with another
vessel which was secured to a dock.
The committee determined that while the owner or operator should
not be liable if he could prove that a discharge was caused by one of
these acts, it was also necessary that such exceptions be allowed only
when the owner or operator proved the discharge to bs solely the
result of one of the exceptions. Any culpability on the part of the
owner or operator would vitiate the exception.
This legislation recognizes the greater need to protect the public
against disastrous oil spills such as the continuing oil leak off the
coast of California at Santa Barbara. Senate action in 1967 followed
the Torrey Canyon incident. The Torrey Canyon disaster resulted in
cleanup costs of approximately $7,200,000 or approximately $118 per
gross ton of the vessel. Since that time the Ocean Eagle which broke
up in San Juan Harbor involved cleanup costs of approximately
$700,000. Cleanup associated with breakup of the General Colcotronis
off the Bahamas in 1968 cost $800,000. While the final costs of the
Santa Barbara blowout are unavailable, present estimates indicate
-------
1330 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
that the costs related to the cleanup of that ongoing spill are in excess
of $3.4 million.
The committee recognizes that fortunately there has been no dis-
charge of oil from a vessel, affecting the coastal waters of the United
States, which approaches the liabilities imposed by this bill. The
committee, however, believes that the risk of such spills must be con-
sidered together with the possibility of major catastrophic discharges
from onshore or offshore facilities or from oil drilling operations.
The committee recognizes that the limits established in this bill
are not based on experience. As more information on costs of cleanup
is developed, the committee expects to consider revisions of those
limits.
[p. 6]
Two factors influenced the decision of the committee relating to
the level of the limit of liability: First, the increasing volume of oil
being handled by an increasing number of vessels and facilities en-
hances the risk of major disaster, and, second, the protection of our
vital water resources and shorelines is more and more imperative.
At the present time the United States has neither the administrative
nor the financial authority to deal with such catastrophic events.
But it is not solely the catastrophic disaster with which the committee
is concerned. Incident after incident of careless, accidental, and neg-
ligent oil discharges occur every year in the United States. The
latest information on spills sets forth 92 discharges of oil and other
hazardous substances since January of this year. (See table on p. 59.)
The cost of cleanup of these discharges has not been computed. In
some cases the total effects are not known. But the evidence is clear
that these discharges of oil cannot be allowed to continue without
some method of assessing the liability of those who discharge that oil.
While the legislative approach is complex, the intent of the committee
is clear. The legislation is designed to encourage preventive action
to eliminate discharges of oil wherever possible and to provide ade-
quate authority to clean up those discharges which do occur and
assess the cost on the responsible party if the Federal Government is
required to exercise its cleanup authority.
FEDERAL ACTIVITIES COMPLIANCE
Repeatedly during hearings in Washington and throughout the
country, representatives of local governments, industrial concerns,
community and conservation groups, and the public have questioned
the justification for requiring compliance with water quality stand-
ards in their activities while Federal agencies do not comply with
those standards.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1331
The committee recognizes that while the Federal Government has
been charged with the responsibility to take a leadership role in con-
trolling pollution, both by acts of Congress and Executive orders,
there have been only token efforts on the part of many agencies to
exercise this responsibility. Most agencies of the Federal Govern-
ment have placed the environmental quality control function in a
distinctly secondary role.
If the Nation is to have an effective water pollution control program
or any effective environmental control program whatever, it is essen-
tial that this situation be reversed and that Federal agencies begin
to consider the environmental aspects of their programs as a matter
of first priority.
The argument that budget requirements restrict the ability of
Federal agencies to control the waste produced by their own opera-
tions is unacceptable. Communities which are required to make
massive investments on sewage treatment plants have equal, if not
greater, budgetary problems. Industries likewise have difficult prob-
lems in providing the capital investment which water pollution con-
trol requires. Individuals who are required to expand funds to
control wastes such as sewage discharges from vessels will have no
option. In many cases communities, industries, and individuals have
committed the capital to pollution control. The Federal Government
on the other
[P- 7]
hand has been reluctant to invest the funds needed to control the
pollution which its activities create. In addition, Federal agencies
have not been active in requiring people who do business with the
Government to meet water quality requirements.
S. 7, as reported, provides an orderly mechanism for insuring that
all Federal activities will comply with the philosophy and intent
of the Nation's water quality program. The task that this section sets
for Federal agencies both in controlling their own waste and requir-
ing control by Federal licensees, permittees, and other related Federal
activities will not be easy nor inexpensive. Nevertheless, the com-
mittee expects that it will be accomplished.
The committee recognizes, however, that not all activities will lend
themselves to easy solutions and that, for some activities, specific
standards and plans for their implementation have not even been
proposed. One of these areas, dredging and the disposal of dredge
spoil, is analyzed later in the discussion of intent of the major
provisions.
While this provision may suggest a restrictive regulatory function,
its primary purpose will be served by opening lines of communication
-------
1332 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
between Federal agencies, those doing business with Federal agencies,
and State water pollution control agencies.
The water quality standards program envisions preventive rather
than abatement techniques. This provision applies a preventive
technique. It should not impose a burden on any applicant for a
Federal license or permit, because the committee assumes that Fed-
eral licensees and permittees, like any other organization or individual
that intends to use the waters of the United States, will anticipate
pollution control in the construction and modification of any facility.
The committee hopes and expects that the communication between
the applicant and the appropriate pollution control agency will de-
velop at the earliest possible time, relative to the planning of any
facility which will affect water quality. Site location is integral to
effective implementation of the Nation's water quality program.
There are sites where no facility should be constructed, because pol-
lution control technology is not adequate to assure maintenance and
enhancement of water quality. Those who make the decision on site
location should be aware of this prior to making any investment in
new facilities.
SEWAGE DISCHARGE FROM VESSELS
This legislation also includes requirements that new and existing
vessels install marine sanitation devices which meet performance
standards and regulations set forth by the Federal Government.
With the exception of technical changes and a revision of the preemp-
tion clause this section is similar to that which passed the Senate
unanimously as a part of S. 3206 in 1968.
OTHER MAJOR PROVISIONS
The provision for acid mine drainage which was included in S. 2760
in 1967 as two sections has been combined into one section authoriz-
ing both research and demonstration and as such is substantially the
same as the provisions that passed in 1967.
[p. 8]
The provision for clean lakes originally sponsored by Senators
Walter Mondale and Quentin Burdick has been expanded to authorize
the development of necessary research facilities but is otherwise
identical to the legislation which passed the Senate unanimously
in 1967.
The committee was confronted with the dilemma on how to deal
with the problem of discharge of hazardous substances (other than
oil) which present an imminent and substantial endangerment to pub-
lic health and welfare, but for which there is no clear clean-up
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1333
authority. The record on this subject was inadequate. Information
indicated that such discharges do occur and that the damage caused
by such discharges is extensive. The list of discharges of oil and
other materials since January of this year printed on page 59 records
several discharges of hazardous substances.
S. 7, as reported, authorizes the President to designate substances
which in any quantity present an imminent and substantial endanger-
ment to public health or welfare and to require notice of the discharge
of any of those substances after such designation. The President
is authorized to clean up those discharges where practical, The
committee recognizes that many of the substances which will be
designated are water soluble or because of other circumstances can-
not be effectively cleaned up. This section will primarily serve to
notify downstream water users of a dangerous discharge.
The committee expects a report from the President no later than
November 1970 which will discuss the types and amounts of liability
which can be imposed to recover the cost of cleaning up hazardous
substances. The findings of that report will be the subject of future
legislation.
The committee has included in this legislation a provision offered
by Senator Stephen M. Young, identical to that which was passed
by the House of Representatives, to provide relief for the citizens
of the Great Lakes who are confronted with a rapid deterioration of
their vital water resources.
This section authorizes the Secretary to enter into demonstration
projects for which the Federal Government will pay up to 75 percent
of the cost to find new methods to control and eliminate pollution in
the Great Lakes drainage basin. There is no question that this legis-
lation is essential. The Great Lakes are perhaps the Nation's most
vital water resource, yet Lake Erie is dying and Lake Michigan is
causing serious concern. No Federal dollars will be better spent than
those which produce effective methods to deal with the critical prob-
lems of the Great Lakes, for not only will those dollars help remsdy
an already critical situation but they will undoubtedly demonstrate
methods which can be used to prevent the accelerated eutrophica-
tion of other lakes and reservoirs which are equally important to
other regions of the country.
The committee has been increasingly concerned about the avail-
ability of trained technical personnel to operate sewage treatment
plants. As a result of that concern the committee authorized a study
of manpower and training needs in the Clean Water Restoration Act
of 1966. That study was transmitted to the Congress in mid-1967
and was printed as Senate Document No. 49 on August 31, 1967. On
the basis of that report, which indicated a demand for 18,500 new plant
-------
1334 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
operators and the need to upgrade the skills of many existing plant
[p. 9]
operators, and a report prepared for the Subcommittee on Air and
Water Pollution by the General Accounting Office on the effects of
inadequately trained personnel on the operation of federally assisted
sewage treatment plants, the committee was pleased to receive and
include in the bill a proposal by Senator Hugh Scott to authorize
pilot programs for training plant operators and technicians.
The committee recognizes that a great deal more than a pilot
program will be required if Federal funds for sewage treatment plant
construction are to be invested wisely, but believes operating experi-
ence with a pilot program would provide a sound base for expanded
legislation in the near future.
The committee recognizes that, despite the progress made in con-
structing waste treatment plants, in setting up State water quality
standards, and in research and development, one vital area has baen
neglected, an area which is indispensable to the success of all other
activities; namely, the development and training of an overall labor
force to eliminate the problems of operation and maintenance. The
operator has traditionally come from the bottom strata of the work
force. If this program is to be successful, plant operators as well as
the sophisticated engineers must be trained. Both are required to
operate and maintain present and future waste water treatment
facilities.
This provision authorizes programs to be carried out in cooperation
with governmental units (especially State and local), educational
institutions and other organizations. It is intended to supplement,
rather than supplant, current operator training projects, such as
those financed through Manpower Development and Training Act
funds.
Moreover, this language will establish an effective system for fore-
casting supply and demand for manpower, professional, and other
occupational categories needed for the prevention, control, and abate-
ment of water pollution in each region, State, or area of the United
States.
This title of S. 7 is as significant as any water pollution legislation
ever reported by the Committee on Public Works. It provides au-
thority to deal with a variety of critical yet definable water pollution
problems. Unlike prior measures which have been reported by this
committee, this legislation does not develop a new policy for water
pollution control but rather provides additional tools to implement
the national policy of water quality enhancement established by the
Water Quality Act of 1965. This title recognizes that all of the tasks
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1335
which confront the Nation, if it is to secure effective control of water
pollution, cannot be solved without these additional tools. It recog-
nizes that there are still areas in our national environmental control
effort which require specific attention and specific mechanisms to
solve specific problems.
Finally, it recognizes that no single bill can effectively provide a
final solution to this critical national problem. While the Water
Quality Act of 1965 was a comprehensive policy outline and a mecha-
nism for developing an integrated approach to pollution control, and
while the 1966 act was the funding authority which was needed to
implement the guidelines set forth by the Water Quality Act, this
legislation is designed to improve the ability of the Nation to cope with
critical and pressing problems.
[P- 10]
SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION OF MAJOR PROVISIONS
CONTROL OF SEWAGE FROM VESSELS
Waste from water craft is one of the many sources of pollution that
have an impact on the water quality of our Nation. This is most
severe in bays, lakes, harbors, and marinas where the concentration
of vessels is heaviest and there is a minimum natural flushing of the
contaminants discharged. This increasing use of our waterways will
further compound these problems. The committee intends that this
new section will assist in preventing at the earliest possible time per-
mitted by existing and advancing technology, economics, and other
practical considerations, the discharge into the navigable waters of
the United States of raw or inadequately treated sewage from vessels.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act charges the Secretary
with the responsibility for approving water quality standards to
maintain and enhance the quality and value of our water resources.
This section requires that the Secretary promulgate performance
standards indicating what a sewage treatment or holding device
must accomplish to be acceptable for marine use. It is intended that
the performance standards be expressed in terms of specific levels.
Coordination with the Commandant of the Coast Guard is required
because of the practical necessity of considering marine design and
other factors in the development of feasible device standards.
The general enforcement authority to accomplish this section has
been vested in the department in which the Coast Guard is operating.
This was done because of the similarity to other Coast Guard func-
tions and the expertise of the Coast Guard in marine engineering.
In order to insure adequate recognition of marine safety and other
transportation aspects, the Secretary of the Department in which
the Coast Guard is operating has been designated to develop and
-------
1336 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
promulgate the regulations which pertain to the design, installation,
and operation of marine sanitation devices and further to certify
these devices as complying with such regulation standards. These
regulations must also assure compliance with the standards of per-
formance issued by the Secretary. It is the committee's intention
that there be close cooperation and coordination between the Sec-
retary and the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard
is operating in the development of the overall program.
The committee recognizes the problems imposed by the shortcom-
ings of present technology, economic impact on commercial and rec-
reational vessel owners, and the complexity of marine watercraft;
therefore, waiver authority has been incorporated into this section
which the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is
operating can exercise as necessary. It is the intent of the committee
that this subsection not suggest dilatory implementation but rather
a practical and workable program for which maximum benefits can
be realized in the shortest possible time.
The authority provided by this section is further intended to pro-
vide flexibility regarding application of standards on older vessels.
Installation of marine sanitation devices on older vessels may not be
either economically nor technically feasible. In some cases rigid
requirements may cause early retirement of vessels which may be
approaching withdrawal within a short period. In those cases where
the Coast
[p. 11]
Guard is able to determine that vessels will be retired within a
scheduled period, the committee expects the commandant to use
discretion in requiring compliance.
While the installation of devices may be "technically" feasible,
economic feasibility may be more difficult to ascertain. The commit-
tee expects the Commandant to consult with Federal agencies in-
volved in regulation of the merchant marine to develop an objective
judgment.
The committee expects the Coast Guard to conduct sufficient
research and development to assess present technology, design im-
proved devices, if required, prepare implementing regulations for
this section, and adequately enforce the provisions of this section and
the regulations issued thereunder.
The committee intends that the Department of Defense take all
necessary steps to comply with the standards promulgated pursuant
to subsection (b). The Defense Department has a special leadership
responsibility. Critical national attention is constantly focused on
naval vessels, requiring pollution control to be as much a matter of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1337
public relations as public responsibility. Therefore, the committee
believes the Department of Defense should take a strong leadership
role in both development and application of vessel pollution control
technology.
At the same time the committee does not believe it is necessary
for the Coast Guard to supervise the Defense Department program.
It is the intent of the committee that these two Federal agencies and
the Department of the Interior develop a coordinated plan to achieve
the pollution abatement objectives of the legislation. Further, the
committee intends that the Department of Defense should report
periodically to the Congress regarding progress in meeting and ex-
ceeding standards of performance.
The committee strongly urges the Department of Defense to re-
quest such funds as may be necessary to implement vessel pollution
control, and to assist the Secretary and the Commandant by provid-
ing information on technology developed to implement the purposss
of this act.
The committee recognizes that many States have moved to control
inadequately treated or untreated waste discharges from vessels and
lauds the efforts of those States. However, conflicting regulations
and standards relative to marine sanitation devices present a hard-
ship to recreational boaters who move between States and poten-
tially serious restrictions on interstate movement of commercial
vessels.
In order to avoid these difficulties, the committee has provided for
Federal preemption of the authority to regulate the design, use,
manufacture, and installation of marine sanitation devices. Federal
preemption means that no State shall have authority to require any
device of any kind on any vessel subject to the provisions of this
section after the effective date of the standards and regulations.
The committee is aware, however, of the necessity to relate any
sewage treatment control measure to existing water quality pro-
grams. Consistent with this philosophy, the committee has provided
authority for the States to prohibit entirely the discharge of any
sewage from vessels without regard to the regulations regarding in-
stallation of marine sanitation devices if a water quality standards
plan for implementation requires such restrictive measures. This
exception is not
[p. 12]
intended to be broadly construed. A State cannot prohibit vessel
waste discharges for all of its rivers, and lakes and coastal waters
unless the State has in fact adopted standards which establish uses
for all of those waters which require such an absolute prohibition.
-------
1338 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
In effect, the committee intends that any State prohibition apply
only to areas designated for protection of public drinking water sup-
plies, shellfish beds, and areas designated for body contact recreation.
The committee expects that the States will provide alternative
facilities for disposal of sewage from vessels wherever appropriate.
The committee further intends that the States should make every
possible effort to inform recreational and commercial vessel owners
and operators of the nature and extent of any prohibited area, so as
to not interfere with commerce and at the same time protect the high
use for which the water has been designated.
The committee expects that in any implementation of this exception
the States will use the water quality standards procedure and sub-
mit to the Secretary, any revision of water quality standards for in-
terstate waters including in such revision those areas where a
prohibition is required to protect and enhance water quality. In this
manner the intent of the committee will ba more clearly carried out
and those recreational and commercial vessels which move between
States will be informed of any prohibited discharge area.
This provision is substantially the same as that which was passed
by the Senate and the House in 1968 and provisions other than those
discussed above are evaluated in the report language found in Senate
Report No. 1371 of the 90th Congress which accompanied S. 2525.
CONTROL OF OIL POLLUTION
This section includes the following provisions:
1. Declares the discharge of oil to be unlawful;
2, Authorizes establishment of regulations relative to discharge
and removal of oil;
3. Establishes penalties for violation of regulations and for
failure to notify;
4. Provides clean-up authority;
5. Establishes liability and financial responsibilities; and
6. Establishes a $50 million revolving fund and enforcement
procedures.
This section assigns the authority for water pollution control di-
rectly to the President for division among the appropriate agencies.
The committee has carefully considered the various agencies with
potential responsibilities pursuant to this section. It is clear to the
committee that no single Federal agency can carry out the several
functions authorized. For example, water quality responsibilities
are vested in the Department of the Interior while general surveil-
lance, contingency planning and oil cleanup may best be delegated
to the Secretary of the Department in which the Coast Guard is oper-
ating. The financial responsibility section, which will require evi-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1339
dence of the ability of vessels owners and operators to cover up to
$100 per gross ton of liability in the event of a discharge, may most
appropriately be delegated to the Federal Maritime Commission,
which has experience in this area. It may be appropriate, in certain
navigable waters, to utilize the facilities of the Corps of Engineers for
both
[p. 13]
period, while standards and detailed regulations are being developed,
the committee expects the President, through the Secretary of the
Interior, to develop guidelines for the reporting of oil discharges
including the limits on the amount of oil which may be discharged,
the appropriate agency to which the discharger should report, if a
spill occurs, and approved methods of removal.
Discharge penalty
The discharge penalty as set forth in paragraph 2 of subsection (b)
is provided primarily for two reasons. First, there are those dis-
charges which do not lend themselves to effective cleanup and yet
present a hazard to water environment.
Often these discharges come in the form of indiscriminate dumping
along the coast during the night or accidents along the navigable
waterways. This penalty, while it should be implemented with dis-
cretion, should be useful in discouraging oil spills.
The notice requirement as set forth in subsection (c) is critical to
effective implementation of the act. The committee intends that this
provision be strictly enforced. Only through acknowledgment of the
requirement to notify the appropriate Federal agency can removal
be commenced early enough to reduce damage and assure effective
implementation of the statute. The committee intends that enforcing
agencies assume that persons in charge of vessels and on-shore and
off-shore facilities will have knowledge of a spill and therefore cases
where such persons fail to notify due to lack of knowledge should
be rare.
Regulations for procedures and standards
The President is granted broad authority to issue regulations rela-
tive to procedures and methods for preventing discharges, methods
of removal of discharged oil, and development and implsmsntation
of oil removal contingency plans.
It is the intent of the committee to provide some uniformity in deal-
ing with oil spills in order that owners and operators of vessels and
on on-shore and off-shore facilities (a) know what is required of
them in removing any discharge, (b) effectively and rapidly move
-------
1340 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
to clean up the discharge and (c) coordinate their activities with the
appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies. Especially important
in regard to this subsection is the development of criteria which indi-
cate the types of equipment which can be used safely to remove oil
and the types of chemicals which can be used for dispersal.
Contingency planning for a major oil spill is critical to effective
implementation of the Act. The committee expects that the Com-
mandant of the Coast Guard will coordinate his activities in develop-
ing contingency plans with appropriate agencies of State and local
government and with potential oil spill sources. Because information
on acceptable procedures for prevention of oil discharges and meth-
ods of cleanup, is limited, it is anticipated that the regulations estab-
lished pursuant to this section will be periodically reviewed and
updated to take into account new information and new technology.
Penalty for Violation of Regulations
The bill provides a $1,000 penalty for an owner or operator of
a vessel, or onshore or offshore facility, who fails or refuses to comply
with regulations set forth pursuant to the previous paragraph. While
it is not the intent of this paragraph to be confiscatory, the committee
[p. 16]
intends to assure that the methods used to clean up oil discharges
are consistent with the overall water quality goals of the program, as
well as the contingency plans which have been developed in consulta-
tion with owners or operators of vessels and onshore and offshore
facilities.
General Liability
S. 7 provides an opportunity for the owner or operator of a vessel or
onshore or offshore facility to immediately remove any oil discharged.
It is the intent of the committee to encourage removal of oil by the
owner or operator of the discharging source.
In many instances, the owner or operator of a vessel or onshore or
offshore facility will know of a discharge prior to any agency of the
U.S. Government and be in the best position to take early action to
prevent or minimize damage. As testified to by the oil and shipping
industry it will be in the best interest of the owner or operator to take
immediate measures to reduce damage from an oil spill.
At the same time, the committee does not intend to restrict the
authority of the President to act to remove oil that has been spilled.
In those cases when the owner or operator is not capable of cleaning
up the discharge, or the owner or operator refuses to clean up the
discharge, or, does not adequately clean up the discharge, the com-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1341
mittee expects the President to act to remove the oil to prevent
damage and decrease cost.
Vessel liability
The bill imposes liability for the costs of removal on owners or oper-
ators of vessels which discharge oil into the navigable waters of the
United States or adjoining shorelines or into the contiguous zone. The
liability is measured par vessel, per owner, per discharge. In the
case of a barge tow, each barge in the tow and the powered vessel or
vessels are considered to be separate vessels.
It is the intent of this subsection and succeeding subsections relative
to onshore and offshore facilities and onshore and offshore drilling-
production facilities to recognize the hazardous nature of an oil dis-
charge and the extraordinary, adverse effect such a discharge may
have on fish and wildlife, beaches, and public and private facilities.
The committee has set a liability on vessel owners of $125 per gross
ton of his vessel or $14 million, whichever is lesser. This amount
is adequate, according to the best information available to the com-
mittee, to cover the cost of the most expensive oil spills, while at the
same time not placing an unreasonable insurance burden on vessel
owners. Parenthetically, it should be noted that the outer limit of
$14 million is adequate to cover the (cumulative) liability, at $125
per gross ton, of any vessel in the American-flag fleet or any other
vessel capable of using the ports of the United States at the present
time.
If an oil spill occurs, the committee expects that the owner or oper-
ator will take such action as may be necessary, following notification,
to immediately clean-up the discharge. If the owner or operator fails
to do so and the United States is required to act, then the United
States is authorized to collect its cost up to the limit of liability or,
if the United States is able to prove that the discharge was the result
of negligence or a willful act, all costs regardless of limit of liability.
If the owner or operator cleans up an oil discharge and later is able
to prove that the discharge was caused solely by (a) an act of God,
(b) an act of war, (c) negligence on the part of the U.S. Government,
[p. 17]
or (d) an act of a third party, he may recover reasonable clean-up
costs from the United States in an action before the Court of Claims.
Financial responsibility
The bill establishes a mechanism whereby the U.S. Government
can be assured that vessels using the waters of the United States are
financially able to pay clean-up costs incurred by the U.S. Govern-
-------
1342 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
ment up to $100 per gross ton of the largest vessel owned or operated
by a person. It requires that any vessel over 300 gross tons, including
any barge unit of equivalent size, establish and maintain evidence of
financial responsibility. The figure of $100 is based on the committee's
belief that absolute liability as imposed with exceptions is similar to
the concept of liability based on negligence with a reverse burden of
proof and therefore should be insurable to a similar level. The figure
reflects an attempt by the committee to assure maximum protection to
the U.S. Government while not requiring uninsurable evidence of
financial responsibility. This subsection further sets forth the meth-
ods by which evidence of financial responsibility shall be issued by a
bonding company authorized to do business in the United States and
provides the United States with authority to bring action directly
against an insurer to recover the cost incurred by U.S. Government
cleanup.
On- and offshore facility liability
The committee had differentiated in its consideration of on- or
offshore facilities as between those facilities which are involved in
the drilling and production of oil and those facilities which are utilized
for the purpose of processing, transporting, transferring or storing
oil. The intent of this distinction is to recognize that the latter facili-
ties have a fixed amount of oil which can bs discharged, while drilling
and production facilities can discharge unknown quantities of oil.
Secretary Hickel, for example, testified that a well off the coast of
Alaska pumped gas for 14 months. He noted that had that been an
oil well, "You would have had oil from the Arctic to the Antarctic."
The committee also established this distinction on the basis of the
ongoing oil discharge problem at Santa Barbara, recognizing that
there are no adequate statistics on actually how much oil has been
released nor is there any indication as to when this discharge will be
abated. The amount of oil capable of being discharged onshore and
offshore facilities other than drilling and production facilities can be
calculated. For both types of on- and offshore facilities the committee
established a liability standard similar to that set forth for vessel lia-
bility. Liability is limited to $125 per ton of oil which any processing,
transporting, or transferring facility can pass through in a 24-hour
period or which the largest unit of any tank farm could store at a
given time. The figure established for limit of liability under this
section intends to be consistent with the oil pollution liability estab-
lished on vessels and has its origin in figures given the committee
concerning the cost of removal of a barrel of oil. For on- and off-
shore drilling-production facilities the committee established a figure
of $8 million. While not directly related to any known spill from an
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1343
onshore or offshore drilling-production facility this figure is one that
the testimony indicates can be insured and is approximately twice
the amount which has been expended to this point in time in cleaning
up the ongoing discharge at Santa Barbara.
[p. 18]
As is the case with vessels, if the owner or operator of any onshore
or offshore facility or onshore or offshore drilling-production facility
can prove that the discharge was caused solely by (a) an act of God,
(b) an act of war (c) an act of a third party, or (d) an act of U.S.
Government negligence he may recover reasonable cleanup costs
from the United States.
Revolving fund
S. 7 provides for the establishment of a $50 million revolving fund
to be made available to any of the designated Federal agencies to
carry out the purposes of this section. The committee intends that
the revolving fund be utilized to reimburse any owner or operator
who has expended money for his cleanup operation and has later
proved that the discharge was caused solely by one of the exceptions.
Also the funds should be available to reimburse any State or local
government which may have undertaken the cleanup activity with
the approval of the designated Federal agency. Such funds as may
be received by the United States from reimbursement of Federal
cleanup costs are to be deposited in the fund as are any funds received
from fines or penalties under this section.
Recovery from the United States
As discussed above, whenever an owner or operator removes the
oil and can prove that the discharge was caused solely by one of the
listed exceptions, the owner or operator may recover reasonable costs
of cleanup from the United States. The bill provides that an owner
or operator will have first cause for action against any third party
which may have caused the discharge and specifically indicates that
the provisions of this subsection do not apply to any liability standard
established pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
The committee discussed application of the liability limits to
offshore facilities located on the Outer Continental Shelf but de-
termined that there is adequate regulatory authority vested in the
Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act.
Emergency action
S. 7 provides authority for the President to act to remove any vessel
which in his judgment presents an imminent and substantial en-
-------
1344 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
dangerment to public health and welfare because of an actual or
threatened discharge of oil into or upon the navigable waters of the
United States. This is general and broad authority modeled after
authority of the Secretary of the Army to move obstructions to navi-
gation. The committee intends, however, that every precaution be
used in the exercise of this authority. At all times the committee
expects that the President or his delegate will provide an opportunity
to the owner or operator of a vessel to remove a vessel or take such
other action as may be warranted to protect the public health and
welfare.
The President is authorized to seek an injunction against any ac-
tual or threatened discharge from an onshore or offshore drilling
production facility or an onshore or offshore facility. Again the
committee expects that this authority will be used only in those in-
stances where State or local police action has failed and where the
owner or operator is either unable or unwilling to control the actual
or threatened discharge.
[p. 19]
Other authority not affected
The bill gives general recognition that its provisions do not affect
the existing authority of other Federal agencies relative to on- or
offshore facilities under the provisions of this or any other act or
affect or modify any State or local law not in conflict with the provi-
sions of this section.
The committee expects that Federal agencies with authority over
on- and offshore facilities, on- and offshore drilling production facili-
ties will continue to exercise that authority under the provisions of
other law. Also the committee does not intend to preempt those
provisions of State law which are not in conflict with the bill. For
example, the committee understands that some States have estab-
lished absolute liability without limits on oil discharged from State-
leased offshore oil facilities in the tidelands. The committee does
not intend that any provision of this law should effect the right of the
State to include such provision in its lease or otherwise provide such
liability. At the same time the committee intends that the provision
of this section shall preempt any State or local law which provides
for less stringent liability. Finally, the committee does not intend
that an owner or operator should be obligated to both the U.S. Gov-
ernment and the State government except to the extent that costs are
incurred by both.
HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
During hearings- on S. 7, recommendations were made to include
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1345
hazardous substances with oil in the operative provisions regarding
discharge removal notice, and liability. After extensive study the
committee concluded that hazardous substances could not ba covered
in the legislation in a manner similar to oil. Many and important dif-
ferences exist and yet the following examples indicate that the dis-
charge of hazardous substances into the navigable waters of the
United States does present a threat to the public health and welfare.
In January of 1968, a spill of chemicals into Buck Creek in Indiana
caused a large fish kill in 65 miles of the stream. More recently, a
spill of a hazardous substance occurred on July 9, 1969, when acid
leaching material, about 450,000 gallons, was released into the San
Francisco River where 50,000 dead fish were counted in the first 4
miles of the river within 10 hours of the discharge. It should be
noted that in 1968, the largest fish kill on record in the United States
occurred on the Allegheny River, Bruin, Pa,, where 4 million fish
died. In this instance a petroleum refinery lagoon overflowed, re-
leasing toxic chemicals into the stream. Also, the recent discharge
of 200 pounds of Thiodan, an insecticide, caused a massive fish kill
in the Rhine River.
Two principal differences exist between oil and hazardous sub-
stances that form the basis for drafting the hazardous substances pro-
vision of S. 7. First of all hazardous substances require definition
or designation.
The Water Quality Act established a procedure to control indus-
trial, community, and other effluents. Many of these discharges, if
uncontrolled, would present a substantial endangerment to public
health and welfare. As initially proposed, so-called hazardous sub-
stance discharges could fall within the category of normal discharges
which
[p. 20]
are being brought under control pursuant to plans for implementa-
tion of water quality standards.
The committee believes that there is an important distinction be-
tween such normal discharges and massive spills and, further, that
more information is necessary to effectively define the amounts and
types of substances which, when discharged in any quantities, would
endanger health and welfare.
Conceivably it could include untold numbers of chemicals, mate-
rials, foodstuffs or whatever, and therefore, if the public is to know
what materials are, in fact, hazardous to health and welfare, sub-
stances must be designated after a procedure enabling public partici-
pation and formal designation. Consequently, the committee has
granted to the President the authority to perform the necessary re-
-------
1346 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
search, and further has set out an administrative procedure for the
designation of such substances including publication in the Federal
Register, opportunity for a hearing and appeal to the courts. It is
important to note that the FWPCA has already published a list of
some 51 substances as hazardous. These, of course, would require
designation pursuant to the procedures of S. 7 before the discharge
of such substances would fall under the provisions of S. 7.
The second important difference between oil and hazardous sub-
stances is in the nature of the substances. Many hazardous sub-
stances, unlike oil, are soluble in water and therefore not subject to
standard techniques of removal. Consequently, removal liability
would not be applicable in some instances or at least raise substantial
questions about removal techniques and costs. Therefore, the com-
mittee has authorized the President to conduct an accelerated study
of the methods and techniques of imposing removal or other types of
liability on dischargers of hazardous substances, and, further, to make
recommendations for legislation based thereon. Certain hazardous
substances can be rapidly and extremely harmful to health and pub-
lic welfare and, where discharged into water, can be quickly dissemi-
nated to unknowing water resource users, especially water supply
and public bathing. It is essential that a procedure be developed to
enable the rapid circulation of information concerning such a dis-
charge. The committee has provided for this by requiring a dis-
charger to immediately notify the United States of such discharge
under a criminal sanction.
ACID AND OTHER MINE DRAINAGE POLLUTION
Acid and alkali pollution discharged into various local water-
courses, are carried by the natural flow of stream systems into major
river basins, thus creating extensive intrastate and interstate pollu-
tion problems.
The specific impact of mine drainage pollution is characterized by
"stream sterility": the normal stream and river ecology, or balance
between living organisms and their environment, is disrupted by the
presence of large volumes of acid or alkali mine drainage wastes.
These wastes are products of chemical reaction between air and water
and the minerals found in and around ore deposits. Coal mine drain-
age pollution is primarily in the form of sulfuric acid and the dis-
solved salts of such metals as iron and aluminum. When these
wastes reach a watercourse, the iron salts undergo hydrolysis in the
receiving water,
[p. 21]
producing an ugly yellow or orange brown precipitate (iron hy-
drate) known as yellow boy.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1347
Mine drainage can present a serious pollution problem because of
the great quantities involved, whether acid metallic salts, precipitates
or alkalinity. Acid mine drainage can be the most serious problem
by far.
It has been estimated that 3.5 million tons of acid are discharged
into well over 6,000 miles of the Nation's major streams, resulting in
damage to aquatic life and potential severe loss of the recreational
capacity of those affected waterways. The impacts of acid pollution
are compounded when less-than-major damage is considered. The
many acid seepage areas around mines are barren of plantlife to such
an extent that as much as 1,000 times as much sediment is washed
from them into streams by erosion than from forest- and grass-
covered lands. In addition, there are more than 30,000 surface acres
of impounded waters and reservoirs which are seriously affected by
surface and subsurface mining operations.
Of the 5,700 miles of acid mine drainage-polluted streams in Appa-
lachia, over 75 percent occur in portions of Pennsylvania, West Vir-
ginia, Ohio, and Maryland, drained by the Allegheny, Monongahela,
Susquehanna, Delaware, and Potomac Rivers.
Extensive water quality investigations in Appalachia revealed
widespread acid mine drainage pollution. In the relatively small
Kanawha-New River system in West Virginia, approximately 67
million gallons of acid mine drainage water enter the river system
every day. The total for West Virginia is 360 million gallons per day.
A single large coal mine may discharge as much as 10 million gallons
of water a day. Over 20,000 abandoned mine openings thus pose a
serious pollution threat to streams, lakes, and reservoirs.
Acid mine drainage is especially destructive to fish and other
aquatic life. It corrodes piping and treatment plant facilities. As-
sociated discolorations and precipitates render the streams unappeal-
ing and offensive. Fishing and recreational uses are eliminated or
seriously curtailed.
The most serious problem associated with acid mine drainage
pollution is the fact that 80 percent of acid mine drainage conies from
abandoned and inoperative mines. Though laws and regulations in
some States control present and future mining operations, there ap-
pears to be no simple way to achieve control over the thousands of
abandoned mines.
Well over 90 percent of this land is in private hands, which places
institutional and financial limits on the abilities of State and local
government units to deal with the problem. Houston R. Wood, Jr.,
assistant chief of the West Virginia Division of Water Resources,
testified that due to restrictions in the mining area restoration provi-
sion of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965 to lands in
-------
1348 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
public ownership, West Virginia could not avail itself of allocated
funds. Some arrangement must be devised whereby States can
mount far-reaching programs of reclamation and acid drainage con-
trol, by the use of easements or other similar techniques. The com-
mittee does not recommend the outright purchase of lands just for
the purpose of controlling drainage from abandoned mining activities.
[p. 22]
Research, development, and demonstration should proceed along
two primary pathways. The most effective and economic treatment
processes should be involved and at-source control technology should
be developed and demonstrated. Answers provided by research and
development may result in a significant reduction in cost for cleanup
of mine drainage pollution and subsequently reduce the cost of dam-
ages. The impact of these potential savings is increased by the fact
that a major portion of the problem is associated with economically
depressed areas.
There is a variety of techniques for sealing and/or flooding mines,
preventing air and water exposure of pyritic materials, and preventing
the egress of polluted water. Generally, however, the very mecha-
nism by which acid is produced initially keeps these techniques from
being entirely satisfactory. Research has produced a number of con-
trol proposals, some of which (including advanced grouting tech-
niques) show considerable promise. Some appear ready for limited
application in selected situations; others are ready for pilot plant or
single-unit scale application.
The possibility of employing more advanced techniques to alleviate
the problem has recently been explored. Considerable research is
required to develop a clear understanding of the mechanisms involv-
ing the related kinetics, the role of bacteria, and the feasibility of
treatment techniques such as neutralization, reverse osmosis, electro-
dialysis, and ion exchange. Preliminary data have shown that many,
or all, of these treatment processes will be of value in reducing acid
pollution.
New methodology for the control of mine drainage at the source
must be developed; existing techniques must be refined and demon-
strated, and the costs for large-scale application must be more closely
defined. Methods requiring research and development alteration
include air sealing, mine flooding, drainage diversion, chemical inhi-
bition of pollutant formation, and injection of mine drainage to under-
ground rock formations.
Though much research has been carried out, Federal efforts have
been sporadic and poorly coordinated until recently, and current
programs of practical scale reclamation are not nearly ambitious
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1349
enough to meet the problem. State efforts have almost uniformly
been directed at surface mining, through control of current mining
operations, and very few States have made attempts to reclaim aban-
doned operations. Thus the bulk of the problem lies outside of their
present attention.
Federal action, although still disjointed, is attempting, with the
aid of private industry and some of the States, to fill the gaps with
approaches to the knottier problems. Testimony strongly suggested
that the cooperative State-Federal effort envisioned in the demonstra-
tion provisions of this bill would be an important step toward over-
coming these gaps.
There are also areas in which our abilities to deal with acid mine
drainage are fairly well developed, and where areawide demonstra-
tion projects would provide the opportunity to show ways of putting
these techniques together into coordinated attacks. In Dr. Abel Wol-
man's 1966 report to the Research Management Advisory Panel of the
House Committee on Science and Astronautics, he observes:
Substantial sums are being devoted to rather detailed and
long-term survey and research projects. In view of the fact
[p. 23]
that certain empirical practices have already been proved to be
efficacious in minimizing acid mine drainage, the public interest
may be better served if a greater portion of the Federal funds
were employed at this time in an effort to secure immediate
benefits (hearings on the "Adequacy of Technology for Pollution
Abatement," p. 492).
Finally, a definitive evaluation of the role acid pollution abatement
will play in the total pollution control program must be developed.
Only by continuing present research, engaging new and more sophis-
ticated techniques, and by instituting new laboratory and demon-
stration-level projects can this overall evaluation be realized, and can
acid pollution be rendered a "thing of the past."
The bill would add a new section to the act authorizing the Secre-
tary of the Interior to make grants to any State, municipality, or
intermunicipal or interstate agency for the purpose of assisting in
the development of projects for the demonstration of feasible and
practical areawide methods of controlling acid pollution resulting
from mining activities.
These projects should demonstrate for an entire watershed the kind
of abatement techniques, land management, and water management
necessary to eliminate pollution from acid and other mine water
pollution. In selecting the watershed or drainage area for the project,
the bill requires the Secretary to give preference to the areas which
-------
1350 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
have the greatest public values and uses, and to take what measures
he deems appropriate to satisfy himself that the selected project area
will not be adversely affected by the influx of acid mine pollution from
nearby sources. Clearly, the project would not be effective if it could
be demonstrated that the acid mine pollution in the project area
could be controlled, but such pollution originating outside that
area could not be controlled. If there is such pollution coming from
within and without the project area, the Secretary should satisfy him-
self that the project will demonstrate an effective and practical
method of control of all such pollution.
In choosing such an area, the Secretary will make studies including
an inventory of acid drainage sources within the watershed, down-
stream water uses, the benefits of pollution control, engineering and
economic feasibility of locating the project in that area, and the
feasibility of protecting the area from future damage once remedial
measures have been employed. In choosing drainage areas, consid-
eration would be given to potential public uses such as water supply,
fish and wildlife enhancement, and recreational values, and in areas
where land has been lost to agriculture through mining activities, the
potential for demonstrating reclamation to agricultural uses.
In this connection it should be noted that upon recommendation
of the Committee on Public Works, Congress directed in the Appa-
lachian Regional Development Act of 1967 that the Appalachian
Regional Commission, in cooperation with the Secretary of the In-
terior, survey the extent and impact of acid mine drainage in Appa-
lachia. The findings and recommendations in that survey, in the
opinion of the committee, should be carefully considered in carrying
out this program, particularly in initiating plans for comprehensive
action programs in priority watersheds,
Another key provision of the bill directs the use of "various abate-
ment techniques" for acid mine water elimination or control rather
[p. 24]
than limiting the approach to a particular process. In considering the
possible solutions to an areawide problem, it may be necessary to use
a combination of techniques. The techniques used and the relative
importance of each will vary from area to area.
It is expected that with Federal leadership these basinwide projects
will attempt to demonstrate solutions to the more difficult problems
associated with acid mine drainage. In addition to these projects
related to abandoned mines, attention should be given to problems
such as drainage from gob and waste piles and pollution from roads
built with pyritic materials.
In the Appalachian areas where the acid mine drainage problem is
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1351
most severe, quality agricultural land is at a premium. Much of this
land has been disturbed by surface mining and depositing of slag and
gob wastes.
Recreational opportunities in the Appalchian area have been lim-
ited by the relatively small number of natural lakes. Recreational
developments in these area demonstration projects might well be
planned so as to include lakes in the reclamation-control demonstra-
tions, thus enhancing the possibilities of the water-based recreation
Americans prize.
The State contribution to the costs of area demonstration projects
can be met in cash, or in kind, such as land, goods, or services. It is
hoped that wherever possible, a cash share will be offered by the
State, but selection of demonstration areas should be based on their
potential for significant demonstration, apart from considerations of
State and local cash contributions.
Much concern has been expressed over the failure of earlier pro-
grams of control of mine acid drainage. These earlier programs, not-
ably the WPA efforts in the 1930's, were Federal projects not followed
up by the States. Most of the States involved were not financially
able to bear the burden of maintenance over 30 years. Thus, an in-
vestment has been wasted, and acid mine water issues from once-
sealed mines.
The act directs that Federal participation shall be conditioned on
the State providing legal and practical protection to demonstration
areas, assuring the prevention of future acid mine water pollution
problems from the area. The Secretary, in discontinuing Federal
participation in the project and maintenance, should again be assured
that the States or a private authority will maintain demonstration
projects where there is a lasting public value.
The appropriation of this money "to be available until expended" is
especially important. These programs cannot be limited to a specific
short-time period. Any time limitation could seriously impair the
detailed planning and legal efforts that must precede the actual
fieldwork, as well as the proper execution and evaluation of the
various processes necessary to do the job.
GREAT LAKES DEMONSTRATION
This bill would authorize a special demonstration program to attack
the unique and critical problems of the Great Lakes region. This
program is in addition to the program authorized in the legislation
to control lake pollution or lake eutrophication. Twenty million
dollars is authorized to enter into agreements for State and local
agencies to carry out severally or jointly demonstration projects to
[p. 25]
-------
1352 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
eliminate or control water pollution in the Great Lakes. The States
or local agencies would share in this cost.
Most of the States adjoining the Great Lakes have already under-
taken significant programs to control pollution, which indicates their
willingness to meet their obligations in this intergovernmental effort.
The Great Lakes are surrounded by a dense population and are
confronted with a rapidly deteriorating water pollution and water
supply problem. Special efforts are needed by all levels of govern-
ment to accomplish substantial remedial action in order to avoid
irreversible deterioration of the water quality of the Great Lakes.
FEDERAL ACTIVITIES COMPLIANCE
Existing law declares it to be the intent of Congress that all Federal
departments, agencies, and instrumentalities shall comply with water
quality standards. This declaration of intent has proved unsatisfac-
tory. One basic thrust of S. 7 is to require that all activity over which
the Federal Government has direct control—federally conducted
activity, including by lease or contract, or federally licensed or per-
mitted activity—be carried out in a manner to ensure compliance
with applicable water quality standards.
It has been brought to the committee's attention that the provisions
of section 16 (a) and 16 (c) of the bill may adversely affect dredging
operations essential to navigation. At the outset the committee would
like to make it clear that under the provisions of the bill, all dredging,
Federal, State, or private, shall be subject to the same standard:
compliance with applicable water quality standards.
In enacting section 10 (c) (3) of the Water Quality Act of 1965
Congress directed that water quality standards be prepared, consider-
ing in the words of the act, "their use and value for public water
supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational purposes, and
agricultural, industrial, and other legitimate uses." The committee
has taken the further step of adding language in section 10 of the
basic act to specifically include navigation.
Although turbidity is included as a measure of water quality in
existing water quality standards, the committee has been informed
that, with one exception, such standards were not drawn to accomo-
date or otherwise consider temporary turbidity resulting from dredg-
ing and disposal of dredge spoil. Consequently, the committee
expects the Secretary to develop and issue to the States criteria
providing for the establishment of standards for temporary turbidity
resulting from dredging and disposal of dredge spoil. Such criteria
should also include information on other contaminants found in
dredge spoil and the potential effects of such contaminants on the re-
ceiving waters. The committee has noted the specific provision deal-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1353
ing with dredging turbidity in the approved water quality standards
of Michigan as one approach to the problem. The committee expects
the States to review their existing water quality standards to deal
with problems of temporary turbidity where necessary to conform
with the intent of section 10 (c) (3) of the basic act as amended by
this bill.
In order to accomplish the objective of providing for essential
dredging without adversely affecting water quality, the committee
expects the Secretary to provide the States with the technical assist-
ance required to evaluate both the real and potential pollution asso-
ciated with dredging and disposal of dredge spoil. Such technical
[p. 26]
assistance should include analysis of dredging and spoil disposal
techniques, analysis of areas and materials to be dredged, and the
effects of disposal of spoil in submerged areas. The "pilot study" of
dredging and water quality problems in the Great Lakes being con-
ducted by the Corps of Engineers should be of material assistance in
this effort.
It should be noted that nothing in this bill should be construed as
requiring the disposal of all dredge spoil on land. Where such spoil is
determined to be nonpolluting and where such turbidity does not
cause long-term environmental damage and does not interfere with
other uses protected by public policy, and where a short time after
disposition in water such spoil ceases to cause turbidity, such spoil
may be properly discharged into lakes or rivers where permitted
under appropriate State or Federal license.
The committee further expects that in the interim period during
which the States will be reviewing their water quality standards rela-
tive to dredging activity, no arbitrary or unreasonable restrictions
shall be imposed on dredging essential for the maintenance of inter-
state commerce and that, consistent with the intent of this act, the
committee expects the dredging and disposal activities of private
dredgers and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be treated in a
similar manner.
The bill provides that Federal disposal facilities may be made
available to private dredgers with suitable arrangements for reim-
bursement. The committee also urges the States, in order to minimize
potential economic disruption, to make every effort to assist in the
designation and acquisition of dredge spoil disposal areas, both on
land, diked areas, and usable submerged areas. To the extent feasible,
both the Corps of Army Engineers and private dredgers should de-
velop prior agreements with the States on such sites and the nature
of spoil to be deposited in those sites.
-------
1354 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
The committee does not intend the provisions of section 16 (c) to
apply to the multitude of individual licenses and permits which may
be issued by the Federal Government. Among licenses which would
be exempt from the provision of this subsection are those granted to
ships' masters and certain Atomic Energy Commission licenses. For
example, applications for materials licenses from the AEC—that is,
for the use, possession, transfer, etc., of radioactive byproducts and
other nuclear materials—generally will not be subject to the sub-
section's requirements. Almost all such licenses are for activities
which are not intended to result in discharges or otherwise affect the
waters of the United States. Most are for radiography, process con-
trol, calibration, teletherapy and other medical uses, gaging, and so on
where there may be small amounts of liquid effluents discharged into
municipal or similar waste disposal systems for eventual discharge
into navigable waters, but normally not a discharge directly into
adjoining water bodies.
In the case of licensed activities such as these, where any discharge
will be in minute amounts and will not be disposed of directly into any
adjoining river, stream, or other body of water, the license for any
such activity is not intended to be subject to the requirements of sub-
section (c). However, where the activities under any such license
will result in the discharge of wastes directly into U.S. waters—as, for
example, may be the case in connection with the processing and fab-
[p. 27]
rication of "source material"—license applications for such activities
are intended to be subject to the subsection's requirements.
It is the intent of the bill that all activities, facilities, and property
under Federal jurisdiction shall comply with applicable water quality
standards. It provides: (1) for compliance with water quality stand-
ards in accordance with an approved plan for implementation and (2)
an authorization for appropriations necessary to fulfill the mandate of
Congress to comply with water quality standards. It further retains
existing language on the mechanics for the incorporation of Federal
agencies into the abatement proceedings of section 10 of the Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended.
The bill would add the requirement that those Federal agencies
that (1) lease Federal property or facilities, or (2) contract for the
operation of Federal property or facilities, or (3) contract for the en-
tire operation of any facility, private or public, shall insure compli-
ance with applicable water quality standards in any such activity.
In order to avoid duplication, the bill further provides that when any
activity covered is also subject to a license or permit under subsection
16 (c), a certificate of compliance pursuant to subsection (c) shall ful-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1355
fill the requirements of subsection (b). An example of this type
would be a licensee of the Atomic Energy Commission which leases
nuclear materials from the United States.
Where a Federal agency has jurisdiction over property which is
operated by a cost-type contractor, leased for the benefit of the United
States, it is intended that the agency insure compliance in accordance
with section 16 (a) (1).
The intent of the bill is to provide that all activities and facilities
which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters of
the United States and that are constructed, operated, or conducted
pursuant to a Federal license or permit under any law of the United
States shall comply with applicable water quality standards. The
bill intends to achieve this purpose by making the granting of all
Federal licenses and permits contingent on a certification from the
State in which the discharge occurs, or where appropriate, the Secre-
tary or an interstate agency, that there is reasonable assurance that
such facility or activity will comply with applicable water quality
standards. In addition to setting out this basic requirement, para-
graph 1 of subsection (c) provides for (1) certification from the Sec-
retary in any case where water quality standards are not approved,
(2) time requirements in the certifying procedure, and (3) a mech-
anism to allow consideration by States, other than the State in which
the discharge occurs, whose waters may be affected by the discharge.
The paragraph also provides for including in the Federal license or
permit conditions to achieve compliance. This paragraph requires
that the licensing or permitting agency hold a hearing at the request
of the applicant on conflicts between the conditions of State certifica-
tion and any conditions which the Secretary may require. The pur-
pose of this hearing is to insure that water quality objectives are
protected while not placing an unreasonable burden on the applicant.
However, the Federal agency must include conditions as a part of any
license or permit which are at least as stringent as the certifying State.
In order to insure that a certification is based on full information, and
[p. 28]
that compliance will in fact be achieved, paragraph (1) of subsection
(c) requires licensees or permittees to provide the certifying author-
ity with notice of any change in the proposed facility or activity that
may affect water quality.
For those activities which require more than one Federal license
pr permit (such as a nuclear powered electric generating facility
which requires both a construction and operating license and may re-
quire certain permits from other Federal agencies), paragraph (2) of
subsection (c) provides that a certification for one license or permit
satisfies the requirement for other Federal licenses or permits for the
-------
1356 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
same project unless a certifying authority has notified the licensing
agency that, because of a change in (1) the nature of the activity, (2)
the design of the facilities, (3) the natural characteristics of the waters
into which such discharge is made, or (4) the water quality standards
applicable to such waters, there is no longer reasonable assurance of
compliance with water quality standards.
In many instances where a Federal license or permit for an activity
or facility is issued, the licensed or permitted activity or facility may
not be, in fact, the same facility or activity that was the subject of
review at the time of permitting or licensing because of a lapse of
time or changed circumstances. Consequently, paragraph 3 of sub-
section (c) provides that prior to the operation of any facility or
activity, not subject to a Federal operating license or permit, the
licensee or permittee shall provide the certifying authority an oppor-
tunity to make a final review to determine if such facility or activity
will, in fact, be operated or conducted in compliance with applicable
water quality standards. If the certifying authority finds that the
operations of such facility or activity will not comply with applicable
water quality standards, the certifying authority may notify the
Federal licensing or permitting agency, which agency is required to
suspend or revoke the license or permit until notification of reasonable
assurance or compliance.
Paragraph 4 of subsection (c) provides that the Federal licensing or
permitting agency may suspend or terminate a license or permit for
any facility or activity that has been found by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be in violation of applicable water quality standards.
It is the intent of this paragraph to require the suspension or revoca-
tion of the permit by a Federal licensing agency unless the court order
provides for remedial action that will bring about compliance with
water quality standards. Court action is specified in order to assure
consistency with existing enforcement provisions of section 10 (c) (5)
of the act and similar State procedures.
Paragraph 5 of subsection (c) simply provides that it is the intent
of section 16 that Federal departments and agencies shall comply with
applicable water quality standards pursuant to subsection 16 (a) and
(b) and that, consistent with our constitutional system, Federal
agencies are not considered applicants pursuant to subsection 16(c).
Paragraph 6 of subsection 16 (c) provides that those facilities actu-
ally being constructed under a Federal construction license or permit
issued prior to the date of enactment of the Water Quality Improve-
ment Act of 1969 will not be required to obtain certification for any
Federal operating license for 2 years after the date of enactment. In
addition, paragraph 6 provides that any operating license issued
[p. 29]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1357
during such 2-year period shall terminate at the end of such period
unless certification is obtained.
In all cases not covered under paragraph 6 of subsection 16 (c) and
where there is an application for a Federal license or permit subject
to subsection 16 (c) pending on the date of enactment of the Water
Quality Improvement Act of 1969, paragraph 7 provides that licenses
or permits issued within 1 year of the date of enactment will not
require certification for 1 year following the date of issuance, pro-
viding however that such license or permit shall be revoked at the
end of 1 year unless the activity or facility has obtained certification.
While the provisions of section 16 (c) are directly related to the
existence of applicable water quality standards, the committee in-
tends that it should be abundantly clear that no certification shall be
required where water quality standards do not exist. As discussed
later, only one State has the type of temporary turbidity standards
which might be considered applicable to dredging and disposal of
dredge spoil.
The effect of paragraph 8 is to not require certification of compli-
ance with water quality standards as a precondition of a dredging per-
mit until such time as the States have in fact developed water quality
standards applicable to that activity. But dredging is only an ex-
ample. In a number of States, standards have not been developed for
intrastate waters. Until such time as standards are adopted no certi-
fication pursuant to section 16 will be required. In other States,
standards subject to the approval of the Secretary have not been
submitted for certain pollutants.
It is the intent of paragraph 8 to provide, in addition to clarifica-
tion on the question of noncertification, an orderly procedure whereby
Federal licensees and permittees can comply with water quality
standards at the time such water quality standards are adopted. At
any time following the development of water quality standards for
an activity, an applicant for a new license or permit would, of course,
be subject to the other provisions of section 16 (c).
The enforcement procedure set forth in subparagraph (b) of para-
graph 8 is identical to that procedure set forth in paragraph 3 of this
subsection (c).
Subsection (d) makes it clear that none of the provisions of section
16 should be interpreted as limiting any other provision of law
relating to water quality. Thus, the provisions of the Fish and Wild-
life Coordination Act, for instance, and administrative arrangements
executed thereto are in no way limited by this section. The subsec-
tion also requires the Secretary to furnish, on request, information
on water quality standards to relevant agencies, individuals, and
applicants.
-------
1358 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Subsection (e) of section 16 recognizes that the application of
section 16 to dredging and filling activities under permit from the
Corps of Engineers will often require the use of spoil disposal areas
rather than open water disposal. In order to make Federal spoil
disposal facilities available to all dredging operations, subsection (e)
authorizes the Corps to permit the use of such Federal area by private
dredgers and charge for such use.
MANPOWER TRAINING
As part of the Clean Water Restoration Act of 1966, the commit-
tee asked for a report on the manpower needs of the Nation's water
[p. 30]
pollution control program. That report (S. Doc. No. 89-49) showed
that there is a clear and present need for waste treatment plant oper-
ators; that present training opportunities are not adequate to provide
for the widespread upgrading of skills needed, and for the large num-
bers of new operators which will be required over the next few years;
and that training for operators in the past has mainly been limited to
short courses conducted by State and local agencies, with main
reliance being placed on informal on-the-job training.
This kind of training was inadequate in the past and certainly will
not provide for current needs and those in prospect. Enlarging and
improving the operator work force is a direct and efficient means of
achieving increased water pollution abatement. Many existing waste
treatment plants are operating well below their reasonable potential,
thereby causing unnecessary pollution of the Nation's streams. Once
the investment for constructing a plant is made, its potential for
cleaning our water should not be diminished by failure to provide for
its efficient operation.
Achieving a competent work force containing an adequate number
of well-trained operators involves at least three related elements.
First, adequate training opportunities must bs made available. This
amendment deals with that aspect of the manpower problem. The
committee realizes that this is not a total solution to the problem, but
specific legislative action is clearly appropriate. The two elements
discussed below require further study.
Second, the need for higher pay, advancement opportunities, in-
crease in civil service coverage and enhancement of job prestige needs
to be determined. Making the occupation more attractive should
enable local governments to recruit more able trainees—persons who
will be able to take full advantage of training opportunities. The
improved pay and other job conditions should enable local govern-
ments to retain competent employees; the alternative is to lose them
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1359
to higher paying positions elsewhere. This goal must be achieved if
full benefit is to be received from training programs. The Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration should study several alterna-
tive methods of achieving improvements in pay and other job condi-
tions, and report the results of that study to the Congress in the
September 30, 1970, report described below.
Third, the committee believes it would be of value to determine if
mandatory operator certification is necessary and feasible. A study
would provide a basis for defining minimum levels of education and
experience needed to assure satisfactory plant operation. Mandatory
certification could provide standards by which the performance of
individual operators can be judged. The process of establishing
standards would show what reasonably can be expected from oper-
ators. In the September 30, 1970, report, the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration should indicate any need for and, if recom-
mended, means of attaining mandatory operator certification.
This section provides for a pilot program of grants for individual
training projects to upgrade skills of existing operators and train new
entrants to the field of waste treatment plant operation. This program
is to be carried out in cooperation with governmental units, educa-
tional institutions and other organizations, with the Secretary entering
into individual agreements for each training project. It is intended to
[p. 31]
supplement, rather than supplant, current operator training efforts,
including those financed through Manpower Development and Train-
ing Act funds. Authorizations for this purpose are $5 million for fiscal
year 1970 and $7.5 million for fiscal year 1971.
Several points concerning the new proposed program should bs
emphasized:
First, the committee intends that the responsibility for carrying out
the training would remain where the varying particular needs are best
understood, which is the State and local level. Funds would be pro-
vided on a project-by-project basis by the Federal Government, which
would also provide technical assistance with curricula and teaching
methods, but the projects themselves would be planned, developed,
and carried out at the State and local level by non-Federal organiza-
tions. Such a project-by-project approach should be relatively un-
complicated to administer. As the States develop their capabilities
to plan and implement operator training programs it may become
desirable to fund this type of program by a system of grants to the
States.
The committee intends that this new program not be limited to new
operators. It recognizes the fact that many of the existing operators
-------
1360 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
need extensive training to enable them to perform their jobs effi-
ciently. Extensive skill upgrading must be accomplished if we are to
get the full benefit from the massive investments we have already
made in waste treatment plants.
This program is aimed specifically at personnel involved in the
actual operations of a waste treatment plant, particularly the position
referred to as an "operator". This program is not aimed at profes-
sional level employees, such as an engineer who might be in charge
of a large plant. Other programs exist for training at that level.
Implementation of this section should not supplant training proj-
ects currently being encouraged by the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Administration to qualify for funding through the Manpower
Development and Training Act. The Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration's activity in the Cooperative Area Manpower Plan-
ning System should continue, and FWPCA should continue to serve
as a national contractor for MDTA funds. This proposed program
would supplement the MDTA efforts. An additional program is
needed in order to provide FWPCA more flexibility in meeting
training needs.
Employment in waste treatment plants, especially in urban areas,
can provide much-needed skilled job opportunities that many people
need to begin to participate more fully in the economic life of this
country. However, in some cases the use of the MDTA mechanism is
not feasible. For example, a particular community might have enough
operators, but need to improve their skills. That community might
not be able to take on a sufficiently large enough number of previously
unemployed and underemployed to enable the training project to
qualify for MDTA support. The Cooperative Area Manpower Plan-
ning System, a Federal interdepartmental effort in which the States
finally must decide about which training projects to include in their
MDTA training program, lacks the ability to cope with the operator
problem by itself. FWPCA should continue to use MDTA funds
wherever practical. The new grant program proposed in this amend-
ment would give FWPCA a much needed alternative to that source
of funding for use in cases not amenable to MDTA funding.
[p. 32]
This section provides for the development and maintenance of
an effective system for forecasting the supply and demand of the
various categories of operator, technician, and professional level
personnel needed in the water pollution control effort. This system
would be broader than the other portion of this section which deals
with the operation and maintenance of waste treatment plants.
Effective manpower planning requires knowledge of the number of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1361
people in the field, how many need training and how many new re-
cruits are required. This kind of data must be gathered first at the
local level, then carefully pulled together to provide a picture of
national needs. Only when such a systematically developed national
needs picture has been developed, and periodically updated, can an
effective national action program be formulated.
This proposed amendment would provide for the development of
such a system. It would provide funds to enable FWPCA to enter
into agreements with public and private organizations and individuals
to provide this information. The details of an appropriate system
are to bs worked out by FWPCA; $1.5 million is authorized for fiscal
years 1970 and 1971 for this purpose.
A report to bs submitted to Congress by September 30, 1970, is
required. That report should cover the achievements under the
provisions of this amendment and accomplishments of other training
programs in the water pollution control field. It should contain
estimates of future manpower needs and recommended improvements
in training programs. Also it should include a discussion of the need
for enhancing the attractiveness of the operator occupation. Finally,
it should include any legislative recommendations deemed appropriate.
CLEAN LAKES
Because freshwater lakes occupy the lowest parts of the topography,
runoff makes the lake a "catchall" of every conceivable type of
pollution that is water-transportable. And because it is a catchall,
the biological problems and solutions of lake pollution are complex in
the extreme, and will yield only to concentrated, coordinated basic
and applied research.
Because lakes, in contrast to streams, cannot "cleanse" themselves
by action of running water, whatever pollution enters a lake largely
remains there.
In contrast to study of the causes of stream pollution, very little
research has been done in the basic causes and removal of lake pollu-
tion. In answer to most of the questions as to the causes of increasing
degradation of freshwater lakes, the scientists must reply "we don't
know."
The committee believes that answers are needed, for an increasing
number of the Nation's estimated 100,000 lakes are dying at an ac-
celerated rate and these lakes represent a literally irreplaceable
resource pf water supply, recreation, fish and wildlife habitat and
other economic benefits.
All lakes die (eutrophy) eventually as runoff and sedimentation
change the biological balance of the lake; however manmade chemi-
cals and pollutants speed up this eutrophication radically.
-------
1362 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Eutrophication is characterized by an accumulation of plant nu-
trients, decreased depth, increased temperature, all leading to in-
[p. 33]
creased fertility and the proliferation of algae. Algae may render
water supplies toxic and impart offensive tastes and odors to waters.
In "accelerated eutrophication" the most important of the pollu-
tants are phosphates and nitrates which act as plant nutrients. They
come from agricultural runoff of fertilizers, runoff from livestock
feedlots, industrial wastes, detergents, domestic and food wastes,
and treatment plant effluent.
Lake eutrophication is further aggravated by silt from agricultural
land and building construction. As a lake becomes shallower, it
becomes warmer—thus decreasing oxygen solubility and increasing
plant growth and deoxygenation of the lower levels of the lake.
Consequent prolific growth of algae and rooted plants depletes
further the oxygen needed for decomposition of wastes, which ac-
cumulate and putrify on the bottom of the lake. This, together with
the rooting of algal mats piled up on the shoreline, produce the highly
unpleasant odors of hydrogen sulfide.
Federal support for research efforts is essential to determine the
parameters of lake eutrophication. Adequate technology to deal with
the problems of diffuse sources, natural and man influenced, which
characterize the principal contributors to eutrophication, is not avail-
able nor is the technology to clean up already polluted lakes. Only
lagooning has been suggested as feasible for control of feedlot wastes,
and no remedies exist for agricultural runoff, beyond presently
practiced soil conservation methods.
The only techniques of control and restoration applied with any
success have been chemical eradication of aquatic plants and this
offers only temporary relief. In addition, chemical treatment with
substances such as copper sulfate often have serious side effects in
destruction of fish life. Dredging appears to have promise but at
present it is almost prohibitively expensive on any large scale.
Dredging and cleaning a lake costs a minimum of 25 to 50 cents per
cubic yard of material removed. Deepening an acre of water by only
one foot would cost between $4,000 and $8,000; to dredge a 10,000-
acre lake by one foot would cost from $20 to $40 million. No single
community could bear such an expense, and less expensive means of
lake restoration must be found.
Several such promising methods are possible, including the devel-
opment of algal predators; application of various chemical precipita-
tors, harvesting of algae and other vegetation to remove nutrients
from an euthropic lake, and various means of introducing free oxy-
gen into eutrophied lakes.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1363
At present, however, no research facility exclusively devoted to
basic and applied research in the causes and cures of lake pollution
exists in the world, although individual research in various facets
of the problem is ongoing in Government and university facilities.
This section would have the effect of providing a means to concentrate
presently scattered efforts into a coordinated attack on lake pollution;
its prevention and cure.
The committee expects that funds to implement the provision of
this new research directive shall be made available from the general
section 5 authorization and that implementation of this area of re-
search will receive a high priority.
[p. 34]
OIL POLLUTION RESEARCH
A great deal of testimony, especially in light of the difficulties asso-
ciated with cleanup in Santa Barbara, dealt with the inadequacy of
technology to effectively contain and remove oil spills. Several wit-
nesses noted that the use of straw to absorb oil on the water and on
the beaches was a technique which has been available for centuries.
More modern techniques such as various types of booms were often
inadequate due to the nature of the tides and winds in the Santa
Barbara Channel. A variety of dispersant chemicals were applied
but, because so little information existed on potential adverse ecolog-
ical effects, the Department of the Interior was properly reluctant to
allow uncontrolled or excessive use.
Dispersal of oil as a method of cleanup must be evaluated on the
basis of possible long-term effects. Once oil is dispersed, there is
potential for incorporation of hydrocarbons in aquatic organisms har-
vested for human consumption. The committee expects the Secretary
to carry out research activities on the potential effects of accumulation
of hydrocarbons in the food chain in order to determine the desir-
ability of cleanup methods which do not involve actual physical re-
moval of the oil.
The committee believes that developing effective techniques to deal
with oil spills and making those techniques readily available at ap-
propriate locations throughout the country is of highest priority.
This section places the primary responsibility for research in the
Department of the Interior but the committee intends that the Secre-
tary should transfer some research functions and funds to the Coast
Guard for those activities over which that agency has significant
responsibility.
The Department of the Interior must develop information on the
effects of oil spills and chemicals and other methods used to disperse
oil. The Department also should be investigating improved methods
-------
1364 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
to control oil discharges in connection with ongoing efforts to achieve
and maintain compliance with water quality standards.
The committee intends that the Coast Guard should carry out neces-
sary research and development to fulfill its responsibilities imposed
by this section. More sophisticated techniques and equipment are
necessary before the Federal Government can hope to clean up an
oil spill effectively. Studies are underway to determine what cleanup
methods now available are most effective, what other possibilities
exist, and what general approaches, including no cleanup at all, are
warranted under different circumstances. Methods of preventing
pollution by shipping activities are also under study. These studies
need to be expedited and should receive priority in planning future
budget requests.
FACILITIES LAND ACQUISITION
When the water pollution control program was administered by
the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the FWPCA
utilized the general land acquisition authority applicable to all pro-
grams under the auspices of that agency. The Interior Department,
however, has historically been granted land-acquisition authority on
a program basis only. Accordingly, FWPCA, lacking such authority
in its organic act, has not been able to acquire lands in connection
[p. 35]
with its research program and demonstration projects. This bill
would place the water pollution control program on the same basis as
it was before its transfer from the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare by providing authority to acquire lands and interests
therein for the limited purpose of section 5 of the act and for demon-
stration projects.
EXTENSION OF GENERAL RESEARCH AUTHORIZATIONS
This bill would also extend through 1970 and 1971 the research
and development, training, and investigations authorizations of sec-
tion 5 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act at the current
annual level of $65 million. Section 105 would extend the annual
grant and contract authorizations of $60 million in 1970 and 1971 for
research and demonstrations in new and advanced waste treatment
methods, joint municipal-industrial waste treatment, new methods
to treat industrial wastes and the problems of storm and combined
sewers, as provided in section 6 of the Water Pollution Act.
These authorized extensions would cover all research, develop-
ment, and demonstration activities, including in-house research efforts
and the administration and management of laboratory facilities.
Field investigations and surveys, technical assistance and support
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1365
would be included. FWPCA's pollution surveillance effort is also
part of the section 5 authorization. This is a survey and inventory
program to include 900 stream and 1,500 open water sampling stations,
in coordination with other State and Federal agencies, as part of the
water quality standards program and in order to identify new pollu-
tion trends, sources, and types before problems develop. Research
fellowships, training grants, and other in-house training activities
would be continued at current levels. Also the authorization for
estuarine research is extended at the current level of $1 million for
one year.
HEARINGS
The Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, Committee on
Public Works, has over a 3-year period, conducted 23 days of hear-
ings, heard 166 witnesses, received 121 statements for the record, and
compiled a total of 2,711 pages of printed testimony, statements, and
exhibits,
During consideration of S. 7 as introduced on January 15, 1969,
the committee heard 90 witnesses, including reappearances, received
79 statements for the record, and compiled 1,568 pages of printed
testimony in 13 days of hearings.
Statements were filed by and witnesses included representatives
of the Department of the Interior, Department of Transportation,
Atomic Energy Commission, State and local governments, conserva-
tion groups, organized labor, affected industries, and interested
individuals.
TITLE II—ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
SUMARY AND DISCUSSION OF MAJOR PROVISIONS
Our contemporary culture, primed by population growth and driven
by technology, has created problems of environmental degradation
[p. 36]
that directly effect all of our senses: noise, odors, and toxins which
bring physical pain and suffering, and ugliness, barrenness, and homo-
geneity of experience which bring emotional and psychological suf-
fering and emptiness. In short, we are jeopardizing our human
qualities by pursuing technology as an end rather than a means.
Too often we have failed to ask two necessary questions: First,
what human purpose will a given technology or development serve?
Second, what human and environmental effects will it have? These
questions require responses before we implement and distribute the
products of our new technology. The facts are well documented.
The committee has studied the application of these problems in the
-------
1366 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
areas of air and water pollution, solid waste, highway construction,
water resource development, and economic development.
The message which has emerged from these investigations and from
all studies of environmental problems, whatever their origin or focus,
is essentially the message of ecology—that we, and all of our activities,
are integral parts of a natural system. We cannot consider any hu-
man activity independently of this system if we hope to achieve a
quality of life worthy of the name.
The Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution has been instru-
mental during the last six years in forming a national environmental
policy. The subcommittee's work has resulted in the Clean Air Act
of 1963, and the 1965 and 1966 amendments; the Air Quality Act of
1967; the Water Quality Act of 1965; the Clean Water Restoration Act
of 1966; and the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965.
The basis for the legislation is a strong Federal-State-local partner-
ship. The States have been delegated the primary responsibility to
protect and enhance the quality of air and water within their bound-
aries, and, in cooperation with other States, to protect and enhance
the quality of air and water within resource areas common to those
States. The Federal Government has the responsibility to improve
our understanding of environmental threats, the authority to act
where States fail or are unable to fulfill their obligations and the ob-
ligation to protect the environment in its own activities.
The laws provide Federal support for improved organization of
State and local abatement programs, planning activities, and the re-
search, development, and demonstration of new control technologies.
The programs authorized under the acts are based on the concept of
prevention and are designed to reduce discharges into the atmosphere
and public waterways. They are limited only by the effectiveness of
existing technology and by the outmoded philosophy of waste disposal
rather than waste management and reduction.
The legislation seeks to promote and encourage the development of
policies and institutions geared to the regional nature of environ-
mental problems. Whether or not it succeeds depends upon the de-
gree of commitment and cooperation of State and local governments
and the taxpayer and citizen. The responsibility is a heavy one.
The committee and the Congress are pledged to a national policy
of enhancement of environmental quality, a policy based on the con-
cept that man and his environment are interrelated and that a quality
environment is necessary to the improvement of living standards for
all men.
[p. 37]
The committee is committed to a review of legislation under its
jurisdiction and expects to initiate review proceedings in all of its
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1367
subcommittees during this Congress. Sections 201 and 202 of title II
of S. 7 are provisions to expedite this review. However, jurisdictional
questions in the Congress often frustrate effective review of admin-
istrative practices and duplication.
Essentially, institutional fragmentation is a result of legislation
that grants authority to conduct, regulate, or otherwise administer a
particular environmental program or policy wtihout granting corol-
lary authority and direction to consider such program or policy in the
context of the total environmental system.
Institutional fragmentation, however, is subject to remedies other
than a modification of statutory authority, once Congress has mani-
fested its will that all authorized activities be undertaken in harmony
with environmental quality. With respect to Federal and federally
assisted public works projects, it is the committee's judgment, as ex-
pressed in section 201 (b) (1), that Congress has so expressed its will
in prior acts and statements of intent.
Existing pollution control legislation is directed toward the devel-
opment of an operational national policy. The Environmental Quality
Act would extend the Federal government's environmental manage-
ment effort in several important areas. It would require that all
federally supported public works projects and programs be planned
and developed in full recognition of their ecological impact. Tech-
nological and economic developments which produce short-term bene-
fits at the expense of the long-term health and productivity of the
environment would be rejected.
For example, the location, design, and development of the Corps of
Engineers civil works projects should be evaluated to take into full
account the ecological implications of the decisions involved. Al-
ternatives should be chosen which minimize deleterious effects.
A major need for improved environmental management in relation
to public works exists in our Federal-aid highway program. The
Interstate Highway System has served to link our urban centers in an
ever-increasing flow of commerce, goods, and people. But the roads,
and the economy they support, are not ends in themselves. With
more environmental planning they can better serve the needs of
our people, through respect for the integrity and future development
of communities and by attention to the protection of natural beauty
and resources.
Our highways must be brought into harmony with the communities
and countrysides they traverse. Too often this need has received
little more than lip service. Locations have been chosen to serve the
more limited benefits of the user rather than the needs of the com-
munity at large.
Cities such as Baltimore and Chicago are attempting to manage
-------
1368 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
the environmental impact of highways by employing urban design
concept teams. This approach involves engineers, architects, soci-
ologists, urban planners, economists, and other specialists to form a
coordinated team. The team examines the highway corridor in a
framework which emphasizes overall community goals and plans.
Although still experimental, this approach has proven worthwhile
and will provide criteria to aid others in evaluating urban transporta-
[p. 38]
tion needs in terms of social, esthetic, and economic values. The
knowledge gained should yield new methods and techniques of as-
sistance in the solution of complex urban problems.
Ugliness, clutter, litter, the lack of parks and open space, and in-
adequate recreational opportunities are among the basic components
of the crisis in America's cities. An effective response to the urban
crisis requires a series of measures responsive to citizens' needs for
housing, health and sanitation, education, employment, transporta-
tion, and pollution abatement. The committee also feels that provi-
sions must be made for improving the appearance of cities, for new
urban parks and more open space, and for creating attractive and
diverse recreational experiences.
Federal-aid highway legislation of the 1960's has created highway
beautification programs and has strengthened the protection of park-
lands. It also requires the consideration of social and environmental
factors and community goals and objectives in the location of proposed
highway projects. Such policies can only be carried out in coordina-
tion with other agencies.
Recognizing the need in water resource programs for "develop-
mental planning" rather than "response planning," the Committee
on Public Works initiated the first program in this area in the Appa-
lachian Regional Development Act of 1965, which authorizes regional
water resources planning programs for the Appalachian region. This
concept and this approach should be extended to other regions of the
country. Water resources development could be used to reverse the
trends of population movement from rural to the highly urbanized
areas. The Appalachian Regional Development Act also provides for
the development of programs for mine land reclamation and pollu-
tion control.
In shaping these policies the committee has worked to dispel any
concept of any component of the environment—air, water, or land—
as an infinite reservoir, with an infinite capacity to dilute, disperse,
and assimilate waste. Our resources are limited, and we have over-
drawn our bank account.
More and more public officials and individual citizens recognize the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1369
need for integrated national policies for the environment. This recog-
nition stems from the facts that we are confronted with (1) problems
of accelerating environmental degradation; (2) the inadequacy of our
government agencies, public and private institutions to deal with en-
vironmental degradation; and, (3) a reluctance to make the necessary
investments of money and resources to do the job.
The committee has focused on several measures designed to remedy
institutional fragmentation in the area of environmental quality.
There has been some discussion of reorganizing the Federal executive
branch in order to put all environmental agencies under one depart-
ment. This may or may not be advisable, but, as the committee
learned so dramatically from the Santa Barbara incident, the fact that
the Geological Survey, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration are located in the same De-
partment did not result in adequate consideration of the environment
in the Outer Continental Shelf leasing program.
The committee has concluded that the problems are more urgently
management problems than they are organizational problems. There-
[p. 39]
fore, it has proposed under this title an Office of Environmental Qual-
ity to provide the President with the management capability necessary
to bring coherence and consistency into the environmental activities
of the Federal Government. The committee has studied the bills,
S. 1818, introduced by Senator Tydings, and S. 2391, as well as other
legislative proposals along with the President's establishment of
a Cabinet Environmental Council, and has concluded that an inde-
pendent environmental staff in the Executive Office of the President
is necessary if all Federal programs are to be effectively coordinated
and administered to carry out the Nation's policy of environmental
enhancement.
In creating a Cabinet Council on Environmental Quality, the Presi-
dent established a mechanism that, as described by Dr. Lee DuBridge,
Science Adviser to the President, is an action organization to imple-
ment Presidential decisions and policies. Such action is commend-
able. It puts into focus the limited management tools the President
has at his disposal to make the Council function effectively and
creatively.
The Office of Science and Technology is presently the staffing orga-
nization of the President's Council and is the general adviser to the
President on matters of environmental quality. Unfortunately, the
Office of Science and Technology has widespread responsibilities, is
thinly staffed, and, in turn, must look to the departments and agencies
of the Federal Government for staff assistance. This, of course, es-
-------
1370 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
tablishes a system in which the advice and assistance the President
receives, and on which he instructs or directs the agencies and co-
ordinates their activities, ultimately comes from the agencies them-
selves. Such a system, no matter how well intentioned, cannot be
expected to produce critical and independent review of the Federal
establishment, and represents a poor management structure for which
the President is dependent on Congress to change.
The problems associated with environmental quality are not en-
tirely scientific and demand a broader range of professional staff than
is found in the Office of Science and Technology. Environmental
quality issues and answers require legal, economic, social, manage-
ment, and systems analysis as well as scientific study. Consequently,
the present staff and the historical orientation of the Office of Science
and Technology may not be adequate to satisfy the demands that
proper evaluation of environmental quality present.
One unavoidable product of the technological society in which we
live is the occurrence of events or conditions that demand immediate
analysis and consideration in the highest levels of government. In
recent months there have been several examples of these events:
The Santa Barbara disaster, ocean disposal of certain military weap-
ons, and fish kills from pesticides. In each instance, because of in-
sufficient staff, the President has found it necessary to either appoint
task forces of Government agency personnel or seek the assistance
of private advisers. Private advisers are certainly necessary, but
they are not in a position to give the President the depth of continu-
ous staff support he needs for the development of sound policies. An
independent staff in the Executive Office with immediate access to
all information in the Federal establishment and with appropriate
standing advisory committees will provide the policy guidance neces-
sary for continuous review and advisory services for the President.
[p. 40]
In addition, this legislation authorizes the Director of the Office of
Environmental Quality to convene, every 2 years, a forum on en-
vironmental quality. It is the committee's intent that these forums
be organized in a manner to enable the most competent citizens, pri-
vate or otherwise nonfederally employed, including those who are
controversial, to critically analyze and otherwise evaluate the environ-
mental policies, activities and trends of the Nation.
A great weakness in the administration of Federal programs is a
management weakness: an information, coordination, consultation,
timing, and research hodgepodge. Many agencies have begun to
recognize this internally and have taken steps to provide a remedy,
such as the establishment of an Assistant Secretary for Urban Sys-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1371
terns and Environmental Affairs in the Department of Defense, and a
proposed Office of Ecology in the Department of Interior. This
growing practice must be complemented by an overall management,
review, and analysis function in the Executive Office of the Presi-
dent. More importantly, the functions of these new departmental
offices concerned with the quality of the environment need constant
and effective coordination. That coordination can be provided by the
newly created Council only if independent staff assistance is available.
The most difficult task facing the President and the Congress, is the
review and analysis of the administration of the total environmental
programs and policies activities of the Federal Government, a func-
tion that needs to be coordinated from the vantage point of the Office
of the President. This function cannot be carried out on an ad hoc
or part-time basis. The committee strongly feels that this function
requires a sufficiently large and competent, independent staff, unaffili-
ated with any other Federal agency. Only in such a manner will the
President and the Nation receive a close review and analysis of the
environmental activities of the Federal Government.
The President's Executive order establishing the Cabinet level En-
vironmental Quality Council and the Citizens' Advisory Committee
on Environmental Quality provides a mechanism to coordinate the
environmental protection programs enacted to date through a policy
of comprehensive Federal consideration of all aspects of environ-
mental quality in the utilization of natural resources.
One of the questions raised about the potential effectiveness of the
President's Council has been the lack of advice independent of the
agencies represented on the Council. As noted above, the committee
does not believe the Office of Science and Technology can meet that
need. An Office of Environmental Quality would provide the inde-
pendent staffing required by the Council and would make available
to the President the professional competence and facilities necessary
to the substantive review and analysis of all matters relating to the
environment. In addition, the Office would be required to report on
environmental issues to Congress, the Council, and the public.
The bill reported by the committee does not tell the President how
to organize his administration to deal with environmental problems.
It provides him with staff support for whatever arrangement he de-
termines most appropriate to his approach to the administration of the
Executive branch.
One of the principal advantages of this legislation is the recognition
that progress can be made in enhancing the quality of the environ-
[p. 41]
ment only if that policy has the full support of both the President and
the Congress.
-------
1372 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
The Office of Environmental Quality should increase the capacity
of the President to support that policy, and the Congress needs to give
further attention to its capacity to deal with the varied and interre-
lated problems which comprise our environmental crisis.
Man has now forced his way out of his environment. We continue
to flex our muscles and look to further growth, but our world will not
grow with us.
In some future time, we may find another environment in which
we can live without artificial assistance, but for the foreseeable future
man has but one home and one natural environment. If we do not
begin a coordinated effort to repair the damage we have caused and
prevent greater damage in the future, man may become an ecological
orphan—faced with an environment which cannot support simple
human existence, much less the growing technology on which we have
thrived.
The committee feels that the Environmental Quality Improvement
Act of 1969, title II of this legislation, will encourage a focus on this
problem and require effective action by Federal agencies which have
not lived up to their responsibilities in the past.
EXCERPTS FROM HEARINGS ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
During the past 6 years, in the course of its work on environmental
quality legislation, the Committee on Public Works has become in-
creasingly concerned with the impact of federally aided programs
and activities on the environment. The proposed section 16 under
title I and title II are a logical extension of that concern and of the
findings of the committee, particularly as they relate to the 1968 and
1969 hearings on thermal pollution. The following quotations from
hearings and reports illustrate the extent of the committee's concern
and underscore the relevance of title II to the legislative program
developed by the committee.
During the 88th Congress, the Senate Committee on Public
Works found an increasing amount of its activity shifting from
the consideration of traditional project legislation to substantive
matters. Increased emphasis on the conservation of air and
water resources has been answered by means to prevent pollu-
tion. Increased concern for lagging economic growth in certain
areas of the Nation has produced public works programs designed
to aid economic development. Our highway program is being
examined for its total community value.
*******
Rivers and harbors measures, themselves, are less and less
simple one-purpose projects. Previous Congresses set the stage
we are moving onto now where comprehensive planning and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1373
multipurpose developments are required. The interrelationship
of water resource development with economic growth is
[p. 42]
becoming more the rule than the exception as demonstrated by
the Appalachia bill reported by the committee.
The Appalachia bill marks a sharp departure in the responsi-
bilities of the committee which first began with consideration
and the passage of the Accelerated Public Works Act.
Appalachia is the first extensive legislation identifying dams,
reservoirs, roads, sewage treatment plants, sewers, buildings,
and other public works as the physical requirements for eco-
nomic growth. Accelerated public works recognized the value
of public works as an antidepression measure. Combined with
Appalachia the building of public works provides not only
immediate employment but the means for long-term general
improvement.
(Summary of Legislative Activities, Committee on Public Works,
U.S. Senate, 88th Cong., p. v.)
AIR AND WATER POLLUTION
The concern of the Committee on Public Works for environmental
quality led to the establishment of a special subcommittee on air and
water pollution during the 88th Congress on April 30, 1963.
The national water pollution control program has for its pri-
mary objective the enhancement of the quality and value of the
Nation's water resources. This can only be done by preventing,
Controlling, and abating water pollution.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act is the basic statutory
authority for Federal participation in the national program. The
act authorizes the administration and conduct of programs di-
rected to the achievement of the important national water quality
goal. The bill provides for specific expression of the act's pur-
pose to establish a national policy for the prevantion, control, and
abatement of water pollution through effective administration of
its comprehensive authorities.
(Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1965,
S. Kept. 89-10, p. 4.)
(1) Authorize the initiation and acceleration of a national
research and development program for new and improved meth-
ods of proper and economic solid waste disposal, reducing the
amount of waste and unsalvageable material and recovering and
-------
1374 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
utilizing potential sources of solid waste, and provide technical
and financial assistance to State and local governments and inter-
state agencies in planning, developing, construction, and conduct
of solid waste disposal programs.
(2) Provide that not to exceed 25 percent of funds appropri-
ated for this purpose may be made for grants-in-aid, or to con-
tract with, public or private agencies and institutions and to
individuals for research and training.
(3) Authorize grants to State, municipality, or intermunici-
pal or interstate agency for the purpose of assisting in the de-
velopment of any project which will demonstrate a new or
improved method of disposing of solid waste. * * *
[p. 43]
(4) Encourage cooperative activities by States and local gov-
ernments in connection with solid waste disposal programs, en-
courage planning, and encourage the enactment of improved,
and, so far as practicable, uniform State and local laws governing
solid waste disposal.
(5) Authorize up to 10 percent of funds available for the solid
waste disposal program to be used in connection with the grants
for support of air pollution control programs of the Clean Air
Act. Grants would be made in an amount of up to two-thirds of
the cost of making surveys of solid waste disposal practices and
problems within the jurisdictional areas of appropriate agencies,
and development of solid waste disposal plans. * * *
(Clean Air Act Amendments and Solid Waste Disposal Act.
S. Kept. 89-192, p. 2-3.)
* * * requires that any Federal department or agency having
jurisdiction over any building, installation, or other property
shall discharge waste only in compliance with standards * * *
* * * authorize appropriations to be made to the appropriate
Federal departments or agencies for the installation, mainte-
nance, and operation of water pollution control facilities which
have been designed to meet standards prescribed * * *
* * * authorizes the Secretary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare, upon request by a department or an agency, to train per-
sonnel to operate and maintain water pollution control systems.
There are provisions in existing law which authorize training
in technical matters relating to the cause, prevention, and con-
trol of water pollution to personnel of public agencies and other
persons of suitable qualifications. However, the committee is
concerned that such authority may not be construed or utilized
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1375
for the purpose of developing skilled personnel to operate and
maintain treatment plants, particularly in new facilities.
* * * would provide for a system of reporting to the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare by the Federal department or
agencies which have jurisdiction over buildings, installations,
and other property, and which discharge waste. In addition, the
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare would report to the
President and the Congress with respect to effectiveness of ac-
tions taken by those Federal departments or agencies in control-
ling water pollution.
* * * requires that all Federal departments and agencies co-
operate with the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
and with air pollution agencies in controlling air pollution dis-
charges from any Federal building, installation, or property.
Further, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare is
authorized to establish classes of potential pollution sources for
which any Federal department or agency
[p. 44]
would be required to obtain a permit from the Secretary before
discharging any matter into the air.
* * * authorize appropriations to be made to the appropriate
Federal departments or agencies for the installation and main-
tenance of air pollution control devices as are certified by the
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to be adequate to
meet the limitations on emissions prescribed by him. In addition)
it directs such Federal departments or agencies to request funds
to make necessary installations to meet the limitations for allow-
able emissions.
* * * require that, after the effective date of this section, no
Federal department or agency shall construct, prepare for use,
or expand facilities without the inclusion of air pollution control
measures which the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare
considers to be adequate.
* * * authorizes the Secretary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare, upon request by a department or an agency, to train per-
sonnel to operate and maintain devices or other means of
preventing or controlling air pollution.
* * * provide that Federal departments or agencies keep
the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare informed of
air pollution control practices in effect at buildings, installations,
and other property under their jurisdiction. They are also to
inform the Secretary of the absence of, or failure to institute,
-------
1376 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
practices necessary and adequate to correct deficiencies and the
reasons therefor. In addition, the Secretary is to report each
January to the President and the Congress on the status and
effectiveness of actions taken.
(Federal Installation, Facilities, and Equipment Control Act,
S. Kept. 89-128, pp. 10-11.)
The prime purpose of the proposed legislation is to strengthen
the Clean Air Act, to expedite a national program of air quality
improvement, and to enhance the quality of the atmosphere to
protect the health and welfare of our citizens against long-term
hazards and immediate danger. Considerations of technology and
economic feasibility, while important in helping to develop al-
ternative plans and schedules for achieving goals of air quality,
should not be used to mitigate against protection of the public
health and welfare.
The objective of S. 780 as amended is to achieve clean air,
and to do so through the establishment of sound objectives and
feasible timetables. The committee's hearings indicated that those
who contribute to air pollution share with all Americans the
objective of cleaning up the air, and that the differences of
opinion expressed were addressed primarily to how that objec-
tive best could be accomplished. Through a full understanding
of the etiology, the probabilities, and the severity of health and
welfare hazards involved and with the strengthening of the tech-
nological and economic capabilities for abatement in both the
public and private sector of our economy, the needs of public
health and welfare without serious or excessive economic dis-
location can be met.
[p. 45]
This legislation contains imaginative and far-reaching oppor-
tunities for air pollution control and abatement, but the bill is
complex, as are the problems of environmental control. The
problem of air pollution is neither local nor temporary. It is a
universal problem, and, so long as our standard of living con-
tinues to increase, it will be a permanent threat to human
well-being.
S. 780, as amended by the committee, will provide a compre-
hensive, broad-based attack on the Nation's air pollution problem
while expanding the potential of control technology and identi-
fying the health and welfare effects of air pollution. Its objective
is the enhancement of air quality and the reduction of harmful
emissions consistent with maximum utilization of an expanding
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1377
capacity to deal with them effectively. At the same time, it
provides authority to abate any pollution source which is an
imminent danger to health, by whatever means necessary.
(Air Quality Act of 1967, S. Kept. 90-403, p. 2.)
The President's Executive order on water pollution and sec-
tion II of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act are both
directed at water pollution control activities by Federal agencies.
Nuclear powerplants are licensed by a Federal agency and
therefore can and should be expected to conform with appli-
cable water quality standards and a concept of water quality
enhancement.
But the committee has found that Federal agencies are not
assuming the proper leadership role—that often their activities
actually condone pollution rather than encourage water quality
enhancement.
Thermal pollution is only one case. There are numerous
Federal agencies which need to exercise more leadership both
in their own activities and in the activities over which they are
responsible.
Only in this way can the Federal effort in pollution control
appropriately relate to the expanding vigor of the State pro-
grams. This expanded Federal role is especially essential, at
a time when, because of a serious national budgetary restriction,
full Federal funding of construction activities may not be
possible.
(Opening statement at hearings of the Senate Committee on
Public Works on Thermal Pollution, 1968, pt. 1, pp. 1-2.)
While water quality standards, now set and approved for most
interstate waters, will cause installation of such control facilities
as are necessary for compliance, serious question has been raised
regarding the role of Federal agencies which authorize or assist
guch activities without requiring compliance with applicable
Standards.
In order to ascertain the extent to which Federal agencies are
conducting such activities, the committee began, early last year,
hearings on the role of the Atomic Energy Commission relative
to control of waste heat discharges from federally licensed nu-
[p. 46]
clear powerplants. The hearings indicated several important
problems.
-------
1378 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
1. The Atomic Energy Commission does not consider its
legislative authority sufficient to condition licenses relative
to water quality standards for other than radioactive
materials;
2. The AEC regulations specifically prohibit intervention
or testimony on the subject of pollution other than radio-
active discharges;
3. State agencies charged with water pollution control
responsibility question their ability to require control of
nuclear powerplant waste heat discharges once that plant
has been licensed for operation by a Federal agency, believ-
ing that the existence of the Federal license might preempt
State regulatory authority;
4. Thermal pollution is of sufficient concern to require
consideration prior to final selection of a steam electric
powerplant site both because of the potential adverse effect
of heated water discharges on the receiving streams and be-
cause of the land requirements associated with construction
of cooling facilities if required; and
5. Waste heat discharges can seriously and adversely affect
the ecological balance of the receiving waters and, though
much remains to be learned about these effects, a sufficient
body of evidence exists to establish standards and require
control.
The information received during the hearings suggested a need
for the Federal Government to become involved at an early
stage in water quality control by entities which receive Federal
authorization or assistance.
On September 16, the subcommittee invited comment on the
extent to which the electric utilities industry should consider
environmental hazards in selecting powerplant sites. This ques-
tion resulted from information developed during the hearings
pointing out—
1. Few utilities have considered ecological effects of waste
heat discharges either in relation to site location or operation
of thermal generating stations;
2. Little, if any, investigation has been made by most
utilities to determine ecological background of receiving
waters;
3. Use of existing cooling technology for other than con-
servation of water has not been considered by utilities until
after intense public pressure has been exercised; and
4. The general assumption seems to be that any risk of
adverse ecological effects associated with thermal pollution
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1379
be taken by the public rather than the utility.
However, the correspondence which follows indicates that
ecological effects are of significant importance to warrant early
consideration in a utility's decision to construct new steam elec-
tric generating facilities.
(Summary statement on hearings of the Senate Committee on
Public Works on Thermal Pollution, 1968, pt. 3, pp. 975-976.)
[p. 47]
What we are talking about is adding something to the environ-
ment that is not now added. Now, if it happens to be harmful
we may be doing something that is irrevocable. If it happens
to be good, so much the better. But by withholding any dis-
charge or any such addition to the environment we are making
no impact and that is the ideal situation to maintain until you
get the answers. Unfortunately, we do need the additional
energy, so we have the problem of how in the period during
which we are trying to find the answers we minimize the possi-
bility of harmful effects.
The fact that in some cases you may get beneficial effects does
not necessarily justify taking the risk of harmful effects when
you can withhold both until you get the answer.
*******
We are going to have an argument in each case as to whether
or not we know enough to impose a restriction. Well, I think
that increasingly we have to take the point of view that if we
don't know enough, then we don't know enough to permit the
discharge.
If the point that we don't know enough justifies not imposing
control, then it seems to me it also justifies not permitting the
discharge.
At least I think we ought to take that perspective on every
one of these plant location decisions. I don't think we can afford
to take a position that until we know specifically what the harm-
ful effects are, we have to assume that there is enough good to
build a plant.
I think that is a wrong perspective. I think that we have to
enlarge our area of knowledge as fast as we can so that we
won't deprive ourselves of the necessary electrical energy, but
I don't think we can just leave it an open door to permit this
kind of development to continue without any restriction or re-
straint simply because we don't know all we ought to know about
the harmful effects.
-------
1380 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
There is a change of perspective and I think we have to arm
the Federal agencies and the State agencies, as we would under
this legislation, with enough restraining authority so we just
don't plunge headlong into a lot of problems that will plague
us once we begin to know the full implication of what we have
done.
(Comment by Senator Muskie at hearings of the Senate Com-
mittee on Public Works on Water Pollution, 1969, pt. 1, pp. 42-
43.)
Legislation has been enacted to deal separately with the con-
trol and abatement of air, water, and land pollution. The en-
hancement of environmental quality has become a major national
goal. The committee has now turned its attention to the need
for environmental planning. As existing sources are brought
under control, management of wastes and environmental quality
can become a reality. As this possibility
[p. 48]
evolves, a policy must be defined relating to the responsibilities
and rights in the use of air, water, and land resources.
The need for a policy relating to use of the air, inland, and
coastal waters, and land resources is highlighted when it is
realized that any single form of waste can be transformed to
another form during handling and disposal. Solid waste, for
example, may result in gaseous wastes when incinerated, liquid
wastes when ground in garbage grinders, or remain as solid
waste materials disposed of in landfills. This is but one example
which suggests the need for an integrated policy for all forms
of wastes rather than separate policies for solid waste disposal,
air pollution control, and sewage disposal.
A policy of environmental quality management for all forms
of wastes is clearly required. Such a policy need not suggest
that the administration of these programs be combined, but in
the absence of a combined administration, the need for an overall
coordinated policy is even more urgent.
(Summary of Legislative Activities; Committee on Public Works,
U.S. Senate, 90th Congress, p. 45.)
Environmental Quality
During the second session, the subcommittee held hearings on
"Environmental Quality Management and Waste Management
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1381
Research." Legislation has been enacted to deal separately with
air pollution, water pollution, and solid waste disposal, but a
congressional policy directed at their interrelationship is less
precise. These hearings provided an initial look at this interre-
lationship and the need to define a public policy relating to the
responsibilities and rights in the use of air, water, and land
resources.
These hearings provided an initial look into two areas. First,
is there a need for a policy relating to the use and degradation
of the air, inland and coastal waters, and land resources of the
United States?
Second, are the current Federal research management policies
and practices in air and water pollution, and solid waste disposal
adequate to the problem? Enacted legislation requires the es-
tablishment and implementation of air and water quality stand-
ards on prescribed time schedules. Current technology will
reportedly satisfy many immediate objectives such as municipal
waste water treatment of control of airborne particulates. These
hearings provided an initial look at long-term needs and the ade-
quacy of control technology to insure compliance with pre-
scribed time schedules. Particular attention was given to
improvements in Federal research management practices which
might expedite development of control technology.
(Summary of Legislative Activities, Committee on Public Works,
U.S. Senate, 90th Cong., pp. 61-62.)
[p. 49]
RIVERS AND HARBORS AND FLOOD CONTROL
Public works for many years has been synonymous with flood
control. But recently the simplicity of a flood control project
has given way to the necessity of considering much more than a
single factor when developing a reservoir program. As a result
public works is becoming more and more a matter of water re-
sources programming.
The Federal civil works program under jurisdiction of the
Corps of Engineers, embraces the works for improving rivers,
lakes, coastal areas, and harbors of the United States in the
interest of navigation, flood control, hydroelectric power devel-
opment, water supply, pollution abatement, recreation, beach
erosion control, and other allied water purposes, which the com-
mittee has approved and the Congress authorized for accomplish-
ment by the Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army.
-------
1382 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(Summary of Legislative Activities, Committee on Public Works,
U.S. Senate, 88th Cong., p. 5.)
It has long been recognized that flood control is only one of
the purposes for which our water resources should be developed.
Congress has recognized that full consideration should be given
to a desirable improvement for the use and control of all the
water resources, in the committee, the projects and basin plans
included in this bill give full weight to the navigation possibilities;
the development of hydroagricultural uses; the utilization or rec-
reation potentialities in connection with reservoirs; the preserva-
tion of fish and wildlife; the abatement of stream pollution; the
improvement of water quality; and the provision of improved
sanitary facilities. The committee feels that a program for flood
control and navigation would not be comprehensive or in the
best interests of the Nation unless all these factors were
considered.
(River and harbor, beach erosion control, and flood control proj-
ects, S. Kept. 87-2258, pp. 3-6.)
We are no longer just concerned with flood prevention—but
with the multiple aspects of reservoir development—including
water supply hydropower development, recreation, and other
multiple uses made possible by large storage dams.
Water is a precious commodity. It is becoming more apparent
each year—that we cannot afford to waste, pollute, or in any way
destroy this natural resource.
Therefore, it is of paramount importance that in our plans
for controlling destructive flood waters, we fully utilize all the
waters stored in a manner that will provide releases for conserva-
tion purposes—such as power development, industrial and do-
mestic water supply, recreation, and pollution abatement.
The Congress has asked the Corps of Engineers to look into
comprehensive river basin planning, as the best means of fully
developing our water resources.
(Opening statement at the hearings of the Senate Committee on
Public Works, on Public Works Authorizations, 1965, pt. I, pp.
1-2.)
[p. 50]
In this work we are dedicated to the principle of providing
the best use, or combination of uses, of these resources in the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1383
service of the economic and social welfare of the Nation.
The disciplines and techniques of economics, political and
social science, and public administration, as well as engineering,
bear importantly in the solution of the complex resource devel-
opment problems of our present-day society. In our role as
public planners we are striving to provide the insight and leader-
ship necessary to bring all of the pertinent disciplines and tech-
niques into focus on these problems.
The test of any planning lies in the soundness of the action
programs it defines. In down-to-earth terms this means that
in the field of water-oriented planning we must devise effective
ways of meeting needs—both immediate and long term—for
domestic, municipal, industrial, and agricultural water supply;
water quality control; navigation; hydroelectric power; flood
control; land and beach stabilization; drainage and salinity con-
trol; hurricane and tidal flood damage control; outdoor recrea-
tional activity, including that associated with preservation and
enjoyment of open space, green space and wild areas of unique
natural beauty or special interest; and fish and wildlife conserva-
tion and enhancement. These factors all are considered in our
project proposals. * * *
* * * As we approach the borderline between water abun-
dance and water deficiency in many parts of the Nation, and
strive to catch up in those areas where we already have crossed
this border, it becomes clear that the pace of our planning and
development activities must be increased. In addition to the
pace imposed by growing demands, there is the added pressure
of complexity. With few exceptions the day of single-purpose
project planning is a thing of the past. Multiple-purpose plan-
ning now is the rule of the day.
(Testimony of Maj. Gen. Jackson Graham, hearings of the Senate
Committee on Public Works, on Public Works Authorizations,
1965, pp. 15-16.)
* * * In water development it is not enough to consider meas-
urable market values. We must also look beyond them. Water
is related to public health, to outdoor recreation, and to the
beauty of the landscape. * * *
If the assessment of values to be taken into account in project
design is difficult, so are the technical engineering aspects. A
variety of engineering and natural science specialists are required
to design and operate a modern water facility.
-------
1384 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
In my opinion the policies and administrative arrangements
which evolved out of the earlier period of our history have not
yet caught up with the kind of water management task now
confronting us. * * *
[p. 51]
I am not suggesting that a Federal agency or combination of
Federal agencies should be clothed with this kind of authority
nor am I suggesting that all water resources management respon-
sibilities be turned over to State or regional organizations. But
I am indicating that some combination of policies and admin-
istrative arrangements that can institute these measures in a
coordinated fashion is essential if water resources management
is to provide American society with the full potential benefits
inherent in the resources with which we have been endowed.
(Testimony of Irving Fox, Resources for the Future, hearings
of the Senate Committee on Public Works on Public Works
Authorizations, 1965, pp. 30-31.)
HIGHWAY BEAUTIFICATION
Many millions of us have been disheartened as we have trav-
eled about the country and have seen hillsides stripped of their
foliage, roadsides littered with trash, streams polluted. Some
citizens, no doubt have felt that "uglification"—this desecration
of the land and water—was a necessary price we must pay for
industrial progress, and a necessary byproduct of the tremendous
growth in our population. Others, fortunately, have not given
up so easily and, in fact, have recognized that our growth in
population and our economic development are factors which
make it absolutely essential that we take positive action to pre-
serve our natural resources. We have come to realize that we
do not have unlimited land and water. Of necessity, many of us
are going to be crowded in urban places. We must work together
to make these places as pleasant and attractive as possible.
Our concern is with damage inflicted unnecessarily, which
could be avoided, by consideration of all aspects of the problem,
not merely those of the highway engineers.
(Testimony of Louis Prentiss, American Roadbuilders Associa-
tion, hearing of the Senate Committee on Public Works, on High-
way Beautification and Scenic Road Program, 1965, pp. 165-173.)
It might seem to the casual observer that little harm would
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1385
result in constructing a superhighway along a stream's course or
in straightening a curving section of roadway by crossing and
culverting, or channelizing and relocating a stream, or dredging
a streambed to secure gravel for aggregate or to straighten and
speed up the flow of runoff waters. The effect that most folk
overlook is the great damage that accrues from violent disruption
of the aquatic habitat.
*******
I think engineers, biologists, everyone working with resources
of one kind or another, seek public approval, and want to do the
best job they can. They often have to persuade some people to
look at other values. This is essentially what we are trying to
do here, to provide a basic force on the highway engineers and
builders to consider these matters seriously so we will have a
harmonious balance.
[p. 52]
(Testimony of Richard Stroud, Sport Fishing Institute, hearings
of the Senate Committee on Public Works on the Highway
Beautification and Scenic Road Program, 1965, pp. 438-455.)
Soil erosion control
The Committee on Public Works, through the activities of its
Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, has become increas-
ingly concerned with siltation as a form of water pollution. Sub-
urban home builders and highway builders are among the worst
sources of this form of pollution, and yet government, whether
Federal, State, or local, can hardly impose control measures on
the private construction industry when it ignores prudent soil
erosion control measures within its own area of responsibility.
The committee therefore urges the Secretary not only to imple-
ment the provisions of the committee amendment, but also to take
steps to minimize the time in which unsurfaced highway con-
struction projects are subject to the erosion of wind and water.
(Federal-aid Highway Act of 1966, S. Rept. 89-1410, p. 38.)
Preservation of parklands
[It is] the national policy of the Federal-aid highway programs
to preserve Federal, State, and local parklands and historic sites
and the beauty and value of such sites. The Secretary is directed
not to approve any Federal-aid highway project which requires
the use of such lands unless (1) there is no feasible alternative
to such use, and (2) the project plans include all possible pro-
-------
1386 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
visions to minimize harm to affected parkland and historic sites.
The committee recommends that this policy ba extended to in-
clude wildlife refuge areas as well.
(Ibid.)
The committee is firmly committed to the protection of vital
parklands, parks, historic sites, and the like. We would empha-
size that everything possible should be done to insure their being
kept free of damage or destruction, by reason of highway con-
struction. The committee would, however, put equal emphasis
on the statutory language which provides that in the event no
feasible and prudent alternative exists, that efforts be made to
minimize damage. To that end, the amendment contained in
section 114 of S. 3418, as reported, which would expand the
definition of "construction costs," should be helpful.
The committee would further emphasize that while the areas
sought to be protected by section (4) (f) of the Department of
Transportation and section 138 of title 23 are important, there
are other high priority items which must also be weighed in the
balance. The committee is extremely concerned that the high-
way program be carried out in such a manner as to reduce in
all instances the harsh impact on people which results from the
dislocation and displacement by reason of highway construction.
Therefore, the use of park lands properly protected and with
damage minimized by the most sophisticated construction tech-
niques is to be preferred to the movement of large numbers of
people.
(Federal-aid Highway Act of 1968, S. Kept. 90-1340, pp. 18-19.)
[p. 53]
Urban Impact of Highways
During 1967 the committee reviewed Federal policy relating to
urban highway planning, location, and design.
* * * Most people realize how important highways are to the
continued social and economic development of our Nation. High-
ways have proven to be one of the great contributors to our
system of communication, as well as transportion. When people
are able to move freely, safely, and conveniently from place to
place, the resulting exchange of information, goods, and services
works to the benefit of the entire national community.
^ % ^ fjl 5j5 -'f JjJ
We hope through these hearings to come to an understanding of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1387
what is being done and what can be done in urban highway con-
struction to make highways a force for improved environment
rather than as a factor which accentuates the already existing
elements of decay, disruption, and displacement.
(Opening statement at hearings of the Senate Committee on
Public Works, on Urban Highways, 1967, Ft. 1, pp. 1-5.)
First, we must apply to all capital improvement programs a
full accounting of their social and environmental costs and build
into all of these programs the means of meeting these costs;
And second, we must design all capital improvements to serve
more than a single purpose so that full social and environmental
benefit is extracted from such public investments.
The application of these two principles to the highway pro-
gram, I believe, is clear. The cost accounting applied to urban
highways until now has been deficient in that the ledger shows
the costs of the program only in terms of acquisition, design, and
construction. It does not show such real and tangible costs as the
additional street and storage capacity required at points of
egress; the taking of land from the tax rolls; the dislocation of
the people in the highway's path; the reduction in value of adja-*
cent property, the division and disruption of neighborhoods
stemming from insensitive location; and the visual blight result-
ing from insensitive design.
I believe, and I will return to the point, that the highway pro-
gram should include all the costs of building an urban highway,
including those that I have itemized, and pay a fair share of these
costs. To put it another way, I believe that the highway program,
and the highway user, should meet the
[p. 54]
consequences of the powerful and potentially disruptive act of
highway building in the city.
(Testimony of William Slay ton, Urban America, at hearings of
the Senate Committee on Public Works, on Urban Highways,
1967, Pt. 1, pp. 5-21.)
We had to take available published data, much of it very
primitive indeed, but I think any examination clearly must in-
clude not only factors of physiographic and slopes and so on,
bridge crossings points, but really must include social factors
-------
1388 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
and resource values too, and the development I think of a
humane and civilized route selection method will concentrate
I think not on engineering considerations but matters of man,
institution, and resource values.
(Testimony of Ian McHarg, University of Pennsylvania, at hear-
ings of the Senate Committee on Public Works, on Urban High-
ways, 1967, Pt. 1, p. 61.)
In the view of the committee, the emphasis of the Federal
Highway Administration on the development of multiple land
and air rights use, as an integral part of urban highway planning
design, is well placed. We encourage the Department of Trans-
portation, the Federal Highway Administration, and individual
State highway departments to give continued strong support to
this so-called joint development concept.
The significance of the concept's potential value is impressive
in terms of savings to the public, of more productive land use in
densely populated or highly concentrated urban areas, and of
prevention of haphazard development along the highway right-of-
way.
The public saves from joint development because, on its be-
half, the highway department eliminates costly severance dam-
ages associated with acquiring a highway right-of-way through
partial takings of land. Instead, the parcels are acquired in their
entirety for fair price, and the unusued portions either developed
or sold for development.
(Federal-aid Highway Act of 1968, S. Kept. 90-1340, p. 8.)
Urban highway planning
There is almost universal agreement on the need to approach
the complexities of urban highway planning and development
with all the professional and scientific expertise available. For
too long, highways were designed, located, and constructed as
single purpose projects. They were built to serve the needs of
traffic and, in many cases, without regard to their disruptive
effects on urban environment. Use of joint urban development
as well as other techniques has done much to correct the situation.
The committee believes that improvement in the overall coordina-
tion of highway projects is taking place.
*******
It should produce the basic mechanics needed, to provide a
better evaluation of urban transportation needs in terms of social,
esthetic, and economic values. It must be
[p. 55]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1389
pointed out, however, that the approach must be classified as
experimental. The committee is also aware that an approach
such as this, will tend to prolong the completion of the Interstate
System while these extensive studies take place.
There is no doubt that the knowledge gained in these efforts,
will provide a foundation for new methods and techniques to
assist in solving our complex urban transportation problems.
(Federal-aid Highway Act of 1968, S. Kept. 90-1340, pp. 11-12.)
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
* * * over the years, the steeply sloped Appalachian farms
have remained relatively unproductive and have undergone se-
vere erosion. The resulting denuded slopes have marred the
scenic beauty of the land, contributed to widespread siltation of its
streams, and have thus impeded the development of the great
potential for recreation and tourism.
Most of the small crop farming now practiced in Appalachia
is on a marginal basis and too frequently provides only a bare
subsistence living for the small farmer. It is, however, unreal-
istic to expect every small Appalachian farmer to give up his
farm immediately—an act which would largely result in simply
transforming rural poverty into urban poverty. Also, many of
the small farmers of the region, especially the elderly ones, are
deeply rooted in the land and prefer to live out their years on the
farm, rather than become public welfare clients in the towns and
cities. Thus, a coherent and equitable Appalachian development
program must provide for restoration of the land under its
present inhabitants and enable them to realize what benefits
the land can furnish.
(Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, S. Kept. 89-13,
p. 11.)
Water resources
An abundant annual rainfall in Appalachia gives the region a
water resource potential that can bs found in few other areas of
the country. Unfortunately, this potential has never bsen fully
realized, and all too often, water acts as a curse rather than a
blessing in Appalachia.
With proper control and management, Appalachia's water re-
sources can become the region's most precious natural asset, pro-
viding almost unlimited opportunities for recreational activities
and incentives for industrial development. (18)
-------
1390 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, S. Kept. 89-13,
p. 15.)
Mine area restoration
Much of the Appalachian landscape has been ravaged by the
mining of coal. Former practices of both strip mining and deep
mining operations have eroded the hillsides, polluted the streams,
and endangered the lives of thousands of people. Though present
enlightened management practices have made great progress
over former years, the abuses of past
[p. 56]
coal mining practices serve as a major deterrent to industrial
and recreational development in Appalachia.
(Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965, S. Rept. 89-13,
p. 16.)
TITLE III—PROPERTY ACQUISITION
GENERAL STATEMENT
The Senate has been concerned with the problems of space almost
from the beginning. When all Senators could no longer be accommo-
dated in the Senate wing of the Capitol, the Senate in 1891 acquired
the old Maltby Building which once stood at the junction of New
Jersey Avenue and B Street. This building was known as the Senate
Annex.
In 1909 three wings of the first Senate Office Building to be con-
structed were completed and occupied, and the fourth wing was com-
pleted in 1933. This building is now known as the Old Senate Office
Building.
By the middle of the 1940's it became apparent that additional office
space for the Senate must be provided, and in 1947 the 80th Congress
passed Public Law 169, which authorized the Architect of the Capitol,
under the direction of the Senate Office Building Commission, to pre-
pare preliminary plans and estimates for an additional Senate Office
Building. This building, now known as the New Senate Office
Building, was completed and occupied in 1958.
When the New Senate Office Building was being occupied for the
first time, the Committee on Rules and Administration determined
that each standing committee of the Senate should be entitled to a
minimum of one hearing room, and five adjacent offices. At the pres-
ent time there is not a single unassigned or unoccupied room on the
Senate side of the Capitol Building or in either of the two Senate
Office Buildings. Provision of space to accommodate Senators and
Senate activities has long since passed the critical stage.
In order to determine how prevalent the shortage of space was, the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1391
Subcommittee on Public Buildings and Grounds of the Committee on
Public Works sent letters to all Members of the Senate and to the
chairmen of Senate committees and subcommittees, asking whether
they required additional office space. As the result of these inquires,
72 Senators and 24 committees and subcommittees indicated that they
needed additional office space. It is evident that this additional space
can be provided on a permanent basis only through the construction
of an extension to the New Senate Office Building.
Such an extension was envisioned when the New Senate Office
Building was designed. In view of the present heavy financial com-
mitments of the U.S. Government, this is not the appropriate time
to initiate construction of this badly needed addition. However, in
order to have the necessary site available at such time as the addition
to the New Senate Office Building can ba constructed and to reduce
to the very minimum the cost of the site, the remaining lots in square
725 which would be needed as a part of the site should bs acquired
immediately.
It is estimated that the cost of these six remaining lots will not ex-
ceed $1,250,000.
[p. 57]
THE NEED
The New Senate Office Building is located in square 725, and if this
building is eventually extended to the east in this square, which is the
only way it can be done, it will be necessary for the United States to
own all of the property contained in the square, with the exception of
lot 885, which is known as the Belmont House, Public Law 85-591,
approved August 6, 1958, authorized the acquisition of all remaining
privately owned property in square 725, except lots 863, 864, 885, 892,
893, 894, and 905. Since all of these lots, except lot 885, would be re-
quired for the construction of a building addition and, in view of the
rapidly rising land costs in this area, these lots should be purchased
as expeditiously as possible.
HEARING
On August 3, 1967, the Subcommittee on Public Buildings and
Grounds conducted a hearing to find out how critical the Senate office
space situation was, and to seek means of providing additional space
to alleviate the unsatisfactory working conditions with which many
Members of the Senate are faced. Testimony was received from
12 Senators in person, and 14 additional Senators submitted state-
ments for the record. It was the general consensus of the testimony
offered that the only permament solution to the office space problem
was through the construction of an addition to the New Senate Office
Building.
[P. 58]
-------
1392
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Comments
T3
OJ
CJ
1
CD
E
•o
re
c
re
<§
Source
Location
CD
re
O
Booms, straw, and chemicals used, resource
damage minor.
.Lake Washington, Puget
Sound
CD
CD
C
O
ho
o
o
o
o
01
...Washington Natural Gas Co. storage
tank.
x:
S
re
CD
CO
CM
re
. .Booms and straw used by company.
..People evacuated from affected section of city
STP damaged.
>• .-
z o
i> £3
2 £
1 s
TZJ ,™
x o
100,000 gallons baflast. . .
*. . .700,000 gallons crude oil.
'. -O
.' c
tl>
re CD
srl
_ 0-
° 1
re o
CO CQ
•
_0
< IJ
r^S
t= C
re re
c
c
o
0 -a
o>
-- M
•S g
CD E
= •3
>»
«l
ce t
<1J
E re
£ 5
•Q —
£ K
re
Is
" =5
o> =
o
TO 4-"
si
O Q_
.C
CO
•0
C
3
O
CO
•a
re
bo
s
CO
O " .
'JZ
CM «-l
. ..Leaking barge
...Discharge pipe from shore installa
. ..Bridgeport, Con
. ..Rouge River, Mi
r-.' «3
OJ CD
U- LJ_
..Vessel was moved to Staten Island on Mar. 17
and offloaded.
ift
ro
CQ
ro
CQ
"3
LO
o'
z
re
3
ro
E
CO
"5
bD
CO
CO
ro
1—
re
m
re
3
CQ
Cl
CD
. .Booms, vacuum trucks, and straw used to collect
most of the spilled material.
_j
ro
bo
'oc
O
CQ
O
•o
.a
o
CD
bo
re
"o
bo
1
_j
•o
TO
O
(n
u.
..Vessel libeled by U S. attorney.
..Sawdust used to absorb spilled oil.
..Spilled material dissipated by high river flow.
..Company applied dispersants.
..Steuart Petroleum Co. applied dispersant.
..Booms and vacuum truck used by company
(Texaco).
.Portland Harbor, Maine..
.Providence River, R.I....
.Mississippi River
.Oswego Harbor, N.Y
.Potomac River
.Port Neches Harbor, Tex.
£- a) a) QJ | !
£ U> C-4 (N 0 £
**•* .& m
5 c ~ c J bo
M "ro re "ro 3 "CD
~ bo J3 Ofl cr ^
"^ O O O — ra
-^ O O O 03 -°
-^ o^ m_ o_ g 0
O i-J" CM" ro co m
. . .Vessel pumped bilges
...Overflow from storage tank
. ..Barges in collision
...Niagara-Mohawk Power Co. pipeline
. . .Spilled by tanker in off-loading. . . .
. . .Refinery pipeline
. . .Portland, Maine
. . .Providence, R.I.
. . .Memphis, Tenn.
. . .Oswego, N.Y. .
. . .Piney Point, Md.
.. .Port Neches, Tex
r-« .-1 CM CM CN O
U. Q_ U. U_ U_
E
0
o
O)
•o
c:
re
•a
CD
O
U
QJ
1
"S -^
= i
a.
CO
x
a>
1—
CD
CO
. >-
cc .y
L_
c CL-
OD i^
m 'Jj
5
CD •
t TO
re o
o c
o •*•'
CM" «*•
. . .Marathon pipeline broke
. . .Tram derailment
o o
— " CD
— CD
CQ o
o 5
CO O
Q
CO
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1393
T3
O>
Q.
w
T3
.*
o
hO
C
_
CD
ce
0)
c
ot
o
o
o
o
01
T3
I/)
cu
O
O
0^
&
u
•o"
c
3
o
bo
"c
o
•S-d
>- cu
- o
^ -=
w £
i
•o
c
o
CJ
o
c
°
o
CO
0)
ce
0 "*
.p ra
Is
'o
CD
t
TO
-Q
r^.
_j
en
cu
>
o
o
E
O
cu
o
...Broken
(A
S
, . .Boston,
(O
TO
E
a
o
"o
1
.a
o
c
JC
Offshhore winds of 20
sea and dissipated it.
o
'x
S
o
O
"o
xj
CM
Q.
3
Q.
CU
C
E
o
1
o
xi
cu
o
X
J3
aT
"w
•a
TO
o
CN
TO
s
>
CD
. O
'5 ttt
c
Q. —
'in x:
in cj
^ i
....Wind and wave action
Materials trapped m a
! "t
• ra
; o
* >
s*
• ra
• a.
: 5=
! QJ
'. "5
! ro
. bfl
• c
! —
S 0
«f
m CNJ
TD
CD
QJ *
sl
- s
II
o
ss
2 —
Q. C
CD 03
eo >
: r
3 |
ho :
0) TO
S "
S a
oS
CJ <*
TO TO
5 S
none escaped.
-o
cu
cu
5
C/)
c
o
&a
LO ,_;
0
1
CU
&
•o
CU
Chemicals and foam us
z
1Z
<
C3
TO
txO
O
C
ro
3
CT
CO
^:
u
o
TO
C
o
o
"o.
X
cu
cu
Q.
lc
CO
Z
>l
o
xa
E
...Perth Ai
in
ro
E
jj
o
T3
0)
"TO
Q.
S
CU
x:
S
cu
xa
o
U-
s
X
"S
1
JC
u
'5
cu
i!
c ra
TO 3
CT
— o
o
*T
3
O
£
O
"cu
£
o
0
x;
0
Q.
C
O
£3
O
f^.
i
ouisiana,
_j
_
"TO
o
x;
V)
c
TO
CU
U
o
cu
CD
S
o
Small quantity escaped
needed.
TO
•£.
vT
cu
E
. .Annesquam
'o
"cu
o
"ro
bo
g
o
•a
cu
overflo
JC
(J
c
1—
TO
4",
, . .Glouces
o
CJ
TO
•s.
fe ^
i % £
^ - "—
o
ra
T3 _
TO M
E^
O J£
O O
X3 0
•0 Q
Private contractor use
remove material, MS
J
>
a:
a
ra
x7
O
>,
O
•o
c
3
0
CL
0
g_-
s °
|!
j«:
c
I
T3
, ..Shores!
_
. .Chicago
01
TO
E
3
j
Q.
E
3
Q.
E
3
o
0
E
o
o
CQ
cu
ce
.Providence
'o
(0
0
z
"cu
XI
o
in
"E
t-
,5
M
>
^
, . . Tanker
ce
c
,£
cu
QJ
^
00
ro
S
w.
Q.
>,
J3
•a
g
o
E
cu
•a
c
ra
•a
Spilled material boome
contractor.
ra
J
O
x:
0
3
CM
0
Z
TO
X3
S
^
?
1
w
2
, ..Boston,
:
CM
3:
o
c
'5
-o
cu
x:
TO
S
c
ra
Boom placed but heavy
marsh.
c
I
•a
c
QO
C
3
"SJ
iO
o
c
~m
DO
g
g
U
CU
E
w_-
5
E cu
O TJ
0) ra
00 C
CO TO
c:
8
•O
. ..Stamfoi
CO
I
TO
JsC
U
"«
T3
TO
TO
CL
cu
« >,
.....Containment of widely
rial dispersed natural
c
o
o
j?
CO
u
c
TO
TO
H- O
||
||
|ji
CU
o.
1/1
cu
*
c
a>
c
•o
cu bo
Q. ~
CO
c"
c:
o
o
2
cu
"^
1
g
0
•o
cu
3
C
CU
£
Missing crewmen and 1
owed pollution.
cu
£
'o.
Q.
is
•a
O)
.1
o
c
o
"o
•a
c
00
OD
TO
C
CU
cu
1
c -7;
. . .Colhsic
vessi
CO
V)
c
TO
a>
...New Or
r-
CL
tartment flush
evaporated.
sr «
Q E
o> S
S
District of Columbia
material into river;
i
Anacostia R
0
c
o
bo
V) QJ
.2 c
Q. —
O <"
g a
§
c
o
•a
cu
c
3
•c
o
"§
'C
a.
>,
X3
-^; Q.
Boomed and dissipatet
Boomed and cleaned u,
« S
..Calumet Riv
. .Boston Harl
0
§1
=" CD O
S > s
o jj1 je
1 *
E _-
' 3
, ..Portlani
. ..Portsrm
' 0
CT) .H
33
-------
1394
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(J
1
>1
ez
CD
•o
O
fr
.Samples collected ti
cz
o
•z.
o
o
^ -d
cz 5i
o S
ro E
CU Vi
-a _
•s§
+_, CD
C ^
CU Vt
s-s
.a
(£5
C
3
o
_£
c
ID
-,
s
c
p
applied dispersant.
d Apr. 14 — no acti
— 03
"O "o
M
is
Ss
•o «
CD ™
S E
&s
t3 Z
0 CO
" m
to
" CO
• r-
: S
j^ "ro
0, 0
£6
O
CD
II
3e
'• 5
• ^H
i °
5 •**
0 c
° 1
"ra -Q
oo
• o
. c
. CD
• "D
• C
. q>
• O.
C T3
5C
—
CD
M .
« w
TO . •
XI t«
0) =>
bO
= g
"(/) Q.
O 3
O CO
•d ;
>,
in
ra
•a
CO
o
a.
>,
S
CD
J£
ro
CD
a.
«
3
A
i
cu
•o
^1
CJ
cz
in o
o
c
"co
i dispersed materi
o
.Wind and wave acl
damage reported.
CD
UJ
SL
'5
CD
a
,
3
•o
CZ
"o '5
II
ro 3
bo u
o —
°s
to"
0)
cz
JS
Q.
2
CD
3
o
o
d.
o
o
CD
>»
.C
o
JZ
CJ
s
aT
ll
3 QJ
ZZ JZ
0 **
Q. _
H_ CD
°£
CD ro
u
CZ u>
0) ro
S 3
u
cz a.
Irz
3 ^
o
.Barge salvaged with
.Pollution secondary.
• X
: s
; o
; vi
J *o
CU (A
ii S
•z i
g <=
S S
sS
2 T,
p
Is
*1
« !3
§M
w co"
"a "o.
'C TO
1- Z.
S"
CD
bO
ra
m "
X
V) tU
ez Q.
S "*
° 1
IF
,j-
CD" cu
t30 JC
^- c
ro ra
m i—
I *"
d c
s -5,
,5
1 =
1-
.5 u
*- o
(0 **
1?
£3
(U ...
S ^
c 2
o *•
safety considerati
.Booms and vacuum
z:
•2
3
<
"cu
3
Li «
d
^ Z
Q)
=1 J3
m
t
o
o
CO
o
UJ
CD
J£
1—
-!
O
J£
3
|
3
O
g
•o
c
TO
E
Q
company.
.Contractor used bo
ro
u
.Indiana Harbo
CD
3
to
d
z
cr
o
"TO
bo
g
O
o
CM
C
bo
o
>•
oT
bp
TO
JZ»
'3
o
cu
c
c
CD
•*•
£
CD
C
o
.t
s
15,000 gallons.
itain material un
-o o
CU (J
>
CD
"i- O
tr
•o
CD
& =
S »
o> E
0 g
m
i
. .Saginaw River
o
CD
JD
O
V)
CZ
J3
00
o
in
d
o ;
cu
JZ! .
3
H
08 c
"o> 3
« $
' c
LD
JZ
-o
cu
o
o.
CD
"5
C
"o
TO
a.
o
€
TO
evaporated.
Spill discovered by
V
Q.
Q.
3
, .Gowanus Cana
'o
"CD
3
*fr
Z
V
s
o
•^r
CM
*e
S
bO
ro
0
vt
bo
IZ
5
o
CD
O
>
al
cting under Refuse
/ wind and wave acl
TO .O
by principals, C. E
.Spilled oil dissipatec
•o
3
O
CO
"O
c
. TO
>> "w
!i
o 2
ss
= £
O
"to
3
U3
d
z
"CD
co
o
o
CM
O
bo
S
CD
O
"~
o"
«3-
d
z
"c
2
£
a.
-
CD
bO
TO
CD
V
Z
•d"
T3
CD
tz
u
c
CD
|0
t
q
c
J S
"i= ?
| 5
** c
ID
J=
CJ
ii
WJ
JZ
(J
co
J3
beaches.
o
3
.O
J=
.2
iz
c
03
CJ
>i
JZl
•u
CD
£2
CD
Q.
T3
CU
bo
Q.
V)
O
O
s
X
2
CD
*oz
TO
=1
CT
0
E
CM
d
Z
>t
ro
CT
cz
1
X.
c;
Z)
"BO
c
"o
Q_
_j
"C
1
(X
-
CD
bO
m
X
z
TT
(Z
TO
•o
C
•i
o
u
i!
~ >I
je zz
gjj
S »
•" cz
reported to have
.Gasoline dissipated
o
.0
ra
X
JC
£
3
CD
•z.
>.
cz
TO
3
cr
o>
bO
_TO
'o
_J ~
CD
O
z
•o
c
TO
C
1
U
o
•o
o>
3
-1C
O
cleaned up.
.Booms and vacuum
z
O)
>
cc
c
TO
EC
3
(£>
d
Z
QJ (A
.5 "3
ra S
M°
So
00
d
Z
•o
&
TO
«
-
CD
bp
ra
m
"i
z
jj"
CJ
t
TO
•a
c
n
:ion considered sec
£
—
•a
cu"
bo
ra
'D.
CJ
CD
"o
CJ
O
>,
c
ra
in importance.
.Straw used by comp
TO
o
00
.San Francisco
(/>
TO
JD
O
in
CD"
-o
3
U
i
-'
"^
CD
g
O
CD
bo
ro
UJ
CO
C/5
1_-
^£
H
V) O ,_
E r £
CM CM
Q. CL
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1395
O
«>
n c
=1
§.
,
-Q
T3
QJ
M
•a
to
Q.
c5
aj
o
c
a>
3
W
C
CO
a>
£
o
c
>,
c
a.
E
o
o
i TO
E!
CD O>
o *-
° &
CJ 3
o3 =
"^ S
£ o
^
TO
V)
QJ
Irt
£
JC
CJ
co
JD
'o
5
QJ
X3
T3
C
d by owners.
o>
c
(O
cu
cB
5
•o
QJ
3
£
E c
O *-
0 ?
O
. U)
Q.
i ™
ro "
« 5
<_>
e.&
•o —
w "°
3 S
immer
respor
"« "0
CD
-o E
TO m
5 in
2 =!
3
-o
C
ro
CD
O
CO
S
5
c
'ro
d. c
3 O
So
T3 0>
o> E
00 5
S5
TO CJ
CD
10
QJ
X
QJ
CJ
Jt
0
"i/5
O
o
CD
lo evidenc
3
Jicated no serious po
c
c
o
TO
Q.
"O
O
OJ
bo
3
X
§
>
\
s
o
O
'o.
vt
c
CO
bO
C
o
o
TO
bo
CD
O
State of Wisconsin •
) Statute 29.29/3.
>\ (/)
-Q c
_ o
| "
1 £
1!
o o
Q. ^
£ S
•e
£
•c
E
*- >- V)
S£ £
o •- -
•- •£ P '=
cu .2
S .5? E
. ™ ^ o E
S S •- S »
m S SE^1C Si
£ 2 J3 o li „ .2
*- G£ . J£ CO ~ CE
Z CO Jj S
»$! S »
C CM - £
£ - « t
S — ^ TO
O ' "S 3 . ^ <*»
= ; M _- ^ ^ — &
s : g ° ^ ^ g" t S
1,1 HJifi
c\j o t-< o o t-n in
•o — o
.2 E e"°
o
~ o
o «-<
10 d i
2 o E
5 - £
a) ° o
2? | J?
CD W o
3 - •
^i
<
i >i E
• ro m
: S £
i ° Ef
£ TO jr .^
Z <
0.0 —
° S
oj -
OJ
-------
1396
LEGAL COMPILATION—-WATER
E
|c
E
tf) T3
C C
O nt
E *- -
cl
0
1
i .,_, ;o
— E o ce
. S . = ;
•= 5 S 2 S
§ 1
'Z. O
42 S :
^- a) ^i
, •; 42 §
^ 3 •»
. ra U -o
a 5 ~
o ^ ^j
. .a
~ o o s
'*!*-
" I S S
i ro _2 c E
1 c c ro c
' O O 4) -
^ I E
E o
5 c
Q> —
15
r: i- « o
So ra u
E 5 _
E ».
= .2 E ^
^^ i S
°- •- 3. ^'H
" <= « o: "
^ o ^j ^ ^
5 3 i 3> ™
o>
• ii 3
^ 0}
o -a
1 si«£
3 g ra S S
? "^ E5
'i o 10
u -C o
V —
3 ro
ro T3 —
O
^- »_ ro
> •£ E g
E ^ " I
TO
E E S z
. 2 U 5
,00-0
(0 S; •*•
•a u.
TO
S H E £ m
SS « r
— ._ n
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1397
o o>
V, 6
-------
1398 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
TITLE I—WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
SECTION 101
This section would cite this title as the "Water Quality Improve-
ment Act of 1969".
SECTION 102
Section 102 of the bill would repeal sections 17 and 18 of the Act;
redesignate sections 11 through 16 as sections 16 through 21 and sec-
tion 19 as section 22; and add five new sections. The repealed sections
17 and 18 called for studies and reports to be completed in 1967 and
1968, respectively. There is no further work required under either
section.
Section 11—Control of pollution from vessels
The new section 11 is concerned with the control of the discharge of
sewage from vessels into the navigable waters of the United States.
This provision reflects recommendations in the report entitled "Wastes
from Watercraft" (S. Doc. 90-48) submitted to the Congress by the
Department of the Interior on August 7, 1967.
Section 11 (a)—Definitions
Section 11 (a) would define the various terms used in the section.
Section 11 (b)—Standards
This section would direct the Secretary of the Interior within two
years after the effective date of this section to promulgate standards
of performance for marine sanitation devices to prevent the discharge
of untreated or inadequately treated sewage from all new and existing
vessels equipped with installed toilet facilities. These standards must
be consistent with maritime safety and other marine laws and regula-
tions. The section would also direct the Coast Guard to promulgate
regulations which govern the design, construction, installation, and
operation of marine sanitation devices installed on board vessels
subject to this section. The regulations must be consistent with the
standards.
This section would also exempt from such standards and regulations
vessels equipped with a device installed pursuant to State require-
ments prior to the promulgation of such standards and regulations
until the device is replaced or unless it does not remain in compliance
with the applicable State law.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1399
Section 11 (c)—Effective date
This section would provide that standards and regulations for new
vessels become effective two years after promulgation. Standards and
regulations for existing vessels would become effective five years after
promulgation. Revisions thereof would be effective on date specified
in such revisions.
[p. 63]
The Coast Guard may waive application of standards and regula-
tions to various classes, types, and sizes of vessels for such periods as
may be necessary and, upon application, waivers may be granted for
individual vessels. It is expected that the Coast Guard would consult
with the Secretary of the Interior before granting waivers of any
standards.
Section 11 (d)—Application to Federal vessels
This section would require compliance with Federal standards and
regulations by public vessels of the United States, except where
compliance conflicts with national security, as determined by the
Secretary of Defense.
Section ll(e)—Consultation
This section would require that the Secretary and the Coast Guard
consult with Federal and State agencies and other interested parties
and comply with the provisions of section 553 of the United States
Code (the Administrative Procedure Act) prior to promulgation of
standards and regulations.
Section 11 (f)—Preemption
This section would preempt State or local laws or regulations rela-
tive to the design, manufacture, installation, or use of marine sanita-
tion devices on new or existing vessels for which such devices are
required under section 11 (c) after the Federal standards and regula-
tions applicable to such vessels are effective. Such State laws and
regulations could still continue in effect in the case of other vessels.
Also, a State may prohibit all sewage discharges from all vessels into
certain waters within its boundaries in order to implement applicable
water quality standards. This section will aid in insuring uniform
standards and regulations, while recognizing the paramount im-
portance of not permitting even treated discharges in some waters in
furtherance of the water quality standards program.
Section 11 (g)—Certification
This section would prohibit the sale or delivery into commerce of
a device, the prototype of which is not certified; establish procedures
for certification; and provide for the maintenance of records.
-------
1400 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Section 11 (h)—Unlawful acts
This section would provide that, after the effective date of standards
and regulations, it shall be unlawful:
To manufacture, or distribute for sale, vessels, subject to Federal
standards and regulations without a certified device;
To, wrongfully, remove or render inoperative a certified marine
sanitation device installed prior to sale or delivery to the ultimate
purchaser;
To refuse Federal authorities access to records; and
To operate a vessel subject to the standards and regulations if it
is not equipped with an operable device.
Section 11 (i)—Injunctive relief
This section would give jurisdiction to the courts to restrain those,
who under section 11 (h), unlawfully manufacture or distribute for
[p. 64]
sale vessels without a device, remove or render inoperative a device,
or refuse access to records.
Section 11 (j)—Penalties
This section would establish civil penalties in case of violations of
section 11 (h) to be assessed after notice and hearing by the Coast
Guard. Civil penalties not paid after administrative proceedings may
be collected by the United States in the Federal district courts in a
de novo proceeding.
Section 11 (k)—Enforcement
This section would place the responsibility for enforcement in the
Coast Guard with assistance by the Secretary of the Interior, other
Federal agencies, or the States.
Section 11(1)—Inspection
This section would authorize the Coast Guard to inspect vessels
in U.S. waters and issue and execute warrants.
Section 11 (m)—Jurisdiction
This section would grant jurisdiction to various courts in cases of
actions arising under section 11.
Section 12—Control of oil discharge
The new section 12 is concerned with the control and cleanup of
oil discharges into inland waters of the United States and waters of
the U.S. territorial seas, and in the case of vessels, into the waters
of the 9-mile zone contiguous to the territorial sea. Its purpose is to
insure swift removal of discharged oil in order to prevent, minimize, or
mitigate damage to property and our natural resources. It does not
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1401
apply to discharges from offshore facilities covered by leases and
regulations under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, but does
not in any way affect claims to persons or agencies damaged by
such discharges.
Section 12 (a)—Definitions
This section would define the various terms used in the section.
The definition of "oil" is very broad, and only specifically excludes
dredged spoil. This definition is concerned with petroleum and
petroleum products and therefore vegetable oil and similar products
would not be included.
The definition of "discharge" is designed to cover by its broad terms
all possible means of fouling the waters with oil.
The definition of a "vessel" is identical to that in section 3, Title 1,
United States Code, and would include all vessels, both foreign and
domestic.
The definition of the term "public vessel" would cover Federal- and
State-owned and operated vessels and vessels owned and operated by a
foreign country, except those not engaged in commerce.
The definition of "United States" includes Guam, American Samoa,
the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, the Canal Zone, and the Trust
Territory of the Pacific Islands, as well as all the States and the
District oi Columbia.
The definition of "owner and operator" would include individuals
or organizations, such as a corporation, association, firm, or partner-
ship, that own, operate, charter by demise, a vessel, or own or operate
an onshore or offshore facility.
[p. 65]
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 vessels beyond the territorial sea and impose
sanctions for violation of such regulations is contained in article 24
of the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone.
Article 24 1 (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
-------
1402 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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 sess., 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 definition of "onshore and offshore facilities" distinguishes
between drilling and production facilities and other facilities. Drilling
and production facilities and related appurtenances, such as pipelines,
platforms, barges used for drilling purposes, etc., are those that are
used or capable of being used solely for the purpose of exploring for,
drilling, or producing oil. To other facilities are those that are used
or capable of being used to process, transport, or transfer oil, or to
store oil commercially. Neither definition applies to individual homes
where oil is stored, or small businesses other than marine facilities
which are used or capable of being used to store 500 barrels of oil
or less. Few existing or planned service stations have a storage
capacity of more than 500 barrels. In either case, the facility could
be located either permanently or temporarily on dry land or land
under the navigable waters of the United States which includes inland
waters and coastal waters out to the 3-mile territorial sea limit.
The definition of an "act of God" means an act occasioned exclu-
sively by violence of nature without the interference of any human
action.
Section 12 (b) (1)—Discharge prohibition
This section would prohibit all oil discharges into U.S. waterways
and the waters of the contiguous zone from any source, except where
permitted under a 1954 convention, and where permitted by regula-
tions issued by the President. Such regulations would be issued pur-
suant to 5 U.S.C. 553 relative to rulemaking and must be consistent
with maritime laws and regulations and water quality standards.
Section 12 (b) (2)—Discharge penalty
This section would authorize a civil penalty for knowingly violating
the regulations promulgated under the previous section. If payment
[p. 66]
is not forthcoming administratively, such penalty may be collected in
the Federal district court in a de novo proceeding.
Section 12 (c)—Notice requirement
This section would require any person in charge of a vessel or an
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1403
offshore or onshore facility at the time of a discharge of oil into the
navigable waters of the United States or into the waters of the con-
tiguous zone to notify immediately the United States.
This section would also provide a criminal penalty for any person in
charge of such vessel or facility who knowingly fails to notify the
United States. The term "person in charge" is deliberately designed
to cover only supervisory personnel who have the responsibility for
the particular vessel or facility and not to include other employees.
The purpose of the notice provision is to prevent or mitigate damage
and facilitate cleanup. Such notice and information contained therein
may not be used in any criminal action under Federal or State laws.
Section 12 (d) (1)—Regulations
This section would direct the President to issue regulations to
govern the removal of oil which is discharged, aid in the enforcement
of this section, prevent oil pollution, and establish criteria for oil
removal contingency plans. It is expected that the President will
periodically review these regulations and make appropriate changes
to reflect changing conditions and to take into account advances in
the technology for the handling of oil and for removing oil discharged.
The regulations will also cover procedures to review and approve,
where appropriate, such plans of owners or operators as well as public
agencies.
Section 12 (d) (2)—Penalties
This section would authorize a civil penalty for violating the above
regulations. If payment is not forthcoming administratively, such
penalty may be collected in the Federal district court in a de novo
proceeding.
Section 12 (e)—General liability
The section would require that when oil is discharged in violation
of section 12 (b) the oil must be removed immediately under the above
regulations. The object of this provision is to make the discharger
completely responsible for cleaning up the discharged oil and pre-
venting or lessening potential damage.
It would provide, if the discharger fails, or is unable to act to
remove the oil, authority for the President may take appropriate
measures to remove the oil either directly or by contract. If the dis-
charger acts improperly the President could also act to remove the oil.
Section 12 (f)—Vessel liability
This section would limit the liability of a vessel owner or operator
for the cost of removal of discharged oil by the United States to up
to $125 per gross ton of the vessel, or $14 million, whichever is less.
-------
1404 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
This limitation, however, would not apply if the discharge was the
result of a negligence or a willful act on the part of the owner or
[P- 67]
operator or his agents, employees, etc. In such case, the owner or
operator would be liable for all costs of removal borne by the United
States. The owner or operator may not be held liable, however, for
these costs :f he can prove the discharge was caused solely by an act
of God or war or negligence of the U.S. Government or any act of a
third party.
The reference in this section and section 12 (i) to negligence of the
U.S. Government is not intended, nor should it be construed as
creating any new liability on the part of the Government. Further,
where it is alleged that negligence of the U.S. Government arises
through a negligent act or omission of a Federal employee, the owner
or operator must show that the employee was acting within the scope
of his office or employment, but still negligent, and the exceptions in
28 U.S.C. 2680 are intended to be applicable here in determining
whether the U.S. Government was negligent or not.
Section 12 (f) (2)—Financial responsibility
This section would provide that any vessel over 300 gross tons
which use any port or place in the United States or the navigable
waters of the United States for any purpose must establish evidence
of financial responsibility of $100 per gross ton to meet the maximum
potential liability to the United States which the vessel could be
subjected to for the discharge of oil under section 12 (f) (1). The
financial responsibility should be established pursuant to regulations
to be prescribed from time to time by the agency head to which the
President has delegated this responsibility. Financial responsibility
may include insurance policies, bonds, evidence of self-insurance, or
evidences of such responsibility that the agency head deems appro-
priate. All bonds filed must be issued by a bonding company author-
ized to do business in the United States. Provisions of financial
responsibility also apply to barges that are equivalent in size to
vessels over 300 tons.
Section 12 (g)—Service of process
This section would require that a person in the United States be
designated for service of process in matters arising under section 12.
Section 12 (h)—Treasury clearance of vessels
This section would direct that the Secretary of Treasury withhold
clearance of a vessel, other than a public vessel, that is liable for
any costs or penalties to the United States under section 12 or has
failed to meet the requirements for financial responsibility.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1405
Section 12 (i) (1)—Onshore and offshore facility responsibility
This section would limit the liability of an owner or operator of a
nondrilling-production facility to the United States for the cost in-
curred in removing discharged oil to $125 per ton of oil which such
facility is capable, while operating at maximum capacity, of either
processing, transporting, transferring in any 24-hour period, or storing
in its largest unit. The limitation, however, would not apply if the
discharge was the result of negligence or a willful act of the owner
or operator, his agent, or any employee thereof. Also, the owner or
operator would not be liable for such costs if he is able to prove that
the discharge was caused solely by an act of God or war, or solely by
[p. 68]
negligence of the U.S. Government or solely by an act of a third party.
In determining the amount of the liability, the owner or operator
would be required to establish conclusively the capacity of the
facility.
Section 12 (i) (2)—Onshore and offshore drilling-production facility
liability
This section would establish the liability of an owner or operator
to the United States for oil discharges from an onshore or offshore
drilling-production facility of not to exceed $8 million. This limita-
tion, however, would not apply if the discharge was due to a negligent
or willful act on the part of the owner or operator, his agent, or any
employee thereof. The owner or operator would not be responsible
for costs where he can prove that the discharge was caused solely by
an act of God or war or solely by the act of a third party or solely by
negligence of the U.S. Government.
Section 12 (j)—Recovery from the United States
In any instance where the owner or operator removes the dis-
charged oil and he is subsequently able to prove in a suit against the
United States in the Court of Claims that the discharge was caused
solely by an act of a third party or an act of God or war or by negli-
gence on the part of the U.S. Government, the owner or operator is
entitled to recover such costs from the fund established under section
12 (k). If the discharge was caused solely by an act of a third party,
the United States shall be subrogated to any rights that the owner
or operator may have against such third party. This section does
not apply to cases where liability is established under the Outer
Continental Shelf Lands Act. The United States, of course, would
have normal rights of appeal.
Section 12 (k)—Delegation and revolving fund
This section would authorize the President to delegate his functions
-------
1406 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
under section 12 to one or more appropriate Federal agencies. It
would authorize a revolving fund. The maximum amount in the fund
from appropriations would be $50 million.
Section 12(1)—Rights Over
This section would establish that the provisions of section 12 are not
intended to affect the rights of an owner or operator or the U.S. Gov-
ernment against third parties who may have caused or contributed
to an oil discharge.
Section 12 (m) —Enforcement
This section would grant enforcement authority in carrying out
provisions of section 12.
Section 12 (n)—Emergency Action
This section would provide authority similar to that in an 1899
statute administered by the Secretary of the Army (33 U.S.C. 415).
It would authorize the United States in cases where the President
determines that there is an imminent and substantial threat to the
public health or welfare, because of an actual threat or discharge of
oil into the navigable waters of the United States from a vessel, to
take immediate possession of the vessel and such other action that may
be appropriate. Any expenses incurred by the United States could be
[p. 69]
recovered subject to the same limitations found in sections 12 (f) and
(§)•
Similarly, the President under the same conditions may require
that the U.S. attorney seek relief to abate any actual or threatened
discharge of oil from any onshore or offshore facility.
Section 12 (o)—Jurisdiction
This section would provide jurisdiction in the Federal district courts
and in various other district courts relative to Guam, Virgin Islands,
American Samoa, Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and the
Canal Zone.
Section 12 (p)—Other Laws Not Affected
This section would provide that the provisions of section 12 shall
not be construed as affecting or modifying any other existing authori-
ties under Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, or any
other Federal law or any State or local law not in conflict with the
provisions of section 12.
Section 12 (q)—Disclaimer
This section would provide that section 12 will not affect or modify
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1407
the obligations of any owner or operator for damages to persons or
property resulting from the discharge of oil or from the removal of
such oil.
Section 13—Control of hazardous polluting substances
This new section 13 is concerned with the identification, control,
and cleanup of hazardous substances, other than oil.
Section 13 (a) -(/)—Identification of hazardous substances
This section would direct the President to develop, promulgate,
and revise regulations designating various hazardous substances, other
than oil, which when discharged in any quantity into the navigable
waters of the United States, or the waters of the contiguous zone,
would present an imminent and substantial danger to the public
health or welfare and establishing where appropriate, criteria for the
removal of such substances. The development of these regulations
must include consultation with various public and private agencies
and organizations and individuals interested in such regulations.
Where appropriate, public hearings could be held in developing the
regulations. Consideration must also be given to the latest available
scientific data, technical feasibility of the regulations, and experience
gained under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Regulations
, would be published in the Federal Register as proposed regulations
and interested persons would be given at least 30 days to comment
thereon. At the end of that time the regulations may be finally pro-
mulgated unless an interested person has filed objections stating
grounds therefor and requesting a public hearing on such objections.
After the notice period, the objections must be published in the Fed-
eral Register by notice and a public hearing held as soon as possible
thereafter. On completion of the hearing, the President must make
findings of fact and he may promulgate such modification of regula-
tions as appropriate or take other action as he deems appropriate.
All findings must be made public.
Any person aggrieved by such regulation for which a hearing was
held may within 60 days file a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals
[p. 70]
for the District of Columbia requesting that the regulation be modified
or set aside. The court must hear the appeal on the record made
before the President and the substantial evidence rule shall apply to
the findings of the President. The court may affirm, vacate, or remand
the proceedings. The review afforded by this procedure in the Court
of Appeals shall be exclusive as to the person seeking the petition
and such person cannot raise the validity of the regulation in any
subsequent procedure relating to the enforcement thereof. The filing
-------
1408 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
of a petition does not stay the regulations unless the court so orders
after finding that there is substantial likelihood that the President's
findings are erroneous and that irreparable injury will result if the
stay is not granted.
Section 13 (g) —Notice
This section would require that notice be given immediately to the
United States upon the discharge of any hazardous substance from
an onshore or offshore facility or a vessel in order to permit immediate
action to remove or otherwise mitigate damage from the discharged
substance. Criminal penalties apply for anyone who knowingly fails
to so notify. Such notice and information contained therein may not
be used in any criminal action under Federal or State law.
Section 13 (h) —Removal
This section would direct that the United States remove any dis-
charged substance unless appropriate action is taken immediately by
the discharger to remove the substance.
Section 13 (i)—Penalties
This section would provide civil penalties for violation of regulation
promulgated under section 13 (a). If payment is not forthcoming ad-
ministratively such penalties may be collected in Federal court in a
de novo proceeding.
Section 13 (j)—Disclaimer
This section would provide that section 13 will not affect or modify
the obligations of an owner or operator for damages to anyone for
damage to persons or property resulting from the discharge of a
hazardous substance or from the removal of such substance.
Section 13 (k) —Enforcement
This section would provide enforcement authority in carrying out
the provisions of section 13.
Section 13(1)—Court jurisdiction
This section would provide jurisdiction in the Federal district
courts in case of any actions arising under section 13.
Section 13 (m)—Definition
This section would define various terms used in section 13 and make
applicable the definitions of section 12 (a) as to the terms, oil, dis-
charge, vessels, public vessel, United States, person, contiguous zone,
and act of God.
Section 13 (n)—Report
This section would require that the President submit a report to
the Congress by November 1, 1970, on the need for, and desirability
of, legislation imposing liability for the cost of removal of hazardous
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1409
substances. The report would be based on an accelerated study on
[p. 71]
the methods and measures for controlling substances, the most appro-
priate measures for enforcement, and the methods of imposing sanc-
tions where removal is impossible or impractical.
Section 13 (o)—Delegation
This section would authorize the President to delegate his respon-
sibility to other Federal agencies. In addition it would make available
for the purpose of section 13 the fund established under section 12 of
the Act.
Section 14—Area Acid and Other Mine Water Pollution Control
Demonstrations
This new section 14 would authorize a demonstration program
regarding acid or other mine water pollution control.
Section 14 (a)
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to carry
out an areawide program within all or part of a watershed to demon-
strate methods for the elimination or control of acid or other mine
water pollution resulting from active or abandoned mines. The work
would be done under agreements with the interested States or inter-
state agencies acting jointly or severally depending on where the
project is located. The projects must demonstrate the engineering
and economic feasibility and practicality of using single or multiple-
abatement techniques.
Section 14 (b)
This section would provide that the project area be all or part of a
watershed. In selecting such an area, the Secretary must (1) require
to the extent needed, a feasibility study which may be carried out
by the Secretary or the States, (2) give a preference to those areas
with the greatest public values and uses either present or future, and
(3) be satisfied that the project area will not be affected to any
serious degree from other polluting sources.
Section 14 (c)
This section would provide that the State share of a project shall
be at least 25 percent of the total project costs. This payment may
be in the form of land or interests therein actually acquired by the
State or a subdivision thereof for the project after the enactment of
this new section, facilities, and personal services, and money. The
value of the land, facilities, and services will be determined by the
Secretary. It is the purpose of this section to encourage the States to
participate to the greatest extent possible so that there may be
-------
1410 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
developed meaningful projects which will produce the experience
needed to develop an effective control program.
This section would require the State to establish adequate mech-
anisms and controls, including plans of enforcement, to prevent any
activity that may cause future mine water pollution and destroy or
severely damage the work carried out in the project area.
Section 14 (d)
This section would authorize an appropriation of $15 million for
this program. The funds would be available until expended. It would
also limit the total Federal grant to any one State on any one year to
25 percent of the funds actually appropriated to carry out this
program.
[p. 72]
Section 15—Pollution control in Great Lakes
This section would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to carry
out a program to demonstrate new methods and techniques and de-
velop preliminary plans to eliminate control of pollution within all or
any part of the watersheds of the Great Lakes. In carrying out these
projects, State political subdivisions, interstate agencies, or other pub-
lic agencies, acting jointly or severally, must pay at least 25 percent
of the actual project cost; $20 million are authorized to be appro-
priated for this project.
SECTION 103
This section would amend redesignated section 16 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, to read as follows:
Section 16 (a)—Federal agency compliance
This section is similar to the present section 11 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act as amended. The new section, however, would
require that every Federal agency having jurisdiction over any real
property or any facility or activity of any kind shall insure compliance
with applicable water quality standards in the administration of the
property, facility, or activity consistent with an approved plan for
implementation. This section would also authorize appropriations to
carry out this requirement.
Section 16 (b)—Compliance by lessees and contracting party
This section would require that when a Federal agency (1) issues a
lease to any person for the use of any Federal property or facility or
(2) contracts for the operation of such property or facility or (3) con-
tracts for the entire operation of any non-Federal facility, such agency
must insure compliance with the applicable water control quality
standards and purposes of this Act in administering such lease or
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1411
contract. When appropriate, a certification obtained under section
16 (c) for a Federal license or permit shall be evidence of compliance
with the water quality standards.
Section 16 (c)—Compliance by licensee and permittee
This section applies to applicants for Federal licenses or permits to
construct or operate any facility or to conduct any activity which may
result in any discharge in the navigable waters of the United States.
It does not apply to Federal agencies.
The section would require that the applicant for such Federal license
or permit provide a certification from the State in which the dis-
charge originates to the Federal licensing or permitting agency and
notice thereof to the Secretary of the Interior, that there is reasonable
assurance that the facility or activity will comply with applicable
water quality standards. In appropriate cases, the certification would
be obtained from an interstate water pollution control agency. Where
water quality standards for interstate waters have not been approved
or promulgated under section 10 (c) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended, the certification must be obtained from the
Secretary of the Interior. The certifying agency has 1 year after
receipt of application for certification to notify the applicant of such
certification or of intent not to certify. After the Secretary of the
Interior determines that the discharge may affect the applicable water
quality standards of a State or States other than the certifying State,
the Secretary must notify the other States within 60 days after re-
ceipt of the notice of an application for a license or permit. If such
other
[p. 73]
States within 30 days after receipt of notification from the Sec-
retary determine that the discharge will adversely affect its standards,
they should notify the Secretary and the Secretary has an additional
30 days to review such determination. If upon such review he finds
such adverse effect, the Secretary shall require that before the license
or permit is issued that appropriate conditions be included to insure
compliance with the standards.
No Federal license or permit can be granted without a certification
and such conditions as the State, interstate agency, or Secretary may
reasonably require. These conditions could include, among other
things, provision for suspension or termination of the license or permit
for failure to comply with the standards.
If, in the case of discharge affecting States other than the State of
origin and where the Secretary requires conditions that are more
stringent than those of the State where the discharge originates, the
applicant may request a hearing by the Federal licensing or per-
-------
1412 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
mitting agency and such agency shall make findings on the conditions
to be included in a license or permit. Such findings must bs public and
they shall not require conditions that are less stringent than those of
the State where the discharge occurs. The licensing or permitting
agency will, of course, provide an opportunity for the affected States
and the Secretary to participate in such hearing and to appeal the
findings in a Federal court within a reasonable time after the issuance
thereof as provided in statute under which the license or permit is
issued or under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Federal licensee or permittee must provide the certifying State
or, as appropriate, the interstate agency or the Secretary of notice of
any changes in the facility or activity which may affect applicable
water quality standards.
A certification for Federal license or permit for a particular facility
or activity shall satisfy the requirement of certification for any later
Federal license or permit necessary for such facility or activity un-
less, after receiving notice of an application for such later Federal
license or permit, a State or the Secretary notifies such Federal
licensing or permitting agency that there has been a change in the
nature of the activity, the design of the facility, the natural charac-
teristics of the waters into which the discharge will be made, or in the
water quality standards applicable to such waters, and there is no
longer reasonable assurance of compliance with water quality stand-
ards. In such instances a second certification will be required.
In the case of any Federally licensed or permitted facility or activity
which is not required to obtain a Federal operating license or permit,
the licensee or permittee must give the certifying State, or interstate
agency, or the Secretary an opportunity to review the manner in
which the facility or activity will be operated or conducted for the
purpose of assuring compliance with water quality standards. This
requirement would apply prior to the actual operation of the facility
or activity. Upon receipt of notice from the certifying State, the
interstate agency, or the Secretary, that the operation will not comply
with the standards, the Federal agency must suspend the license or
permit until notice is received of reasonable assurance of compliance.
If, in any case, a Governor of a State or the Secretary notifies the
licensing or permitting agency that the facility or activity has been
found by a court to bs in violation of the standards, such license or
permit may be suspended or terminated, as circumstances require,
by the Federal agency.
[p. 74]
If actual construction of a facility has been begun under a Federal
license or permit prior to the effective date of this section, no certifies-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1413
tion shall be required for any Federal operating license or permit for
such facility issued within 2 years of such date. Any Federal oper-
ating license or permit issued during such 2-year period, however,
without the benefit of the certification must be terminated after the
end of the 2-year period unless, prior to that time, the licensee or
permittee obtains a certification. If, in any case where there is a
Federal license or permit application pending on the effective date of
this section and where such license or permit is issued within 1 year of
such date, a certification will not be required for 1 year following the
issuance of license or permit. The license or permit, however, will
terminate at the end of that year unless certification is obtained.
In the case of any activity which will affect water quality for which
there are no applicable standards, no certification will be required.
However, a Federal licensing or permitting agency, in such event,
must impose, as a condition of any license or permit, a requirement
that the licensee or permittee shall comply with the purposes of
the Act.
If a State in which a discharge originates or the Secretary notifias a
Federal agency that its licensee or permittee has received notice of
the adoption of water quality standards applicable to such activity
and has failed to comply with the standards, the Federal agency must
after a period of time, suspend license or permit until notice is re-
ceived that there is reasonable assurance of compliance.
Section 16 (d)—Other authority not affected
This section provides that section 16 of the Act is not to be in-
terpreted in any way to affect the authority of any Federal agency
pursuant to this Act or any other provision of law relative to com-
pliance with water quality standards. The Secretary of the Interior
is also directed to provide technical assistance as may bs necessary
to carry out the purposes of this Act.
Section 16 (e)—Use of Federal spoil disposal area
This section will authorize Corps of Engineers to permit the use of
spoil disposal areas under its jurisdiction by a Federal licensee or
permittee and to charge for such use. Moneys received would be
deposited to miscellaneous receipts.
SECTION 104
This section would amend section 5 to the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act. The amendments would streamline the provisions of
that section by deleting the present subsection (g) relating to an
estuary study and inserting that subsection as a new subsection in
section 21 of the Act.
The new section 5 would also add a new subsection (g) relating
-------
1414 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
to the training of personnel to operate and maintain existing and
[p. 75]
future treatment works and related activities. Under this new pro-
gram the Secretary will finance pilot programs of manpower develop-
ment in training and retraining of people interested in entering, or
who are actually in the field of operation and maintenance of such
works. The purpose of the program is to supplement, not supplant,
other manpower training programs. The Secretary can carry out
these programs directly or through joint ventures with the States and
other public or private agencies.
The Secretary is also authorized to enter into agreements to develop
and maintain an effective system for forecasting the needs of various
occupational categories in the water pollution field.
The new subsection would authorize the Secretary, in carrying out
the purposes of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, to make
grants and enter into contracts, establish and maintain research
fellowships, and provide additional training in technical programs in
the water pollution field. The Secretary is required to submit a
report to Congress by September 30, 1970, summarizing actions taken
under the new subsection; including information on the number of
persons trained, categories for which training was provided, effective-
ness of various training programs in this field, and provide estimates
of the needs of this field.
This section would also add two new subsections to section 5
relating to lake pollution research and oil pollution research.
A new subsection (j) would be added which would give the Secre-
tary authority to acquire land and interest therein by purchase,
donation, or exchange in connection with any demonstration projects
that he undertakes under the act and the development of field
laboratory and research facilities. This authority is similar to that
which was available to the program prior to its transfer from the De-
partment of Health, Education, and Welfare to the Interior Depart-
ment. While in HEW, that Department had broad land acquisition
authority applicable to all its programs. In the case of the Depart-
ment of the Interior, land acquisition authority is limited to specific
program areas rather than a departmentwide basis.
This section would also authorize appropriations to carry out pro-
visions of this section except subsection (g) (1) and (2) at the current
level of authorization which is $65 million for fiscal years 1970 and
1971. In the case of subsection (g) (1), the authorization would ba
$5 million for fiscal year 1970 and $7.5 million for next fiscal year.
In the case of subsection (g) (2), the authorization of $2.5 million for
each of those fiscal years.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1415
SECTION 105
This section would amend section 6 of the Act by extending the
appropriation authorization 2 fiscal years at the current level of
authorization.
SECTION 106
This section is a technical amendment deleting reference to the Oil
Pollution Act of 1924.
SECTION 107
This section is a technical amendment inserting the word "navi-
gable" in the provisions relating to the establishment of water quality
standards. This addition would require that the Secretary, the
Hearing
[p. 76]
Board, or a State consider the use and value of waters for navigation
as well as for other purposes.
SECTION 108
This section would repeal the Oil Pollution Act of 1924.
TITLE II—ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
SECTION 201
This section would cite this title as the Environmental Quality
Improvement Act of 1969 and make certain congressional findings
relative to the national policy set forth in specific statutes for the
enhancement of environmental quality.
SECTION 202
Federal Public Works Activities
This section would require each Federal agency conducting or
supporting public works activity which affect the quality of the
environment to implement the policies established by the President
under this Act.
SECTION 203
Office of Environmental Quality
This section would establish in the Executive Office of the President
an Office of Environmental Quality.
SECTION 204 ADVISORY COMMITTEES
This section would direct that an advisory committee be established
-------
1416 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
having a broad range of concern of population growth and environ-
mental quality and planning for the future.
SECTION 205
This section would authorize appropriations to carry out the pur-
poses of this title.
TITLE III—PROPERTY ACQUISITION
SECTION 301
This section would authorize the Architect of the Capitol to acquire
real property for an additional office building for the U.S. Senate by
purchase, condemnation, transfer, or otherwise. It also authorizes
the Architect of the Capitol when directed by the Senate Office
Building Commission to provide for demolition and/or removal of
any building or other installation on such property and pending such
demolition to use the property for governmental purposes or to lease
the property. It extends the jurisdiction of the capitol police to such
property once acquired and authorizes appropriations to carry out
the purposes of this Act.
[P. 77]
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with subsection (4) of the rule XXIX of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill as re-
ported are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is
enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing
law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT,
AS AMENDED
DECLARATION OF POLICY
SECTION 1. (a) The purpose of this Act is to enhance the quality
and value of our water resources and to establish a national policy
for the prevention, control, and abatement of water pollution.
(b) In connection with the exercise of jurisdiction over the water-
ways of the Nation and in consequence of the benefits resulting to
the public health and welfare by the prevention and control of water
pollution, it is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress to recog-
nize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of
the States in preventing and controlling water pollution, to support
and aid technical research relating to the prevention and control of
Water pollution, and to provide Federal technical services and financial
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1417
aid to State and interstate agencies and to municipalities in connec-
tion with the prevention and control of water pollution. The Secre-
tary of the Interior (hereinafter in this Act called "Secretary")
shall administer this Act through the Administration created by sec-
tion 2 of this Act, and with the assistance of an Assistant Secretary of
the Interior designated by him, shall supervise and direct the head of
such Administration in administering this Act. Such Assistant Sec-
retary shall perform such additional functions as the Secretary may
prescribe.
(c) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as impairing or in any
manner affecting any right or jurisdiction of the States with respect
to the waters (including boundary waters) of such States.
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
SEC. 2. Effective ninety days after the date of enactment of this
section there is created within the Department of the Interior a
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration (hereinafter in this
Act referred to as the "Administration"). The head of the Adminis-
tration shall be appointed, and his compensation fixed, by the Secre-
tary. The head of the Administration may, in addition to regular staff
of the Administration, which shall be initially provided from the
personnel of the Department, obtain, from within the Department or
otherwise as authorized by law, such professional, technical, and
clerical assistance as may be necessary to discharge the Administra-
tion's functions
[p. 78]
and may for that purpose use funds available for carrying out such
functions; and he may delegate any of his functions to, or otherwise
authorize their performance, by an officer or employee of, or assigned
or detailed to, the Administration.
COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAMS FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
SEC. 3. (a) The Secretary shall, after careful investigation, and in
cooperation with other Federal agencies, with State water pollution
control agencies and interstate agencies, and with the municipalities
and industries involved, prepare or develop comprehensive programs
for eliminating or reducing the pollution of interstate waters and
tributaries thereof and improving the sanitary condition of surface and
underground waters. In the development of such comprehensive pro-
grams due regard shall be given to the improvements which are neces-
sary to conserve such waters for public water supplies, propagation of
fish and aquatic life and wildlife, recreational purposes, and agricul-
tural, industrial, and other legitimate uses. For the purpose of this
-------
1418 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
section, the Secretary is authorized to make joint investigations with
any such agencies of the condition of any waters in any State or States,
and of the discharges of any sewage, industrial wastes, or substance
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, considera-
tion shall be given to inclusion of storage for regulation of streamflow
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 Secretary, and
his views on these matters shall be set forth in any report or presenta-
tion 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 deter-
mining 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 equitably
in the benefits of multiple-purpose construction.
(4) Costs of water quality control features incorporated in any
Federal reservoir or other impoundment under 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.
(c) (1) The Secretary 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 ex-
ceed 3 years, if such agency provides for adequate representation of
appropriate State, interstate, local, or (when appropriate) interna-
tional, interests in the basin or portion thereof involved and is capable
of developing an effective, comprehensive water quality control and
abatement plan for a basin.
[p. 79]
(2) Each planning agency receiving a grant under this subsection
shall develop a comprehensive pollution control and abatemsnt plan
for the basin which—
(A) is consistent with any applicable water quality standards
established pursuant to current law within the basin;
(B) recommends such treatment works and sewer systems as
will provide the most effective and economical means of collec-
tion, storage, treatment, and purification of wastes and recom-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1419
mends means to encourage both municipal and industrial use of
such works and systems; and
(C) recommends maintenance and improvement of water
quality standards within the basin or portion thereof and recom-
mends methods of adequately financing those facilities as may be
necessary to implement the plan.
(3) For the purposes of this subsection the term "basin" includes,
but is not limited to, rivers and their tributaries, streams, coastal
waters, sounds, estuaries, bays, lake, and portions thereof, as well
as the lands drained thereby.
INTERSTATE COOPERATION AND UNIFORM LAWS
SEC. 4. (a) The Secretary shall encourage cooperative activities by
the States for the prevention and control of water pollution; encourage
the enactment of improved and, so far as practicable, uniform State
laws relating to the prevention and control of water pollution; and
encourage compacts between States for the prevention and control of
water 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) coopera-
tive effort and mutual assistance for the prevention and control of
water 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 and
compacts. No such agreement or compact shall be binding or obliga-
tory upon any State a party thereto unless and until it has been
approved by the Congress.
RESEARCH, INVESTIGATIONS, TRAINING, AND INFORMATION
SEC. 5. (a) The Secretary shall conduct in the Department of the
Interior and encourage, cooperate with, and render assistance to other
appropriate public (whether Federal, State, interstate, or local) au-
thorities, agencies, and institutions, private agencies and institutions,
and individuals in the conduct of, and promote the coordination of,
research, investigations, experiments, demonstrations, and studies re-
lating to the causes, control, and prevention of water pollution. In
carrying out the foregoing, the Secretary is authorized to—
(1) collect and make available, through publications and other
appropriate means, the results of and other information as to
research, investigations, and demonstrations relating to the pre-
vention and control of water pollution, including appropriate
recommendations in connection therewith;
[p. 80]
-------
1420 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
[ (2) make grants-in-aid to public or private agencies and in-
stitutions and to individuals for research or training projects and
for demonstrations, and provide for the conduct of research,
training, and demonstrations by contract with public or private
agencies and institutions and with individuals without regard to
sections 3648 and 3709 of the Revised Statutes;]
(2) make grants-in-aid to public or private agencies and insti-
tutions and to individuals for research and demonstrations, and
provide for the conduct of research and demonstrations by con-
tract with public or private agencies and institutions and with
individuals without regard to sections 3648 and 3709 of the
Revised Statutes; and
(3) secure, from time to time and for such periods as he deems
advisable, the assistance and advice of experts, scholars, and
consultants as authorized by section 15 of the Administrative
Expenses Act of 1946 (5 U.S.C. 55a)[;].
[(4) establish and maintain research fellowships in the De-
partment of the Interior 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:
Provided, That the Secretary shall report annually to the appro-
priate committees of Congress on his operations under this
paragraph; and
[(5) provide training in technical matters relating to the
causes, prevention, and control of water pollution to personnel
of public agencies and other persons with suitable qualifications.]
(b) The Secretary may, upon request of any State water pollution
control agency, or interstate agency, conduct investigations and
research and make surveys concerning any specific problem of water
pollution confronting any State, interstate agency, community,
municipality, or industrial plant, with a view of recommending a
solution of such problem.
(c) The Secretary shall, in cooperation with other Federal, State
and local agencies having related responsibilities, collect and dissemi-
nate basic data on chemical, physical, and biological water quality and
other information insofar as such data or other information relate to
water pollution and the prevention and control thereof.
(d) In carrying out the provisions of this section the Secretary shall
develop and demonstrate under varied conditions (including conduct-
ing such basic and applied research, studies, and experiments as may
be necessary) :
(A) Practicable means of treating municipal sewage and other
waterborne wastes to remove the maximum possible amounts of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1421
physical, chemical, and biological pollutants in order to restore
and maintain the maximum amount of the Nation's water at a
quality suitable for repeated reuse;
(B) Improved methods and procedures to identify and meas-
ure the effects of pollutants on water uses, including those
pollutants created by new technological developments; and
(C) Methods and procedures for evaluating the effects on
water quality and water uses of augmented streamflows to con-
trol water pollution not susceptible to other means of abatement.
(e) The Secretary shall establish, equip, and maintain field labora-
tory and research facilities, including, but not limited to, one to be
[P- 81]
located in the northeastern area of the United States, one in the
Middle Atlantic area, one in the southeastern area, one in the mid-
western area, one in the southwestern area, one in the Pacific North-
west, and one in the State of Alaska, for the conduct of research,
investigations, experiments, field demonstrations and studies, and
training relating to the prevention and control of water pollution.
Insofar as practicable, each such facility shall ba located nsar institu-
tions of higher learning in which graduate training in such research
might be carried out.
(f) The Secretary shall conduct research and technical develop-
ment 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, an evaluation of
municipal, industrial, and vessel waste treatment and disposal prac-
tices with respect to such waters, and a study of alternate means of
solving water pollution problems (including additional waste treat-
ment measures) with respect to such waters.
[(g) (1) The Secretary shall, in cooperation with the Sscretary 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, con-
duct and promote, and encourage contributions to, a comprehensive
study of the effects of pollution, including sedimentation, in the
estuaries and estuarine zones of the United States on fish and wild-
life, on sport and commercial fishing, on recreation, on water supply
and water power, and on other beneficial purposes. Such study shall
also consider the effect of demographic trends, the exploitation of
mineral resources and fossil fuels, land and industrial development,
navigation, flood and erosion control, and other uses of estuaries and
estuarine zones upon the pollution of the waters therein.
-------
1422 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
[ (2) In conducting the above study, the Secretary shall assemble,
coordinate, and organize all existing pertinent information on the
Nation's estuaries and estuarine zones; carry out a program of in-
vestigations and surveys to supplement existing information in rep-
resentative estuaries and estuarine zones; and identify the problems
and areas where further research and study are required.
[(3) The Secretary shall submit to the Congress a final report of
the study authorized by this subsection not later than three years
after the date of enactment of this subsection. Copies of the report
shall be made available to all interested parties, public and private.
The report shall include, but not be limited to—
[ (A) an analysis of the importance of estuaries to the economic
and social well-being of the people of the United States and of the
effects of pollution upon the use and enjoyment of such estuaries;
[ (B) a discussion of the major economic, social, and ecological
trends occurring in the estuarine zones of the Nation;
[ (C) recommendations for a comprehensive national program
for the preservation, study, use, and development of estuaries of
the Nation, and the respective responsibilities which should be
assumed by Federal, State, and local governments and by public
and private interests.
[p. 82]
[ (4) There is authorized to be appropriated the sum of $1,000,000
per fiscal year for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1967, June 30, 1968,
and June 30, 1969, to carry out the purposes of this subsection.
[ (5) For the purpose of this subsection, the term "estuarine zones"
means an environmental system 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 navigable or interstate 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.]
(g) (1) For the purpose of providing an adequate supply of trained
personnel to operate and maintain existing and future treatment
works and related activities, and for the purpose of enhancing sub-
stantially the proficiency of those engaged in such activities, the
Secretary shall finance a pilot program, in cooperation with State and
interstate agencies, municipalities, educational institutions, and other
organizations and individuals of manpower development and training
and retraining of persons in, or entering into, the field of operation
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1423
and maintenance of treatment works and related activities. Such
program and any funds expended for such a program shall supple-
ment, not supplant, other manpower and training programs and funds
available for the purposes of this paragraph. The Secretary is au-
thorized, 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 Secretary is authorized to enter into agreements with
public and private agencies and institutions, and individuals to de-
velop and maintain an effective system for forecasting the supply of,
and demand for, various professional and other occupational cate-
gories needed for the prevention, control, and abatement of water
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 Secretary is
authorized to—
(A) make grants to public or 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 Depart-
ment of the Interior with such stipends and allowances, including
traveling and subsistence expenses, as he may deem necessary
to procure the assistance of the most promising research fellow-
ships; and
(C) provide, in addition to the program established under
paragraph (1) of this subsection, training in technical matters
relating to the causes, prevention, and control of water pollution
for personnel of public agencies and other persons with suitable
qualifications.
(4) The Secretary shall submit, through the President, a report to
the Congress by September 30, 1970, summarizing the actions taken
under this subsection and the effectiveness of such actions, and setting
forth the
[p. 83]
number of persons trained, the occupational categories for which
training was provided, the effectiveeness 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 legisla-
tive recommendations, as he deems appropriate.
-------
1424 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(h) The Secretary is authorized to enter into contracts with, or
make grants to, public or private agencies and organizations and
individuals for (A) the purpose of developing and demonstrating new
or improved methods for the prevention, removal, and control of
natural or manmade pollution, and (B) the construction of publicly
owned research facilities for such purpose.
(i) The Secretary shall engage in such research, studies, experi-
ments, and demonstrations as he deems appropriate relative to the
removal of oil from any waters and to the prevention and control of
oil pollution, and shall publish from time to time the results of such
activities. In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary may enter
into contracts with, or make grants to, public or private agencies and
organizations and individuals.
(j) In carrying out the provisions of this section relating to the
conduct by the Secretary of demonstration projects and the develop-
ment of field laboratories and research facilities, the Secretary 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 disposi-
tion. The values of the properties so exchanged either shall be ap-
proximately equal, or if they are not approximately equal, the values
shall be equalized by the payment of cash to the grantor or to the
Secretary as the circumstances require.
[ (h) There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this sec-
tion, other than subsection (g), not to exceed $60,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1968, and $65,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1969. Sums so appropriated shall remain available until
expended.]
(k) There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section,
other than subsection (g) (1) and (2), not to exceed $65,000,000
annually for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1969, June 30, 1970, and
June 30, 1971. There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out
subsection (g) (1) of this section $5,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1970, and $7,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971.
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out subsection (g) (2)
of this section $2,500,000 annually for the fiscal years ending June 30,
1970, and June 30, 1971. Sums so appropriated shall remain available
until expended.
GRANTS FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
SEC. 6. (a) The Secretary is authorized to make grants to any State,
municipality, or Intel-municipality or interstate agency for the purpose
of—
(1) assisting in the development of any project which will
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1425
demonstrate a new or improved method of controlling the dis-
charge into any waters of untreated or inadequately treated
sewage or other wastes from sewers which carry storm water or
both storm water and sewage or other wastes, or
(2) assisting in the development of any project which will
demonstrate advanced waste treatment and water purification
[p. 84]
methods (including the temporary use of new or improved
chemical additives which provide substantial immediate improve-
ment to existing treatment processes) or new or improved meth-
ods of joint treatment systems for municipal and industrial
wastes,
and for the purpose of reports, plans, and specifications in connection
therewith.
(b) The Secretary is authorized to make grants to persons for
research and demonstration projects for prevention of pollution of
waters by industry including, but not limited to, treatment of
industrial waste.
(c) Federal grants under subsection (a) of this section shall be
subject to the following limitations:
(1) No grant shall be made for any project pursuant to this
section unless such project shall have been approved by the
appropriate State water pollution control agency or agencies
and by the Secretary;
(2) No grant shall be made for any project in an amount ex-
ceeding 75 per centum of the estimated reasonable cost thereof
as determined by the Secretary; and
(3) No grant shall be made for any project under this section
unless the Secretary determines that such project will serve as a
useful demonstration for the purpose set forth in clause (1) or
(2) of subsection (a).
(d) Federal grants under subsection (b) of this section shall be
subject to the following limitations:
(1) No grant shall be made under this section in excess of
$1,000,000;
(2) No grant shall be made for more than 70 per centum of
the cost of the project; and
(3) No grant shall be made for any project unless the Secre-
tary determines that such project will serve a useful purpose in
the development or demonstration of a new or improved method
of treating industrial wastes or otherwise preventing pollution of
waters by industry, which methods shall have industry-wide
application.
-------
1426 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(e) For the purposes of this section there are authorized to be
appropriated—
(1) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, and for each of the
next [three] five succeeding fiscal years, the sum of $20,000,000
per fiscal year for the purposes set forth in subsections (a) and
(b) of this section, including contracts pursuant to such sub-
sections for such purposes;
(2) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, and for each of
the next [two] four succeeding fiscal years, the sum of $20,000,000
per fiscal year for the purpose set forth in clause (2) of subsection
(a); and
(3) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, and for each of
the next [two] four succeeding fiscal years, the sum of $20,000,000
per fiscal year for the purpose set forth in subsection (b).
GRANTS FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAMS
SEC. 7. (a) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1957, and for each succeeding fiscal year
[p. 85]
to and including the fiscal year ending June 30, 1961, $3,000,000, for
each succeeding fiscal year to and including the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1967, $5,000,000, and for each succeeding fiscal year to and
including the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, $10,000,000 for grants
to States and to interstate agencies to assist them in meeting the costs
of establishing and maintaining adequate measures for the prevention
and control of water pollution, including the training of personnel
of public agencies.
(b) The portion of the sums appropriated pursuant to subsection
(a) for a fiscal year which shall be available for grants to interstate
agencies and the portion thereof which shall be available for grants
to States shall be specified in the Act appropriating such sums.
(c) From the sums available therefor for any fiscal year the Secre-
tary shall from time to time make allotments to the several States, in
accordance with regulations, on the basis of (1) the population, (2)
the extent of the water pollution problem, and (3) the financial need
of the respective States.
(d) From each State's allotment under subsection (c) for any fiscal
year the Secretary shall pay to such State an amount equal to its
Federal share (as determined under subsection (h)) of the cost of
carrying out its State plan approved under subsection (f), including
the cost of training personnel for State and local water pollution
control work and including the cost of administering the State plan.
(e) From the sums available therefor for any fiscal year the Secre-
tary shall from time to time make allotments to interstate agencies,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1427
in accordance with regulations, on such basis as the Secretary finds
reasonable and equitable. He shall from time to time pay to each
such agency, from its allotment, an amount equal to such portion of
the cost of carrying out its plan approved under subsection (f) as
may be determined in accordance with regulations, including the cost
of training personnel for water pollution control work and including
the cost of administering the interstate agency's plan. The regula-
tions relating to the portion of the cost of carrying out the interstate
agency's plan which shall be borne by the United States shall be
designed to place such agencies, so far as practicable, on a basis
similar to that of the States.
(f) The Secretary shall approve any plan for the prevention and
control of water pollution which is submitted by the State water
pollution control agency or, in the case of an interstate agency, by
such agency, if such plan—
(1) provides for administration or for the supervision of ad-
ministration of the plan by the State water pollution control
agency or, in the case of a plan submitted by an interstate
agency, by such interstate agency;
(2) provides that such agency will make such reports, in such
form and containing such information, as the Secretary may from
time to time reasonably require to carry out his functions under
this Act;
(3) sets forth the plans, policies, and methods to be followed in
carrying out the State (or interstate) plan and in its
administration;
(4) provides for extension or improvement of the State or
interstate program for prevention and control of water pollution;
(5) provides such accounting, budgeting, and other fiscal
[P- 86]
methods and procedures as are necessary for the proper and
efficient administration of the plan; and
(6) sets forth the criteria used by the State in determining
priority of projects as provided in section 8 (b) (4).
The Secretary shall not disapprove any plan without first giving
reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing to the State water
pollution control agency or interstate agency which has submitted
such plan.
(g) (1) Whenever the Secretary, after reasonable notice and op-
portunity for hearing to a State water pollution control agency or
interstate agency finds that—
(A) the plan submitted by such agency and approved under
this section has been so changed that it no longer complies with a
-------
1428 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
requirement of subsection (f) of this section; or
(B) in the administration of the plan there is a failure to com-
ply substantially with such a requirement,
the Secretary shall notify such agency that no further payments will
be made to the State or to the interstate agency, as the case may be,
under this section (or in his discretion that further payments will not
be made to the State, or to the interstate agency, for projects under or
parts of the plan affected by such failure) until he is satisfied that
there will no longer be any such failure. Until he is so satisfied, the
Secretary shall make no further payments to such State, or to such
interstate agency, as the case may be, under this section (or shall
limit payments to projects under or parts of the plan in which there
is no such failure).
(2) If any State or any interstate agency is dissatisfied with the
Secretary's action with respect to it under this subsection, it may
appeal to the United States court of appeals for the circuit in which
such State (or any of the member States, in the case of an interstate
agency) is located. The summons and notice of appeal may be served
at any place in the United States. The findings of fact by the Secre-
tary, unless contrary to the weight of the evidence, shall be con-
clusive; but the court, for good cause shown, may remand the case to
the Secretary to take further evidence, and the Secretary may there-
upon make new or modified findings of fact and may modify his
previous action. Such new or modified findings of fact shall likewise
be conclusive unless contrary to the weight of the evidence. The
court shall have jurisdiction to affirm the action of the Secretary or
to set it aside, in whole or in part. The judgment of the court shall be
subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States upon
certiorari or certification as provided in title 28, United States Code,
section 1254.
(h) (1) The "Federal share" for any State shall be 100 per centum
less that percentage which bears the same ratio to 50 per centum as
the per capita income of such State bears to the per capita income of
the United States, except that (A) the Federal share shall in no case
be more than 66% per centum or less than 33¥3 per centum, and (B)
the Federal share for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands shall be
66% per centum.
(2) The "Federal shares" shall be promulgated by the Secretary
between July 1 and September 30 of each even-numbered year, on the
basis of the average of the per capita incomes of the States and of the
continental United States for the three most recent consecutive years
[p. 87]
for which satisfactory data are available from the Department of
Commerce.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1429
(3) As used in this subsection, the term "United States" means the
fifty States and the District of Columbia.
(4) Promulgations made before satisfactory data are available from
the Department of Commerce for a full year on the per capita income
of Alaska shall prescribe a Federal share for Alaska of 50 per centum
and, for purposes of such promulgations, Alaska shall not be included
as part of the "United States". Promulgations made thereafter but
before per capita income data for Alaska for a full three-year period
are available for the Department of Commerce shall be based on
satisfactory data available therefrom for Alaska for such one full year
or, when such data are available for a two-year period, for such two
years.
(i) The population of the several States shall be determined on the
basis of the latest figures furnished by the Department of Commerce.
(j) The method of computing and paying amounts pursuant to
subsection (d) or (e) shall be as follows:
(1) The Secretary shall, prior to the beginning of each calendar
quarter or other period prescribed by him, estimate the amount to be
paid to each State (or to each interstate agency in the case of subsec-
tion (e)) under the provisions of such subsection for such period,
such estimate to be based on such records of the State (or the inter-
state agency) and information furnished by it, and such other
investigation, as the Secretary may find necessary.
(2) The Secretary shall pay to the State (or to the interstate
agency), from the allotment available therefor, the amount so esti-
mated by him for any period, reduced or increased, as the case may
be, by any sum (not previously adjusted under this paragraph) by
which he finds that his estimate of the amount to be paid such State
(or such interstate agency) for any prior period under such subsec-
tion was greater or less than the amount which should have been
paid to such State (or such agency) for such prior period under such
subsection. Such payments shall be made through the disbursing
facilities of the Treasury Department, in such installments as the
Secretary may determine.
GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION
SEC. 8. (a) The Secretary is authorized to make grants to any
State, municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency for the
construction of necessary treatment works to prevent the discharge of
untreated or inadequately treated sewage or other waste into any
waters and for the purpose of reports, plans, and specifications in
connection therewith.
(b) Federal grants under this section shall be subject to the follow-
ing limitations: (1) No grant shall be made for any project pursuant
-------
1430 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
to this section unless such project shall have been approved by the
appropriate State water pollution control agency or agencies and by
the Secretary and unless such project is included in a comprehensive
program developed pursuant to this Act; (2) no grant shall be made
for any project in an amount exceeding 30 per centum of the estimated
reasonable cost thereof as determined by the Secretary; (3) no grant
shall be made unless the grantee agrees to pay the remaining cost;
[p. 88]
(4) no grant shall be made for any project under this section until
the applicant has made provision satisfactory to the Secretary for
assuring proper and efficient operation and maintenance of the treat-
ment works after completion of the construction thereof; and (5) no
grant shall be made for any project under this section unless such
project is in conformity with the State water pollution control plan
submitted pursuant to the provisions of section 7 and has been
certified by the appropriate State water pollution control agency as
entitled to priority over other eligible projects on the basis of financial
as well as water pollution control needs; (6) the percentage limitation
of 30 per centum imposed by clause (2) of this subsection shall be
increased to a maximum of 40 per centum in the case of grants made
under this section from funds allocated for a fiscal year to a State
under subsection (c) of this section if the State agrees to pay no less
than 30 per centum of the estimated reasonable cost (as determined
by the Secretary) of all projects for which Federal grants are to be
made under this section from such allocation; (7) the percentage
limitations imposed by clause (2) of this subsection shall be increased
to a maximum of 50 per centum in the case of grants made under
this section from funds allocated for a fiscal year to a State under
subsection (c) of this section if the State agrees to pay not less than
25 per centum of the estimated reasonable costs (as determined by
the Secretary) of all projects for which Federal grants are to be made
under this section from such allocation and if enforceable water
quality standards have been established for the waters into which
the project discharges, in accordance with section 10 (c) of this Act
in the case of interstate waters, and under State law in the case of
intrastate waters.
(c) In determining the desirability of projects for treatment works
and of approving Federal financial aid in connection therewith, con-
sideration shall be given by the Secretary to the public benefits to
be derived by the construction and the propriety of Federal aid in
such construction, the relation of the ultimate cost of constructing
and maintaining the works to the public interest and to the public
necessity for the works, and the adequacy of the provisions made or
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1431
proposed by the applicant for such Federal financial aid for assuring
proper and efficient operation and maintenance of the treatment
works after completion of the construction thereof. The sums appro-
priated pursuant to subsection (d) for each fiscal year ending on or
before June 30, 1965, and the first $100,000,000 appropriated pursuant
to subsection (d) for each fiscal year beginning on or after July 1,
1965, shall be allotted by the Secretary from time to time, in accord-
ance with regulations, as follows: (1) 50 per centum of such sums in
the ratio that the population of each State bears to the population
of all the States, and (2) 50 per centum of such sums in the ratio
that the quotient obtained by dividing the per capita income of the
United States by the per capita income of each State bears to the
sum of such quotients for all the States. All sums in excess of
$100,000,000 appropriated pursuant to subsection (d) for each fiscal
year beginning on or after July 1, 1965, shall be allotted by the
Secretary from time to time, in accordance with regulations, in the
ratio that the population of each State bears to the population of all
States. Sums allotted to a State under the two preceding sentences
[p. 89]
which are not obligated within six months following the end of the
fiscal year for which they were allotted because of a lack of projects
which have been approved by the State water pollution control
agency under subsection (b) (1) of this section and certified as enti-
tled to priority under subsection (b) (4) of this section, shall bs allot-
ted by the Secretary, on such basis as he determines to be reasonable
and equitable and in accordance with regulations promulgated by
him, to States having projects approved under this section for which
grants have not been made because of lack of funds: Provided, how-
ever, That whenever a State has funds subject to reallocation and the
Secretary finds that the need for a project in a community in such
State is due in part to any Federal institution or Federal construction
activity, he may, prior to such reallocation, make an additional grant
with respect to such project which will in his judgment reflect an
equitable contribution for the need caused by such Federal institution
or activity. Any sum made available to a State by reallotment under
the preceding sentence shall be in addition to any funds otherwise
allotted to such State under this Act. The allotments of a State under
the second, third, and fourth sentences of this subsection shall be
available, in accordance with the provisions of this section, for pay-
ments with respect to projects in such State which have been approved
under this section, except that in the case of any project on which
construction was initiated in such State after June 30, 1966, which
was approved by the appropriate State water pollution control agency
-------
1432 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
and which the Secretary finds meets the requirements of this section
but was constructed without such assistance, such allotments for any
fiscal year ending prior to July 1, 1971, shall also be available for
payments in reimbursement of State or local funds used for such
project prior to July 1, 1971, to the extent that assistance could
have been provided under this section if such project had been
approved pursuant to this section and adequate funds had been
available. In the case of any project on which construction was
initiated in such State after June 30,1966, and which was constructed
with assistance pursuant to this section but the amount of such
assistance was a lesser per centum of the cost of construction than
was allowable pursuant to this section, such allotments shall also be
available for payments in reimbursement of State or local funds used
for such project prior to July 1, 1971, to the extent that assistance
could have been provided under this section if adequate funds had
been available. Neither a finding by the Secretary that a project
meets the requirements of this subsection, nor any other provision of
this subsection, shall be construed to constitute a commitment or
obligation of the United States to provide funds to make or pay any
grant for such project. For purposes of this section, population shall
be determined on the basis of the latest decennial census for which
figures are available, as certified by the Secretary of Commerce, and
per capita income for each State and for the United States shall be
determined on the basis of the average of the per capita incomes of
the States and of the continental United States for the three most
recent consecutive years for which satisfactory data are available
from the Department of Commerce.
[p. 90]
(d) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal
year through and including the fiscal year ending June 30, 1961, the
sum of $50,000,000 per fiscal year for the purpose of making grants
under this section. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated,
for the purpose of making grants under this section, $80,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1962, $90,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1963, $100,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1964, $100,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1965, $150,000-
000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, $150,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1967; $450,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1968; $700,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969;
$1,000,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970; and $1,250,-
000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971. Sums so appropriated
shall remain available until expended. At least 50 per cantum of the
funds so appropriated for each fiscal year ending on or before June 30,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1433
1965, and at least 50 per centum of the first $100,000,000 so appro-
priated for each fiscal year bsginning on or after July 1, 1965, shall
be used for grants for the construction of treatment work servicing
municipalities of one hundred and twenty-five thousand population
or under.
(e) The Secretary shall make payments under this section through
the disbursing facilities of the Department of the Treasury. Funds so
paid shall be used exclusively to meet the cost of construction of the
project for which the amount was paid. As used in this section the
term "construction" includes preliminary planning to determine the
economic and engineering feasibility of treatment works, the engineer-
ing, architectural, legal, fiscal, and economic investigations and
studies, surveys, designs, plans, working drawings, specifications,
procedures, and other action necessary to the construction of treat-
ment works; and the erection, building, acquisition, alteration, re-
modeling, improvement, or extension of treatment works; and the
inspection and supervision of the construction of treatment works.
(f) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, the Secre-
tary may increase the amount of a grant made under subsection (b)
of this section by an additional 10 per centum of the amount of such
grant for any project which has been certified to him by an official
State, metropolitan, or regional planning agency empowered under
State or local laws or interstate compact to perform metropolitan or
regional planning for a metropolitan area within which the assistance
is to be used, or other agency or instrumentality designated for such
purposes by the Governor (or Governors in the case of interstate
planning) as being in conformity with the comprehensive plan de-
veloped or in process of development for such metropolitan area. For
the purposes of this subsection, the term "metropolitan area" means
either (1) a standard metropolitan statistical area as defined by the
Bureau of the Budget, except as may be determined by the President
as not being appropriate for the purposes hereof, or (2) any urban
area, including those surrounding areas that form an economic and
socially related region, taking into consideration such factors as
present and future population trends and patterns of urban growth,
location of transportation facilities and systems, and distribution of
industrial, commercial, residential, governmental, institutional, and
other activities, which in the opinion of the President lends itself as
being appropriate for the purposes hereof.
[p. 91]
(g) The Secretary shall take such action as may be necessary to
insure that all laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or
subcontractors on projects for which grants are made under this sec-
-------
1434 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
tion 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 U.S.C., sees. 276a through 276a-5). The Secretary of Labor
shall have, with respect to the labor standards specified in this sub-
section, the authority and functions set forth in Rsorganization Plan
Numbered 14 of 1950 (15 F.R. 3176; 64 Stat. 1267; 5 U.S.C. 133z-15)
and section 2 of the Act of June 13, 1934, as amended (48 Stat. 948;
40 U.S.C. 276c).
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADVISORY BOARD
SEC. 9. (a) (1) There is hereby established in the Department of
the Interior a Water Pollution Control Advisory Board, composed of
the Secretary or his designee, who shall be chairman and nine mem-
bers appointed by the President, none of whom shall be Federal officers
or employees. The appointed members, 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 water
pollution, and of other public and private agencies, organizations, or
groups demonstrating an active interest in the field of water pollution
prevention and control, as well as other individuals who are expert in
this field.
(2) (A) Each member appointed by the President shall hold office
for a term of three years, except that (i) any member appointed to fill
a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for which his
predecessor was appointed shall be appointed for the remainder of
such term, and (ii) the terms of office of the members first taking
office after June 30, 1956, shall expire as follows: three at the end of
one year after such date, 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, and (iii) the term of any
member under the preceding provisions shall be extended until the
date on which his successor's appointment is effective. None of the
members appointed by the President shall be eligible for reappoint-
ment within one year after the end of his preceding term but terms
commencing prior to the enactment of the Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1956 shall not be deemed "preceding terms"
for purposes of this sentence.
(B) The members of the Board who are not officers or employees
of the United States, while attending conferences or meetings of the
Board or while otherwise serving at the request of the Secretary, shall
be entitled to receive compensation at a rate to be fixed by the Secre-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1435
tary, but not exceeding $50 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
authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 73b-2) for persons in the Government
service employed intermittently.
[p. 92]
(b) The Board shall advise, consult with, and make recommenda-
tions to the Secretary on matters of policy relating to the activities
and functions of the Secretary under this Act.
(c) Such clerical and technical assistance as may be necessary to
discharge the duties of the Board shall be provided from the personnel
of the Department of the Interior.
ENFORCEMENT MEASURES AGAINST POLLUTION OF INTERSTATE OR
NAVIGABLE WATERS
SEC. 10. (a) The pollution of interstate or navigable waters in or
adjacent to any State or States (whether the matter causing or con-
tributing to such pollution is discharged directly into such waters or
reaches such waters after discharge into a tributary of such waters),
which endangers the health or welfare of any persons, shall be subject
to abatement as provided in this Act.
(b) Consistent with the policy declaration of this Act, State and
interstate action to abate pollution of interstate or navigable waters
shall be encouraged and shall not, except as otherwise provided by
or pursuant to court order under subsection (h), be displaced by
Federal enforcement action.
(c) (1) If the Governor of a State or a State water pollution control
agency files, within one year after the date of enactment of this sub-
section, a letter of intent that such State, after public hearings, will
before June 30, 1967, adopt (A) water quality criteiia applicable to
interstate waters or portions thereof within such State, and (B) a plan
for the implementation and enforcement of the water quality criteria
adopted, and if such criteria and plan are established in accordance
with the letter of intent, and if the Secretary determines that such
State criteria and plan are consistent with paragraph (3) of this sub-
section, such State criteria and plan shall thereafter be the water
quality standards applicable to such interstate waters or portions
thereof.
(2) If a State does not (A) file a letter of intent or (B) establish.
water quality standards in accordance with paragraph (1) of this
subsection, or if the Secretary or the Governor of any State affected
by water quality standards established pursuant to this subsection
desires a revision in such standards, the Secretary may, after reason-
-------
1436 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
able notice and a conference of representatives of appropriate Federal
departments and agencies, interstate agencies, States, municipalities
and industries involved, prepare regulations setting forth standards
of water quality to be applicable to interstate waters or portions
thereof. If, within six months from the date the Secretary publishes
such regulations, the State has not adopted water quality standards
found by the Secretary to be consistent with paragraph (3) of this
subsection, or a petition for public hearing has not been filed under
paragraph (4) of this subsection, the Secretary shall promulgate such
standards.
(3) Standards of quality established pursuant to this subsection
shall be such as to protect the public health or welfare, enhance the
quality of water and serve the purposes of this Act. In establishing
such standards the Secretary, the Hearing Board, or the appropriate
State authority shall take into consideration their use and value for
[p. 93]
public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational
purposes, and agricultural, industrial, navigation and other legitimate
uses.
(4) If at any time prior to 30 days after standards have been
promulgated under paragraph (2) of this subsection, the Governor
of any State affected by such standards petitions the Secretary for a
hearing, the Secretary shall call a public hearing, to be held in or
near one or more of the places where the water quality standards
will take effect, before a Hearing Board of five or more parsons
appointed by the Secretary. Each State which would be affected
by such standards shall be given an opportunity to select one member
of the Hearing Board. The Department of Commerce and other
affected Federal departments and agencies shall each be given an
opportunity to select a member of the Hearing Board and not less
than a majority of the Hearing Board shall be persons other than
officers or employees of the Department of the Interior. The members
of the Board who are not officers or employees of the United States,
while participating in the hearing conducted by such Hearing Board
or otherwise engaged on the work of such Hearing Board, shall be
entitled to receive compensation at a rate fixed by the Secretary,
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
authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 73b-2) for persons in the Government
service employed intermittently. Notice of such hearing shall be
published in the Federal Register and given to the State water pollu-
tion control agencies, interstate agencies and municipalities involved
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1437
at least 30 days prior to the date of such hearing. On the basis of
the evidence presented at such hearing, the Hearing Board shall
make findings as to whether the standards published or promulgated
by the Secretary should be approved or modified and transmit its
findings to the Secretary. If the Hearing Board approves the stand-
ards as published or promulgated by the Secretary, the standards shall
take effect on receipt by the Secretary of the Hearing Board's recom-
mendations. If the Hearing Board recommends modifications in the
standards as published or promulgated by the Secretary, the Secretary
shall promulgate revised regulations setting forth standards of water
quality in accordance with the Hearing Board's recommendations
which will become effective immediately upon promulgation.
(5) The discharge of matter into such interstate waters or portions
thereof, which reduces the quality of such waters below the water
quality standards established under this subsection (whether the
matter causing or contributing to such reduction is discharged directly
into such waters or reaches such waters after discharge into tributaries
of such waters), is subject to abatement in accordance with the pro-
visions of paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (g) of this section, except
that at least 180 days before any abatement action is initiated under
either paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (g) as authorized by this
subsection, the Secretary shall notify the violators and other interested
parties of the violation of such standards. In any suit brought under
the provisions of this subsection the court shall receive in evidence a
transcript of the proceedings of the conference and hearing provided
[p. 94]
for in this subsection, together with the recommendations of the
conference and Hearing Board and the recommendations and stand-
ards promulgated by the Secretary, and such additional evidence,
including that relating to the alleged violation of the standards, as it
deems necessary to a complete review of the standards and to a deter-
mination of all other issues relating to the alleged violation. The court,
giving due consideration to the practicability and to the physical and
economic feasibility of complying with such standards, shall have
jurisdiction to enter such judgment and orders enforcing such judg-
ment as the public interest and the equities of the case may require.
(6) Nothing in this subsection shall (A) prevent the application of
this section to any case to which subsection (a) of this section would
otherwise be applicable, or (B) extend Federal jurisdiction over water
not otherwise authorized by this Act.
(7) In connection with any hearings under this section no witness
or any other person shall be required to divulge trade secrets or secret
processes.
-------
1438 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(d) (1) Whenever requested by the Governor of any State or a
State water pollution control agency, or (with the concurrence of the
Governor and of the State water pollution control agency for the State
in which the municipality is situated) the governing body of any mu-
nicipality, the Secretary shall, if such request refers to pollution of
waters which is endangering the health or welfare of persons in a State
other than that in which the discharge or discharges (causing or con-
tributing to such pollution) originates, give formal notification thereof
to the water pollution control agency and interstate agency, if any, of
the State or States where such discharge or discharges originate and
shall call promptly a conference of such agency or agencies and of the
State water pollution control agency and interstate agency, if any, of
the State or States, if any, which may bs adversely affected by such
pollution. Whenever requested by the Governor of any State, the
Secretary shall, if such request refers to pollution of interstate or
navigable waters which is endangering the health or welfare of per-
sons only in the requesting State in which the discharge or discharges
(causing or contributing to such pollution) originate, give formal noti-
fication thereof to the water pollution control agency and interstate
agency, if any, of such State and shall promptly call a conference of
such agency or agencies, unless, in the judgment of the Secretary, the
effect of such pollution on the legitimate uses of the waters is not of
sufficient significance to warrant exercise of Federal jurisdiction under
this section. The Secretary shall also call such a conference whenever,
on the basis of reports, surveys, or studies, he has reason to believe
that any pollution referred to in subsection (a) and endangering the
health or welfare of persons in a State other than that in which the
discharge or discharges originate is occurring; or he finds that sub-
stantial economic injury results from the inability to market shellfish
or shellfish products in interstate commerce because of pollution re-
ferred to in subsection (a) and action of Federal, State, or local
authorities.
(2) Whenever the Secretary, upon receipt of reports, surveys, or
studies from any duly constituted international agency, has reason
to believe that any pollution referred to in subsection (a) of this
section which endangers the health or welfare of persons in a foreign
country is occurring, and the Secretary of State requests him to abate
such pollution, he shall give formal notification thereof to the State
[p. 95]
water pollution control agency of the State in which such discharge
or discharges originate and to the interstate water pollution control
agency, if any, and shall call promptly a conference of such agency
or agencies, if he believes that such pollution is occurring in sufficient
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1439
quantity to warrant such action. The Secretary, through the Secre-
tary of State, shall invite the foreign country which may be adversely
affected by the pollution to attend and participate in the conference,
and the representative of such country shall, for the purpose of the
conference and any further proceeding resulting from such conference,
have all the rights of a State water pollution control agency. This
paragraph shall apply only to foreign country which the Secretary
determines has given the United States essentially the same rights
with respect to the prevention and control of water pollution occurring
in that country as is given that country by this paragraph. Nothing
in this paragraph shall be construed to modify, amend, repeal, or
otherwise affect the provisions 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 water pollution in waters
covered by those treaties.
(3) The agencies called to attend such conference may bring such
persons as they desire to the conference. In addition, it shall be the
responsibility of the chairman of the conference to give every person
contributing to the alleged pollution or affected by it an opportunity
to make a full statement of his views to the conference. Not less than
three weeks' prior notice of the conference date shall bs given to such
agencies.
(4) Following this conference, the Secretary shall prepare and
forward to all the water pollution control agencies attending the con-
ference a summary of conference discussions including (A) occur-
rence of pollution of interstate or navigable waters subject to
abatement under this Act; (B) adequacy of measures taken toward
abatement of the pollution; and (C) nature of delays, if any, being
encountered in abating the pollution.
(e) If the Secretary believes, upon the conclusion of the conference
or thereafter, that effective progress toward abatement of such pollu-
tion is not being made and that the health or welfare of any persons
is being endangered, he shall recommend to the appropriate State
water pollution control agency that it take necessary remedial action.
The Secretary shall allow at least six months from the date he makes
such recommendations for the taking of such recommended action.
(f) (1) If, at the conclusion of the period so allowed, such remedial
action has not been taken or action which in the judgment of the
Secretary is reasonably calculated to secure abatement of such pol-
lution has not been taken, the Secretary shall call a public hearing, to
be held in or near one or more of the places where the discharge or
discharges causing or contributing to such pollution originated, before
a Hearing Board of five or more persons appointed by the Secretary.
-------
1440 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Each State in which any discharge causing or contributing to such
pollution originates and each State claiming to be adversely affected by
such pollution shall be given an opportunity to select one member of
the Hearing Board and at least one member shall be a representative
of the Department of Commerce, and not less than a majority of the
[p. 96]
Hearing Board shall be persons other than officers or employees of
the Department of the Interior. At least three weeks' prior notice of
such hearing shall be given to the State water pollution control agen-
cies and interstate agencies, if any, called to attend the aforesaid
hearing and the alleged polluter or polluters. It shall be the respon-
sibility of the Hearing Board to give every person contributing to
the alleged pollution or affected by it an opportunity to make a full
statement of his views to the Hearing Board. On the basis of the evi-
dence presented at such hearing, the Hearing Board shall make find-
ings as to whether pollution referred to in subsection (a) is occurring
and whether effective progress toward abatement thereof is being
made. If the Hearing Board finds such pollution is occurring and
effective progress toward abatement thereof is not being made it shall
make recommendations to the Secretary concerning the measures, if
any, which it finds to be reasonable and equitable to secure abatement
of such pollution. The Secretary shall send such findings and recom-
mendations to the person or persons discharging any matter causing
or contributing to such pollution, together with a notice specifying
a reasonable time (not less than six months) to secure abatement of
such pollution, and shall also send such findings and recommendations
and such notice to the State water pollution control agency and to
the interstate agency, if any, of the State or States where such dis-
charge or discharges originate.
(2) In connection with any hearing called under this section the
Secretary is authorized to require any person whose alleged activities
result in discharges causing or contributing to water pollution to file
with him, in such form as he may prescribe, a report based on existing
data, furnishing such information as may reasonably be required as
to the character, kind, and quantity of such discharges 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 Secretary may prescribe, and shall be filed with the
Secretary within such reasonable period as the Secretary may pre-
scribe, unless additional time be granted by the Secretary. No person
shall be required in such report to divulge trade secrets or secret
processes, and all information reported shall be considered confidential
for the purposes of section 1905 of title 18 of the United States Code.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1441
(3) If any person required to file any report under paragraph (2) of
this subsection shall fail to do so within the time fixed by the Secretary
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 $100 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 brought in the district where such person has his
principal office or in any district in which he does business. The
Secretary may upon application therefor remit or mitigate any for-
feiture provided for under this paragraph and he shall have authority
to determine the facts upon all such applications.
(4) It shall be the duty of the various United States attorneys,
under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States, to
prosecute for the recovery of such forfeitures.
[p. 97]
(g) If action reasonably calculated to secure abatement of the pol-
lution within the time specified in the notice following the public
hearing is not taken, the Secretary—
(1) in the case of pollution of waters which is endangering the
health or welfare of persons in a State other than that in which the
discharge or discharges (causing or contributing to such pollu-
tion) originate, may request the Attorney General to bring a suit
on behalf of the United States to secure abatement of pollution,
and
(2) in the case of pollution of waters which is endangering the
health or welfare of persons only in the State in which the dis-
charge or discharges (causing or contributing to such pollution)
originate, may with the written consent of the Governor of such
State, request the Attorney General to bring a suit on bshalf
of the United States to secure abatement of the pollution.
(h) The court shall receive in evidence in any such suit a transcript
of the proceedings before the Board and a copy of the Board's recom-
mendations and shall receive such further evidence as the court in its
discretion deems proper. The court, giving due consideration to the
practicability and to the physical and economic feasibility of securing
abatement of any pollution proved, shall have jurisdiction to enter
such judgment, and orders enforcing such judgment, as the public
interest and the equities of the case may require.
(i) Members of any Hearing Board appointed pursuant to sub-sec-
tion (f) who are not regular full-time officers or employees of the
United States shall, while participating in the hearing conducted by
such Board or otherwise engaged on the work of such Board, be
-------
1442 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
entitled to receive compensation at a rate fixed by the Secretary, 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 author-
ized by law (5 U.S.C. 73b-2) for persons in the Government service
employed intermittently.
(j) As used in this section the term—
(1) "person" includes an individual, corporation, partnership,
association, State, municipality, and political subdivision of a
State, and
(2) "municipality" means a city, town, borough, county, parish,
district, or other public body created by or pursuant to State law.
(k) (1) At the request of a majority of the conferees in any confer-
ence called under this section the Secretary is authorized to request
any person whose alleged activities result in discharges causing or con-
tributing to water pollution, to file with him a report (in such form
as may be prescribed in regulations promulgated by him) based on
existing data, furnishing such information as may reasonably be
requested as to the character, kind, and quantity of such discharges
and the use of facilities or other means to prevent or reduce such dis-
charges by the person filing such a report. No person shall be required
in such report to divulge trade secrets or secret processes, and all
information reported shall be considered confidential for the purposes
of section 1905 of title 18 of the United States Code.
(2) If any person required to file any report under this subsection
shall fail to do so within the time fixed by regulations for filing the
[p. 98]
same, and such failure shall continue for thirty days after notice of
such default, such person may, by order of a majority of the conferees,
be subject to a forfeiture of $100 for each and every day of the con-
tinuance 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 brought in the district where
such person has his principal office or in any district in which he does
business. The Secretary may upon application therefor remit or
mitigate any forfeiture provided for under this subsection and he
shall have authority to determine the facts upon all such applications.
(3) It shall be the duty of the various United States attorneys,
under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States,
to prosecute for the recovery of such forfeitures.
CONTROL OF SEWAGE FROM VESSELS
Sec. 11. (a) For the purpose of this section, the term—
(1) "new vessel" includes every description of watercraft or
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1443
other artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a
means of transportation on the navigable waters of the United
States, the construction of which is initiated after promulgation
of standards and regiilations 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 transportation on the navigable waters of the United
States, the construction of which has been initiated before promul-
gation 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 subdivi-
sion thereof, or by a foreign nation, except in any case in which
such vessel is engaged in commerce;
(4) "U?iited States" includes the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, Amer-
ican Samoa, the Canal Zone, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific
Islands;
(5) "marine sanitation device" means any equipment for instal-
lation on board a vessel which is designed to receive, retain, treat,
or discharge 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 manu-
facturing, assembling, or importation of marine sanitation devices
or of vessels having installed on board such devices; and
(8) "person" means an individual, partnership, firm, corpora-
tion, or association, but does not include an individual on board a
public vessel.
(b) (1) Not later than two years after the enactment of this section,
the Secretary, after consultation with the Secretary of the Department
in which the Coast Guard is operating, after giving appropriate con-
sideration to the economic costs involved and within the limits of
available technology, shall promulgate Federal standards of perform-
ance for marine sanitation devices (hereinafter referred to as "stand-
ards") which shall be designed to prevent the discharge of untreated
or inadequately treated sewage into
[p. 99]
or upon the navigable waters of the United States from new vessels
and existing vessels, except vessels not equipped with installed 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
-------
1444 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating.
The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is oper-
ating shall promulgate regulations, which are consistent with the
standards issued 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 device or devices installed
pursuant to the requirements of State statute, regulation, or recom-
mended levels of control set forth in the Handbook on Sanitation and
Vessel Construction (Public Health Service, 1965) prior to the pro-
mulgation of the initial standards and regulations required by this
section shall be deemed in compliance with this section until such
time as the device or devices are replaced or are found not to be in
compliance with such State statute, regulation, or recommended level.
(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.
(2) The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
operating with regard to the regulatory authority established by this
section, may distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of vessels as
well as between new and existing vessels, and may waive applicability
o'j standards and regulations as necessary or appropriate for such
classes, types, and sizes of vessels, and, upon application, for individual
vessels.
(d) The provisions of this section and the standards and regulations
promulgated thereunder shall apply to vessels owned and operated by
the United States unless the Secretary of Defense finds that compli-
ance would not be in the interest of national security.
(e) Before the standards and regulations under this section are pro-
mulgated, the Secretary and the Secretary of the department in which
the Coast Guard is operating shall consult with the Secretary of State;
the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare; the Secretary of De-
fense; the Secretary of Commerce; 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.
(/) After the effective date of any standards and regulations estab-
lished pursuant to this section, no State or political subdivision thereof
shall adopt or enforce any statute or regulation with respect to the
design, manufacture, installation, or use of any marine sanitation
device in connection with any vessel subject to the provisions of this
section, except that nothing in this subsection shall restrict the author-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1445
ity of a State to prohibit the discharge of sewage in any waters within
a State where implementation of applicable water quality standards
requires such prohibition.
(g) (1) No manufacturer of a marine sanitation device shall sell,
offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate
commerce, or import into the United States for sale or resale any
marine sanitation
[p. 100]
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 ij he determines, in accordance with the
provisions of this paragraph, 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 Secretary as to standards of performance and for such other pur-
poses as may be appropriate. If the Secretary of the department in
which the Coast Guard is operating determines that the device is satis-
factory from the standpoint of the procedures set forth by the Secre-
tary 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 d2vice shall be deerasd 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 Secretary or
the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is operating
may reasonably require to enable him, to determine whether such
manufacturer has acted or is acting in compliance with this section and
regulations thereunder and shall, upon request of an officer or em-
ployee duly designated by the Secretary or the Secretary of the de-
partment in which the Coast Guard is operating, permit such officer
or employee at reasonable times to have access to and copy such rec-
ords. All information reported to, or otherwise obtained by, the
Secretary 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
-------
1446 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
to in section 1905 of title 18 of the United States Code shall be consid-
ered confidential for the purpose of that section, except that such
information may be disclosed to other officers or employees concerned
with carrying out this section.
(h) After the effective date of standards and regulations promul-
gated under this section, it shall be unlawful—
(1) for the manufacturer of any vessel subject to such stand-
ards 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 appropriate test device
certified pursuant to this section;
(2) for any person, prior to the sale or delivery of a vessel
subject to such standards and regulations to the ultimate pur-
chaser, wrongfully to remove or render inoperative any certified
marine sanitation device or element of design of such device in-
stalled in such vessel;
(3) for any person to fail or refuse to permit access to or copy-
ing of records or to fail to make reports or provide information re-
quired under this section; and
[p. 101]
(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 violators of subsection (h) of this section. Actions to restrain
such violators shall be brought by, and in, the name of the United
States. In any such action, subpenas for witnesses who are required
to attend a district court in any district may run into any other district.
In case of contumacy 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 or to appear and produce docu-
ments, and any failure to obey such order of the court may be pun-
ished by such court as a contempt thereof.
(j) Any person who violates clause (1) or (2) of subsection (h) of
this section shall be liable to 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 viola-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1447
tion. Each violation shall be a separate offense. The Secretary of the
department in which the Coast Guard is operating may assess and
compromise any such penalty. No penalty shall be assessed until the
person charged shall have been given notice and an opportunity or a
hearing on such charge. In determining the amount oj the penalty,
or the amount agreed upon in compromise, the gravity oj the viola-
tion, and the demonstrated good faith of the person charged in
attempting to achieve rapid compliance, after notification of a vio-
lation, shall be considered by said Secretary.
(k) The provisions of this section shall be enforced by the Secre-
tary 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 Secretary,
other Federal agencies, or the States to carry out the provisions of
this section.
(I) 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, board and inspect any vessel
upon the navigable waters of the United States, and execute any
warrant or other process issued by an officer or court of competent
jurisdiction.
(m) The several district courts of the United States are invested
with jurisdiction for any actions arising under this section. In the
case of Guam, such actions 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 sfiall have jurisdiction of such
actions. In the case of the Canal Zone, such actions may be brought
in the District Court for the District of the Canal Zone.
[p. 102]
CONTROL OF OIL DISCHARGES
Sec. 12. (a) For the purpose 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
with wastes other than dredged spoil;
(2) "discharge" means any spilling, leaking, pumping, pour-
ing, emitting, emptying, or dumping;
(3) "vessel" includes every description of watercraft or other
artificial 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 bareboat char-
-------
1448 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
tered and operated by the United States, or by a State or political
subdivision thereof, or by a foreign nation or political subdivision
thereof, except in any case in which such vessel is engaged in
commerce;
(5) "United States" includes the States, the District of Co-
lumbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American
Samoa, the Virgin Islands, the Canal Zone, and the Trust Terri-
tory of the Pacific Islands;
(6) "owner or operator" means, as the context requires, any
person owning, operating, or chartering by demise, a vessel, or
any person owning or operating an onshore or offshore facility or
an onshore or offshore drilling-production facility;
(7) "person" includes an individual, firm, corporation, asso-
ciation, or a partnership;
(8) "remove" or "removal" includes removal of the oil from
the water and shorelines and the taking of 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 shorelines;
(9) "contiguous zone" means the entire zone established by
the United States under article 24 of the Convention on the
Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone;
(10) "onshore or offshore drilling-production facility" means
any facility of any kind and related appurtenances, thereto
located in, on, or under, the surface of any land, or permanently
or temporarily affixed to any land, including lands beneath the
navigable waters of the United States, which is used or capable
of being used for the purpose of exploring, drilling, or producing
oil;
(11) "onshore or offshore facility" means any facility, other
than an onshore or offshore drilling-production facility, of any
kind and related appurtenances thereto located in, on, or under,
the surface of any land, or permanently or temporarily affixed
to any land, including lands beneath the navigable waters of the
United States, which is used or capable of being used for the
purpose of processing, transporting, or transferring oil, or for the
purpose of storing oil for any commercial purpose, but does not
include any facility, other than a marine facility, used or capable
of being used to store five hundred barrels of oil or less; and
(12) "act of God" means an act occasioned exclusively by
violence of nature without the interference of any human agency.
(b) (1) The discharge of oil into or upon the navigable waters of
the United States, adjoining shorelines, or into or upon the waters of
the contiguous zone is prohibited, except (A) in the case of such
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1449
discharges into the waters of the contiguous zone, where permitted
under article IV
[p. 103]
of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution
of the Sea by Oil, 1954, and (B) where permitted in quantities
and at times and locations or under such circumstances or condi-
tions as the President may, by regulation, deem approptiate. 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.
(2) Any vessel, onshore or offshore facility, or onshore or offshore
drilling-production facility from which oil is knowingly discharged in
violation of the provisions of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be
subject to an in rem civil penalty of not more than $2,500 for each
offense. No penalty shall be assessed unless the owner or operator
of the vessel or of the onshore or offshore facility has been given
notice and an opportunity for a hearing with respect to such dis-
charge. Any such penalty also may be compromised. In determining
the amount of such penalty, or the amount agreed upon in com-
promise, the gravity and nature of the violation, the history of dis-
charges by such vessel or facility, the giving of notice pursuant to
subsection (c), and any action taken to minimize or mitigate damage,
including removal of discharged oil in accordance with the provisions
of this section and the regulations promulgated thereto, shall be taken
into consideration.
(c) In order to facilitate the removal of oil and minimize or mitigate
damage resulting from the discharge thereof, any person in charge of
a vessel, an onshore or offshore facility, or an onshore or offshore
drilling-production facility shall, as soon as he has knowledge of any
discharge of oil from such vessel or facility in violation of subsection
(b) of this section or the regulations promulgated thereunder, im-
mediately notify the appropriate agency of the United States Govern-
ment of such discharge. Any such person who fails to notify
immediately such agency of such discharge shall, upon conviction, be
fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned for not more than one
year, or both. Notification received pursuant to this subsection shall
not be used by the United States Government to enforce the provi-
sions of any other Federal law or to provide any information obtained
from such notice to any State for the purpose of any criminal
prosecution.
(d) (1) Witfiin one hundred and eighty days after the effective
date of this section, the President shall, consistent with maritime
safety, marine and navigation laws, and applicable water quality
-------
1450 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
standards, issue regulations (A) relative to the procedures, methods,
and equipment for preventing discharges of oil., (B) establishing
criteria relating to the procedures, methods, means, and equipment
used in the removal of discharged oil, and (C) establishing criteria
for the development and implementation of oil removal contingency
plans. The regulations shall also provide procedures for the review
and approval of such plans, where appropriate.
(2) Any owner or operator of a vessel, onshore or offshore facility,
or onshore or offshore drilling-production facility who fails or refuses
to comply with the provisions of any regulation issued under para-
graph (1) of this subsection, shall be subject to an in rem civil penalty
of not more than $1,000 for each such failure or refusal. No penalty
shall be assessed until such owner or operator has been given notice
and an opportunity for a hearing on such charge. Any such penalty
also may be compromised. In determining the amount of the penalty,
or the amount agreed upon in compromise, the gravity and nature of
the violation, the history of previous violations, and the demonstrated
good faith of the owner or operator charged in attempting to achieve
rapid compliance, after notification of an offense, shall be taken into
consideration.
[p. 104]
(e) Whenever any oil is discharged in violation of subsection (b)
of this section, unless removal is immediately undertaken by the
owner or operator of the vessel, onshore or offshore facility, or on-
shore or offshore drilling-production facility from which the discharge
occurs pursuant to the regulations promulgated under subsection (d)
of this section, the President shall remove or arrange for the removal
thereof. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to restrict the
authority of the President to act to remove or arrange for the removal
of such oil at any time.
(f) (1) Except where an owner or operator can prove that a dis-
charge 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 of a third party, such owner or operator of any ves^i from
which oil is discharged, or which causes the discharge of oil, into or
upon the navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shore-
lines of the waters of the contiguous zone shall, notwithstanding any
other provision of law, be liable to the United States Government for
the actual costs incurred under subsection (e) for the removal of such
oil by the United States Government in an amount not to exceed $125
per gross ton of such vessel or $14 million, whichever is lesser, except
that where such discharge was the result of negligence or a willful
act, such owner or operator shall be liable to the United States
Government for the full amount of such costs.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1451
(2) (A) Each owner or operator of a vessel over three hundred
gross tons, including any barge of equivalent size, using any port or
place in the United States or the navigable waters of the United
States, shall establish and maintain, under regulations prescribed by
the designated Federal agency, evidence of financial responsibility
of $100 per gross ton of the liability to which the vessel could be
subjected under paragraph (1) of this subsection. Financial respon-
sibility may be established and maintained by any one of, or a
combination of, the following methods acceptable to the designated
Federal agency: (i) evidence of insurance, (ii) surety bonds, (Hi)
qualification as self-insurer, or (iv) other evidence of financial respon-
sibility satisfactory to the designated Federal agency.
(B) If a bond is filed with the designated Federal agency, then
such bond shall be issued by a bonding company authorized to do
business in the United States.
(C) Any claim for costs incurred by such vessel may be brought
directly against the insurer or any other person providing evidence
of financial responsibility as required under this subsection.
(g) Each owner or operator of a vessel subject to the provisions of
this subsection shall designate a person in the United States as his
legal agent for service of process under this section.
(h) The Secretary of the Treasury shall, upon request of the
delegate of the President, withhold, at the port or place of departure
from the United States, the clearance of a vessel, other than a public
vessel, required by section 4197 of the Revised Statutes of the United
States, as amended (46 U.S.C. 91), which (1) is liable to the United
States Government for any costs or penalties under subsection (b)
or (f) of this section until such costs or penalties are paid or until a
bond or other satisfactory surety is posted, or (2) has failed to meet
the requirements of subsection (f) (2) of this section.
(i) (1) Except where an owner or operator can prove that a dis-
charge 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 of a third party,
[p. 105]
the owner or operator of any onshore or offshore facility from
which oil is discharged into or upon the navigable waters of the
United States or adjoining shorelines shall be liable to the United
States Government for the actual costs incurred for the removal
of such oil by the United States Government in an amount
not to exceed $125 per ton of oil which such facility is capable of
(i) processing, (ii) transporting, (Hi) transferring, in any twenty-
four hour period, or (iv) storing in the largest unit of such facility,
-------
1452 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
whichever is greater, except where the discharge was the result of
negligence or a willful act, the owner or operator shall be liable to the
United States Government for the full amount of such costs.
(2) 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 of a third party, the owner or operator of an onshore or offshore
drilling-production facility from which oil is discharged, or which
causes the discharge of oil, into or upon the navigable waters of the
United States or adjoining shorelines shall be liable to the United
States Government for the actual costs incurred in the removal of
such oil by the United States Government in an amount not to ex-
ceed $8,000,000 except, where the discharge was the result of negli-
gence or a willful act, the owner or operator shall be liable to the
United States Government for the full amount of such costs.
(j) (1) In any case where an owner or operator removes oil dis-
charged from a vessel into or upon the navigable waters of the United
States or adjoining shorelines or the waters of the contiguous zone
or removes oil discharged into or upon the navigable waters of the
United States or adjoining shorelines from an onshore or offshore
facility or an onshore or offshore drilling-production facility, 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, or (D) an act of a third party.
(2) In any case where recovery of costs is obtained by an owner
or operator pursuant to this subsection and the discharge involved
was caused by an act of a third party, the United States Government
shall be subrogated to any rights such owner or operator may have
against such third party due to causing such discharge.
(3) The provisions of this subsection shall not apply in any case
where liability is established pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act.
(4) 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).
(k) (1) The President is authorized to delegate the responsibility
of administering the provisions of this section to one or more ap-
propriate Federal agencies. Any moneys in the fund established by
this subsection shall be available to such Federal agencies to carry
out the provisions of subsections (e) and (j) of this section. Each
such agency, in order to avoid duplication of effort, shall, whenever
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1453
appropriate, utilize the personnel, services, and facilities of other
Federal agencies.
(2) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated to a revolving
jund to be established in the Treasury not to exceed $50,000,000.
Any funds received by the United States Government under this
section shall also be deposited in said fund for such purposes. All
sums appropriated to, or deposited in, said fund shall remain available
until expended.
[p. 106]
(I) The liability established by this section shall in no way affect
any rights which (1) the owner or operator of a vessel, an onshore or
offshore facility, or an onshore or offshore drilling-production facility
may have against any third party whose acts may in any way have
caused or contributed to such discharge, or (2) the United States
Government may have against any third party whose actions may in
any way have caused or contributed to the discharge of oil.
(m) Anyone authorized by the President to enforce the provisions
of this section may (1) board and inspect any vessel upon the
navigable waters of the United States, (2) with or without a warrant
arrest any person who violates the provisions of this section or any
regulation issued thereunder in his presence or view, and (3) execute
any warrant or other process issued by an officer or court of com-
petent jurisdiction.
(n) (1) Where as determined by the President there is an imminent
and substantial threat to the public health or welfare of the United
States, including, but not limited to, fish, shellfish, and wildlife and
public and private shorelines within the United States, because of
an actual or threatened discharge of oil into or upon the navigable
waters of the United States from a vessel, the delegate of the Presi-
dent shall have the right to take immediate possession of such vessel
so far as to remove it or take such other action as may be appropriate
to eliminate or mitigate such threat, and to prevent any unnecessary
injury, and no one shall interfere with or prevent such removal or
other action, except that the head of the agency charged with removal
or other action under this subsection may, in his discretion, give
notice in writing to the owner or operator of any such vessel requiring
them to act. Any expense incurred under this subsection shall be a
cost incurred by the United States Government for the purposes of
subsection (f) in the removal of oil.
(2) In addition to any other action taken by a State or local gov-
ernment, 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, and wildlife and public
-------
1454 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
and private shorelines within the United States, because of an actual
or threatened discharge of oil into or upon the navigable waters of
the United States from an onshore or offshore drilling-production
facility or 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.
(o) The several district courts of the United States are invested
with jurisdiction for any actions, other than actions pursuant to sub-
section (j) (1), arising under this section. In the case of Guam, such
actions 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.
(p) Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting or
modifying any other existing authority of any Federal agency relative
to onshore or offshore facilities, or onshore or offshore drilling-
production facilities under this Act or any other provision of law or
to affect or modify any State or local law not in conflict with the
provisions of this section.
[p. 107]
(q) Nothing in this section shall affect or modify in any way the
obligations of any owner or operator of any vessel, onshore or offshore
facility to any person or agency under any provision of law for
damages to any publicly- or privately-owned property resulting from
a discharge of any oil or from the removal of any such oil.
CONTROL OF HAZARDOUS POLLUTING SUBSTANCES
"Sec. 13. (a) The President shall, in accordance with the proce-
dures set forth in this section, develop, promulgate, and revise as may
be appropriate regulations (1) designating as hazardous substances,
other than oil as defined in section 12 of this Act, such elements and
compounds which, when discharged in any quantity into or upon the
navigable waters of the United States or adjoining 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; and (2) establishing,
if appropriate, criteria for the removal of such substances, including
criteria relative to the methods and means of removal.
"(b) In the development of such regulations, the President or his
delegate shall consult with other interested Federal agencies, repre-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1455
sentatives of State agencies, and other interested persons and or-
ganizations. Consideration shall be given to the latest available
scientific data in the field, the technical feasibility of the regulations,
and experience gained under this Act.
" (c) The President shall from time to time publish any such
proposed regulations in the Federal Register and shall afford in-
terested persons a period of not less than thirty days after publica-
tion to submit written data or comments. Except as provided in
subsection (d) of this section, the President may, upon the expiration
of such period and after consideration of all relevant matter presented,
promulgate such regulations with such modifications as he may deem
appropriate.
(d) On or before the last day of any period fixed for the submission
of written data or comments under subsection (c), any interested
person may file with the President written objections to a proposed
regulation, stating the grounds therefor and requesting a public hear-
ing. As soon as practicable after the period for filing such objections
has expired, the President shall publish in the Federal Register a
notice specifying the proposed regulations to which objections have
been filed and a hearing requested, and shall promptly hold a public
hearing for the purpose of receiving relevant evidence. After com-
pletion of the hearing, the President shall make findings of fact on
such objections, and the President may promulgate the regulations
with such modifications as he deems appropriate, or take such other
action as he deems appropriate. All such findings shall be made
public.
(e) Any aggrieved person may, within sixty days after promulga-
tion in the Federal Register of any regulation for which a hearing was
held under subsection (d), file with the United States Court of Ap-
peals for the District of Columbia a petition praying that such
regulation be modified or set aside in whole or in part. A copy of the
petition shall forthwith be sent by registered or certified mail to the
President, and thereupon the President shall certify and file in such
court the record upon which the President
[p. 108]
made his decision, as provided in section 2112, title 28, United States
Code, The court shall hear such appeal on the record made before the
President. The findings of the President, if supported by substantial
evidence on the record considered as a whole, shall be conclusive.
The court may affirm, vacate, or remand the proceedings to the Presi-
dent for such further action as it directs. The review provided by this
subsection shall be the exclusive review available to such person of
any such regulation and such regulation shall not be the subject of any
review during any procedure leading to the enforcement of such
-------
1456 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
regulation. The filing of a petition under this subsection shall not
stay the application of the regulation complained of, unless the court
so orders, upon finding that there is a substantial likelihood that the
President's findings are erroneous, and that irreparable injury will
result without such a stay.
(f) Any regulation promulgated under this section shall be effec-
tive upon publication in the Federal Register unless the President
specifies a later date.
(g) In order to facilitate the removal, if appropriate, of any hazard-
ous substance any person in charge of a vessel or of an onshore or off-
shore facility of any kind shall, as soon as he has knowledge of any
discharge of such substance from such vessel or facility, immediately
notify the appropriate agency of the United States of such discharge.
Any such person who knowingly fails to notify immediately such
agency of such discharge shall, upon conviction, be fined not more
than $5,000, or imprisoned for not more than one year or both.
Notification received pursuant to this subsection shall not be used
by the United States Government to enforce the provisions of any
other Federal law or to provide any information obtained from such
notice to any State for the purpose of any criminal prosecution.
(h) Whenever any hazardous substance is discharged into or upon
the navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines or
the waters of the contiguous zone, unless removal is immediately
undertaken by the owner or operator of the vessel or onshore or off-
shore facility from which the discharge occurs or which caused the
discharge, pursuant to the regulations promulgated under this sec-
tion, the President if appropriate, shall remove or arrange for the
removal thereof in accordance with such regulations. Nothing in
this subsection shall be construed to restrict the authority of the
President to act to remove or arrange for the removal of such
hazardous substance at any time.
(i) Any owner or operator of a vessel or onshore or offshore
facility who fails or refuses to comply with the provisions of any
regulations promulgated under this section shall be subject to an in
rem civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each such failure or
refusal. No penalty shall be assessed until such owner or operator
has been given notice and an opportunity for a hearing on such
charge. Any such penalty also may be compromised. In determining
the amount of the penalty, or amount agreed upon in compromise,
the gravity and nature of the violation, the demonstrated good faith
of the owner or operator charged in attempting to achieve rapid com-
pliance after notification of a violation, and the history of previous
violations shall be considered.
(j) Nothing in this section shall affect or modify in any way the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1457
obligations of any owner or operator of any vessel, onshore or off-
shore facility to any person or agency under any provision of law for
damages
[p. 109]
to any publicly or privately-owned property resulting from a dis-
charge of any hazardous substance or from the removal of any
such substance.
(k) Anyone authorized by the President to enforce the provisions
of this section may (1) board and inspect any vessel upon the naviga-
ble waters of the United States, (2) with or without a warrant arrest
any person who violates the provisions of this section or any regula-
tion issued thereunder in his presence or view, and (3) execute any
warrant or other process issued by an officer or court of competent
jurisdiction.
(I) The several district courts of the United States are invested
with jurisdiction for any actions arising under this section. In the
case of Guam, such actions 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.
(TO) (1) For the purpose of this section the definitions in subsec-
tion (a) of section 12 of this Act shall be applicable to the provisions
of this section, except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection;
(A) "remove" or "removal" includes removal of the hazardous
substances from the water arid shorelines and the taking of 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 shorelines;
(B) "owner or operator" means, as the context requires, any
person owning, operating, chartering by demise, or otherwise con-
trolling the operations of, a vessel, or any person owning, operating,
or otherwise controlling the operations of an onshore or offshore
facility; and
(C) "offshore or onshore facility" means any facility of any kind
and related appurtenances thereto which is located in, on, or under
the surface of any land, or permanently or temporarily affixed to any
land, including lands beneath the navigable waters of the United
States and which is used or capable of use for the purpose of process-
ing, transporting, producing, storing, or transferring for commercial
purposes any hazardous substance designated under this section.
-------
1458 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(n) The President shall submit a report to the Congress, together
with his recommendations, not later than November 1, 1970, on the
need for, and desirability of, enacting legislation to impose liability
for the cost of removal of hazardous substances discharged from
vessels and onshore and offshore facilities subject to this section. In
preparing this report, the President shall conduct an accelerated study
which shall include, but not be limited to, the method and measures
for controlling hazardous substances to prevent their discharge, the
most appropriate measures for enforcement and recovery of costs
incurred by the United States if removal is undertaken by the United
States, and methods of imposing civil or criminal sanctions where
removal is impossible or impractical. In carrying out this study, the
President shall consult with, the interested representatives of the
various public and private interest groups that would be affected by
such legislation as well as other interested persons.
[p. HO]
(o) The President is authorized to delegate the responsibility of
administering the provisions of this section to one or more appropriate
Federal agencies. Any moneys in the fund established by section 12
of this Act shall be available to such Federal agencies to carry out
the purposes of this section. Each such agency, in order to avoid
duplication of effort, shall, whenever appropriate, utilize the per-
sonnel, services, and facilities of other Federal agencies.
AREA ACID AND OTHER MINE WATER POLLUTION
CONTROL DEMONSTRATIONS
Sec. 14. (a) The Secretary in cooperation with other Federal
agencies is authorized to enter into agreements with any State or
interstate agency to carry out one or more projects to demonstrate
methods for the elimination or control, within all or part of a water-
shed, of acid or other mine water pollution resulting from active or
abandoned mines. Such projects shall demonstrate the engineering
and economic feasibility and practicality of various abatement tech-
niques which will contribute substantially to effective and practical
methods of acid or other mine water pollution elimination or control.
(b) The Secretary, in selecting watersheds for the purposes of this
section, shall (1) require such feasibility studies as he deems ap-
propriate, (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—
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1459
(2) 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 Secretary;
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 section, 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.
POLLUTION CONTROL IN GREAT LAKES
Sec. 15. (a) The Secretary, in cooperation with other Federal
agencies, is authorized to enter into agreements with any State,
political subdivision, interstate agency, or other public agency, or
combination thereof, 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 practicality of removal
of pollutants and prevention of any polluting matter from entering
into the Great Lakes in the future and other abatement and
[p. HI]
remedial techniques -which will contribute substantially to effective
and practical methods of water 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, personal property or services, the value of
which shall be determined by the Secretary.
(c) There is authorized to be appropriated $20,000,000 to carry out
the provisions of this section, which sum shall be available until
expended.
[COOPERATION TO CONTROL POLLUTION FROM FEDERAL INSTALLATIONS
[SEC. 11. It is hereby declared to be the intent of the Congress
that any Federal department or agency having jurisdiction over any
-------
1460 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
building, installation, or other property shall, insofar as practicable
and consistent with the interests of the United States and within
any available appropriations, cooperate with the Department of the
Interior, and with any State or interstate agency or municipality
having jurisdiction over waters into which any matter is discharged
from such property, in preventing or controlling the pollution of such
waters. In his summary of any conference pursuant to section
10 (d) (3) of this Act, the Secretary shall include referencss to any
discharges allegedly contributing to pollution from any Federal
property. Notice of any hearing pursuant to section 10 (f) involving
any pollution alleged to be effected by any such discharges shall also
be given to the Federal agency having jurisdiction over the property
involved and the findings and recommendations of the Hearing Board
conducting such hearing shall also include references to any such
discharges which are contributing to the pollution found by such
Hearing Board.]
COOPERATION BY ALL FEDERAL AGENCIES IN THE CONTROL
OF POLLUTION
Sec. 16. (a) (1) Each Federal agency having jurisdiction over any
real property, facility or activity of any kind, shall consistent with an
approved plan for implementation, insure compliance with applicable
water quality standards and the purposes of this Act in the adminis-
tration of such property, facility, or activity. In his summary of any
conference pursuant to section 10 (d) (4) of this Act, the Secretary
shall include references to any discharges allegedly contributing to
pollution from any such Federal property, facility, or activity, and
shall transmit a copy of such summary to the head of the Federal
agency having jurisdiction of such property, facility, or activity.
Notice of any hearing pursuant to section 10 (f) of this Act involving
any pollution alleged to be effected by any such discharges shall also
be given to the Federal agency having jurisdiction over the property,
facility, or activity involved, and the findings and recommendations
of the hearing board conducting such hearing shall include references
to any such discharges which are contributing to the pollution found
by such board.
(2) There is hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as
may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this section.
[p. 112]
(b) Each Federal agency which leases any Federal property or
facility oj any kind or which contracts for the operation of any
Federal property or facility or which contracts for the entire opera-
tion of any other facility, shall insure compliance with applicable
water quality standards and the purposes of this Act in the adminis-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1461
tration of such lease or contract. Any certification obtained for a
Federal license or permit pursuant to subsection (c) shall be evidence
o'j compliance with water quality standards for the purposes of this
subsection.
(c) (1) Any applicant for a Federal license or permit to construct
or operate any facility or to conduct any activity which may result in
any discharge into the navigable waters of the United States shall
provide certification from the State in which the discharge originates
or, if appropriate, the interstate water pollution control agency to the
licensing or permitting agency and notice thereof to the Secretary that
there is reasonable assurance that such facility or activity will com-
ply with applicable water quality standards, except that in any case
where standards for interstate water have not been approved or where
such standards have been promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to
section 10 (c) of this Act, such certification shall be obtained from the
Secretary. Such State or if appropriate interstate agency or the
Secretary shall, within one year of receipt of any application for such
certification, notify the applicant of such certification or of intent not
to certify. Whenever such discharge may affect, as determined by the
Secretary, the applicable water quality standards of any other State
or States, the Secretary, within sixty days of the date of notice of
application for a Federal license or permit shall notify such other
State or States. If, within thirty days after receipt of such notifica-
tion, such other State or States determine that such discharge will
adversely affect their water quality standards, the Secretary, within
thirty days after the State or States make such determination, shall
review such determination and, if he finds that such discharge will
adversely affect the water quality standards of such State or States,
shall require before such license or permit is issued such conditions
as may be necessary to insure compliance with applicable water
quality standards. No license or permit shall be granted without such
certification and such conditions as the State or, as appropriate, the
interstate agency or, as appropriate, the Secretary may reasonably
require, including, but not limited to, provision for suspension or
termination of any issued license or permit for failure to be in com-
pliance with applicable water quality standards. In any case where
such conditions required by the Secretary are more stringent than,
or in conflict with conditions required by the certifying State or, if
appropriate, interstate agency, the licensing or permitting agency,
upon request oj the applicant for a license or permit, shall hold a
hearing and make findings of fact on the conditions to be included in
any license or permit, except that no such findings shall be adopted
that are less stringent than the conditions required by the certifying
State. The licensee or permittee shall provide the certifying State
-------
1462 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
or, if appropriate, the interstate agency, or the Secretary, with
notification of any changes in the proposed facility or activity which
may affect applicable water quality standards.
"(2) The certification obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of this
subsection shall fulfill the requirements of this subsection with respect
to any other Federal license or permit required for such facility or
activity, unless, after notice of application for such other Federal
license or permit has been
[p. H3]
given by such Federal agency, the State or, if appropriate, the
interstate agency or the Secretary, notifies within sixty days after
receipt of such notice such Federal agency of a change since providing
such certification in (A) the nature of the activity, (B) the design
of the facility, (C) the natural characteristics of the waters into
which such discharge is made, or (D) the water quality standards
applicable to such waters, and that, due to such change, there is no
longer reasonable assurance that there will be compliance with ap-
plicable water quality standards.
" (3) Prior to the operation of any federally licensed or permitted
facility or activity, not subject to a Federal operating license or per-
mit, the licensee or permittee shall provide an opportunity for such
certifying State and, if appropriate, the interstate agency or the
Secretary to review the manner in which the facility or activity shall
be operated or conducted for the purposes of assuring compliance
with applicable water quality standards. Upon notification by the
certifying State, or if appropriate, the interstate agency or the Secre-
tary that the operation of any federally licensed or permitted facility
or activity will not comply with applicable water quality standards,
such Federal agency shall suspend such license or permit until
notification is received that there is reasonable assurance that such
facility or activity will comply with applicable water quality
standards.
(4) Upon notification by the Governor of the certifying State, or,
as appropriate, the interstate agency or the Secretary, that any such
federally licensed or permitted facility or activity has been found by
a court of competent jurisdiction, pursuant to applicable State or
Federal law, to be in violation of the applicable water quality
standards such license or permit may be suspended or terminated as
the circumstances require.
(5) No Federal agency shall be deemed to be an applicant for the
purposes of this subsection.
(6) In any case where actual construction of a facility for the con-
duct of any activity has been commenced pursuant to a Federal li-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1463
cense or permit prior to the date of enactment of the Water Quality
Improvement Act of 1969, no certification under this subsection shall
be required for any Federal operating license or permit respecting
that activity issued within two years following such date: Provided,
That any operating license or permit issued during the two-year
period following such date of enactment without such certification
shall terminate at the end of that period unless prior to such date the
licensee or permittee submits to the Federal agency that issued such
license or permit a certification which otherwise meets the require-
ments of paragraph (1) of this subsection.
(7) Except as provided in paragraph (6), any application for a
license or permit that is (a) pending on the date of enactment of the
Water Quality Improvement Act of 1969 and (b) that is issued within
one year following the date of enactment shall not require certifica-
tion pursuant to this subsection for one year following the issuance
of such license or permit: Provided, That any such license or permit
issued shall terminate at the end of one year unless prior to that time
the licensee or permittee submits to the Federal agency that issued
such license or permit a certification which otherwise meets the re-
quirements of this subsection.
(8) (A) In the case of any activity which will affect water quality
but for which there are no applicable water quality standards, no
certification shall be required under this subsection, except that the
licensing or permitting agency shall impose, as a condition of any
license or permit, a requirement that the licensee or permittee shall
comply with the purposes of this Act.
[p. 114]
(B) Upon notice from the State in which the discharge originates
or, as appropriate, the interstate agency or the Secretary, that such
licensee or permittee has been notified of the adoption of water quality
standards applicable to such activity and has failed, after reasonable
notice, of not less than six months, to comply with such standard?, the
license or permit shall be suspended until notification is received
from such State or interstate agency or the Secretary that there is
reasonable assurance that such activity will comply with applicable
water quality standards.
(d) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority
of any department or agency pursuant to any other provision of law
to require compliance with applicable water quality standards. The
Secretary shall, upon the request of any Federal department or
agency, or State or interstate agency, or applicant, provide, for the
purpose of this section, any relevant information on applicable water
quality standards, and shall, when requested by any such department
-------
1464 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
or agency or State or interstate agency, or applicant, comment on
any methods to comply with such standards.
(e) In order to implement the provisions of this section, the Secre-
tary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is authorized,
is he deems it to be in the public interest, to permit the use of spoil
disposal areas under his jurisdiction by Federal licensees or per-
mittees, and to make an appropriate charge for such use. Moneys
received from such licensees or permittees shall be deposited in the
Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
ADMINISTRATION
SEC. [12.] 17. (a) The Secretary is authorized to prescribe such
regulations as are necessary to carry out his functions under this
Act.
(b) The Secretary, with the consent of the head of any other
agency of the United States, may utilize such officers and employees
of such agency as may be found necessary to assist in carrying out
the purposes of this Act.
(c) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Depart-
ment of the Interior such sums as may be necessary to enable it to
carry out its functions under this Act.
(d) Each recipient of assistance under this Act shall keep such
records as the Secretary 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 under-
taking in connection with which such assistance is given or used,
and the amount of that portion of the cost of the project or under-
taking supplied by other sources, and such other records as will
facilitate an effective audit.
(e) The Secretary of the Interior 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.
DEFINITIONS
SEC. [13.] 18. When used in this Act—
(a) The term "State water pollution control agency" means the
State health authority, except that, in the case of any State in which
[p. 115]
there is a single State agency, other than the State health authority,
charged with responsibility for enforcing State laws relating to the
abatement of water pollution, it means such other State agency.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1465
(b) The term "interstate agency" means an agency of two or more
States established by or pursuant to an agreement or compact ap-
proved by the Congress, or any other agency of two or more States,
having substantial powers or duties pertaining to the control of pol-
lution of waters.
(c) The term "treatment works" means the various devices used in
the treatment of sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature, in-
cluding the necessary intercepting sewers, outfall sewers, pumping,
power, and other equipment, and their appurtenances, and includes
any extensions, improvements, remodeling, additions, and alterations
thereof.
(d) The term "State" means a State, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.
(e) The term "interstate waters" means all rivers, lakes, and other
waters that flow across or form a part of State boundaries, including
coastal waters.
(f) The term "municipality" means a city, town, borough, county,
parish, district, or other public body created by or pursuant to State
law and having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial wastes,
or other wastes, and an Indian tribe or an authorized Indian tribal
organization.
OTHER AUTHORITY NOT AFFECTED
SEC. [14.] 19. This Act shall not be construed as (1) superseding
or limiting the functions, under any other law, of the Surgeon General
or of the Public Health Service, or of any other officer or agency of
the United States, relating to water pollution, or (2) affecting or
impairing the provisions of [the Oil Pollution Act, 1924, or] sections
13 through 17 of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for
the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on
rivers and harbors and for other purposes", approved March 3, 1899,
as amended, or (3) affecting or impairing the provisions of any treaty
of the United States.
SEPARABILITY
SEC. [15.] 20. 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 circum-
stances, and the remainder of this Act, shall not be affected thereby.
SEC. [16.] 21. (a) In order to provide the basis for evaluating pro-
grams authorized by this Act, the development of new programs, and
to furnish the Congress with the information necessary for authori-
zation of appropriations for fiscal years bsginning after June 30, 1968,
the Secretary, in cooperation with State water pollution control
agencies and other water pollution control planning agencies, shall
-------
1466 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
make a detailed estimate of the cost of carrying out the provisions of
this Act; a comprehensive study of the economic impact on affected
units of government of the cost of installation of treatment facilities;
and a comprehensive analysis of the national requirements for and
the cost of treating municipal, industrial, and other effluent to attain
such water quality standards as established pursuant to this Act or
[p. 116]
applicable State law. The Secretary shall submit such detailed esti-
mate and such comprehensive study of such cost for the five-year
period beginning July 1, 1968, to the Congress no later than January
10, 1968, such study to be updated each year thereafter.
[(b) The Secretary shall also make a complete investigation and
study to determine (1) the need for additional trained State and
local personnel to carry out programs assisted pursuant to this Act
and other programs for the same purpose as this Act, and (2) means
of using existing Federal training programs to train such personnel.
He shall report the results of such investigation and study to the
President and the Congress not later than July 1, 1967.]
(b) (1) The Secretary 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, con-
duct and promote, and encourage contributions to, a comprehensive
study 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 study shall also
consider the effect of demographic trends, the exploitation of mineral
resources and fossil fuels, land and industrial development, naviga-
tion, flood and erosion control, and other uses of estuaries and
estuarine zones upon the pollution of the waters therein.
(2) In conducting the above study, the Secretary shall assemble,
coordinate, and organize all existing pertinent information on the
Nation's estuaries and estuarine zones; carry out a program of investi-
gations and surveys to supplement existing information in representa-
tive estuaries and estuarine zones; and identify the problems and
areas where further research and study are required.
(3) The Secretary shall submit to the Congress a final report of the
study authorized by this subsection not later than three years after
the date of enactment of this subsection. Copies of the report shall
be made available to all interested parties, public and private. The
report shall include, but not be limited to—
(A) An analysis of the importance of estuaries to the economic
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1467
and social well-being of the people of the United States and of the
effects of pollution upon the use and enjoyment of such estuaries;
(B) a discussion of the major economic, social, and ecological
trends occurring in the estuarine zones of the Nation;
(C) recommendations for a comprehensive national program
for the preservation, study, use, and development of estuaries of
the Nation, and the respective responsibilities which should be
assumed by Federal, State, and local governments and by public
and private interests.
(4) There is authorized to be appropriated the sum of $1,000,000
per fiscal year for the fiscal years ending June 30,1967, June 30,1968,
June 30, 1969, and June 30, 1970, to carry out the purposes of this
subsection.
(5) For the purpose of this subsection, the term "estuarine zones"
means an environmental system 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
navigable or interstate river or stream or other body of water having
channels,
[p. 117]
and the term "estuary" means all or part of the mouth, of a
unimpaired natural connection with open sea and within which the
sea water is measurably diluted with fresh water derived from land
drainage.
[SEC. 17. The Secretary of the Interior shall, in consultation with
the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the department in which
the Coast Guard is operating, the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare, and the Secretary of Commerce, conduct a full and complete
investigation and study of the extent of the pollution of all navigable
waters of the United States from litter and sewage discharged,
dumped, or otherwise deposited into such waters from watercraft
using such waters, and methods of abating either in whole or in part
such pollution. The Secretary shall submit a report of such investiga-
tion to Congress, together with his recommendations for any neces-
sary legislation, not later than July 1, 1967.
[SEC. 18. The Secretary of the Interior shall conduct a full and
complete investigation and study of methods for providing incentives
designed to assist in the construction of facilities and works by
industry designed to reduce or abate water pollution. Such study
shall include, but not be limited to, the possible use of tax incentives
as well as other methods of financial assistance. In carrying out this
study the Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of the Treasury
-------
1468 ' LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
as well as the head of any other appropriate department or agency
of the Federal Government. The Secretary shall report the results
of such investigation and study, together with his recommendations,
to the Congress not later than January 30, 1968.]
SHORT TITLE
SEC. [19.] 22. This Act may be cited as the "Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act."
DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED.—Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 states: "No person in the United States shall, on the ground of
race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be
denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any pro-
gram or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." Therefore,
programs authorized by this Act, like every other program or activity
receiving financial assistance from the Department of the Interior,
must be operated in compliance with this law.
THE OIL POLLUTION ACT, 1924
[SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the "Oil Pollution Act, 1924".
[SEC. 2. When used in this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires—
[(1) "oil" means oil of any kind or in any form, including fuel
oil, sludge, and oil refuse;
[(2) "person" means an individual, company, partnership,
corporation, or association; any owner, operator, master, officer,
or employee of a vessel; and any officer, agent or employee of
the United States;
[p. 118]
[ (3) "discharge" means any grossly negligent, or willful spill-
ing, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, or emptying of oil;
[ (4) "navigable waters of the United States" means all por-
tions of the sea within the territorial jurisdiction of the United
States, and all inland waters navigable in fact; and
[(5) "Secretary" means the Secretary of the Interior.
[SEC. 3. (a) Except in case of emergency imperiling life or property,
or unavoidable accident, collision, or stranding, and except as other-
wise permitted by regulations prescribed by the Secretary as herein-
after authorized, it is unlawful for any person to discharge or permit
the discharge from any boat or vessel of oil by any method, means, or
manner into or upon the navigable waters of the United States, and
adjoining shorelines of the United States.
[(b) Any person discharging or permitting the discharge of oil
from, any boat or vessel, into or upon the navigable waters of the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1469
United States shall remove the same from the navigable waters of the
United States, and adjoining shorelines immediately. If such person
fails to do so, the Secretary may remove the oil or may arrange for its
removal, and such person shall be liable to the United States, in
addition to the penalties prescribed in section 4 of this Act, for all
costs and expenses reasonably incurred by the Secretary in removing
the oil from the navigable waters of the United States, and adjoining
shorelines of the United States. These costs and expanses shall con-
stitute a lien on such boat or vessel which may be recovered in
proceedings by libel in rem.
[ (c) The Secretary may prescribe regulations which—
[(1) permit the discharge of oil from boats or vessels in such
quantities under such conditions, and at such times and places
as in his opinion will not be deleterious to health or marine life
or a menace to navigation, or dangerous to persons or property
engaged in commerce on navigable waters of the United States;
and
[(2) relate to the removal or cost of removal, or both, of oil
from the navigable waters of the United States, and adjoining
shorelines of the United States.
[SEC. 4. (a) Any person who violates section 3 (a) of this Act shall,
upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine not exceeding $2,500,
or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or by both such fine and
imprisonment for each offense.
[ (b) Any boat or vessel other than a boat or vessel owned and oper-
ated by the United States from which oil is discharged in violation of
section 3 (a) of this Act shall be liable for a penalty of not more than
$10,000. Clearance of a boat or vessel liable for this penalty from a
port of the United States may be withheld until the penalty is paid.
The penalty shall constitute a lien on such boat or vessel which may
be recovered in proceedings by libel in rem in the district court of the
United States for any district within which such boat or vessel may be.
[SEC. 5. The Commandant of the Coast Guard may, subject to the
provisions of section 4450 of the Revised Statutes, as amended (46
U.S.C. 239), suspend or revoke a license issued to the master or other
licensed officer of any boat or vessel found violating the provisions of
section 3 of this Act.
[p. 119]
[SEC. 6. In the administration of this Act the Secretary may, with
the consent of the Commandant of the Coast Guard or the Secretary
of the Army, make use of the organization, equipment, and agencies,
including engineering, clerical, and other personnel, employed by the
Coast Guard or the Department of the Army, respectively, for the
-------
1470 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
preservation and protection of navigable waters of the United States.
For the better enforcement of the provisions of this Act, the officers
and agents of the United States in charge of river and harbor improve-
ments and persons employed under them by authority of the Secre-
tary of the Army, and persons employed by the Secretary, and officers
of the Customs and Coast Guard of the United States shall have the
power and authority and it shall bs their duty to swear out process
and to arrest and take into custody, with or without process, any
person who may violate any of such provisions, except that no person
shall be arrested without process for a violation not committed in the
presence of some one of the aforesaid persons. Whenever any arrest
is made under the provisions of this Act the person so arrested shall be
brought forthwith before a commissioner, judge, or court of the United
States for examination of the offenses alleged against him, and such
commissioner, judge or court shall proceed in respect thereto as
authorized by law in cases of crimes against the United States.
[SEC. 7. This Act shall be in addition to other laws for the preserva-
tion and protection of navibable waters of the United States and shall
not be construed as repealing, modifying, or in any manner affecting
the provisions of such laws.]
[p. 120]
1.2k(3) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
H.R. REP. No. 91-940, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970)
WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1970
MARCH 24, 1970.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. FALLOK, from the committee of conference, submitted the
following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 4148]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 4148) to
amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, and
for other purposes, having met, after full and free conference, have
agreed to recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses
as follows:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1471
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the Senate to the text of the bill and agree to the same with an
amendment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate amend-
ment insert the following:
TITLE I—WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
Sec. 101. This title may be cited as the "Water Quality Improve-
ment Act of 1970".
Sec. 102. Existing sections 17 and 18 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended, are hereby repealed. Section 19 of such
Act is redssignated as section 27. Sections 11 through 16 of such Act
are redesignated as sections 21 through 26, respectively. Such Act is
further amended by inserting after section 10 the following new
sections:
"CONTROL OF POLLUTION BY OIL
"Sec. 11. (a) For the purpose 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
with 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 watercraft or other
artificial contrivance used, or capable of being used, as a means
of transportation on water other than a public vessel;
[P- 1]
" (4) 'public vessel' means a vessel owned or bare-boat char-
tered 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, Amer-
ican Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands;
" (6) 'owner or operator' means (A) in the case of a vessel,
any person owning, operating, or chartering by demise, such
vessel, and (B) in the case of an 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 facility imme-
diately prior to such abandonment;
" (7) 'person' includes an individual, firm, corporation, associa-
tion, and a partnership;
-------
1472 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
" (8) 'remove' or 'removal' refers to removal of the oil from the
water and shorelines 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, u>ildlife,
and public and private property, shorelines, and beaches;
" (9) 'contiguous zone' means the entire zone established or to
be established by the United States under article 24 of the Con-
vention on the Territorial Sea 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 kind 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 unantici-
pated grave natural disaster;
" (13) 'barrel' means 42 United States gallons at 69 degrees
Fahrenheit.
" (b) (1) The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of the
United States that there should be no discharges of oil into or upon the
navigable waters of the United States, adjoining shorelines, or into or
upon the waters of the contiguous zone.
" (2) The discharge of oil into or upon the navigable waters of the
United States, adjoining shorelines, or into or upon the toaters of the
contiguous zone in harmful quantities as determined by the President
under paragraph (3) of this subsection, is prohibited, except (A) in
the case of such discharges into the waters of the contiguous zone,
where permitted under article IV of the International Convention for
the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954, as amended, and
(B) where permitted in quantities and at times and locations or under
such circumstances 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 laios and regulations and applicable tuater quality
standards.
" (3) The President shall, by regulation, to be issued as soon as
possible after the date of enactment of this paragraph, determine for
the purposes
[p- 2]
of this section, those quantities of oil the discharge of which,
at such times, locations, circumstances, and conditions, will be harm-
ful to the public health or welfare of the United States, includ-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1473
ing, but not limited to, fish, shellfish, wildlife, and public and private
property, shorelines, and beaches, except that in the case of the dis-
charge of oil into or upon the waters of the contiguous zone, only
those discharges which threaten the fishery resources of the contigu-
ous 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.
" (4) 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 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 agency of such discharge shall, upon con-
viction, be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned for not more
than one year, or both. Notification received pursuant to this para-
graph 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.
" (5) Any owner or operator of any vessel, onshore facility, or off-
shore facility from which oil is knowingly 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 oper-
ating of not more than $10,000 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 charge. Each violation
is a separate offense. Any such civil penalty may be compromised
by such Secretary. In determining the amount of the penalty, or the
amount agreed upon in compromise, the appropriateness of such
penalty to the size of the business of the owner or operator charged,
the effect on the owner or operator's ability to continue in business,
and the gravity of the violation, shall be considered by such Secre-
tary. 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 U.S.C. 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 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 arrange for the removal of such oil 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.
-------
1474 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
" (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 pursuant to this subsection. Such National Contin-
gency Plan shall provide for efficient, coordinated, and effective
action to minimize damage from oil discharges, including contain-
ment, dispersal, and removal of oil, and shall include, but not be
limited to—
" (A) assignment of duties and responsibilities among Federal
departments and agencies in coordination loith. State and local
agencies, including, but not limited to, water pollution control,
conservation, and port authorities;
[p. 3]
" (B) identification, procurement, maintenance, and storage of
equipment and supplies;
" (C) establishment or designation of a strike force consisting
oj 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 forces of trained personnel, adequate oil pol-
lution control equipment and material, and a detailed oil pollu-
tion prevention and removal plan;
" (D) a system of surveillance and notice designed to insure
earliest possible notice of discharges of oil to the appropriate
Federal agency;
" (E) establishment of a national center to provide coordina-
tion and direction for operations in carrying out the Plan;
" (F) procedures and techniques to be employed in identifying,
containing, dispersing, and removing oil; 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 (Hi) the quantities
of such dispersant or chemical which can be used safely in such
waters, which schedule shall provide in the case of any disper-
sant, 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 publica-
tion oj the National Contingency Plan, the removal of oil and actions
to minimize damage from oil discharges shall, to the greatest extent
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1475
possible, be in accordance with the National Contingency Plan.
" (d) Whenever a marine disaster in or upon the navigable waters
oj 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, and 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 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 pro-
vision of law governing the employment of personnel or the ex-
penditure of appropriated funds. Any expense incurred under this
subsection shall be a cost incurred by the United States Government
for the purposes of subsection (f) in the removal of oil.
" (e) In addition to any other action taken by a State or local gov-
ernment, 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, and wildlife and public
and private property, shorelines, and beaches within the United
States, because of an actual or threatened discharge of oil 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.
[p. 4]
" (f) W Except where an owner or operator can prove that a dis-
charge 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 is discharged in violation of subsection (b) (2) of this sec-
tion shall, notwithstanding any other provision of law, be liable to the
United States Government for the actual costs incurred under sub-
section (c) for the removal of such oil by the United States Govern-
ment 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 Govern-
-------
1476 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
ment for the full amount of such costs. Such costs 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 Gov-
ernment, 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 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
oj such oil 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 miscon-
duct 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 juris-
diction to recover such costs. The Secretary is authorized, by regu-
lation, 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 in violation of subsection (b) (2) of this section, and apply with
respect to such classifications 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 tfiat a discharge u>as caused solely by (A) an act of God, (B)
an act of war, (C) negligence on the part of the United States Gov-
ernment, 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 is discharged in violation of subsection
(b) (2) of this section shall, notwithstanding 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 by the
United States Government in an amount not to exceed $8,000,000,
except that where the United States can show that such
[p. 5]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1477
discharge was the result of willful negligence or willful misconduct
within the privity and knowledge of the owner, such owner or opera-
tor 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 a 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 on-
shore facility, or of an offshore facility, from which oil is discharged in
violation of subsection (b) (2) of this section proves that such dis-
charge of oil was caused solely by an act or omission of a third party,
or was caused solely 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, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, be liable to the United States Government for the
actual costs incurred under subsection (c) for removal of such oil
by the United States Government, except where such third party
can prove 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 another party with-
out regard to whether such act or omission was or was not negligent,
or any combination of the foregoing clauses. If such third party was
the owner or operator of a vessel which caused the discharge of oil
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 the 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 in violation of sub-
section (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 Govern-
ment 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 acts may in any way have caused or contributed to such
discharge, or (2) the United States Government may have against
any third party whose actions may in any way have caused or con-
tributed to the discharge of oil.
" (i) (1) In any case where an owner or operator of a vessel or an
-------
1478 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
onshore facility or an offshore facility from which oil is discharged
in violation of subsection (b) (2) of this section acts to remove such
oil in accordance with regulations promulgated pursuant to this sec-
tion, such owner or operator shall be entitled to recover the reason-
able 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 such act or omission was or was not negli-
gent, or of any combination of the foregoing clauses.
" (2) The provisions of this subsection shall not apply in any case
where liability is established pursuant to the Outer Continental Shelf
Lands Act.
[p. 6]
" (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 safety and
with marine and navigation laws (A) establishing methods and pro-
cedures for removal of discharged oil, (B) establishing criteria for
the development and implementation of local and regional oil removal
contingency plans, (C) establishing procedures, methods, and re-
quirements for equipment to prevent discharges of oil from vessels
and from onshore facilities and offshore facilities, and (D) governing
the inspection of vessels carrying cargoes of oil and the inspection of
such cargoes in order to reduce the likelihood of discharges of oil
from such vessels in violation of this section.
" (2) Any oioner or operator of a vessel or an onshore facility or an
offshore facility and any other person subject to any regulation issued
under paragraph (1) of this subsection who fails or refuses to comply
with the provisions of any such regulation, shall be liable to a ciuil
penalty of not more than $5,000 for each such violation. Each viola-
tion shall be a separate offense. The President may assess and com-
promise 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 upon 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
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1479
compliance, after notification of a violation, shall be considered by
the President.
" (k) There is hereby 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), (i), and (I) of this section
and section 12 of this Act. Any other funds received by the United
States under this section shall also be deposited in said fund for such
purposes. All sums appropriated to, or deposited in, said fund shall
remain available until expended.
" (I) The President is authorized to delegate the administration of
this section to the heads of those Federal departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities which he determines to be appropriate. Any mon-
eys in the fund established by subsection (k) of this section shall be
available to such Federal departments, agencies, and instrumentali-
ties to carry out the provisions of subsections (c) and (i) of this
section and section 12 of this Act. Each such department, agency, and
instrumentality, in order to avoid duplication of effort, shall, when-
ever appropriate, utilize the personnel, services, and facilities of other
Federal departments, agencies, and instrumentalities.
" (TO) Anyone authorized by the President to enforce the provi-
sions of this section may, except 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 thereunder in his presence or view, and (C) exe-
cute 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 sub-
section (i) (1), arising under this section. In the case of Guam, such
actions may
[p. 7]
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 obligations of any owner or operator of any vessel, or of any
owner or operator of any onshore facility to any person or agency
under any provision of law for damages to any publicly-owned or pri-
-------
1480 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
vately-owned property resulting from a discharge of any oil or from
the removal of any such, oil.
" (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 into any waters within
such State.
" (3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting or mod-
ifying any other existing authority of any Federal department,
agency, or instrumentality, relative to onshore or onshore facilities
under this Act or any other provision of law, or to affect 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, 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 the 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 responsi-
bility 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) qualifications 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 one year after the effective date of this section. The Presi-
dent 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 section. Regulations necessary to im-
plement 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 any other person providing evidence
of financial responsibility as required under this subsection. In the
case of any action pursuant to this subsection such insurer or other
person shall be entitled to invoke 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 have been
available to him if an action had been brought against him by the
owner or operator.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1481
" (4) The Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the
Secretaries of Interior, State, Commerce, and other interested Fed-
eral agencies, representatives of the merchant marine, oil companies,
insurance companies, and other interested individuals and organiza-
tions, and taking
[p. 8]
into account the results of the application of paragraph (1) of this
subsection, shall conduct a study of the need for and, to the extent
determined necessary—
" (A) other measures to provide financial responsibility and
limitation of liability with respect to vessels using the navigable
waters of the United States;
" (B) measures to provide financial responsibility for all on-
shore and offshore facilities; and
" (C) other measures for limitation of liability of such facili-
ties;
for the cost of removing discharged oil and paying all damages result-
ing from the discharge of such oil. The Secretary of Transportation
shall submit a report, together with any legislative recommendations,
to Congress and the President by January 1, 1971.
"CONTROL OF HAZARDOUS POLLUTING SUBSTANCES
"Sec. 12. (a) The President shall, in accordance with subsection
(b) of this section, develop, promulgate, and revise as may be appro-
priate, regulations (1) designating as hazardous substances, other
than oil as defined in section 11 of this Act, such elements and com-
pounds which, when discharged in any quantity into or upon the
navigable waters of the United States or adjoining 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; and (2) establishing,
if appropriate, recommended methods and means for the removal of
such substances.
" (b) Sections 551 through 559, inclusive (other than section
553 (c)), and 701 through 706, inclusive, of title 5, United States Code,
shall apply to regulations issued under authority of this section.
" (c) In order to facilitate the removal, if appropriate, of any haz-
ardous substance any person in charge of a vessel or of an onshore
or offshore facility of any kind shall, as soon as he has knowledge
oj any discharge of such substance from such vessel or facility, im-
mediately notify the appropriate agency of the United States of such
discharge.
" (d) Whenever any hazardous substance is discharged into or
-------
1482 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
upon the navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shore-
lines or the waters of the contiguous zone, unless removal is immedi-
ately undertaken by the owner or operator oj the vessel or onshore
or offshore facility from which the discharge occurs or which caused
the discharge, pursuant to the regulations promulgated under this
section, the President, if appropriate, shall remove or arrange for the
removal thereof in accordance with such regulations. Nothing in
this subsection shall be construed to restrict the authority of the
President to act to remove or arrange for the removal of such
hazardous substance at any time.
" (e) Nothing in this section shall affect or modify in any way the
obligations of any owner or operator of any vessel, onshore or off-
shore facility to any person or agency under any provision of law for
damages to any publicly- or privately-owned property resulting from
a discharge of any hazardous substance or from the removal of any
such substance.
" (f) (1) For the purpose oj this section the definitions in subsec-
tion (a) of section 11 of this Act shall be applicable to the provisions
of this section, except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection:
" (2) For the purpose of this section, the term—
" (A) 'remove' or 'removal' refers to removal of the hazardous
substances from the water and shorelines or the taking of such
[p. 9]
other actions as may be necessary to minimize or mitigate dam-
age to public health or welfare, including, but not limited to, fish,
shellfish, wildlife, and public and private property, shorelines,
and beaches;
" (B) 'owner or operator' means any person owning, operating,
chartering by demise, or otherwise controlling the operations of,
a vessel, or any person owning, operating, or otherwise control-
ling the operations of an onshore or offshore facility; and
" (C) 'offshore or onshore facility' means any facility of any
kind and related appurtenances thereto which is located in, on,
or under the surface oj any land, or permanently or temporarily
affixed to any land, including lands beneath the navigable waters
oj the United States and which is used or capable of use for the
processing, transporting, producing, storing, or transferring for
commercial purposes any hazardous substance designated under
this section.
" (g) The President shall submit a report to the Congress, together
with his recommendations, not later than November 1, 1970, on the
need for, and desirability of, enacting legislation to impose liability
for the cost of removal of hazardous substances discharged from ves-
sels and onshore and offshore facilities subject to this section includ-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1483
ing financial responsibility requirements. In preparing this report,
the President shall conduct an accelerated study which shall include,
but not be limited to, the method and measures for controlling haz-
ardous substances to prevent this discharge, and the most appropriate
measures for (1) enforcement (including the imposition of civil and
criminal penalties for discharges and for failure to notify) and (2)
recovery of costs incurred by the United States if removal is under-
taken by the United States. In carrying out this study, the President
shall consult with the interested representatives of the various public
and private groups that would be affected by such legislation as well
as other interested persons.
" (h) Any moneys in the funds established by section 11 of this Act
shall be available to the President to carry out the purposes of this
section. In carrying out this section the President shall utilize the
personnel, services, and facilities of Federal departments, agencies,
and instrumentalities in such manner as will avoid duplication of
effort.
"CONTROL OF SEWAGE FROM VESSELS
"Sec. 13. (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 transportation on the navigable waters of the United
States, 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 transportation on the navigable waters of the United
States, the construction of which is initiated before promulgation
of standards and regulations under this section;
" (3) 'public vessel' means a vessel owned or bareboat char-
tered 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;
[p. 10]
" (4) 'United States' includes the States, the District of Co-
lumbia, 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 equipmsnt for
installation on board a vessel which is designed to receive, retain,
treat, 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;
-------
1484 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
" (7) 'manufacturer' means any person engaged in the manu-
facturing, 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, corpora-
tion, or association, but does not include an individual on board
a public vessel;
" (9) -.'.discharge' includes, but is not limited to, any 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 5 (j) of this Act, the Secretary,
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 devices (hereafter in this section referred to as
'standards') which shall be designed to prevent the discharge of un-
treated or inadequately treated sewage into or upon the navigable
waters of the United States from new vessels and existing vessels,
except vessels not equipped with installed 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 promul-
gated under this subsection and with maritime safety and the marine
and navigation laws and regulations, governing the design, con-
struction, installation, and operation of any marine sanitation device
on board such vessels.
" (2) Any existing vessel equipped with a marine sanitation device
on tTie 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, un-
less 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
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1485
is operating with regard to his regulatory authority established by
this section, after consultation with the Secretary, may distinguish
among classes, types, and sizes of vessels as well as between new
and existing
[p. 11]
vessels, and may waive applicability of standards and regula-
tions as necessary or appropriate for such classes, 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 application, for individual
vessels.
" (d) The provisions of this section and the standards and regula-
tions promulgated hereunder apply to vessels owned and operated
by the United States unless the Secretary of Defense finds that com-
pliance 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) and certifi-
cations 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 Secretary and the Secretary of the department in
which the Coast Guard is operating shall consult with the Secretary
of State; the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare; the Secre-
tary of Defense; the Secretary of the Treasury; the Secretary of
Commerce; 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 regula-
tions promulgated under this section, no State or political subdivision
thereof shall adopt or enforce any statute or regulation of such State
or political subdivision with respect to the design, manufacture, or
installation or use of any marine sanitation device on any vessel
subject to the provisions of this section. Upon application by a State,
and where the Secretary determines that any applicable water quality
standards require such a prohibition, he shall by regulation com-
pletely prohibit the discharge from a vessel of any sewage (whether
treated or not) into those waters of such State which are the subject
of the application and to which such standards apply.
" (g) (1) No manufacturer of a marine sanitation device shall sell,
offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction to interstate
commerce, or import 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
-------
1486 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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 paragraph, 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 Secretary as to standards of performance and for such
other purposes as may be appropriate. If the Secretary of the depart-
ment 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.
[p. 12]
" (3) Every manufacturer shall establish and maintain such
records, make such reports, and provide such information as the
Secretary or the Secretary of the department in which the Coast
Guard is operating may reasonably require to enable him, to deter-
mine 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 Secretary or
the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is oper-
ating, permit such officer or employee at reasonable times to have
access to and copy such, ?-ecords. All information reported to or
otherwise obtained by, the Secretary or the Secretary of the depart-
ment 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 the purpose
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 promul-
gated 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
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1487
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 appropriate test
device certified pursuant to this section;
" (2) for any person, prior to the sale or delivery of a vessel
subject to such standards and regulations to the ultimate pur-
chaser, wrongfully to remove or render inoperative any certified
marine sanitation device or element of design of such device
installed in such vessel;
" (3) for any person to fail or refuse to permit access or copy-
ing of records or to fail to make reports or provide information
required under this section; and
" (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 jurisdic-
tions to restrain violations of subsection (g) (1) and subsections
(h) (1) through (3) of this section. Actions to restrain such viola-
tions shall be brought by, and in, the name of the United States. In
case of contumacy 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 or to appear and produce docu-
ments, 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) or clause (1) or
(2) of subsection (h) of this section shall be liable to 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 operating may assess and compromise any
[P. 13]
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 a violation, shall be
considered by said Secretary.
-------
1488 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
" (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 Secre-
tary, other Federal agencies, or the States to carry out the provisions
of this section.
" (I) 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) exe-
cute any warrant or other process issued by an officer or court of
competent jurisdiction.
" (m) In the case of Guam, actions arising under this section 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 District Court for
the District of the Canal Zone.
"AREA ACID AND OTHER MINE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
DEMONSTRATIONS
"Sec. 14. (a) The Secretary in cooperation with other Federal de-
partments, 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 elimination or control,
within all or part of a watershed, of acid or other mine water pollu-
tion resulting from active or abandoned mines. Such projects shall
demonstrate the engineering and economic feasibility and practicality
of various abatement techniques which will contribute substantially
to effective and practical methods of acid or other mine water pollu-
tion elimination or control.
" (b) The Secretary, in selecting watersheds for tfie 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—
" (I) that the State or interstate agency shall pay not less than
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1489
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 Secre-
tary; 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.
[p. 14]
" (d) There is authorized to be appropriated $15,000,000 to carry
out the provisions of this section, 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.
OIL POLLUTION ACT, 1924
"Sec. 15. (a) The Secretary, 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 thereof, 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 eco-
nomic feasibility and practicality of removal of pollutants and pre-
vention 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
water 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 'Secretary.
" (c) There is authorized to be appropriated $20,000,000 to carry
out the provisions of this section, which sum shall be available until
expended.
"TRAINING GRANTS AND CONTRACTS
"Sec. 16. The Secretary is authorized to make grants to or con-
tracts with institutions of higher education, or combinations of such
institutions, to assist them in planning, developing, strengthening, im-
-------
1490 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
proving, or carrying out programs or projects for the preparation of
undergraduate 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 maintenance
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 in-
volving the operation and maintenance of treatment works;
" (D) carrying out innovative and experimental programs of
cooperative education involving alternate periods of full-time or
part-time academic study at the institution and periods of full-
time or part-time employment involving the operation and
maintenance of treatment works; and
" (E) research, into., and development of, methods of training
students or faculty, including the preparation of teaching ma-
• terials and the planning of curriculum.
[p. 15]
"APPLICATION FOR TRAINING GRANT OR CONTRACT; ALLOCATION OF
GRANTS OR CONTRACTS
"Sec. 17. (1) A grant or contract authorized by section 16 may be
made only upon application to the Secretary 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 develop-
ment for which a grant is authorized under section 16, and
describes th-e relation to any program set forth by the applicant
in an application, if any, submitted pursuant to section 18;
" (B) provides such- fiscal control and fund accounting proce-
dures 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 con-
taining such information, as the Secretary may require to carry
out his functions under this section, and for keeping such records
and for affording such access thereto as the Secretary may find
necessary to assure the correctness and verification of such
reports.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1491
" (2) The Secretary shall allocate grants or contracts under section
16 in such manner as will most nearly provide an equitable distribu-
tion 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 purposes of this section.
" (3) (A) Payment under this section may be used in accordance
with regulations of the Secretary, 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 Govern-
ment 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 encour-
aged, to the extent consistent with efficient administration, to enter
into arrangements with institutions of higher education for the full-
time, part-time, or temporary employment, whether in the competi-
tive or excepted service, of students enrolled in programs set forth
in applications approved under subsection (a).
"AWARD OF SCHOLARSHIPS
"Sec. 18. (1) The Secretary 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 Secretary may determine
but not to exceed jour academic years.
" (2) The Secretary 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 ac-
cepted 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 treat-
ment works.
[p. 16]
" (3) The Secretary shall approve a program of an institution of
higher education for the purposes of this section only upon applica-
tion by the institution and only upon his finding—
" (A) that such program has as a principal objective the
-------
1492 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
education and training of persons in the operation and mainte-
nance of treatment works;
" (B) that such program is in effect and of high quality, or can
be readily put into effect and may reasonably be expected to be
of high quality;
" (C) that the application describes the relation of such pro-
gram to any program, activity, research, or development set
forth by the applicant in an application, if any, submitted
pursuant to section 16 of this Act; and
" (D) that the application contains satisfactory assurances that
(i) the institution will recommend to the Secretary for the
award of scholarships under this section, for study in such pro-
gram, 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 (it) the institution will make reasonable
continuing efforts to encourage recipients of scholarships under
this section, enrolled in such program, to enter occupations
involving the operation and maintenance of treatment works
upon completing the program. '•-'
" (4) (A) The Secretary shall pay to persons awarded scholarships
under this section such stipends (including such allowances for sub-
sistence 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 Secretary shall (in addition to the stipends paid to
persons under subsection (a)) pay to the institution of higher educa-
tion at which such person is pursuing his course of study such
amount as he may determine to be consistent with prevailing prac-
tices under comparable federally supported programs.
" (5) A person awarded a scholarship under the provisions of this
section shall continue to receive the payments provided in this section
only during such periods as the Secretary 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 Secretary by or pursuant to
regulation.
" (6) The Secretary shall by regulation provide that any person
awarded a scholarship under this section sfiall 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 studies as the Secretary determines appropriate.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1493
"DEFINITIONS AND AUTHORIZATIONS
"Sec. 19. (1) As used in sections 16 through 19 of this Act—
" (A) The term 'State' includes the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, the Canal Zone, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa,
and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
" (B) The term 'institution of higher education' means an educa-
tional institution described in the first sentence of section 1201 of the
Higher
[p. 17]
Education Act of 1965 (other than an institution of any agency
of the United States) which is accredited by a nationally recog-
nized accrediting agency or association approved by the Secre-
tary for this purpose. For purposes of this subsection, the Secretary
shall publish a list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies or
associations which he determines to be reliable authority as to the
quality of training offered.
" (C) The term 'academic year' means an academic year or its
equivalent, as determined by the Secretary.
" (2) The Secretary shall annually report his activities under
sections 16 through 19 of this Act, including recommendations for
needed revisions in the provisions thereof.
" (3) There are authorized to be appropriated $12,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, $25,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1971, and $25,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1972, to carry out sections 16 through 19 of this Act (and planning
and related activities in the initial fiscal year for such purpose).
Funds appropriated for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, under
authority of this subsection shall be available for obligation pursuant
to the provisions of sections 16 through 19 of this Act during that
year and the succeeding fiscal year.
"ALASKA VILLAGE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
"Sec. 20. (a) The Secretary is authorized to enter into agreements
with the State of Alaska to carry out one or more projects to demon-
strate methods to provide for central community facilities for safe
water and the elimination or control of water pollution in those native
villages of Alaska without such facilities. Such projects shall in-
clude 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 pro-
grams 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 water
-------
1494 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
pollution for all native villages in such State.
" (b) In carrying out this section the Secretary 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 Secretary shall report to Congress not later than January
31, 1973, 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
$1,000,000 to carry out this section."
Sec. 103. Redesignated section 21 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended, is amended to read as follows:
"COOPERATION BY ALL FEDERAL AGENCIES IN THE CONTROL OF
POLLUTION
"Sec. 21. (a) Each. Federal agency (which term is used in this
section includes Federal departments, agencies, and instrumentali-
ties) having jurisdiction over any real property or facility, or engaged
in any Federal public works activity of any kind, shall, consistent
with the paramount interest of the United States as determined by
the President, insure compliance with applicable water quality
standards and the purposes of
[p. 18]
this Act in the administration of such property, facility, or activity.
In his summary of any conference pursuant to section 10 (d) (4) of
this Act, th,e Secretary shall include references to any discharges
allegedly contributing to pollution from any such Federal property,
facility, or activity, and shall transmit a copy of such summary to the
head of the Federal agency having jurisdiction of such property,
facility, or activity. Notice of any hearing pursuant to section 10 (f)
of this Act involving any pollution alleged to be effected by any such
discharges shall also be given to the Federal agency having jurisdic-
tion over the property, facility, or activity involved, and the findings
and recommendations of the hearing board conducting such hearing
shall include references to any such discharges which are contributing
to the pollution found by such board.
"(b) (1) Any applicant for a Federal license or permit to conduct
any activity including, but not limited to, the construction or opera-
tion of facilities, which may result in any discharge into the navigable
waters of the United States, shall provide the licensing or permitting
agency a certification from the State in which the discharge origi-
nates or will originate, or, if appropriate, from the interstate u>ater
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1495
pollution control agency having jurisdiction over the navigable
waters at the point where the discharge originates or will originate,
that there is reasonable assurance, as determined by the State or
interstate agency that such activity will be conducted in a manner
which will not violate applicable water quality standards. 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, procedures for public hearings in connection
with specific applications. In any case where such standards have
been promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to section 10 (c) of this
Act, or where a State or interstate agency has no authority to give
such a certification, such certification shall be from the Secretary.
If the State, interstate agency, or Secretary, as the case may be,
fails or refuses to act on a request for certification, within a reason-
able 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 pre-
ceding sentence. No license or permit shall be granted if certifica-
tion has been denied by the State, interstate agency, or the Secretary,
as the case may be.
" (2) Upon receipt of such application and certification the li-
censing or permitting agency shall immediately notify the Secretary
of such application and certification. Whenever such a discharge
may affect, as determined by the Secretary, the quality of the waters
of any other State, the Secretary 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 the appli-
cant. 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 its water quality standards, and within
such sixty-day period notifies the Secretary 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 such objection,
the licensing or permitting agency shall hold such a hearing. The
Secretary shall at such hearing submit his evaluation and recom-
mendations with respect to any such objection to the licensing or
permitting agency. Such agency, based upon the recommendations
of such State, the Secretary, and upon any additional evidence, if any,
presented to the agency at the hearing,
[p. 19]
shall condition such license or permit in such manner as may be
-------
1496 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
necessary to insure compliance with applicable water quality stand-
ards. If the imposition of conditions cannot insure such compliance
such agency shall 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 Secretary, 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 Secretary, notifies such agency within sixty days after receipt
of such notice that there is no longer reasonable assurance that there
will be compliance with applicable loater quality standards because
of changes since the construction license or permit certification was
issued in (A) the construction or operation of the facility, (B) the
characteristics of the waters into which such discharge is made, or
(C) the water quality standards applicable to such waters. This
paragraph shall be inapplicable in any case where the applicant for
such operating license or permit has failed to provide the certifying
State, or if appropriate, the interstate agency or the Secretary, 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 applicable
water quality standards.
" (4) Prior to the initial operation of any federally licensed or per-
mitted facility or activity which may result in any discharge into
the navigable waters of the United States and with respect to which
a certification has been obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of this
subsection, which facility or activity 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, the inter-
state agency or the Secretary to review the manner in which the
facility or activity shall be operated or conducted for the purposes
of assuring that applicable water quality standards will not be
violated. Upon notification by the certifying State or, if appropriate,
the interstate agency or the Secretary that the operation of any such
federally licensed or permitted facility or activity will violate ap-
plicable water quality standards, such Federal agency may, after
public hearing, suspend such license or permit. If such license or
permit is suspended, it shall remain suspended until notification is
received from the certifying State, agency, or Secretary, as the case
may be, that there is reasonable assurance that such facility or
activity will not violate applicable water quality standards.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1497
" (5) Any Federal license or permit with respect to which a
certification has been obtained under paragraph (1) of this subsec-
tion may be suspended or revoked by the Federal agency issuing
such license or permit upon the entering of a judgment under section
10 (h) of this Act that such facility or activity has been operated in
violation of applicable water quality standards.
" (6) JVo Federal agency shall be deemed to be an applicant for
the purposes of this subsection.
" (7) In any case where actual construction of a facility has been
lawfully commenced prior to the date of enactment of the Water
Quality Improvement Act of 1970, no certification shall be required
under this subsection for a license or permit issued after the date
of enactment of
[p. 20]
such Act of 1970 to operate such facility, except that any
such license or permit issued without certification shall termi-
nate at the end of the three-year period beginning on the date of
enactment of such Act of 1970 unless prior to such termination date
the person having such license or permit submits to the Federal
agency which issued such license or permit a certification and other-
wise meets the requirements of this subsection.
"(8) Except as provided in paragraph (7), any application for a
license or permit (A) that is pending on the date of enactment of the
Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970 and (B) that is issued within
one year following such date of enactment shall not require certifica-
tion pursuant to this subsection for one year following the issuance
of such license or permit, except that any such license or permit
issued shall terminate at the end of one year unless prior to that time
the licensee or permittee submits to the Federal agency that issued
such license or permit a certification and otherwise meets the re-
quirements of this subsection.
" (9) (A) In the case of any activity which will affect water
quality but for which there are no applicable water quality standards,
no certification shall be required under this subsection, except that
the licensing or permitting agency shall impose, as a condition of any
license or permit, a requirement that the licensee or permittee shall
comply with the purposes of this Act.
" (B) Upon notice from the State in which the discharge originates
or, as appropriate, the interstate agency or the Secretary, that such
licensee or permittee has been notified of the adoption of water
quality standards applicable to such activity and has failed, after
reasonable notice, of not less than six months, to comply with such
standards, the license or permit shall be suspended until notification
-------
1498 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
is received from such State or interstate agency or the Secretary
that there is reasonable assurance that such activity will comply with
applicable water quality standards.
" (c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the au-
thority of any department or agency pursuant to any other provision
of law to require compliance with applicable water quality standards.
The Secretary shall, upon the request of any Federal department or
agency, or State or interstate agency, or applicant, provide, for the
purpose of this section, any relevant information on applicable water
quality standards, and shall, when requested by any such depart-
ment or agency or State or interstate agency, or applicant, comment
on any methods to comply with such standards.
" (d) In order to implement the provisions 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
or permittees, and to make an appropriate charge for such use.
Moneys received from such licensees or permittees shall be deposited
in the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts."
Sec. 104. Redesiguatecl section 22 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended, is amended by adding at the end thereof the
following:
" (f) (1) It is the purpose of this subsection to authorize a program
which will provide official recognition by the United States Govern-
ment to those industrial organizations and political subdivisions of
States which during the preceding year demonstrated an outstanding
technological achievement or an innovative process, method or device
in their waste treatment and pollution abatement programs. The
Secretary shall, in
[P. 21]
consultation with the appropriate State water pollution control
agency, establish regulations under which 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 standards under this
Act, and otherwise does not have a satisfactory record with respect
to environmental quality.
" (2) The Secretary shall award a certificate or plaque of suitable
design to each industrial organization or political subdivision which
qualifies for such recognition under regulations established by this
subsection.
" (3) The President of the United States, the Governor of the ap-
propriate State, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the
President pro tempore of the Senate shall be notified of the award
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1499
by the Secretary, and the awarding of such recognition shall be
published in the Federal Register."
Sec. 105. Section 5 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended, is amended as follows:
(1) by redesignating subsections (g) and (h) as (m) and (n),
respectively, including all references thereto;
(2) by inserting after subsection (f) the following new
subsections:
" (g) (1) For the purpose of providing an adequate supply of
trained personnel to operate and maintain existing and future treat-
ment works and related activities, and for the purpose of enhancing
substantially the proficiency of those engaged in such activities, the
Secretary shall finance a pilot program, in cooperation with State and
interstate agencies, municipalities, educational 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
program and any funds expended for such a program shall supple-
ment, not supplant, other manpower and training programs and
funds available for the purposes of this paragraph. The Secretary
is authorized, under such terms and conditions as he deems appropri-
ate, 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 Secretary is authorized 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 water
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 Secretary is
authorized to—
" (A) make grants to public or private agencies and institu-
tions 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 De-
partment of the Interior with such stipends and allowances,
including traveling and subsistence expenses, as he may deem
necessary to procure the assistance of the most promising re-
search fellowships; and
[p. 22]
-------
1500 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
" (C) provide, in addition to the program established under
paragraph. (1) of this subsecticm, training in technical matters
relating to the causes, prevention, and control of water pollution
for personnel of public agencies and other persons with suitable
qualifications.
" (4) The Secretary shall submit, through the President, a report
to the Congress within eighteen months from the date of enactment
of this subsection, summarizing the actions taken under this sub-
section 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 recom-
mendations, as he deems appropriate.
" (h) The Secretary is authorized to enter into contracts with, or
make grants to, public or private agencies and organizations and
individuals for (A) the purpose of developing and demonstrating
new or improved methods for the prevention, removal, and control
of natural or manmade pollution in lakes, including the undesirable
effects of nutrients and vegetation, and (B) the construction of
publicly owned research facilities for such purpose.
" (i) The Secretary shall—
" (A) engage in such research, studies, experiments, and dem-
onstrations as he deems appropriate, relative to the removal of
oil from any waters and to the prevention and control of oil
pollution;
" (B) publish from time to time the results of such activities;
and
" (C) from time to time, develop and publish in the Federal
Register specifications and other technical information on the
various chemical compounds used as dispersants or emulsifiers
in the control of oil spills.
In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary may enter into con-
tracts with, or make grants to, public or private agencies and
organizations and individuals.
" (j) The Secretary shall engage in such research, studies, experi-
ments, and demonstrations as he deems appropriate relative to equip-
ment 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 vessels. The Secretary shall report to Congress
the results of such research, studies, experiments, and demonstra-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1501
lions prior to the effective date of any standards established under
section 13 of this Act. In carrying out this subsection the Secretary
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 Secretary of demonstration projects and the develop-
ment of field laboratories and research facilities, the Secretary may
acquire land and interests therein by purchase, toith appropriated
or donated funds, by donation, or by exchange for acquired or public
lands under his jurisdiction which he classifies as suitable for disposi-
tion. The values of the properties so exchanged either shall be ap-
proximately equal, or if they are not approximately equal, the values
shall be equalized by the payment of cash to the grantor or to the
Secretary as the circumstances require.
[p. 23]
" (I) (1) The Secretary shall, after consultation with appropriate
local, State, and Federal agencies, public and private organizations,
and interested individuals, as soon as practicable but not later than
two years after the effective date of this subsection, develop and
issue to the States for the purpose of adopting standards pursuant
to section 10 (c) 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) For the purpose of assuring effective implementation of
standards adopted pursuant to paragraph (1) the President shall, in
consultation with appropriate local, State, and Federal agencies,
public and private organizations, and interested individuals, conduct
a study and investigation of methods to control the release of pesti-
cides into the environment which study shall include examination
of the persistency of pesticides in the water environment and alter-
natives thereto. The President shall submit a report on such
investigation to Congress together with his recommendations for any
necessary legislation within two years after the effective date of this
subsection."
(3) in redesignated subsection (TO) (4) by striking out the
words "and June 30, 1969," and inserting in lieu thereof "June
30, 1969, June 30, 1970, and June 30, 1971,";
(4) by amending the first sentence of redesignated subsection
(n) to read as follows: "There is authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this section, other than subsection (g) (1) and (2),
not to exceed $65,000,000 per fiscal year for each of the fiscal
-------
1502 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
years ending June 30, 1969, June 30, 1970, and June 30, 1971.
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out subsection
(g) (1) of this section $5,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1970, and $7,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971.
There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out subsection
(g) (2) of this section $2,500,000 per fiscal year for each of the
fiscal years ending June 30, 1970, and June 30, 1971.".
Sec. 106. Section 6(e) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(33 U.S.C. 466c-l) is amended as follows:
(1) Paragraph (1) is amended by striking out "three succeed-
ing fiscal years" and inserting in lieu thereof "five succeeding
fiscal years,".
(2) Paragraph. (2) is amended by striking out "two succeed-
ing fiscal years," and inserting in lieu thereof "four succeeding
fiscal years,".
(3) Paragraph (3) is a?nended by striking out "two succeed-
ing fiscal years," and inserting in lieu thereof "four succeeding
fiscal years,".
Sec. 107. Redesignated section 24 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended, is amended by deleting the following: "the
Oil Pollution Act, 1924, or".
Sec. 1G8. The Oil Pollution Act, 1924 (43 Stat. 604), as amended
(80 Stat. 1246-1252), is hereby repealed.
Sec. 109. The Secretary of the Interior shall conduct a full and
complete investigation and study of the feasibility of all methods of
financing the cost of preventing, controlling, and abating water
pollution, other than methods authorized by existing law. The
results of such investigation and study shall be reported to Congress
no later than December 31, 1970, together with the recommendations
of the Secretary for financing the
[p. 24]
programs for preventing, controlling, and abating water pollution
for the fiscal years beginning after fiscal year 1971, including any
necessary legislation.
Sec. 110. (a) The first sentence of section 2 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 466-1) is amended by striking out
"Federal Water Pollution Control Administration" and inserting in
lieu thereof "Federal Water Quality Administration".
(b) Any other law, reorganization plan, regulation, map, docu-
ment, record, or other paper of the United States in which the
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration is referred to shall
be held to refer to the Federal Water Quality Administration.
Sec. 111. Section 8(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
is amended in the fourth sentence by inserting after "because of lack
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1503
of funds" the following: "including States having projects eligible
for reimbursement pursuant to the sixth and seventh sentences of
this subsection".
Sec. 112. Section 10 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
as amended, is amended by adding at the end of subsection (c) (3)
the following new sentence: "In establishing such standards the
Secretary, the hearing board, or the appropriate State authority shall
take into consideration their use and value for navigation."
TITLE II—ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
SHORT TITLE
Sec. 201. This title may be cited as the "Environmental Quality
Improvement Act of 1970."
FINDINGS, DECLARATIONS, AND PURPOSES
Sec. 202. (a) The Congress finds—
(1) that man has caused changes in the environment;
(2) that many of these changes may affect the relationship
between man and his environment; and
(3) that population increases and urban concentration con-
tribute directly to pollution and the degradation of our
environment.
(b) (1) The Congress declares that there is a national policy for
the environment which provides for the enhancement of environ-
mental quality. This policy is evidenced by statutes heretofore
enacted relating to the prevention, abatement, and control of environ-
mental pollution, water and land resources, transportation, and
economic and regional development.
(2) The primary responsibility for implementing this policy rests
with State and local governments.
(3) The Federal Government encourages and supports implemen-
tation of this policy through appropriate regional organizations
established under existing law.
(c) The purposes of this title are—
(1) to assure that each Federal department and agency con-
ducting or supporting public works activities which affect the
environment shall implement the policies established under
existing law; and
(2) to authorize an Office of Environmental Quality, which,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, shall provide the
professional and administrative staff for the Council on Environ-
mental Quality established by Public Law 91-190.
[p. 25]
-------
1504 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Sec. 203. (a) There is established in the Executive Office of the
President an office to be known as the Office of Environmental
Quality (hereafter in this title referred to as the "Office"). The
Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality established by
Public Law 91-190 shall be the Director of the Office. There shall
be in the Office a Deputy Director who shall be appointed by the
President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
(b) The compensation of the Deputy Director shall be fixed by the
President at a rate not in excess of the annual rate of compensation
payable to the Deputy Director of the Bureau of the Budget.
(c) The Director is authorized to employ such- officers and em-
ployees (including experts and consultants) as may be necessary to
enable the Office to carry out its functions under this title and Public
Law 91-190, except that he may employ no more than ten specialists
and other experts without regard to the provisions of title 5, United
States Code, governing appointments in the competitive service, and
pay such specialists and experts without regard to the provisions of
chapter 51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such title relating to
classification and General Schedule pay rates, but no such specialist
or expert shall be paid at a rate in excess of the maximum rate for
GS-18 of the General Schedule under section 5332 of title 5.
(d) In carrying out his functions the Director shall assist and
advise the President on policies and programs of the Federal Govern-
ment affecting environmental quality by—
(1) providing the professional and administrative staff and
support for the Council on Environmental Quality established
by Public Law 91-190;
(2) assisting tfie Federal agencies and departments in ap-
praising the effectiveness of existing and proposed facilities,
programs, policies, and activities of the Federal Government,
and those specific major projects designated by the President
which do not require individual project authorization by Con-
gress, which affect environmental quality;
(3) reviewing the adequacy of existing systems for monitor-
ing and predicting environmental changes in order to achieve
effective coverage and efficient use of research facilities and
other resources;
(4) promoting the advancement of scientific knowledge of the
effects of actions and technology on the environment and encour-
age the development of the means to prevent or reduce adverse
effects that endanger the health and well-being of man;
(5) assisting in coordinating among the Federal departments
and agencies those programs and activities which affect, protect,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1505
and improve environmental quality; •',
(6) assisting the Federal departments and agencies in the de-
velopment and interrelationship of environmental quality criteria
and standards established through the Federal Government.
(7) collecting, collating, analyzing, and interpreting data and
information on environmental quality, ecological research, and
evaluation.
(e) The Director is authorized to contract with public or private
agencies, institutions, and organizations and with individuals without
regard to sections 3648 and 3709 of the Revised Statutes (31 U.S.C.
529; 41 U.S.C. 5) in carrying out his functions.
[P- 26]
REPORT
Sec. 204. Each Environmental Quality Report required by Public
Law 91-190 shall, upon transmittal to Congress, be referred to each
standing committee having jurisdiction over any part of the subject
matter of the Report.
AUTHORIZATION
Sec. 205. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated not to
exceed $500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, not to
exceed $750,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, not to exceed
$1,250,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and not to exceed
$1,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973. These authoriza-
tions are in addition to those contained in Public Law 91-190.
JOHN A. BLATNIK,
ROBT. E. JONES,
JIM WRIGHT,
GEORGE-H. FALLOW,
WILLIAM C. CRAMER,
WM. HARSHA,
JAMES R. GROVER, Jr.,
Managers on the Part of the House.
EDMUND S. MUSKIE,
JENNINGS RANDOLPH,
BIRCH BAYH,
JOSEPH M. MONTOYA,
J. CALEB BOGGS,
JOHN SHERMAN COOPER,
HOWARD BAKER,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
[p. 27]
-------
1506 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
STATEMENT OF THE MANAGERS ON THE PART OF THE
HOUSE
The managers on the part of the House at the conference on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate
to the bill (H.R. 4148) to amend the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended, and for other purposes, submit the following state-
ment in explanation of the effect of the action agreed upon by the
conferees and recommended in the accompanying conference report:
The Senate amendment to the text of the bill struck out all of the
House bill after the enacting clause and inserted a substitute. The
House recedes from its disagreement to the amendment of the Senate,
with an amendment which is a substitute for both the House bill and
the Senate amendment. The differences between the House bill and
the substitute agreed to in conference are noted below except for
minor technical and clarifying changes made necessary by reason of
the conference agreement.
CONTROL OF POLLUTION BY OIL
House bill
Section 2 of the House bill adds seven new sections to the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act. The proposed new section 17 deals
with control of pollution by oil and other matter.
Section 17 (a) would define various terms used in this new section.
Paragraph (1) would define the term "oil" to include fuel oil,
sludge, and oil refuse, but to exclude oil mixed with dredged spoil.
Paragraph (2) would define the term "matter" to include any sub-
stance which, when discharged in substantial quantities, presents, in
the judgment of the Secretary of the Interior, an imminent and sub-
stantial hazard to the public health or welfare. The definition specifi-
cally excludes from this term oil, dredged spoil, and sanitary wastes,
and certain material now covered by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
Under this definition, the Secretary would be expected to publish a
list from time to time of the types of substances included in this
definition in order to inform the public in accordance with established
administrative procedures.
Paragraph (3) defines the term "discharge."
Paragraph (4) defines the term "remove or removal" to mean the
taking of reasonable and appropriate measures to mitigate the poten-
tial damage that a discharge of oil or matter might have on the public
health or welfare including fish, shellfish, wildlife, and private and
public beaches and shorelines.
Paragraphs (5) and (6) define the term "vessel" and "public
vessel."
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1507
Paragraph (7) defines the term "United States."
Paragraph (8) defines the term "owner or operator."
Paragraph (9) defines the term "person."
[p. 28]
Paragraph (10) defines the term "contiguous zone" which means
the zone established by the United States under article 24 of the
Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone.
Section 17 (b) would require that any individual in charge of a
vessel, other than a public vessel or an offshore or onshore facility or
a Federal or State facility, at the time of a discharge of oil in sub-
stantial quantities into the navigable waters of the United States or
into the waters of the contiguous zone must immediately notify either
the Secretary of the Interior or the Coast Guard as soon as he has
knowledge of the discharge.
This section would also provide a criminal penalty for any individ-
ual in charge of such vessel or facility who fails to notify the Secretary
or the Coast Guard of a discharge. The term "individual in charge"
is deliberately designed to cover only supervisory personnel who
have the responsibility for the particular vessel or facility and not to
include other employees.
Section 17(c)(l) would prohibit the discharge of oil or matter in
substantial quantities from any vessel into or upon the navigable
waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines or beaches, or
into or upon the waters of the contiguous zone, if such oil threatens
to pollute or contribute to the pollution of the territorial sea of the
United States, and subjects violators to the penalties in section
17(c) (2). The section excepts from this prohibition various circum-
stances such as acts of war or sabotage or acts of God, or unavoidable
accidents, collisions, or strandings, or discharges permitted under
article IV of the 1954 International Convention for the Prevention
of Pollution of the Sea by Oil.
Section 17(c) (2) would provide a civil penalty against the owner
or operator of a vessel, except a public vessel, and against the vessel
of up to $10,000 where there is a willful or negligent discharge of oil
or matter in substantial quantities from such vessel. No penalty can
be assessed unless the owner or operator or vessel is given notice and
an opportunity for a hearing. Each violation is a separate offense.
The penalties will be assessed by the Coast Guard. In determining
the amount of the penalty or in compromising the penalty, the Coast
Guard must take into consideration the size of the business, the
ability of the owner or operator to continue in business, and the
gravity of the violation. Provision is made for withholding clearance
of the vessel until the penalty is paid and for the filing of bonds or
-------
1508 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
other sureties. The penalty will constitute a lien on the vessel which
may be recovered in an action in rem.
Section 17(d)(l) would require that the United States remove or
arrange for the removal of any oil or matter discharged into any
waters, shorelines, or beaches, when in the judgment of the Secretary
of the Interior, such discharged oil or matter presents an actual or
threatened pollution hazard without regard to any question of fault.
Under this section, the United States would only exercise this author-
ity if the United States determines that the owner or operator or a
vessel or facility has not made adequate arrangements for removal of
the oil or matter as required by this legislation.
Section 17 (d) (2) would authorize the United States, in the case of
a marine disaster within the navigable waters of the United States
which has created a substantial threat of a pollution hazard because
of an actual or imminent discharge of oil or matter from the vessel,
[p. 29]
to coordinate and direct public and private efforts in the removal or
alleviation of the threat, and to remove summarily and if necessary
destroy the vessel by whatever means are available. The expense of
removing the vessel shall be charged against the vessel's cargo and
the owner or operator where it is shown that negligent operation of
the vessel caused or contributed to the marine disaster. If the owner
or operator fails to reimburse the United States of such expense
within a specified time, the United States may sell the vessel or its
cargo, and deposit the proceeds in the revolving fund established by
this section.
Section 17(e)(l) would require that the owner or operator of a
vessel who willfully or negligently discharges or permits or causes or
contributes to the discharge of oil or matter into the navigable waters
of the United States or adjoining shorelines or beaches, or into the
waters of the contiguous zone, immediately remove the discharged
oil or matter in accordance with the regulations prescribed by this
section. In any case where the United States removes the oil or
matter, the vessel and the owner or operator shall be liable to the
United States for the cost thereof. The liability to the United States,
however, with respect to each offending vessel and the owner or
operator of each offending vessel shall not exceed $10 million or $100
per gross registered ton, whichever is the lesser amount. This lim-
itation on liability is intended to be the only limitation on liability
for discharge of oil or matter under this section, notwithstanding any
other provisions of law. This section would provide for the withhold-
ing of clearance of a vessel until these costs are paid and for posting
of bonds or other sureties. It also provides for the establishment of a
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1509
maritime lien on the vessel which may be recovered in an action in
rem.
This section would also authorize the United States to bring an
action against the owner or operator in any court of competent
jurisdiction to recover such costs. The United States shall also have
a cause of action against any other owner or operator or vessel whose
willful act or negligence was found to cause or contribute to the
discharge of the oil where there has been a collision or other casualty.
Section 17(e)(2) would provide that, in case of any action in-
situted by the United States to recover its cost of cleanup and
certain penalties under this section, the evidence of a discharge of
oil or matter shall constitute a prima facie case of liability to the
United States on the part of the owner or operator of the vessel or the
person owning or operating an onshore or offshore facility. The
burden of rebutting such prima facie case would be on the owner or
operator or person as appropriate. This burden, however, shall not
affect a'hy rights which such owner or operator or person may have
against other vessels or facilities or owners or operators or persons
whose willful act or negligence may in some way have caused or con-
tributed to the discharge.
Section 17 (f) (1) would require that any person who owns or oper-
ates an onshore facility other than a Federal- or State-owned facility
and who willfully or negligently discharges or permits the discharge
of oil or matter into any waters must immediately remove the oil
or matter in accordance with the regulations prescribed under this
section.
Section 17 (f) (2) would require that any person who owns or op-
erates an offshore facility other than a Federal or State facility which is
[P. 30]
located within the seaward boundaries of a State as defined in the
Submarginal Lands Act of 1953, and who willfully or negligently
discharges or permits the discharge of oil or matter from such facility
into any waters or shorelines or beaches, must immediately remove
the oil or matter under the regulations prescribed under this section.
Section 17 (f) (3) would provide that if the United States removes
oil or matter discharged from any onshore or offshore facility just
mentioned, the person who owns or operates the facility shall be
liable to the United States for the cost incurred therein provided that
such liability shall not exceed $8 million. The Secretary shall estab-
lish by regulation, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce
and the Small Business Administration, reasonable and equitable
classifications of onshore facilities and activities and apply with respact
to such classifications differing limits of liability which may be less
-------
1510 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
than such $8 million limitation and none of which shall be in excess
of $8 million. The classifications would take into account the types of
businesses and other facilities affected. The provisions of section
17 (f) (3) shall not apply to any onshore facility until it comes within
the classification established by the Secretary. The Secretary's
classification, however, shall not be established until the expiration
of at least 60 days after notification to the Congress of such intended
classification.
Section 17 (f) (5) would provide that the provisions in section 17 (f)
relative to the imposition of any requirement or liability limitations
on onshore or offshore facilities with respect to the discharge of oil or
matter into any waters within the jurisdiction of a State shall not be
considered as an attempt to preempt the authority of the State or
any political subdivision thereof to impose additional requirements on
such facilities.
Section 17 (g) (1) would require that within 60 days after the enact-
ment of this section the Secretary of the Interior must issue regula-
tions establishing environmental quality criteria relative to methods
and procedures of removing discharged oil and matter and that the
Coast Guard must by regulations establish procedures, methods, or
equipment consistent with such regulations for the removal of such
discharged oil or matter. The objective of these regulations would be
to insure that the waters, beaches, and shorelines, including the ma-
rine environment, will not be damaged through the use of harmful
chemicals or other materials. This section would also provide for the
issuance, by the Coast Guard of regulations establishing procedures,
methods, and equipment to prevent discharges of oil from vessels,
within 60 days after enactment. These regulations may be revised
from time to time.
Section 17(g) (2) would establish civil penalties for the violation
of any regulations issued under subsection 17(g)(l) relative to the
removal of discharged oil or matter. Each violation would be a sep-
arate offense and the Coast Guard would assess the penalty and other
compromise. The penalty shall not be assessed until notice and an
opportunity for a hearing have been given. In order to collect the
penalty finally, the "United States would have to file a civil action
in the U.S. district courts which will provide a de novo proceeding.
Section 17 (h) (1) of the bill would establish a revolving fund in the
Treasury to be administered by the Coast Guard of not to exceed
$20 million and authorize appropriations in that amount to the fund
[P- 31]
as well as the depositing of other revenues received by the United
States under this section 17 of the act. Sums deposited into the fund
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1511
shall be available to reimburse a State or political subdivision thereof
that assists in the removal of any discharged oil or matter. The mon-
eys in the fund shall be available until expended.
Section 17 (h) (2) would provide for the delegation by the President
within 90 days after the enactment of this section of the authority
for the United States to remove discharged oil or matter to the Coast
Guard or to the Secretaries of Defense or Interior or other Federal
agencies in accordance with any national contingency plan or revision
thereof which has been approved by the President, including re-
gional contingency plans. Each agency to which this authority is
delegated will be able to utilize the personnel, services, and facilities
of other Federal and State agencies.
Section 17 (h) (3) would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to
issue regulations in consultation with the Coast Guard permitting
discharges of oil or matter under such conditions as he may prescribe
and at time and locations deemed appropriate by him.
Section 17 (h) (4) would provide that the provisions prohibiting
discharges of oil or matter from vessels and the regulations issued
under section 17 (g) of this section shall be enforced by the Coast
Guard and that the Coast Guard may utilize the services of other
Federal and State agencies in carrying out these provisions.
Section 17 (h) (5) would authorize the Coast Guard to board and
inspect facilities and to make arrests in connection with any violations
of this act.
Section 17 (h) (6) would provide for the bringing of actions in
certain courts where violations have occurred in Guam, the Virgin
Islands, American Samoa, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific
Islands.
Section 17(i) would provide that the provisions of section 17 shall
not affect or modify the obligations of any owner or operator of any
vessel or onshore or offshore facility under other provisions of law for
damages to public or privately owned property which might occur
as a result of a discharge of oil or matter or as a result of actions
taken in the removal of such discharges.
Section 17 (j) would provide that the provisions of section 17 shall
not be construed as authorizing either the Secretary of the Interior
or the Coast Guard to regulate the operations or construction of any
onshore or offshore facility. This section also would provide that the
provisions of section 17 shall not be construed as affecting or modify-
ing any other existing authorities of either Secretary relative to such
facilities under this act or any other provision of law.
Section 17(k)(l) would provide that any vessel over 100 gross
registered tons which uses any port or place in the United States or
the navigable waters of the United States for any purpose must
-------
1512 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
establish evidence of financial responsibility to meet the maximum
potential liability to the United States which the vessel could be
subjected to for the willful or negligent discharge of oil or matter
under this section. The financial responsibility should be established
pursuant to regulations to be prescribed from time to time by the
agency head to which the President has delegated this responsibility.
Financial responsibility may include insurance policies, bonds, evi-
dence of self-insurance, or evidences of such responsibility that the
[p. 32]
agency head deems appropriate. All bonds filed must be issued by a
bonding company authorized to do business in the United States.
Provisions of financial responsibility also apply to barges that are
equivalent in size to vessels over 100 tons.
Section 17 (k) (2) would provide that the financial responsibility
provisions of section 17(k)(l) shall become effective 1 year after
enactment of this section. The President is required to delegate this
responsibility to the appropriate agency head within 60 days after
enactment. In addition, the necessary regulations to implement this
section must be issued within 6 months after the effective date of
the section.
Section 17 (k) (3) directs that the Secretary of Transportation, in
consultation with the Secretaries of Interior, State, Commerce, and
other Federal agencies such as the Small Business Administration
and representatives of various industries such as the merchant ma-
rine, oil, and insurance industries and other interested persons con-
duct a study relative to other measures to provide financial
responsibility and limitations of liability with regard to vessels and
measures to provide financial responsibility for onshore and offshore
facilities, and finally measures relative to the limitations of liability
on such facilities in relation to the cost of removing discharged oil or
matter and the payment of all damages that may result from the
discharge of oil or matter and from the Removal of the discharges.
The study is to be completed by January 1, 1971, and a report sent to
the Congress with appropriate recommendations, including legislative
recommendations.
Senate amendment
Section 102 of the Senate amendment would, among other things,
add to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act a new section 12
relating to control of oil discharges.
The new section 12 is concerned with the control and cleanup of
oil discharges into inland waters of the United States and waters of
the U.S. territorial seas, and in the case of vessels, into the waters
of the 9-mile zone contiguous to the territorial sea. It does not apply
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1513
to discharges from offshore facilities covered by leases and regula-
tions under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, but does not
in any way affect claims to persons or agencies damaged by such
discharges.
Section 12 (a) would define the various terms used in the section.
The definition of "oil" is very broad, and only specifically excludes
dredged spoil.
The definition of "discharge" is designed to cover by its broad
terms all possible means of fouling the waters with oil.
The definition of a "vessel" is identical to that in section 3, Title 1,
United States Code, and would include all vessels, both foreign and
domestic.
The definition of the term "public vessel" would cover Federal- and
State-owned and operated vessels and vessels owned and operated by
a foreign country, except those not engaged in commerce.
The definition of "United States" includes Guam, American Samoa,
the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, the Canal Zone, and the Trust
Territory of the Pacific Islands, as well as all the States and the
District of Columbia.
[p. 33]
The definition of "owner and operator" would include individuals
or organizations, such as a corporation, association, firm, or partner-
ship, that own, operate, charter by demise, a vessel, or own or operate
an onshore or offshore facility.
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 (TIAS 5639).
The definition of "onshore and offshore facilities" distinguishes
between drilling and production facilities and other facilities. Drill-
ing and production facilities and related appurtenances, such as pipe-
lines, platforms, barges used for drilling purposes, etc., are those that
are used or capable of being used solely for the purpose of exploring
for, drilling, or producing oil. The other facilities are those that are
used or capable of being used to process, transport, or transfer oil, or
to store oil commercially. Neither definition applies to individual
homes where oil is stored, or small businesses other than marine fa-
cilities which are used or capable of being used to store 500 barrels of
oil or less. Few existing or planned service stations have a storage
capacity of more than 500 barrels. In either case, the facility could be
located either permanently or temporarily on dry land or land under
the navigable waters of the United States which includes inland
waters and coastal waters out to the 3-mile territorial sea limit.
The definition of an "act of God" means an act occasioned ex-
-------
1514 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
clusively by violence of nature without the interference of any human
action.
Section 12(b)(l) would prohibit all oil discharges into U.S. water-
ways and the waters of the contiguous zone from any source, except
where permitted under a 1954 convention, and where permitted by
regulations issued by the President. Such regulations must be con-
sistent with maritime laws and regulations and water quality
standards.
Section 12 (b) (2) would authorize a civil penalty for knowingly
violating the regulations promulgated under the previous section. If
payment is not forthcoming administratively, such penalty may be
collected in the Federal district court in a de novo proceeding.
Section 12 (c) would require any person in charge of a vessel or an
offshore or onshore facility at the time of a discharge of oil into the
navigable waters of the United States or into the waters of the con-
tiguous zone to notify immediately the United States. This section
would also provide a criminal penalty for any person in charge of
such vessel or facility who knowingly fails to notify the United States.
The term "person in charge" is deliberately designed to cover only
supervisory personnel who have the responsibility for the particular
vessel or facility and not to include other employees. The purpose of
the notice provision is to prevent or mitigate damage and facilitate
cleanup. Such notice and information contained therein may not
be used in any criminal action under Federal or State laws.
Section 12 (d) (1) would direct the President to issue regulations to
govern the removal of oil which is discharged, aid in the enforcement
of this section, prevent oil pollution, and establish criteria for oil
removal contingency plans. The regulations will also cover proce-
dures to review and approve, where appropriate, such plans of own-
ers or operators as well as public agencies.
[P. 34]
Section 12 (d) (2) would authorize a civil penalty for violating the
above regulations. If payment is not forthcoming administratively,
such penalty may be collected in the Federal district court in a de
novo proceeding.
Section 12 (c) would require that when oil is discharged in violation
of section 12 (b) the oil must be removed immediately under the
above regulations. It would provide, if the discharger fails, or is un-
able to act to remove the oil, authority for the President may take
appropriate measures to remove the oil either directly or by contract.
If the discharger acts improperly the President could also act to re-
move the oil.
Section 12 (f) would limit the liability of a vessel owner or operator
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1515
for the cost of removal of discharged oil by the United States to up
to $125 per gross ton of the vessel, or $14 million, whichever is less.
This limitation, however, would not apply if the discharge was the
result of a negligence or a willful act on the part of the owner or
operator or his agents, employees, etc. In such case, the owner or
operator would be liable for all costs of removal borne by the United
States. The owner or operator may not be held liable, however, for
these costs if he can prove the discharge was caused solely by an act
of God or war or negligence of the U.S. Government or any act of a
third party.
Section 12 (f) (2) would provide that any vessel over 300 gross tons
which uses any port or place in the United States or the navigable
waters of the United States for any purpose must establish evidence
of financial responsibility of $100 per gross ton to meet the maximum
potential liability to the United States which the vessel could be
subjected to for the discharge of oil under section 12(f)(l). The
financial responsibility should be established pursuant to regulations
to be prescribed from time to time by the agency head to which the
President has delegated this responsibility. Financial responsibility
may include insurance policies, bonds, evidence of self-insurance, or
evidences of such responsibility that the agency head deems appro-
priate. All bonds filed must be issued by a bonding company au-
thorized to do business in the United States. Provisions of financial
responsibility also apply to barges that are equivalent in size to
vessels over 300 tons.
Section 12 (g) would require that a person in the United States be
designated for service of process in matters arising under section 12.
Section 12 (h) would direct that the Secretary of the Treasury
withhold clearance of a vessel, other than a public vessel, that is liable
for any costs or penalties to the United States under section 12 or has
failed to meet the requirements for financial responsibility.
Section 12 (i) (1) would limit the liability of an owner or operator of
a nondrilling-production facility to the United States for the cost
incurred in removing discharged oil to $125 per ton of oil which such
facility is capable, while operating at maximum capacity, of either
processing, transporting, transferring in any 24-hour period, or stor-
ing in its largest unit. The limitation, however, would not apply if
the discharge was the result of negligence or a willful act of the
owner or operator, his agent, or any employee thereof. Also, the
owner or operator would not be liable for such costs if he is able to
prove that the discharge was caused solely by an act of God or war,
or solely by negligence of the U.S. Government or solely by an act of
a third party. In determining the amount of the liability, the owner
-------
1516 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
or operator would be required to establish conclusively the capacity
of the facility.
[p. 35]
Section 12 (i) (2) would establish the liability of an owner or op-
erator to the United States for oil discharges from an onshore or off-
shore drilling-production facility of not to exceed $8 million. This
limitation, however, would not apply if the discharge was due to a
negligent or willful act on the part of the owner or operator, his agent,
or any employee thereof. The owner or operator would not be re-
sponsible for costs where he can prove that the discharge was caused
solely by an act of God or war or solely by the act of a third party or
solely by negligence of the U.S. Government.
Section 12 (j) provides that in any instance where the owner or
operator removes the discharged oil and he is subsequently able to
prove in a suit brought against the United States in the Court of
Claims that the discharge was caused solely by an act of a third party
or an act of God or war or by negligence on the part of the U.S.
Government, the owner or operator is entitled to recover such costs
from the fund established under section 12 (k). If the discharge was
caused solely by an act of a third party, the United States shall be
subrogated to any rights that the owner or operator may have against
such third party. This section does not apply to cases where liability
is established under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. The
United States, of course, would have normal rights of appeal.
Section 12 (k) would authorize the President to delegate his func-
tions under section 12 to one or more appropriate Federal agencies.
It would authorize a revolving fund. The maximum amount in the
fund from appropriations would be $50 million.
Section 12(1) would establish that the provisions of section 12 are
not intended to affect the rights of an owner or operator or the U.S.
Government against third parties who may have caused or con-
tributed to an oil discharge.
Section 12 (m) would grant enforcement authority in carrying out
provisions of section 12.
Section 12 (n) would authorize the United States in cases where the
President determines that there is an imminent and substantial threat
to the public health or welfare, because of an actual threat or dis-
charge of oil into the navigable waters of the United States from a
vessel, to take immediate possession of the vessel and such other
action that may be appropriate. Any expenses incurred by the
United States could be recovered subject to the same limitations
found in sections 12 (f) and (g).
Similarly, the President under the same conditions may require
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1517
that the U.S. attorney seek relief to abate any actual or threatened
discharge of oil from any onshore or offshore facility.
Section 12 (o) would provide jurisdiction in the Federal district
courts and in various other district courts relative to Guam, the
Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Trust Territory of the Pacific Is-
lands, and the Canal Zone.
Section 12 (p) would provide that the provisions of section 12 shall
not be construed as affecting or modifying any other existing author-
ities under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, or
any other Federal law or any State or local law not in conflict with
the provisions of section 12.
Section 12 (q) would provide that section 12 will not affect or
modify the obligations of any owner or operator for damages to
persons or property resulting from the discharge of oil or from the
removal of such oil.
[p. 36]
Conference substitute
Section 102 of the conference substitute would add a new section
11 to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. This proposed new
section 11 deals solely with the control of pollution by oil.
Subsection (a) contains definitions. The definitions of "oil", "dis-
charge"; "vessel", "public vessel", "United States", "person", and
"contiguous zone" are essentially identical with those definitions in
the House bill. The definition of the term "owner or operator"
would provide in the case of a vessel that it is the person owning,
operating, or chartering by demise, and in the case of an onshore or
offshore facility, it is the person owning or operating such facility,
and in the case of an abandoned offshore facility, it is the person who
owned or operated the facility immediately prior to its abandonment.
As a result of this definition, if an offshore facility has been aban-
doned by its former owner, and thereafter discharges oil in violation
of this section, such former owner would be responsible under the
provisions of this act for such subsequent discharge. The definition
of the term "remove" or "removal" has been clarified to include
specifically public or private property, shorelines, and beaches. The
definition of "onshore facility" means any facility (including motor
vehicles and rolling stock) of any kind located in, on, or under any
land within the United States other than submerged land. Thus, it is
made clear that tank trucks and railroad tank cars are included in
the definition as well as all other facilities such as storage tanks or
refineries from which oil could be discharged into the waters in ques-
tion. The definition would not include, however, facilities which are
built upon any submerged lands in the United States.
-------
1518 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
The definition of "offshore facility" means any facility of any kind
located in, on, or under any of the navigable waters of the United
States other than a vessel or public vessel. This would include off-
shore drilling rigs as well as all other offshore facilities within the
navigable waters of the United States which, in the case of the coastal
waters would extend to the seaward boundaries of the States within
the meaning of the Submerged Lands Act. The term "act of God" is
defined to mean an act occasioned by an unanticipated grave natural
disaster. This definition varies from that of the Senate definition
and, under this definition, only those acts about which the owner
could have had no foreknowledge, could have made no plans to avoid,
or could not predict would be included. Thus, grave natural disasters
which could not be anticipated in the design, location, or operation of
the facility or vessel by reason of historic, geographic, or climatic cir-
cumstances or phenomena would be outside the scope of the owner's
or operator's responsibility. The definition of the term "barrel" is
established at 42 U.S. gallons at 60° F.
Paragraph (1) of subsection (b) is a declaration of policy by Con-
gress that there ought not be discharges of oil into or upon the
navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or the waters of the con-
tiguous zone.
Paragraph (2) of subsection (b) prohibits the discharge of oil in the
navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or the waters of the contiguous
zone, in harmful quantities as determined by the President under
paragraph (3) with two exceptions: (A) discharges into the waters of
the contiguous zone where permitted under article IV of the Inter-
national Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil,
1954, as amended, and (B) where permitted in quantities at times and
locations
[p. 37]
or under circumstances or conditions which the President by
regulations determines not to be harmful. The President's regula-
tions are required to be consistent with maritime safety, marine nav-
igation laws and regulations, and applicable water quality standards.
Paragraph (3) of subsection (b) requires the President, by regula-
tions to be issued as soon as possible, to determine for the purposes of
this section those quantities of oil the discharge of which will be
harmful to the public health or welfare of the United States, includ-
ing fish, shellfish, wildlife, and public and private property, shorelines,
and beaches with the exception that, in the case of oil discharged in
the contiguous zone, only those discharges which threaten the fishery
resources of the zone or threaten to pollute or contribute to the
pollution of the territory or territorial sea of the United States may
be determined to be harmful.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1519
Paragraph (4) requires anyone in charge of a vessel or of an on-
shore or offshore facility, as soon as he has knowledge of any dis-
charge of oil from that vessel or facility in violation of this section, to
immediately notify the appropriate U.S. agency. Failure to do so
subjects such person to a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprison-
ment for not more than a year, or both. This notification, however,
is not to be used against any such person in any criminal case other
than one for perjury or giving a false statement.
Paragraph (5) of this subsection imposes a civil penalty on the
owner or operator of a vessel or onshore or offshore facility from
which oil is knowingly discharged in violation of this section. This
penalty is not to exceed $10,000 and is not to be assessed unless the
owner or operator charged has been given notice and opportunity for
hearing. Each violation is a separate offense, and the civil penalty
may be compromised by the Secretary. The Secretary of the Treas-
ury is required to withhold clearance from port of any vessel the
owner or operator of which is subject to the foregoing penalty.
Clearance may be granted upon filing of a bond or other satisfactory
surety.
Paragraph (1) of subsection (c) authorizes the President to act to
remove or arrange for the removal of any oil discharged into the
navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, or the waters of the con-
tiguous zone. If he determines the removal will be properly done by
the owner or operator of the vessel or facility from which the dis-
charge occurs, he may permit them to do so. The conferees wish to
make it clear that the basic responsibility for necessary cleaning up
in these situations is placed upon the President. This is not to be
construed to inhibit or prevent any owner or operator from under-
taking whatever action is necessary to contain or remove an oil
discharge.
Paragraph (2) of subsection (c) would require the President,
within 60 days, to prepare and publish a National Contingency Plan
for the removal of oil. The Plan shall provide for efficient, co-
ordinated, and effective action to minimize damage from oil dis-
charges, including containment, dispersal, and removal of oil. The
Plan is to include (A) assignment of duties and responsibilities, (B)
identification, procurement, maintenance, and storage of equipment
and supplies, (C) establishment of a strike force and emergency task
forces, (D) a system of surveillance and notice, (E) establishment of
a national center to coordinate and direct operations, (F) procedures
and techniques to be employed in identifying, containing, dispersing
and removing oil, and (G) a schedule identifying dispersants and
other
[p. 38]
-------
1520 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
chemicals that may be used in carrying out the plan, the waters
in which they may be used, and quantities which may be safely used.
In the case of a dispersant, chemical or waters not specifically identi-
fied in the schedule, the President or his delegate may on a case-by-
case basis, identify the dispersant or chemicals which may be used,
the waters in which they may be used, and the quantities which may
safely be used. The plan may be revised from time to time. Once
the plan is published, however, removal of oil and actions to min-
imize damage therefrom shall, to the greatest extent possible, be in
accordance with the plan.
The President is given general authority by subsection (1) of this
section to delegate his responsibilities under this section. It is the
hope of the conferees that with respect to the provisions of subsection
(c) (2) (C) and (D) such responsibilities will be delegated to the
Coast Guard and with respect to subsection (c) (2) (G) such responsi-
bilities will be delegated to the Secretary of the Interior.
Subsection (d) provides authority for the United States to remove,
and if necessary, to destroy vessels in cases where they pose a sub-
stantial threat of a pollution hazard through the discharge of oil. This
is almost identical to the equivalent provision in the House bill with
the exception that in lieu of the House provision making the expense
of removal a charge against the vessel, its cargo, and owner and per-
mitting the sale thereof, there has been substituted a provision from
the Senate amendment which states that the expense incurred under
this subsection will be deemed to be a cost incurred by the United
States in the removal of oil for the purposes of liability under subsec-
tion (f) of this section.
Subsection (e) authorizes the President when there is an imminent
and substantial threat to the public health and welfare because of an
actual or threatened discharge of oil from an onshore or offshore
facility to require the U.S. attorney for the district where the threat
occurs to secure such relief as may be necessary to abate the threat,
and the district courts of the United States are given jurisdiction
to grant such relief as the public interest and equity may require.
Subsection (f) establishes the liability of owners and operators of
vessels and on or offshore facilities for cleanup costs.
Paragraph (1) of subsection (f) provides that the owner or op-
erator of a vessel from which oil is discharged in violation of sub-
section (b) (2) of this section shall be liable to the United States for
actual costs incurred under subsection (c) for removal of that oil with
a limit of liability of not to exceed $100 per gross ton of the vessel or
$14 million, whichever is lesser. The owner or operator will have no
liability if he can prove that such discharge was caused solely by (A)
an act of God, (B) an act of war, (C) negligence on the part of the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1521
United States, or (D) an act or omission of a third party whether or
not negligent, or any combination of the foregoing clauses. Such
owner or operator shall be liable without limitation if the United
States can show that the discharge was the result of willful negligence
or willful misconduct within the privity and knowledge of the owner.
These removal costs are to be a maritime lien on the vessel recover-
able in an action in rem against the vessel and in addition the United
States may bring an action against the owner or operator for these
costs. The inclusion of specific language relating to the maritime
lien and actions against the owner or operator are for the purposes
of clarification only.
[p. 39]
Paragraph (2) of subsection (f) provides that the owner or op-
erator of an onshore facility is liable for actual costs for removal of
oil discharged from that facility in violation of subsection (b) (2) of
this section in an amount not to exceed $8 million. If such owner or
operator can prove 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, or (D) an act or omission of the third party whether or not
negligent or any combination thereof, then such owner or operator
shall have no liability. If the United States can show the discharge
was a result of willful negligence or misconduct within the privity
and knowledge of the owner, then the owner is liable for the full
cost without limitation. The United States is authorized to bring
an action against the owner or operator in any court of competent
jurisdiction to recover these costs. Additionally the Secretary is
authorized by regulation, after he has consulted with the Secretary
of Commerce and the Small Business Administration, to establish
classifications of those onshore facilities having a total fixed storage
capacity of a thousand barrels or less which he determines do not
present a substantial risk and apply with respect to these classifica-
tions differing limits of liability which may be less than the $8 million
limit established statutorily by this paragraph.
Paragraph (3) of subsection (f) provides that the owner or op-
erator of an offshore facility from which oil is discharged in violation
of subsection (b) (2) of this section shall be liable to the United States
for removal costs in an amount not to exceed $8 million. If such
owner or operator can prove that the discharge is caused solely by
(A) an act of God, (B) an act of war, (C) negligence on the part of
the United States, or (D) an act or omission of a third party whether
or not negligent, or any combination thereof, then such owner or op-
erator will have no liability. If the United States can show that the
discharge was the result of willful negligence or misconduct within
-------
1522 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
the privity and knowledge of the owner then he is liable for the full
amount. The United States is authorized to bring an action against
the owner or operator in a court of competent jurisdiction to recover
these costs.
Subsection (g) of this section provides that in any case where an
owner or operator of a vessel or of an onshore or offshore facility from
which oil is discharged in violation of this section proves that the
discharge is caused solely by an act or omission of a third party or
solely by such act or omission in combination with an act of God,
an act of war, or negligence on the part of the United States, then
such third party shall be liable to the United States for the actual
costs of removing the oil unless that third party can in turn prove
that the discharge was caused solely by an act of God, an act of war,
negligence on the part of the United States or the act or omission of
another party or any combination thereof. If the third party is the
owner or operator of a vessel which caused the discharge, then that
third party's liability is limited to $100 per gross ton of such vessel
or $14,000,000, whichever is the lesser. In any other case the liability
of the third party is limited by that which would have been ap-
plicable to the owner or operator of the vessel or facility from which
the discharge actually occurred if such owner or operator would
have been liable. If the United States proves the discharge of oil was
the result of willful negligence or misconduct within the privity and
knowledge of the third party, then such third party shall be liable for
the full
[p. 40]
amount of the removal costs. The United States is authorized to
bring a suit in a court of competent jurisdiction to recover these
removal costs.
Subsection (h) provides that the liability established by this sec-
tion will not affect any rights which the owner or operator of the
vessel or onshore or offshore facility may have against third parties
whose acts in any way may have caused or contributed to the dis-
charge of oil, or which the United States may have against any such
party.
Paragraph (1) of subsection (i) authorizes an owner or operator
from whose vessel or facility oil has been discharged and who volun-
tarily removes the oil in accordance with regulations to recover
reasonable costs incurred in that removal in a suit against the United
States in the court of claims if such owner or operator can prove 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, or (D) an act
or omission of a third party without regard to its negligence, or any
combination of the foregoing.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1523
Paragraph (2) of subsection (i) provides that this subsection will
not apply where liability is established by regulations adopted under
authority of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act.
Paragraph (3) of subsection (i) authorizes the payment from the
revolving fund established in subsection (k) of this section of any
judgment entered against the United States under this subsection.
Paragraph (1) of subsection (j) requires the President, as soon as
practicable and consistent with the national contingency plan, and
maritime safety, and marine and navigation laws, to establish methods
and procedures for removal of discharged oil, to establish criteria for
the development and implementation of local and regional oil re-
moval contingency plans, to establish procedures, methods, and re-
quirements for equipment to prevent discharges of oil from vessels
and onshore and offshore facilities, and regulations governing the
inspection of vessels carrying oil as cargo, including inspecting such
cargoes all for the purpose of reducing the likelihood of discharges
of oil from such vessels. This language is in very general terms, and
it is the understanding of all of the conferees that under this au-
thority the President would be authorized by regulation to require
vessels and facilities to carry on board or otherwise have available
materials and equipment determined necessary to prevent and to
clean up oil discharges.
Paragraph (2) of subsection (j) provides for a civil penalty of up to
$5,000 for each violation of the regulations issued under this subsec-
tion. Authority is granted the President to compromise these
penalties.
Subsection (k) authorizes the establishment of a revolving fund in
the Treasury of not to exceed $35 million to carry out the provisions
of subsections (c) (relating to the removal of oil which has been dis-
charged), (i) (relating to costs payable by the United States for re-
moval by volunteers), and (1) (relating to the administration of the
section generally), as well as section 12 of this act (relating to the
removal of hazardous polluting substances). Any other funds re-
ceived by the United States under this section are to be deposited in
this fund. Moneys in the fund are to be available until expended.
Subsection (1) is general authority to the President to delegate the
administration of this section to the heads of those departments,
agencies, and instrumentalities which he determines to be appropri-
ate. Any department, agency, or instrumentality in which functions
[p. 41]
are vested is to avoid duplication of effort and to utilize personnel,
services, and facilities of other departments, agencies, and instru-
mentalities wherever appropriate.
-------
1524 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Subsection (m) provides that any person authorized by the Pres-
ident to enforce this section may, except as to public vessels, board
and inspect vessels, arrest violators, and execute warrants or other
process issued by an officer or court of competent jurisdiction. It
is the hope of the conferees that the responsibility for this subsection
will be vested in the Coast Guard.
Subsection (n) vests the district courts of the United States with
jurisdiction for actions brought under this section other than those
specifically authorized in the Court of Claims by subsection (i)(l).
It further designates in the case of territories and possessions which
of the district courts such actions shall be brought in.
Paragraph (1) of subsection (o) provides that nothing in this sec-
tion will affect or modify the obligations of an owner or operator of a
vessel or facility from which oil is discharged to any other person or
agency under any provision of law for damages resulting from that
discharge or the removal of that oil.
Paragraph (2) of subsection (o) disclaims any intention of pre-
empting any State or political subdivision from imposing any re-
quirement or liability with respect to the discharge of oil into waters
in that State. Thus, any State would be free to provide requirements
and penalties similar to those imposed by this section or additional
requirements and penalties. These, however, would be separate and
independent from those imposed by this section and would be en-
forced by the States through its courts.
Paragraph (3) of subsection (o) insures that nothing in this section
is to be construed as affecting or modifying any other existing au-
thority of any Federal department, agency, or insti'umentality rela-
tive to onshore or offshore facilities under this Act, or any other
provision of law, or to affect any State or local law not in conflict with
this section.
Subsection (p) is essentially the same as the equivalent provisions
of the House bill relating to the financial responsibility of vessels ex-
cept that where the House bill required vessels over 100 gross reg-
istered tons to establish evidence of financial responsibility, this
provision requires vessels over 300 gross tons to do so and the limits
of liability are specified to be the same as those contained in subsec-
tion (f)(l), that is, $100 a gross ton or $14 million, whichever is
lesser. Additionally, this provision spells out in paragraph (3) that
claims for costs may be brought directly against the insurer providing
the evidence of financial responsibility and in such case the insurer
shall be entitled to all of the rights and defenses available to the
owner or operator. It is the hope of the conferees that responsibility
for administering paragraph (1) of this subsection will be vested in
the Federal Maritime Commission. It is also the hope of the con-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1525
ferees that the marine insurance industry will modernize its coverage
for protection of third parties without regard to the nature of the
conduct of the insured.
Paragraph (4) of subsection (p) is essentially the same as the pro-
visions of the House bill relating to a study of the need for other
measures to provide financial responsibility and to limit liability on
vessels and facilities subject to the provisions of this section. This
report is to be submitted to Congress by January 1, 1971.
[p. 42]
CONTROL OF HAZARDOUS POLLUTING SUBSTANCES
House bill
The House bill in the proposed new section 17 to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, relating to pollution resulting from oil spills,
provides that "matter" which is a defined term the substantial dis-
charge of which presents an imminent and substantial hazard to
public health or welfare can be cleaned up and liability can be as-
sessed in the same manner and to the same extent and with the same
penalties as are provided in the case of oil spills.
Senate amendment
The Senate amendment proposes a new section 13 to be added to
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act providing with respect to
controlling hazardous polluting substances a separate and distinct
means for dealing with them.
This new section 13 is concerned with the identification, control,
and cleanup of hazardous substances, other than oil.
Section 13 (a)-(f) would direct the President to develop, promul-
gate, and revise regulations designating various hazardous sub-
stances, other than oil, which when discharged in any quantity into
the navigable waters of the United States, or the waters of the con-
tiguous zone, would present an imminent and substantial danger to
the public health or welfare and establishing where appropriate, cri-
teria for the removal of such substances. The development of these
regulations must include consultation with various public and private
agencies and organizations and individuals interested in such reg-
ulations. Where appropriate, public hearings could be held in de-
veloping the regulations. Consideration must also be given to the
latest available scientific data, technical feasibility of the regulations,
and experience gained under the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act. Regulations would be published in the Federal Register as pro-
posed regulations and interested persons would be given at least 30
days to comment thereon. At the end of that time the regulations
may be finally promulgated unless an interested person has filed ob-
-------
1526 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
jections stating grounds therefor and requesting a public hearing on
such objections. After the notice period, the objections must \>z pub-
lished in the Federal Register by notice and a public hearing held as
soon as possible thereafter. On completion of the hearing, the Presi-
dent must make findings of fact and he may promulgate such modifi-
cation of regulations as appropriate or take other action as he deems
appropriate. All findings must be made public.
Any person aggrieved by such regulation for which a hearing was
held may within 60 days file a petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia requesting that the regulation be mod-
ified or set aside. The court must hear the appeal on the record
made before the President and the substantial evidence rule shall
apply to the findings of the President. The court may affirm, vacate,
or remand the proceedings. The review afforded by this procedure in
the Court of Appeals shall be exclusive as to the person seeking the
petition and such person cannot raise the validity of the regulation in
any subsequent procedure relating to the enforcement thereof. The
filing of a petition does not stay the regulations unless the court so
orders
[p. 43]
after finding that there is substantial likelihood that the President's
findings are erroneous and that irreparable injury will result if the
stay is not granted.
Section 13 (g) would require that notice be given immediately to
the United States upon the discharge of any hazardous substance
from an onshore or offshore facility or a vessel in order to permit im-
mediate action to remove or otherwise mitigate damage from the dis-
charged substance. Criminal penalties apply for anyone who
knowingly fails to so notify. Such notice and information contained
therein may not be used in any criminal action under Federal or
State law.
Section 13 (h) would direct that the United States remove any dis-
charged substance unless appropriate action is taken immediately by
the discharger to remove the substance.
Section 13 (i) would provide civil penalties for violation of regula-
tion promulgated under section 13(a). If payment is not forthcom-
ing administratively such penalties may be collected in Federal court
in a de novo proceeding.
Section 13 (j) would provide that section 13 will not affect or modify
the obligations of an owner or operator for damages to anyone for
damage to persons or property resulting from the discharge of a
hazardous substance or from the removal of such substance.
Section 13 (k) would provide enforcement authority in carrying
out the provisions of section 13.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1527
Section 13(1) would provide jurisdiction in the Federal district
courts in case of any actions arising under section 13.
Section 13 (m) would define various terms used in section 13 and
make applicable the definitions of section 12 (a) as to the terms, oil,
discharge, vessels, public vessel, United States, person, contiguous
zone, and act of God.
Section 13 (n) would require that the President submit a report to
the Congress by November 1, 1970, on the need for, and desirability
of, legislation imposing liability for the cost of removal of hazardous
substances. The report would be based on an accelerated study on
the methods and measures for controlling substances, the most ap-
propriate measures for enforcement, and the methods of imposing
sanctions where removal is impossible or impractical.
Section 13 (o) would authorize the President to delegate his re-
sponsibility to other Federal agencies. In addition it would make
available for the purpose of section 13 the fund established under
section 12 of the Act.
Conference substitute
The conference substitute proposes to add a new section 12 to the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act dealing with control of haz-
ardous polluting substances. In general, this section is more nearly
comparable to that proposed by the Senate amendment than to the
House bill.
Section 12 (a) would be the same as section 13 (a) of the Senate
amendment except that the President would be authorized to estab-
lish recommended methods and means for removing hazardous sub-
stances instead of establishing criteria therefor as provided in the
Senate amendment.
Section 12 (b) would apply the Administrative Procedure Act pro-
visions as now contained in title V (other than the form of adminis-
trative proceeding provided in section 553 (c)) in lieu of the detailed
administrative proceedings and judicial review contained in the com-
parable Senate provisions.
[p. 44]
Section 12 (c) is essentially the same as section 13 (g) of the Senate
amendment except that the criminal penalty for failure to notify has
been removed. This section does not contain the civil penalty pro-
vided in section 13 (i) of the Senate amendment.
This section does not contain the authorities granted the President
with respect to enforcement contained in sections 13 (k) and 13(1) of
the Senate amendment.
Section 12 (g), relating to reports, with minor changes is essentially
the same as section 13 (n) of the Senate amendment.
-------
1528 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Section 12 (h) is essentially the same as section 13 (o) of the Senate
amendment.
CONTROL OF SEWAGE FROM VESSELS
House bill
Section 18 would provide for the control of sewage from vessels
including foreign vessels using our waterways and commercial and
recreational vessels.
Section 18 (a) would define various terms used in the new section.
Section 18 (b) would direct the Secretary of the Interior to promul-
gate Federal standards of performance for marine sanitation devices
to be installed and operated on board vessels subject to this new
section. The term "marine sanitation device" is defined to include
equipment on board the vessel which is designed to receive, retain,
treat, or discharge sewage. The standards must be consistent with
maritime safety and other marine laws and regulations. In addition,
the Coast Guard must also promulgate regulations governing the
design, construction, installation, and operation of these devices on
board these vessels.
Section 18(c) would provide that the initial standards and regula-
tions will be effective for new vessels—that is, vessels constructed
after such standards and regulations are promulgated—2 years after
promulgation, but not earlier than December 31, 1971, and for ex-
isting vessels—that is, vessels constructed prior to promulgation of
the standards and regulations—5 years after promulgation. Both
Interior and Coast Guard, in issuing standards and regulations, may
distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of vessels as well as be-
tween new and existing vessels. Both may exempt such vessels from
the applicability of the standards and regulations for such periods of
time as may be necessary and upon application for individual vessels.
This waiver authority could be accomplished at the time the stand-
ards and regulations are promulgated.
Section 18 (d) would provide that this new section and the stand-
ards and regulations issued thereunder would apply to vessels owned
and operated by the United States unless the Secretary of Defense
finds that such compliance would be contrary to the interests of na-
tional security. The regulations required by this section and the
certifications required under section 18 (g) of this section shall be
promulgated and issued by the Secretary of Defense rather than by
the Coast Guard.
Section 18 (e) would require that before the standards and regula-
tions are promulgated, the Secretary of the Interior and the Coast
Guard will consult with other interested Federal agencies, the States,
and appropriate representatives of the various industries affected and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1529
shall comply with the rulemaking provisions of title 5 of the United
States Code, formerly known as the Administrative Procedures Act.
[p. 45]
Section 18 (f) would provide that once the initial standards and
regulations are effective a State or a political subdivision thereof may
not adopt or enforce any law or regulation governing the design,
manufacture, or installation of any marine sanitation device on board
any vessel subject to the Federal standards and regulations. The
section would not, however, affect the State's authority to prohibit
completely all sewage discharges from vessels in particular intrastate
waters of the State, regardless of whether the sewage is treated or
not. In such cases however, the State must also prohibit waste dis-
charges from all other sources.
Section 18 (g) would prohibit the sale or delivery into interstate
commerce or importation into the United States of any marine sani-
tation device unless such device is in all material respects substan-
tially the same as the test device certified by the Coast Guard under
this section. The subsection would require the Coast Guard to cer-
tify upon application of each manufacturer of these devices if he finds
that they meet the standards and regulations promulgated under this
section. The Coast Guard would require the manufacturer to test the
device in accordance with procedures set forth by the Secretary of
the Interior as to performance or he shall test it himself. It would
be up to the Coast Guard to determine if the results of the test are in
accordance with the appropriate performance standards. If the
Coast Guard finds that the device is satisfactory from the standpoint
of safety and other requirements of maritime law or regulation, and
after considering the design, installation, operation, and material, and
other appropriate factors, he would certify it. Every manufacturer
would be required to maintain records and provide such information
as the Secretary or the Coast Guard may need to enable them to
determine whether the manufacturer has acted or is acting in com-
pliance with this section and regulations thereunder.
Section 18 (h) would provide that after the effective date of stand-
ards and regulations promulgated by Interior and Coast Guard it
shall be unlawful (1) to manufacture for sale vessels subject to the
standards and regulations without a certified device; (2) for a vessel
to operate on the navigable waters of the United States subject to the
standards and regulations, if it is not equipped with an operable
marine sanitation device; (3) to refuse Federal authorities access to
records; and (4) to move or render inoperative, wrongfully, a cer-
tified device installed prior to sale or delivery to the ultimate
purchaser.
-------
1530 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Section 18 (i) would authorize the district courts of the United
States to restrain violations of subsections (h) (1) through (3) of
this section.
Section 18(j) would establish civil penalties for violation of section
18 (h) to be assessed by the Coast Guard. The maximum penalty
against the manufacturer and dealer is $5,000 and against other per-
sons violating 18 (h) (4) $2,000. The penalty cannot be assessed until
there is notice and an opportunity for a hearing.
Sections 18 (k) and (1) would provide that the enforcement of this
new section would be carried out by the Coast Guard and that the
Coast Guard may utilize the services, personnel, and facilities of
the Secretary of the Interior and other Federal agencies where
appropriate.
Section 18 (m) would provide jurisdiction in the courts of Guam
and the Virgin Islands in the case of actions arising under this section.
[p. 46]
In the case of American Samoa and the Trust Territory of the Pacific
Islands, these actions may be brought in the district court for the
district of Hawaii.
Senate amendment
The new section 11 is concerned with the control of the discharge of
sewage from vessels into the navigable waters of the United States.
Section 11 (a) would define the various terms used in the section.
Section 11 (b) would direct the Secretary of the Interior within two
years after the effective date of this section to promulgate standards
of performance for marine sanitation devices to prevent the discharge
of untreated or inadequately treated sewage from all new and exist-
ing vessels equipped with installed toilet facilities. These standards
must be consistent with maritime safety and other marine laws and
regulations. The section would also direct the Coast Guard to pro-
mulgate regulations which govern the design, construction, installa-
tion, and operation of marine sanitation devices installed on board
vessels subject to this section. The regulations must be consistent
with the standards. This section would also exempt from such
standards and regulations vessels equipped with a device installed
pursuant to State requirements prior to the promulgation of such
standards and regulations, until the device is replaced or unless it
does not remain in compliance with the applicable State law.
Section 11 (c) would provide that standards and regulations for new
vessels become effective two years after promulgation. Standards
and regulations for existing vessels would become effective five years
after promulgation. Revisions thereof would be effective on date
specified in such revisions. The Coast Guard may waive application
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1531
of standards and regulations to various classes, types, and sizes of
vessels for such periods as may be necessary and, upon application,
waivers may be granted for individual vessels,
Section 11 (d) would require compliance with Federal standards
and regulations by public vessels of the United States, except where
compliance conflicts with national security, as determined by the
Secretary of Defense.
Section 11 (e) would require that the Secretary and the Coast
Guard consult with Federal and State agencies and other interested
parties and comply with the provisions of section 553 of the United
States Code (the Administrative Procedure Act) prior to promulga-
tion of standards and regulations.
Section 11 (f) would preempt State or local laws or regulations rela-
tive to the design, manufacture, installation, or use of marine sanita-
tion devices on new or existing vessels for which such devices are
required under section 11 (c) after the Federal standards and regula-
tions applicable to such vessels are effective. Such State laws and
regulations could still continue in effect in the case of other vessels.
Also, a State may prohibit all sewage discharges from all vessels into
certain waters within its boundaries in order to implement applicable
water quality standards.
Section 11 (g) would prohibit the sale or delivery into commerce of
a device, the prototype of which is not certified; establish procedures
for certification; and provide for the maintenance of records.
[p. 47]
Section 11 (h) would provide that, after the effective date of stand-
ards and regulations, it shall be unlawful:
To manufacture, or distribute for sale, vessels, subject to Federal
standards and regulations without a certified device;
To, wrongfully, remove or render inoperative a certified marine
sanitation device installed prior to sale or delivery to the ultimate
purchaser;
To refuse Federal authorities access to records; and
To operate a vessel subject to the standards and regulations if it
is not equipped with an operable device.
Section 11 (i) would give jurisdiction to the courts to restrain those
who under section 11 (h), unlawfully manufacture or distribute for
sale vessels without a device, remove or render inoperative a device,
or refuse access to records.
Section 11 (j) would establish civil penalties in case of violations of
section 11 (h) to be assessed after notice and hearing by the Coast
Guard. Civil penalties not paid after administrative proceedings may
be collected by the United States in the Federal district courts in a
de novo proceeding.
-------
1532 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Section 11 (k) would place the responsibility for enforcement in the
Coast Guard with assistance by the Secretary of the Interior, other
Federal agencies, or the States.
Section 11(1) would authorize the Coast Guard to inspect vessels
in U.S. waters and issue and execute warrants.
Section 11 (m) would grant jurisdiction to various courts in cases of
actions arising under section 11.
Conference substitute
The proposed new section 13 of the Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act relates to control of sewage from vessels.
Section 13 (a) contains the same definitions as section 11 of the
Senate amendment with the following changes:
(1) The term "public vessel" is denned to mean a vessel owned
or bareboat chartered and operated by the United States, by a
State or political subdivision thereof, or by a foreign nation, ex-
cept when such vessel is engaged in commerce.
(2) The definition of "manufacturer" is the same as contained
in the House bill.
(3) The term "discharge"' is defined as including, but not
limited to, any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting,
emptying, or dumping.
(4) The term "marine sanitation device" is defined as also in-
cluding any process to treat sewage.
Section 13(b)(l) relating to the establishment of standards for
marine sanitation devices is essentially the same as contained in the
House bill. Language is included in the vessel pollution portion of
the conference substitute for the purpose of assuring that unreason-
able demands are not made on small recreational vessels, but that
marine sanitation device performance standards would only be pro-
mulgated when our technology permits these standards to be practi-
cable and reasonable, and the degree of treatment will be adequate.
The exemption of vessels that do not have installed toilet facilities
relieves a burden upon those vessel owners who otherwise could be
driven out because of the lack of feasibility of installing toilet facil-
ities and marine sanitation devices on certain types of vessels.
[p. 48]
Section 13 (b) (2) provides that 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 com-
pliance with such initial standards and regulations shall be deemed
in compliance with this section until such time as the device is re-
placed or is found not to be in compliance with such initial standards
and regulations.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1533
Section 13(c)(l) relating to the effective date of standards is the
same as the House provision.
Section 13 (c) (2) relating to differentiation and waiver is the same
as the House provision with the exception that the Secretary of the
department in which the Coast Guard is operating must consult with
the Secretary of the Interior in distinguishing among classes, types,
and sizes of vessels as well as between new and existing vessels; and,
with respect to waiving applicability of standards and regulations as
necessary or appropriate for such classes, types, or sizes, it is made
clear that existing vessels equipped with marine sanitation devices on
the date of promulgation of the initial standards required by this sec-
tion are eligible for waiver of such standards.
Section 13 (d) relating to federally owned vessels is essentially the
same as the comparable provision of the House bill.
Section 13 (e) relating to consultation with interested parties is the
same as the provisions of the House bill.
Section 13 (f) provides that after the effective date of the initial
standards and regulations promulgated under this section no State or
political subdivision thereof shall adopt or enforce any statute or
regulation of any such State or political subdivision with respect to
the design, manufacture, or installation or use of any marine sanita-
tion device on any vessel subject to the provisions of this section.
Upon application by a State and, where the Secretary determines that
any applicable water quality standards require such a prohibition, he
shall by regulation completely prohibit the discharge from a vessel of
any sewage whether treated or not into those waters of such State
which are the subject of the application and to which such standards
apply. The conferees expect there to be a wide dissemination of in-
formation of any such prohibition.
Sections 13 (g) through (m) relating to prohibitions and their en-
forcement are essentially the same as the equivalent provisions in
the House bill.
AREA ACID AND OTHER MINE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
DEMONSTRATIONS
Conference substitute
The proposed new section 14 is the same as the equivalent pro-
visions in both the House bill and the Senate amendment which are
substantially identical.
POLLUTION CONTROL IN THE GREAT LAKES
Conference substitute
The proposed new section 15 is the same as the equivalent pro-
-------
1534 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
visions in both the House bill and the Senate amendment which are
substantially identical.
[p. 49]
TRAINING GRANTS AND CONTRACTS
Conference substitute
Sections 16 through 19 of the conference substitute relating to
training grants and contracts are essentially the same as the equiv-
alent provisions contained in the House bill,
ALASKA VILLAGE FACILITIES
House bill
The House bill contains no provision relating to Alaska village safe
water facilities.
Senate amendment
Title IV of the Senate amendment adds a new section 23 to the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act entitled "Alaska Village Safe
Water Facilities Act."
Sections 23 (b) and (c) are findings of fact and a declaration of
policy to establish a special emergency program to provide safe water
and hygienic sewage disposal facilities in Alaska villages presently
without these facilities.
Section 23 (d) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide
for the installation of whatever safe water and hygienic sewage dis-
posal facilities are necessary to insure that there will be one such
facility in each Alaskan village. These facilities are to be available
for use by the general public, to be designed to assure year round
operation, to provide clean water, shower bath facilities, sewage dis-
posal, and facilities for washing clothes.
The section also provides the means for determining the location
of these facilities, prohibits contributions toward the cost of con-
struction from the users of such facilities, provides that local work-
men shall be used, provides for local operation, and authorizes
$5,000,000 for fiscal year 1970 and such sums as may be necessary
thereafter for the next three fiscal years.
In addition, the Secretary is directed to conduct appropriate ed-
ucational and informational programs to familiarize the residents of
each community wherein such a facility is located as to the health
advantages of full utilization of that facility. In addition, the Secre-
tary is authorized to make grants for operation and maintenance of
these facilities.
The Secretary is required to report to Congress annually on the
results of this program. He is also directed to utilize the facilities of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTOHY 1535
the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to the fullest ex-
tent possible in carrying out the provisions of the section.
Conference substitute
The conference substitute proposes to add a new section 20 to the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act entitled "Alaska Village Dem-
onstration Projects".
This section would authorize the Secretary, in agreement with the
State of Alaska, to carry out demonstration projects for central com-
munity facilities for safe water and the elimination or control of
water pollution in native villages of Alaska without these facilities.
These projects are to include provisions for safe water supply sys-
tems, toilets, bathing and laundering facilities, sewage disposal facil-
ities, and similar facilities of that type. In addition, educational and
informational facilities and programs relating to health and hygiene
[p. 50]
are authorized as part of the demonstration projects. The purpose
of these demonstration projects is to assist in developing preliminary
plans for providing these types of facilities for all native villages in
Alaska.
In carrying out this section, the Secretary is to cooperate with the
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare in order to utilize per-
sonnel and facilities of that department to the extent appropriate.
A report to Congress not later than January 31, 1973, is required.
There is authorized to be appropriated not to exceed $1,000,000
to carry out this new section.
It is the understanding of the conferees that these demonstration
projects will not extend to the construction of facilities other than
those which are centrally located and usable on a community-wide
basis. Facilities for individual dwellings are not authorized under
this section.
COOPERATION BY FEDERAL AGENCIES IN THE CONTROL OF POLLUTION
House bill
Section 3 of the House amends section 11 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act to put into statutory terms the provisions of
the President's Executive Order 11288 for the prevention, control,
and abatement of water pollution by Federal activities, either directly
or by contract. This section would require that every Federal agency
having jurisdiction over any real property or facility shall take imme-
diate and appropriate steps to insure compliance with applicable Fed-
eral, State, and local water quality standards and the purposes of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act in the administration of the
-------
1536 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
property or facility. This section would recognize, however, that this
requirement is subject to the availability of appropriations and the
needs of the United States, but it is intended that every effort be
made to carry out its directives and to seek the necessary appropria-
tions to do so. In any summary of a conference made pursuant to
section 10 (d) (4) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the
Secretary must also include references to discharges which might
cause or contribute to the pollution of any waters from Federal
property or facilities and transmit a copy of his summary to the
appropriate Federal agency head. Also, notice of any hearing under
section 10 (f) of the act shall be given to the Federal agency having
jurisdiction over the property or facility involved and the finding
and recommendations of the hearing board shall include references to
the discharges from such Federal facility or property.
Section 11 (b) would require that applicants, other than a Federal
agency, seeking a Federal license or permit to conduct any activity
of any kind or nature which may result in discharges into the navi-
gable waters of the United States must provide the Federal licensing
or permitting agency with a certification from the affected State or
States or interstate water pollution control agency that there is rea-
sonable assurance, as determined by that agency, that such activity
will be conducted in a manner that will not reduce the quality of such
waters below applicable Federal or State or local water quality stand-
ards. In any instance where the water quality standards have been
promulgated by the Seci'etary of the Interior under section 10 (c) (2)
of the act or where a State agency or interstate agency lacks authority
to provide such a certification, then the certification shall be obtained
[p. 51]
from the Secretary of the Interior. In any case where an activity
requires two or more licenses or permits by a single Federal agency
or multiple Federal agencies and the applicant receives a certifica-
tion under this section in connection with any one of those licenses or
permits, then any Federal agency considering an application for a
subsequent license or permit for that same activity, such Federal
agency may accept the first certification as meeting the requirements
of this section if, after notice to the affected State or States or inter-
state agencies or to the Secretary, as appropriate, no written objection
is made to the granting of such license or permit without a subsequent
certification.
In addition, once a license or permit has been issued it may be sus-
pended if a court of competent jurisdiction subsequently finds that
such licensee or permittee is not in compliance with applicable water
quality standards.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1537
In any case where the actual construction of a facility for the con-
duct of any activity has been lawfully commenced prior to the ef-
fective date of this legislation, no certification shall be required under
section 11 (b) for a Federal license or permit issued after the effective
date of this legislation to conduct such activity. Any license or per-
mit issued without the certification, however, shall terminate at the
expiration of 2 years following the effective date of this legislation
unless prior to such termination date the licensee or permittee sub-
mits to the Federal licensing or permitting agency a certification as
required under section 11 (b).
This section prescribes that no Federal permit or license may be
granted except in the manner just mentioned without a certification
as prescribed by this section.
Senate amendment
Section 103 of the Senate amendment redesignates section 11 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as section 16 and sub-
stantially revises it.
Section 16 (a) is similar to the present section 11 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act as amended. The new section, however,
would require that every Federal agency having jurisdiction over any
real property or any facility or activity of any kind shall insure com-
pliance with applicable water quality standards in the administration
of the property, facility, or activity consistent with an approved plan
for implementation. This section would also authorize appropriations
to carry out this requirement.
Section 16 (b) would require that when a Federal agency (1) issues
a lease to any person for the use of any Federal property or facility or
(2) contracts for the operation of such property or facility or (3)
contracts for the entire operation of any non-Federal facility, such
agency must insure compliance with the applicable water control
quality standards and purposes of this Act in administering such
lease or contract. When appropriate, a certification obtained under
section 16 (c) for a Federal license or permit shall be evidence of
compliance with the water quality standards.
Section 16 (c) applies to applicants for Federal licenses or permits
to construct or operate any facility or to conduct any activity which
may result in any discharge in the navigable waters of the United
States. It does not apply to Federal agencies.
[p. 52]
The section would require that the applicant for such Federal li-
cense or permit provide a certification from the State in which the
discharge originates to the Federal licensing or permitting agency and
notice thereof to the Secretary of the Interior, that there is reasonable
-------
1538 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
assurance that the facility or activity will comply with applicable
water quality standards. In appropriate cases, the certification would
be obtained from an interstate water pollution control agency. Where
water quality standards for interstate waters have not been approved
or promulgated under section 10 (c) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended, the certification must be obtained from the
Secretary of the Interior. The certifying agency has 1 year after re-
ceipt of application for certification to notify the applicant of such
certification or of intent not to certify. After the Secretary of the
Interior determines that the discharge may affect the applicable water
quality standards of a State or States other than the certifying State,
the Secretary must notify the other States within 60 days after receipt
of the notice of an application for a license or permit. If such other
States within 30 days after receipt of notification from the Secretary
determine that the discharge will adversely affect its standards, they
should notify the Secretary and the Secretary has an additional 30
days to review such determination. If upon such review he finds such
adverse effect, the Secretary shall require that before the license or
permit is issued that appropriate conditions be included to insure
compliance with the standards.
No Federal license or permit can be granted without a certification
and such conditions as the State, interstate agency, or Secretary may
reasonably require. These conditions could include, among other
things, provision for suspension or termination of the license or per-
mit for failure to comply with the standards.
If, in the case of discharge affecting States other than the State of
origin and where the Secretary requires conditions that are more
stringent than those of the State where the discharge originates, the
applicant may request a hearing by the Federal licensing or permit-
ting agency and such agency shall make findings on the conditions to
be included in a license or permit. Such findings must be public and
they shall not require conditions that are less stringent than those of
the State where the discharge occurs. The licensing or permitting
agency will, of course, provide an opportunity for the affected States
and the Secretary to participate in such hearing and to appeal the
findings in a Federal court within a reasonable time after the is-
suance thereof as provided in statute under which the license or
permit is issued or under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The Federal licensee or permittee must provide the certifying State
or, as appropriate, the interstate agency or the Secretary of notice of
any changes in the facility or activity which may affect applicable
water quality standards.
A certification for Federal license or permit for a particular facility
or activity shall satisfy the requirement of certification for any later
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1539
Federal license or permit necessary for such facility for activity un-
less, after receiving notice of an application for such later Federal
license or permit, a State or the Secretary notifies such Federal li-
censing or permitting agency that there has been a change in the
nature of the activity, the design of the facility, the natural character-
istics of the
[p. 53]
waters into which the discharge will be made, or in the water quality
standards applicable to such waters, and there is no longer reasonable
assurance of compliance with water quality standards. In such in-
stances a second certification will be required.
In the case of any Federally licensed or permitted facility or activity
which is not required to obtain a Federal operating license or permit,
the licensee or permittee must give the certifying State, or interstate
agency, or the Secretary an opportunity to review the manner in
which the facility or activity will be operated or conducted for the
purpose of assuring compliance with water quality standards. This
requirement would apply prior to the actual operation of the facility
or activity. Upon receipt of notice from the certifying State, the in-
terstate agency or the Secretary, that the operation will not comply
with the standards, the Federal agency must suspend the license or
permit until notice is received of reasonable assurance of compliance.
If, in any case, a Governor of a State or the Secretary notifies the
licensing or permitting agency that the facility or activity has been
found by a court to be in violation of the standards, such license or
permit may be suspended or terminated, as circumstances require,
by the Federal agency.
If actual construction of a facility has been begun under a Federal
license or permit prior to the effective date of this section, no certifica-
tion shall be required for any Federal operating license or permit for
such facility issued within 3 years of such date. Any Federal op-
erating license or permit issued during such 3-year period, however,
without the benefit of the certification must be terminated after the
end of the 3-year period unless, prior to that time, the licensee or
permittee obtains a certification. If, in any case where there is a
Federal license or permit application pending on the effective date of
this section and where such license or permit is issued within 1 year
of such date, a certification will not be required for 1 year following
the issuance of license or permit. The license or permit, however,
will terminate at the end of that year unless certification is obtained.
In the case of any activity which will affect water quality for which
there are no applicable standards, no certification will be required.
However, a Federal licensing or permitting agency, in such event,
-------
1540 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
must impose, as a condition of any license or permit, a requirement
that the licensee or permittee shall comply with the purposes of
the Act.
If a State in which a discharge originates or the Secretary notifies a
Federal agency that its licensee or permittee has received notice of
the adoption of water quality standards applicable to such activity
and has failed to comply with the standards, the Federal agency must
after a period of time, suspend license or permit until notice is re-
ceived that there is reasonable assurance of compliance.
Section 16 (d) provides that section 16 of the Act is not to be in-
terpreted in any way to affect the authority of any Federal agency
pursuant to this Act or any other provision of law relative to com-
pliance with water quality standards. The Secretary of the Interior
is also directed to provide technical assistance as may be necessary
to carry out the purposes of this Act.
Section 16 (e) will authorize Corps of Engineers to permit the use of
spoil disposal areas under its jurisdiction by a Federal licensee or
permittee and to charge for such use. Moneys received would be
deposited to miscellaneous receipts.
[P. 54]
Conference substitute
Section 103 of the conference substitute redesignates existing sec-
tion 11 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as section 21 and
revises that section substantially as follows:
Section 21 (a) would require each Federal department, agency,
and instrumentality (hereafter referred to as a "Federal agency")
having jurisdiction over any real property or facility or engaged in
any Federal public works activity to insure compliance with ap-
plicable water quality standards and the purposes of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act in the administration of that property,
facility, or activity, to the extent consistent with the paramount in-
terest of the United States as determined by the President. The
jurisdiction of a Federal agency referred to in this provision includes
operations of the agencies carried on by lease and by contract and
therefore would subject these lease and contract operations to the re-
quirements of this subsection. In his summary of the conference
pursuant to section 10 (d) (4) of the Act, the Secretary is required to
include reference to any discharges alleged to contribute to pollution
from any Federal property, facility, or activity and to send a copy of
that summary to the head of the Federal agency having jurisdiction
thereof. Notice of a hearing pursuant to section 10 (f) of the Act
involving any pollution alleged to be caused by any such discharges
shall also be given the Federal agency having jurisdiction over the
property, facility, or activity involved and the hearing board's find-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1541
ings and recommendations shall include references to such discharges
to the extent they are contributing to the pollution.
Section 21 (b) requires any applicant for a Federal license or permit
to conduct any activity (this includes constructing or operating facil-
ities) which may result in any discharge into navigable waters of the
United States to provide the licensing or permitting agency with a
certification from the State in which the discharge originates or will
originate or a certification from the interstate water pollution control
agency having jurisdiction over the navigable waters at the point
where the discharge originates or will originate if such a certification
is appropriate from such interstate agency rather than from the State
of origin. This certification must state that there is reasonable as-
surance as determined by the certifying State or interstate agency
that the activity proposed to be licensed or permitted will be con-
ducted in a manner which will not violate applicable water quality
standards. The State is required to provide public notice with re-
spect to all applications received by it for certification and, to the
extent that the State determines it appropriate, to establish proce-
dures for holding public hearings with respect to specific applications.
If these standards have been promulgated by the Secretary, or, if a
State or interstate agency has no authority to make such a certifica-
tion, then the certification must be obtained from the Secretary. In
order to insure that sheer inactivity by the State, interstate agency,
or Secretary, as the case may be, will not frustrate the Federal ap-
plication, a requirement, similar to that contained in the House bill is
contained in the conference substitute that if within a reasonable
period, which cannot exceed one year, after it has received a request
to certify, the State, interstate agency, or Secretary, as the case may
be, fails or refuses to act on the request for certification, then the
certification requirement is waived. If a State refuses to give a
certification, the
[p. 55]
courts of that State are the forum in which the applicant must chal-
lenge that refusal if the applicant wishes to do so. No Federal
license or permit shall be granted unless this certification has first
been obtained or there has been a waiver of the requirement as pro-
vided by this subsection. Denial of certification by a State, interstate
agency, or the Secretary, as the case may be, results in a complete
prohibition against the issuance of the Federal license or permit.
When a licensing or permitting agency receives an application and
a certification, it must immediately notify the Secretary of the In-
terior thereof. Whenever such a discharge may affect the quality of
the waters of any other State as determined by the Secretary, then
-------
1542 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
the Secretary shall, within 30 days of the date he is notified of the
application for the Federal license or permit, notify such other State,
the licensing or permitting agency, and the applicant. If within 60
days thereafter the State so determined to be affected determines
that the discharge will affect the quality of its waters so as to violate
its water quality standards and within that 60-day period notifies the
Secretary and the licensing or permitting agency of its objection to
the issuance of the license or permit and requests a public hearing on
its objection, such a public hearing shall bs held by the licensing or
permitting agency. At that hearing the Secretary of the Interior shall
submit his evaluation and recommendations with respect to the ob-
jection to the licensing or permitting agency. Based upon the rec-
ommendations of the State, the Secretary, and any additional
evidence presented at the hearing, the agency shall condition the li-
cense or permit so as to insure compliance with applicable water
quality standards. If conditions cannot insure this compliance, the
license or permit shall not be issued.
In the case where a Federal license or permit is required both as to
the construction of a facility and its operation, the initial certification
required for the construction license or permit shall fulfill the re-
quirements of this subsection with respect to certification for a Fed-
eral license or permit to operate that facility unless the certifying
State, interstate agency, or Secretary, as the case may be, after hav-
ing been given notice of the application for an operating license or
permit by the agency to whom the application is made notifies that
agency within 60 days that there is no longer reasonable assurance
of compliance with applicable water quality standards because of
changes since the construction license or permit certification was
issued in (1) the construction or operation of the facility, (2) the
characteristics of the waters into which the discharge is to be made,
or (3) the water quality standards applicable to those waters. This
paragraph is made inapplicable if the applicant for the operating li-
cense or permit has not provided the certifying State, interstate
agency, or Secretary, as the case may be, with notice of any pro-
posed changes in the construction or operation of the facility which
changes may result in violation of applicable water quality standards.
Before the initial operation of a federally licensed or permitted fa-
cility or activity with respect to which a certification has been ob-
tained under this provision which facility or activity is not subject to
a Federal operating license or permit, the licensee or permittee is re-
quired to provide an opportunity to the certifying State, agency, or
Secretary, as the case may be, to review the manner of operation of
the facility for the purpose of assuring that applicable water quality
standards will not be violated. Upon notification by such certifying
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1543
State, agency, or Secretary, as the case may be, that
[p. 56]
operation of this facility will violate applicable water quality stand-
ards, the Federal agency may, after public hearing suspend the
license or permit until notification is received from the certifying
State, agency, or Secretary, as the case may be, that there is reason-
able assurance that the facility or activity will not violate applicable
water quality standards. This right to review the manner of opera-
tion of a facility or activity is not to be construed as authority to the
State, agency, or Secretary, as the case may be, to impose operational
requirements with respect to that facility or activity.
If a judgment is entered under section 10 (h) of the Act that a
federally licensed or permitted facility or activity has been operated
in violation of applicable water quality standards, then the Federal
license or permit with respect to which a certification has been, ob-
tained under this provision may be suspended or revoked by the
Federal agency issuing that license or permit.
No Federal agency is to be deemed to be an applicant for the pur-
poses of this subsection.
If the actual construction of a facility has been lawfully commenced
before the date of enactment of the Water Quality Improvement Act
of 1970, then no certification is to be required for a license or permit
issued thereafter to operate such facility except that if such a license
or permit is issued without this certification it shall terminate at the
end of three years from the date of enactment of the Act of 1970 unless
before such date a proper certification is submitted to the licensing or
permitting agency and the person having that license or permit other-
wise meets the requirements of this subsection.
Except as provided in the preceding paragraph, an applicant for a
license or permit pending on the date of enactment of the Water
Quality Improvement Act of 1970, which license or permit is issued
within one year after that date, will not require certification for a
one-year period following the date of issuance of the license or per-
mit except that that license or permit will terminate at the end of
one year unless before that expiration date the licensee or permittee
submits a certification and otherwise meets the requirements of this
subsection.
In the case of any activity which will affect water quality for which
there are no applicable standards, no certification will be required.
However, a Federal licensing or permitting agency, in such event,
must impose, as a condition of any license or permit, a requirement
that the licensee or permittee shall comply with the purposes of the
Act.
-------
1544 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
If a State in which a discharge originates or the Secretary notifies a
Federal agency that its licensee or permittee has received notice of
the adoption of water quality standards applicable to such activity
and has failed to comply with the standards, the Federal agency
must after a period of time, suspend license or permit until notice is
received that there is reasonable assurance of compliance.
Nothing in this section is to be construed to limit the authority of
any department or agency pursuant to any other provision of law to
require compliance with applicable water quality standards. The
Secretary of the Interior is also directed to provide technical as-
sistance to carry out the purposes of this Act.
This section will also authorize the Chief of Engineers to permit the
use of spoil disposal areas under his jurisdiction by a Federal li-
censee or permittee to charge for that use with the moneys received
[P- 57]
to be deposited in miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury. In con-
sidering the "public interest" the Chief of Engineers should take into
consideration the necessity to maintain non-Federal dock and berth-
ing facilities which are essential to the functioning of the Federal
navigation project. In determining the needs and utilization of spoil
disposal areas under the jurisdiction of the Chief of Engineers, he
should give appropriate consideration to the related requirements of
the non-Federal dredging activities and should consider their needs
for disposal on the same basis as those of the Federal Government.
Where local interests donates land, or shares in the costs of con-
struction of spoil-disposal areas, local interest should be permitted
reasonable use of the area, utilizing the same standards as set forth
in the two preceding sentences, at a nominal charge.
AWARDS FOR EXCELLENCE
House bill
The House bill in section 4 amends section 12 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act to add a new subsection (f) which would au-
thorize a program of official recognition by the United States to in-
dustrial firms and political subdivisions which demonstrate excellence
in their waste treatment and pollution abatement programs. Those
industrial firms and political subdivisions granted such an award are
to receive a certificate or a flag of suitable design. Notification of the
award is to be published in the Federal Register.
Senate amendment
The Senate amendment contained no comparable provision.
Conference substitute
Section 104 of the conference substitute adds a new subsection (f)
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1545
to redesignated section 22 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
to authorize a program of official recognition by the United States
to industrial organizations and political subdivisions which during the
preceding year demonstrated either outstanding technological achieve-
ment or an innovative process, method, or device in their waste
treatment and pollution abatement programs. The Secretary is to
establish appropriate regulations for application for and granting of
this award. No applicant is to be eligible if he is not in total com-
pliance with all applicable water quality standards and does not
otherwise have a satisfactory record with respect to environmental
quality. The award is to be a certificate or plaque of suitable design,
and notification of the award is to be published in the Federal
Register.
RESEARCH, INVESTIGATIONS, TRAINING, AND INFORMATION
House bill
Section 5 of the House bill amends section 5 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act by adding four new subsections and by ex-
tending the provisions authorizing appropriations for 2 additional
fiscal years at the level of authorization provided for fiscal year 1969,
that is $65 million.
Section 5(g) authorizes the Secretary to enter into contracts and
grants with various individuals, agencies, and organizations, for re-
search and development on the problems of lake eutrophication and
other lake pollution problems.
[p. 58]
Section 5(h) would authorize the Secretary to acquire lands and
interests therein by purchase with appropriated or donated funds, by
donation, or by exchange, lands or interests therein in connection
with development of field laboratories, research facilities, and demon-
stration projects.
Section 5(i) would direct that the Secretary shall engage in re-
search studies, experiments, and demonstrations by grant, contract,
or otherwise, in the prevention and control of oil pollution, including
the removal of oil discharges.
Section 5(j) would direct that the Secretary engage in a program of
research, studies, experiments, and demonstrations by grants, con-
tracts, or otherwise relative to the equipment which is to be installed
on board a vessel and which is designed to receive, retain, treat, or
discharge sewage from vessels with particular emphasis on equip-
ment for use on recreational vessels. The Secretary is directed to
file a report of his findings prior to the effective date of any standards
to be established under section 18 of the Act.
-------
1546 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Senate amendment
Section 104 of the Senate amendment would amend section 5 of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act by deleting the present
subsection (g) relating to an estuary study and inserting that sub-
section as a new subsection in section 21 of the Act.
This section would also add a new subsection (g) to section 5 re-
lating to the training of personnel to operate and maintain existing
and future treatment works and related activities. Under this new
program the Secretary will finance pilot programs of manpower de-
velopment in training and retraining of people interested in entering,
or who are actually in the field of operation and maintenance of such
works. The purpose of the program is to supplement, not supplant,
other manpower training programs. The Secretary can carry out
these programs directly or through joint ventures with the States
and other public or private agencies.
The Secretary is also authorized to enter into agreements to develop
and maintain an effective system for forecasting the needs of various
occupational categories in the water pollution field.
The new subsection would authorize the Secretary, in carrying out
the purposes of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, to make
grants and enter into contracts, establish and maintain research
fellowships, and provide additional training in technical programs in
the water pollution field. The Secretary is required to submit a
report to Congress by September 30, 1970, summarizing actions taken
under the new subsection; including information on the number of
persons trained, categories for which training was provided, effective-
ness of various training programs in this field, and provide estimates
of the needs of this field.
This section would also add a new subsection (h) to section 5 to
authorize the Secretary to enter into contracts and grants for re-
search and development on problems of lake eutrophication and other
lake pollution problems, including construction of publicly owned
research facilities for that purpose.
This section would also add a new subsection (i) to section 5 to
direct the Secretary to engage in research, studies, experiments, and
demonstrations by grant, contract, or otherwise in the prevention and
control of oil pollution, including the removal of oil discharges.
[p. 59]
A new subsection (j) is added to section 5 to require the Secretary
within two years to develop and issue to the States for the purpose of
adopting standards pursuant to section 10 (c), criteria reflecting the
latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of
effects on health and welfare which may be expected from the pres-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1547
ence of pesticides in the water in varying quantities. These criteria
are to be revised from time to time. Further, the Secretary is re-
quired to conduct a study and investigation of methods to control the
release of pesticides into the environment, including examination of
persistency of pesticides and to report thereon within two years.
A new subsection (k) is added to section 5 which authorizes the
Secretary to acquire lands and interests therein by purchase, with
appropriated or donated funds, by donation, or by exchange, in con-
nection with development of field laboratories, research facilities, and
demonstration projects.
This section would also authorize appropriations to carry out pro-
visions of this section except subsection (g) (1) and (2) at the current
level of authorization which is $65 million for fiscal years 1970 and
1971. In the case of subsection (g)(l), the authorization would be
$5 million for fiscal year 1970 and $7.5 million for the next fiscal year.
In the case of subsection (g) (2), the authorization is $2.5 million for
each of those fiscal years.
Conference substitute
Section 105 of the conference substitute amends section 5 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act as follows:
(1) By relettering the last two subsections and inserting after
subsection (f) new subsections (g) through (1).
(2) The new subsection (g) provides the same authority with
respect to training of personnel as was provided by the Senate
amendment in its amendment to section 5 (g).
The new subsection (h) provides for the same authority with re-
spect to lake eutrophication as was contained in the Senate amend-
ment. It would authorize financial assistance for the construction of
publicly owned research facilities by public agencies, including pub-
licly owned universities.
The new subsection (i), relating to research on oil removal prob-
lems with the substitution of the requirement that the specifications
be developed from time to time, rather than by June 30, 1970, and
with other minor changes is the same as the Senate amendment in
this regard.
The new subsection (j), relating to marine sanitation device re-
search is essentially the same as the provisions contained in the
proposed subsection (j) in the House bill.
The new subsection (k), relating to land acquisition, is essentially
the same as the comparable provisions in both the House bill and
Senate amendment.
The new subsection (1) is essentially the same as the proposed sub-
section (j) in the Senate amendment relating to pesticides with the
-------
1548 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
exception that reference to criteria has been deleted, and the term
"scientific knowledge" substituted therefor, and the requirement of
making the study on pesticides has been placed in the President
rather than the Secretary. The conferees expect that the Secretary
will consult with the Secretary of HEW on the health aspects of
pesticides and will avoid duplication of the research activities of the
Department of HEW.
[p. 60]
In addition, this provision would extend through fiscal year 1971 the
$1,000,000 authorized for the estuarine studies authorized in re-
designated subsection (m) and would extend through fiscal year
1971 the authorization of $65,000,000 per year for carrying out section
5 on research and would authorize for subsection (g) (1) training
$5,000,000 for fiscal year 1970 and $7,500,000 for fiscal year 1971, and
$2,500,000 per fiscal year for each of those two fiscal years for carry-
ing out subsection (g) (2) training. The extension of the estuarian
authorization is necessary in connection with the gathering of addi-
tional information which may be required as the result of hearings
now being held by the Public Works Committee.
OIL POLLUTION ACT, 1924
The House bill, the Senate amendment, and the conference substi-
tute all repeal the Oil Pollution Act, 1924.
FINANCING STUDY -
House bill
Section 9 of the House bill authorizes a study by the Secretary of
the Interior of the feasibility of all methods of financing the cost of
preventing, controlling, and abating water pollution, the results to
be reported to Congress by January 1, 1970, together with recom-
mendations.
Senate amendment
The Senate amendment contains no comparable provision.
Conference substitute
Section 109 of the conference substitute authorizes this study,
excluding from it, however, the methods already authorized by exist-
ing law and extending to December 31, 1970, the reporting date. The
authorization of this study is not to be construed as a weakening of
the congressional commitment to the financing methods for water
pollution control programs now authorized by law.
NAME CHANGE
House bill
Section 10 of the House bill changes the name of the Federal Water
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1549
Pollution Control Administration to the National Water Quality
Administration.
Senate amendment
The Senate amendment contained no comparable provision.
Conference substitute
Section 10 of the conference substitute provides for changing the
name of the Federal Water Pollution Control Administration to that
of the Federal Water Quality Administration.
REIMBURSEMENT
Senate amendment
Section 106 of the Senate amendment amends section 8(c) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act to specifically include in the
provision relating to the reallotment of unused allocations language
indicating that these can be used for the purpose of making re-
imbursements pursuant to the sixth and seventh sentences of section
8(c).
[p. 61]
House bill
The House bill contains no comparable provision.
Conference substitute
Section 111 of the conference substitute amends section 8(c) of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act to include for the purpose of
making reimbursement, those States having projects eligible for re-
imbursement pursuant to the sixth and seventh sentences of sub-
section (c) of section 8.
The conferees agreed that this is merely a clarifying amendment
and the authority for these reimbursements is contained in existing
law. However, for clarification purposes, the specific words are added
to the law.
NAVIGATION
Senate amendment
Section 108 of the Senate amendment amends the second sentence
of section 10 (c) (3) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to add
the word "navigation" after the word "industrial,", thus making
consideration of the value and use of water for navigation a factor to
be taken into account in the establishment of water quality standards.
House bill
The House bill contains no comparable provision.
Conference substitute
Section 112 of the conference substitute adds a new sentence to
section 10 (c) (3) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The
-------
1550 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
intent and purpose of this sentence is the same as that of the Senate
amendment, that is to ensure that "navigation" will be considered in
the same manner and to the same extent as the other enumerated
classes in the establishment of standards. The conference substitute
differs from the Senate amendment only in technique in order to
avoid any possible misinterpretation of this provision.
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Senate amendment
Title II of the Senate amendment, consisting of five sections, relates
to environmental quality.
Section 201 would cite this title as the Environmental Quality
Improvement Act of 1969 and make certain congressional findings
relative to the national policy set forth in specific statutes for the
enhancement of environmental quality.
Section 202 would require each Federal agency conducting or
supporting public works activity which affect the quality of the
environment to implement the policies established by the President
under this Act.
Section 203 would establish in the Executive Office of the President
an Office of Environmental Quality.
Section 204 would direct that an advisory committee be established
having a broad range of concern of population growth and environ-
mental quality and planning for the future.
Section 205 would authorize appropriations to carry out the pur-
poses of this title.
House bill
The House bill contains no comparable provision.
[p. 62]
Conference substitute
Title II of the conference substitute relates to environmental
quality.
Section 201 cites the title as the "Environmental Quality Improve-
ment Act of 1970".
Section 202 makes certain congressional findings relating to the
national policy set forth in existing statutes relating to environmental
pollution, control, water, and land resources, transportation, and
economic and regional development. It also finds that the primary
responsibility for implementing this national policy rests with the
State and local governments, and encourages the implementation of
the policy through regional organizations.
The section declares that the purposes of the title are to assure
that existing Federal departments and agencies conducting or sup-
porting public works activities affecting the environment shall imple-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1551
ment the policies established under existing law and to authorize an
Office of Environmental Quality.
Section 203 establishes in the Executive Office of the President an
Office of Environmental Quality. The Chairman of the Council on
Environmental Quality is to be the Director of this Office. A Deputy
Director is authorized to be appointed by the President by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate, and his compensation is pro-
vided for. The Director is authorized to employ necessary personnel.
These personnel would be employed in accordance with the general
classification laws and paid in accordance with the General Schedule,
except that authority is granted for the employment of not to ex-
ceed ten specialists and experts without regard to the provisions of
law governing appointment and payment in the competitive service,
with the further condition that no such specialist or expert shall be
paid at a rate above that of the maximum for GS-18. The conferees
expect a report to the Public Works Committee from "the Council on
Environmental Quality within 90 days after the date of enactment of
this Act on their staff needs, in terms of numbers, grades, and func-
tions of temporary and permanent staff personnel.
In carrying out his functions, the Director shall assist and advise
the President on policies and programs of the Federal Government
affecting environmental quality by—
(1) providing the professional and administrative staff and
support for the Council on Environmental Quality;
(2) assisting the Federal agencies and departments in apprais-
ing the effectiveness of existing and proposed facilities, programs,
policies, and activities of the Federal Government which affect
environmental quality as well as those specific major projects
designated by the President which do not require individual
project authorization by Congress and which affect environ-
mental quality;
(3) reviewing the adequacy of existing systems for monitoring
and predicting environmental changes in orders to achieve effec-
tive coverage and efficient use of research facilities and other
resources;
(4) promoting the advancement of scientific knowledge of the
effects of actions and technology on the environment and encour-
age the development of the means to prevent or reduce adverse
effects that endanger the health and well-being of man;
[p. 63]
(5) assisting in coordinating among the Federal departments
and agencies those programs and activities which affect, protect,
and improve environmental quality;
-------
1552 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(6) assisting the Federal departments and agencies in the de-
velopment and interrelationship of environmental quality criteria
and standards established through the Federal Government;
(7) collecting, collating, analyzing, and interpreting data and
information on environmental quality, ecological research and
evaluation.
The Director in carrying out his functions is authorized to contract
with public or private agencies, institutions, and organizations and
individuals.
Section 204 provides for referral of the Environmental Quality
Report to each standing committee of Congress having jurisdiction
over any part of its subject matter.
Section 205 authorizes $500,000 for fiscal year 1970, $750,000 for
fiscal year 1971, $1,250,000 for fiscal year 1972, and $1,500,000 for fiscal
year 1973, in addition to the existing authorizations.
JOHN A. BLATNIK,
ROBT. E. JONES,
JIM WRIGHT,
GEORGE H. FALLON,
WILLIAM C. CRAMER,
WM. HARSHA,
JAMES R. GROVER, JR.,
Managers on the Part of the House.
[p. 64]
Appendix A
CHANGES IN THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
ACT PROPOSED TO BE MADE BY THE CONFERENCE SUB-
STITUTE FOR H.R. 4148
For information of the Members of the House of Representatives,
changes in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act proposed to be
made by the conference substitute for H.R. 4148, are shown as fol-
lows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black
brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no
change is proposed is shown in roman):
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT
AN ACT To provide for water pollution control activities in the Public Health
Service of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and for other
purposes
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1553
DECLARATION OF POLICY
SECTION 1. (a) The purpose of this Act is to enhance the quality
and value of our water resources and to establish a national policy
for the prevention, control, and abatement of water pollution.
(b) In connection with the exercise of jurisdiction over the water-
ways of the Nation and in consequence of the benefits resulting to
the public health and welfare by the prevention and control of water
pollution, it is hereby declared to be the policy of Congress to recog-
nize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of
the States in preventing and controlling water pollution, to support
and aid technical research relating to the prevention and control of
water pollution, and to provide Federal technical services and fi-
nancial aid to State and interstate agencies and to municipalities in
connection with the prevention and control of water pollution. The
Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (hereinafter in this Act
called "Secretary") shall administer this Act through the Admin-
istration created by section 2 of this Act, and with the assistance of an
Assistant Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare designated by
him, shall supervise and direct (1) the head of such Administration in
administering this Act and (2) the administration of all other func-
tions of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare related to
water pollution. Such Assistant Secretary shall perform such ad-
ditional functions as the Secretary may prescribe.
(c) Nothing in this Act shall be construed as impairing or in any
manner affecting any right or jurisdiction of the States with respect
to the waters (including boundary waters) of such States.
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
SEC. 2. Effective ninety days after the date of enactment of this
section there is created within the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare a [Federal Water Pollution Control Administration]
[p. 65]
Federal Water Quality Administration (hereinafter in this Act re-
ferred to as the "Administration"). The head of the Administration
shall be appointed, and his compensation fixed, by the Secretary.
The head of the Administration may, in addition to regular staff of
the Administration, which shall be initially provided from the per-
sonnel of the Department, obtain, from within the Department or
otherwise as authorized by law, such professional, technical, and
clerical assistance as may be necessary to discharge the Administra-
tion's functions and may for that purpose use funds available for
carrying out such functions; and he may delegate any of his functions
-------
1554 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
to, or otherwise authorize their performance by, an officer or em-
ployee of, or assigned or detailed to the Administration.
COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAMS FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
SEC. 3. (a) The Secretary shall, after careful investigation, and
in cooperation with other Federal agencies, with State water pollution
control agencies and interstate agencies, and with the municipalities
and industries involved, prepare or develop comprehensive programs
for eliminating or reducing the pollution of interstate waters and
tributaries thereof and improving the sanitary conditions 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, propaga-
tion of fish and aquatic life and wildlife, recreational purposes, and
agricultural, industrial, and other legitimate uses. For the purpose
of this section, the Secretary is authorized to make joint investiga-
tions with any such agencies of the condition of any waters in any
State or States, and of the discharge of any sewage, industrial wastes,
or substance 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, consid-
eration shall be given to inclusion 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 Secretary, and
his views on these matters shall be set forth in any report or presenta-
tion 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 de-
termining 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
equitably in the benefits of multiple-purpose construction.
(4) Costs of water quality control features incorporated in any
Federal reservoir or other impoundment under 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.
(c) (1) The Secretary shall, at the request of the Governor of a
State, or a majority of the governors when more than one State is
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1555
involved, make a grant to pay not to exceed 50 per centum of the
[p. 66]
administrative expenses of a planning agency for a period not to
exceed 3 years, if such agency provides for adequate representation
of appropriate State, interstate, local, or (when appropriate) inter-
national, interests in the basin or portion thereof involved and is
capable of developing an effective comprehensive water quality con-
trol and abatement plan for a basin.
(2) Each planning agency receiving a grant under this subsection
shall develop a comprehensive pollution control and abatement plan
for the basin which—
(A) is consistent with any applicable water quality standards
established pursuant to current law within the basin;
(B) recommends such treatment works and sewer systems as
will provide the most effective and economical means of collec-
tion, storage, treatment, and purification of wastes and recom-
mends means to encourage both municipal and industrial use of
such works and systems; and
(C) recommends maintenance and improvement of water
quality standards within the basin or portion thereof and recom-
mends methods of adequately financing those facilities as may be
necessary to implement the plan.
(3) For the purposes of this subsection the term "basin" includes,
but is not limited to, rivers and their tributaries, streams, coastal
waters, sounds, estuaries, bays, lakes, and portions thereof, as well as
the lands drained thereby.
INTERSTATE COOPERATION AND UNIFORM LAWS
SEC. 4. (a) The Secretary shall encourage cooperative activities by
the States for the prevention and control of water pollution; encour-
age the enactment of improved and, so far as practicable, uniform
State laws relating to the prevention and control of water pollution;
and encourage compacts between States for the prevention and con-
trol of water 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) coopera-
tive effort and mutual assistance for the prevention and control of
water pollution and the enforcement of their respective laws relating
thereto, and (2) the establishment of such agencies, joint or other-
wise, as they may deem desirable for making effective such agree-
ments and 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.
-------
1556 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATKR
RESEARCH, INVESTIGATIONS, TRAINING, AND INFORMATION
SEC. 5. (a) The Secretary shall conduct in the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare and encourage, cooperate with, and
render assistance to other appropriate public (whether Federal, State,
interstate, or local) authorities, agencies, and institutions, private
agencies and institutions, and individuals in the conduct of, and
promote the coordination of, research, investigations, experiments,
demonstrations, and studies relating to the causes, control, and pre-
vention of water pollution. In carrying out the foregoing, the Secre-
tary is authorized to—
[p. 67]
(1) collect and make available, through publications and other
appropriate means, the results of and other information as to
research, investigations, and demonstrations relating to the pre-
vention and control of water pollution, including appropriate
recommendations in connection therewith;
(2) make grants-in-aid to public or private agencies and in-
stitutions and to individuals for research or training projects and
for demonstrations, and provide for the conduct of research,
training, and demonstrations by contract with public or private
agencies and institutions and with individuals without regard to
sections 3648 and 3709 of the Revised Statutes;
(3) secure, from time to time and for such periods as he deems
advisable, the assistance and advice of experts, scholars, and
consultants as authorized by section 15 of the Administrative
Expenses Act of 1946 (5 U.S.C. 55a);
(4) establish and maintain research fellowships in the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare with such stipends and
allowances, including traveling and subsistence expenses, as he
may deem necessary to procure the assistance of the most prom-
ising research fellowships: Provided, That the Secretary shall
report annually to the appropriate committees of Congress on
his operations under this paragraph; and
(5) provide training in technical matters relating to the causes,
prevention, and control of water pollution to personnel of public
agencies and other persons with suitable qualifications.
(b) The Secretary may, upon request of any State water pollution
control agency, or interstate agency, conduct investigations and re-
search and make surveys concerning any specific problem of water
pollution confronting any State, interstate agency, community, mu-
nicipality, or industrial plant, with a view of recommending a solu-
tion of such problem.
(c) The Secretary shall, in cooperation with other Federal, State,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1557
and local agencies having related responsibilities, collect and dis-
seminate basic data on chemical, physical, and biological water
quality and other information insofar as such data or other informa-
tion relate to water pollution and the prevention and control thereof.
(d) In carrying out the provisions of this section the Secretary
shall develop and demonstrate under varied conditions (including
conducting such basic and applied research, studies, and experiments
as may be necessary):
(A) practicable means of treating municipal sewage and other
waterborne wastes to remove the maximum possible amounts of
physical, chemical, and biological pollutants in order to restore
and maintain the maximum amount of the Nation's water at a
quality suitable for repeated reuse;
(B) improved methods and procedures to identify and measure
the effects of pollutants on water uses, including those pollutants
created by new technological developments; and
(C) methods and procedures for evaluating the effects on
water quality and water uses of augmented streamflows to con-
trol water pollution not susceptible to other means of abatement.
(e) The Secretary shall establish, equip, and maintain field lab-
oratory and research facilities, including, but not limited to, one to be
located in the northeastern area of the United States, one in the
[p. 68]
Middle Atlantic area, one in the southeastern area, one in the mid-
western area, one in the southwestern area, one in the Pacific North-
west, and one in the State of Alaska, for the conduct of research,
investigations, experiments, field demonstrations and studies, and
training relating to the prevention and control of water pollution.
Insofar as practicable, each such facility shall be located near insti-
tutions of higher learning in which graduate training in such research
might be carried out.
(f) The Secretary shall conduct research and technical develop-
ment 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, and evaluation of the water quality
needs of those to be served by such waters, and evaluation of munici-
pal, industrial, and vessel waste treatment and disposal practices
with respect to such waters, and a study of alternate means of solv-
ing water pollution problems (including additional waste treatment
measures) with respect to such waters.
(g) (1) For the purpose of providing an adequate supply of trained
personnel to operate and maintain existing and future treatment
-------
1558 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
works and related activities, and for the purpose of enhancing sub-
stantially the proficiency of those engaged in such activities, the Sec-
retary shall finance a pilot program, in cooperation with State and
interstate agencies, municipalities, educational 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
program and any funds expended for such a program shall supple-
ment, not supplant, other manpower and training programs and funds
available for the purposes of this paragraph. The Secretary is author-
ized, 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 Secretary is authorized to enter into agreements with pub-
lic 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 loater 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 Secretary is
authorized to—
(A) make grants to public or private agencies and institutions
and to individuals for training projects, and provide for the con-
duct 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 De-
partment of the Interior with such stipends and allowances,
including traveling and subsistence expenses, as he may deem
necessary to procure the assistance of the most promising re-
search fellowships; and
(C) provide, in addition to the program established under
paragraph (1) of this subsection, training in technical matters
relating to the causes, prevention, and control of -water pollution
for personnel of public agencies and other persons with suitable
qualifications.
[p. 69]
(4) The Secretary shall submit, through the President, a report to
the Congress within eighteen months from the date of enactment of
this subsection, summarizing the actions taken under this subsection
and the effectiveness of such actions, and setting forth the number of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1559
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, recom-
mendations on improving training programs, and such other informa-
tion and recommendations, including legislative recommendations,
as he deems appropriate.
(h) The Secretary is authorized to enter into contracts with, or
make grants to, public or private agencies and organizations and
individuals for (A) the purpose of developing and demonstrating new
or improved methods for the prevention, removal, and control of
natural or manmade pollution in lakes, including the undesirable
effects of nutrients and vegetation, and (B) the construction of pub-
licly owned research facilities for such purpose.
(i) The Secretary shall—
(A) engage in such research, studies, experiments, and dem-
onstrations as he deems appropriate, relative to the removal of
oil from any waters and to the prevention and control of oil
pollution;
(B) publish from time to time the results of such activities;
and
(C) from time to time, develop and publish in the Federal
Register specifications and other technical information on the
various chemical compounds used as dispersants or emulsifiers
in the control of oil spills.
In carrying out this subsection, the Secretary may enter into con-
tracts with, or make grants to, public or private agencies and orga-
nizations and individuals.
(j) The Secretary shall engage in such research, studies, experi-
ments, and demonstrations as he deems appropriate relative to equip-
ment 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 vessels. The Secretary shall report to Congress the re-
sults of such research, studies, experiments, and demonstrations prior
to the effective date of any standards established under section 13 of
this Act. In carrying out this subsection the Secretary 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 Secretary of demonstration projects and the develop-
ment of field laboratories and research facilities, the Secretary may
acquire land and interests therein by purchase, with appropriated or
donated funds, by donation, or by exchange for acquired or public
-------
1560 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
lands under his jurisdiction which, he classifies as suitable for dispo-
sition. 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 grantor or
to the Secretary as the circumstances require.
(I) (1) The Secretary shall, after consultation with appropriate
local, State, and Federal agencies, public and private organizations,
and interested individuals, as soon as practicable but not later than
two years after the effective date of this subsection, develop and
issue to the States for the purpose of adopting standards pursuant to
section 10 (c) the latest
[p. 70]
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) For the purpose of assuring effective implementation of stand-
ards adopted pursuant to paragraph (1) the President shall, in con-
sultation with appropriate local, State, and Federal agencies, public
and private organizations, and interested individuals, conduct a study
and investigation of methods to control the release of pesticides into
the environment, which study shall include examination of the per-
sistency of pesticides in the water environment and alternatives
thereto. The President shall submit a report on such investigation
to Congress together with his recommsndations for any necessary
legislation within two years after the effective date of this subsection.
[(g)](1n) (1) The Secretary shall, in cooperation with the Secre-
tary 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, a comprehen-
sive study 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 study shall also
consider the effect of demographic trends, the exploitation of mineral
resources and fossil fuels, land and industrial development, naviga-
tion, flood and erosion control, and other uses of estuaries and estu-
arine zones upon the pollution of the waters therein.
(2) In conducting the above study, the Secretary shall assemble,
coordinate, and organize all existing pertinent information on the
Nation's estuaries and estuarine zones, carry out a program of investi-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1561
gallons and surveys to supplement existing information in represent-
ative estuaries and estuarine 2ones and identify the problems and
areas where further research and study are required.
(3) The Secretary shall submit to the Congress a final report of
the study authorized by this subsection not later than three years
after the date of enactment of this subsection. Copies of the report
shall be made available to all interested parties, public and private.
The report shall include, but not be limited to—
(A) an analysis of the importance of estuaries to the economic
and social well-being of the people of the United States and of the
effects of pollution upon the use and enjoyment of such estuaries;
(B) a discussion of the major economic, social, and ecological
trends occurring in the estuarine zones of the Nation;
(C) recommendations for a comprehensive national program
for the preservation, study, use, and development of estuaries of
the Nation, and the respective responsibilities which should be
assumed by Federal, State, and local governments and by public
and private interests.
(4) There is authorized to be appropriated the sum of $1,000,000
per fiscal year for the fiscal years ending June 30, 1967, June 30, 1968,
[and June 30, 1969,], June 30, 1969, June 30, 1970, and June 30, 1971,
to carry out the purposes of this subsection.
[p. 71]
(5) For the purpose of this subsection, the term "estuarine Zones"
means an environmental system 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 chan-
nels, and the term "estuary" means all or part of the mouth of a nav-
igable or interstate 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.
[ (h) ] (n) There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
section, other than subsection [ (g), not to exceed $60,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, and $65,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1969] (g) (1) and (2), not to exceed $65,000,000 per
fiscal year for each of the fiscal years ending June 30, 1969, June 30,
1970, and June 30, 1971. There is authorized to be appropriated to
carry out subsection (g) (1) of this section $5,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1970, and $7,500,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1971. There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out
subsection (g) (2) of this section $2,500,000 per fiscal year for each of
-------
1562 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
the fiscal years ending June 30, 1970, and June 30, 1971. Sums so
appropriated shall remain available until expended.
GRANTS FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
SEC. 6. (a) The Secretary is authorized to make grants to any
State, municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency for the
purpose of—
(1) assisting in the development of any project which will
demonstrate a new or improved method of controlling the dis-
charge into any waters of untreated or inadequately treated
sewage or other wastes from sewers which carry storm water or
both storm water and sewage or other wastes, or
(2) assisting in the development of 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 improve-
ment to existing treatment processes) or new or improved
methods of joint treatment systems for municipal and industrial
wastes,
and for the purpose of reports, plans, and specifications in connection
therewith.
(b) The Secretary is authorized to make grants to persons for
research and demonstration projects for prevention of pollution of
waters by industry including, but not limited to, treatment of indus-
trial waste.
(c) Federal grants under subsection (a) of this section shall be
subject to the following limitations:
(1) No grant shall be made for any project pursuant to this
section unless such project shall have been approved by the
appropriate State water pollution control agency or agencies and
by the Secretary;
(2) No grant shall be made for any project in an amount
exceeding 75 per centum of the estimated reasonable cost thereof
as determined by the Secretary; and
[p. 72]
(3) No grant shall be made for any project under this section
unless the Secretary determines that such project will serve as a
useful demonstration for the purpose set forth in clause (1) or
(2) of subsection (a).
(d) Federal grants under subsection (b) of this section shall be
subject to the following limitations:
(1) No grant shall be made under this section in excess of
$1,000,000;
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1563
(2) No grant shall be made for more than 70 per centum of the
cost of the project; and
(3) No grant shall be made for any project unless the Secre-
tary determines that such project will serve a useful purpose in
the development or demonstration of a new or improved method
of treating industrial wastes or otherwise preventing pollution of
waters by industry, which method shall have industry-wide
application.
(e) For the purposes of this section there are authorized to be
appropriated—
(1) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, and for each of the
next [three] five succeeding fiscal years, the sum of $20,000,000
per fiscal year for the purposes set forth in subsections (a) and
(b) of this section, including contracts pursuant to such sub-
sections for such purposes;
(2) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, and for each of the
next [two] four succeeding fiscal years, the sum of $20,000,000
per fiscal year for the purpose set forth in clause (2) of subsection
(a); and
(3) for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, and for each of the
next [two] four succeeding fiscal years, the sum of $20,000,000
per fiscal year for the purpose set forth in subsection (b).
GRANTS FOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAMS
SEC. 7. (a) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1957, and for each succeeding fiscal year
to and including the fiscal year ending June 30, 1961, $3,000,000, for
each succeeding fiscal year to and including the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1967, $5,000,000, and for each succeeding fiscal year to and
including the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, $10,000,000 for grants
to States and to interstate agencies to assist them in meeting the costs
of establishing and maintaining adequate measures for the prevention
and control of water pollution, including the training of personnel of
public agencies.
(b) The portion of the sums appropriated pursuant to subsection
(a) for a fiscal year which shall be available for grants to interstate
agencies and the portion thereof which shall be available for grants to
States shall be specified in the Act appropriating such sums.
(c) From the sums available therefor for any fiscal year the Secre-
tary shall from time to time make allotments to the several States,
in accordance with regulations, on the basis of (1) the population,
(2) the extent of the water pollution problem, and (3) the financial
need of the respective States.
(d) From each State's allotment under subsection (c) for any
-------
1564 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
fiscal year the Secretary shall pay to such State an amount equal to
[p. 73]
its Federal share (as determined under subsection (h)) of the cost of
carrying out its State plan approved under subsection (f), including
the cost of training personnel for State and local water pollution con-
trol work and including the cost of administering the State plan.
(e) From the sums available therefor for any fiscal year the Secre-
tary shall from time to time make allotments to interstate agencies,
in accordance with regulations, on such basis as the Secretary finds
reasonable and equitable. He shall from time to time pay to each
such agency, from its allotment, an amount equal to such portion of
the cost of carrying out its plan approved under subsection (f) as
may be determined in accordance with regulations, including the cost
of training personnel for water pollution control work and including
the cost. of administering the interstate agency's plan. The regula-
tions relating to the portion of the cost of carrying out the interstate
agency's plan which shall be borne by the United States shall be
designed to place such agencies, so far as practicable, on a basis
similar to that of the States.
(f) The Secretary shall approve any plan for the prevention and
control of water pollution which is submitted by the State water
pollution control agency or, in the case of an interstate agency, by
such agency, if such plan—
(1) provides for administration or for the supervision of ad-
ministration of the plan by the State water pollution control
agency or, in the case of a plan submitted by an interstate agency,
by such interstate agency;
(2) provides that such agency will make such reports, in such
form and containing such information, as the Secretary may
from time to time reasonably require to carry out his functions
under this Act;
(3) sets forth the plan, policies, and methods to be followed
in carrying out the State (or interstate) plan and in its admin-
istration;
(4) provides for extension or improvement of the State or
interstate program for prevention and control of water pollution;
(5) provides such accounting, budgeting, and other fiscal
methods and procedures as are necessary for the proper and
efficient administration of the plan; and
(6) sets forth the criteria used by the State in determining
priority of projects as provided in section 8(b) (4).
The Secretary shall not disapprove any plan without first giving
reasonable notice and opportunity for hearing to the State water
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1565
pollution control agency or interstate agency which has submitted
such plan.
(g) (1) Whenever the Secretary, after reasonable notice and oppor-
tunity for hearing to a State water pollution control agency or inter-
state agency finds that—
(A) the plan submitted by such agency and approved under
this section has been so changed that it no longer complies with a
requirement of subsection (f) of this section; or
(B) in the administration of the plan there is a failure to com-
ply substantially with such a requirement,
the Secretary shall notify such agency that no further payments will
be made to the State or to the interstate agency, as the case may be,
under this section (or in his discretion that further payments will not
be made to the State, or to the interstate agency, for projects under
or parts of
[p. 74]
the plan affected by such failure) until he is satisfied that there will
no longer be any such failure. Until he is so satisfied, the Secretary
shall make no further payments to such State, or to such interstate
agency, as the case may be, under this section (or shall limit pay-
ments to projects under or parts of the plan in which there is no
such failure).
(2) If any State or any interstate agency is dissatisfied with the
Secretary's action with respect to it under this subsection, it may
appeal to the United States court of appeals for the circuit in which
such State (or any of the member States, in the case of an interstate
agency) is located. The summons and notice of appeal may be server
at any place in the United States. The findings of fact by the Secre
tary, unless contrary to the weight of the evidence, shall be con-
clusive; but the court, for good cause shown, may remand the case
to the Secretary to take further evidence, and the Secretary may
thereupon make new or modified findings of fact and may modify his
previous action. Such new or modified findings of fact shall likewise
be conclusive unless contrary to the weight of the evidence. The
court shall have jurisdiction to affirm the action of the Secretary or
to set it aside, in whole or in part. The judgment of the court shall
be subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States upon
certiorari or certification as provided in title 28, United States Code,
section 1254.
(h) (1) The "Federal share" for any State shall be 100 per centum
less that percentage which bears the same ratio to 50 per centum as
the per capita income of such State bears to the per capita income of
the United States, except that (A) the Federal share shall in no case
-------
1566 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
be more than 66% per centum or less than 33J/3 per centum, and (B)
the Federal share for Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands shall be
66% per centum.
(2) The "Federal shares" shall be promulgated by the Secretary
between July 1 and September 30 of each even-numbered year, on
the basis of the average of the per capita incomes of the States and of
the continental United States for the three most recent consecutive
years for which satisfactory data are available from the Department
of Commerce.
(3) As used in this subsection, the term "United States" means the
fifty States and the District of Columbia.
(4) Promulgations made before satisfactory data are available from
the Department of Commerce for a full year on the per capita income
of Alaska shall prescribe a Federal share for Alaska of 50 per centum
and, for purposes of such promulgations, Alaska shall not be included
as part of the "United States". Promulgations made thereafter but
before per capita income data for Alaska for a full three-year period
are available for the Department of Commerce shall be based on
satisfactory data available therefrom for Alaska for such one full year
or, when such data are available for a two-year period, for such
two years.
(i) The population of the several States shall be determined on the
basis of the latest figures furnished by the Department of Commerce.
(j) The method of computing and paying amounts pursuant to
subsection (d) or (e) shall be as follows:
(1) The Secretary shall, prior to the beginning of each calendar
quarter or other period prescribed by him, estimate the amount to be
paid to each State (or to each interstate agency in the case of sub-
section (e)) under the provisions of such subsection for such period,
[p. 75]
such estimate to be based on such records of the State (or the inter-
state agency) and information furnished by it, and such other in-
vestigation, as the Secretary may find necessary.
(2) The Secretary shall pay to the State (or to the interstate
agency), from the allotment available therefor, the amount so esti-
mated by him for any period, reduced or increased, as the case may
be, by any sum (not previously adjusted under this paragraph) by
which he finds that his estimate of the amount to be paid such State
(or such interstate agency) for any prior period under such sub-
section was greater or less than the amount which should have been
paid to such State (or such agency) for such prior period under such
subsection. Such payments shall be made through the disbursing
facilities of the Treasury Department, in such installments as the
Secretary may determine.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1567
GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION
SEC. 8. (a) The Secretary is authorized to make grants to any
State, municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency for the
construction of necessary treatment works to prevent the discharge
of untreated or inadequately treated sewage or other waste into any
waters and for the purpose of reports, plans, and specifications in
connection therewith.
(b) Federal grants under this section shall be subject to the follow-
ing limitations: (1) No grant shall be made for any project pursuant
to this section unless such project shall have been approved by the
appropriate State water pollution control agency or agencies and by
the Secretary and unless such project is included in a comprehensive
program developed pursuant to this Act; (2) no grant shall be made
for any project in an amount exceeding 30 per centum of the esti-
mated reasonable cost thereof as determined by the Secretary; (3) no
grant shall be made unless the grantee agrees to pay the remaining
cost; (4) no grant shall be made for any project under this section
until the applicant has made provision satisfactory to the Secretary
for assuring proper and efficient operation and maintenance of the
treatment works after completion of the construction thereof; and
(5) no grant shall be made for any project under this section unless
such project is in conformity with the State water pollution control
plan submitted pursuant to the provisions of section 7 and has been
Certified by the appropriate State water pollution control agency as
entitled to priority over other eligible projects on the basis of financial
as well as water pollution control needs; (6) the percentage limitation
of 30 per centum imposed by clause (2) of this subsection shall be in-
creased to a maximum of 40 per centum in the case of grants made
under this section from funds allocated for a fiscal year to a State un-
der subsection (c) of this section if the State agrees to pay not less
than 30 per centum of the estimated reasonable cost (as determined
by the Secretary) of all projects for which Federal grants are to be
made under this section from such allocation; (7) the percentage
limitations imposed by clause (2) of this subsection shall be increased
to a maximum of 50 per centum in the case of grants made under this
section from funds allocated for a fiscal year to a State under sub-
section (c) of this section if the State agrees to pay not less than
25 per centum of the estimated reasonable costs (as determined by
the Secretary) of all projects for which Federal grants are to be
made under this section from such allocation and if
[p. 76]
enforceable water quality standards have been established for the
waters into which the project discharges, in accordance with section
-------
1568 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
10 (c) of this Act in the case of interstate waters, and under State
law in the case of intrastate waters.
(c) In determining the desirability of projects for treatment works
and of approving Federal financial aid in connection therewith,
consideration shall be given by the Secretary to the public benefits
to be derived by the construction and the propriety of Federal aid
in such construction, the relation of the ultimate cost of constructing
and maintaining the works to the public interest and to the public
necessity for the works, and the adequacy of the provisions made or
proposed by the applicant for such Federal financial aid for assuring
proper and efficient operation and maintenance of the treatment
works after completion of the construction thereof. The sums appro-
priated pursuant to subsection (d) for each fiscal year ending on or
before June 30, 1965, and the first $100,000,000 appropriated pursuant
to subsection (d) for each fiscal year beginning on or after July 1,
1965, shall be allotted by the Secretary from time to time, in accord-
ance with regulations, as follows: (1) 50 per centum of such sums in
the ratio that the population of each State bears to the population of
all the States, and (2) 50 per centum of such sums in the ratio that the
quotient obtained by dividing the per capita income of the United
States by the per capita income of each State bears to the sum of
such quotients for all the States. All sums in excess of $100,000,000
appropriated pursuant to subsection (d) for each fiscal year beginning
on or after July 1, 1965, shall be allotted by the Secretary from time
to time, in accordance with regulations, in the ratio that the popula-
tion of each State bears to the population of all States. Sums allotted
to a State under the two preceding sentences which are not obligated
within six months following the end of the fiscal year for which they
were allotted because of a lack of projects which have been approved
by the State water pollution control agency under subsection (b) (1)
of this section and certified as entitled to priority under subsection
(b) (4) of this section, shall be reallotted by the Secretary, on such
basis as he determines to be reasonable and equitable and in accord-
ance with regulations promulgated by him, to States having projects
approved under this section for which grants have not been made
because of lack of funds including States having projects eligible for
reimbursement pursuant to the sixth and seventh sentences of this
subsection: Provided, however, That whenever a State has funds sub-
ject to reallocation and the Secretary finds that the need for a project
in a community in such State is due in part to any Federal institution
or Federal construction activity, he may, prior to such reallocation,
make an additional grant with respect to such project which will in
his judgment reflect an equitable contribution for the need caused by
such Federal institution or activity. Any sum made available to a
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1569
State by reallotment under the preceding sentence shall be in addi-
tion to any funds otherwise allotted to such State under this Act.
The allotments of a State under the second, third, and fourth sen-
tences of this subsection shall be available, in accordance with the
provisions of this section, for payments with respect to projects in
such State which have been approved under this section, except that
in the case of any project on which construction was initiated in such
State after
[p. 77]
June 30, 1966, which was approved by the appropriate State water
pollution control agency and which the Secretary finds meets the
requirements of this section but was constructed without such
assistance, such allotments for any fiscal year ending prior to July
1, 1971, shall also be available for payments in reimbursement of
State or local funds used for such project prior to July 1, 1971, to the
extent that assistance could have been provided under this section if
such project had been approved pursuant to this section and adequate
funds had been available. In the case of any project on which con-
struction was initiated in such State after June 30, 1966, and which
was constructed with assistance pursuant to this section but the
amount of such assistance was a lesser per centum of the cost of
construction than was allowable pursuant to this section, such allot-
ments shall also be available for payments in reimbursement of State
or local funds used for such project prior to July 1, 1971, to the extent
that assistance could have been provided under this section if ade-
quate funds had been available. Neither a finding by the Secretary <
that a project meets the requirements of this subsection, nor any other
provision of this subsection, shall be construed to constitute a com-
mitment or obligation of the United States to provide funds to make
or pay any grant for such project. For purposes of this section,
population shall be determined on the basis of the latest decennial
census for which figures are available, as certified by the Secretary
of Commerce, and per capita income for each State and for the United
States shall be determined on the basis of the average of the per
capita incomes of the States and of the continental United States for
the three most recent consecutive years for which satisfactory data
are available from the Department of Commerce.
(d) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated for each fiscal
year through and including the fiscal year ending June 30, 1961, the
sum of $50,000,000 per fiscal year for the purpose of making grants
under this section. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated,
for the purpose of making grants under this section, $80,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1962, $90,000,000 for the fiscal year
-------
1570 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
ending June 30, 1963, $100,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1964, $100,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1965, $150,000,-
000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, $150,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30,1967; $450,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1968; $700,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969; $1,000,-
000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970; and $1,250,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971. Sums so appropriated shall
remain available until expended. At least 50 per centum of the funds
so appropriated for each fiscal year ending on or before June 30, 1965,
and at least 50 per centum of the first $100,000,000 so appropriated for
each fiscal year beginning on or after July 1, 1965, shall be used for
grants for the construction of treatment works servicing municipal-
ities of one hundred and twenty-five thousand population or under.
(e) The Secretary shall make payments under this section through
the disbursing facilities of the Department of the Treasury. Funds so
paid shall be used exclusively to meet the cost of construction of the
project for which the amount was paid. As used in this section the
term "construction" includes preliminary planning to determine the
economic and engineering feasibility of treatment works, the en-
gineering, architectural, legal, fiscal, and economic investigations and
studies, surveys, designs, plans, working drawings, specifications,
procedures,
[p. 78]
and other action necessary to the construction of treatment works;
and the erection, building, acquisition, alteration, remodeling, im-
provement, or extension of treatment works; and the inspection and
supervision of the construction of treatment works.
(f) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, the
Secretary may increase the amount of a grant made under subsection
(b) of this section by an additional 10 per centum of the amount of
such grant for any project which has been certified to him by an
official State, metropolitan, or regional planning agency empowered
under State or local laws or interstate compact to perform metropol-
itan or regional planning for a metropolitan area within which the
assistance is to be used, or other agency or instrumentality designated
for such purposes by the Governor (or Governors in the case of inter-
state planning) as being in conformity with the comprehensive plan
developed or in process of development for such metropolitan area.
For the purposes of this subsection, the term "metropolitan area"
means either (1) a standard metropolitan statistical area as defined by
the Bureau of the Budget, except as may be determined by the Pres-
ident as not being appropriate for the purposes hereof, or (2) any
urban area, including those surrounding areas that form an economic
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1571
and socially related region, taking into consideration such factors as
present and future population trends and patterns of urban growth,
location of transportation facilities and systems, and distribution of
industrial, commercial, residential, governmental, institutional, and
other activities, which in the opinion of the President lends itself as
being appropriate for the purposes hereof.
(g) The Secretary shall take such action as may be necessary to
insure that all laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or
subcontractors on projects for which grants are made under this
section 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 U.S.C., sees. 276a through 276a-5). The Secre-
tary of Labor shall have, with respect to the labor standards specified
in this subsection, the authority and functions set forth in Reorganiza-
tion Plan Numbered 14 of 1950 (15 F.R. 3176; 64 Stat. 1267; 5 U.S.C.
133z-15) and section 2 of the Act of June 13, 1934, as amended (48
Stat. 948; 40 U.S.C. 276c).
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADVISORY BOARD
SEC. 9. (a) (1) There is hereby established in the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, a Water Pollution Control Advisory
Board, composed of the Secretary or his designee, who shall be chair-
man, and nine members appointed by the President, none of whom
shall be Federal officers or employees. The appointed members, hav-
ing due regard for the purposes of this Act, shall be selected from
among representatives of various State, interstate and local govern-
mental agencies, of public or private interests contributing to, affected
by, or concerned with water pollution, and of other public and private
agencies, organizations, or groups demonstrating an active interest
in the field of water pollution prevention and control, as well as other
individuals who are expert in this field.
[p. 79]
(2) (A) Each member appointed by the President shall hold office
for a term of three years, except that (i) any member appointed to fill
a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for which his
predecessor was appointed shall be appointed for the remainder of
such term, and (ii) the terms of office of the members first taking
office after June 30, 1956, shall expire as follows: three at the end of
one hear after such date, 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, and (iii) the term of any
-------
1572 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
member under the preceding provisions shall be extended until the
date on which his successor's appointment is effective. None of the
members appointed by the President shall be eligible for reappoint-
ment within one year after the end of his preceding term but terms
commencing prior to the enactment of the Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1956 shall not be deemed "preceding terms" for
purposes of this sentence.
(B) The members of the Board who are not officers or employees
of the United States, while attending conferences or meetings of the
Board or while otherwise serving at the request of the Secretary,
shall be entitled to receive compensation at a rate to be fixed by the
Secretary, but not exceeding $50 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 sub-
sistence, as authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 73b-2) for persons in the
Government service employed intermittently.
(b) The Board shall advise, consult with, and make recommenda-
tions to the Secretary on matters of policy relating to the activities
and functions of the Secretary under this Act.
(c) Such clerical and technical assistance as may be necessary to
discharge the duties of the Board shall be provided from the per-
sonnel of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
ENFORCEMENT MEASURES AGAINST POLLUTION OF INTERSTATE OR
NAVIGABLE WATERS
SEC. 10. (a) The pollution of interstate or navigable waters in or
adjacent to any State or States (whether the matter causing or con-
tributing to such pollution is discharged directly into such waters or
reaches such waters after discharge into a tributary of such waters),
which endangers the health or welfare of any persons, shall be sub-
ject to abatement as provided in this Act.
(b) Consistent with the policy declaration of this Act, State and
interstate action to abate pollution of interstate or navigable waters
shall be encouraged and shall not, except as otherwise provided by
or pursuant to court order under subsection (h), be displaced by
Federal enforcement action.
(c) (1) If the Governor of a State or a State water pollution control
agency files, within one year after the date of enactment of this sub-
section, a letter of intent that such State, after public hearings, will
before June 30, 1967, adopt (A) water quality criteria applicable to
interstate waters or portions thereof within such State, and (B) a
plan for the implementation and enforcement of the water quality
criteria adopted, and if such criteria and plan are established in ac-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1573
cordance with the letter of intent, and if the Secretary determines
that such
[p. 80]
State criteria and plan are consistent with paragraph (3) of this
subsection, such State criteria and plan shall thereafter bs the water
quality standards applicable to such interstate waters or portions
thereof.
(2) If a State does not (A) file a letter of intent or (B) establish
water quality standards in accordance with paragraphs (1) of this
subsection, or of the Secretary or the Governor of any State affected
by water quality standards established pursuant to this subsection
desires a revision in such standards, the Secretary may, after reason-
able notice and a conference of representatives of appropriate Federal
departments and agencies, interstate agencies, States, municipalities
and industries involved, prepare regulations setting forth standards
of water quality to be applicable to interstate waters or portions
thereof. If, within six months from the date the Secretary publishes
such regulations, the State has not adopted water quality standards
found by the Secretary to be consistent with paragraph (3) of this
subsection, or a petition for public hearing has not been filed under
paragraph (4) of this subsection, the Secretary shall promulgate such
standards.
(3) Standards of quality established pursuant to this subsection
shall be such as to protect the public health or welfare, enhance the
quality of water and serve the purposes of this Act. In establishing
such standards the Secretary, the Hearing Board, or the appropriate
State authority shall take into consideration their use and value for
public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational
purposes, and agricultural, industrial, and other legitimate uses. In
establishing such standards the Secretary, the hearing board, or the
appropriate State authority shall take into consideration their use
and value for navigation.
(4) If at any time prior to 30 days after standards have been
promulgated under paragraph (2) of this subsection, the Governor of
any State affected by such standards petitions the Secretary for a
hearing, the Secretary shall call a public hearing, to be held in or
near one or more of the places where the water quality standards will
take effect before a Hearing Board of five or more persons appointed
by the Secretary. Each State which would be affected by such
standards shall be given an opportunity to select one member of the
Hearing Board. The Department of Commerce and other affected
Federal departments and agencies shall each be given an opportunity
to select a member of the Hearing Board and not less than a majority
-------
1574 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
of the Hearing Board shall be persons other than officers or employees
of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The mem-
bers of the Board who are not officers or employees of the United
States, while participating in the hearing conducted by such Hearing
Board or otherwise engaged on the work of such Hearing Board, shall
be entitled to receive compensation at a rate fixed by the Secretary,
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 authorized by law (5 U.S.C. 73b-2), for persons in the Government
service employed intermittently. Notice of such hearing shall be
published in the Federal Register and given to the State water pollu-
tion control agencies, interstate agencies and municipalities involved
at least 30 days prior to the date of such hearing. On the basis of the
[p. 81]
evidence presented at such hearing, the Hearing Board shall make
findings as to whether the standards published or promulgated by
the Secretary should be approved or modified and transmit its find-
ings to the Secretary. If the Hearing Board approves the standards as
published or promulgated by the Secretary, the standards shall take
effect on receipt by the Secretary of the Hearing Board's recommen-
dations. If the Hearing Board recommends modifications in the
standards as published or promulgated, by the Secretary, the Secre-
tary shall promulgate revised regulations setting forth standards of
water quality in accordance with the Hearing Board's recommenda-
tions which will become effective immediately upon promulgation.
(5) The discharge of matter into such interstate waters or portions
thereof, which reduces the quality of such waters below the water
quality standards established under this subsection (whether the
matter causing or contributing to such reduction is discharged di-
rectly into such waters or reaches such waters after discharge into
tributaries of such waters), is subject to abatement in accordance
with the provisions of paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (g) of this
section, except that at least 180 days before any abatement action is
initiated under either paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (g) as au-
thorized by this subsection, the Secretary shall notify the violators
and other interested parties of the violation of such standards. In
any suit brought under the provisions of this subsection the court
shall receive in evidence a transcript of the proceedings of the con-
ference and hearing provided for in this subsection, together with the
recommendations of the conference and Hearing Board and the
recommendations and standards promulgated by the Secretary, and
such additional evidence, including that relating to the alleged viola-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1575
tion of the standards, as it deems necessary to a complete review of
the standards and to a determination of all other issues relating to the
alleged violation. The court, giving due consideration to the prac-
ticability and to the physical and economic feasibility of complying
with such standards, shall have jurisdiction to enter such judgment
and orders enforcing such judgment as the public interest and the
equities of the case may require.
(6) Nothing in this subsection shall (A) prevent the application
of this section to any case to which subsection (a) of this section
would otherwise be applicable, or (B) extend Federal jurisdiction
over water not otherwise authorized by this Act.
(7) In connection with any hearings under this section no witness
or any other person shall be required to divulge trade secrets or
secret processes.
(d) (1) Whenever requested by the Governor of any State or a
State water pollution control agency, or (with the concurrence of the
Governor and of the State water pollution control agency for the
State in which the municipality is situated) the governing body of any
municipality, the Secretary shall, if such request refers to pollution
of waters which is endangering the health or welfare of persons in a
State other than that in which the discharge or discharges (causing
or contributing to such pollution) originates, give formal notification
thereof to the water pollution control agency and interstate agency,
if any, of the State or States where such discharge or discharges
originate and shall call promptly a conference of such agency or
agencies and of the
[p. 82]
State water pollution control agency and interstate agency, if any, of
the State or States, if any, which may be adversely affected by such
pollution. Whenever requested by the Governor of any State, the
Secretary shall, if such request refers to pollution of interstate or
navigable waters which is endangering the health or welfare of per-
sons only in the requesting State in which the discharge or discharges
(causing or contributing to such pollution) originate, give formal
notification thereof to the water pollution control agency and inter-
state agency, if any, of such State and shall promptly call a conference
of such agency or agencies, unless, in the judgment of the Secretary,
the effect of such pollution on the legitimate uses of the waters is not
of sufficient significance to warrant exercise of Federal jurisdiction
under this section. The Secretary shall also call such a conference
whenever, on the basis of reports, surveys, or studies, he has reason
to believe that any pollution referred to in subsection (a) and en-
dangering the health or welfare of persons in a State other than that
-------
1576 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
in which the discharge or discharges originate is occurring; or he finds
that substantial economic injury results from the inability to market
shellfish or shellfish products in interstate commerce because of pol-
lution referred to in subsection (a) and action of Federal, State, or
local authorities.
(2) Whenever the Secretary, upon receipt of reports, surveys, or
studies from any duly constituted international agency, has reason to
believe that any pollution referred to in subsection (a) of this section
which endangers the health or welfare of persons in a foreign country
is occurring, 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 in which such discharge or dis-
charges originate and to the interstate water pollution control agency,
if any, and shall call promptly a conference of such agency or agen-
cies, if he believes that such pollution is occurring in sufficient quan-
tity to warrant such action. The Secretary, through the Secretary
of State, shall invite the foreign country which may be adversely af-
fected by the pollution to attend and participate in the conference,
and the representative of such country shall, for the purpose of the
conference and any further proceeding resulting from such confer-
ence, have all the rights of a State water pollution control agency.
This paragraph shall apply only to a foreign country which the Secre-
tary determines has given the United States essentially the same
rights with respect to the prevention and control of water pollution
occurring in that country as is given that country by this paragraph.
Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to modify, amend, re-
peal, or otherwise affect the provisions of the 1909 Boundary Waters
Treaty between Canada and the United States or the Water Utiliza-
tion Treaty of 1944 between Mexico and the United States (59 Stat.
1219), relative to the control and abatement of water pollution in
waters covered by those treaties.
(3) The agencies called to attend such conference may bring such
persons as they desire to the conference. In addition, it shall be the
responsibility of the chairman of the conference to give every person
contributing to the alleged pollution or affected by it an opportunity
to make a full statement of his views to the conference. Not less than
three weeks' prior notice of the conference date shall be given to such
agencies.
[p. 83]
(4) Following this conference, the Secretary shall prepare and
forward to all the water pollution control agencies attending the
conference a summary of conference discussions including (A) oc-
currence of pollution of interstate or navigable waters subject to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1577
abatement under this Act; (B) adequacy of measures taken toward
abatement of the pollution; and (C) nature of delays, if any, being
encountered in abating the pollution.
(e) If the Secretary believes, upon the conclusion of the conference
or thereafter, that effective progress toward abatement of such pollu-
tion is not being made and that the health or welfare of any persons
is being endangered, he shall recommend to the appropriate State
water pollution control agency that it take necessary remedial action.
The Secretary shall allow at least six months from the date he makes
such recommendations for the taking of such recommended action.
(f) (1) If, at the conclusion of the period so allowed, such remedial
action has not been taken or action which in the judgment of the
Secretary is reasonably calculated to secure abatement of such pol-
lution has not been taken, the Secretary shall call a public hearing,
to be held in or near one or more of the places where the discharge or
discharges causing or contributing to such pollution originated, before
a Hearing Board of five or more persons appointed by the Secretary.
Each State in which any discharge causing or contributing to such
pollution originates and each State claiming to be adversely affected
by such pollution shall be given an opportunity to select one member
of the Hearing Board and at least one member shall be a representa-
tive of the Department of Commerce, and not less than a majority
of the Hearing Board shall be persons other than officers or employees
of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. At least
three weeks' prior notice of such hearing shall be given to the State
water pollution control agencies and interstate agencies, if any,
called to attend the aforesaid hearing and the alleged polluter or
polluters. It shall be the responsibility of the Hearing Board to give
every person contributing to the alleged pollution or affected by it an
opportunity to make a full statement of his views to the Hearing
Board. On the basis of the evidence presented at such hearing, the
Hearing Board shall make findings as to whether pollution referred
to in subsection (a) is occurring and whether effective progress
toward abatement thereof is being made. If the Hearing Board finds
such pollution is occurring and effective progress toward abatement
thereof is not being made it shall make recommendations to the Sec-
retary concerning the measures, if any, which it finds to be reasonable
and equitable to secure abatement of such pollution. The Secretary
shall send such findings and recommendations to the person or per-
sons discharging any matter causing or contributing to such pollution,
together with a notice specifying a reasonable time (not less than six
months) to secure abatement of such pollution, and shall also send
such findings and recommendations and such notice to the State
water pollution control agency and to the interstate agency, if any,
-------
1578 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
of the State or States where such discharge or discharges originate.
(2) In connection with any hearing called under this section the
Secretary is authorized to require any person whose alleged activities
result in discharges causing or contributing to water pollution to file
with him, in such form as he may prescribe, a report based on existing
data, furnishing such information as may reasonably be required as
[p. 84]
to the character, kind, and quantity of such discharges 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 Secretary may prescribe, and shall be filed
with the Secretary within such reasonable period as the Secretary
may prescribe, unless additional time be granted by the Secretary.
No person shall be required in such report to divulge trade secrets
or secret processes, and all information reported shall be considered
confidential for the purposes of section 1905 of title 18 of the United
States Code.
(3) If any person required to file any report under paragraph (2)
of this subsection shall fail to do so within the time fixed by the Sec-
retary 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 $100 for each and every day of the con-
tinuance of such failure, which 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 brought in the district where such person
has his principal office or in any district in which he does business.
The Secretary may upon application therefor remit or mitigate any
forfeiture provided for under this paragraph and he shall have au-
thority to determine the facts upon all such applications.
(4) It shall be the duty of the various United States attorneys,
under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States, to
prosecute for the recovery of such forfeitures.
(g) If action reasonably calculated to secure abatement of the pol-
lution within the time specified in the notice following the public
hearing is not taken, the Secretary—
(1) in the case of pollution of waters which is endangering the
health or welfare of persons in a State other than that in which
the discharge or discharges (causing or contributing to such pol-
lution) originate, may request the Attorney General to bring a
suit on behalf of the United States to secure abatement of pol-
lution, and
(2) in the case of pollution of waters which is endangering the
health or welfare of persons only in the State in which the dis-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1579
charge or discharges (causing or contributing to such pollution)
originate, may, with the written consent of the Governor of such
State, request the Attorney General to bring a suit on behalf of
the United States to secure abatement of the pollution.
(h) The court shall receive in evidence in any such suit a transcript
of the proceedings before the Board and a copy of the Board's recom-
mendations and shall receive such further evidence as the court in its
discretion deems proper. The court, giving due consideration to the
practicability and to the physical and economic feasibility of securing
abatement of any pollution proved, shall have jurisdiction to enter
such judgment, and orders enforcing such judgment, as the public
interest and the equities of the case may require.
(i) Members of any Hearing Board appointed pursuant to subsec-
tion (f) who are not regular full-time officers or employees of the
United States shall, while participating in the hearing conducted by
such Board or otherwise engaged on the work of such Board, be en-
titled to receive compensation at a rate fixed by the Secretary, but
not exceeding $100 per diem, including travel time, and while away
[p. 85]
from their homes or regular places of business they may be allowed
travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as au-
thorized by law (5 U.S.C. 73b-2) for persons in the Government serv-
ice employed intermittently.
(j) As used in this section the term—
(1) "person" includes an individual, corporation, partnership,
association, State, municipality, and political subdivision of a
State, and
(2) "municipality" means a city, town, borough, county, par-
ish, district, or other public body created by or pursuant to State
law.
(k) (1) At the request of a majority of the conferees in any con-
ference called under this section the Secretary is authorized to re-
quest any person whose alleged activities result in discharges causing
or contributing to water pollution, to file with him a report (in such
form as may be prescribed in regulations promulgated by him) based
on existing data, furnishing such information as may reasonably be
requested as to the character, kind, and quantity of such discharges
and the use of facilities or other means to prevent or reduce such dis-
charges by the person filing such a report. No person shall ba re-
quired in such report to divulge trade secrets or secret processes, and
all information reported shall be considered confidential for the
purposes of section 1905 of title 18 of the United States Code.
(2) If any person required to file any report under this subsection
-------
1580 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
shall fail to do so within the time fixed by regulations for filing the
same, and such failure shall continue for thirty days after notice of
such default, such person may, by order of a majority of the con-
ferees, be subject to a forfeiture of $100 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 brought in the district where such
person has his principal office or in any district in which he does busi-
ness. The Secretary may upon application therefor remit or mitigate
any forfeiture provided for under this subsection and he shall have
authority to determine the facts upon all such applications.
(3) It shall be the duty of the various United States attorneys,
under the direction of the Attorney General of the United States to
prosecute for the recovery of such forfeitures.
CONTROL OF POLLUTION BY OIL
Sec. 11. (a) For the purpose 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 with 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 watercraft or other
artificial 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 bare-boat char-
tered 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;
[p. 86]
(5) "United States" means the States, the District of Colum-
bia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Canal Zone, Amer-
ican Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands;
(6) "owner or operator" means (A) in the case of a vessel,
any person owning, operating, or chartering by demise, such ves-
sel, and (B) in the case of an 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 facility imme-
diately prior to such abandonment;
(7) "person" includes an individual, firm, corporation, associa-
tion, and a partnership;
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1581
(8) "remove" or "removal" refers to removal of the oil from
the water and shorelines 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 under article 24 of the Con-
vention on the Territorial Sea 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 kind 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 unantici-
pated grave natural disaster;
(13) "barrel" means 42 United States gallons at 60 degrees
Fahrenheit.
(b) (1) The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of the
United States that there should be no discharges of oil into or upon
the navigable waters of the United States, adjoining shorelines, or
into or upon the waters of the contiguous zone.
(2) The discharge of oil 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 (3) of this subsection, is prohibited, except (A) in
the case of such discharges into the waters of the contiguous zone,
where permitted under article IV of the International Convention for
the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil, 1954, as amended, and
(B) where permitted in quantities and at times and locations or under
such circumstances or conditions as the President may, by regulation,
determine not to be harmful. Any regulations issued under this sub-
section shall be consistent with maritime safety and with marine
and navigation laws and regulations and applicable water quality
standards.
(3) The President shall by regulation, to be issued as soon as pos-
sible after the date of enactment of this paragraph, determine for the
purposes of this section, those quantities oj oil the discharge of which,
at sucfi times, locations, circumstances, and conditions, twill be fiarm-
ful to the public health or welfare of the United States, including, but
not limited to, fish,
[p. 87]
-------
1582 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
shellfish, wildlife, and public and private property, 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.
(4) 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 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 agency of such discharge shall, upon con-
viction, be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned for not more
than one year, or both. Notification received pursuant to this para-
graph 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.
(5) Any owner or operator of any vessel, onshore facility, or off-
shore facility from which oil is knowingly 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 operat-
ing of not more than $10,000 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 charge. Each violation
is a separate offense. Any such civil penalty may be compromised
by such Secretary. In determining the amount of the penalty, or the
amount agreed upon in compromise, the appropriateness of such
penalty to the size of the business of the owner or operator charged,
the effect on the owner or operator's ability to continue in business,
and the gravity of the violation, shall be considered by such Secre-
tary. 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 U.S.C. 91), of any
vessel the owner or operator of which is subject to the foregoing pen-
alty. 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 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 arrange for the removal of such oil at any time, unless he
determines such removal will be done properly by the owner or oper-
ator 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
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1583
President shall prepare and publish a National Contingency Plan for
removal of oil pursuant to this subsection. Such National Contin-
gency Plan shall provide for efficient, coordinated, and effective
action to minimize damage from oil discharges, including contain-
ment, dispersal, and removal of oil, and shall include, 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
[p. 88]
necessary services to carry out the Plan, including the establish-
ment at major ports, to be determined by the President, of emer-
gency task forces of trained personnel, adequate oil pollution
control equipment and material, and a detailed oil pollution
prevention and removal plan;
(D) a system of surveillance and notice designed to insure
earliest possible notice of discharges of oil to the appropriate
Federal agency;
(E) establishment of a national center to 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
(G) a schedule, prepared in cooperation with the States, iden-
tifying (i) dispersants and other chemicals, if any, that may be
used in carrying out the Plan, (ii) the waters in which such dis-
persants and chemicals may be used, and (Hi) the quantities of
such dispersant or chemical which can be used safely in such
waters, which schedule shall provide in the case of any dispers-
ant, chemical, or waters not specifically identified in such sched-
ule 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 publica-
tion of the National Contingency Plan, the removal of oil and actions
to minimize damage from oil discharges shall, to the greatest extent
possible, be in accordance with the National Contingency Plan.
-------
1584 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
(d) Whenever a marine disaster in or upon the navigable waters
oj 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, and wildlife and the public and pri-
vate shorelines and beaches of the United States, because of a dis-
charge, or an imminent discharge, of large quantities of oil 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 pro-
vision of law governing the employment of personnel or the expendi-
ture of appropriated funds. Any expense incurred under this
subsection shall be a cost incurred by the United States Government
for the purposes of subsection (f) in the removal of oil.
(e) In addition to any other action taken by a State or local gov-
ernment, 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, and wildlife and public
and private property, shorelines, and beaches within the United
States, because of an actual or threatened discharge of oil 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 dis-
charge 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
[p. 89]
owner or operator of any vessel from which oil is discharged in
violation of subsection (b) (2) of this section shall, notwithstanding
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 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
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1585
costs. Such costs 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 jurisdic-
tion 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 Gov-
ernment, 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 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 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 oper-
ator 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 juris-
diction to recover such costs. The Secretary is authorized, by regu-
lation, 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 in violation of subsection (b) (2) of this section, and apply
with respect to such classifications 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 Gov-
ernment, 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 is discharged in violation of subsection
(b) (2) of this section shall, notwithstanding 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 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
-------
1586 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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 a facility in any court of competent jurisdiction to
recover such costs.
[p. 90]
(g) In any case where an owner or operator of a vessel, of an on-
shore facility, or of an offshore facility, from which oil is discharged
in violation of subsection (b) (2) of this section proves that such dis-
charge oj oil was caused solely by an act or omission of a third party,
or was caused solely 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, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, be liable to the United States Government for the
actual costs incurred under subsection (c) for removal of such oil by
the United States Government, except where such third party can
prove 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 another party without
regard to whether such act or omission was or was not negligent, or
any combination of the foregoing clauses. If such third party was the
owner or operator of a vessel which caused the discharge of oil 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 the 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 in violation of subsection (b) (2)
oj this section was the result of willful negligence or willful miscon-
duct within the privity and knowledge of such third party, such third
party shall be liable to the United States Government 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 on-
shore facility or an offshore facility may have against any third party
whose acts may in any way have caused or contributed to such
discharge, or (2) the United States Government may have against
any third party whose actions may in any way have caused or
contributed to the discharge of oil.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1587
(i) (1) In any case where an owner or operator of a vessel or an
onshore facility or an offshore facility from which oil is discharged in
violation of subsection (b) (2) of this section acts to remove such oil
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 such act or omission was or was not
negligent, or of 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
[p. 91]
date of this section, and from time to time thereafter, the Pres-
ident shall issue regulations consistent with maritime safety and
with marine and navigation laws (A) establishing methods and
procedures for removal of discharged oil, (B) establishing criteria for
the development and implementation of local and regional oil removal
contingency plans, (C) establishing procedures, methods, and re-
quirements for equipment to prevent discharges of oil from vessels
and from onshore facilities and offshore facilities, and (D) governing
the inspection of vessels carrying cargoes of oil and the inspection of
such cargoes in order to reduce the likelihood of discharges of oil
from such 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 regulation issued
under paragraph (1) of this subsection who fails or refuses to com-
ply with the provisions of any such regulation, shall be liable to a civil
penalty of not more than $5,000 for each such violation. Each viola-
tion shall be a separate offense. The President may assess and com-
promise 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 upon in compromise,
-------
1588 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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 hereby 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), (i), and (I) of this section
and section 12 of this Act. Any other funds received by the United
States under this section shall also be deposited in said fund for such
purposes. All sums appropriated to, or deposited in, said fund shall
remain available until expended.
(I) The President is authorized to delegate the administration of
this section to the heads of those Federal departments, agencies, and
instrumentalities which he determines to be appropriate. Any mon-
eys in the fund established by subsection (k) of this section shall be
available to such Federal departments, agencies, and instrumentali-
ties to carry out the provisions of subsections (c) and (i) of this
section and section 12 of this Act. Each such department, agency,
and instrumentality, in order to avoid duplication of effort, shall,
whenever appropriate, utilize the personnel, services, and facilities of
other Federal departments, agencies, and instrumentalities.
(m) Anyone authorized by the President to enforce the provisions
oj this section may, except 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 thereunder in his presence or view, and (C) exe-
cute 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 sub-
section (i) (1), arising under this section. In the case of Guam, such
actions may be brought in the district court of Guam, and in the case
oj 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 oj the
[p. 92]
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
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1589
the obligations of any owner or operator of any vessel, or of any
owner or operator of any onshore facility or 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 dis-
charge oj any oil or from the removal of any such oil.
(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 into any waters within
such State.
(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting or modi-
fying any other existing authority of any Federal department, agency,
or instrumentality, relative to onshore or offshore facilities under this
Act or any other provision of law, or to affect 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, 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 the 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, oper-
ates, 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 evi-
dence 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 one year after the effective date of this section. The Presi-
dent 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 section. 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 any other person providing evidence
of financial responsibility as required under this subsection. In the
case of any action pursuant to this subsection such insurer or other
person shall be entitled to invoke 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 have been
-------
1590 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
available to him if an action had been brought against him by the
owner or operator.
(4) The Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Sec-
retaries of Interior, State, Commerce, and other interested Federal
agencies, representatives of the merchant marine, oil companies, in-
surance companies, and other interested individuals and organiza-
tions, and taking
[p. 93]
into account the results of the application of paragraph (1) of this
subsection, shall conduct a study of the need for and, to the extent
determined necessary—
(A) other measures to provide financial responsibility and
limitation of liability with respect to vessels using the navigable
waters of the United States;
(B) measures to provide financial responsibility for all onshore
and offshore facilities; and
(C) other measures for limitation of liability of such facilities;
for the cost of removing discharged oil and paying all damages result-
ing from the discharge of such oil. The Secretary of Transportation
shall submit a report, together with any legislative recommendations,
to Congress and the President by January 1, 1971.
CONTROL OF HAZARDOUS POLLUTING SUBSTANCES
Sec. 12. (a) The President shall, in accordance with subsection
(b) of this section, develop, promulgate, and revise as may be appro-
priate, regulations (1) designating as hazardous substances, other
than oil as defined in section 11 of this Act, such elements and com-
pounds which, when discharged in any quantity into or upon the
navigable waters of the United States, or adjoining 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; and (2) establishing,
if appropriate, recommended methods and means for the removal of
such substances.
(b) Sections 551 through 559, inclusive (other than section
553 (c)), and 701 through 706, inclusive, of title 5, United States Code,
shall apply to regulations issued under authority of this section.
(c) In order to facilitate the removal, if appropriate, of any hazard-
ous substance any person in charge of a vessel or of an onshore or off-
shore facility of any kind shall, as soon as he has knowledge of any
discharge of such substance from such vessel or facility, immediately
notify the appropriate agency of the United States of such discharge.
(d) Whenever any hazardous substance is discharged into or upon
the navigable waters of the United States or adjoining shorelines or
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1591
the waters of the contiguous zone, unless removal is immediately un-
dertaken by the owner or operator of the vessel or onshore or offshore
facility from which the discharge occurs or which caused the dis-
charge, pursuant to the regulations promulgated under this section,
the President, if appropriate, shall remove or arrange for the removal
thereof in accordance with such regulations. Nothing in this sub-
section shall be construed to restrict the authority of the President
to act to remove or arrange for the removal of such hazardous sub-
stance at any time.
(e) Nothing in this section shall affect or modify in any way the
obligations of any owner or operator of any vessel, onshore or offshore
facility to any person or agency under any provision of law for dam-
ages to any publicly- or privately-owned property resulting from a
discharge of any hazardous substance or from the removal of any
such substance.
(f) (1) For the purpose of this section the definitions in subsection
(a) of section 11 of this Act shall be applicable to the provisions of
this section, except as provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection:
(2) For the purpose of this section, the term—
(A) "remove" or "removal" refers to removal of the hazard-
ous substances from the water and shorelines or the taking of
such other actions as may be necessary to minimize or mitigate
damage to
[p. 94]
the public health or welfare, including, but not limited to, fish,
shellfish, wildlife, and public and private property, shorelines,
and beaches;
(B) "owner or operator" means any person owning, operating,
chartering by demise, or otherwise controlling the operations of,
a vessel, or any person owning, operating, or otherwise control-
ling the operations of an onshore or offshore facility; and
(C) "offshore or onshore facility" means any facility of any
kind and related appurtenances thereto which is located in, on,
or under the surface of any land, or permanently or temporarily
affixed to any land, including lands beneath the navigable waters
of the United States and which is used or capable of use for the
purpose of processing, transporting, producing, storing, or trans-
ferring for commercial purposes any hazardous substance desig-
nated under this section.
(g) The President shall submit a report to the Congress, together
with his recommendations, not later than November 1, 1970, on the
need for, and desirability of, enacting legislation to impose liability
for the cost of removal of hazardous substances discharged from ves-
sels and onshore and offshore facilities subject to this section includ-
-------
1592 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
ing financial responsibility requirements. In preparing this report,
the President shall conduct an accelerated study which shall include,
but not be limited to, the method and measures for controlling haz-
ardous substances to prevent this discharge, and the most appropriate
measures for (I) enforcement (including the imposition of civil and
criminal penalties for discharges and for failure to notify) and (2)
recovery of costs incurred by the United States if removal is under-
taken by the United States. In carrying out this study, the President
shall consult with the interested representatives of the various public
and private groups that would be affected by such legislation as well
as other interested persons.
(h) Any moneys in the funds established by section 11 of this Act
shall be available to the President to carry out the purposes of this
section. In carrying out this section the President shall utilize the
personnel, services, and facilities of Federal departments, agencies,
and instrumentalities in such manner as will avoid duplication of
effort.
CONTROL OF SEWAGE FROM VESSELS
Sec. 13. (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 transportation on the navigable waters of the United
States, 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 transportation on the navigable waters of the United
States, the construction of which is initiated before promulgation
of standards and regulations under this section;
(3) "public vessel" means a vessel owned or bareboat char-
tered 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 Colum-
bia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam,
American Samoa, the Canal Zone, and the Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands;
[p. 95]
(5) "marine sanitation device" includes any equipment for
installation on board a vessel which is designed to receive, retain,
treat, 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;
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1593
(7) "manufacturer" means any person engaged in the manu-
facturing, 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, corpora-
tion, or association, but does not include an individual on board
a public vessel;
(9) "discharge" includes, but is not limited to, any 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 5 (j) of this Act, the Secretary,
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 tech-
nology, shall promulgate Federal standards of performance for
marine sanitation devices (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 of the United Stales from new vessels and existing vessels,
except vessels not equipped with installed 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 pro-
mulgate regulations, which are consistent with standards promul-
gated under this subsection and with maritime safety and the marine
and navigation laws and regulations, governing the design, construc-
tion, 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 com-
pliance 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, un-
less another effective date is specified, except that no revision shall
take effect before the effective date of the standard or regulation be-
ing revised.
(2) The Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is
-------
1594 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
operating with regard to his regulatory authority established by this
section, after consultation with the Secretary, may distinguish among
classes, types, and sizes of vessels as well as between new and exist-
ing vessels, and may waive applicability of standards and regulations
as necessary or appropriate for such classes, types, and sizes of vessels
(including existing vessels equipped with marine sanitation devices
on the date of promulgaton of the initial standards required by this
section), and, upon application, for individual vessels.
[p. 96]
(d) The provisions of this section and the standards and regula-
tions promulgated hereunder apply to vessels owned and operated
by the United States unless the Secretary of Defense finds that com-
pliance 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) and certifi-
cations 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 Secretary and the Secretary of the department in
which the Coast Guard is operating shall consult with the Secretary
of State; the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare; the Secre-
tary of Defense; the Secretary of the Treasury; the Secretary of
Commerce; 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, no State or political subdivision
thereof shall adopt or enforce any statute or regulation of such State
or political subdivision with respect to the design, manufacture, or
installation or use of any marine sanitation device on any vessel
subject to the provisions of this section. Upon application by a
State, and where the Secretary determines that any applicable water
quality standards require such a prohibition, he shall by regulation
completely prohibit the discharge from a vessel of any sewage
(whether treated or not) into those waters of such State which are
the subject of the application and to which such standards apply.
(g) (1) No manufacturer of a marine sanitation device shall sell,
offer for sale, or introduce or deliver for introduction in interstate
commerce, or import 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.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1595
(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 paragraph, 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 Secretary as to standards of performance and for such
other purposes as may be appropriate. If the Secretary of the depart-
ment in which the Coast Guard is operating determines that the de-
vice 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 Secretary or
the Secretary of the department in which the Coast Guard is oper-
ating may reasonably require to enable him to determine whether
such manufacturer has
[p. 97]
acted or is acting in compliance with this section and regulations is-
sued thereunder and shall, upon request of an officer or employee
duly designated by the Secretary or the Secretary of the department
in which the Coast Guard is operating, permit such officer or em-
ployee at reasonable times to have access to and copy such, records.
All information reported to or otherwise obtained by, the Secretary
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 the purpose of that section, except that such informa-
tion 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 promul-
gated under this section, it shall be unlawful—
(1) for the manufacturer of any vessel subject to such stand-
ards 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
-------
1596 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
equipped with a marine sanitation device which is in all ma-
terial respects substantially the same as the appropriate test
device certified pursuant to this section;
(2) for any person, prior to the sale or delivery of a vessel
subject to such standards and regulations to the ultimate pur-
chaser, wrongfully to remove or render inoperative any certified
marine sanitation device or element of design of such device
installed 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 informa-
tion required under this section; and
(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 jurisdictions
to restrain violations of subsection (g) (1) and subsections (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
contumacy 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 busi-
ness, 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 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) or clause (1) or
(2) of subsection (h) of this section shall be liable to 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 operating 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
[p. 98]
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 a violation, shall be
considered by said Secretary.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1597
(k) The provisions of this section shall be enforced by the Secre-
tary 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 Secretary,
other Federal agencies, or the States to carry out the provisions of
this section.
(I) 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) exe-
cute any warrant or other process issued by an officer or court of
competent jurisdiction.
(m) In the case of Guam, actions arising under this section 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 District Court for the District
of the Canal Zone.
AREA ACID AND OTHER MINE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
DEMONSTRA TIONS
Sec. 14. (a) The Secretary in cooperation with other Federal de-
partments, 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 elimination or control,
within all or part of a watershed, of acid or other mine water pollu-
tion resulting from active or abandoned mines. Such projects shall
demonstrate the engineering and economic feasibility and practicality
of various abatement techniques which will contribute substantially
to effective and practical methods of acid or other mine water pollu-
tion elimination or control.
(b) The Secretary, in selecting watersheds for the purposes of this
section, shall (1) require such feasibility studies as he deems ap-
propriate, (2) give preference to areas which have the greatest
present or potential value for public use for recreation, fish and wild-
life, 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
-------
1598 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
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 Secre-
tary; 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 section, 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.
[p. 99]
POLLUTION CONTROL IN GREAT LAKES
Sec. 15. (a) The Secretary, 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 thereof, 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 practicality 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 water
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 Secretary.
(c) There is authorized to be appropriated $20,000,000 to carry out
the provisions of this section, which sum shall be available until
expended.
TRAINING GRANTS AND CONTRACTS
Sec. 16. The Secretary is authorized to make grants to or contracts
with institutions of higher education, or combinations of such institu-
tions, to assist them in planning, developing, strengthening, improving,
or carrying out programs or projects for the preparation of under-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1599
graduate 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 maintenance
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 in-
volving the operation and maintenance of treatment works;
(D) carrying out innovative and experimental programs of
cooperative education involving alternate periods of full-time or
part-time academic study at the institution and periods of full-
time or part-time employment involving the operation and
maintenance of treatment works; and
(E) research into, and development of, methods of training
students or faculty, including the preparation of teaching ma-
terials and the planning of curriculum.
APPLICATION FOR TRAINING GRANT OR CONTRACT; ALLOCATION OF
GRANTS OR CONTRACTS
Sec. 17. (1) A grant or contract authorized by section 16 may be
made only upon application to the Secretary at such time or times
and containing such information as he may prescribe, except that no
such application shall be approved unless it—
[p. 100]
(A) sets forth programs, activities, research, or development
for which a grant is authorized under section 16, and describes
the relation to any program set forth by the applicant in an
application, if any, submitted pursuant to section 18.
(B) provides such fiscal control and fund accounting proce-
dures 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 con-
taining such information, as the Secretary may require to carry
out his functions under this section, and for keeping such records
and for affording such access thereto as the Secretary may find
necessary to assure the correctness and verification of such
reports.
(2) The Secretary shall allocate grants or contracts under section
-------
1600 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
16 in such manner as will most nearly provide an equitable distribu-
tion 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 purposes of this section.
(3) (A) Payment under this section may be used in accordance
with regulations of the Secretary, and subject to the terms and condi-
tions 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 treat-
ment 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 encour-
aged, to the extent consistent with efficient administration, to enter
into arrangements with institutions of higher education for the full-
time, part-time, or temporary employment, whether in the competi-
tive or excepted service, of students enrolled in programs set forth
in applications approved under subsection (a).
AWARD OF SCHOLARSHIPS
Sec. 18. (1) The Secretary 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 Secretary may determine
but not to exceed four academic years.
(2) The Secretary 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 Secretary shall approve a program of an institution of
higher education for the purposes of this section only upon applica-
tion by the institution and only upon his finding—
(A) that such program has as a principal objective the educa-
tion and training of persons in the operation and maintenance of
treatment works;
[p. 101]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1601
(B) that such program is in effect and of high quality, or can
be readily put 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 16 of this Act; and
(D) that the application contains satisfactory assurances that
(i) the institution will recommend to the Secretary for the
award of scholarships under this section, for study in such
program, only persons who have demonstrated to the satisfac-
tion of the institution a serious intent, upon completing the pro-
gram, to enter cm 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 program, to
enter occupations involving the operation and maintenance of
treatment works upon completing the program.
(4) (A) The Secretary shall pay to persons awarded scholarships
under this section such stipends (including such allowances for sub-
sistence 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 Secretary shall (in addition to the stipends paid to per-
sons 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
section shall continue to receive the payments provided in this section
only during such periods as the Secretary 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 Secretary pursuant to regulation.
(6) The Secretary shall by 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 studies as the Secretary determines appropriate.
DEFINITIONS AND AUTHORIZATIONS
Sec. 19. (1) As used in sections 16 through 19 of this Act—
(A) The term "State" includes the District of Columbia, Puerto
-------
1602 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Rico, the Canal Zone, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa,
and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
(B) The term "institution of higher education" means an educa-
tional 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 Secre-
tary for this purpose. For purposes of this subsection, the Secretary
shall publish a list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies or
associations which he determines to be reliable authority as to the
quality of training offered.
(C) The term "academic year" means an academic year or its
equivalent, as determined by the Secretary.
[p. 102]
(2) The Secretary shall annually report his activities under sec-
tions 16 through 19 of this Act, including recommendations for needed
revisions in the provisions thereof.
(3) There are authorized to be appropriated $12,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, $25,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1971, and $25,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1972, to carry out sections 16 through 19 of this Act (and planning
and related activities in the initial fiscal year for such purpose).
Funds appropriated for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1970, under
authority of this subsection shall be available for obligation pursuant
to the provisions of sections 16 through 19 of this Act during that year
and the succeeding fiscal year.
ALASKA VILLAGE DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS
Sec. 20. (a) The Secretary is authorized to enter into agreements
with the State of Alaska to carry out one or more projects to demon-
strate methods to provide for central community facilities for safe
water and the elimination or control of water pollution in those native
villages of Alaska without such facilities. Such project shall include
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 devoloping preliminary plans for pro-
viding such safe water and such elimination or control of water
pollution for all native villages in such State.
(b) In carrying out this section the Secretary 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.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1603
(c) The Secretary shall report to Congress not later than January
31, 1973, 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
$1,000,000 to carry out this section.
[COOPERATION TO CONTROL POLLUTION FROM FEDERAL
INSTALLATIONS
[SEC. 11. It is hereby declared to be the intent of the Congress
that any Federal department or agency having jurisdiction over any
building, installation, or other property shall, insofar as practicable
and consistent with the interests of the United States and within any
available appropriations, cooperate with the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, and with any State or interstate agency or
municipality having jurisdiction over waters into which any matter
is discharged from such property, in preventing or controlling the
polluton of such waters. In his summary of any conference pursuant
to section 10 (d) (3) of this Act, the Secretary shall include references
to any discharges allegedly contributing to pollution from any Fed-
eral property. Notice of any hearing pursuant to section 10 (f) in-
volving any pollution alleged to be effected by any such discharges
shall also be given to the Federal agency having jurisdiction over the
property involved and the findings and recommendations of the
[p. 103]
Hearing Board conducting such hearing shall also include references
to any such discharges which are contributing to the pollution found
by such Hearing Board.]
COOPERATION BY ALL FEDERAL AGENCIES IN THE CONTROL OF
POLLUTION
Sec. 21. (a) Each Federal agency (which term is used in this sec-
tion includes Federal departments, agencies, and instrumentalities)
having jurisdiction over any real property or facility, or engaged in
any Federal public works activity of any kind, shall, consistent with
the paramount interest of the United States as determined by the
President, insure compliance with applicable water quality standards
and the purposes of this Act in the administration of such property,
facility, or activity. In his summary of any conference pursuant to
section 10 (d) (4) of this Act, the Secretary shall include references
to any discharges allegedly contributing to pollution from any such
Federal property, facility, or activity, and shall transmit a copy of
such summary to the head of the Federal agency having jurisdiction
of such property, facility, or activity. Notice of any hearing pursuant
-------
1604 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
to section 10 (f) of this Act involving any pollution alleged to be
effected by any such discharges shall also be given to the Federal
agency having jurisdiction over the property, facility, or activity
involved, and the findings and recommendations of the hearing board
conducting such hearing shall include references to any such dis-
charges which are contributing to the pollution found by such board.
(b) (1) Any applicant for a Federal license or permit to conduct
any activity including, but not limited to, the construction or opera-
tion of facilities, which may result in any discharge into the naviga-
ble waters of the United States, shall provide the licensing or
permitting agency a certification from the State in which the dis-
charge originates or will originate, or, if appropriate, from the inter-
state water pollution control agency having jurisdiction over the
navigable waters at the point where the discharge originates or will
originate, that there is reasonable assurance, as determined by the
State or interstate agency that such activity will be conducted in a
manner which will not violate applicable water quality standards.
Such State or interstate agency shall establish procedures for public
notice in the case of all application's for certification by it, and to
the extent it deems appropriate, procedures for public hearings in
connection with specific applications. In any case where such
standards have been promulgated by the Secretary pursuant to
section 10 (c) of this Act, or where a State or interstate agency has
no authority to give such a certification, such certification shall be
from the Secretary. If the State, interstate agency, or Secretary,
as the case may be, fails or refuses to act on a request for certifica-
tion, 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 appli-
cation. 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 Secretary, as the case may be.
(2) Upon receipt of such application and certification the licensing
or permitting agency shall immediately notify the Secretary of such
application and certification. Whenever such a discharge may affect,
as determined by the Secretary, the quality of the waters of any other
State, the Secretary within thirty days of the date of notice of appli-
cation for such
[p. 104]
Federal license or permit shall so notify such other State, the
licensing or permitting agency, and the applicant. If, within sixty
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1605
days after receipt of such notification, such other State determines
that such discharge will affect the quality of its waters so as to
violate its water quality standards, and within such sixty-day period
notifies the Secretary 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 such objection, the licensing or
permitting agency shall hold such a hearing. The Secretary shall
at such hearing submit his evaluation and recommendations with
respect to any such objection to the licensing or permitting agency.
Such agency, based upon the recommendations of such State, the
Secretary, and upon any additional evidence, if any, presented to the
agency at the hearing, shall condition such license or permit in such
manner as may be necessary to insure compliance with applicable
water quality standards. If the imposition of conditions cannot in-
sure such compliance such agency shall 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 Secretary, 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 Secretary, notifies such agency within sixty days after receipt
of such notice that there is no longer reasonable assurance that there
will be compliance with applicable water quality standards because
of changes since the construction license or permit certification was
issued in (A) the construction or operation of the facility, (B) the
characteristics of the waters into which such discharge is made, or
(C) the water quality standards applicable to such waters. This
paragraph shall be inapplicable in any case where the applicant for
such operating license or permit has failed to provide the certifying
State, or if appropriate, the interstate agency or the Secretary, 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 applicable
water quality standards.
(4) Prior to the initial operation of any federally licensed or per-
mitted facility or activity which may result in any discharge into the
navigable u>aters of tfie United States and toith, respect to which a
certification has been obtained pursuant to paragraph (1) of this
subsection, which facility or activity is not subject to a Federal
operating license or permit, the licensee or permittee shall provide an
-------
1606 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
opportunity for such certifying State, or if appropriate, the interstate
agency or the Secretary to review the manner in which the facility
or activity shall be operated or conducted for the purposes of as-
suring that applicable water quality standards will not be violated.
Upon notification by the certifying State, or if appropriate, the inter-
state agency or the Secretary that the operation of any such federally
licensed or permitted facility or activity will violate applicable water
quality standards, such Federal agency may, after public hearing,
suspend such license or permit. If such license or permit is sus-
pended, it shall remain suspended until notification is received from
the certifying State, agency, or Secretary, as the case may be, that
there is reasonable assurance that such facility or activity will not
violate applicable water quality standards.
[p. 105]
(5) Any Federal license or permit with respect to which a certifi-
cation 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 section 10 (h) of
this Act that such facility or activity has been operated in violation
of applicable water quality standards.
(6) No Federal agency shall be deemed to be an applicant for the
purposes of this subsection.
(7) In any case where actual construction of a facility has been
lawfully commenced prior to the date of enactment of the Water
Quality Improvement Act of 1970, no certification shall be required
under this subsection for a license or permit issued after the date
of enactment of such Act of 1970 to operate such facility, except that
any such license or permit issued without certification shall terminate
at the end of the three-year period beginning on the date of enact-
ment of such Act of 1970 unless prior to such termination date the
person having such license or permit submits to the Federal agency
which issued such license or permit a certification and otherwise
meets the requirements of this subsection.
(8) Except as provided in paragraph (7), any application for a
license or permit (A) that is pending on the date of enactment of the
Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970 and (B) that is issued within
one year following such date of enactment shall not require certifica-
tion pursuant to this subsection for one year following the issuance
of such license or permit, except that any such license or permit
issued shall terminate at the end of one year unless prior to that
time the licensee or permittee submits to the Federal agency that
issued such license or permit a certification, and otherwise meets the
requirements of this subsection.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1607
(9) (A) In the case of any activity which will affect water quality
but for which there are no applicable water quality standards, no
certification shall be required under this subsection, except that the
licensing or permitting agency shall impose, as a condition of any
license or permit, a requirement that the licensee or permittee shall
comply with the purposes of this Act.
(B) Upon notice from the State in which the discharge originates
or, as appropriate, the interstate agency or the Secretary, that such
licensee or permittee has been notified of the adoption of water
quality standards applicable to such activity and has failed, after
reasonable notice, of not less than six months, to comply with such
standards, the license or permit shall be suspended until notification
is received from such State or interstate agency or the Secretary
that there is reasonable assurance that such activity will comply
with applicable water quality standards.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the authority
of any department or agency pursuant to any other provision of law
to require compliance with applicable water quality standards. The
Secretary shall, upon the request of any Federal department or
agency, or State or interstate agency, or applicant, provide, for the
purpose of this section, any relevant information on applicable water
quality standards, and shall, when requested by any such department
or agency or State or interstate agency, or applicant, comment on
any methods to comply with such standards.
(d) In order to implement the provisions 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
[p. 106]
areas under his jurisdiction by Federal licensees or permittees, and
to make an appropriate charge for such use. Moneys received from
such licensees or permittees shall be deposited in the Treasury as
miscellaneous receipts.
ADMINISTRATION
SEC. [12] 22. (a) The Secretary is authorized to prescribe such
regulations as are necessary to carry out his functions under this
Act.
(b) The Secretary, with the consent of the head of any other
agency of the United States, may utilize such officers and employees
of such agency as may be found necessary to assist in carrying out
the purposes of this Act.
(c) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Depart-
-------
1608 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare such sums as may be neces-
sary to enable it to carry out its functions under this Act.
(d) Each recipient of assistance under this Act shall keep such
records as the Secretary 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 under-
taking 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.
(e) The Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare and the
Comptroller General of the United States, or any of their duly au-
thorized 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.
(f) (1) It is the purpose of this subsection to authorize a program
which will provide official recognition by the United States Govern-
ment to those industrial organizations and political subdivisions of
States which during the preceding year demonstrated an outstanding
technological achievement or an innovative process, method or
device in their waste treatment and pollution abatement programs.
The Secretary shall, in consultation with the appropriate State water
pollution control agency, establish regulations under which such
recognition may be applied for and granted, except that no appli-
cant shall be eligible for an award under this subsection if such
applicant is not in total compliance with all applicable water quality
standards under this Act, and otherwise does not have a satisfactory
record with respect to environmental quality.
(2) The Secretary shall award a certificate or plaque of suitable
design to each industrial organization or political subdivision which
qualifies for such recognition under regulations established by this
subsection.
(3) The President of the United States, the Governor of the ap-
propriate State, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and
the President pro tempore of the Senate shall be notified of the
award by the Secretary, and the awarding of such recognition shall
be published in the Federal Register.
DEFINITIONS
SEC. [13] 23. When used in this Act:
(a) The term "State water pollution control agency" means the
State health authority, except that, in the case of any State in which
there is a single State agency, other than the State health authority,
charged with responsibility for enforcing State laws relating to the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1609
abatement of water pollution, it means such other State agency.
[p. 107J
(b) The term "interstate agency" means an agency of two or
more States established 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 of waters.
(c) The term "treatment works" means the various devices used
in the treatment of sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature,
including the necessary intercepting sewers, outfall sewers, pump-
ing, power, and other equipment, and their appurtenances, and in-
cludes any extensions, improvements, remodeling, additions, and
alterations thereof.
(d) The term "State" means a State, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.
(e) The term "interstate waters" means all rivers, lakes, and other
waters that flow across or form a part of State boundaries, including
coastal waters.
(f) The term "municipality" means a city, town, borough, county,
parish, district, or other public body created by or pursuant to State
law and having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial
wastes, or other wastes, and an Indian tribe or an authorized Indian
tribal organization.
OTHER AUTHORITY NOT AFFECTED
SEC. [14] 24. This Act shall not be construed as (1) superseding or
limiting the functions, under any other law, of the Surgeon General
or of the Public Health Service, or of any other officer or agency of
the United States, relating to water pollution, or (2) affecting or
impairing the provisions of [the Oil Pollution Act, 1924, or] sections
13 through 17 of the Act entitled "An Act making appropriations for
the construction, repair, and preservation of certain public works on
rivers and harbors and for other purposes", approved March 3, 1899,
as amended, or (3) affecting or impairing the provisions of any treaty
of the United States.
SEPARABILITY
SEC. [15] 25. 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. [16] 26. (a) In order to provide the basis for evaluating pro-
grams authorized by this Act, the development of new programs, and
to furnish the Congress with the information necessary for authoriza-
-------
1610 LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
tion of appropriations for fiscal years beginning after June 30, 1968,
the Secretary, in cooperation with State water pollution control
agencies and other water pollution control planning agencies, shall
make a detailed estimate of the cost of carrying out the provisions of
this Act; a comprehensive study of the economic impact on affected
units of government of the cost of installation of treatment facilities;
and a comprehensive analysis of the national requirements for and
the cost of treating municipal, industrial, and other effluent to attain
such water quality standards as established pursuant to this Act or
applicable State law. The Secretary shall submit such detailed
estimate and such comprehensive study of such cost for the five-year
period beginning July 1, 1968, to the Congress no later than January
10, 1968, such study to be updated each year thereafter.
[p. 108]
(b) The Secretary shall also make a complete investigation and
study to determine (1) the need for additional trained State and
local personnel to carry out programs assisted pursuant to this Act
and other programs for the same purpose as this Act, and (2) means
of using existing Federal training programs to train such personnel.
He shall report the results of such investigation and study to the
President and the Congress not later than July 1, 1967.
[SEC. 17. The Secretary of the Interior shall, in consultation with
the Secretary of the Army, the Secretary of the department in which
the Coast Guard is operating, the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare, and the Secretary of Commerce, conduct a full and complete
investigation and study of the extent of the pollution of all navigable
waters of the United States from litter and sewage discharged,
dumped, or otherwise deposited into such waters from watercraft
using such waters, and methods of abating either in whole or in part
such pollution. The Secretary shall submit a report of such investi-
gation to Congress, together with his recommendations for any nec-
essary legislation, not later than July 1, 1967.
[SEC. 18. The Secretary of the Interior shall conduct a full and
complete investigation and study of methods for providing incentives
designed to assist in the construction of facilities and works by indus-
try designed to reduce or abate water pollution. Such study shall
include, but not be limited to, the possible use of tax incentives as
well as other methods of financial assistance. In carrying out this
study the Secretary shall consult with the Secretary of the Treasury
as well as the head of any other appropriate department or agency
of the Federal Government. The Secretary shall report the results
of such investigation and study, together with his recommendations,
to the Congress not later than January 30, 1968.]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1611
SHORT TITLE
SEC. [19] 27. This Act may be cited as the "Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act".
[p. 109]
1.2k(4) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
(a) Vol. 115 (1969), April 15, 16: Considered and passed House,
pp. 9015-9052, 9259, 9264-9292
WATER QUALITY
IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1969
Mr. BOLLING. Mr. Speaker, by di-
rection of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 340 and ask
for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as fol-
lows :
H. RES. 340
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this
resolution it shall be in order to move xhat
the House resolve itself into the Committee
of the Whole House on the State of the Un-
ion for the consideration of the bill (H.R.
4148) to amend the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended, and for other pur-
poses. After general debate, which shall be
confined to the bill and shall continue not
to exceed three hours, to be equally divided
and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Public
Works, the bill shall be read for amendment
under the five-minute rule It shall be in
order to consider without the intervention
of any point of order the amendment in the
nature of a substitute recommended by the
Committee on Public Works now printed in
the bill, and such substitute for the purpose
of amendment shall be considered under the
five-minute rule as an original bill At the
conclusion of such consideration the Com-
mittee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have
been adopted, and any Member may demand
a separate vote in the House on any amend-
ment adopted in the Committee of the Whole
to the bill or committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute. The previous ques-
tion shall be considered as ordered on the
bill and amendments thereto to final passage
without intervening motion except one
motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Mr. BOLLING. Mr. Speaker, I yield
30 minutes to the gentleman from Cal-
ifornia (Mr. SMITH) and, pending
that, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, when this rule was con-
sidered in the Committee on Rules there
was some controversy over the jurisdic-
tion between the committee handling
the bill and the Committee on Merchant
Marine and Fisheries. The Committee
on Rules overwhelmingly decided that
the bill should be sent to the floor with
the rule that has just been read.
Mr. Speaker, points of order were
waived on the bill as a whole because
there are some transfer funds, and the
establishment of a revolving fund—not
transfer of funds, but payment of cash
is authorized in the acquisition of land,
and that is the reason for the waiver of
points of order.
Insofar as I know, there is no sub-
stantial controversy over the rule. I
understand there is some on the bill it-
self, but not too much.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the
balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of California. Mr.
Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
[p. 9015]
Mr. Speaker, as stated by the distin-
guished gentleman from Missouri,
House Resolution 340 does provide for
3 hours of debate under an open rule
for consideration of the bill H.R. 4148,
entitled "The Water Quality Improve-
ment Act of 1969."
Points of order are waived as against
the substitute bill, and the committee
amendments.
-------
1612
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill
is to improve the means available to
control pollution of offshore waters and
rivers of the United States. Major sec-
tions of the bill seek to control such
sources of pollution as, first, oil and
other sea-carried pollutants; second,
sewage from vessels; third, acid and
other pollutants from mines; and,
fourth, pollution from any federally op-
erated source. Additionally, the bill
provides for research grants and a
scholarship program for students, both
programs to be administered by the
Secretary of the Interior.
The bill applies to oil discharges on
the high seas in the contiguous zone
along our coastline. Such discharges
are forbidden except in emergency sit-
uations. Civil penalties of up to
$10,000 for an oil discharge are pro-
vided. Operators of facilities or ships
are required to remove any discharge
of oil or other pollutants. If the United
States must do the removal work, the
cost shall be borne by the polluter up to
$10 million or $100 per gross registered
ton—of ships—whichever is the lesser.
The bill also sets up a revolving fund of
$20,000,000 for use in cleanups. The
effort is to place responsibility for dam-
age done by discharges of oil or other
pollutants by ships or shore-area fa-
cilities upon the owners and operators,
and to require them to be primarily
responsible for necessary cleanup op-
erations.
The bill also seeks to remove pollu-
tants discharged into the water in the
form of raw sewage from vessels. The
Coast Guard will oversee a program de-
signed to insure that such raw sewage
is treated before discharging it. New
vessels are to have approved toilet fa-
cilities installed by December 31, 1971,
or within 2 years of the time the Coast
Guard promulgates standards and reg-
ulations. For existing vessels the time
period is set at within 5 years after
such promulgation. The States will be
brought into the program with respect
to their intrastate waters.
After the effective dates of the stand-
ards set by the Coast Guard, it shall be
unlawful to operate a vessel which does
not comply. These regulations will ap-
ply to pleasure boats as well as com-
mercial vessels, in short, any vessel
which has toilet facilities will be re-
quired to treat its raw sewage before
discharging it into the water. Civil
penalties are provided for violations
and in proper cases injunctive relief
may be sought.
The Secretary is also authorized to
make grants to universities for re-
search and for planning and developing
of training for students in the field
of design and operation of waste treat-
ment works. He may also provide
scholarship grants. Authorizations for
educational grants are $12,000,000 for
1970 and for 1971 and 1972 the figure
is $25,000,000 per annum.
Finally, the bill provides for research
in a number of water quality problems.
The current level of funding is ex-
tended for two additional years,
through fiscal 1971. Funding levels
authorized are $65,000,000 per annum.
Areas in which research work is to be
continued include: First, prevention,
removal and control of lake pollution;
second, prevention of oil pollution;
third, research into prevention of pollu-
tion discharges from recreational ves-
sels and the development of treatment
facilities for such craft; and, fourth,
funding for appropriate demonstra-
tion projects.
Total authorizations contained in the
bill are $348,000,000 covering fiscal
years 1970 through 1972. Major items
include:
Millions
General research and development of
treatment facilities $130
Demonstration projects and develop-
ment . . 120
Training grants 62
Clean-up revolving fund . 20
There are no minority views.
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the
rule.
Mr. BOLLING. Mr. Speaker, I
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1613
move the previous question on the res-
olution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
Mr. FALLON. Mr. Speaker, I move
that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union for the considera-
tion of the bill (H.R. 4148) to amend
the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended, and for other pur-
poses.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The
question is on the motion offered by the
gentleman from Maryland.
The motion was agreed to.
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Accordingly, the House resolved it-
self into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of the bill H.R. 4148,
with Mr. SMITH of Iowa in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
By unanimous consent, the first read-
ing of the bill was dispensed with.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
FALLON) will be recognized for 1%
hours, and the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. CRAMER) will be recognized for
1 Vz hours.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Maryland (Mr. FALLON).
Mr. FALLON. Mr. Chairman, I
yield myself such time as I may con-
sume.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4148, the Water
Quality Improvement Act of 1969, has
been developed after extensive hear-
ings by the Committee on Public Works,
both here in Washington and in Santa
Barbara, Calif., and is the culmination
of the consideration given by this body
and the Public Works Committee dur-
ing the 90th Congress. H.R. 4148 was
reported out unanimously by the com-
mittee.
The legislation covers discharges of
oil and other hazardous substances
from vessels and onshore and offshore
facilities, including the cleanup of
these discharges and prevention
thereof, the control of untreated or
inadequately treated sewage from ves-
sels, the extension of the research, de-
velopment, and training program of
the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration, the effect of Federal
activities and federally licensed or per-
mitted activities on our Nation's
waters, and establishes a new training
program designed to provide more
efficient waste treatment works, both
at the municipal and industrial level.
Finally, the legislation would change
the name of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Administration to the Na-
tional Water Quality Administration
in order to provide a more positive em-
phasis to the program.
It is clear that the need for this legis-
lation is quite urgent. The history of
oil spills dating back to the one we all
remember; namely, the Torrey Canyon
off the coast of England, the Ocean
Eagle in the San Juan Harbor, P.R.,
and the disastrous oil spill off the Santa
Barbara coast, only serve to demon-
strate that unless action is taken im-
mediately to provide the tools necessary
to cope with these spills more of our
coastline beaches and marine resources
could be destroyed or severely damaged.
The public outcry that has developed
in the past year in connection with
these spills shows that there is consid-
erable interest throughout the country
in this legislation.
In addition to the more dramatic as-
pects of this legislation; namely, those
relating to oil spills, there is also a
very definite need to improve, accel-
erate, and expand our research and
demonstration and training efforts in
the water pollution control area and to
control sewage that is discharged from
both commercial and recreational ves-
sels into our Nation's waterways. This
legislation meets these needs.
In the area of financing of waste
treatment works, we are most con-
-------
1614
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
cerned with the fact that to date this
program has not been adequately fi-
nanced despite the Congress' consider-
able efforts in 1966 and subsequent
years to establish a graduated and
meaningful level of financing the Fed-
eral share of these works. We are
hopeful that recommendations will be
made by the executive branch to in-
crease the financing in the forthcom-
ing fiscal year through additional
appropriations over and above the
meager amounts appropriated during
the last Congress. If, however, this
cannot be accomplished, the Committee
on Public Works will consider alterna-
tive legislative approaches during this
session of the 91st Congress.
Mr. Chairman, I urge unanimous ap-
proval of this important and far-reach-
ing Water Quality Improvement Act of
1969. It is a major conservation meas-
ure that deserves the support of every
Member of Congress.
Let me conclude by paying tribute to
the members of the Committee on Pub-
lic Works, my colleagues who have
worked so diligently, so hard and so
long on this legislation which is before
us today. I would particularly com-
mend the ranking minority member of
the committee, and one of the leaders
in the field of water pollution control,
my good friend from Minnesota, the
Honorable JOHN A. BLAT-
[p. 9016]
NIK, and all the other members of the
committee on both sides of the aisle.
Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of
H.R. 4148.
Mr. FALLON. Mr. Chairman, I
yield to the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. BLATNIK), chairman of the sub-
committee handling this legislation, as
much time as he may require.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, at
the outset on behalf of the entire com-
mittee, I would like to pay our respects
to our able and effective and certainly
highly regarded chairman, the gentle-
man from Maryland (Mr. FALLON).
He worked diligently with all of us
every step of the way, and we therefore
doubly appreciate the kind words he
said about those of us who worked on
the development of this legislation.
Many of us, on both sides of the aisle,
joined together to resolve the problems
so that we could present a strong and
workable proposal. A tremendous
amount of frustrating day-in and day-
out work was handled with talent and
patience by both the majority and the
minority staffs. In our meetings we
had the benefit of experience and
advice from representatives of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Ad-
ministration, the Coast Guard, and the
State Department, as well as constant
contact with the various State agencies
and conservationists.
Mr. Chairman, very thoughtful care
has gone into this very complicated
and involved matter, and particularly
that section dealing with enormous
catastrophic oil spills where the com-
plex problems of liability and respon-
sibility, as well as preventive aspects,
are involved. We have also evolved
recommendations on what can be done
when these catastrophes do occur, in
spite of whatever preventive measures
were pursued. That remedial work,
which is inevitably a laborious and
extensive job, will be explained in
more detail by the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. WRIGHT) and the gentle-
man from New Jersey (Mr. HOWARD),
both of whom have devoted long hours
to this legislation.
We will also hear from good spokes-
men for the minority on this program.
Their unanimous work and support
have continued the genuine bipartisan-
ship that has characterized our pollu-
tion control work over the years.
The Committee on Public Works had
extensive hearings on this legislation
starting in the 90th Congress and con-
tinuing in the 91st Congress in Feb-
ruary and March of this year.
During the 90th Congress, the com-
mittee considered legislation on the con-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1615
trol of oil pollution discharges, the
treatment of sewage from vessels, the
extension and expansion of the vital
water pollution research programs,
and legislation to provide more money
for the financing of needed waste treat-
ment works. The committee reported
out strong legislation in all of these
areas, and that legislation unanimously
passed the House of Representatives on
two occasions but unfortunately the
time ran out on the 90th Congress be-
fore differences in the House and Sen-
ate versions could be resolved in
conference.
Since last year the need for this leg-
islation, particularly in the area of
oil pollution control, has been dramat-
ically brought to the attention of the
Congress and into the public eye by one
of the worst oil pollution disasters in
the Nation's history. The catastrophe
in Santa Barbara, Calif., was a realis-
tic example of the damages which can
result from a major oil spill.
It was the committee's objective in
our hearings and in our discussions
leading up to the reporting of this leg-
islation to recommend legislation which
would adequately meet all contingen-
cies and avoid the need for additional
legislation if and when a new disaster
occurs. In pursuit of this objective, we
obtained meaningful data from indus-
try and governmental witnesses on the
best means and methods of preventing
discharges of oil and other hazardous
matter, the costs of removing these
pollutants from our waters, beaches
and shores when they occur, the avail-
ability of insurance and its costs, and
the extent to which measures and de-
vices have been developed to remove
oil and matter.
In addition to the oil pollution prob-
lem, this legislation extends the water
pollution research program authoriza-
tion 2 additional years, provides new
emphasis on the problems of acid mine
drainage water pollution, and lake eu-
trophication and related lake pollution
problems.
H.R. 4148 further provides for con-
trol of sewage from vessels, establishes
a training program for individuals in
the field of design, operation, and main-
tenance of modern waste treatment
works, and requires applicants for a
Federal license or permit to conduct an
activity which may result in discharge
into the navigable waters of the United
States to obtain a State certification
that the activity will not reduce the
quality of the water below applicable
water quality standards. Finally, this
legislation change's the name of the
P'ederal Water Pollution Control Ad-
ministration to the National Water
Quality Administration so as to pro-
vide a psychological lift to the program
by providing a more positive approach
through preventive measures to main-
tain adequate water quality levels.
This legislation has been endorsed by
the administration. We have received
a letter dated April 3, 1969, from Rus-
sell E. Train, the Undersecretary of
the Interior, to the chairman of the
Public Works Committee, the Honor-
able GEORGE H. FALLON. Under leave
to extend my remarks, I include a copy
of the letter at this point:
DEAR MR CHAIRMAN' Your Committee has
requested the Department's views on H R.
4158 as reported by your Committee on
March 25, 1969
H.R. 4148, which is known as the Water
Quality Improvement Act of 1969, covers the
subjects of oil and matter discharges from
vessels, onshore facilities, and offshore facili-
ties, untreated or inadequately treated sew-
age from vessels, research and development
in the area of acid mine pollution, lake pol-
lution, oil pollution, and sewage from vessels;
pollution from Federal installations and fa-
cilities; and waste discharges from activities
constructed and operated under Federal li-
cense or permit It also extends the research
provisions of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act an additional 2 fiscal years, and
changes the name of the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Administration to the National
Water Quality Administration.
In regard to the provisions on the control
of pollution by oil and other matter, the
legislation would—
Provide that any individual in charge of a
vessel or onshore or offshore facility who has
knowledge of the discharge of oil or matter
-------
1616
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
from such facility or vessel must immediately
notify the Secretary of the Interior or the
Coast Guard of the discharge so that appro-
priate steps may be taken to remove the dis-
charged oil or matter. Failure to notify could
result in a criminal penalty,
Prohibit the discharge of oil or matter from
a vessel into the navigable waters of the
United States or into the waters of the Con-
tiguous Zone, except under certain limited
conditions such as emergencies affecting the
life of individuals, or acts of war or sabotage,
or unavoidable accidents, collisions, or
strandings;
Provide a civil penalty of up to $10,000 in
cases of willful or negligent discharges of oil
or matter in substantial quantities in viola-
tion of the above prohibition This penalty
would be assessed by the Coast Guard after
notice and an opportunity for a hearing. We
note that the term "substantial quantities"
is discussed in the Committee report The re-
port indicates that it will need interpretation
in its application in specific situations,
Define the term "matter" to include all
substances other than oil, dredged spoil, sew-
age, and certain materials now covered by
the Atomic Energy Act In defining this term,
the bill leaves it up to the Secretary of the
Interior to determine what matter would
present an imminent and substantial hazard
to the public health or welfare including
fish, shellfish, wildlife, and public and pri-
vate lands. We also note that the Commit-
tee report indicates that the Secretary of the
Interior would have to issue regulations from
time to time establishing what items might
be considered substances that would be sub-
ject to the provisions of this Act,
Authorize the United States to clean up
discharges of oil or matter when the Secre-
tary of the Interior determines that there
is an actual or threatened pollution hazard
unless other adequate arrangements for re-
moval of these discharges have taken place.
We interpret the latter provision to mean
that the United States would have to be
satisfied that the arrangements made by the
owner or operator of a vessel or a person
owning or operating an onshore or offshore
facility are adequate within the regulations
prescribed under this section to insure that
the removal will be carried out expeditiously
and in a manner that would not be harm-
ful to marine resources and other property.
If they were not adequate, in the judgment
of the United States, then the United States
could act to remove the oil or matter and
later recover its costs.
Authorize the United States to remove sum-
marily and, where necessary, destroy any
vessel that presents a substantial threat of
pollution in the navigable waters of the
United States because of an actual discharge
or the imminence of a threatened discharge
of large quantities of oil or matter. The
expense of removing a vessel would be
charged against the vessel, its cargo, and the
owner or operator of the vessel where the
negligent operation of the vessel caused or
contributed to the marine disaster;
Require that the owner or operator of a
vessel remove any oil or matter discharged
into the navigable waters of the United
States or into the waters of the Contiguous
Zone where the discharge was due to some
willful or negligent act. In cases where the
United States removes such discharges, the
owner or operator would be liable to
the United States for the cost thereof up to a
maximum of $10 million or $100 per gross
registered ton, whichever is less;
[p. 9017]
Provide a similar requirement in the case
of onshore facilities and offshore facilities
located wthin the territorial sea of the
United States, except that the limitation of
liability where the United States removes the
discharges of oil would be $8 million. It also
provides that the Secretary of the Interior
would establish by regulation classifications
of onshore facilities and activities which
would be subject to the $8 million limitation
and possibly establish differing limitations
of liability with respect to these classifica-
tions This classification authority would not
become effective, however, until the Secre-
tary notified the Congress of the intended
classifications and allowed at least 60 days
before the effective date of the classifications;
Authorize the issuance of regulations by
both the Secretary of the Interior and the
Coast Guard relative to removal of discharged
oil or matter and provide civil penalties for
violations of the regulations;
Establish a revolving fund to be adminis-
tered by the Coast Guard and authorize a
maximum appropriation of $20 million to the
fund in addition to other revenues for the
clean up of discharges and provide for dele-
gation by the President of the authority to
clean up discharges of oil or matter; and
Provide for the establishment of a system
of financial responsibility for vessels over 100
gross registered tons, including any barge of
equivalent size, that use our navigable waters
or ports. The financial responsibility provi-
sions would be effective one year after en-
actment and would apply to the liability to
the United States for the removal of oil or
matter discharges.
The oil and matter provisions of the legis-
lation make it clear that the legislation is not
intended to affect the authority of the States
to establish different requirements or limita-
tions of liability, nor does this legis-
lation affect the rights of third parties who
might bring actions to recover damages
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1617
resulting from the discharge of oil or matter
or from the removal of such discharges. In
addition, the bill does not cover the dis-
charges of offshore facilities located on the
Outer Continental Shelf The Committee re-
port indicates that this omission results from
the fact that this Department advised your
Committee that we believe we have adequate
authority to require Federal lessees on the
Outer Continental Shelf to remove dis-
charged oil and to pay the United States for
any cost it may incur in the removal of the
discharge without any dollar limitations or
findings of fault.
In addition to the oil provisions, the legis-
lation would provide for the establishment of
standards of performance in connection with
marine sanitation devices and the establish-
ment of regulations by the Coast Guard rela-
tive to the operation, maintenance, and
installation of these devices. The devices
would have to be installed on both commer-
cial and recreational vessels with installed
toilet facilities using United States waterways
once the standards and regulations were ef-
fective The bill also provides a system of
certification by the Coast Guard of the device
and establishes a pre-emption of State
laws and regulations once the Federal stand-
ards and regulations are effective. It, how-
ever, permits the States to prohibit all
discharges in intrastate waters if the States
also prohibit discharges from other sources in
those waters As in the oil provisions, the bill
provides for civil penalties for violations
specified in the legislation.
The bill would provide that any applicant,
other than a Federal agency, seeking a Fed-
eral license or permit must obtain certification
from any affected State or interstate agency
that the discharge from the applicant's activ-
ity for which he seeks a license or permit will
be conducted in a manner that will not re-
duce the quality of the waters below the ap-
plicable Federal, State, or local water quality
standards In cases where a State lacks au-
thority to give such certification or where the
Secretary of the Interior has established the
water quality standards under the Water
Quality Act of 1965, then the Secretary
would provide such certification. In cases
where a license or permit has been given by
a Federal agency for an activity that is un-
der construction prior to the date of enact-
ment of this legislation, no certification will
be required, but the license or permit issued
without the certification will terminate after
the expiration of 2 years after enactment un-
less the licensee or permittee obtains the
proper certification. No Federal permit or
license can be issued where It is required
under this legislation until the certification
is obtained.
The bill would provide additional authority
for training individuals in the field of design,
operation, and maintenance of waste treat-
ment works
The bill would also extend the present re-
search and demonstration provisions of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act an ad-
ditional 2 fiscal years at the current annual
level of appropriation authorization. This
appropriation authorization will expire on
June 30, 1969, and an extension is urgently
needed
Lastly, the bill would change the name of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Admin-
istration to the National Water Quality Ad-
ministration The objective of this change
is to provide a more positive emphasis to the
program
On the basis of our review of the reported
bill, we conclude that the legislation follows,
in general, the recommendations made by the
Secretary in his testimony before your Com-
mittee In particular, it carries out the Ad-
ministration's recommendation relative to
the division of responsibility for enforce-
ment, cleanup, and other matters between
this Department and the Department of
Transportation in the oil and sewage sections
of the reported bill. While we may have
some specific recommendations on the bill
for the Senate Committee, once it passes the
House of Representatives, we are able at this
time to recommend its passage by the House
of Representatives.
The Bureau of the Budget advises that they
have no objection to the presentation of this
report from the standpoint of the Adminis-
tration's progiam.
Sincerely yours,
RUSSELL E. TRAIN,
Under Secretary of the Interior.
However, I would like to quote one
paragraph of the letter:
On the basis of our review of the reported
bill, we conclude that the legislation follows,
in general, the recommendations made by
the Secretary in his testimony before your
Committee In particular, it carries out the
Administration's recommendation relative to
the division of responsibility for enforce-
ment, cleanup, and other matters between
this Department and the Department of
Transportation in the oil and sewage sections
of the reported bill While we may have
some specific recommendations on the bill
for the Senate Committee, once it passes the
House of Representatives, we are able at this
time to recommend its passage by the House
of Representatives.
I would be remiss in these open-
ing comments if I did not pay proper
commendation to my colleagues on the
Committee on Public Works who have
labored hard and long this year to
-------
1618
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
bring this excellent legislation before
you. In addition to the effective lead-
ership, encouragement, and support of
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
FALLON), the chairman of the House
Committee on Public Works, splendid
contributions were made by such out-
standing colleagues and workers in the
field of water quality as BOB JONES of
Alabama; JIM WRIGHT of Texas; ED
EDMONDSON of Oklahoma; and JIM
HOWARD of New Jersey, each of whom
will explain in detail a portion of this
legislation, and all my colleagues on
the committee on both sides of the aisle.
At this point I submit for the RECORD
a brief synopsis of the highlights of
H.R. 4148.
SYNOPSIS OF H.R. 4148
A. In the area of oil and other hazardous
pollution, the bill would:
Apply to discharges of oil and matter into
the navigable waters, the contiguous zone,
and the high seas from vessels and onshore
and offshore facilities (see definition p. 38).
Provide for notice of all discharges by in-
dividuals in charge of a vessel or onshore or
offshore facility to either the Secretary of
the Interior or the Coast Guard (see Section
17(b), p. 4).
Prohibit oil and matter discharges from
vessels except in emergency situations or ex-
cept where permitted by international con-
vention (see section 17(c), p 41).
Establish civil penalties of up to $10,000 for
willful or negligent oil or matter discharges
from vessels (see section 17 (c) (2), p 41).
Direct that the U S remove oil or matter
discharged where there is a pollution hazard
to private or public beaches or shorelines in
the U.S. or to marine resources (see section
17(d) (1), p. 42).
Authorize the United States to remove or
destroy a vessel in U S. waters when a marine
disaster creates a substantial pollution threat
to the United States. The Corps of Engineers
has similar authority today in cases of navi-
gation hazards (see section 17 (d) (2) p. 43).
Require the owner or operator of the vessel
or onshore or offshore facility to remove the
discharged oil or matter immediately (see
sections 17(e) and (f) p 44 & 46)
Provide a limitation of liability to the U.S
for costs of removal by the U.S. of vessel dis-
charges of up to a maximum of $10 million or
$100 per gross registered ton, whichever is ihe
lesser (see section 17(e) p 45).
Provide an $8 million limitation of liability
for U S costs of removal in case of onshore
facilities and offshore facilities located on
inland waters and within the territorial sea,
but suspends the limitation on onshore facili-
ties until certain findings are made by In-
terior (see section 17 (f) (3) p. 47).
Establish a $20 million revolving fund for
cleanup to be administered by the Coast
Guard (see section 17 (h) p 50)
Provide a system of financial responsibility
for vessels of over 100 gross registered tons
and barges of equivalent size, effective 1 year
after enactment (see section 17 (k) p. 53).
Repeal the antiquated Oil Pollution Act of
1924 which was developed by the House Pub-
lic Works Committee (see section 7 p. 78).
B. In the area of control of sewage from
vessels, the bill would:
Direct the Secretary of the Interior to issue
Federal standards of performance for marine
sanitation devices for all vessels (except ves-
sels not equipped with installed toilet facili-
ties) , and it would direct the Coast Guard to
issue regulations relative to the design, con-
struction, installation, and operation of these
devices on board such vessels (see p. 56).
Apply to existing vessels, the construction
of which is initiated prior to issuance of che
standards and regulations (see definition
p. 55).
Apply to new vessels, the construction of
which is initiated after issuance of the
standards and regulations (see definition
p. 55).
Provide that the initial standards shall be
effective for new vessels two years after
promulgation, but not earlier than December
31, 1971, and for existing vessels five years
after promulgation (see definition p 57)
[p. 9018]
Provide for a system of certification by
the Coast Guard of marine sanitation devices
(see definition p. 59).
Provide for the establishment of civil
penalties after notice and opportunity for a
hearing (see p. 62).
Provide that provisions of this section shall
be enforced by the Coast Guard (see p. 63).
C In the area of training of personnel, the
bill would'
Authorize the Secretary to make grants or
to enter into contracts with institutions of
higher education to assist them in planning,
developing, strengthening, improving, or
carrying out programs or projects to prepare
undergraduate students entering into occu-
pations involving the design, operation, and
maintenance of waste treatment works (see
p 64-72)
Provide that these grants or contracts may
be used to pay the compensation of students
employed in connection with the operation
and maintenance of treatment works (see
p. 68)
Authorize the award of scholarships for un-
dergraduate studies for periods up to 4 aca-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1619
demic years and the making of stipends (see
P 69).
Provide that the Secretary by regulation
will require that any person awarded a
scholarship must enter into an agreement in
writing to enter and remain in an occupation
involving the design, operation, or mainte-
nance of treatment works for such period as
the Secretary determines appropriate after
the completion of the student's studies (see
p.Tl).
Authorize appropriations for fiscal year
1970 of $12 million and for fiscal years 1971
and 1972 of $25 million annually—total $62
million (see p. 72).
D. In the area of research, the bill would-
Authorize grants and contracts for the pre-
vention, removal, and control of lake pollu-
tion (see p. 76).
Authorize research and demonstration
projects relative to acid mine pollution (see
p 64).
Authorize grants and contracts relative to
research and development on the prevention
and control of oil pollution (see p 76 and 77)
Authorize the Secretary to engage in stud-
ies, research, experiments, and demonstra-
tions relative to discharges from recreational
vessels and the equipment installed thereon
with the requirement of a report to Congress
(see p. 77)
Authorize the Secretary to acquire lands
and interests therein for field laboratories and
research facilities and in connection with
demonstration projects (see p 76).
Extend the appropriation authorization
provisions of sections 5 and 6 of the Act two
additional years at the current level of ap-
propriation authorizations which is $120 mil-
lion for F.Y. 1969 (see p. 78).
E. In the area of controlling pollution from
federal activities and federally licensed or
permit activities, the bill would:
Require that all federal installations take
immediate steps to insure compliance with
applicable federal, state or local water qual-
ity standards, subject, of course, to the avail-
ability of appropriations, and consistent with
national needs (see pages 73-75)
Require that all applicants, other than Fed-
eral agency applicants, obtain a certificate
from the appropriate state or interstate water
pollution control agency in connection with
the granting of a federal license or permit by
a federal agency for the conduct of an activ-
ity that may discharge waste into the naviga-
ble waters of the United States (see p. 73-75)
Provide that in instances where state lacks
authority to certify the Secretary of the In-
terior will provide the certification (see p.
73-75).
Provide that any activity which is under
construction under a federal license or permit
upon enactment of this legislation shall have
two years to obtain a certificate, and if they
fail to do so within that period o{ time the
license or permit shall be suspended.
F The bill would also change the name of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Admin-
istration to the National Water Quality Ad-
ministration in order to provide a more
protective emphasis to this very important
national program (see section 8, p. 78).
Mr. Chairman, so that the amounts
of funds involved will be clear, the fol-
lowing summary of the cost of the leg-
islation will be helpful:
Millions
Section 17(h)(l), which establishes a
revolving fund for cleanup of oil and
matter discharges by the United
States . .. . $20
Section 19(d) which provides for the
research and demonstration program
for the control of acid mine pollution 15
Section 23, which provides authoriza-
tion for appropriations for the train-
ing of operators of waste treatment
works . . 62
Section 5, which extends the research
training and demonstration authority
in Section 4 of the Water Pollution
Control Act . 130
Section 5, which extends the research
authority of section 6 of the Water
Pollution Control Act . .. 120
Section 4, which extends the authority
to conduct a study on the estuaries .. 1
Total
348
Mr. Chairman, we have come a long
way in our struggle to preserve and
protect, and even to rescue, the waters
of this great country of ours. We have
a long way still before us. This legig^
lation represents effective further
progress in critical areas. I cannot
overemphasize the importance of en-
acting this legislation and getting on
with the job.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BLATNIK. I yield to the gen-
tleman from our neighboring State of
Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman from Minnesota for
yielding.
What is the total annual cost of this
proposed legislation?
Mr. BLATNIK. The total cost
would be approximately $348 million
-------
1620
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
over maybe 2 and up to 4 years.
Mr. GROSS. But the total annual
cost is what?
Mr. BLATNIK. I cannot give the
gentleman the annual cost, but the
total cost. The authorizations and ex-
tensions will amount to $348 million
over a period of at least 2 and in some
instances perhaps up to 4 years.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield for further clari-
fication ?
Mr. BLATNIK. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Florida, the ranking mi-
nority member of the committee.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I
think what the gentleman is saying is
the total cost for the total period is
$348 million. The annual cost is a re-
volving fund for oil pollution, $20 mil-
lion for an indefinite period. That is
the total cost of that program. It is a
revolving fund. The amount for area
acid and mine water pollution for 1
year is $15 million. The amount for
training grants and contracts is $12
million. The amount for estuary re-
search extension is $1 million. The
amount for general research and for
project research, two programs for 2
years, $250 million, which is the same
level as in the present law. So the
cost of the program is substantially
less than that which we brought in last
year, in that we eliminated the title of
financing proposed for sewage treat-
ment plants at this time.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield further?
Mr. BLATNIK. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I be-
lieve section (d) is contained in sec-
tion 17, Control of Pollution by Oil and
Other Matter. I would refer the gen-
tleman to page 43 of the bill, where it
says:
Whenever a marine disaster in or upon the
navigable waters of the United States has
created a substantial threat of a pollution
hazard—
And so on. There is an authorization
of $20 million set up for the financing
of this provision of the bill. Does this
mean that the taxpayers of the country,
in the case of an oil pollution occur-
rence such as that off the coast of Cal-
ifornia, could expend x number of
dollars and recover none of the money
that was expended? I see no provision
in section (d) whereby the company or
corporation polluting the water would
be called upon to repay.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, if
the gentleman will turn to page 44—
and this will be explained in complete
detail by Mr. WRIGHT—and refer for
the time being to page 44, lines 20 to
23, the gentleman will see it states:
If the United States removes oil or matter
which was willfully or negligently discharged
by such owner or operator, the vessel and
such owner or operator shall be liable to the
United States for the full amount of the costs.
The United States can, therefore, re-
coup or claim whatever expenses are
involved; this also applies to onshore
facilities on page 46 and offshore fa-
cilities on page 47.
Mr. GROSS. This then is not con-
fined to vessels, and it will go to oil
wells such as were involved and caused
the pollution off the coast of California?
Mr. BLATNIK. Those would be
covered by this legislation.
Mr. GROSS. So the Federal Gov-
ernment can recover funds it has ex-
pended?
Mr. BLATNIK. Yes, sir.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLATNIK. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Alabama, who has made
outstanding contributions to this leg-
islation.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Chair-
man, I commend the gentleman from
Minnesota and the other members of
the subcommittee, who participated for
the very deliberate way in which the
hearings were held and the legislation
was prepared. I am quite sure the
House can take pride in the results of
their work.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1621
Mr. Chairman, I urge support of
H.R. 4148 as an essential continuation
for development of this Nation's water
resources to benefit all the people.
We cannot ever overstate the impor-
tance of water resources to the develop-
ment of our Nation. Without full and
[p. 9019]
proper attention to the water which we
possess, we cannot hope to successfully
reach the levels of attainment to which
this Nation is dedicated.
Water pollution has resulted from
man's misuse of his inheritance. Pres-
ident Lyndon B. Johnson stated well
the problems which we face when he
said:
This is water that could be used and re-
used, if treated properly. Today it is ravaged
water—a menace to the health. It flows use-
lessly past water-hungry communities to an
indifferent sea.
Water is an invaluable commodity.
However, most people simply take it
for granted until the supply runs low
in quantity or in quality. Unfortu-
nately, this problem where it occurs
usually stems from our mismanage-
ment of the water quality.
The Congress has passed major legis-
lation in this field on several occasions.
In 1956 there was enacted into law the
first comprehensive Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act. The Federal Water
Pollution Control Act Amendments
were passed in 1961 and were followed
in 1965 by the Water Quality Act, in
1966 by the Clean Water Restoration
Act, and now hopefully in 1969 by the
Water Quality Improvement Act of
1969.
This legislation deals with the seri-
ous problems concerning the preven-
tion and cleanup of discharges of oil
and other matter from vessels and on-
shore and offshore facilities, the con-
trol of sewage and vessels, acid and
other mine water control, the training
of skilled and knowledgeable people to
handle the modern sophisticated waste
treatment works in our cities and in-
dustries, the effect of Federal activities
and federally licensed or permitted ac-
tivities on our navigable waters.
This legislation is good legislation, it
is needed legislation. The committee
has heard over the past 2 years repre-
sentatives of all segments of our soci-
ety, our governmental institutions, and
our industry. It has taken testimony
from Governors of large States, owners
of small boats, representatives of in-
ternational insurance associations, con-
cerned citizens, and many, many others.
The committee members worked long
and hard to make the right decisions,
and I believe they have succeeded. I
commend the chairman of the Commit-
tee on Public Works, my close friend
from Maryland, GEORGE H. FALLON;
the gentleman from Minnesota, JOHN
A. BLATNIK, and all of my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle of this great
committee.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the overwhelm-
ing passage of H.R. 4148 by all our
colleagues in this great body.
Mr. BLATNIK. I thank my very
dear friend, our able colleague, the gen-
tleman from Alabama (Mr. JONES).
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I
yield myself such time as I may con-
sume.
Mr. Chairman, I am not going to pro-
long the debate nor discuss subject
matters other Members are going to
discuss, in that this bill comes out of
our committee unanimously, supported
on both sides of the aisle, as it did last
year and as it has traditionally in the
past recent years.
Except for the fact that we elimi-
nated the basic financing provisions re-
lating to sewage treatment plants, this
is a bill similar to the bill voted twice
by this House unanimously last session.
Unfortunately it did not become law
because of the other body's unwilling-
ness to accept the House position.
Frankly, I believe this is an instance
where the passage of time is resulting
in better legislation. This could be
partially attributed to certain circum-
stances which have occurred, however,
-------
1622
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
such as the oil spill off the shore of
southern California, which obviously
alerted the American people to the risk
involved.
Some of us had been attempting to
alert the American people for some
time relating to the possibility and the
prospect of oil spillages of major na-
ture. I recall a few years ago I and
some others tried to alert this country
to the risk involved, for instance, with
respect to the sunken tankers, the pos-
sibility of the holds of those tankers,
because of the extended period of time,
rusting out, causing major spillages on
the beaches in some areas of this coun-
try. I raised the necessity of trying to
find out what those possibilities were,
what could be done about them, and
who should be responsible for the
cleanup.
We have gone a long way, I will say,
since that request for information.
The Torrey Canyon incident has oc-
curred.
We know this is an area in which
there is a possibility of a major disaster
in a given area. It has occurred off the
coast of California. It has occurred in
England. It has occurred on the shores
of Puerto Rico.
So we feel it is a responsibility of the
U.S. Congress to determine what is the
liability of those who cause this risk.
Therefore, this legislation is now be-
fore us.
I am happy to say also that this leg-
islation is supported by the adminis-
tration.
I am happy to say that the adminis-
tration has been most cooperative, with
our committee on both sides, in an effort
to try to draft good legislation.
I want to say further that the Secre-
tary of the Interior took immediate ac-
tion. We called that to the attention of
the House on October 7 and again on
October 14, 1968, and, yes, to the atten-
tion of the administration, Mr. Udall,
and called attention to the fact that he
had authority, in entering into leases
with these offshore drillers, to require
that they accept absolute liability for
such oil spillages off the shores of the
United States and, yes, onshore, as a
matter of fact, when it is Government-
owned land.
The previous administration did not
see fit to include this in the leases, de-
spite the fact that on the floor of the
House we called it to their attention
and said this could be done.
I recall responding to a question by
the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. KEITH), in the debate in the last
session. I believe he asked, "What are
you going to do about the offshore oil
drilling and the risks which might be
involved there?" I see the gentleman
is on the floor. I congratulate him for
his foresight, because he asked the
question before the spillage took place
in California.
At that time I stated, as I believed to
be the case and as now proved to be the
case, that the Secretary does have au-
thority to restrict these leases under
the law, and under his present author-
ity for these offshore drilling rigs, to
require them to accept responsibility
for these spillages.
Secretary Hickel has seen fit to put
this into effect, and I congratulate him
for it. This legislation in no way in-
fringes upon the authority which he is
now exercising and, as a matter of fact,
it permits it to go forward in the fu-
ture as it has in the past.
Also, of course, we had to deal with
the very difficult question of what do
you do with on-shore facilities. I think
the approach taken here is one that is
logical and reasonable. It will not put
anyone out of business and yet it will
protect the people of this Nation with
regard to oil spillages on shore. In
federally owned lands, of course, they
can do it under a lease authority. On
privately owned lands, with private fa-
cilities, we had to try to find a formula.
It started out as an $8 million maxi-
mum liability formula. Obviously that
was not the proper approach for a fill-
ing station or a boatyard which has
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1623
gasoline and oil for sale to boats, such
as they do in many of the fishing camps
in Florida. It is just not logical.
There is no way in which they can issue
that amount of liability. So we
adopted a proposal which permits the
Secretary to set up classifications of
businesses which have risks of possible
pollution where they deal with hazard-
ous material.
There are some 200 such materials
that are already defined by the Secre-
tary under present regulations and it
is contemplated that materials of that
nature will be dealt with by the Secre-
tary in those present regulations. This
not only includes oil but many other
materials. This legislation authorizes
the Secretary to classify those busi-
nesses concerned with these materials
to make certain that the public is prop-
erly protected up to a maximum limita-
tion of $8 million. We think this is a
logical and reasonable approach.
Last year, when we considered oil
pollution legislation, there was insuffi-
cient time to consider the difference
between offshore facilities under the
complete control of the United States
and offshore facilities under the con-
trol of the States. We concluded, after
much study, that where the United
States did not have full control of the
licensing procedures, a maximum lia-
bility for cleanup of spills that would
be realistic in face of available insur-
ance would be $8 million per discharge.
This figure is frankly based upon the
insurance market as is a figure of $10
million or $100 per gross ton for clean-
up costs of vessels.
There was considerable soul-search-
ing as to whether or not the insurance
industry should, in effect, control our
oil pollution requirements. Many of
us had reservations concerning this ap-
proach. Nevertheless, at the present
time, it seems to be the only practical
method by which we can assure reim-
bursement for Government expendi-
tures in cleanup. To this end we have
provided for a study to be made by
various Federal agencies con-
[p. 9020]
cerned in cooperation with business, in-
dustry and all others that might be
able to contribute to the solution of the
problem. This study hopefully will
provide us with information upon
which to base future limitations of li-
ability or financial responsibility re-
quirements on all types of facilities—
onshore, offshore, afloat, that may be
responsible for the cleaning up of dis-
charges.
In the area of onshore facilities, we
were very concerned lest we imposed a
burden upon the businessman that
would drive him out of business.
Again, we did not have available the
information we would have liked—and
that we would have had if our bill had
passed last year—but we felt we could
not forebear from acting at this time.
Consequently, we have included all on-
shore facilities within the purview of
the act. In order to preclude hasty ac-
tion and to preclude forcing the busi-
ness owner to guess whether or not he
was required to insure himself under
the act, we have provided that no fa-
cility is included until the Secretary of
Interior shall find that it is included.
This is to give the businessman, and in
particular the small businessman, a
chance to be heard and to protect him-
self against crippling loss.
At this point, perhaps it is well to
make absolutely clear that the com-
mittee's intention is not to force upon
the businessman the closing of his busi-
ness or bankruptcy because of our
requirement of responsibility for dis-
charge cleanup. Neither is it in other
provisions of this bill the intention of
the committee to destroy lawful activ-
ities now enjoyed by the citizen. Thus,
in our vessel pollution bill, which I will
discuss in a moment, it is not our in-
tention to drive the boatowner off the
water. Indeed, we wish to emphasize
that the agencies that administered
the provisions of this bill are zealous
-------
1624
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
in the protection of all citizens, includ-
ing those directly affected by the provi-
sions of this bill.
Recognizing that our knowledge will
increase with time and recognizing the
need to accelerate the gathering of
knowledge in certain areas pertaining
to pollution, the bill directs the Secre-
tary to study further methods of clean-
up and the prevention of oil spills.
Now all this legislation in the area of
oil pollution would be meaningless if we
did not provide the tools by which these
spills could be arrested and cleanup ac-
complished. Accordingly, we have
called for a revolving fund to be estab-
lished for the purposes of accomplish-
ing cleanup.
If the gentleman will permit me, I
will be glad to answer any questions in
just a moment. Let me say now that
this is the approach we took with re-
gard to that problem.
On control of sewage emanating
from vessels, we believe that the ap-
proach here is a reasonable one. This
bill goes further—and I want to make
sure that this is clearly understood—
this bill goes further than the bill we
had last year. One reason for that is
that we have more experience and have
gone into more areas, so we were able
to do an even better job. Therefore we
have provided for certain requirements
relating to marine sanitation devices
which are required of all vessels where
such toilet facilities are built in or
where they have such facilities built in
in the future. Also we provided log-
ically for the departments and for the
legislatures of States to come up with
a proper approach by providing ample
time for them to do this.
We gave present boatowners who
have sanitation facilities in present
boats 5 years to conform to these re-
quirements. As to new vessels it gives
2 years and prolongs the standards for
that period of time in order to allow
them to conform.
I just mentioned the control of sew-
age from vessels. Here again was an
area of great difficulty. The testimony
and evidence that we had before us was
such that several members of the com-
mittee did not feel confident that small
recreational craft made a substantial
contribution to the pollution of our
waters. Nevertheless, it appeared
clear that it would be unwise to with-
held legislation until such time that a
convincing demonstration of pollution
could be made. To a large extent, the
vessel pollution provisions, which deal
solely with sanitary sewage—that is
human waste—will be what I would
call a prophylactic prevention of fu-
ture pollution.
We recognized that at the present
time our technology is such that there
is no effective practical solution for the
treatment of sewage on small vessels.
Even in large vessels the problem is
difficult. Consequently, we have chosen
to demonstrate our concern for this
problem at the present time by requir-
ing the Secretary of Interior to conduct
such research as would be necessary
to develop suitable marine sanitation
devices, including perhaps chemical or
biological treatment. We have re-
quired that the results of this study
be furnished to the Congress prior to
the effective date of standards for ma-
rine sanitation devices to be promul-
gated under this act.
Based upon the information avail-
able to him from all sources, including
his research program, the Secretary of
Interior is to issue Federal standards
of performance for marine sanitation
devices. In doing so, he will take into
account the technology available and
the economics involved. The bill takes
into consideration the problems of ex-
isting vessels as opposed to vessels
constructed after issuance of standards
and regulations by the Secretary and
by the Secretary of Transportation.
The initial standards shall not be effec-
tive for new vessels until 2 years after
promulgation and no earlier than De-
cember 31, 1971. In the case of exist-
ing vessels, they will have 5 years to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1625
comply. Broad authority is given to
the Secretaries to classify vessels and
distinguish between them so that their
different characteristics, practices and
use may be taken into account.
In order to assure that the interests
of the vessel owner are fully considered
by the Secretary, requirement that sec-
tion 4 of the Administrative Procedures
Act apply to the issuance of standards
and regulations is included.
It was forcefully brought to our at-
tention by many witnesses that a bur-
den upon the passage in interstate
commerce of vessels has been imposed
as the result of differing States im-
posing differing standards for marine
sanitation devices. Thus, a boatowner
in compliance with the laws of his own
State where his boat is registered will
find himself in difficulty if he enters
the waters of another State having
differing requirements. We, therefore,
have chosen to preempt from the
States the adoption or enforcement of
any statute or regulation with the re-
spect to the design, manufacturer, or
installation of a marine sanitation de-
vice on a vessel. Recognizing that
there are circumstances under which a
State may choose to prohibit discharge
of sewage, whether treated or not, from
a vessel, the right of a State to make
such prohibition is protected. In order
to prevent inequities, however, the bill
permits prohibition by a State of such
discharges only if discharges from all
other sources are likewise prohibited in
such waters. Thus, the very justifiable
complaint of boatowners that we have
all seen appearing in boating maga-
zines and newspaper columns to the
effect that the small boatowner should
not be required to carry his sewage
aboard while his boat is sailing through
waters befouled with filth from the
land is recognized and dealt with.
The enforcement of the marine sani-
tation device provisions seems to us to
depend upon two areas. The first, to
stop the manufacture of devices which
do not meet the standards that will be
developed and promulgated by the Sec-
retary of Interior and the Secretary of
Transportation. The second is to pre-
vent unlawful discharges by the vessel.
Consequently, penalties are provided to
punish the selling- or distributing of
vessels not equipped with a necessary
sanitation device and to punish unau-
thorized discharges. Vessels that are
too small or have some reason to not
spend extended periods of time on the
water so that installed toilet facilities
are not on board are not required to
have marine sanitation devices. Nor is
it our intention to leave to the State
the prerogative of requiring such ves-
sels to install toilet facilities with ma-
rine sanitation devices.
We think that this is a sound ap-
proach and will leave the administra-
tion where it belongs, in the Coast
Guard. We do not want to erect a sepa-
rate department of the Interior or de-
partment of the Navy in order to police
these regulations, so we leave the ad-
ministration and jurisdiction of them
where they belong, just as it was in the
bill last year, in the Coast Guard. I
understand the Coast Guard is in full
support of this legislation.
Now, Mr. Chairman, one section that
I will take up for just one moment re-
lates to the amendment which is now a
part of this legislation similar to the
bill a number of us introduced here,
H.R. 8516, dealing with training of
personnel. We will never solve this
problem if we do not have people who
are qualified actually to administer the
program. This has been an area of
weakness for some time, but it is an ad-
mitted area of weakness.
As a matter of fact, the other body
had lengthy studies relating to this,
and in the 90th Congress, Senate Docu-
ment 49, entitled "Manpower and
Training Needs in Water Pollution
Control" which was published in Au-
gust 1967, this docu-
[p. 9021]
merit called attention of the Congress
-------
1626
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
to the very dire need for trained per-
sonnel at all levels in order to accom-
plish water pollution control programs
and to say to the States that they have
to have this and say to the States that
they have to have that and that they
are going to have to have standards
and they will have to conform to those
standards.
We will have to have money available
for sewage treatment plants and faced
with the finding of fact that the per-
sonnel with which to accomplish this
objective do not now exist is to ignore
one of the necessities in reaching a
sound solution to a very serious prob-
lem.
Mr. Chairman, I am happy to report
that the committee adopted, again
unanimously, an amendment which I
think represents a sound approach and
which, in effect, amends the present
law to provide for funds for the train-
ing of personnel, for tooling up the
university systems and encouraging
them to go into this field of clean water
and to become qualified from an in-
structional standpoint to turn out the
personnel to do this job in the future.
Mr. Chairman, rather than spend
the time of the Committee in discuss-
ing it in detail, I shall place the justi-
fication for that in the RECORD:
MEMORANDUM ON MANPOWER AND TRAINING
TOR WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
Early in the history of water pollution con-
trol legislation, the need for training of quali-
fied personnel was recognized and provided
for by statute After the transfer of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion from the Department of Health, Educa-
tion and Welfare to the Department of In-
terior, an extensive study was conducted by
that Administration concerning manpower
needs for water pollution control. The re-
sults of this study were published as Senate
Document if49 of the 90th Congress entitled
"Manpower and Training Needs in Water
Pollution Control." Published in August of
1967, the document called the attention of
Congress to the need for trained personnel
at all levels to accomplish our water pollu-
tion control program.
TABLE I.—ESTIMATES OF MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS
Fiscal year 1967
Fiscal year 1972
Sewage treatment
Professionals Technicians plant operators
Profes-
Employers sionals
State agencies
Local agencies . .
Subtotal ' . .
Industrial waste
treatment ....
Consulting engi-
neers 3 ...
Total '
1,368
2,250
3,600
1,700
6,000
11,300
Sewage
treat-
ment
plant
Tech- oper- Esti-
nicians ators mate
317
2,250
2,600
1,700
6,000
10,300
3,422
20,000 5,550
20,000 9,000
3,500 6,000
21,000
23,500 36,000
In-
crease
2,054
3,250
5,400
4,300
15,000
24,700
Per-
cent
in- Esti-
crease mate
150 980
144 5,500
150 6,500
253 6,000
250 21,000
219 33,500
Per- Per-
cent cent
In- In- Esti- In- in-
crease crease mate crease crease
633
3,250
3,900
4,300
15,000
23,200
208 ..
144 30,000 10,000
150 30,000 10,000
253 12,000 8,500
250
225 42,000 18,500
50
50
243
30
1 Numbers are rounded.
J Estimated by Black & Veatch, consulting engineers.
On page 15 appears Table 1, "Estimates of
Manpower Requirements." The increase in
sewage treatment plant operators estimated
to be required by fiscal year 1972 over that
required in fiscal year 1967 was 10,000.
Granting that the need for trained operators
will be determined to a large extent by the
rate by which sewage treatment plants are
completed, the report notes that the demands
for operating personnel lag well behind con-
struction appropriations, while the demands
for design personnel are more immediate.
(P. 14). In addition, this increase is based
upon an estimate by the Water Pollution Con-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1627
trol Federation that the number of operators
employed at the time of the report was 20,000
The FWPCA estimated that only 16,500 oper-
ators were employed at the time The esti-
mated need for 1972 is 30,000 operators. If
the FWPCA estimate is correct, the increase
in operators would be 13,500 The report
gives no figures for replacement of personnel
due to death, retirement, or transfer of em-
ployment outside the field because accurate
turnover rates were not available
Table 1 of the report indicates that an in-
crease of 8,500 industrial waste treatment
plant operators will be required In addition,
an increase of 3,900 technicians will be
needed for state and local agencies and 4,300
for industrial waste treatment The state and
local agencies will need an increase of 5,400
professional personnel, and 4,300 more indus-
trial waste treatment professional personnel
would be required.
One very interesting figure deals with pro-
fessionals who operate as consulting engi-
neers The 1967 estimate based on figures by
Black and Veatch, Consulting Engineers, in-
dicates that 6,000 consulting engineers were
available for consultation in the field in 1967
and that 21,000 would be needed by 1972—an
increase of 15,000. It's estimated that for
technicians working with professional con-
sulting engineers, an increase liom 6,000 to
21,000—that is an increase of 15,000—is
required
During testimony before the Committee on
Public Works of the House of Representatives
on Thursday, March 6, 1969, Allen R Voss,
Assistant Director of the General Accounting
Office, pointed out that the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act requires that no grant
shall be made for any project until the ap-
plicant has provided for ensuring proper and
efficient operation and maintenance of the
treatment works after completion of con-
struction. In other words, under the law a
grant depends upon the availability of trained
personnel who can effectively carry out effi-
cient operation and maintenance
The GAO investigation of various aspects
of the implementation of water pollution con-
trol legislation was, at the time of Mr Voss'
statement, still in its early phases Neverthe-
less, the following paragraphs quoted from
Mr Voss' statement indicate the need for
activity:
"In examining into the operation and main-
tenance of treatment plants, we are using as
criteria the minimum requirements for per-
sonnel, laboratory controls, and records es-
tablished by a conference of State Sanitary
Engineers in cooperation with the Depart-
ment of Health, Education, and Welfare in
1963
"We are finding, generally, that these mini-
mum requirements are not being met. For
example, on the basis of a review of 20 oper-
ation and maintenance reports in two States,
we believe that 17 plants did not meet the
minimum requirements Thirteen of the 20
did not meet minimum personnel require-
ments, 15 of 20 did not meet minimum labora-
tory requirements, and seven of 20 did not
meet minimum records requirements. In our
opinion, 11 of the 20 plants were strongly
deficient
"During one of our on-site inspections of a
treatment plant, we found that the plant was
shut down and that no operator was avail-
able State representatives accompanying
our staff members stated that the plant had
been shut down for about a month In an-
other instance, a review of FWPCA files
showed that FWPCA, in its inspection of a
plant in September 1968, noted a number of
deficiencies among which was the fact that
the plant did not have a full-time operator
and daily operating records were not being
maintained We could not find evidence that
these deficiencies had been brought to the
attention of the State * *"
"In February 1969, staff members of our
office accompanied by a state representative
found that the plant still did not have a full-
lime operator and that daily operators were
still not being maintained. : * "
Following is a colloquy between Congress-
man William H Harsha and Mr Voss, during
the latter's testimony before the Committee.
"Mr HARSHA Now, do you know or have
you had an opportunity to make this deter-
mination, whether or not we have the engi-
neering potential in this country to design
and construct the municipal treatment plants
that could be built if the whole billion dollars
authorization by fiscal year 1970 were
appropriated?
"Mr Voss No, sir, we have not done a
thing in that area 1 know, just recently, we
talked to an official in the FWPCA, and this is
something that he said that possibly that
agency may consider doing.
"Mr HARSHA Apropos to the same ques-
tion about available personnel and profes-
sional people, is it not a fact that one of the
problems is this dearth of trained personnel,
scientists, water quality men, even techni-
cians and operators of plants, is that not so'-*
"Mr. Voss. Yes At least at a number of
the plants that we have visited—it does not
seem that the operators have been trained as
well as they could be There is a lack of
laboratory testing There is a lack of keeping
of records And if you do not keep these rec-
ords on the tests, that supposedly you are
making, it is very difficult for anyone to de-
termine whether or not that plant is operat-
ing to the design capability You do not have
on record the water and sewage going into
the plant, and that going out of the plant.
"Mr HARSHA. Well, is this due to the lack
of efficiency of the personnel there or due to
-------
1628
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
the lack of sufficient personnel?
"Mr. Voss. I would say both.
"Mr. HARSHA. And, as a matter of fact,
have you not found that a number of plants
are not operating at capacity?
"Mr. Voss. This, but what we are finding,
offhand, I cannot say how many.
"I might mention, Mr. Congressman, we
have figures which are estimates as to the
number of operators you are going to need to
operate these plants by 1972, and it is a tre-
mendous increase in the next 4 or 5 years
They are just estimates, but it is the best we
have available and it is jumping from about
23,000 to 43,000 or 44,000."
In order to combat this dearth of personnel,
the Federal Water Pollution Control Adminis-
tration has used three approaches Two of
these involved joint federal agency efforts
with the states working through the regional
office of FWPCA The third is to secure ade-
quate appropriations directly to FWPCA to
support training contracts.
[p. 9022]
At this point, it is well to review the sec-
tions of the Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended, applicable to training Section 5
of the Act deals with research, investigations,
training, and information Subsection 5(a)
(2) authorizes the Secretary of Interior to
make grants-in-aid to public or private agen-
cies and institutions and to individuals for
research and training projects and for demon-
strations, and provide for the conduct of
research, training and demonstrations by con-
tract with public or private agencies and in-
stitutions Subsection 5 (a) (4) authorizes the
Secretary to establish and maintain research
fellowships in the Department of Interior
with stipends and allowances, including travel
and subsistence expenses. Subsection (5) (a)
authorizes the Secretary to provide training
in technical matters relating to the causes,
prevention, and control of water pollution
to personnel of public agencies and other
persons with suitable qualifications
In addition, under the Secretary's authority
for grants for research and development in-
cluded in Section 6, the Secretary may make
grants to those engaged in research, includ-
ing, but not limited to, those attending recog-
nized education institutions.
Appropriations for Section 5 purposes have
been as follows:
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
1968 1969 1970 '
Grants for
training $3,667,000 $3,400,000 $3,980,000
Research
fellowship ... 633,000 600,000 600,000
Federal technical
training and
administration 637,000 804,000 1,006,000
Graduate and
special
training ....
Total ..
251,000 258,000 258,000
4,888,000 5,062,000 5,844,000
1 Requested by Johnso.i administration
According to figures received from the
FWPCA, the Division of Manpower and
Training has training grants of $3,400,000
available for the training of approximately
500 trainees in FY 1969 $600,000 will be dis-
tributed amongst 101 research fellows For
FY 1970, the FWPCA estimates that $3,980,000
will be spent for training grants to train ap-
proximately 700 trainees FWPCA short
courses tor those actually employed in water
pollution control activities are scheduled to
train 1,465 trainees in FY 1969 and 360 trainees
in FY 1970.
The FWPCA was awarded a contract by the
Department of Labor on January 21, 1969, to
train waste treatment plant operators. When
augmented by funds from the Department of
Health, Education and Welfare a total of
$1,032,000 will be available. The program
will involve approximately 800 operators in
lO urban and 10 rural projects. The states of
New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Mary-
land, Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Iowa, Texas
and California are receiving initial consider-
ation as potential project sites All trainees
will be selected by the management of waste
water treatment plants from the employees
engaged in this work. There is no tuition fee.
The project, established under authority of
the Manpower Development and Training Act
will be administered by the Division of Man-
power and Training of the FWPCA as a
prime contractor. Training and supervision
will be handled through subcontracts with
municipalities or waste treatment districts
with oversight by FWPCA regional offices.
The length of the course is 44 weeks or 1760
hours, and includes 20 weeks or 800 hours of
full on-the-job training and 630 hours of
part-time on-the-job training
In the area of federal-state cooperation,
FWPCA has joined the cooperative area man-
power plan system (CAMPS). The impor-
tance of this program to water pollution
control is that it provides the first opportunity
for training of those who are not currently
employed as operators in water pollution
control and envisions training of the unem-
ployed seeking a place in that field. It does
not, apparently, consider the training of per-
sonnel already employed in other fields for
transfer to water pollution control work.
As commendable as the efforts of the
FWPCA are, it is clear that there are two
major deficiencies. One is obviously the
numbers involved
If we add together all those who receive
any training under the programs discussed
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1629
above, they come to well under 2,000 for FY
1969. Practically all of these are already em-
ployed or engaged in the water pollution
control field. Practically nothing is being
done to eliminate the great gap between
available personnel and personnel required
for the operation of treatment plants An-
other defect is the failure of any program to
look to other fields for personnel to be trans-
ferred into the water pollution field. No
inducements are set forth for the competent
intelligent person to consider transferring his
activities to water pollution control.
The purpose of H R. 8516, which has been
incorporated by the Committee into H.R
4148, is to provide inducements to those not
in the field of water pollution control to en-
ter it and to induce those already within the
field to achieve a greater degree of compe-
tence and to remain in this work. In order
to do this, it would make available to
interested students scholarships and stipends
now available primarily for those in the
professional level A student who wishes
to become a sewage treatment plant op-
erator may do so while receiving a stipend,
which, to some extent, would accommodate
him for his loss of income during his period
of study Thus, the individual student
would receive an inducement to come into
the field, which he otherwise could not afford
to enter.
An estimated average of $1,000 a year per
student at all levels was used in calculating
the total amount authorized This figure was
derived from information based upon the
needs of community colleges which either
have or are developing training programs for
operators
Assuming a need for 10,000 more operators
within the next three years and assuming
an average training program of two years,
$20,000,000 would be needed for the training
of operators over the next two years Apply-
ing a loss factor used by the FWPCA of ap-
proximately 25'"r for students who would, for
one reason or another, be unable to complete
the piogram, the program should cost ap-
proximately $24,000,000 for the first two yeais
This figure is restricted stnctly to training
persons required by state and local agencies
for municipal operations and does not provide
for training industrial waste treatment plant
operators In order to compensate for an
expected lag in the administration of the
program, selection of students, and comple-
tion of construction of necessaiy facilities,
$8,000,000 is suggested for the first year's ap-
propriation for operational training and
$16,000,000 for the second yeai's operational
training The same figure is suggested for
the third year for the increased number of
students anticipated to fulfill the needs of
increased sewage treatment plant construc-
tion, for those students who will need to
receive advanced training, and for those stu-
dents who must take three years to complete
their training program rather than two. Sim-
ilarly, figures are derived for state and local
professionals at $3,000,000 for the first year
and $8,000.000 for each of the second and
third years For the training of technicians,
$1,000,000 is needed for each of the three
years The number of technicians required
for local and state agencies is much smaller
than the number of operators required, and
the cost of their instruction is estimated at
somewhat less This leads to a total of
$12,000,000 for the first year and $25,000,000
for each of the second and third years
Now, what would be the effect of cutting
any of these figures' The immediate effect
would be that the state and local agencies will
not be able to acquire the personnel that they
will need to administer their programs and to
evaluate their projects. Because of the scar-
city of professional personnel, salaries offered
by consulting engineer firms and by industry
will be more attractive than state and local
employment which can lead to the absorption
by those groups of the professionals who do
finish their training without federal assist-
ance Even so, the number of people ab-
sorbed by the consulting engineer firms will
still be inadequate to accomplish the design
engineering necessary for project develop-
ment and evaluations Consequently, a re-
duction of funds for the professional training
part of the program will lead to an immediate
impact upon the design and administration
levels Reduction of funds for that portion
of the program dealing with operators and
technicians will not lead to a loss that will
be felt immediately However, upon com-
pletion of construction of treatment works,
the works will be maloperated or not op-
erated at all. as indicated by Mr Voss1
testimony
Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CRAMER. Yes, I yield to th
-------
1630
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
of his background, experience, and
public statements, he could actually
be a good modern Secretary of the De-
partment of Interior.
I must say in all fairness that I have
been impressed with the new Secretary
with reference to the American Indian,
with reference to wildlife, the national
parks, and certainly, on this matter of
oil pollution. I think he has shown
vigor and determination and, frankly,
I have been pleasantly surprised to find
the qualities which he has exhibited.
I think Mr. Hickel's record thus far
has been commendable.
Mr. CRAMER. I thank the gentle-
man very much. The gentleman's hind-
sight is very excellent I will say.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. CRAMER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman
from Florida for yielding. In several
places in the bill thei'e is the language
—"Secretary of the Department under
which the Coast Guard is operating."
Mr. CRAMER. Where is the gentle-
man reading?
Mr. GROSS. Page 44, line 14, but it
also appears in a number of other
places—"Secretary of the Department
in which the Coast Guard is operating."
I am just curious to know why this
language is contained in the bill.
[p. 9023]
Mr. CRAMER. To make sure that
the Coast Guard itself in no matter
which Department it is presently oper-
ating continues to have jurisdiction
over this enforcement.
Mr. GROSS. I thought there might
be some question about where the Coast
Guard would be located.
Mr. CRAMER. There is no ques-
tion.
Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. CRAMER. I yield to the gen-
tleman from New Jersey.
Mr. HOWARD. As has been true in
the past, the Coast Guard has been in
the Department of Transportation, but
in wartime it may be under the Depart-
ment of Defense.
Mr. CRAMER. That is right; the
gentleman is correct.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman will yield further, on page
42, line 19, there is the language "—by
action in rem—" What is the meaning
of that?
Mr. CRAMER. Action against the
vessel.
Mr. GROSS. Action against the
what?
Mr. CRAMER. The vessel.
Mr. GROSS. Action against the
vessel ?
Mr. CRAMER. In rem is an action
against the vessel itself—action against
the property, a concept permitted by
the law of admiralty.
Mr. GROSS. I am glad to have the
gentleman's explanation.
Mr. DENNEY. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. CRAMER. I yield to the gen-
tleman.
Mr. DENNEY. Actually, an action
in rem is the phraseology which means
action against the thing. It means
that you get a judgment and a lien
against a vessel and you foreclose on
this lien.
Mr. CRAMER. The gentleman is
absolutely correct. He sounds like a
legal professor, and I thank the gentle-
man for his response.
Mr. GROSS. Is it proposed in this
bill to go into more brick and mortar
in order to provide for research labora-
tories and further research in this
field?
Mr. CRAMER. No. It is my under-
standing that this is a technical type of
research dealing with individuals,
equipment, et cetera, and not buildings.
Mr. GROSS. Are there any other
areas of government expenditures for
this same purpose?
Mr. CRAMER. Not to my knowl-
edge, I will say to the gentleman, we
certainly would not try to duplicate
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1631
expenditures. I might add to the gen-
tleman that this is an ongoing research
program, this is not new. This is a
program that is presently in existence.
This is a continuing authorization at
exactly the present level.
Mr. GROSS. If the gentleman will
yield further, to the knowledge of the
gentleman there are no other areas of
government in which money is being
expended for the same general pur-
poses as envisaged in this bill?
Mr. CRAMER. I would not support
a duplication if I were aware of it, I
would say to the gentleman.
Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. CRAMER. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Missouri.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I ap-
preciate the gentleman yielding, and I
appreciate the statements that the gen-
tleman has made, and the functions
performed.
I rise simply for a point of clarifica-
tion in the text of the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I am referring now to
section 11, part (b).
Mr. CRAMER. Does the gentleman
have the page number in the bill?
Mr. HALL. This is on page 74.
My query is simply as to whether or
not, in fact, it does not give the various
States of the Union certification power
for permits in the first part of sub-
section (b), and in a later portion gives
certification authority to the Secre-
tary?
Mr. CRAMER. Let me say to the
gentleman that this does not do so. It
does provide for certification by the
Secretary when the State cannot cer-
tify because it has no authority or cer-
tification procedure established. Once
the State established has a certification
procedure. In fact, if the States can-
not certify, then the Secretary comes
into play, but it is contemplated that
the States will do the initial certifica-
tion.
Mr. HALL. I understood that, if the
gentleman will yield further, from the
earlier part of the bill and from read-
ing the report, but I am not quite sure
about the language. Do I understand
that the gentleman agrees that it might
be clarified either by an amendment, or
legislative history?
Mr. CRAMER. That is a matter
that is under consideration now. I will
be glad to clarify it further on'the rec-
ord as consideration of an amendment
in this area is given, if the request for
it is made.
Mr. HALL. I appreciate the state-
ment made by the gentleman, and if the
gentleman would refer then to page 59,
has any consideration for the purpose
of clarification been given to eliminat-
ing lines 8 and 9? That is where it
says that "nothing in this section shall
be construed to affect or modify the
authority or jurisdiction of any State
to prohibit discharges of sewage
whether treated or not from a vessel
within all or part of the intrastate
waters of such State"?
It might be suggested that it stop
right there, but instead the language
goes ahead and says "if discharges
from all other sources are likewise
prohibited."
I am just thinking of State jurisdic-
tion versus Federal jurisdiction in our
offshore waters, estuaries, or navigable
streams.
Mr. CRAMER. This deals with in-
trastate waters. I believe the language
as presently in the bill accomplishes
what should be done as it relates to in-
trastate and not interstate waters.
And it is on the basis that if discharges
from other sources are likewise pro-
hibited, it would be so controlled. Of
course, once the statute goes into effect
the vessels could only discharge ade-
quately treated sewage in any case.
Mr. HARSHA. Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. CRAMER. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Ohio.
Mr. HARSHA. This is a position
that was brought out by representa-
-------
1632
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
tives of the boat industry where the
boatowners have complied with all reg-
ulations of the State as covering dis-
charge into State waters, and yet they
found that they could be prevented
from making such distribution or dis-
charges while other users of water
were entitled to discharge polluted ma-
terial into the water. They felt that
because of the different changes in reg-
ulations from State to State that this
was imposing an undue burden upon
them where other pollutants were per-
mitted to go into the water.
Mr. CRAMER. That is what I have
tried to say to the gentleman, that
where there are other discharges per-
mitted into intrastate waters by the
States, it does not make sense to control
this aspect of it until they control the
entire pollution problem.
Mr. MARSHA. There was consider-
able question as to whether or not the
discharge from private sources was in
fact a part of this program, or to any
degree, and that is why we put this
provision in.
Mr. CRAMER. I will say to the gen-
tleman, this will cause no problem of
pollution in rny opinion in those ureas
where they are not presently controlled
by the State.
Mr. HALL. I thank the gentleman.
I think this is an important legislative
record, and I understand the phrase
"all other sources" is not predicated
upon jurisdiction—-—
Mr. CRAMER. That is correct.
Mr. HALL. But, is predicated upon
the sources of discharge.
Mr. CRAMER. That is correct.
Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Chairman, I
yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
WRIGHT).
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman and
my colleagues, I rise in support of the
pending bill, H.R. 4148, the Water
Quality Improvement Act of 1967. I
urge its approval.
I want to commend my colleagues on
the committee for this piece of legisla-
tion. It is farsighted legislation. It
breaks new ground.
Particularly I want to call attention
to section 2 which adds an entirely
new section to the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act. The new section
deals with the control of pollution by
oil and other matter. This is a far-
reaching provision—a strong provision.
By any standard, it is a tough provi-
sion. If we err, I think it would have
to be said that we err on the side of
strength.
This provision with respect to oil pol-
lution goes much farther than we have
ever gone before. It provides stiff pen-
alties for negligent pollution of the
shores or waters or beaches of this
country. Further, it establishes direct
responsibilities for swift action to
clean up these spills.
It makes those who pollute respon-
sible for cleaning up the damage that
they cause. It creates a machinery for
the Federal Government to conduct the
cleanup operation expeditiously if the
polluter does not have the technical
capability to do it. But in this case it
[p. 9024]
places the financial burden of the
cleanup on the polluter if his actions
were either willful or negligent.
In addition, it provides rather strin-
gent civil penalties to be imposed upon
the willful or negligent polluter.
The recognition of oil and other
hazardous matter as potentially serious
water pollutants is not new. As long
ago as 1886 the Congress recognized the
need to control discharges in navigable
waters in New York Harbor, and in
1899 the Congress enacted the Refuse
Act, administered by the Corps of En-
gineers, to apply to both vessels and
shore-based facilities with respect to
almost every discharge into navigable
waters except that flowing from streets
and sewers. The need for control of oil
was specifically recognized in the Oil
Pollution Act of 1924.
However, several recent instances
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1633
such as the breakup of the tanker, Tor-
rey Canyon, off the coast of England
and the misfortune of the SS Ocean
Eagle off the Puerto Rican coast, and
most recently the despoliation of Cali-
fornia beaches by oil from an offshore
drilling rig, have indicated to us that
we need the capacity to do much more
than the Oil Pollution Act of 1924
permits.
Mr. TEAGUE of California. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, with
great pleasure I yield to my colleague.
Mr. TEAGUE of California. As the
gentleman knows and as other members
of the committee know, I have been
very much concerned about this prob-
lem because Santa Barbara is in my
congressional district.
Almost a year ago I introduced a bill
very similar to the one that has now
been approved by your committee and
again this year I introduced a similar
bill.
At this time I would like to voice my
complete support for the bill now be-
fore us and commend the committee
and thank all the members of that com-
mittee for their good judgment in
bringing this bill before us today.
Mr. WRIGHT. I wish to express my
appreciation, and I am sure that of the
entire committee, not only for the com-
ments made on the floor today by our
distinguished colleague from California
(Mr. TEAGUE), but for his constructive
contributions and his longstanding in-
terest in this matter evidenced by his
frequent appearances before our com-
mittee when we were considering these
bills. He has indeed made significant
contributions to the considerations of
the committee, and much that is in this
bill has been influenced by the interest
expressed by the gentleman from Cali-
fornia (Mr. TEAGUE).
The Oil Pollution Act of 1924 does
not adequately meet present day needs.
That Act applies only to discharges and
to spills that are caused by gross neg-
ligence or willful conduct. It applies
only to vessels. It does not apply to
spills from fixed installations, either
onshore or offshore, such as pipelines,
refineries, manufacturing plants of
various types and other kinds of in-
dustrial activities that use and store
large quantities of oil. The Oil Pol-
lution Act of 1924 is confined solely to
oil spillage. It provides no protection
whatever against other potentially haz-
ardous substances, of which there are
many, as the gentleman from Florida
has pointed out, more than 200 of which
have already been officially identified.
In short, we believe that H.R. 4148 does
effectively deal with this serious prob-
lem and plug up the gaps that were
left in the Oil Pollution Act of 1924.
This legislation addresses itself not
only to the prevention of such disasters
but also to the methods of cleaning
them up and abating them once they
have occurred, as regrettably they will
occur, in such a way as to prevent fur-
ther ecological damage and impair-
ment of environment.
In the area of oil and other hazardous
pollutants, the bill before us applies to
discharges of oil and other hazardous
and harmful matter, which is very
broadly defined in the bill, into the nav-
igable waters, the contiguous zone, and
the high seas from vessels, and it ap-
plies to discharges from both onshore
and offshore facilities.
The bill requires that immediate no-
tice be given of all discharges of these
substances in any substantial quantity
by individuals in charge of a vessel or
onshore or offshore facility. It re-
quires that such notice be given either
to the Secretary- of the Interior or to
the Coast Guard. This, of course, per-
mits immediate remedial action. It
allows us to accomplish the appropriate
steps to remove the discharged oil or
matter as expeditiously as possible.
The bill provides penalties up to $5,000
or 1 year in prison or both for failure
to comply with this notification require-
ment.
The bill strictly prohibits the dis-
-------
1634
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
charges of oil and matter from vessels
except in emergency situations or ex-
cept where it is permitted by interna-
tional convention. It establishes civil
penalties for violations of this section
in an amount up to $10,000 if the dis-
charge was willful or negligent.
It directs that the United States re-
move or arrange for the removal of any
oil or matter that is discharged into
any water or onto any shoreline or
beach when, in the judgment of the
Secretary of the Interior, such dis-
charged oil or matter presents an ac-
tual or threatened pollution hazard.
The United States would exercise this
authority, of course, only if it is deter-
mined that the owner or the operator
of the vessel or facility has not made
adequate arrangements to complete the
removal of the oil or the other hazard-
ous matter as required by the bill.
The bill authorizes the United States
to remove or destroy a vessel in the nav-
igable waters when a marine disaster
creates a substantial pollution threat
to the United States.
In those cases the cost of removing
the vessel would be levied against the
vessel, its cargo, and the owner or op-
erator of the vessel where it can be
established that the negligent opera-
tion of the vessel caused or contributed
to the marine disaster.
The bill requires the owner or opera-
tor of such a vessel or of an onshore or
offshore facility to remove the dis-
charged oil or other harmful matter
immediately, or to pay for the cost of
removal up to the limits of liability
provided in the bill if the United States
takes that action.
The bill does provide for limitations
of liability to the United States for the
cost of removing or cleaning up. In
the case of a vessel discharging oil or
pollution into the water, the maximum
limit of liability is $10 million or $100
per gross registered ton, whichever is
the lesser. This is substantially more
than our experience thus far has in-
dicated that any cleanup has cost, and
we believe by reason of this limitation
that we have adequately protected the
United States.
The committee heard in its hearings
representatives of the insurance indus-
try, some of whom came all the way
from Great Britain to testify for us.
Those representatives of groups in-
suring some 80 percent of the free
world's shipping tonnage discussed
with us their thoughts as to what the
maximum insurable liability would be.
We have tried to take their knowledge-
able testimony into account.
With regard to onshore and offshore
facilities—fixed installations as distin-
guished from moving vessels—the bill
provides an $8 million maximum lia-
bility limit for costs assumed by the
United States in cleaning up the spills.
This was a particularly difficult and in
some respects a very delicate determi-
nation. Obviously it is much too high
for most situations encompassed in the
scope of the bill. The committee is
conscious of the fact that when we be-
gin to apply a liability upon onshore
facilities that may spill various pollu-
tants into navigable waters of the
United States, then we apply that lia-
bility against almost countless numbers
of large and small enterprises that
exist on the banks of the small streams
that flow into the navigable waters of
the United States.
I would imagine that, in almost any
congressional district represented here,
there would be several hundred enter-
prises, large or small, which would
come under the liability provided in
this bill. Therefore, so as not to pro-
vide an unworkable or an unnatural
liability upon a relatively small busi-
ness institution, we provided in the bill
that the Secretary of the Interior shall
establish by regulation, in consultation
with the Secretary of Commerce and
the Small Business Administrator, rea-
sonable and equitable classifications of
onshore facilities and activities, and
that he will then apply to such classifi-
cations differing limits of liability,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1635
which in many cases will be very con-
siderably less than $8 million.
Everyone can understand that for
many thousands of businesses it would
just be absolutely impossible for them
to gain any sort of indemnification
through insurance or otherwise for a
loss up to $8 million. Therefore, it is
anticipated by the committee that
classifications would take into account
the type and size of the businesses in-
volved as well as their capacity to
inflict pollution damage.
The bill establishes a $20 million re-
volving fund which will be discussed at
greater length by our colleague from
New Jersey (Mr. HOWARD)—who in-
cidentally has probably visited more oil
spills personally than any other Mem-
ber of this
[p. 9025]
House. This $20 million revolving fund
will allow the President to delegate
the authorities to perform an immedi-
ate cleanup if it is necessary for the
Government to act before waiting until
it becomes a serious hazard to health
and property.
The bill requires proof of financial
responsibility for all vessels over 100
gross registered tons and for barges of
equivalent size, which would become
effective 1 year after the enactment of
the bill.
Mr. Chairman, as one who has fought
for effective pollution control legisla-
tion for years, I believe this is a long
step forward.
As regards oil pollution and pollution
by other hazardous substances, this is
a landmark piece of legislation. There
can be no doubt that it is strong legis-
lation, very strong legislation.
As I said earlier, if we err then we
err on the side of strength and on the
side of protecting the United States
and the people of the United States.
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WRIGHT. I yield with great
pleasure to a distinguished member of {
the committee, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. HARSHA).
Mr. HARSHA. I rise at this time to
ask the distinguished gentleman from
Texas a series of questions in order that
we may make some legislative history.
As the gentleman knows, section 17
deals not only with the problem of oil
and oil pollution, but also with the
problem of hazardous matter. In that
relation I should like to ask the gentle-
man : Is it intended that section 17 of
the act will in any way permit the Sec-
retary to list substances and concen-
trations in any orders defining
"matter," to permit the Federal Gov-
ernment to bring pressure on any per-
son to discourage him from discharging
substances, where such substances, con-
centrations and discharges are within
the limits of the water quality stand-
ards of the appropriate State?
Mr. WRIGHT. In answer to the
gentleman, I would say section 17 is in
no way intended to alter the State's
water quality standards or its enforce-
ment of them. If there is a situation
in which a material which becomes
classified as "matter" under section 17
is officially permitted to be discharged
under the State's enforcement pro-
gram, then obviously the State's deter-
mination in this instance would be
controlling. The intent of this leg-
islation is to provide a much needed
tool to combat the effects of sudden
spills which, if unreported, might cause
serious damage and which must be
cleaned up in order to preserve our
waters.
Mr. HARSHA. I thank the gentle-
man. Will the gentleman yield fur-
ther?
Mr. WRIGHT. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Ohio.
Mr. HARSHA. May I ask the gen-
tleman this question: Is it intended
that any action will be taken against
any person for failure to report a dis-
charge under section 17 (b) where the
substance discharged has not previ-
ously been listed in an order promul-
-------
1636
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
gated under administrative hearing
processes as presenting an imminent
and substantial hazard to public health
or welfare?
Mr. WRIGHT. The answer to that
question is "No." Obviously, until
such time as the Secretary promul-
gates regulations, as clearly contem-
plated in the bill and directed in the
11 committee report, on page 9 of that
report, no person could be expected to
know what material would be included
on the Secretary's list as hazardous
matter, and consequently no prosecu-
tion under section 17 (b) relating to
"matter" as distinguished from oil
could be undertaken prior to the publi-
cation of the Secretary's list.
As the gentleman is quite well aware,
we have been extremely broad in our
definition of what constitutes "matter."
I might refer to the bill, which defines
"matter" as meaning any substance of
any description or origin which, when
discharged into the navigable waters in
substantial quantities, presents, in the
judgment of the Secretary, an im-
minent and substantial hazard to pub-
lic health or welfare.
Now, there are certain substances ex-
empted by specific reference from this
definition, but the definition of course
is so very broad that the committee
thought it necessary to take note in the
committee report, as it does on page 9,
of the expectation that the Secretary
shall with care compile a specific list-
ing of what constitutes harmful matter.
The committee report declares that
the Secretary will be expected to pub-
lish a list from time to time of the types
of substances included in this defini-
tion in order to inform the public in
accordance with standard administra-
tive procedures. So, until the Secre-
tary has done that, of course, no
prosecutions under that section could
be undertaken.
Mr. HARSHA. I thank the gentle-
man. One final question. Under the
provisions of section 11 (b) which re-
quires State certification prior to the
issuance of a Federal permit, is it not
possible that a State, for reasons other
than water pollution, may refuse to
grant such certification or simply fail
to act upon it? If so, what could the
applicant do?
Mr. WRIGHT. This question was
commented upon by the gentleman
from Florida a bit earlier, and I think
I would rest upon his answer. It is
possible that this particular question
may be subject to an amendment to-
morrow, and pending that time I think
I would not want to make any further
comment on the question.
Mr. HARSHA. Would the gentle-
man yield to the gentleman from Okla-
homa (Mr. EDMONDSON) for some
clarification.
Mr. WRIGHT. I do yield to the gen-
tleman from Oklahoma, who is ex-
tremely knowledgeable on this question
of certification.
Mr. EDMONDSON. I thank the
gentleman for yielding.
I think the committee was interested
in discussing this question and the staff
conceded there was a possibility that
this could happen, but it felt there
would be a relatively remote possibility
of it happening over an extended pe-
riod of time. It is assumed, I think, in
connection with this bill that all of the
people involved in connection with this
pollution control would be acting in
good faith. Particularly I think it is a
sound assumption that your States and
the Federal Government will act in
good faith throughout.
However, if the applicant has reason
to feel that his rights have been inter-
fered with the judicial procedures
available now in the State courts to
require action by the State would be
available to the applicant. In a case
where the Secretary is the certifying
authority, the Federal courts would be
available to the applicant. Once this
act becomes law, it is contemplated
that the entire statute will be construed
in pari materia.
Mr, HUNGATE. Mr. Chairman,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1637
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WRIGHT. I yield to the gen-
tleman.
Mr. HUNGATE. Would the gentle-
man answer this question? Could I in-
quire of the gentleman, in cases where
the State or interstate agencies have
authority to certify the conditions of
discharge in navigable waters, would
certification hy the Secretary of the
Interior also be required?
Mr. EDMONDSON. The only re-
quirement, if the gentleman will yield,
as I understand it, is the Federal cer-
tification would be in a situation in
which the State did not have standards
established and a certifying procedure
itself.
Mr. HUNGATE. Would the gentle-
man yield further?
Mr. WRIGHT. I yield to the gen-
tleman.
Mr. HUNGATE. I am referring to the
provision on page 74 of the bill, line 18,
where it says:
Except that (1) if any affected State or
the Secretary, if his certification is involved,
after notice, which shall be given by such
Federal agency, makes written objection,
such certification may not be so accepted . .
That does not mean that the Secre-
tary of the Interior then could object in
a situation where the State had made
its certification, does it?
Mr. EDMONDSON. I would not
construe it that way. I would think the
alternative that is stated here would be
consistent in the situation, that if the
affected States had given certification,
that that would be the route you would
follow. And, if you had a Secretary's
certification involved in it you would
then be confronted with the regular
procedure.
Mr. HUNGATE. I thank the gen-
tleman.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WRIGHT. I yield to the gentle-
man from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. This bill does not pro-
vide for the creation of a new commis-
sion or hoard, does it?
I have not been able to discover such
language in it.
Mr. WRIGHT. The bill provides for
the creation of no new commission, no
new board, no new agency. In one in-
stance it changes the name of an exist-
ing agency.
Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman
from Texas.
Mr. WRIGHT. I should like to say
in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, that this
is
[p. 9026]
strong legislation. It is broad in its
application, stringent in its prohibi-
tions. I believe that it will provide a
very useful adjunct to that legislation
already existing on the books in our
continuing battle to clean up and pu-
rify the streams and waters of the
United States, and prevent their fur-
ther defilement.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I
yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
HARSHA).
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of H.R. 4148. The im-
portance of this legislation may be seen
from the number of activities which it
covers and the broadness of its scope.
This legislation deals with offshore fa-
cilities, onshore facilities, acid mine
drainage, lake pollution, education and
training of water quality control per-
sonnel, and licensing and permit con-
siderations. As such, it affects in some
degree nearly every family in the
United States. It goes to nearly every
activity—government or private, State
or Federal, civilian or military.
Legislation that comes to grips with
so many problems in so many diverse
areas is not simple. There are many
difficult problems that have been dealt
with in the attempt to protect the
quality of our waters.
Mr. Chairman, simple solutions to
difficult problems are extremely rare if
they exist at all. We would be pre-
-------
1638
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
sumptuous if \ve claimed that the bill
prepared by the committee provides a
set of simple solutions, because, Mr.
Chairman, we have dealt with difficult
problems. The legislation before the
House was arrived at after much dif-
ficulty and study over the last year and
a half. I feel confident that the solu-
tions that we have proposed are the
best that we can propose at this time,
and, therefore, urge the Members to
support the bill, H.R. 4148, as pre-
sented by the committee.
In doing so, Mr. Chairman, I should
like to invite the attention of the Mem-
bers to the very fine and diligent work
that has been done by the members and
the staff of the committee in preparing
this legislation. I think that all Mem-
bers will agree, when they have had an
opportunity to study the provisions of
this bill, that it reflects a high degree
of professional competence upon the
part of the staff and of real diligence
upon the part of the members.
Mr. ROBISON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. MARSHA. I yield to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr. ROBISON. Mr. Chairman, I ap-
preciate the gentleman from Ohio
yielding, so that I may take just a
moment or two to congratulate the
Committee on Public Works, on which
I had the pleasure of serving for some
7 years before beginning my present
committee assignment, on bringing out
this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, my particular in-
terest in this legislation, as some of the
members of the committee will recall,
relates to the growing national prob-
lem with reference to thermal dis-
charges or cooling waters being
released from steampower plants,
whether fired by fossil fuels or fired by
nuclear energy.
I am especially interested, Mr. Chair-
man, in section 11 (b) of the bill now
pending before us.
It seems to me that this section does
exactly what ought to be done now in
this area of concern in that it does
reach toward a national solution to
what is rapidly becoming a national
problem.
As I understand section 11 (b), it will
require that an applicant for a Federal
license or permit for a facility which
may discharge cooling waters into the
navigable waters of the United States
must first provide the Federal agency
issuing a license or permit in connec-
tion with that facility, with a certifica-
tion from the affected State or States,
or interstate water pollution control
agency, that the activity will be con-
ducted in a manner that will not reduce
the quality of the waters below appli-
cable water quality standards.
I would like to say to the gentleman,
if he will permit me to, that this has
become a matter of serious concern in
my own State and in my own congres-
sional district where a nuclear power-
plant is in the preconstruction stage.
And, if anyone on the committee has
wondered whether or not the States
would be responsible for moving into
this field, I can report to the commit-
tee that the New York State Water Re-
sources Commission has been holding
public hearings around our State on its
tentative criteria in this field of ther-
mal discharge, or thermal pollution.
It is important also to know that, in
adopting those tentative criteria, our
State water resources commission did,
generally speaking, accept the recom-
mendations as made in this area last
fall by the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration after making
a study of the problem.
Mr. HARSHA. I thank the gentle-
man. I certainly want to commend the
gentleman on his views in this partic-
ular field. The committee listened with
a great deal of interest to his testimony,
and gave very serious consideration to
his views. The gentleman made very
significant contributions toward these
matters during the past leading to the
formation of this legislation, as he al-
ways did when he served on the com-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1639
mittee several years ago.
Mr. ROBISON. If the gentleman
will yield further, Mr. Chairman, on
page 8 of the report reference is made
to the question of whether or not sep-
arate certificates ought to be required,
both at the time of an applicant ap-
plying for and obtaining a Federal
construction permit, and then later on
at the time that same applicant applies
for a Federal permit to operate and
maintain the plant as now constructed.
On page 8 of the committee report it
is stated:
Based on testimony by the Commission,
the committee has concluded that the very
different character of the two applications,
the long period of time that elapses between
their issuance, and the uncertainty as to the
finality of plans at the construction license
stage, all support the requirements for certi-
fication with respect to both applications.
Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will
permit, I would merely like to take this
moment to encourage the Committee of
the Whole, and the Members of the
House in their respective wisdom, to re-
tain this requirement, if a question
should arise on this, not only just for
the reasons that are stated in the com-
mittee report, but, it seems to me, for
one more reason, which is that as re-
search goes forward in this field, about
which we know all too little yet, we
may well learn a great deal more about
thermal pollution and the effects of
thermal discharges than we do now.
As 3 or 4 years may elapse between the
time of a construction permit being
granted for a nuclear powerplant, and
then the operational permit being
granted for that plant, it would be well
for the Committee to hold intact this
language as it is in the bill, and as
mentioned in the report, requiring cer-
tification in both separate instances.
Mr. HARSHA. As the gentleman
points out, it is precisely for these rea-
sons that we collaborated on this, and
that the committee put that provision
in the bill.
However, I am not at all saying that
this is a matter that is not under dis-
cussion at the present time, and I can-
not advise the gentleman as to whether
or not any amendments will be offered
to that particular effect.
Mr. ROBISON. Mr. Chairman, I
appreciate the gentleman yielding.
Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. HARSHA. I yield to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding.
On the point that my colleague from
New York raised, on two certifications,
or whatever number they might be,
whenever there is a license applied for,
let me say first to my colleague, of
which I am sure he is aware, this ap-
plies to other matters other than just
steamplant power generating facilities,
it applies to anything where a license
is required. Nevertheless, while I
share the concern of the gentleman on
the adequacy of those standards, and
as the gentleman has pointed out, that
there is an intervening lapse of time
of maybe 3 or 4 years between a con-
struction license and an operating li-
cense in the case of a powerplant with
a thermal discharge, I believe we have
got to give careful consideration to
what burden we are placing on all
these facilities.
Mr. Chairman, as I understand it,
our power needs, for example, are
doubling every decade in this country.
In our own State of New York, and in
many other States, I would say to my
colleagues, we are seeing steam gener-
ating plants, as the gentleman has
pointed out, either fossil fueled or
atomic fueled, under construction, and
some coming on the line in operation.
Now, should there be a change in
water quality standards in the inter-
vening, shall we say 4 years, between
the time when the construction license
is granted and when the application is
made for an operating license, we could
place a very serious burden upon this
type of generating facility. And not
only that, in the case of public au-
-------
1640
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
thorities in this field, as \ve have in the
State of New York, we could jeopardize
that authori-
[p. 9027]
ty's ability to finance these needed
plants.
So I say to the gentleman, that I share
his concern in this matter, and I share it
concerning these two times of construc-
tion and operation, but also that we not
place a burden upon these facilities that
they will be unable to meet, or have an
adverse influence upon the confidence
of those who are investing in them.
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may consume to the gen-
tleman from Minnesota (Mr. ZWACH) .
Mr. ZWACH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
support of H.R. 4148. Not only does this
bill provide for a method of dealing with
oil pollutants, it also has a small section
authorizing research on other pollutants
affecting our inland lakes.
My home State happens to have about
one-seventh of the entire U.S. total of
inland lakes. We are and have been
proud of them and until recently, have
been able to cope with siltation and
eutrophication problems. Now with
much greater use of these lakes for rec-
reational and residential purposes, cou-
pled with the wash-in of surrounding
soils or fertilizer, some new methods
must be developed to return these lakes
to beautiful, cold water bodies. This
research can be done by contracts from
the Secretary to public or private groups
or individuals.
This condition must be prevalent in
most of our Nation's 100,000 lakes. It is
a problem that should no longer be
delayed. I urge my colleagues to sup-
port this bill.
Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Chairman, I
wholeheartedly support this legislation,
and I wish to commend my colleagues
on the Public Works Committee and the
chairman of the subcommittee and
the chairman of the full committee for
the amount of time they have given to
this problem of water pollution and oil
pollution, and to commend them for the
legislation that is before us today.
I especially wish to commend the gen-
tleman from Texas (Mr. WRIGHT) for his
statement concerning this vital problem
of oil pollution. Mr. WRIGHT discussed
the controls that we will have in the
future, the responsibilities that oil car-
riers do have to the public and to the
beaches, the fact that installations must
also concern themselves with precau-
tions and be prepared to take responsi-
bility for accidents that do occur.
But there is also the problem, Mr.
Chairman, from the viewpoint of those
who are on the beach, the ones who will
have the oil on their sand, killing their
shellfish and their fish, where they do
not know in which direction to point the
blame. The vessels are to be responsible,
but what about the ship that passes in
the night. All too often in recent years
we have found instances where early one
morning the Coast Guard or a commer-
cial fisherman will report a huge oil slick
off the coast coming toward the shore of
some seaside resort. And no one knows
where it came from for sure. They are
not sure which vessels had passed by re-
cently. Therefore, we must have some-
thing in addition besides the regulations
that will charge certain vessels or in-
stallations that have dumped the oil
with the responsibility of paying for the
cleanup.
So I am very happy, Mr. Chairman,
that in this legislation there is estab-
lished a revolving fund of $20 million
which will be used in the cleanup of
these oil spillages. Of course, we know
that where blame can be fixed, the ex-
pense of the cleanup will be paid back
and that will keep the fund in an on-
going basis, because it is expected that
the appropriation will be a one-time ap-
propriation. It will also protect the vital
beaches so the economy of an entire area
will not be ruined because of an oil spill-
age when the Coast Guard, the Depart-
ment of the Interior, or the Government
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1641
does not know in which direction to
point in fixing the blame. We must be
prepared to take quick action against
these spillages.
In 1967, when the first major oil crisis
came with the crackup of the Torrey
Canyon off the coast of England, it was
seen at that time that even though work
was begun immediately to try to combat
the oil, much of it hit the beaches. It
went into the harbors. It fouled the
shoreline. About a month and a half
after that occurrence I visited the area,
and found that although the beaches
were clean, there were several problems
that this seaside area still had. First, at
that time we did not have enough re-
search to know what kind of materials
to use, and there was a kerosene base
used in the dispersals. That left a tre-
mendous kerosene odor along the beach-
front area.
We found also that there were deter-
gents used in this dispersal which, in
many instances, caussd shellfish and
other fish to be ruined and sport fishing
to be stopped for many years in the area.
In one town after another, whether it
were Port Land's End, or St. Ives, we
found the people concerned about the
economic future of their area. They
were telling the people in London and
around England that the beaches were
cleaned up now that summer was com-
ing. Come and visit us. And, naturally,
spend your money here. But they found
that because of the uncertainty, because
the people in the country did not want to
take a chance on those beaches being
clean, many of them, in the case of the
village of St. Ives, had its summer econ-
omy damaged to the tune of 90 percent
of the previous year's income. The
Ocean Eagle, which the gentleman from
Massachusetts discussed a moment ago,
pointed out the need for a program. We
are very happy that a program is now
being implemented which we hope will
soon be approved by the President when
it is presented to him so that the Coast
Guard will have the responsibility and
the authority to move quickly in this
area and be able to clean up our beaches.
There are many other areas of oil pollu-
tion where we cannot depend on saying,
"We will have the person who caused
it pay for it."
Many of us found to our surprise just
a year or so ago that around the coast-
line of the United States there are 103
known oil tankers—and their position is
known—that had been sunk during
World War II. We are not certain
whether many of these tankers still con-
tain oil. We feel some of them probably
do. Now it is approximately 20 years
later, and what would we do if these
tankers should burst, as has been sus-
pected in the past couple of years, and
the oil from a World War II tanker
should come to the shore?
Mr. Chairman, with this section on
the revolving fund, we can be certain
the economy of our seashore areas will
remain constant and we will have pro-
tection of the Coast Guard, and the
Coast Guard will be ready and willing
to move so we can keep the economy of
these vital resort areas producing rev-
enues, which will help taxpayers all over
the country.
Mr. Chairman, I am certain the bill
will pass. I hope it will pass unani-
mously. I commend all the members of
the subcommittee for bringing this fine
legislation before the House.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HOWARD. I yield to the gentle-
man from Texas.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I think
this committee and the House Members
all are indebted to the gentleman from
New Jerssy for his pronounced interest
in the matter of pollution of the beaches
and shores of this and other countries.
I am certain there is no Member of Con-
gress who has more diligently pursued
the effort to clean up the beaches of the
country and to prevent insofar as pos-
sible further spillages. The gentleman
from New Jerssy has personally visited
many places throughout the world, in-
cluding Great Britain and Puerto Rico
-------
1642
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
and places off the coast of New Jersey
and elsewhere, in his vital interest in
this matter.
Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. CLAU-
SEN).
Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chair-
man, I do not think it is necessary to
elaborate on what has already been
stated in the presentation of the bill,
other than to say I believe it is very
timely.
I do want to extend to the committee
members as a Californian my personal
appreciation for the time they have
given to the very unique problem that
occurred off the coast of Santa Barbara.
I think what has occurred off the coast of
California has, in fact, focused national
attention on a major problem—that of
maintaining some semblance of environ-
mental control and man's impact in this
regard.
I also compliment the gentleman from
Florida in particular for advancing the
idea of the necessity of developing a
training program in order to implement
that which is legislated here at the
national level. Time and time again as
we have listened to the testimony before
our committee, as we would legislate
the necessary authorizational funds, we
would find we would not have the ad-
ministrative and sanitation engineering
com-
[p. 9028]
petency, out at the grassroots level,
that could carry out the program as ini-
tially intended by the Congress of the
United States. So I believe this pro-
gram which will give substance to an
adequate training program will have a
tremendous impact on the ultimate suc-
cess and objectives of this legislation. I
strongly support its passage.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield
to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
STEIGER) such time as he may consume.
Mr. STEIGER of Wisconsin. Mr.
Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 4148,
the Water Quality Improvement Act of
1969.
There is one particular portion of this
act which I would especially like to call
to the attention of my colleagues. That
is section 5 (g) which reads:
The Secretary is authorized to enter into
contracts with, or make grants to, public or
private agencies and organizations and in-
dividuals for the purpose of developing and
demonstrating new or improved methods for
the prevention, removal and control of nat-
ural or manmade pollution in lakes, includ-
ing the undesirable effects of nutrients and
vegetation.
Mr. Chairman, there are over 100,000
lakes in the United States. In Wisconsin
alone we have 8,676 lakes which cover a
total of 1,138,374 acres. I think it is im-
portant to remember that 97.2 percent
of all the water on earth is contained in
the oceans. The ice caps and glaciers
contain 2.15 percent. The remainder—
only 0.65 percent of all the water on the
surface and underground—is available to
man for drinking, cooking, and such
purposes necessary to sustain him and
enrich his life. Put in this perspective,
our inland lake resources become vitally
important.
While the demand and need for water
pollution control is growing money
committed to cleaning the Nation's water
resources does not match the priority
of the job. And our lack of complete
knowledge of the process of lake eutro-
phication and its contributing factors
and in treatment of the situation, makes
research and demonstration projects
mandatory if our money is to be well
spent and our fresh water resources
enhanced.
Without the proper research and dem-
onstration for control of pollution in
lakes, we could very well spend large
sums of money, and still not have the
job done.
This is the importance of section 5 (g)
of this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I first introduced this
provision as a separate bill in August
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1643
1967. Review of that bill by the Depart-
ment of the Interior resulted in a new
bill, H.R. 13312, which was supported by
the Secretary and subsequently incorpo-
rated into the 1968 Omnibus Water Pol-
lution Control Amendments. Although
differences existed between the House
and Senate on portions of the omnibus
bill, both bodies approved the clean lakes
provision.
Once again we have an omnibus wa-
ter pollution control bill before us, and
once again it includes the "clean lakes"
provision.
Every year that passes makes our task
more difficult and more demanding. I
strongly urge favorable action on this
bill.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. FEIGHAN) .
Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Chairman, we are
considering legislation today which deals
with the complexities of water pollution
control. The Santa Barbara oil spill and
other similar disasters have demon-
strated the urgent need for improved
laws in the control of water pollution.
H.R. 4148, the Water Quality Improve-
ment Act, is designed to respond to these
particular needs in a number of ways.
The bill makes the owner or operator of
a vessel liable for oil discharge or spill-
age cleanup costs up to $10 million or
$100 per gross ton. Criminal penalties
would be imposed against individuals
operationally responsible for vessels,
who fail to promptly report a discharge
of oil or other polluting matter to the
Coast Guard or Secretary of the Interior.
The bill also provides for civil penalties
against vessel owners or operators in
case of willful or negligent discharge
and it authorizes the Government to
clean up the damage to beaches from
pollution regardless of source, providing
for appropriate reimbursement by the
offending business.
Mr. Chairman, the fact that oil is a
serious water pollutant is clearly evident.
From January 1968 through February
1989, a period of 14 months, the Great
Lakes witnessed a total of 21 oil spills.
In addition to its contamination of
water, shoreline, and beaches, oil often
has severe effects on fish and wildlife,
shellfish, and recreation. The use of
harmful chemicals to treat oil spills may
in themselves produce severe ecological
damage.
In addition to oil, the discharge of un-
treated sewage from vessels and other
installations is another major source of
pollution. Installation of preventive de-
vices for effective sewage treatment will
be necessary if this bill is enacted.
Several million dollars will also be chan-
neled into extensive research, develop-
ment, and training programs to achieve
maximum effectiveness in the operation
of our water quality control facilities.
Clean water should be a right of every
U.S. citizen. It is the duty of the Gov-
ernment to maintain and protect this
right. Unfortunately, the Government
is not sufficiently protecting or maintain-
ing this right. Recreational, commercial,
and industrial interests have been se-
verely impaired by the lack of adequate
water pollution control throughout the
Nation.
The Great Lakes area, in 1966, con-
ducted over one-fourth of the Nation's
manufacturing activity. Projected esti-
mates for the Great Lakes area predict
a doubling of the population within 50
years, with industrial activity increasing
at least fourfold, if not more. Such fore-
casts are indicative of the immediate
steps that must be taken to improve and
maintain our water resources. A genu-
ine commitment to adequate preventive
laws and sufficient funding so that new
technological discoveries can be applied
to all our Nation's waterways, is essen-
tial if we expect to achieve proper re-
sults. The people of Cleveland have
expressed their wholehearted support
for antipollution efforts by recently
approving a $100 million bond issue to
improve the water quality of Lake Erie.
An amendment will be offered calling
for the establishment of a national pol-
lution disaster fund to respond to the
-------
1644
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
specific needs of the Great Lakes and
other environmental disaster areas. The
amendment, to be offered by my col-
league, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
VANIK) , is almost identical to legislation
we introduced earlier this year along
with several other Members of the
House. The amendment authorizes an
appropriation of $100 million for the es-
tablishment of a pollution disaster fund
within the Treasury Department to pro-
vide corrective relief to those areas in
the Great Lakes, the Continental Shelf,
or the United States, which are in en-
vironmental crises. To determine how
these moneys are to be allocated, a
seven-man Commission would be set
up, composed of four experts in the field
of biology, ecology, and conservation,
and three representatives of the general
public.
It is generally acknowledged that Lake
Erie is one of the most severely polluted
waterways in this country. This amend-
ment will assist in upgrading the quality
of its water as well as providing careful
attention to the changing environmental
conditions affecting the ecology of the
water. It is the duty of this Congress to
revive not only Lake Erie, but also our
other water resources and to make them,
once again, enjoyable and usable areas
for the citizens of the United States.
This amendment and the Water Quality
Improvement Act of 1969 deserve our
enthusiastic support.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may require to the gen-
tleman from Illinois (Mr. GRAY), a
member of the committee.
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I riss in support of H.R.
4148, a great legislative blow at dirty
water and stream pollution. This legis-
lation is a real prescription for a health-
ier nation and its people.
Mr. Chairman, for years our scientific
and technical expertise was not sufficient
to find ways of eliminating the pollution
of our lakes, streams, and rivers. We
did not know as much about industrial
waste and sewerage disposal plants.
Thanks to our great American know-
how, we have the methods but not
enough money. States, local communi-
ties, and private industry can not do the
job alone. They must have help.
For every Federal dollar we spend we
will see many times more in non-Federal
money invested in clean water. Without
the Federal money being available as
saed money, the other sources will not be
moved to invest. This is why we must
continue the great work started by the
Congress.
We must find ways of attaining the
funds for this program
The bill is another step forward. It
brings in to full pollution control for the
first time—oil spillage and sewage from
oil wells as well as thermal pollution.
It continues needed and necessary re-
search in all fields affecting polluted
[p. 9029]
water. Coming from southern Illinois
where we have the Ohio River on one
side of my district and the Mississippi
on the other, with four major river
basins in between, we certainly know
how difficult it is to find enough funds to
stop pollution. With the help of the Fed-
eral Government we are now doing the
job. I want to commend our great chair-
man of the full Committee on Public
Works, the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. FALLON), the outstanding chairman
of the Subcommittee on Rivers and Har-
bors, the gentleman from Minnesota
(Mr. BLATNIK), all the members of the
committee on both sides of the aisle. I
also want to thank our outstanding gen-
eral counsel of the committee, Mr.
Sullivan for his untiring efforts. It is a
real privilege to serve on this important
committee of the House and to be able to
recommend to my colleagues the enact-
ment of this most important bill.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from Okla-
homa (Mr. EDMONDSON) .
Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, I
riss in support of H.R. 4148, and I want
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1645
to express my personal appreciation to
the very able chairman of our full com-
mittee and several subcommittee chair-
men who have joined in working on this
bill, along with, I believe, one of the
most able staffs in the Capitol—the staff
of the Public Works Committee opera-
tion.
The bill, H.R. 4148, does a number of
things which seems to me to be long
overdue.
One of the things it endeavors to do
is to promote a much better program of
cooperation among the Federal agencies
in the control of pollution. One of the
strange and embarrassing things about
the pollution problem which exists in
many areas is that the Federal Govern-
ment itself has sometimes been a culprit
with considerable responsibility for the
pollution problem which is present. This
is something that subsections 11 (a) and
11 (b) endeavor to deal with.
Subsection 11 (a) requires that every
Federal agency having jurisdiction over
any real property or facility of any kind
shall, within available appropriations
and consistent with the interests of the
United States, insure compliance with
applicable water quality standards. This
section puts into law what is now con-
tained in an executive order. It deals
directly with procedures for control of
pollution caused by the administration
or actual operation, either directly or by
contract, of federally held real property
or facilities.
In attempting to insure that Federal
facilities will be in compliance with the
applicable water quality standards, the
problems to be considered, the priorities
to be assessed, and the relative values
and public interests to be weighed, are
yery much akin to the problems, pri-
orities, and interests which must be
taken into account by a State when it is
establishing water quality standards for
a given area, by industries when they are
making decisions on how and where they
will expand capital investment, and by
local governments in attempting to
achieve a balance among health and
welfare, economic development poten-
tial, and supportable tax structure.
The Federal Government must allo-
cate its available tax revenues among a
great many priorities. Subsection 11 (a)
is designed to insure that the maximum
extent possible, the Federal Government
will conduct its own operations in a
manner to control and prevent water
pollution.
To further insure that the Federal
Government will cooperate to the maxi-
mum extent possible with the States in
achieving compliance with water quality
standards, subsection 11 (b) requires that
any applicant for a license or permit
from a Federal agency when the activity
involved will discharge into the navi-
gable waters must first obtain from the
State or States involved a certification
that the operation of the activity will not
reduce the quality of the water below the
State's water quality standards.
There are some instances in which a
State or interstate agency may at least
for the present not have the authority to
issue the certification and there are other
instances in which water quality stand-
ards are issued by the Secretary. In
both cases, the Secretary will provide the
required certification. Where licenses or
permits are required for more than one
Federal agency for the same activity, the
certification obtained for the first license
involved will be sufficient for the suc-
ceeding licenses and permits. This is to
insure that neither the applicant nor the
State be burdened with duplicating per-
mits for a single activity. However, if
either the Secretary or a State has reason
to believe the original certificate is not
sufficient for succeeding purposes, it may
make its objections known and require
additional certification.
The ability to use an original certifi-
cate for a succeeding permit does not
apply, however, to an applicant for an
operating license or permit. This situa-
tion arises specifically with respect to
nuclear generating plants where con-
siderable time elapses between the issu-
ance of the permits for the building of
-------
1646
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
the plant and the operating license for its
actual operation.
This time lag can be anywhere from
4 to 7 years, and construction plans upon
which the construction permit is based
are not always sufficiently precise to
insure the kind of operation that is con-
templated. Also, because of the length
of time involved, external as well as
engineering changes could occur, and we
believe the additional safeguard of ob-
taining a second certification at the
time the operating license is obtained is
necessary.
A further safeguard has been written
into this section to take care of the situ-
ation where actual physical construction
of the facility itself has been started
prior to enactment of this act. Actual
physical construction means excavation
or building. Property acquisition, con-
struction of roads or similar preliminary
activity would not satisfy the require-
ment for exemption from certification.
In the case where the license or permit
has already been issued, a 2-year period
beginning with the date of enactment is
granted and within that time the person
having the permit is required to obtain
the certification otherwise required.
Two years saems an adequate time to
bring the existing construction into
conformance.
Renewals of licenses or permits which
come within this ssction are considered
to be new applications for the purposes
of this act.
A wide variety of licenses and per-
mits—construction, operating, and oth-
erwise—are issued by various Federal
agencies. Many of them involve activi-
ties or operations potentially affecting
water quality. The purpose of subsec-
tion 11 (b) is to provide reasonable as-
surance that no license or permit will be
issued by a Federal agency for an ac-
tivity that through inadequate planning
or otherwise could in fact become a
source of pollution.
The language of the legislation is
intended to eliminate duplicating cer-
tification requirements, and to afford a
safeguard against too broad a use of the
single certification.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDMONDSON. I yield at this
time to my good friend and one of the
most respected Members of the House,
the chairman of the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy, the gentleman from
California (Mr. HOLIFIELD) .
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I thank my friend
for yielding.
On page 8 of this report, the second
paragraph from the bottom, starting
with the words "the Atomic Energy
Commission has informed the commit-
tee," there are outlined a number of
individuals and facilities which are li-
censed by the Commission to possess and
use limited quantities of nuclear mate-
rials that might, in minute quantities, be
disposed of through a waste disposal sys-
tem. It is said, "It is not intended that
subsection 11 (b) apply to these specific
types of licenses or permits."
I am a little concerned that the de-
lineation of just those few entities might
preclude others in the same category,
so I will ask the chairman of the com-
mittee, Mr. FALLON, at this time a ques-
tion with relation to the clarification of
this part of the report.
My question is this: Am I correct in
believing that the committee intended
to exempt from subsection 11 (b) cover-
age activities under AEC license not
involving discharges directly into navi-
gable waters, and not just those activities
specifically identified in the report on
H.R. 4148, on page 8?
Mr. FALLON. I say to my distin-
guished colleague that he is correct.
The language on page 8 of the committee
report concerning the inapplicability of
subsection 11 (b) to certain AEC mate-
rials licenses was intended to be illustra-
tive, not selective or exhaustive. Where
the discharge from the licensed activity
will be in minute amounts and will not
be disposed of directly into navigable
waters, the license for any such activity
is not subject to the subsection's require-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1647
ments.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I thank the gentle-
man very much for that clarification.
I want to say, I think this is a good
[p. 9030]
bill, and I am supporting it. I am very
much interested in control of water pol-
lution, and I appreciate particularly the
handling of the problem as a result of
the oil spillage in the Santa Barbara
channel off the coast of California.
There are one or two other little points
in the bill I may want to discuss to-
morrow, during the amending period.
Otherwise, I think it is a very good bill
and I intend to support it.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. EDMONDSON. I thank the gen-
tleman from California.
May I say, on behalf of the entire
Committee on Public Works, we deeply
appreciate the manner in which the gen-
tleman from California, as the chairman
of one of the major joint committees of
the Congress, has brought to the com-
mittee's attention in detail questions
which that committee which he heads
has raised concerning this legislation.
I think that the presentation that was
made to our committee on this subject
by the gentleman from California (Mr.
HOLIFIELD) has been most helpful to an
understanding of the problems of the
Atomic Energy Commission by our com-
mittee. I am hopeful that it will be pos-
sible to work out tomorrow, when we get
to the stage of considering amendments
under the 5-minute rule to this bill,
language that will be acceptable to the
gentleman and his committee in con-
nection with sections 11 (a) and 11 (b),
which I understand created most of the
concern in his committee.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I thank the gentle-
man for his interest and mention to the
House the fact that the gentleman from
Oklahoma is now the latest member of
the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy
and rapidly becoming one of the valu-
able members of that committee. I do
appreciate his assistance as well as the
assistance of the staff of the Committee
on Public Works as well as the chair-
man, the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. EDMONDSON. I thank the gen-
tleman very much.
I might add that we have had made
available to us an excellent summary
legal analysis on the Federal-State juris-
diction with regard to regulating atomic
energy. At the appropriate time, when
we go back into the House, I intend to
ask permission to have this document
made a part of the RECORD. This is a very
fine piece of work and something that is
useful to all of the membership both as
a part of the permanent RECORD and also
for study for tomorrow in advance of
the consideration of amendments in
which the gentleman from California has
expressed interest.
The material referred to follows:
SUMMARY LEGAL ANALYSIS ON FEDERAL AND
STATE JURISDICTION To REGULATE ATOMIC
ENERGY
In examining the Federal-State relation-
ships respecting the regulation of atomic en-
ergy, it is important to note the history of
the various legislative enactments concerning
atomic energy Under the Atomic Energy
Act of 1946.' the Nation's first such legisla-
Footnotes at end of article
tion, atomic energy was enveloped in an al-
most aii-tight Government monopoly The
possession, use, transfer, export, import, etc.,
of source, byproduct and fissionable mate-
rials - were subject to pervasive Atomic
Energy Commission regulatory controls.
Moreover, except in certain enumerated and
very limited circumstances, facilities for the
production of fissionable material (eg. nu-
clear reactors) could not be owned by anyone
(including agencies and departments of the
Federal Government) other than the AEC,'
and under no circumstances could there be
ownership of fissionable materials by any-
one other than the AEC ' The Act wrought
modifications of the patent system unprece-
dented in American history—certain inven-
tions and discoveries pertaining to atomic
energy were removed entirely from the regu-
lar patent system,'1 and certain others, while
patentable. were subject to compulsory li-
censing if found by the Commission to be
affected with the public interest and such
licensing was "necessary to effectuate the
policies and purposes of this Act." ''
Certain of these rigid controls were relaxed
at the time of the passage of the superseding
-------
1648
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Atomic Energy Act of 1954,T but even so, it
can be said that, with respect to the Com-
mission's assigned areas of responsibility, few
other statutes confer upon an executive
agency the broad powers with which the AEC
is endowed by the Act's terms. The patent
provisions of the 1954 Act, while somewhat
less far-reaching than those which existed
under the 1946 Act, represent marked de-
partures from the normal patent system in
terms of the controls which they vest in the
AEC over atomic energy inventions and dis-
coveries. The earlier Act's virtual prohibition
against private ownership of "utilization fa-
cilities" (e.g., nuclear power reactors) was
removed with passage of the 1954 Act, ^ how-
ever, it was not until a Congressional enact-
ment as recent as 1964'' that private
ownership of the fuels for such facilities (i e ,
special nuclear material)"1 became permissi-
ble. Moreover, authority for the AEC to
impose a comprehensive and detailed regu-
latory control scheme upon the possession,
use, transfer, export, import, etc of source,
by-product and special nuclear material con-
tinues to reside with the Commission under
the Act " Absolutely no mention was made
by Congress in the 1954 Act of a role for the
states in the regulation of these materials,
and except for one limited provision '- not
relevant to radiological considerations, no
notice was taken of a role for the states in
the regulation of nuclear power reactors
As atomic industrial activity and the num-
ber of trained personnel grew in the years
following passage of the 1954 Act, and as
classification restrictions on atomic informa-
tion were lifted, some states began to develop
an interest in applying their general health
and safety powers to the atomic activities
being carried on within their borders. In
that context. Congress was persuaded of the
advisability of legislation offering to the states
a role and thereby clarifying the respective
roles of the AEC and the states under the
Atomic Energy Act. For that primary pur-
pose. Congress added Section 274 to the Act
in 1959 ' • Under that section the Commission
may relinquish to states, on a state-by-state
basis, certain of its authority to regulate the
use of reactor-produced isotopes, the source
materials uranium and thorium, and small
quantities1' of special nuclear materials
(These materials collectively are referred to
as agreement materials.) In order to relin-
quish any such authority the Commission
must find that the state's regulatory program
is adequate to protect the public health and
safety and is compatible with the AEC's reg-
ulatory program. The Act specifically re-
serves certain areas to the Commission, such
as regulation of the construction and opera-
tion of nuclear reactors (including the dis-
charge of radioactive effluents from the
facility site"), the export and import of
agreement materials, and the ocean disposal
of radioactive wastes To date nineteen
states have entered into agreements with the
AEC to assume the regulatory responsibilities
transferable under Section 274 '"
If any shadow of a doubt existed prior to
1959 that Congress intended to preempt the
regulation of atomic activities insofar as
radiation protection is concerned, the above-
mentioned amendment should have dispelled
that doubt. According to the House and
Senate reports on the legislation which be-
came Public Law 86-373,1T it was the inten-
tion of that law to clarify the responsibilities
of the Federal Government, on the one hand,
and state and local governments, on the
other, with respect to the regulation of by-
product, source and special nuclear materials
in order to protect the health and safety from
radiation hazards The report states:
"It is not intended to leave any room for
the exercise of dual or concurrent jurisdic-
tion by States to control radiation hazards
by regulating byproduct, source, or special
nuclear materials The intent is to have the
material regulated and licensed either by the
Commission, or by the State and local gov-
ernments, but not by both The bill is in-
tended to encourage States to increase vheir
knowledge and capacities, and io enter into
agreements to assume regulatory responsi-
bilities over such materials." 1>v
The comprehensive controls over the vari-
ous nuclear materials, devices (including
weapons) and facilities which the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 and its 1946 precursor
lodged in the AEC; the paramount national
interest in this highly sensitive and impor-
tant field; the significant implications of these
materials, devices, and facilities to public
health and safety and the common defense
and security; and Congress' utter silence in
1946 and 1954 on the role, if any, of the states
in regulating the potential radiological haz-
ards of source, byproduct and special nuclear
materials—all of these quite clearly evidence
a legislative intent to "occupy the field" to
the exclusion of state regulation If any
further evidence were required of Congress'
intention to preempt this field, the legisla-
tive history of Public Law 86-373 provides
it in abundance—indeed, it fairly compels
this conclusion. That Congress under the
supremacy clause of the U S. Constitution has
the power to preempt an entire area of regu-
lation with consequential suspension of state
enactments touching thereon is well settled.19
Such published authorities as have con-
sidered the preemption question in the con-
text of atomic energy unanimously agree that
Congress has preempted substantially the
whole field to the exclusion of the states ex-
cept only state regulation pursuant to an
agreement as provided in section 274.-" For
example, the Attorney General of Michigan
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1649
concluded that-
"We are convinced that under the terms of
the [Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended)
viewed m the legislative history of the 1959
amendment and [m] light of "all that bears
upon its purpose and meaning," Congress in-
tended to place the exclusive and primary
responsibility for regulation of radiation
hazards for the protection of the public
health and safety in the peaceful use of
atomic energy, i e , source, byproduct and
special nuclear material as defined in the Act
in the Atomic Energy Commission and that
it has preempted this field of regulation, with
provision for limited relmquishment thereof,
under the terms of authorized agreements " Jl
The Attorney General of South Dakota
similarly concluded that:
"It is my opinion that the Federal Govern-
ment has preempted the field of protection
of public health from the radiation hazards
associated with atomic energy 42 U S C.A
5 2012, 2014 (c) " --
The New York State Bar Association's
Committee on Atomic Energy, in a study of
the agreement between the State of New York
[p. 9031]
and the Atomic Energy Commission, came to
the same conclusion Its report stated-
"While the United States Supreme Court
has never been required to determine \vhether
the Atomic Energy Act has pre-empted ihe
regulation of atomic activities for radiation
protection purposes, it seems clear that Con-
gress intended so to pre-empt, if not by the
provisions of the 1954 Act, then, certainly by
means of the Federal-state amendment in
1359 In the latter amendment, Congress
came perhaps as close as it has ever come to
stating expressly that a regulatory area has
been pre-empted." -'•
Thi3 conclusion is particularly significant
because the study stemmed trom a provision
in the agreement between the State of New
York and the Commission which indicated
that there were apparent differences of opin-
ion between the Commission and the State
as to the jurisdiction of each
While, as noted above, the U S. Supreme
Court has not specifically ruled on the ques-
tion of preemption under the Atomic Energy
Act, it is significant to note that the two
state courts before which the question has
been raised both agreed that such preemption
had occurred ;| In addition, it is interesting
to note that the National Association of At-
torneys General has reviewed the law and the
proposed transfer of regulatory responsibili-
ties from the AEC to the states and has en-
dorsed the program On April 25, 1962, ihe
Association adopted a resolution favoring
transfer of regulatory responsibilities, the
resolution reading in part "Be it resolved
. . that all states are urged to accelerate
the adoption of such legislation and the de-
velopment of such programs as will permit
the states to enter into agreements with the
Atomic Energy Commission pursuant to P L
86-373 " It is doubtful that any State's At-
torney General would endorse such a program
unless he was confident that the responsibility
rested with the Federal Government and ihat
it could be transferred to the states.
The American Bar Association has also en-
dorsed a program of state assumption of
atomic energy regulatory responsibilities
from the Federal Government, as did the
Governors' Conference in a resolution
adopted on July 2, 1962 It might also be
noted that such other organizations as The
Council of State Governments and the
Chamber of Commerce of the United States
have approved the practice of a transfer of
AEC regulatory responsibilities to the states,
without any expression of concern that a
constitutional issue exists in this connection
Of course, it is not meant by any of the
foregoing to suggest that the regulation of
source, byproduct or special nuclear mate-
rial, or utilization or production facilities,
from other than the standpoint of radio-
logical health and safety is without the au-
ihority of the stales; nor is it meant to
suggest that the regulation, including regu-
lation of the radiological effects, of radioac-
tive materials other than those controlled
by the Atomic Energy Act is beyond ihe reach
of the states except pursuant to a Section 274
agreement -''
There remains the question whether the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPC
Act)J" has the effect of vesting in ihe states
any authority, by their participation in the
setting of water quality standards, over vhe
release of radioactive effluents, which had
been preempted to the Federal Government
by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as
amended. Radioactive effluents from AEC
licensed facilities are discharged to waters
as "interstate" by the FWPC Act.-7
The terms of the FWPC Act, of themselves,
do not speak expressly to the preemption
question ->s The FWPC Act contains no ex-
press provision relating to state authority to
adopt water quality standards applicable to
radioactive affluents, or to the Act's relation-
ship to the Atomic Energy Act.-'11 The legis-
lative history of the 1965 amendments to the
FWPC Act, which added the water quality
standards provisions, indicates that no con-
sideration was given to possible effects on
the jurisdiction of the AEC under the Atomic
Energy Act
It appears quite clear, however, that the
FWPC Act does not affect the AEC's pre-
empted jurisdiction over radioactive efflu-
ents. The FWPC Act provides for the
establishment of standaids applicable to in-
terstate waters which become effective only
when approved by the Secretary of the
-------
1650
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Interior, if established by the state, or when
promulgated by the Secretary in the absence
of acceptable state standards The standards
thus promulgated by the Secretary are then
used in the Federal enforcement proceedings
authorized by the FWPC Act.
Nowhere does the FWPC Act speak in
terms of a grant of authority to the states
to set water quality standards. Prior io die
passage of the 1965 amendments, which
added water quality standard provisions to
the Act, the states had power, pursuant to
the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution,
to set water quality standards and to enforce
them as to interstate waters within their
boundaries '" In actuality, while at least
three-quarters of the states had state legisla-
tion directing or permitting the establishment
of water quality standards and/or stream
classifications, not all these states had ac-
tually adopted standards. In the States which
had adopted standards, both the content of
the standards and the method of application
varied '"
While, in theory, individual states could,
on the basis of such standards, abate pollu-
tion in interstate waters within their bound-
aries, such action was not likely to be
undertaken without the cooperation of other
states involved in the pollution.(-
If Federal abatement action were under-
taken, a choice among, or determination of,
standards to be used in arriving at abate-
ment measures had to be made. Thus, the
statutory pattern of the Federal Water Qual-
ity Act of 1965, now embodied in the FWPC
Act, was to provide for the establishment of
water quality standards consistent with the
expressed purposes of the Act, to be achieved
through review and approval, or promulga-
tion by, the Secretary of the Interior, for use
with respect to interstate waters While ihe
FWPC Act was intended to encourage the
states to develop water quality standards
initially, it did not grant them new authority,
indeed, as noted above under the discussion
of the states' reserved powers under the
Tenth Amendment, except for the preempted
(and limited) field of regulation of the radio-
logical effects of atomic energy materials on
interstate waters—about which the Act and
its legislative history are utterly silent—no
grant to the states of new standard-setting
authority was necessary to achieve the ex-
pressed purpose of the Act Far from show-
ing an indication that the states expected to
add to their jurisdiction over discharges, ihe
hearings on the Federal Water Quality Act
of 1965 exhibit a concern on the part of ihe
states and their representatives that the legis-
lation would preempt the field to the Federal
Government through the requirements for
approval of state standards and/or setting
of standards by the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration for use in Federal
enforcement proceedings '"
On the other hand, the Atomic Energy Act
clearly reserves to the Federal Government
the field of regulation of atomic energy, ex-
cept as that jurisdiction has been relin-
quished to the states under agreement
entered into pursuant to section 274. The
FWPC Act, as noted before, did not grant any
new authority to the states, but has provided
a mechanism for approval of state standards
as a basis for subsequent Federal action
against polluters. Thus, the state role under
that statute may be viewed as limited, at most,
to establishment of standards which the
states have authority to adopt. By reason of
the preemption to the AEC of jurisdiction
over regulation of byproduct, source and spe-
cial nuclear materials, states have no juris-
diction to adopt standards relative io such
materials, including those contained in
effluents, in the absence of an agreement
with the AEC Those states which have en-
tered into agreements are, by the terms of
the agreements, obligated to use their best
efforts to assure that their regulatory pro-
grams continue to be compatible with the
AEC's program •'
One final thought deserves brief mention.
If, contrary to the view expressed above, the
Federal Water Quality Act of 1965 could be
construed as a grant of authority to the
states, this together with the fact that such
authority was granted subsequent to enact-
ment of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and
section 274 thereof in 1959 would in no way
disturb the foregoing conclusions It is a rec-
ognized principle of statutory construction
that subsequent legislation is not presumed
to effectuate an amendment of a law not un-
der consideration, in the absence of an ex-
press amendment, unless the terms of the
subsequent act are so inconsistent with the
provisions of the prior law that they can-
not stand together ••"• No such incompatibility
or inconsistency would appear to exist here
as to lequire invocation of the exception Lo
this general rule of statutory construction.
Based on the foregoing, it seems clear that
the Atomic Energy Act and the FWPC Act
can and should be construed together so as
not to disturb the jurisdiction of the Com-
mission, vis-a-vis the states, under the Atomic
Energy Act This would have the effect of
leaving intact the statutory scheme of sec-
lion 274 which contemplated, among other
things, that regulations for protection
against radiation hazards should be as con-
sistent as possible, while at the same time
preserving the complementary jurisdiction
of the states and the Department of the In-
terior in the area of water pollution.
FOOTNOTES
' Public Law 585, 79th Cong., 60 Stat.
755-75 (1946), hereinafter referred to as ihe
1946 Act.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1651
2 The terms source material, byproduct
material, and fissionable material were the
names given to the various nuclear materials
controlled by the 1946 Act, and were denned
respectively in Sections 5(b)(l), 5(c)(l),
and 5 (a) (1) thereof The term "fissionable
material" was replaced by the term "special
nuclear material" under the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954. See footnote 10, infra
•Sec. 4(c) (1), 1946 Act.
'Sec. 5(a) (2), 1946 Act.
•"' Sec. 11 (a) (1), 1946 Act
"Sec. ll(c) (2) (A) and (B), 1946 Act.
'Public Law 83-703. 68 Stat 919 (1954), as
amended, 42 USC 2011-2281, as amended,
hereinafter referred to as the 1954 Act
" The terms "production facility" and "uti-
lization facility" are defined in Section 11 v
and cc. of the 1954 Act. Except for certain
military activities involving the Department
of Defense, no person within the United
States may transfer or receive in interstate
commerce, manufacture, produce, transfer,
acquire, possess, use, import, or export any
nuclear reactor, nuclear fuels reprocessing
facility, fission product conversion and en-
capsulation plant, or other utilization or
production facility except under and in ac-
cordance with a license issued by the Com-
mission pursuant to section 103 or 104 Sec
101, 1954 Act
"Public Law 88-487, 78 Stat 604 (1964),
the so-called Private Ownership of Special
Nuclear Materials Act
[p. 9032]
'" The term is defined in Sec. 11 aa., 1954
Act Essentially it refers to plutonium, ura-
nium 233, and uranium enriched in the 235
isotope.
11 See Sees 53, 62 and 81, 1954 Act
'-Sec. 271, 1954 Act. as amended by Public
Law 89-135, 79 Stat 551 (1965)
'-Public Law 86-373, 73 Stat 688 (1959).
11 I.e., quantities not sufficient to form a
critical mass
'"•IO CFR « 150 15 (a) (1) (1965).
"• Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California,
Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Hamp-
shire, New York, North Carolina, Oregon,
Tennessee, Texas and Washington
1:H Kept No. 1125, S Kept No 870, 88th
Cong., 1st Sess. (1959)
" Id. at 9
'" See Corwm, Constitution of the United
States of America (1963), p 807.
-'" See, e g , Mich Ops Atty Gen No 4073
(1963); Cavers, State Responsibility m the
Regulation of Atomic Reactors, 50 Ky L J
29, 29-32 (1961); Estep & Adelman, State
Control of Radiation Hazards An Inter-
Governmental Relations Problem, 60 Mich
L Rev 41 (1961), Committee on Atomic En-
ergy, N.Y. State Bar Assn , State Jurisdiction
to Regulate Atomic Activities • Some Key
Questions (July 12, 1963)
-' Opinion No. 4073, October 31, 1962, pp.
G-7.
-" Official Opinion, July 23, 1964, p. 2
- Committee on Atomic Energy, N.Y. State
Bar Assn , State Jurisdiction to Regulate
Atomic Activities Some Key Questions
(1963), supra note 20, pp 4-5.
-'Boswell v City of Long Beach, 1 CCH
Atom En L Rept 4045 (Cal Super Ct,
1960), Northern Cal Assn, etc v. Public
Utilities Commission, 37 Cal Repts 432, 39
P 2d 200 (1962).
J"'Eg, radium, radioactive materials pro-
duced in accelerators. X-ray machines, and
fluoroscopes
-» 33 U S C 466 et seq.
-T That Act defines "interstate waters" as
"all livers, lakes and other waters that ,low
across or form a part of State boundaries, in-
cluding coastal waters" (33 U S C. 466 j (e)).
-"• Section 466 c does, however, provide that
nothing in the Act "shall be construed as
impairing or m any manner affecting any
right or jurisdiction of the States with re-
spect to the waters (including boundary
waters) of such States "
-" Section 14 of the FWPC Act (33 USC.
466 k ) which provides that the Act shall
not be construed as, among other things,
superseding or limiting the functions, under
any other law, of any other officer or agency
of the United States, relating to water pollu-
tion, is not dispositive of questions of pre-
emption Since this section has not been
changed by any of the various amendments
to the Act since 1948, including those sub-
sequent to the addition of section 274 to the
Atomic Energy Act which set forth, in more
or less clear terms, the extent to which states
could exeicise jurisdiction over byproduct,
source and special nuclear material, its re-
tention is evidence of Congressional intent to
preserve the exclusive jurisdiction of the
AEC with respect to discharges containing
such material However, the terms of the
section are not necessarily inconsistent with
a withdrawal of Federal preemptions and
"restoration" of some jurisdiction over atomic
energy materials to the states
'" It may be noted that the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration, in its reg-
ulation relating to procedures for adoption
and promulgation of state standards (18 CFR
Part 620), described them (§620 2 (a)) as
"Water quality standards adopted and
promulgated by a State in accordance with
applicable State law and with section 10(c)
of the Federal Act" (33 F.R 2632).
11 See Water Pollution Control Hearings
Before the Subcommittee on Air and Water
Pollution, Senate Committee on Public
Works, on S 649 et al , 88th Cong , 1st Sess ,
pp. 119-122 S 649 was a bill to amend the
-------
1652
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
FWPC Act, which passed the Senate in the
88th Congress, and contained provisions for
establishing water quality standards for in-
terstate waters somewhat similar to those
in the bill passed by the 89th Congress which
became P L. 89-234, the Water Quality Act
of 1965.
'•- A description of the practical difficulties
in state adoption and enforcement of water
quality standards is found at 111 Cong Rec.
8287-8 (April 28, 1965).
"The Assistant Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation and Welfare, Mr. Quigley, emphasized,
in response to questions from Representa-
tive Harsha of Ohio, that no federal preemp-
tion was intended, and that there was
nothing in the legislation to prevent the states
from raising their standards above the levels
set by the Federal Government (Water Pol-
lution Control Hearings on Water Quality
Act of 1965 before the Committee on Public
Works, House of Representatives, 89th Cong ,
1st Sess , February 18, 19 and 23, 1965, pp.
80-81.)
•" It should be noted that section 274 of
the Atomic Energy Act also establishes the
Federal Radiation Council, and provides for
its functions to include guidance for Federal
agencies in the formulation of radiation
standards and in the establishment and ex-
ecution of programs of cooperation with
states
13 Frost v Wenie, 157 U.S 46 (1895), 1
Sutherland, Statutory Construction, pp. 365-6
Sutherland specifically discusses the queslion
of abrogation of state law by Federal statutes
and the revival of state legislation by repeal
of Federal regulation (§«t 2026, 2027) The
cases cited, however, all concern situations
in which the Federal statute was expressly
repealed or the obstacle to state action re-
moved by express Congressional enactment,
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr.
CLEVELAND).
Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of the Water Quality Im-
provement Act of 1969 and urge its
approval by the House today. This leg-
islation has evolved from the realization
that existing laws are inadequate in
meeting all situations in which pollution
by oil is involved. The disaster which
occurred off the coast of Santa Barbara,
Calif., 3 months ago served to highlight
the need for further legislation, and gave
impetus to this bill.
The Water Quality Improvement Act
of 1969 will give the President the au-
thority and the means to act quickly
should another disaster like that at Santa
Barbara, or one like the breakup of the
tanker Torrey Canyon off the coast of
England, occur within our territorial
waters. It sets up a revolving fund to
clean up oil pollution. It levies a civil
penalty of up to $10,000 in cases involv-
ing willful or negligent discharges of oil
or matter in such quantities that it pre-
sents a pollution hazard. This legislation
holds the owner or operator of a vessel
financially responsible for cleaning up
the pollution which they caused.
The act also deals with the subject of
research and development in the water
pollution field, extending the research
provisions of the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act another 2 years.
REAL ISSUE IS FINANCING
Mr. Chairman, this bill does a great
deal, but I feel that Congress is missing
the point if it does not face up to the
real issue involved in the whole question
of how we control water pollution. That
issue is the question of financing. For
until Congress comes face to face with
the question of where do we get the
money to pay for all the programs we
have passed, and resolves it, the quality
of the water in our rivers and lakes will
continue.
Almost every Congress since I have
been here has enacted at least one water
pollution control measure The Land
and Water Conservation Act of 1964, the
Water Quality Act of 1965, the Clean
Water Restoration Act of 1966, the Water
Quality Improvement Act of 1968, these
are a few that come to mind.
And yet, despite the gains we have
made, and despite all this wonderful
sounding legislation which we have en-
acted, the testimony which we heard
recently in the Public Works Committee
indicates that the situation is only get-
ting worse. And so, Mr. Chairman, until
we face the question of financing, we will
find that the legislation we pass today,
like that which we have enacted before,
will be precious little help in combating
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1653
the pollution hazard which this Nation
faces.
I have been in contact with State offi-
cials in New Hampshire to assess the
opinions on this legislation. Their words
have a familiar ring Mr. William Healy,
executive director of the New Hampshire
Water Supply and Pollution Control
Commission, says the bill is fine, but of
little use to him unless there is some
money behind it. Mr. Clarence Metcalf,
director of municipal services for the
same commission, said that within 6
months New Hampshire will have in
excess of $10 million in projects waiting
to be funded.
Mr. Metcalf expresses the commis-
sion's concern over the greatly reduced
funding of water pollution control pro-
grams at the Federal level, and urges
increased appropriations in fiscal year
1970 for the Clean Waters Act.
Still, it is obvious from looking at the
state of the Federal budget today, there
is little real prospect of additional reve-
nue from pollution control programs
from this source. This is a reality, and
it is best we recognize it as such imme-
diately and begin to look at other
sources.
One suggestion which holds some
promise has been the use of tax credits
to industries who construct sewage
treatment facilities. There is no ques-
tion that industry—not to mention the
Government itself—is one of the most
serious polluters of our waters. Too few
industries, however, do anything to re-
duce the amount of sewerage which they
pour daily into our streams and rivers.
A system of tax credits might provide
the needed incentive for them to take the
necessary steps in reducing their own
pollution.
Another proposal, and one which I
favor, would be similar to the highway
trust fund, where those who use the
highways pay a tax to do so. This money
is placed in the trust fund, and used to
[p. 90331
construct new roads and improve old
ones.
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL TRUST FUND
Similarly, if Congress established a
water pollution control trust fund, those
who use our waters and are contributing
to its pollution would pay a tax on it.
This money would then be used to fi-
nance the construction of sewage treat-
ment plants and other facilities used in
the fight against pollution.
Mr Chairman, I hope the Congress
will give immediate attention to the
question of financing, for unless we re-
solve this most crucial question, I am
afraid the situation will only continue to
deteriorate, and will contribute to the
growing belief among our constituents
that the Federal Government is not able
to cope with the really serious problems
which are facing this country today.
Mr CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. MILLER), a
member of the committee.
Mr. MILLER of Ohio. Mr. Chairman,
clean water should be of concern to
every American. Much of our recrea-
tion, industry, and natural environment
is dependent on adequate supplies of
good water. Water is the very founda-
tion of life itself.
It is imperative that the Federal Gov-
ernment enact stringent measures to
protect our water sources from the abuse
of pollution. Too many of our rivers and
lakes have already been turned into
lifeless sewers and cesspools by man's
wantonness and neglect. The tragedy
of Lake Erie must not be repeated in the
other Great Lakes and then in the
world's oceans. Our civilization must
police itself or we will be progressively
poisoned by our own effluents.
H R. 4148 is a major step in the direc-
tion of preserving the remaining purity
of our natural water sources. Hopefully
we may even begin to reverse the pollu-
tion processes that have desecrated so
many of our waterways.
A major provision of this bill places
the responsibility for cleaning up after a
marine pollution disaster where it should
be—on the operator or vessel that caused
-------
1654
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
it. If there is ever another Torrey Can-
yon or Santa Barbara catastrophe, there
must be no question of legal liability for
the resulting damages.
The grants authorized under this bill
for scientific and technical training and
research will be a wise investment in the
future cleanliness of our waterways.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the distinguished gentle-
man from New York (Mr. MCCARTHY) .
Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding.
I will briefly explain a couple of the
important sections of this bill.
Section 19 of the act sets up a program
for demonstration projects to study
methods for the elimination and control
of acid or other mine drainage which
results in pollution. The demonstration
projects will be carried out under agree-
ments with the States or interstate
agencies and they are intended to dem-
onstrate the engineering and economic
feasibility of possible abatement tech-
niques. The State share of the cost of
the project would be at least 25 percent
and to encourage the States to partici-
pate in the program, that 25 percent can
be in the form of land, facilities, and
services. An appropriation of $15 mil-
lion for the program is authorized. No
more than 25 percent of the available
funds can be allocated to any one State
in the program.
Section 4 of the act authorizes the Sec-
retary to enter into contracts and grants
with individuals, agencies, and organiza-
tions for research and development on
the problem of lake eutrophication and
other lake pollution problems. It also
authorizes the Secretary to acquire lands
and interests therein by purchase with
appropriated or donated funds, or by
donation, or by exchange, in connection
with development of field laboratories,
research facilities, and demonstration
projects.
Section 4 contains the general authori-
zation for the Secretary to undertake
research studies, demonstrations, and so
on, by grant, contract, or otherwise for
the prevention or control of oil pollution,
including the removal of oil discharges.
This section further includes general au-
thorization for the Secretary to engage
in research relative to the equipment
which will be required to meet the
standards for control of sewage from
vessels which are covered elsewhere in
the act. It should be noted that with
respect to this research, the Secretary
is directed to file a report of his findings
prior to the effective date of any stand-
ards to be established in connection with
vessel sewage.
The general research, investigation,
and training program contained in the
basic act is extended for 2 additional
years at the present funding level of $65
million.
Section 5 of the act extends for 2 addi-
tional fiscal years the project research
authority already contained in the basic
law and authorizes appropriations for
each of fiscal years 1970 and 1971 in the
amount of $60 million.
Sections 6 and 7 are technical amend-
ments providing for the deletion or re-
peal where required of the Oil Pollution
Act of 1924.
Section 8 changes the name of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Ad-
ministration. This is a positive program
to achieve high water quality standards,
and the name of the administering
agency should adequately reflect this
purpose.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the distinguished chair-
man of the subcommittee, the gentle-
man from Minnesota (Mr. BLATNIK) .
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, H.R.
4148 recognizes that waste from water-
borne vessels is still another cause of
pollution of our Nation's waters. In view
of our resolve to restore and enhance
the quality of our water by controlling
waste discharges from our municipal
sewers and our industrial complexes, we
cannot ignore the wastes emanating
from waterborne vessels It is presently
most severe in bays, inlets, lakes, harbors,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1655
and marinas. These pollutants include
sewage and other wastes. Many vessels
are not equipped to provide even mini-
mal treatment. With the growing popu-
larity of recreation craft, corrective and
preventive action must be set in motion
now to prevent a more serious problem
to our waters.
H.R. 4148 would—
Provide for the control of sewage from
vessels including foreign vessels using
our waterways and commercial and rec-
reational vessels:
Direct the Secretary of the Interior to
issue Federal standards of performance
for marine sanitation devices for all ves-
sels except vessels not equipped with in-
stalled toilet facilities, and it would
direct the Coast Guard to issue regula-
tions relative to the design, construction,
installation, and operation of these de-
vices on board such vessels;
Apply to existing vessels, the construc-
tion of which is initiated prior to issu-
ance of the standards and regulations;
Apply to new vessels, the construction
of which is initiated after issuance of the
standards and regulations;
Provide that the initial standards shall
be effective for new vessels 2 years after
promulgation, but not earlier than De-
cember 31, 1971, and for existing vessels
5 years after promulgation; and
Provide that once the initial stand-
ards and regulations are effective a State
or a political subdivision thereof may not
adopt or enforce any law or regulation
governing the design, manufacture, or
installation of any marine sanitation de-
vice on board any vessel subject to the
Federal standards or regulations. This
would not, however, affect the State's
authority to prohibit completely all sew-
age discharges from vessels in particular
intrastate waters of the State, regardless
of whether the sewage is treated or not.
In such cases, however, the State must
also prohibit waste discharges from all
other sources.
H.R. 4148 would also—
Provide for a system of certification
by the Coast Guard of marine sanitation
devices;
Provide for the establishment of civil
penalties after notice and opportunity
for a hearing; and
Provide that provisions of this section
shall be enforced by the Coast Guard.
Watercraft are of course only one of
the many sources of pollution that must
be corrected, but as we previously noted
this pollution is highly visible and nox-
ious. It is our belief that H.R. 4148 takes
major strides in controlling this source
of pollution in a reasonable manner. It
provides appropriate time where it is
needed and yet takes the remedial steps
which are necessary in preventing major
problems in the future.
Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Chariman, will
the gentleman yield for a question?
Mr. BLATNIK. I shall be glad to yield
to the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. HUNGATE. On page 59, begin-
ning on line 4, there is this language, "ex-
cept that nothing in this section shall be
construed to affect or modify the author-
ity or jurisdiction of any State to prohibit
discharges of sewage whether treated or
not from a vessel within all or part of the
intrastate waters of such State if dis-
charges from all other sources are like-
wise prohibited."
Would that not mean that the States
[p. 9034]
during this 5-year period could not pro-
hibit the discharge of primary waste
from a vesssl as long as a city or village
discharges waste that had primary or
secondary treatment?
Mr. BLATNIK Would the gentleman
read the last part of his question again?
Mr. HUNGATE. It states in here that
a State, as I read it, "except that nothing
in this section shall be construed to affect
or modify the authority or jurisdiction of
any State to prohibit discharges of sew-
age whether treated or not from a vessel
within all or part of the intrastate waters
of such State if discharges from all other
sources are likewise prohibited."
Mr. BLATNIK. It is my opinion that
refers only to discharges of any and all
-------
1656
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
sources that are prohibited at the pres-
ent time.
For instance, you may have a bay
where there is no discharge whatsoever,
whether it be primary or secondary, and
under that condition the State does have
the right to prohibit the discharge from
any vessel.
Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, if
the gentleman will yield further, if we
have a small municipality which has a
secondary treatment plant, under this
provision as I read it, it could not pro-
hibit the discharge of raw sewage from a
vessel for 5 years even though it pro-
hibits the S3Condary discharge of sewage
from the village?
Mr. BLATNIK. Not for 5 years, but
after the provisions of this law go into
effect it would be only 5 years for old
boats, but only 2 years for new boats.
But I would believe the State would have
the right, and the Federal Government
could not preempt the State's authority,
to insist that there be compliance with
definite standards which certainly could
not be less than the standards that the
municipality would comply with.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield
3 minutes to the gentleman from Cali-
fornia (Mr. WALDIE) .
Mr. WALDIE. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I have asked for this
time in order to ask the gentleman a se-
ries of questions, and to establish some
legislative history.
Is it the understanding of the gentle-
man that the words "water pollution"
would include an act that would result
in salinity intrusion, if a fresh-water
body, for example, was altered in quality
by saline intrusion into that body, would
that be an act of pollution?
Mr. WRIGHT. In reply to the inquiry
of the gentleman from California, as to
whether saline materials could be de-
scribed as matter under the terms of the
bill, would depend entirely upon their
listing by the Secretary. The Secretary
has been directed to compile a list of
hazardous materials. Now, there is no
question but that excessive salinity in
certain circumstances can be a serious
pollutant to water.
For that matter, the United States has
recognized this responsibility under a
treaty with Mexico to provide pure
water to be discharged into Mexico
from the Colorado River. However, I
believe there must be borne in mind that
discharge of a certain material might be
hazardous in one case, and harmless in
another.
Therefore the Secretary must take into
consideration the environment into
which the discharge would occur, and
presumably also the establishment of
certain quantitative requirements as to
how much of the harmful substance
would constitute a pollution hazard.
Mr. WALDIE. It would be my under-
standing that salinity intrusion being de-
nned as a pollutant, would then require
the respective States in the adoption of
their water quality standards to set that
as a criteria.
Mr. WRIGHT. There is no prohibition
whatever against the State setting that,
or any other stricter criteria than the
Federal Government itself establishes.
Mr. WALDIE. I believe what I am at-
tempting to establish is that the Con-
gress went further in this act than not
prohibiting the States from doing so, but
that in fact the Congress instructed the
States to define salinity intrusion as con-
stituting pollution. And I call the atten-
tion of the gentleman to the concern that
Congress has already expressed for the
preservation of its estuarine areas, and
to the damage that is done to those es-
tuarine areas when there is diversion
upstream of the fresh water flow into
the estuary, and thereby resulting in an
inflow of saline water intrusion damag-
ing and destroying the ecological system
of the estuary, and the economic benefits
that are found in estuarian waters.
Mr WRIGHT. The gentleman is cor-
rect, that this does constitute one prec-
edent and recognition of excessive
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1657
salinity as a harmful pollutant. I do not
believe that where there exists in law a
specific mandate from the States that
in all cases salinity must be defined as
being a pollutant, however, emphatically,
there is nothing in the legislation—
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield
the gentleman 2 additional minutes.
As I was saying, there emphatically
is nothing in the legislation to prohibit
a State from making this requirement,
and it is the expectation that the Secre-
tary will list all those substances which
he deems to be hazardous.
For example, I call the gentleman's
attention to paragraph 4 on page 48 of
the bill which states very clearly:
Nothing in this subsection shall be con-
strued as preempting any State or political
subdivision thereof from imposing any re-
quirement or liability with respect to the
discharge of oil or matter into any waters
within such State.
Mr. WALDIE. If I may just pose one
more question to the gentleman. In my
own State, California, the responsibility
under this act of satting forth water
quality standards and setting forth acts
that constitute pollution vest in the State
itself. Yet, the State itself is really the
polluter by reason of their activities in
diverting the fresh waters from the up-
stream flow into the San Francisco
estuarian system. It is unreasonable to
assume, unless they are compelled to do
so, that they will place themselves in the
role of becoming an active polluter—
which, in fact, they quite clearly are.
The only real question I am asking the
gentleman is—if within the concept of
this bill, if a body of water that is fresh
and is utilized for irrigation, for exam-
ple for agricultural purposes, subse-
quently becomes salty water because of
the diversion of upstream water that
formerly prevented salt water intru-
sion—if that situation exists, does the
person who has diverted the fresh water
and thereby has permitted the salt water
intrusion and destruction of the agri-
cultural use—does that person become
the polluter?
Mr. WRIGHT. The answer would
have to be that the extent of the pollu-
tion, if any, and whether or not it con-
stituted a hazard under the meaning of
the act, would be up to the determination
of the Secretary under the terms of the
act.
Mr. WALDIE. The Congress has not
in this bill given him that specific direc-
tion and said that it would be an act
of polluting?
Mr. WRIGHT. The Congress has not
specifically defined the quantities of
matter which constitute a hazard under
the meaning of the bill. It leaves that
to the determination of the Secretary
since it would vary in numerous in-
stances. Obviously, a small amount of
salinity in a large body of water could
be harmless while a large amount of
salinity in a limited quantity of water
could be extremely harmful and de-
structive of crops or destructive of other
forms of animal or vegetable life.
Mr. WALDIE. I thank the gentleman.
I hope that the present Secretary will
act as his predecessor has acted and
declare that salt water intrusion does in
fact constitute pollution.
I also want to congratulate the com-
mittee for their excellent work in bring-
ing this bill up for consideration and I
am wholeheartedly in support of it.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. STRATTON) .
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, I am
sure that the Membeis will be familiar
with those famous lines that run, de-
pending upon which particular version
you happen to remember:
High above Cayuga's waters
With its waves so blue
Stands our Noble Alma Mater
Glorious to view.
I mention these lines this afternoon
not because in the circumstances of to-.
day we have any new demonstrations or
student strikes going on above Cayuga's
waters at Cornell University, but rather
-------
1658
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
because one of the problems to which
this legislation addresses itself is the
problem of thermal pollution.
And this problem is being faced today,
urgently and seriously, by those same
blue waters above which Cornell stands
Since part of this lake is in my district,
I am concerned about its future.
Another part of it is in the district of
my friend, the distinguished gentleman
from New York (Mr. ROBISON) , and since
I have mentioned his college and his
lake, I would now be very happy to yield
to the gentleman briefly.
Mr. ROBISON. I thank the gentleman
for yielding. I rose to correct the gentle -
[p. 9035]
man. The first word is "Far"—"Far
above Cayuga's water,"—not "High."
Mv. STRATTON. I stand corrected by
the Congressman whose district includes
that distinguished university.
The problem in Cayuga Lake is that
a nuclear-powered electric generated
powerplant is soon going to be built on
this very beautiful, relatively small, very
slow moving lake; and if that nuclear
powerplant is constructed without re-
gard to thermal pollution, then the cool
water at the bottom of Cayuga Lake is
going to be taken out of the lake and
used to cool the reactor and will be put
back into the lake at a higher tempera-
ture.
Now, this may not seem like much of
a problem, but this is what we mean by
"thermal pollution." By gradually rais-
ing the temperature of a lake, you not
only encourage the growth of weeds
in the lake, which in the cass of Cayuga
Lake are already interfering with its use
for recreational purposes, but you also
destroy the fish and the wildlife.
I think it is important that as we deal
in this legislation with various aspects
of pollution we face up immediately to
this relatively new problem of thermal
pollution. There has been a good deal
said this afternoon about oil pollution,
for example, and we have some strong
language in this bill dealing with the
kind of tragedy that hit the beaches at
Santa Barbara.
Unfortunately, what is being done
about oil pollution comes after at least a
good part of the barn door has already
been left open, and we are being asked
to close it now after a good deal of pol-
lution has already taken place. With
regard to thermal pollution, we ought to
close this door before the horse leaves
the barn. And I am just afraid that the
thermal pollution section of this bill, al-
though it does recognize and deal with
the problem, will not go nearly far
enough, because it provides in effect that
the applicable State standards shall
apply.
The fact of the matter is that in New
York State, as in many other States, we
simply do not have any really effective
applicable State standards. The State
Assembly has recently passed a very
strong bill, but my information is that
it is likely to die in the Senate, and even
if it does get through the Senate the
Governor may veto it. So I do not think
ve can afford to rely on that kind of
State protection.
If they can get away with destroying
Cayuga Lake and turning it into another
Lake Erie, think what may happen to
the lake in your district or your district.
If we begin the process of building
nuclear plants in small lakes like Cayuga
Lake, instead of on the ocean or fast-
moving rivers, as we have done up until
now, we can destroy not only this
beautiful recreational section of the
Finger Lakes, but we can destroy a lot
of other recreational lakes as well. I
think it is just not enough for us to rely
on State standards that will not be ef-
fective at the start of the threat, when
they are most needed. Many of the
States have not even done the research
in this field, as the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Administration has done
it, and as the Secretary of the Interior
has done it.
Therefore, I propose to offer on tomor-
row, when we read the bill for amend-
ment, an amendment which would
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1659
merely give to the Secretary of the In-
terior the power with regard to thermal
pollution alone, because this is a new
field, and one in which, fortunately, we
have not had much destruction so far,
the power to sat Federal standards which
will apply to all facilities constructed
with a Federal agency license, so that
we can lock the door before the horse is
stolen and thus can successfully avoid
the debacle that we now face in connec-
tion with oil pollution.
Mr. ROBISON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. STRATTON. I am happy to yield
to my colleague from New York.
Mr. ROBISON. The gentleman has
mentioned the absence in New York
State of criteria standards with respect
to thermal discharge. However, the
gentleman knows that the State water
quality commission is holding public
hearing on tentative criteria which
would attempt to control this particular
problem, and there is ample authority,
in my judgment, under the existing pub-
lic health laws of the State of New York
for the water resources commission to
adopt those standards.
The gentleman mentioned bills before
the legislature. Those bills might pos-
sibly strengthen the hand of the water
resources commission in this connec-
tion, but I do not think we need further
legislation for the State to act as it is.
Mr. STRATTON. I hope they will.
There is no question about the fact that
the State has authority to act. But I
have been a little disturbed about some
of the things I have heard. Certainly
the State health department and the
conservation department, which have
the authority, have been very wishy-
washy so far. That is why I think we
should strengthen this bill at the very
start, rather than waiting for the States
to act. If we wait it will be too late for
Cayuga Lake, and it could be too late
for other lakes as well.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from New York has expired.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield ,
2 additional minutes to the gentleman
from New York.
Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STRATTON. I am happy to yield
to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. CRAMER. As I understand, the
Federal Government is requiring the
States to provide water quality stand-
ards, and one of those standards required
is to include thermal pollution. They
are in the process now of negotiating
what that thermal pollution standard
should be within the respective States.
So I would contemplate that in the not
too distant future every State will have
a thermal pollution standard established,
and approved by the Secretary.
But I will say to the gentleman that
when he starts talking about national
standards, I do not think the gentleman
from New York fully appreciates that
in the State of Florida a certain number
of degrees of greater heat than presently
exists in a body of water that would
result in a deleterious effect might be
completely different with different loca-
tions in the United States. This is be-
cause that number of degrees, that might
cause a disruptive effect in warm water,
with other different environmental fac-
tors cannot be said to have the same ef-
fect in the cooler and different waters
of a northern lake or in Alaska for
instance?
The point I am making is that we do
not necessarily want the same number
or percentage of degrees above present
temperature controls in one State, where
it is warmer, and environmental con-
ditions are different to be the same as
that for the waters of another State,
so I do not think we can have a national
standard bassd upon what is known of
thermal problems presently that would
make much sense.
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, if
the gentleman will give me the time, I,
too, would prefer not to have to set a
national standard, but we are dealing
with a shortage of time in this case.
There may be approval by the Atomic
Energy Commission to build a nuclear
-------
1660
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
powerplant on the Finger Lakes within a
few weeks. Therefore, I do not think we
are likely to have any strong standards
in New York State by the time this prob-
lem comes up. For that reason, I think
we have to act now. If a precedent is
set on Cayuga Lake, it could be carried
out in the Finger Lakes or in lakes in
the gentleman's State.
As the gentleman knows, the standards
proposed do not involve an exact num-
ber of degrees but a certain percentage
over mean temperature of the water or
over the temperature of the water as it is
on the surface. That kind of a standard
could be applied nationally without any
problem, as I see it.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I would
suggest to the gentleman there is not
enough knowledge about what the eco-
logical and other effects of thermal pol-
lution will be, nor up to what degrees
or percentages or otherwise above what
exist at the present time. From lake to
lake and State to State and level to level
there are the different environmental
circumstances that controlled and judged
by the State after approval of the stand-
ards by the Secretary. I would suggest
to the gentleman this is an area best left
to the jurisdiction of States and par-
ticularly where States are required to act
under present law anyway.
Mr. STRATTON. If there is any lack
of research, I think it is in research
which has been done on a State level. A
good deal of research has been done by
the Federal Government, and it is pres-
ently pretty clear as to what constitutes
thermal pollution of our waters and what
must be done to prevent it.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield
to the gentleman from Hawaii 2 minutes.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. MATSU-
NAGA was allowed to speak out of order.)
STATUES OF FATHER DAMIEN AND KING
KAMEHAMEHA I TO BE UNVEILED TODAY
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Chairman, at
4 o'clock this afternoon, the statues pre-
sented by the State of Hawaii of two of
its most eminent personages for com-
[p. 9036]
memoration in the National Statuary
Hall will be unveiled with appropriate
ceremonies to be held in the rotunda of
the Capitol. These are the statues of the
Reverend Jos;ph Damien De Veuster, a
Roman Catholic priest, and King Kame-
hameha I, the first monarch of all the
island of Hawaii. In behalf of the peo-
ple of Hawaii, I extend to the Members
01 this House a cordial invitation to
attend the ceremonies.
Father Damien was born in Belgium
in 1840 and came to Hawaii at the age
of 24. He completed his studies for
priesthood a few months after his arrival
in Hawaii, and in May 1864, he was or-
dained in the Cathedral of our Lady of
Peace in Honolulu. Nine years later, in
1873, after he had served in an area on
the island of Hawaii where Kameha-
meha was born over 100 years before,
Father Damien asked to be sent to the
leper colony on the tiny island of Molo-
kai. As the resident priest on Molokai,
Father Damien served his unfortunate
parishoners in almost every conceivable
capacity. Because of the lack of doctors,
he rendered medical services. He was
also an administrator, undertaker, cof-
finmaker, gravedigger, builder of homes,
and champion of the afflicted. His com-
passion for his flock knew no bounds,
and he labored day and night for 16
years before he died of the disease him-
self at the age of 49. For over three-
quarters of a century since the death of
Father Damien, the story of his volun-
tary sojourn among the lepers of Molo-
Kai has been told again and again, and
it continues to inspire men and women
throughout the world.
King Kamehameha, the second citi-
zen whom we honor, will be the first
monarch to grace the Halls of the U.S.
Congress. He was born in the late 1750's
in Kohala, on the island of Hawaii, one
o£ the four kingdoms into which Hawaii
was then divided. He was said to have
been born on a stormy winter night,
under weather conditions indicating the
nature ot his future adult life. As one of
the six lesser chiefs of his island district,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1661
young Kamehameha led the others in
successful wars to insure an equitable
distribution of land. After overcoming
river chiefs on the island of Hawaii,
Kamehameha transported his large army
on war canoes to Maui, Molokai, and
Oahu, successively, and these islands,
along with Hawaii, were unified under
his rule in 1795. The two remaining
islands Kauai and Niihau, were later
ceded without a fight.
This unification of the islands into the
Hawaiian kingdom was the foundation
from which eventually emerged the Ter-
ritory and still later the State of Hawaii.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. VANIK).
Mr. VANIK. Mr. Chairman, during
the consideration of the Water Quality
Improvement Act, I expect to offer an
amendment to provide a special program
for the solution of pollution problems of
such dimensions that they are not even
touched by the present legislation. I
think they should be separately con-
sidered as national water pollution
disaster areas.
The legislation reported out by the
committee provides no assistance what-
soever to so critical a problem as the
Lake Erie problem with which the citi-
zens of northern Ohio, northern Penn-
sylvania, and northern New York, and
eastern Michigan are confronted. This
Congress can no longer stand by while
huge natural resources of this type are
destroyed in our full sight and knowl-
edge.
The legislation in its present form pro-
vides Ohio, along with all the other
States, a sum of money which is based on
a formula established under the law,
with which I have no argument as far as
it goes, except that it does nothing what-
soever to help us in northern Ohio solve
what is the greatest problem with which
we are confronted.
The people of my community have set
aside a $100 million bond issue, in the
city of Cleveland, to begin—just to be-
gin—to so) ve the problem of reducing the
contamination of Lake Erie. Under the
law we consider today, we get no re-
sources out of State funds, because the
State programs are not oriented toward
the most critical problem of Lake Erie
pollution. These resources are used by
the State for economic development, for
the construction of facilities as an in-
dustry inducement. When industry goes
into an area and needs a sewage system,
then this money is used for economic
development rather than to control or
to provide some remedy for areas of
existing pollution.
I should like, Mr. Chairman, to ask the
chairman of the committee if, under the
provisions of this bill, we can expect any
help for a problem which is as severe as
the Lake Erie problem? This problem is
interstate, it is international, and it is
beyond the capacity of any single State.
What can we look for under the terms of
this bill?
Mr. WRIGHT. In answer to the gen-
tleman, the bill provides only for re-
search into a means of assisting lakes
such as the Great Lakes. It does not
provide a broad or a meaningful assault
upon existing pollution in those lakes, as
the gentleman is very fully aware, he
being completely cognizant of the water
pollution legislation and he having ap-
peared before our committee and having
testified on this matter of the need for
urgent attention to the lakes and par-
ticularly Lake Erie.
As the gentleman knows, the bill does
not provide for a broad assault, such as
the gentleman himself desired to be pro-
vided in the present legislation, on the
existing pollution in lakes such as Lake
Erie.
Mr. VANIK. Am I correct in under-
standing that under the formula pro-
vided under this bill the State of Ohio
will receive about $9.5 million as the
proportionate share of the grant program
money?
Mr. WRIGHT. That sounds about
right, under the present level of appro-
priations. I would not want to be held
pinpointed as to the precise amount.
-------
1662
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Mr. VANIK. Will the gentleman tell
me about other special provisions which
are set forth in the bill, such as author-
izing the sum of $15 million for the mine
acid problem? Is that in the bill?
Mr. WRIGHT. Is that the mine acid
drainage?
Mr. VANIK. Yes.
Mr. WRIGHT. The bill provides $15
million.
Mr. VANIK. If the committee in its
wisdom and judgment decided to au-
thorize $15 million for this specific
problem, is it unreasonable to ask the
committee to come forth with some spe-
cial allocation for national pollution
disasters like the Lake Erie problem?
Mr. WRIGHT. The gentleman is ask-
ing a question which lends itself to an
answer by opinion rather than by fact.
I am, as one member of the committee,
quite sympathetic to the desires of the
gentleman.
The gentleman is aware of all that has
been attempted through the regular wa-
ter control legislation by means of
grants-in-aid to municipalities up and
down the streams, which are polluting
these lakes.
The gentleman is aware of the budget
limitations under which we have suf-
fered in our attempts to move that
program forward more rapidly. The
gentleman appeared before our commit-
tee and made a very eloquent and very
moving statement as to the need for a
massive assault on the pollution which
created in Lake Erie a dead body of wa-
ter, in effect, at the core of the lake, so
lacking oxygen that plant and animal
life cannot survive.
Mr. VANIK. May I ask the gentleman
if there is any other problem that was
pressnted to the committee that matches
the Lake Erie problem in magnitude?
Mr. WRIGHT. The answer I think
would be that pollution is a nationwide
problem.
Mr. VANIK. No. I say, was there any
other single problem that matched the
magnitude of the Lake Erie problem?
Mr. WRIGHT. I know of no situation
that is worse.
Mr. VANIK. I thank the gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield
the gentleman 3 additional minutes.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. VANIK. I yield to the distin-
guished gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I wish
to associate myself first with the re-
sponse made by one of our most pro-
ductive and knowledgeable workers in
water pollution, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. WRIGHT). Also I wish to
emphasize not only sympathy but the
very serious concern which we share
with the gentleman from Ohio with re-
spect to the plight of all the States in
dealing with the problem of Lake Erie.
Sime scientists have suggested as Mr.
WRIGHT said, that it may already be, in a
ssnse, a dead lake, in that unless massive
measures are undertaken immediately,
the problem may be almost irreversible.
It is such a complicated problem, as I
see it, that no matter how well we think
we understand it—and I have spent con-
siderable time on the technical and
chemical aspects of the problem—no
matter how effective we try to control
lake pollution from both industrial and
municipal sources, the lake has already
reached such concentrations in its ac-
[p. 9037]
cumulation of solids and other materials
in colloidal suspension that even the
technical expsrts are not sure what can
best be done to alleviate it.
There is, for example, matter in a
liquid form, such as acids and pickling
liquors, and chemicals of all types that
form a fluid with a heavier density than
clear, pure water. This covers most of
the bottom of the lake. Some scientists
believe it cannot be flushed out; that no
matter how much fresh water you would
pour in, it would be just like pouring
cream on top of milk. The cream would
just slither across the top of it. The fresh
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1663
water that you would pour in might
come out at the other end, at Niagara
Palls or Buffalo.
So we can see that we have a problem
that is monumental and complicated as
all get-out. No one knows what to do
about the matter. But that does not
mean that we should stop trying, or that
we cannot act in other ways. There is
nothing to prevent municipalities or
State agencies or groups of States from
getting together and using rather sub-
stantial funds which are available for aid
in the form of demonstration projects or
for trial grants. The kind of thing that
you mentioned was done at Lake
Barcroft could be done.
We know that more research is neces-
sary. I agree with you that an enormous
effort has to be made. Not only $100
million but several hundreds of millions
of dollars will be required in order to
clean out and to reverse the situation ex-
isting in Lake Erie so as to restore it to
an acceptable level of quality and main-
tain it in accordance with the standards
in existence now. The big problems are
getting the tremendous amounts of
money, and the technical knowledge, and
to the limit they are available we will do
everything we can to see that they are
used effectively.
Mr. VANIK. I would hope, Mr. Chair-
man, that the Congress would not write
off Lake Erie as a lost cause. I think it
can be saved, and I am here pleading
with you, my colleagues, for help. It is
my opinion that we are now at the point
where it belongs in this bill.
Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. VANIK. Yes. I yield to the gen-
tleman from New York.
Mr. MCCARTHY. As the gentleman
from Ohio knows, I joined in cosponsor-
ing this pollution disaster relief bill.
Coming from the shores of Lake Erie,
also, I share the gentleman's concern,
and I am urging the committee to con-
sider holding hearings at an early date
on the gentleman's bill with the hope
that we can come up with something to
deal with this particular problem.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Ohio has expired.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield
the gentleman 2 additional minutes.
Mr. VANIK. I thank the gentleman
from Florida.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. VANIK. I yield to the gentleman
from Florida.
Mr. CRAMER. Of course, under the
present law we are all concerned about
lake pollution as we are river pollution
and various other types of pollution
throughout America. It is not only the
Great Lakes but the entire country.
As I understand what the gentleman
from Ohio is proposing is relief to the
Great Lakes that is not now available to
other equally polluted areas
Mr. VANIK. That is right.
Mr. CRAMER. I do not know how the
gentleman could justify it as compared
to other polluted areas. Where is more
money coming from for sewage treat-
ment plants? As I understand the gen-
tleman's proposal, many other areas
throughout this Nation equally want
such consideration and there are more
needs for sewage treatment plant con-
struction than we can fill at the present
time.
We are authorizing $1 billion. The
past administration recommended $214
million for appropriation out of the $1
billion authorization. The money just is
not there under the present budget
squeeze so as to even tool up the existing
sswage treatment plant authorization,
including Lake Erie. So where does the
gentleman suggest the money would
come from? He is recommending a spe-
cial authorization and a specific sewage
treatment plant for this area. This is
only a small portion of the pollutant
problem of these lakes. What does one
do about industrial and other types of
pollution?
Mr. VANIK. I might say that my
amendment is not limited to sewage
treatment plant facilities because the
-------
1664
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
problem of Lake Erie is going to involve
some other approaches to be determined
by extended research and study. There
are other things that must be done to
save a decaying lake. This may require
an aeration process and a dredging of
the lake bottom in certain areas.
Mr. CRAMER. I will say to the gen-
tleman that there is a presently existing
section in the present law, section 5(f)
which provides as follows:
(f) The Secretary 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 vary-
ing conditions of waste treatment and dis-
posal, an evaluation of the water quality
needs of those to be served by such waters,
an evaluation of municipal, industrial, and
vessel waste treatment and disposal prac-
tices with respect to such waters, and a study
of alternate means of solving water pollution
problems (including additional waste treat-
ment measures) with respect to such waters
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Ohio has again expired.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield
the gentleman 2 additional minutes.
Mr. VANIK. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman will yield further, in this bill,
as appears at page 76 thereof, section
(g) reads as follows:
(g) The Secretary is authorized to enter
into contracts with, or make grants to, pub-
lic or private agencies and organizations and
individuals for the purpose of developing and
demonstrating new or improved methods for
the prevention, removal, and control of natu-
ral or manmade pollution in lakes, including
the undesirable effects of nutrients—
And so forth. The committee has not
been oblivious to this problem. The
gentleman is not really offering a solu-
tion to it unless you want to go into the
payment of grants to all operations
which contribute to the pollution of
waters, including the operations of pri-
vate enterprise.
Mr. VANIK. Does the gentleman
agree that the Lake Erie problem is
much different and its dimension is much
greater than anything proposed in this
bill?
Mr. CRAMER. I do, and that is why
we included the Great Lakes in the last
bill. That is why we are pinpointing the
Great Lakes in this bill.
Mr. VANIK, What is there in the
present bill to deal with a problem of
such dimensions as the present problem
which exists with reference to Lake Erie,
a problem which is international, inter-
state, and beyond the capacity of any
one State to cope with it?
Mr. CRAMER. There is $35 million in
this bill to carry out this research.
Mr. VANIK. $65 million which is allo-
cated to the several States just like the
grant money.
Mr. CRAMER. Oh, no. No, it is not.
Mr. VANIK. It is parceled out just
like the grant money. There is nothing
for the Lake Erie problem.
Mr. CRAMER. This problem is na-
tionwide. It is not allocated to the States
alone.
Mr. VANIK. May I ask the gentle-
man
Mr. CRAMER. It is nationwide inso-
far as on the lake problem.
Mr. VANIK. May I ask the gentleman
specifically how under previous author-
izations it was allocated among the
States?
Mr. CRAMER. The Secretary has au-
thority to allocate the money according
to where the problem is.
I agree with the gentleman whole-
heartedly. I am not arguing with the
gentleman, that Lake Erie and some of
the other Great Lake areas have a
serious problem, as the gentleman from
Minnesota suggests, but this provides the
tools to do something about it to the tune
of up to $65 million. The Sacretary can
put any or all of this into the Great
Lakes.
Mr. VANIK. Not one dime has gone
into the Lake Erie problem.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Does the gentleman from Florida wish
to use further of his time?
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1665
Mr. CRAMER. I will yield back the
balance of my time.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, before
the gentleman from Florida yields back
the balance of his time, I wonder if the
gentleman from Florida, from his great
and generous heart, would share with
this side some 6 minutes of his time in
order that two Members of the House,
the only two Members remaining who
have asked for time, might be permitted
to speak on this legislation, the two gen-
tlemen being the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. PUCINSKI) and the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. DINGELL).
It is my understanding that we have
[p.9038]
4 minutes remaining on our side, so I
am wondering if we might borrow some
time from our distinguished colleague
from Florida.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, after
the generous statement of the gentle-
man from Texas about the gentleman
from Florida I am persuaded, and as a
matter of fact I will not even ask for a
payback of the time, and I will yield 5
minutes to the gentleman.
Mr. WRIGHT. I now yield 5 minutes
to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
PUCINSKI) .
Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I wish
to thank my colleague from Florida and
the gentleman from Texas for yielding
me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
bill H.R. 4148. I believe this is landmark
legislation. The gentleman from Mary-
land (Mr. FALLON) , the chairman of the
Committee on Public Works, and the
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. BLAT-
NIK) , the chairman of the subcommittee,
as well as all of the members of the Pub-
lic Works Committee on both sidss, de-
serve the highest commendation of this
House for bringing this very important
and historic bill to the floor of the House
for action.
I would like to call the attention of my
colleagues to the two scripts that I put
into the RECORD yesterday. They appear
on pages 8962 and 8963. These are scripts
which were used in two excellent pro-
grams produced by the Columbia Broad-
casting System in its "The 21st Century"
presentation entitled "What Are We
Doing to Our World?"
Mr. Walter Cronkite quite properly
pointed out:
Man is a thinking animal, but nonetheless
dependent entirely on the ecological balance
of his planet to sustain him. All the forms
of life over which man has become master
are similarly interrelated and dependent on
one another in varying degrees.
This excellent series can be recom-
mended here to the Members as an
absolute justification for this legislation.
I should also like to call attention to a
statement made by a great American,
Charles A. Lindbergh, recently in New
York City when he received an award
from the National Institute of Social
Sciences. I believe Mr. Lindbergh has
placed this whole problem into proper
perspective. He made the argument on
behalf of this legislation for us when he
stated:
I have been forced to the conclusion that
much of our scientific and technical progress
is negative progress in relation to man's basic
welfare: that many of the steps we take to
insure our present survival lead toward a
future breakdown. I have asked myself over
and over again how this trend can be avoided.
Then he added:
In trying to affect a trend, one considers
its beginning This takes us back through
ages to what was, in many ways, the
disastrous impact of the human mind with
its lack of selective judgment—a mind so
paradoxical, to date, that it has achieved life's
greatest knowledge and caused life's greatest
evil
And he concludes—and I would like to
especially call your attention to these
words, because these are the words that
I believe bear directly on this legislation:
In the short period of evolutionary time
after intellect gained domination over in-
stinct, it has made man the most destructive
creature upon earth.
Mr. Chairman, everyone talks about
the crisis affecting our rivers, streams,
and waterways in America.
-------
1666
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
There is no question that man is kill-
ing the very environment that nourishes
him. Our much-proclaimed American
know-how and can-do technology have
not been applied to preserving the highly
intricate balances of nature. We survive
by utilizing the infinite complexities of
our planet, but our resources are not in-
exhaustible. With all of our hardware
and amazing technical proficiency, we
have yet to find substitutes for either
clean air or potable water.
Lake Michigan, which borders part of
my own State of Illinois, is in imminent
danger of total destruction due to whole-
sale pollution. Lake Erie is already
comatose and virtually incapable of sup-
porting life. There must be limits im-
posed on man's opportunity to destroy
his natural resources.
Lake Michigan is approximately 300
miles long and 80 miles wide. Its area
encompasses nearly 25,000 square miles.
Before passage of legislation that per-
mitted the Army Corps of Engineers to
use this inland sea as a massive dumping
area, the depth of the lake was 113 feet.
Today it is 103 feet deep. By pouring
millions of tons of junk and toxic mater-
ial into this enormous lake, we have
raised its depth more than 10 feet. This
is unconscionable.
We cannot continue the heedless
destruction of irreplaceable resources
merely because it is "cheaper" to dispose
of our waste products in this way. The
question of "cheapness" or economy in
general when discussing an end to pol-
lution is academic. We must spend
whatever it costs and we must begin
now.
The bill before the House today
strengthens our ability to end pollution
and to set about mitigating its effects and
regaining at least a measure of what we
have lost.
As human beings who share this earth
with its tens of millions of forms of
plant and organic life, we can do no
less than insure its survival as a life-
supporting planet.
So, Mr. Chairman, tomorrow when we
start reading the bill, it is my intention
to offer an amendment to this bill which
would repeal that part of the act of
1905 which set up and specified and uti-
lized and authorized certain areas in the
Great Lakes for dumping by the Corps
of Engineers.
It is my hope that this amendment will
be adopted.
We heard a moment ago the distin-
guished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr.
BLATNIK) say that Lake Erie appears to
be beyond the realm of salvation. Lake
Erie is a national disaster area and its
shame is shared by all of us. Tomorrow
I am going to ask my colleagues to
join me in barring any further dumping
in the Great Lakes by the Corps of
Engineers. You cannot have effective
anti-dumping procedures by local mu-
nicipalities and by the various States
surrounding the Great Lakes when
Uncle Sam through his Corps of Engi-
neers is the largest single polluter of all.
I am not at all persuaded when the
Corps of Engineers comes before us and
pleads that if we do not let them dump
in the Great Lakes that they are going
to have to stop dredging the harbors and
rivers. This is a problem that the De-
partment of Defense will have to address
itself to in order to find alternative solu-
tions. Surely our technology is capable
of supplying an answer.
Until this Congress stands up and says
that the law of 1905 was a mistake and
can no longer be tolerated and we refuse
to permit indiscriminate mass dumping
we are not going to be able to save the
Great Lakes or our other great water
resources.
Who in this Congress, on either side
of the aisle, is competent to tell us what
is the price tag on recreating a Lake
Michigan or the other Great Lakes?
Man can never create such a vast natural
resource, but surely man can save it.
It is my hope that tomorrow when this
bill comes before us, our colleagues are
going to join in taking this bold but
determined step. Let us here in the
Congress say that there shall be no more
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1667
dumping by the Corps of Engineers in
Lake Michigan and then get the rest of
private industry to fall in line.
Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues
for making this time possible.
(Mr. KARTH (at the request of Mr.
WRIGHT) was granted permission to ex-
tend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD.)
Mr. KARTH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
support of H.R. 4148, the Water Quality
Improvement Act.
Today when this country's population
is at the 200-million level we are rapidly
discovering that our air and water re-
sources are not limitless The efforts of
the Federal Government have in recent
years been directed with special urgency
toward meeting the air pollution prob-
lem because the need for control has
been demonstrated most dramatically by
so-called death fogs and eye-watering
smogs. This Congress has enacted air
quality control legislation which now
makes it possible to reduce the noxious
chemicals in automobile exhaust and
smokestacks. We are happily making
progress in air pollution control and can
soon expect real technological break-
throughs which will eliminate the most
alarming threats to our air.
But it has been recently, only through
the catastrophes of Torrey Canyon and
the Santa Barbara Channel that the pub-
lic has become alarmed by the tremen-
dous problem created by the oil pollution
of our waters. True, there has been on
our law books since 1924 statutes to pro-
hibit the willful and negligent dumping
of oil in our navigable waters. But the
scale of today's problems are so much
broader and more aggravated than they
were even a decade ago that new legal
tools have to be provided the executive
department to cope with unanticipated
threats to the water resources in our
environment.
H.R. 4148 as reported by the Commit-
tee on Public Works, I believe, makes
tremendous steps toward up-dating the
[p. 9039]
laws dealing with water pollution by pro-
viding more stringent controls against
oil and sewage pollution of our waters,
research grants to combat acid and mine
water pollution, and training grants and
contracts to alleviate a critical shortage
of skilled engineering aides, scientific
technicians, and sewage treatment plant
operators.
I think that it is symbolic of the new
approach of this important legislation
that the bill proposes the name of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Admin-
istration be changed to the National
Water Quality Administration.
I hope this Congress will quickly enact
this bill and provide the funds necessary
to implement it so that our Nation can
eliminate the national jeopardy which
presently threatens our water resources.
I urge the support of my colleagues for
the enactment of this bill.
Mr. WRIGHT Mr. Chairman, I yield
the remaining time on our side, 4 min-
utes, to the distinguished gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. DINGELL) who has
been a longtime advocate for clean water
and who is a member of the Committee
on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of
the House.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield
2 additional minutes to the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. DINGELL).
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank
my good friend, the gentleman from
Texas, and my good friend, the gentle-
man from Florida, for so graciously
making possible these few brief remarks.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to commend the
distinguished members of the Committee
on Public Works and the committee for
the very able work they have done in
presenting to this body a very fine piece
of legislation, one which is well calcu-
lated to make further badly needed
strides in the field of abatement of pol-
lution of the Nation's waters and water
resources.
Mr. Chairman. I have several com-
ments on the bill.
First, with regard to the question of
funding and financing. I would point
out that the very best efforts, and they
-------
1668
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
have been indeed tremendous, by the
Committee on Public Works and the dis-
tinguished members have been largely
frustrated by the inadequate funds pre-
sented by the different administrations
for the handling of water pollution.
In all of the years since the original
legislation was passed back in 1956, we
have appropriated vastly less than the
needed funds and this year we have the
administration's budget request for
something like $200 million, against an
authorized Federal expenditure under
Public Law 660 of something like a bil-
lion dollars for this coming fiscal year.
Indeed, it is probable with the rate
of the population increase and the in-
creased level of pollutants, the higher
authorized figure will fall significantly
behind meeting the real needs of our
Nation.
I rise also to make certain comments
with regard to activities now going on in
the Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries. As my good friends on the
Committee on Public Works know, the
Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries has been engaged in a study
of legislation and holding hearings on
proposals which would begin abatement
of pollution of the seas and navigable
waters by law.
During the existence of the Merchant
Marine and Fisheries Committee this has
been a matter of particular concern by
that committee. The Committee on
Merchant Marine and Fisheries has re-
ported to this floor a number of pieces
of legislation over the years which have
dealt with this particular problem. Over
the years these pieces of legislation have
been enacted by this body and now con-
stitute a portion of the permanent laws
of the United States.
The Committee on Merchant Marine
and Fisheries, today is considering simi-
lar legislation, much in keeping with
and, indeed, substantially similar to that
involved in the sections of H.R. 4148
dealing with the same subject. It is with
pleasure I note that the Committee on
Public Works has moved with great
vigor. It is with some sadness I note
some of the thoughts of the membership
of the Committee on Merchant Marine
and Fisheries have not been fully and,
in our opinion, adequately reflected in
H.R. 4148. Nevertheless, I do point out
to this body that H.R. 4148 is an ad-
mirable piece of legislation. It reflects
careful consideration, and I believe it
makes possible long strides forward in
the abatement of water pollution. And,
despite the jurisdictional problems which
have existed with H.R. 4148, it does take
proper, and I believe desirable and, in
fact, adequate steps toward the abate-
ment of the pollution of our navigable
waters by oil, something which has been
a significant problem.
It was the hope of the Committee on
Merchant Marine and Fisheries that this
would be handled by making the Coast
Guard the primary agency. It is my
hope that this will still take place in
connection with the cleanup of the seas
of oil, because, my friends and colleagues
in this body well know that the Coast
Guard is the agency most immediately
affected, and almost invariably the first
and only agency directly on the scene
when this occurs. Indeed, our cleanup
endeavors during the times we have had
these oil spills have largely been con-
ducted under the leadership of the Coast
Guard. That agency demonstrated a
remarkable capacity for vigorous and
effective action in the Santa Barbara
incident and in a number of other lesser
incidents.
So it is my hope that this will take
place in that fashion.
I would point out a cautio to my
colleagues, and that is that failure to
adequately and properly center respon-
sibility for the abatement and cleanup
of oil pollution in the hands of an insti-
tution like the Coast Caard may con-
ceivably result in a problem of the kind
they had when the Torrey Canyon went
down. During that incident it is fair to
point out that there was a significant
period of time during which the British
Government was unable to assign re-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1669
sponsibility and to fix the duty on any
of the several agencies of the British
Government for the actual cleanup of
the oil. Had the Government been able
to move more expeditiously under those
circumstances, it is not inconceivable
that damage to the British coast and the
coast of Europe might have been sig-
nificantly reduced.
I do report to the House at this time
that the Committee on Merchant Marine
and Fisheries does have a number of
matters it is considering which will
involve other segments of the Coast
Guard's responsibility in connection
with the abatement of the pollution of
the seas and navigable waters by oil, and
that my discussions with the chairman,
with the staff, and other members of that
body indicate to me there is every prob-
ability that during the next few weeks
the Committee on Merchant Marine and
Fisheries will continue its consideration
of these matters, and hopefully will ulti-
mately complete a useful and comple-
mentary piece of legislation, one which
will add to the very able drawn and
well-done piece of legislation which we
have before us, in terms of increasing the
ability of this Nation to abate the pollu-
tion of our navigable waters by oil.
Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleagues
for making this time available to me.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. SCHWENGEL) .
Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of the Water Quality
Improvement Act of 1969.
The committee of which I am a mem-
ber has worked hard on this legislation.
Its leaders especially are, to be com-
mended, as well as the staff, for the work
they have done.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is good legis-
lation and goes a long way toward solv-
ing our pollution problems. It is not a
perfect bill, but it will deal with some
of the critical problems that are pre-
sented today and it will pave the way for
even better programs in the years ahead.
One of the best features of the bill is
that which provides for training of per-
sons in the water control area. Mr.
Chairman, I was a cosponsor of the bill
which resulted in this section, and can
speak with some authority on the point.
The witnesses who appeared before our
committee pointed out the dramatic
urgency of this training. They noted the
severe shortage of trained personnel in
almost every area of the pollution con-
trol effort. Section 20 authorizes grants
and contracts to train undergraduate
students interested in the design, opera-
tion, and maintenance of waste treat-
ment works and other facilities for water
quality control. The urgent nature of
this need is pointed out here primarily
for the benefit of my good colleagues on
the Appropriations Committee.
Another important provision of the
act is section 19 which deals with dem-
onstration projects for the control of
acid mine pollution. This too is a step
in the right direction.
The chief shortcoming of the act, in
my opinion, is the lack of provision for
adequate research. Like so many prob-
lems, we have rushed into pollution con-
trol without full and careful research
into the exact nature of the problem.
Good, solid research to identify and iso-
late the problem makes solution of the
problem 10 times easier.
We also need much more cooperation
[p. 9040]
and coordination among the various lev-
els of government, and private industry,
in our pollution research. My sugges-
tion for this problem is a series of satel-
lites research stations which would serve
as coordinators of research for the over-
all pollution problem in a given area.
They would coordinate the efforts of the
various levels of government, and those
of private industry.
Another shortcoming of the bill is the
absence of more strict regulation of pol-
lution by Federal activities. Our Federal
agencies and activities around the coun-
try should be taking the lead in estab-
lishing new concepts and methods of
-------
1670
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
pollution control. Instead under the
provisions of this act, we will still have
some agencies dragging their feet as bad
if not worse than some private indus-
tries.
While these shortcomings are serious—
I do support the act and urge that it be
passed. In the meantime, I will be intro-
ducing legislation to correct these short-
comings and hope that the committee
will give early and serious consideration
to my legislation.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield for a unanimous-con-
sent request?
Mr. CRAMER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Texas.
(Mr. MCCARTHY (at the request of
Mr. WRIGHT) was granted permission to
extend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD.)
Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, the
bill we are considering today deals with
one of the major problems of our en-
vironment. Water pollution is no longer
the concern of the expert but rather is a
concern of the public. Our swimming
beaches have been contaminated by sew-
age. Our lakes are polluted or crowded
with algae fed by fertilizers or human
wastes. Our rivers have the stink of
open sewers during the summer months.
There is less pleasure in boating when
owners must scrape oil and sludge from
the sides and bottoms of their boats con-
stantly. Waterways that once delighted
the eye now offend; we have damaged a
major natural resource.
But the time for talking about the dan-
gers of water pollution, for calling at-
tention to man's neglect of this natural
resource is past. Opinion polls show
clearly that the American public is con-
cerned about this problem. They show
clearly that the public is ready for ac-
tion—not words. This demand has been
recognized by Congress in the unan-
imous votes approving the authorization
of money to construct sewage treatment
facilities. The funds that have been au-
thorized were in keeping with the size
of the problem. I would have preferred
to have even larger authorizations, but
can appreciate the many different de-
mands for our tax dollars.
Unfortunately, we have failed to ap-
propriate anywhere near the amounts
that have been authorized for the con-
struction of treatment plants and sew-
ers. For treatment plant construction
we authorized $450 million in 1968; we
appropriated $203 million. We author-
ized $700 million in 1969; we appropriated
$214 million. We authorized $1 billion
in 1970; the administration has budgeted
$214 million. In these years alone, we
have appropriated $1,519,000,000 less
than the amount authorized. I think that
our national priorities are sadly misin-
terpreted when we spend, for example,
more than $350 million a year on chem-
ical and biological warfare, weapons of
questionable value, while only spending
$214 million to prevent the destruction
of our water resources.
What does the water pollution fund-
ing gap mean in terms of water pollu-
tion control at the State and local level?
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act
made it necessary for the States to de-
velop acceptable water quality standards
and to initiate programs to bring the
waters within their States up to these
standards. In a number of cases bond
issues have been passed to assist in
cleaning up their waters. My own State,
New York, passed a $1.6 billion pure
waters bond issue to help cities and
towns build the necessary sewage treat-
ment facilities. And New York went be-
yond that; it agreed to prefinance the
Federal share of construction of these fa-
cilities so that there would be no delay
in cleaning up our rivers and lakes.
At the local level cities and towns have
passed referendums authorizing the fi-
nancing of the construction of sewers
and treatment facilities. The local lead-
ers who must convince the residents of
a town or village to add to their property
tax to construct new sewers and treat-
ment facilities must use a part of their
political capital in building support for
these referendums—the additional tax
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1671
burden is not assumed lightly.
One can imagine, then, the effect of
the failure of the Federal Government to
provide its share of the funds required
for facility construction. New York
State will not receive a fraction of the
Federal funds to which it is entitled un-
der the amounts authorized. A tax bur-
den is thrown back from Washington on
the State and local government, increas-
ing the rapidly growing demands on
State and local revenues.
Towns and villages under legal order
to clean up pollution find that they do
not have the funds to do the job. They
know that the cleanup has been ordered
by Washington—why, then, does not
Washington do its share and provide the
promised assistance?
In fairness it must be recognized that
the demands of the Vietnamese conflict
have kept domestic spending at much
lower levels than had been desired.
Many worthwhile programs were cut
back and many others failed to see the
light of day as a result of the economics
brought about by the war.
The shortage of funds for water pol-
lution control while the Vietnamese
conflict is going on was recognized, how-
ever, and a remedy was suggested. Last
year's water pollution control bill con-
tained a provision that placed the financ-
ing of treatment facilities on a capital
basis rather than on a annual basis.
This is a technique whereby the Federal
Government agrees to pay the principal
and interest on a 30-year bond issued
by the State, town, or village to cover
the cost of new facilities. Rather than
giving the community one lump sum to
cover the Federal share in the first year,
the Federal Government would only
have to pay roughly one-thirtieth of the
cost each year. This would make it pos-
sible to start many more projects than
could be initiated following the present
lump-sum approach. As you may recall,
both bodies of Congress passed that leg-
islation last year but it failed to clear the
conference committee at the last minute.
Recognizing the value of this financing
approach to the task of water pollution
control, I reintroduced a comprehensive
water quality bill in this session of Con-
gress. I was joined by 24 of my col-
leagues in that action. The companion
bills—H.R. 7734 and H.R. 7767—both in-
clude a financing section identical with
that passed by both bodies of Congress
in the last session. It has been my im-
pression that those concerned with water
pollution control realize that this capital
financing approach is a most effective
way to make the limited funds available
go as far as possible.
Both the House and the Senate com-
mittees dealing with water pollution
control have deferred consideration of fi-
nancing proposals for this activity until
the new administration has had an op-
portunity to review their budget and
make any proposals that they believed
desirable. As a matter of courtesy, fi-
nancing provisions are not included in
the bill considered today.
I have learned, however, that the ad-
ministration will propose an appropria-
tion of $214 million for the construction
of water pollution control treatment fa-
cilities. And as far as I am able to de-
termine, this request will not include a
provision for capital or long term fund-
ing. If this is the case, $214 million is
totally inadequate. Apparently, Secre-
tary of the Interior Hickel recognizes
this, for I understand that he requested
a total of $600 million for this purpose,
only to be turned down by the Executive
Office of the President.
If the Federal Government does not
do its share, what can we legitimately
ask the State and city to do? Can we
hold enforcement conferences and de-
mand that localities upgrade their treat-
ment facilities? Can we ask the cities
located along Lake Erie or along the
Mississippi or Missouri to build second-
ary rather than primary treatment fa-
cilities? This sort of hypocrisy is one of
the roots of dissatisfaction with Wash-
ington found at the local level.
I hope that the Rivers and Harbors
Subcommittee of the House Public
-------
1672
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Works Committee will be able to hold
hearings on my bill to provide adequate
financing for water pollution control in
the near future. This legislation is im-
portant to our environment. Neglect
now will mean destruction later. We
cannot afford to wait.
Mr. LEGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I am
glad I have the opportunity at this time
to comment on this bill, and express
my wholehearted approval of this meas-
ure designed to start the long-delayed
assault on water pollution which has
affected this country for so long, but
which has been marked by serious inac-
tion on the part of the Government. The
problem has reached a critical stage,
but I am hopeful that quick action now
can stop further damage to our en-
[p. 9041]
vironment and start to roll back the
damage already done.
It is incumbent upon us to pass H.R.
4148. Further delay may very well make
the problem insoluble, forever relegat-
ing our lakes and rivers to open sewers
infesting all surrounding areas.
In my district in California we have
one of the most beautiful bodies of water
in the State, Clear Lake. This lake has
long been recognized as one of the lead-
ing recreational waterfronts in the area,
and its existence has spurred the de-
velopment of the surrounding land area.
As is the case in so many of these situ-
ations however, the development of the
surrounding landscape has upset the en-
tomology of the land. In the case of
Clear Lake, development of surrounding
land areas has begun to fill the lake with
raw sewage and waste. Engineering re-
ports clearly indicate the damage done
by the invasion of algae which has up-
set the natural balance of this beauti-
ful body of water, and will soon make
it unfit for human use.
It is not too late to turn the tide how-
ever. This bill is a good start toward an
all encompassing fight to reverse the
damage done by man to his natural as-
sets.
I view this measure as an economy
move. If we do not get the funding now,
the costs will be immeasurably higher
later. I think we are all agreed that ac-
tion must be taken at some time. In
the case of water pollution, delay will
mean added expense at a later date.
The studies on the Clear Lake problem
point this up. As the pollution gets
worse, the corrective measures will be
far more expensive. I do not think any-
one on the floor today disagrees with
the proposition that the problem must
be faced at some time. In this time of
fiscal extremis however, many of my col-
leagues feel that all but the most urgent
spending measures must be curtailed.
I generally agree. But in this case I
feel that the fight for control of environ-
mental pollution is possibly the most
urgent priority on the legislative agenda.
Delay now will at best make corrective
measures more costly in the future. At
worst we will have passed the point
of possible correction and will be forced
to forever consign these areas of natural
beauty to putrid wastelands. The prob-
lem of Clear Lake is a prime example.
We must not allow this body of water
to become an open sewer that will for-
ever be lost to the citizens of California
and the Nation.
Mr. ANDERSON of California. Mr.
Chairman, I rise today to join with my
colleagues in expressing my strong sup-
port for H.R. 4198, the Water Quality
Improvement Act of 1969. This is the
type of legislation that is very badly
needed to clean up our polluted waters
and harbors and keep them free of oil
and sewage pollution.
If we are ever going to restore our en-
vironment to its natural state so that it
can be enjoyed by all free of contamina-
tion, we must begin now. For too long
we have allowed technology to alter the
environment without attention being
paid to the consequences. This legisla-
tion is a good step in the right direction.
The Water Quality Improvement Act
of 1969 essentially will do five things:
First, it will make shipowners liable
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1673
for oil discharge or spillage up to $10
million and provide criminal penaltie:
for failing to report such discharge or
spillage as well as civil penalties in cases
of willful or negligent discharge.
Second, it will set up a $20 million re-
volving fund for reimbursing states as-
sisting in cleanups of pollution.
Third, it will direct the Secretary
of the Interior to stop discharge of sew-
age from vessels by development of ma-
rine sanitation devices on ships.
Fourth, it would authorize up to $15
million for a demonstration program on
acid pollution from mining.
Finally, it would appropriate funds for
research into water pollution and devel-
opment of water quality control facilities.
This legislation is urgently needed,
particularly in light of the recent tragic
oil spill off the coast of California. The
incident served to focus increased atten-
tion on this important problem and
helped us bring this legislation to the
floor of the House today. I am hopeful
the Water Quality Control Act of 1969
will pass both Houses of Congress and
will be signed by the President. We just
cannot afford to wait any longer. The
showdown between a continued polluted
environment and a return to a clean en-
vironment is at hand.
Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr.
Chairman, I have but one complaint
about the bill now being considered by
this House. It does not do enough.
All of us were shocked by the oil dis-
charge which polluted the Santa Barbara
coast, and this bill speaks to such pollu-
tion in part, but I wish to speak of 100
years of pollution of an even more fabled
resource, San Francisco Bay, and the
unreported results.
Let me make the facts clear: Much of
San Francisco Bay is now septic. Much
more of the bay will become septic un-
less something is done.
Some of the provisions of this bill
directly attack the problems of San
Francisco Bay and I support the bill.
However, this bill still represents an ap-
proach which is "too little and too late."
The magnitude of the problem is San
Francisco Bay was spelled out in a recent
study which called for a master sewer
system to cost the communities involved
$2 billion between 1970 and 1990.
The crisis facing Sen Francisco Bay
is not one that has come slowly, nor is it
one that all of the people around the bay
have ignored. In fact communities and
industries around the San Francisco Bay
have spent $28 million in their efforts to
clean up the bay and to keep it clean.
Within my own district, as an example,
San Jose and Santa Clara have spent $35
million on a new sewage treatment plant.
This last year the voters of these two
cities by a two-thirds majority margin
approved the expenditure of another $30
million. Most other communities around
Sen Francisco Bay, under the leadership
of the San Francisco Regional Water
Quality Control Board, have made simi-
lar sacrifices.
The condition of bay waters is better
today than a few years ago because of
the continuing sacrifices of many bay
area taxpayers and because of the lead-
ership of the water quality control board.
Marine life is returning to the South
Bay, harbor seals are once more able to
survive in the bay, dead waters have re-
turned to life.
Despite the dramatic improvement in
the quality of some of the waters of
the bay, red tides have started to appear,
tides which may well mark the biologi-
cal death of the bay, and massive reports
of fish kills have become more frequent.
Health officials still warn the public
not to eat the oysters of the bay, because
they carry sewage-borne diseases.
The same health officials warn some
of the waters of the bay are dangerous
for body contact sports. These waters,
because of sewage, can carry diseases in
their spray.
The efforts of 90 of the 91 cities around
;he bay and of the water quality control
aoard have suppressed many of the sew-
age odors of the past, restored the qual-
ity of waters so fish can live in them, but
ncreasing loads of pollutants, nutrients,
-------
1674
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
chemicals and toxics are undoing the
good work of the past.
Obviously we have not done enough.
And the tides of growth are still pour-
ing into the San Francisco Bay area,
bringing more people to join the 4.5 mil-
lion already living around the bay, and
bringing more human and industrial
wastes.
At the same time there are those who
wish to fill the open water of the bay
for profit, further limiting the circula-
tion of the waters in the bay, while at the
same time increasing the loads it must
absorb.
We are not too far from the point
where the only use of San Francisco Bay
will be that of an open sewer.
Most of us who live around the bay
are committed to a clean bay, a healthy
bay, a bay seeable by the public. Yet, I
must point out there are two public
bodies which have not fulfilled their
public responsibility to insure raw sew-
age and industrial wastes are kept out of
the bay.
They are the city and county of San
Francisco and the Federal Government
Let me first say a few words in de-
fense of the combined city and county
governments of San Francisco. San
Francisco is the second oldest city, next
to San Jose, in the bay area, it has a
shrinking population of 740,000 out of a
total bay area growing population of 4.5
million, and it is the only city with a
combined storm drain and sewage sys-
tem. Thus, it is the only city of the 91
around the bay which regularly dumps
its sewage raw, not only into the bay,
but also on the beaches where its chil-
dren play.
The problem is simple: When it rains
as little as two-tenths of an inch an
hour, really only a heavy fog, the city's
overburdened combined storm drain and
sewage system overflows, resulting in the
present unsightly, unhealthy, and putrid
conditions. It may take up to $1 billion
to correct this problem.
San Francisco, faced by other massive
problems of the inner cities, needs far
more help than that offered in this bill.
[p. 9042]
It also needs to face its sewage problem
and to inform its people of that problem.
The second major offender is the Fed-
eral Government.
At present at least 12 Federal instal-
lations are polluting San Francisco Bay.
An estimated 500,000 gallons of indus-
trial wastes, including, but not limited
to, cyanide, flow into the bay from the
Alameda Naval Air Station. These
wastes are discharged at the water's
edge, not even taken out to deep water
where the damage they do might be di-
luted. Mare Island pours an additional
150,000 gallons of similar industrial
wastes into the bay, the Concord Naval
Weapons Station contributes 3,000 gal-
lons a day, and the Point Molate Facility
near Richmond, discharges 10,000 gallons
a day of treated, but substandard,
wastes.
The hard pressed San Francisco Re-
gional Water Quality Control Board
has no authority over these Federal
installations.
The U.S. Navy has promised to hook
up both the Alameda Naval Air Station
and Mare Island to local sewage treat-
ment plants during fiscal 1969-70, if the
funds are available. Short as funds are
this year, I pray that they will be
available.
The bill we are now discussing says:
Each Federal agency having jurisdiction
over any real property or facility of any kind
shall within available appropriations and
consistent with the interests of the United
States insure compliance with applicable
water quality standards.
I for one wish this provision were
stronger. Pollution is not in the interest
of the United States.
Finally, ships of the U.S. Navy, in-
cluding its giant aircraft carriers dis-
charge their sewage raw into the bay,
not only as they pass in and out of the
bay, but also as they rest in harbor. In
effect, they are moveable, small cities,
polluting the bay as they go.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1675
Again this bill speaks to the point, but
in a manner I wish were more effective.
The bill calls for waste treatment stand-
ards for civilian shipping, but in the case
of military vessels it leaves the decision
up to the Secretary of Defense.
I would hope all of us would agree the
U.S. Navy should stop polluting San
Francisco Bay.
The waters of San Francisco Bay face
one more major Federal threat.—a threat
not created by the people who live and
work around the bay. It is called the
San Luis master drain and it will dump,
for it is now under construction, millions
of gallons of agricultural waste waters,
carrying pesticides and nutrients, into
this already polluted bay. The drain
will bring its pollution to the bay even
as the fresh waters, which once flushed
out the bay, arc cut off by Federal and
State of California water projects. I
would refer any of my colleagues, who
might wish to explore this problem fur-
ther, to the statements of Congressman
JEROME WALDIE, whose district faces dis-
aster because of this drain.
The story of the pollution of San Fran-
cisco Bay is a long and sad tale, told not
often enough. Even today the people of
the city and county of San Francisco
know little about the condition of their
own beaches. However, the job of edu-
cation of the public about bay problems
has been done well by the San Jose Mer-
cury and News and the Oakland Tribune.
The most recent and one of the best of
these accounts was written by Mr. Fred
Garretson of the Oakland Tribune.
Mr. Chairman, I will include Mr. Gar-
retson's stories at the conclusion of my
remarks, so every Member of Congress
will have available the story of the pol-
luted San Francisco Bay.
The problems of San Francisco Bay
are not unique. Many areas of my
State, and of the Nation, face similar
problems. In Washington we only need
go to the banks of the Potomac River to
bring ourselves face to face with the
ugly facts of water pollution.
I speak in favor of this bill, not because
it is as much as we can do, but because it
is the least we can do.
The articles referred to follow:
OUR POLLUTED BAY
OF SEWAGE—TOUR
FILTH PROBLEM
SAN FRANCISCO'S FLOOD
OF WATERFRONT BARES
(By Fred Garretson)
It is one of those pleasant afternoons in
San Francisco when a brisk little storm has
cleared away the fog and the citizens of ihe
most sophisticated city in the West go down
to the beaches and the Bay to play among
the streams of raw brown sewage draining
out of fancy hilltop apartment houses
Near Phelan State Beach Park, two teen-
age girls romp happily among the sewage
that flows across the beach like a small liver
and mixes with the ocean waves.
Near Lake Merced, children from Park
Merced Towers build sand castles out of ihe
easily molded brown sludge that stains their
beach
At Lincoln Way, where Golden Gate Park
meets The Great Highway, a shallow, 20-foot-
wide sewage stream flows across the public
beach and strolling couples make agile leaps
to keep the Water out of their shoes
Near Fleishhacker Zoo, where the outflow
of the Vicente Street sewer has carved a roll-
ing valley into the shifting beach sand, a
woman with a dog on a leash stops to let the
thirsty animal drink out of the sewage
stream.
This is a typical nice day in San Francisco.
It would be any one of at least 61 days
between October and May when the city's
antique "single pipe" municipal sewer sys-
tem overflows Then raw, untreated sewage
drams into the Bay and ocean from 38 "sewer
diversion structure outfalls" along the
waterfront.
During dry weather the municipal system
intercepts most of the sewage—except dur-
ing what state officials describe as the "regu-
lar" once-a-week breakdown—and provides
a low degree of treatment before the waste is
discharged into the Bay and ocean.
But a trace of rain—only 0 02 of an inch of
precipitation per hour—pours storm water
runoff from the streets into the sanitary sew-
ers, overwhelming the treatment plants and
sending raw sewage onto the beaches,
marinas and around the docks.
The sewage streams are plainly visible
after a storm
Near the Marina Green, boats twist against
their mooring lines in the current flowing
out of the Pierce Street sewer
At Aquatic Park, one of the leaders of the
city's cultural enlightenment steps out of the
locker room at the Dolphin Swim Club, takes
a deep breath of the salt air blowing through
-------
1676
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
the Golden Gate, and then dives into the
water amid the flecks of toilet tissue dancing
on the waves
At Baker Beach State Park the favorite
picnic spot is a deep, somewhat smelly, lake
gouged out of the beach by the sewer outfall
at a spot far above the high tide line. Chil-
dren say it's a popular swimming hole for
those who want to avoid ocean salt water
and is frequently used by sunbathers to wash
sand off their skin.
The river of sewage pouring out, of this
lake to bisect the public beach is so wide that
only an athletic teenager, who takes a running
jump, could get across without getting his
feet wet.
At the foot of Pierce Street children
scramble over the big concrete outfall pipe
and fish among the flecks of human waste
and detergent foam which gushes into the
Bay
The view from the dining room picture
window at St. Francis Yacht Club is domi-
nated by the sight of the Baker Street sewer
pipe, which sits on the beach like a grounded
whale discharging bubbling, turbulent water
just off the shore.
At Fisherman's Wharf, a honeymooning
couple sit in a famous restaurant watching
the fishing boats rise and fall on the oily
waves where the waterfall sound of the Hyde
Street sewer is lost among the sound of
waves washing among the piers
Only three years ago health officials had
to order three fish packing companies in San
Francisco to stop washing their floors, clean-
ing fish and swabbing out fish packing cases
with water pumped out of the Bay a few feet
from a raw sewage discharge point
Farther east, near Pier 33, a brown up-
welling in the Bay tinges the air. Within a
few more hours—if it doesn't ram again—
the North Point sewage treatment plant will
be back under control and able to chlorinate
the sewage flowing out of the homes of
409,000 San Francisco residents in the north
point "sewage watershed."
Farther south and east along the water-
front, where pretty girls drink coffee in open
air lunch rooms on the docks, there are
flecks of sewage solids coating the pilings
that support docks and office buildings on
the waterfront.
At Islais Creek there is a foul smell in the
air where the unchlormated sewage of 161,000
residents, and the flow from the South-of-
Market industrial complex, pours through
primitive machinery at the Southeast sewer
treatment plant and is discharged to fester
in the oily waters of a dead-end lagoon
Northward, at the heart of San Francisco's
maritime commercial center, five full sewers
of raw waste pour into the dead-end channel
of China Basin.
Just south of Pier 50, where people daily
wade into the water at the municipal boat
launching ramp, is the outfall of the South
Fourth Street sewer The line, until recently,
discharged the "waste of an industrial neigh-
borhood 365 days a year—pipes weien't con-
nected to any treatment plant.
Prudent folk might worry about wading
into San Francisco's waters where a raw
sewage discharge pours into the Bay at every
single marina in the city.
But boat owners can find one thing good*
human sewage has special powers as a wood
preservative Boats floating in sewage—and
wooden pilings in polluted water—are pro-
tected from the effects of teredo and lim-
noria, the Bay's destructive salt water
termites
From a helicopter, flying along the water-
front to San Francisco International Air-
port, passengers can almost always see a
two-mile long tongue of brown, polluted
water pouring out of Islais Creek at the rate
of more than 15 million gallons per day m
the summer time, and much faster in the
winter.
The great tongue of brown water wavers
like a living thing on the Bay's tidal cur-
rents—swinging rmles south along the water-
front toward Hunters Point with the incoming
[p. 9043]
tide and then licking north toward Potrero
Point on the ebb tide
The ebb tide sends the brown water up into
the intake pumps at Bethlehem Shipyard
where workers are drenched in polluted
water while washing ships At flood tide it's
the U S Naval Shipyard workers who get
bathed in sewage.
The wavering brown tongue also engulfs
the favorite swimming spot where children
from the Hunters Point neighborhood dive
into the Bay It's prohibited, of course, but
at any time on a good day, health inspectors
see 20 children in the water at a time.
The weekends are probably the least pol-
luted times in San Francisco because the
factories are closed and the offices of hun-
dreds of thousands of commuting workers are
empty
At such times, there are only the toilets of
740,000 residents to pollute the Bay
In the rainy season one can be quite sure
of finding the flow of raw sewage pouring out
from a given neighborhood
That stream of raw sewage that carved
out the swimming hole on Baker State
Beach comes from Mayor Joseph Alioto's
neighborhood
The Jackson Street sewer flow near the
Ferry Building comes from the financial dis-
trict Haight-Ashbury sewage drains both
toward China Basin and to the ocean beach
of Golden Gate Park.
This is a waterfront tour you won't find
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1677
listed in any guidebook issued by the Cham-
ber of Commerce or the San Francisco Tourist
Bureau
It's a summary of facts—neither the best
nor the worst facts—listed in a little-known
book issued by the Bay Area Regional Water
Quality Control Board.
The title is "Staff Report on Long Range
Plan and Policy with Respect to Water Pol-
lution Control in That Portion of the City
and County of San Francisco Which Drains
Into San Francisco Bay."
You might find a copy of it at San Fran-
cisco City Hall
It should be easy to find at the public
library, because almost nobody ever looks at
it.
"The City That Knows How" doesn't like
to think about its sewage pioblem
AN OMINOUS "RED TIDE" THREATENS
BAY'S FUTURE
(By Fred Garretson)
On a cloudy morning during the last week
of April, 1966, the passengers aboard Doug
Webb's party boat "Sturgeon" caught a whiff
of a strange, fishy smell rising out of San
Pablo Bay
Seconds later, flecks of red foam leaped up
in the wake of the motorboat and for die
next few minutes Webb sailed through what
looked like a great mass of burgundy wine
spilled into the blue waters of San Francisco
Bay.
Carl Bennett Jr , owner of the Rodeo
Marina, also saw the same thing and tele-
phoned the officers of the Bay Area Regional
Water Quality Control Board to report that,
"There's something wrong out in the Bay "
This was the first official record ihat ihe
so-called "red tide" had appeared in San
Francisco Bay.
To the scientists and engineers who study
the Bay, the appearance of the red tide was
a deadly warning sign, that man's constant
dumping of sewage and poison had over-
whelmed the Bay's ability to cleanse itself
It might, they said, be a symptom the living
Bay was about to become a sterile dead jea
The mysterious red phantom continued to
haunt all parts of the Bay during the spring
and summer months of 1966, 1967 and 1968
It's expected to appear again in about April
of this year
Despite 20 years of effort, the Bay pollu-
tion problem is getting worse, according to
Fred Dierker, executive officer of the regional
water quality agency in the nine Bay Area
counties
He said the sewage smell has been sup-
pressed and many forms of fish life have re-
turned to the Bay, but the buildup of sewage
chemicals in the water has turned the Bay
into a biological time bomb
"We don't know why the red discoloration
appeared or what it represents," Dierker said,
"but we think it's one more warning sign
that the Bay has become overloaded with
pollution, nutrient chemicals and toxics "
He said the red discoloration isn't the i.rue
"red tide"—a toxic, fish-killing algae which
is limited to the Atlantic Ocean and is most
commonly reported near Florida.
"What has appeared in the Bay is a red
phytoplankton growth There's no evidence
that it kills fish or reduces the oxygen con-
tent of the Bay water," he said
Perhaps it has always been present in the
Bay waters, but is now spreading across the
Bay in great red blankets because pollution
has upset the balance of natuie
William Macke, the district's field engineer
who has spent most of his time during the
past 12 years taking water samples in all
parts of the Bay, described it this way
"The red discoloration is generally several
thousand feet long and about 150 to 200 feet
wide, but sometimes spreads out much wider.
"It's very visible fiom the air It looks
like a herringbone pattern on the wave crests,
but in quiet water it spreads out fiat like a
blanket It's usually out in the center of the
Bay although it also appears in shallow
water
"It's also clearly visible from a boat. As
you approach it there's a definite line of
demarcation between normal Bay water and
the red discoloration
"As you pass through it you can see red
waves on all sides and a churning red bow
wake behind a motor boat.
"It's like sailing thiough a sea of burgundy
wine
"There's a distinctive fish odor—that's the
only way to describe it—while you'ie passing
through it In fact, that's how you know
you're approaching it You smell it
"It's kind of weird We know its com-
posed of billions of individual living ihings,
but sometimes it acts like one big creature.
The scientific studies have confirmed that
it has swimming ability and can move around
the Bay
"Usually it's right on the surface, but once
we went looking for it at night and it had
dropped down under water Lo some depth
It apparently comes up to the surface in the
daytime
"One day it looks like a big single mass
and the next day it's broken up in strips and
streaks, depending on the weather conditions
It persists for a long time," Macke said.
Although it's been seen in all parts of the
Bay, the greatest number of reports come
from the South Bay, where pollution prob-
lems are greatest Reports have been par-
ticularly numerous around Burlmgame and
Coyote Point in San Mateo County
Macke said the worst discolorations ap-
peared during the summer of 1967, a peculiar
-------
1678
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
year when a lot of strange things happened
in the Bay.
Thousands of dead and dying sting rays
came to the surface.
Hundreds of sharks seemed to commit sui-
cide by swimming up onto beaches and mud-
flats as if they were trying to climb out of the
Bay. Scientists carried some of them back
to deep water, but the sharks swam right back
up onto beaches.
But 1967 was also the year that record
numbers of seals appeared in isolated areas
along the Eastbay shore. There was a popu-
lation explosion among shrimp in San Pablo
Bay and for the first time in decades com-
mercial shrimp fishing resumed in the Bay.
A lot of people cheered that the return
of seals and shrimp was a good sign indicat-
ing that Bay pollution was being cleaned up.
As for the death of sharks and sting rays
.. . well, it's hard to get indignant about it.
But biologists were alarmed. Sharks are
like humans, predators at the end of the
food chain, feeding on smaller animals which
in turn eat smaller plants and animals right
down to the most primitive organism that
would be most sensitive to pollution.
The pessimists warned that the mass death
of sharks might indicate that pollution had
shattered the bottom of the food chain. Vital
microorganisms and plants might be dead or
poisoned, passing on poison to bigger animals,
destroying their nervous systems so that
sharks went mad.
A reduction in the population of some
predators—because of starvation or poison-
ing—might also lead to a population explo-
sion in other creatures—like shrimp.
The optimists said sharks are strange crea-
tures and some species in other parts of the
world have sometimes been observed per-
forming the rite of mass suicide. So do
lemmings.
The optimists said it might be a sign fish
life was improving in the Bay and now the
shark population had expanded so much that
mass suicide in the Bay was more likely to
be noticed.
The red tide was a disturbing fact, but
there were unconfirmed reports of sightings
before April, 1966, and a few people say they
saw something like a red tide—which wasn't
studied at the time—appear in Richardson
Bay 15 years ago.
These earlier reports could be interpreted
either as an early warning of potential eco-
logical disaster or as an indication that red
tide had been around for many years.
Ecology is the science which studies the
total web of life, the environmental inter-
relationship between plants, animals, man,
the landscape, the weather, etc.
And ecology will be the forum of debate
in the next few years about how—and
whether—to spend hundreds of millions of
dollars cleaning up the Bay so the Bay Area
might become a more livable place for many
creatures—including man.
Ecological arguments, often involving ex-
tremely technical disputes within—and be-
tween—scientific and engineering disciplines,
are hard for a layman to judge—and some-
times people miss the whole point of the
discussion.
For example, on Jan. 27 the regional board
proposed some controversial engineering
standards and goals aimed at cleaning up
the Bay to the point where the water could
meet the extremely rigid standards necessary
to reestablish commercial oyster farming in
the Bay.
A major industry spokesman denounced
the idea of spending vast sums of money
to benefit some unknown future oyster farm-
ers because, he said, "It would probably be
cheaper to import oysters from Australia."
Regional Board officials patiently explained
oysters were only one facet of the proposal—
a yardstick by which water quality could be
measured. A Bay clean enough for commer-
cial oyster raising would produce a host of
other ecological—and economic—benefits.
But the protest was valid: Money is one
part of the ecology of man, and it weighs
heavily in the efforts to restore the ecological
balance of the Bay.
Since 1950, when the legislature created
the regional board under provisions of the
Dickey Act, the board has persuaded or com-
pelled Bay Area cities and sewer districts to
spend more than $300 million on sewage
treatment facilities, Dlerker said.
Industries have spent an undisclosed num-
ber of millions more.
But what has been the result?
The most noticeable effect is the horrible
[p. 9047]
hydrogen sulphide (rotten egg) smell is gone
from most parts of the Bay.
Motorists no longer have to roll up their
windows to keep out the stench when they
drive along the Bay Bridge approaches at
Emeryville.
At one time, local officials say, airborne
chemicals wafting off the Bay were so caustic
that fresh coats of paint would peel off of
structures within two blocks of the Bay.
The first big sewage clean-up efforts came
in the 1950s
In the decade of the 1960s, the people of
the Bay Area rediscovered the Bay.
Boat ownership has skyrocketed bring-
ing with it an economic boom in marinas,
waterfront restaurants and water-related
recreation.
The property value of formerly depressed
waterfront land has risen sharply. In Marin
County alone the assessor estimates the value
increase was one-third of one per cent per
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1679
day in the mid 1960s.
There's a big and growing demand for
homes beside the Bay In Alameda's Fernside
district homes inland from the Bay used to
be worth more than those beside the water
Today the waterfront homes are worth thou-
sands more.
The same thing happened at Point
Richmond.
Even in the polluted South Bay, private
investors are willing to pour millions into
waterfront subdivisions like Foster City or
recreational complexes like Marine World
The shipping business, which has to be on
the waterfront, has been hard pressed in San
Francisco where business and professional
men keep moving offices into converted docks
or warehouse buildings because they want
to be next to the water
There is abundant evidence of the return
of all kinds of Bay plant and wildlife which
almost vanished when bay pollution became
serious in the first decade of the 20th Century.
Today many scientists, and even some in-
vestors, talk about reviving the oyster Aarms
which used to be an economic mainstay of
the Bay Area There are some dizzying esti-
mates about the potential profit of establish-
ing other types of "farmmg-of-the-sea"
industries in the protected waters of the Bay
if pollution is eliminated.
But is pollution being eliminated9
No, says Dierker
The regional pollution control board has
consistently maintained it's running on a
treadmill trying to keep ahead of the growing
population and industry of the Bay Area
which now pours at least 667 million gallons
Of sewage and industrial waste into the Bay
every single day
Most of the municipalities around the Bay
have built, or are building, advanced sewage
treatment facilities, and some of chem—such
as Valley Community Services District in the
Liveimore Valley turn out an effluent which
comes close to meeting the U S Public Health
Service standards for drinking water
In 1965 the legislature established the Bay-
Delta Study, a state agency, to prepaie a
Waste disposal master plan for the nine
Bay Area counties, plus portions of the
Sacramento-Stockton-Tracy area east of Ihe
Sacramento-San Joaqum Delta
The Bay-Delta Study repoit will be issued
next month
One of the major problems, Dierker said,
is that existing sewer treatment doesn't re-
move nutrient chemicals (nitrates, phos-
phates, etc ) which are continuing to
accumulate in the Bay.
"The level of nutrients In the Bay already
exceeds the theoretical level at which 'algae
blooms' should form all over the Bay The
blooms already exist in Suisun Bay, the
Napa and Petaluma Rivers and some sloughs
in the South Bay," Dierker said.
The algae blooms he foresees are great
"rafts" of scum floating over all parts of the
Bay depriving the water of oxygen, killing
fish, fouling boat propellers and washing up
on the beaches and tidelands to rot in the
sun
"Apparently something is suppressing the
algae blooms so far. Perhaps some minute
quantity of a trace chemical is missing,"
Dieker said
The missing trace chemical—if that's what
it is—could appear almost any day in a casual
discharge from some industrial process or
perhaps the coloring material in a new brand
of toilet paper or maybe as a residual from a
new fertilizer used to grow the potato peel-
ings that get thrown into a garbage disposal.
Dierker said that the Bay-Delta Study re-
port will say that there has been a startling
increase in the nutrient level of Bay waters
during the past four years
The claim of the sudden sharp increase
might be challenged on statistical grounds,
but there is no doubt that the existing nu-
trient level in the Bay already exceeds the
algae bloom level, he said
The Bay has become a biological time
bomb, and every flush of the toilet or clank
of the kitchen garbage disposal adds more
fuel
If and when it explodes, this great nine-
county urban area could be a metropolis sit-
ting on the shores of a dead sea.
EASTBAY CITIES' RIVER or SEWAGE
(By Fred Garretson)
The second biggest river emptying into
San Francisco Bay is a river of sewage
It discharges about 40 feet below the sur-
face at a spot just south of the Bay Bridge,
2,000 feet east of Yerba Buena Island.
It's the flow of sewage from the cities of
Oakland, Berkeley, Alameda, Emeryville,
Albany and Piedmont discharged by the East
Bay Municipal Utility District Special Dis.-.
auct No 1 sewage tieatment plant in West
Oakland
It's bigger than the Napa River
(Engineers, who regularly translate total
annual flows into small increments for easy
comparisons, say the mean annual discharge
of the EB-MUD sewer pipe is 127 cubic feet
per second while the Napa River jlow into
the Bay is only 114 cubic feet per second )
That single sewer pipe discharge is bigger
than the combined annual flows of ALL the
rivers and streams flowing into the Bay south
of San Francisco
The EBMUD sewage flow is probably big
enough to have some effect on the tidal cur-
rents of San Francisco Bay.
The only bigger flow into the Bay is the
20,255 cubic foot per second annual outflow
-------
1680
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, a fig-
ure which includes all the winter floods drain-
ing out ol watershed that includes 40 pel cent
of the land in California and stretches irom
the Oregon Border to the Los Angeles County
line.
But while EBMUD is the biggest single dis-
charger, the combined flow from the city of
San Francisco's antique sewer system is big-
ger—but no one knows how much bigger
San Francisco's three sewer treatment
plants keep records, but the city has 38 raw
sewage overflow pipes which overflow every
time it rains—and only one of them has ever
been measured.
A key difference between East and West
Bay is that EBMUD discharges treated and
disinfected sewage in deep water whereas
San Francisco's treatment plants and raw
sewers discharge right at the water's edge,
sending streams of raw sewage flowing across
public beaches and leaving brown water lap-
ping against the piers.
Figures compiled by the Bay Area Regional
Water Quality Control Board three years ago
showed that the total municipal and indus-
trial waste water discharge from the nine
counties around the Bay was 541 cubic feet
per second
This man-polluted flow dwarfs the 332
cubic feet per second combined .low of all
the local streams and rivers flowing into Ihe
Bay (not counting the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta).
The board said that sewage and industrial
waste accounted for 2.7 percent of the net
total flow of all water into the Bay system.
But with cities and industries expanding
rapidly, and new dams in the mountains re-
ducing the outflow of river water into the
Bay, sewage will soon be a major source—
perhaps the major source—of the water .low
entering the Bay.
During the summer time waste discharges
are already equal to more than one-third
of the carefully regulated flow of 1,500 cubic
feet per second from the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta.
If it weren't for the constant release of
water from Shasta Dam in order to flush Bay
salt water out of the fresh water channels
of the Delta, the flow of sewage from Bay
Area cities would probably exceed the ilow
of the Sacramento River during many sum-
mer months.
The winter floods now flush out the Bay's
accumulated pollution, but a report to be is-
sued by the state's Bay-Delta Study next
month is expected to say that dams con-
structed for the California Water Plan will
cut off most of this flushing flow by the end
of the century.
Fred Dierker, executive officer of the re-
gional pollution control board, said the de-
gree of sewage treatment varies widely in
different parts of the Bay.
He said 90 of the 91 cities in the Bay Area
now treat their sewage San Francisco is O\e
only municipality with a system designed so
that raw sewage flows into the Bay whenever
it rains causing the system to overflow.
The only other significant raw sewage in
the Bay comes from ships and boats, but ihe
state and federal governments are starting
a crackdown on these polluters.
The general types of sewage treatment are:
Primary: A primitive system in which sew-
age stands in tanks long enough for floating
material to be scooped off and heavier par-
ticles are allowed to settle out.
Intermediate Sometimes called "advanced
primary " Chemicals and bacteria are added
to break up smaller particles. Sometimes
disinfection is added.
Secondary: Usually involving processes
called "activated sludge" or "trickling filter"
treatment. Sewage passes through several
treatment tanks, some of which add oxygen
to help stimulate natural biological processes
in the Bay which aid in sewage assimilation.
This effluent often meets health standards for
"swimming pool quality water "
Tertiary. Various advanced—and expen-
sive—treatment processes which turn sewage
into a liquid that might meet U S. Public
Health Service minimum standards for
drinking water.
The most recent (1966-67) compilation by
the regional board showed that, "398 million
gallons of treated sewage and industrial
wastes are discharged daily during dry
weather to the tidal waters of the Bay from
77 municipal sewerage systems.
"Approximately 35 per cent of these waste
flows receive secondary treatment at 23 sew-
age treatment plants with the remaining flow
receiving primary treatment at 54 sewage
treatment plants," Dierker said
He said 47 municipal waste dischargers,
who dump 245 million gallons per day, have
facilities to disinfect their sewage discharge,
although some of them don't always use
them or vary the amount of disinfection
seasonally.
Another 32 dischargers, with a total waste
flow of 153 million gallons per day, don't
have disinfection facilities, he said.
Three big sewage treatment plants account
[p. 9045]
for half of all municipal sewage discharges
into the Bay EBMUD; The San Francisco
North Point plant, and San Jose
The EBMUD flow gets "advanced primary"
treatment, according to Dierker Because of
its discharge in deep water under good tidal
conditions, "EBMUD treatment is considered
adequate for the present, but it might not be
good enough lor conditions within Ihe aext
few years," Dierker said.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1681
Ban Francisco's North Point plant (one of
three San Francisco treatment plants) dis-
charges 487,000 gallons per day near Fisher-
man's Wharf This flow received only pri-
mary treatment but is disinfected during dry
weather
However, a slight rainstorm overwhelms
the San Francisco system and causes un-
treated sewage to discharge through 38 by-
pass pipes.
San Jose's new, ultramodern sewer plant
provides "secondary" treatment for its more
than 1,240,000 gallons of sewage per day, yet
even this very advanced process fails to meet
the regional board's standards because of
stagnant tidal conditions in South San Fran-
cisco Bay, Dierker said.
In addition to the Bay Area's 398 million
gallons of municipal sewage, there is a total
flow of 269 million gallons per day of indus-
trial waste discharged directly into the Bay by
44 industries, Dierker said.
Approximately 94 per cent of this industrial
waste total is water used to cool industrial
machinery, mainly in electricity-producing
steam plants, oil and chemical companies and
steel refineries
The cooling water is drawn out of the Bay,
cycled through a factory in a closed pipe
system and discharged back into the Bay
There is considerable dispute about whether
these vast flows of warm—sometimes boil-
ing—water are actually a form of pollution
Fisheries experts say some big flows of in-
dustrial cooling water are capable of upset-
ting the balance of nature in portions of Lhe
Bay, but the regional board doesn't classify
cooling water discharges as pollution
SAN FRANCISCO SEWER SYSTEM MUNICIPAL
ANTIQUE
(By Fred Garretson)
There are 91 cities in the Bay Area, but
only the city of San Francisco operates an
antique municipal sewer system which over-
flows and dumps raw sewage onto public
beaches and the waterfront every Ume it
rains
The other 90 cities—with varying degrees
of success—have taxed themselves for ex-
pensive public works projects which are at
least the first effective steps toward clean-
ing up the pollution in Sc,n Francisco Bay
But unless San Francisco does something
about its raw sewage discharges, the rest of
the Bay Area cities are going io be reluctant
to invest more money in cleaning up water
pollution
This is the opinion of Sidney S Lippow,
of Martinez, the "public-at-large" representa-
tive on the Bay Area Regional Water Quality
Control Board
"All over the Bay Area people are saying,
'Why should we spend more and more money
building bigger and more advanced sewage
treatment facilities if you're going to let San
Francisco get away with doing nothing1,"
Lippow said.
Grant Burton, of Alamo, long-time chair-
man who retired from the regional board
last week, said, "San Francisco city officials
spent 18 years trying to avoid doing anything
about the problem "
Burton advocates "turning the problem
over to the State Attorney General" for
prosecutions The law provides for possible
jail sentences for officials and fines of ap to
$50,000 per day for the city—as long as the
city violates pollution control laws.
Fred Dierker, executive officer of the re-
gional board, explained that most cities have
two sets of pipes buried in their streets. One
pipe system handles sewage and the other
pipe carries away rain water from the
streets
But San Francisco uses a "single pipe"
system which receives all the liquid waste
from toilets, street gutters, roof storm drains,
garbage disposal machines, industrial acids,
hospital refuse and even the sweepings from
the elephant cage at the zoo.
During dry weather, almost all of San
Francisco's liquid waste ends up in one of
the city's three sewage treatment plants and
is given low-grade "primary treatment" LO
remove floating grease and solids before its
discharge into the Bay or ocean.
But in wet weather, the rush of rain water
from the streets pours into the sanitary sew-
ers and overwhelms the system. Sewage
cascades through the treatment plants without
time for adequate treatment
Sewage backs us in the main pipes and—
because of the San Francisco system's design
—starts overflowing through 38 "sewer diver-
sion structure outfalls" located on beaches,
marinas and under the San Francisco docks
Even in dry weather the San Francisco
system is pnmitive by the standards of other
Bay Area cities
The North Point and Mile Rock Beach dis-
charges are given only "primary" treatment,
chlorinated and dischaiged at the water's
edge The Islais Creek treatment plant dis-
charge isn't chlorinated and is discaaiged <.o
fester in a dead-end lagoon.
By contrast, most Bay Area cities have
built—-or are actively planning—expensive
"secondary" treatment facilities which cycle
sewage through a series of processes which,
some engineering consultants claim, turns
sewage into "swimming pool quality water "
Some communities, such as Valley Com-
munity Services District near Livermore, use
even more advanced "tertiary treatment,"
which turns sewage into an effluent which
almost equals the US Public Health Seivice
standards for dunking water.
East Bay Municipal Utility District Special
Distiict No 1, covering Oakland, Berkeley,
-------
1682
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Emeryville, Albany, Piedmont and Alameda
(and soon to add El Cerrito and Kensington)
uses what Dierker calls "advanced primary"
treatment.
However, instead of discharging at the
water's edge as is done in San Francisco,
EBMUD's treated sewage passes through a
long pipe and disperses in a deep channel in
the middle of the Bay where there are strong
tidal currents.
In addition, EBMUD is designing secondary
treatment facilities and is considering a fur-
ther program to treat storm water discharges
which pick up pollution from city streets.
Some South Bay cities are planning to bond
themselves for expensive equipment that
would carry their already treated sewage
through pipes 20 miles long to discharge it
into better tidal currents.
Water pollution control is expensive.
Dierker said most cities and sewer districts
charge the equivalent of more than 50 cents
per $100 assessed valuation for sewage treat-
ment facilities. Until recently Oro Loma
Sanitary District residents in Ashland paid 97
cents, and in some parts of the Bay Area the
cost is higher, Dierker said.
Dierker and Daniel Murphy, an engineer
for the regional board, both stressed that a
properly designed sewer system has an emer-
gency overflow that would discharge raw
sewage into a river or the Bay in case of a
major disaster such as an earthquake or a
big flood.
The difference between San Francisco and
every other city in the Bay Area is that fun-
damental design in San Francisco causes its
system to overflow raw sewage in every rain
storm.
No one knows how much of San Francisco's
sewage goes into the Bay raw, but according
to Murphy, during what engineers call a
"five-year storm," 99 25 per cent of the water
flowing in San Francisco's sewers does not
even go into a treatment plant
What little sewage does reach the treatment
plant simply cascades through the pipes with-
out a chance to settle
In such a storm (equal to half an inch of
rainfall in any one hour period) the sewers
are discharging at the rate of 20,000 cubic
feet a second where the maximum hydraulic
flow which could receive even minimal treat-
ment is only 150 cubic feet per second, Mur-
phy said
All storm drains carry some pollution from
streets and roofs, but the San Francisco
problem is made worse because the rush of
water from the streets loosens the accumula-
tion of grease and slime inside the sanitary
sewer pipes.
"That first few hours of flow out of the
San Francisco diversion outfalls is extremely
bad stuff," Murphy said.
Burton, a member of the regional pollution
control board from its formation in 1950
until last week, said the agency prefers to
work closely with local people rather than
clubbing them with legal action to upgrade
sewage treatment facilities
"But," Burton recalls, "we spent more than
18 years trying to get the San Francisco City
Administration to discuss the problem, but
they kept dodging us."
"On one occasion we arranged a meeting
with the San Francisco supervisors in their
own board of supervisors chambers, but none
of them showed up for the meeting.
"Another time some supeivisors came to
a meeting, but they started denouncing their
own city engineering staff when they started
to talk about the problem. Maybe they
thought their own city employees were mem-
bers of the regional board staff, or maybe
they just didn't want to hear about it,"
Burton said.
However, Burton praises Joseph Alioto as
"the first San Francisco mayor in the past 18
years who has been willing to at least lalk
about the problem."
But, Burton stressed, "There's a difference
between talking about a problem and doing
something about it."
Jerome Gilbert of Novato, present chair-
man of the regional board, said. "There's a
well-founded lack of confidence in San Fran-
cisco's willingness to actually solve the
problem "
He said pressure from the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration finally pro-
duced a resolution by San Francisco super-
visors last October which officially admitted,
for the first time, that the city has a Gewer
problem and proposing a time table for
partially solving it
He said federal authorities refused lo ap-
prove a minor federal grant to the city until
supervisors filed a time schedule for provid-
ing secondary treatment of all sewage.
There was the implied threat that the gov-
ernment would start rejecting other kinds of
federal grants for the city.
The San Francisco resolution promised to
provide secondary treatment at two of three
city treatment plants by 1975 and said the
city would start treating four of its 38 wet-
weather raw sewage discharges.
Regional Board member Sidney Lippow
said the San Francisco resolution was "full
of a lot of weasel words" which, even if
carried out completely, would solve only part
of the problem.
San Francisco supervisor Robert Mendel-
son, who presented the resolution to the
regional board, said that because of other
urban problems San Francisco won't budget
much money for sewage treatment and said
the Federal Government would have to pay
most of the cost
Under questioning by the regional board,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1683
Mendelson said the "secondary treatment"
[p. 9046]
standards all other Bay Area cities are being
asked—or compelled—to obey, are too ex-
pensive to apply in San Francisco.
"But I'm sure San Francisco can probably
get an adjustment in ihe federal standards
for this city," Mendelson said
This observation stunned officials of other
Bay Area cities, who have spent more ihan
$300 million since 1950 on sewage treatment
facilities and are planning to spend much
more to meet federal and state standards
Mendelson said San Francisco officials de-
clined even to consider financing the im-
provements through sewer service and sewer
connection charges which have financed the
ambitious pollution control programs in Oak-
land and San Jose
The regional board's suspicions about San
Francisco worsened in December when city
officials failed to show up—until after ad-
journment—at a regional board meeting
called to consider detailed implementation
of San Francisco's plans.
At that meeting William Bishop, a federal
pollution control official, testified that a
$921.000 federal grant had been given to 3an
Francisco in June to finance a demonstration
design project to suggest various ways to
eliminate the wet-weather raw sewage dis-
charge from the Baker street sewer at the
St. Francis Yacht Club.
But, board chairman Gilbert discovered,
six months after the money was given to
San Francisco, the city hadn't even let a
design contract.
"If you're having that kind of trouble on
something as simple as this, what's going Lo
happen in the next few years when you're
scheduled to have real work under way?"
Gilbert asked San Francisco officials
San Francisco will have real problems com-
plying with their promise to provide sec-
ondary treatment of the massive flows of
sewage in wet weather.
Secondary treatment requires holding sewer
water for hours at a time when flow of ihe
San Francisco sewers is big enough to fill
a good sized reservoir in a short time.
Murphy said it will require imaginative
thinking, such as possible carving out huge
tunnels or caverns in the San Francisco hills
to hold storm flows until they can be treated
Conceivably such a system could generate
hydroelectric power as sewage flows down
to treatment plants, he said
San Francisco officials reject the idea of
doing what Oakland is doing in older parts
of the city—digging up the old single-pipe
system and installing separate pipes for
sanitary sewage and storm drainage.
(Oakland spends $1 million a year from
special tax funds specifically earmarked lor
this purpose )
Murphy said installing two pipes would
require digging up every single street in
San Francisco and also reinstalling the
plumbing in every building in the city be-
cause toilets and roof drains are now con-
nected to the same pipe system
Oakland and Berkeley used rapid transit
construction as an opportunity to replace
many older poitions of their sewer systems,
but San Francisco is reconstructing Market
Street with the same old antique single-pipe
sewers.
Murphy said it would be useless to put
separate sanitary and storm pipes under Mar-
ket Street if all the tributary sewers from
surrounding streets still used the old system.
But, Murphy said, complete replacement
isn't impossible
He noted that the U S. Defense Department
rebuilt and separated storm and sanitary
pipes at the Piesidio and at San Francisco
Naval Shipyard, both handle as much sewage
as a small city
However, the Army and Navy sewer
clean-up programs didn't have much effect
The brand new systems were reconnected lo
San Francisco's obsolete single-pipe sewers.
And when it rains. Army and Navy toilet
flushings still pour out onto the public
beaches, along with the sewage of 740,000 San
Franciscans
SEWAGE CONTROL VESTED IN BOARDS
(By Fred Garretson)
Control of water pollution is fundamentally
a state responsibility which in the San Fran-
cisco Bay Area has been delegated to an
autonomous, and powerful, local board
known as the Bay Area Regional Water
Quality Control Board.
There are nine such boards in California
whose boundaries of authority are set up
on watershed lines which have only a pass-
ing relationship to city or county boundaries.
The Bay Area regional board has authority
to specify standards for all waste water dis-
charges into streams, rivers or ground water
flowing into San Francisco Bay as far east-
ward as a point about one mile west of Anti-
och Bridge.
The control of waste flows in the Sacra-
mento and San Joaqum Valleys, and the
Delta—which has a major effect on the
quality of Bay water—is controlled by a
Central Valley regional board encompassing
40 per cent of the land area in the state.
The Bay Area boards authority also extends
50 miles out into the Pacific Ocean and along
part of the San Mateo and Mann County
ocean coastlines.
The Bay Area board's authority covers at
least parts of all nine Bay Area counties,
although most of Sonoma County lies in the
jurisdiction of the North Coast regional
-------
1684
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
board, which had headquarters in Santa Rosa
The seven members of the regional board
are appointed by the governor for four-year
terms By law, six members represent spe-
cial interest groups and one represents the
public at large
Jerome Gilbert of Novato, manager of the
North Mann Water District, the chairman of
the board, last week was appointed executive
officer of the State Water Resources Control
Board, which sets broad policies for the nine
regional boards in the state.
His appointment leaves a vacancy on the
regional board for a representative of a water
supply agency in the nine county area.
Other members are'
Vice-chairman, Ercole Caroselli of San
Francisco, a Pacific Gas & Electric Co ,
executive representing industrial waste
dischargers
James F McCormick, of Moraga, manager
of a Berkeley printing firm, representing
conservation groups, William C. Weber, of
San Mateo, a businessman and city council-
man representing city governments
Edward Teresi, a San Jose land developer,
chairman of the Santa Clara County Planning
Commission, representing county govern-
ments; Cecil E Herrick, Napa Valley farmer,
representing agriculture interests who de-
pend upon irrigation
Sidney S Lippow, of Martinez, a business-
man with diversified holdings, is the public-
at-large representative.
Teresi and Weber were appointed to the
board last year by Gov. Ronald Reagan
Herrick was appointed last week to succeed
Grant Burton of Walnut Creek, long-time
chairman of the regional board who had
served on the regional board since it was
created in 1950 following passage of the
Dickey Act, which set up the state pollution
control program in 1949
The regional board office is at 364 14th St ,
Oakland.
Since 1950 it has compelled or convinced
cities and sewer districts to spend more than
$300 million of sewage treatment facilities,
plus other millions for private industrial
waste treatment, according to Fred Dierker,
the board's executive officer
The board's top engineers are Roger James,
policy formation; Dr Teng Wu, surveillance,
and Bill Gingrich, administration.
Regulatory engineers for special county
areas are H C (Chuck) Knapp, Contra
Costa, Solano and Napa; Dan Murphy, Marin,
Sonoma and San Francisco; Robert Scholar,
San Mateo, Santa Clara and Alameda.
The board's powers are purely regulatory,
with the actual operation of sewage treatment
facilities in the hands of local governments
or industries.
Dierker stressed that the board can't com-
pel a local government or industiy to use
a specific type of treatment process.
The board sets engineering standards either
for the actual sewage discharge or for certain
specified levels of water purity in the "receiv-
ing waters" (usually a specific section of the
Bay or a river near the discharge site )
Unlike most government agencies, the re-
gional board has the power to change the
rules at any time for any discharger.
Agencies who violate the board's orders
aie served with cease and desist orders In
severe cases the problem is certified to the
county district attorney (or the state attor-
ney general if the county official refuses to
act) for possible prosecution
City or industry officials can then be found
in contempt of a court order, if pollution
continues, and jailed Fines of up to $50,000
per day—or even larger—against the offend-
ing agencies are possible
The regional board operates under guide-
lines set down by the five member California
State Water Resources Control Board The
chairman is Kerry Mulligan, former mayor
of St Helena.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Ad-
ministration, an Interior Department agency,
whose southwest regional headquarters are
in San Francisco, with Bay Area offices in
Alameda, has a broad influence over pollu-
tion control programs
FWPCA has the power to give or withhold
federal grants, which often amount to more
than 50 per cent of a multi-million dollar
local project, in effect, a life-and-death con-
trol over these local government projects
Another major agency is the Bay-Delta
Project, a special state agency drawing up a
master plan for waste disposal in the Bay
Area plus portions of three more counties
east of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
Much of the Bay-Delta Project planning has
been done under contract by Kaiser Engi-
neers of Oakland.
Gilbert said the regional board is seeking
to persuade cities and sewer districts to con-
solidate their operations into larger, more
efficient sewage treatment plants
The model for such consolidation is East
Bay Municipal Utility District No 1, which
treats all sewage from the cities of Oakland,
Berkeley, Emeryville, Piedmont, Albany and
Alameda and will soon annex the Stege Sani-
tary District in El Cirrito and Kensington
INDUSTRY LENDS A HAND IN BAY POLLUTION
BATTLE
(By Fred Garretson)
Industry has been one of the major pol-
luters of San Francisco Bay.
For decades it befouled the water with un-
checked streams of butchered hogs' blood,
fruit packing sugar, sulphuric acid, copper
smelting poisons and the multitudinous deadly
wastes of oil refineries.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1685
But times have changed
A number of major industries—but by no
means all of them—are now taking signifi-
cant, and expensive, steps to clean up the Bay
and to keep it clean
The most recent figures compiled by the
Bay Area Regional Water Quality Control
Board show 44 industries discharging 269
million gallons if industrial waste per day
directly into the Bay through industry-
owned sewer pipes
[p. 9047]
In addition, industry provides a big pro-
portion of the flow of 398 million gallons of
waste per day discharged into the Bay by
municipal and sanitary district tieatment
plants.
This witch's brew of industrial waste
poured into the cauldron of the Bay, com-
bined with the sewage of 4 5 million people
in the Bay Area metropolis, could without
control turn the Bay into an algae-covered
dead sea, according to regional board officials
Control of pollution requires setting and
enforcing specific engineering standaids
Some industries have a big financial stake in
how high the standards are set and the cost
to industry of complying
To understand industry's role in the Bay
pollution problem, it's necessary to look at
some specific examples
One of the major policy decisions now fac-
ing the regional board—is a proposal to es-
tablish "thermal pollution" standards
The board's reports say that 94 per cent
of the industrial waste discharged directly
into the Bay consists of "cooling water" ihat
has been pumped out of the Bay, cycled
through factories to cool off hot machinery,
and then discharged back into the bay sev-
eral degrees warmer—and sometimes boiling
hot
The most outspoken opponent of thermal
pollution standards is Pacific Gas & Electric
Co which uses a huge flow of cooling water at
its power plants at Pittsburg, Antioch and
San Francxsco, and is planning to build more
such plants in the Bay, including an atomic
power plant at Collinsville
These flows of warmed-up water affect
wildlife PG & E argues that warming up the
Bay stimulates marine life and improves fish-
ing Some naturalists say it's bad for wildlife
The board is also considering stiff new
regulations reducing the already minute
traces of radioactivity allowed to be dis-
charged into the Bay.
State officials say the radioactivity rules
are necessary to protect delicate forms of
marine life whose natural pioccsses help
clean up other forms of Bay pollution.
PG&E objects that the new rules will hurt
atomic power plant projects and perhaps
make electiicity more expensive in the future.
The regional board, consisting of seven
laymen appointed by the governor, including
a PG&E executive as the official representa-
tive of pollution-causing industries, will wade
through a mass of conflicting expert testi-
mony, and then set engineering standards for
the nine Bay Area counties
Under terms of the Dickey Act, which
created the regional board in 1950, these
seven men have enormous power to set very
high pollution standards for one city or in-
dustry, set low standards (or no standards)
for a neighboring community . and to
change the regulations at any time
The differing treatment given to two com-
panies—Humble Oil and Refining Co , and
Johns-Manville Products Corp—illustiates
the problem.
Humble Oil has been criticized at times in
national conservation circles
Three years ago conservationists gathered
almost a million proxy votes and maiched
into the stockholders meeting of Standard
Oil Company of New Jersey (Humble's par-
ent corporation) to demand—successfully—
that a proposed Humble refinery not be built
on a Monterey County beach.
Yet, Fred Dierker, executive officer of Lhe
regional pollution control board, says, "Hum-
ble is doing a good job on control of Bay
pollution "
Coming from a tight-lipped engineer like
Dierker, that's high praise.
When Humble set out to build its new $100
million refinery at Bemcia (the one ihat got
thrown out of Monterey), the company ac-
cepted—with a minimum of battling over
specific details—the stiffest water pollution
control standards ever established for a Bay
Area industry
In addition, company officials say, the new
plant in Solano County will comply with
regulations ot the Bay Area Regional Water
Quality Contiol District even though Solano
County isn't a member of the district and the
county board of supervisors is fighting 10 keep
state and federal air pollution regulations out
of the county
Dierker said he'd like to see more com-
panies with Humble's cooperative attitude
move into the Bay Area,
In contrast, Dierkei cites the problem of
pollution at the Johns-Manville Products
Corp plant at Pittsburg
Johns-Manville has an outstanding national
reputation as a manufacturer of pollution
control equipment and a company where top
management figures are active in wildlife
conservation
B"or this reason it was one of a handful of
Bay area industries which, under a regional
board policy, was permitted to operate under
"self regulation" rules for 18 years with the
understanding that the company would vol-
untarily clean up its pollution by redesigning
-------
1686
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
production facilities
Dierker said some industries spent millions
of dollars cleaning up pollution under ihis
voluntary policy.
But in May, 1968, the board's inspectors
visited Johns-Manville for the first time and
found 1 04 million gallons per day of un-
treated waste pouring into the deadend lagoon
of New York Slough on the south side of
Suisun Bay.
This is a spot where tidal fluctuations dur-
ing winter and spring can easily carry sig-
nificant amounts of this pollution into ihe
drinking water intake pumps of both the city
of Antioch and the Contra Costa County
Water District.
The board report said the Johns-Manville
discharge consisted of the toilet flushings of
300 workers "mixed with industrial waste
from the manufacturing of tar paper, as-
phaltic and asbestos roofing and asbestos-
cement building products."
Company officials did not appear at a pub-
lic hearing to discuss the problem. The re-
gional board then ordered stiff regulations
for the company's plant and asked the staff
to draft some more.
Johns-Manville national officials were
stunned by the resulting publicity and
promptly flew top management officials to
California to issue a public apology
The company is still discharging raw waste
into the Bay, but the plant will be hooked
up to the Pittsburg city sewer system by
May. This has required redesigning Pitts-
burg's sewage facilities.
The regional board's policies toward indus-
try differ -with each plant Situations which
would be considered intolerable in the stag-
nant waters of South San Francisco Bay
might be acceptable in North Bay areas
which have a strong natural tidal "flushing
action."
Tidal flushing in the south Bay (generally
south of Bay Farm Island and Hunters Point)
is so poor that Army Engineers tests show
that only one-millionth of the sewage dis-
charged at Redwood City gets flushed out of
the Golden Gate by tidal action in a measur-
able length of time
The Army tests on the Bay model at Sau-
salito shows pollution dumped into ihe South
Bay simply flows up into all of the tidal
sloughs and sits there
San Jose's ultra-modern new $32 million
treatment plant, which serves 750,000 people,
has improved the South Bay situation since
1964, but even the San Jose plant can't meet
the desired South Bay water quality
standards
San Jose, and other South Bay cities, -are
now considering constructing a 35-mile-long
sewer pipe up the Bay from Alviso to the
vicinity of Treasure Island so that San Jose's
already highly treated sewage can discharge
where tidal currents will carry it to the ocean.
The situation in the North Bay is different
Dierker said the city of Vallejo uses only
low-grade "primary" sewage treatment, but
its discharge into the fast moving currents
ot Carquinez Strait is adequate 10 disperse
the waste.
The last of the "self-regulating" industries
brought under regional board control was the
California and Hawaiian Sugar Co at Crock-
ett, which sends its sewage to a municipal
treatment plant but also discharges 45.2 mil-
lion gallons of industrial waste per day into
Carquinez Strait from 21 outfalls.
The board's policy statement about C&H,
drafted by Dick Russell and H. C. Knapp, of
the board's staff, said 96 per cent of the dis-
charge is cooling water.
The report said the remaining flow con-
sists of sodium carbonate cleaning chemicals,
burned sugar, raw sugar and the washings
of sugar-processing machinery, battery acid,
sulfamic acid, hydrochloric acid, hydro-
fluoric acid, etc.
This would be a bad combination in most
areas of the Bay—particularly the sugar dis-
charge, which burns up oxygen in the water,
kills fish and can turn salt water black.
Sugar in cannery waste at San Jose is the
major source of water pollution in the South
Bay.
But, Russell explained, "The flow of water
at Carquinez Strait is tremendous and \\\e
C&H discharge isn't really a problem " In
engineering terms, he said, "pollution is a
function of volume" and at the C&H plant
the volume of good water is iremendous.
There is widespread evidence that industry
is willing to spend considerable amounts of
money to clean up pollution, but in most
cases the actual figures aren't available as
a matter of public record.
Ronald James, mayor of San Jose, recently
told a pollution control meeting "A few
years ago the local managers of national
corporations wouldn't give us the time of
day when -we talked about pollution.
"We have some bad stuff flowing into San
Jose's sewers, including sugar and various
cannery wastes, acids and chemicals from
electronics manufacturing and other things
that are difficult for a treatment plant to
handle.
"But recently, the local plant managers
have been told by national firms that they're
supposed to cooperate In most cases we're
getting good cooperation
San Jose enacted a sewer tax surcharge
under which industries with difficult-to-treat
sewage are charged at a higher rate. This
has resulted in considerable experimentation
in "pre-treatment" to clean up waste before
it goes into the sewers
East Bay Municipal Util'*y District is con-
sidering the same sort of surtax for hard-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1687
to-treat sewage in Oakland, Emeryville,
Alameda, Berkeley, Piedmont, Albany, El
Cerrito and Kensington.
However, in San Francisco, where the worst
kind of raw, untreated industrial pollution
pours out from overflowing sewer lines every
time it rains, the county board of supervisors
is on record as opposed to any kind of sewer
tax, sewer surtax or sewer connection fee.
When asked what the possibility of using
such taxes to clean up the San Francisco
mess, San Francisco Supervisor Robert Men-
delsohn, chairman of the health committee,
told the regional board, "We aren't even con-
sidering anything like that "
The Jslais Creek Sewer Treatment Plants,
which discharge the toilets of 161,000 persons,
plus the south-of-Market industrial area, into
a dead-end lagoon one block from the San
Francisco Wholesale Produce Market, doesn't
even chlorinate the sewage.
The regional board's report on San Fran-
cisco County found 860,000 gallons per day
of untreated waste, mostly in the industrial
[p. 9048]
district, discharging into the Bay because
pipes hadn't been hooked up to flow into
the sewer treatment plants
Under board orders the city shut down a
dozen individual company raw sewage dis-
charges and agreed to tie the South Fourth
Street industrial area sewer pipes into ihc
municipal collection system.
At the San Francisco Port Authority docks
the regional board investigators found 207,000
gallons of raw sewage per day flushing di-
rectly into the Bay from 405 toilets, 243 wash
basins and 180 urinals
The city has launched a program of con-
necting San Francisco Port Authority toilets
to the municipal sewer system although some
officials consider this a futile effort because
of the flows of raw sewage pouring out under
the docks from the rest of the city sewer
system.
The regional board report concluded- "The
city and county of San Francisco has the
ambivalent role of being the greatest waste
discharger while requiring the greatest pro-
tection of Bay waters along her shore for
beneficial uses."
There are some kinds of pollution which
are extremely visible in the Bay but are con-
sidered harmless to wildlife and are there-
fore at the bottom of the board's priority list
Dierker said these include the reddish tint
seen in the water near the Bay Bridge Toll
Plaza, which he said is iron oxide from an
Emeryville paint plant A white tinge can be
seen near a South San Francisco milk of
magnesia factory.
Dierker said a "very significant" effort is
being made by a committee of industries M
clean up pollution in the North Richmond
area in the cove east of Point San Pablo.
During the past four years the dischargers
spent $5,145,000 on new pollution control
equipment and worked on a major long range
plan to eliminate pollution to this cove
A repoit issued by the industrial commit-
tee listed spending in four years as- Allied
Chemical Corp , $90,000; Chevron Chemical
Co , $1.632,000, San Pablo Sanitary District,
$236,000, and Standard Oil Co of California,
$3,187,000
On Jan 15, the regional board adopted a
policy, agreed to by the dischargers, under
which dischargers promised to work toward
the "maximum feasible degree" of treatment
in North Richmond
Dierker said, "This means tertiary treat-
ment (very pure) discharges The companies
and the sewer district might elect to use a
lower degree of treatment and discharge it
far out into the Bay through a long pipe, but
in that case they'd have to come back 10
the boaid to ask for a lowering of standards "
This program might turn North Richmond
into one of the most beautiful spots along
the shoreline of San Francisco Bay.
SAN FRANCISCO REALLY HAS A SEWER PLAN—
BUT JUST WHAT Is IT?
(By Fred Garretson)
San Francisco :ity officials talk boldly, but
not too confidently, about Mayor Joseph
Ahoto's master plan to clean up the San
Francisco sewer mess
After 20 years of playing hide-and-seek
with the Bay Area Regional Water Quality
Control Board, San Francisco's supervisors
caved in to strong pressure from the U S In-
terior Department and on Oct. 28 passed a
resolution agreeing to obey state pollution
control laws.
On Nov 13 Alioto signed the official "policy
of intent to adhere LO a schedule for compli-
ance with waste discharge requirements" es-
tablished by the pollution control board
At the same time Alioto let it be known
that San Francisco wouldn't be able to meet
the time schedule unless the state and federal
governments put up most of the money to
buy pollution control facilities which the
other 90 cities m the Bay Area have taxed
themselves to pay for.
Nonetheless. Alioto and other San Fran-
cisco officials have been able to say, "We are
proceeding with a plan ,"
But there is considerable confusion among
San Francisco's top officials about just what
that plan is
Mayor Alioto says it's a $300 million plan
io build a great sewer discharge pipe stretch-
ing miles out into the ocean He tells report-
ers, "See Tom Mellon for the details."
Chief Administrative Officer Tom Mellon
says it's a $800 to $800 million plan to build
huge "sewage caverns" in the San Francisco
-------
1688
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
hills and to construct many small treatment
plants along the shoreline He tells reporters
to "See Myron Tatanan for details "
Public Works Director S Myron Tatarian
says it's a $135 million plan to extend three
city sewer treatment plant outfalls a lew
thousand feet out into the Bay and to "do
something" about the great streams of hu-
man excrement which now cascade across the
public beaches in the westein part of the
city after every little rainstorm.
Tatarian doesn't pass the buck to anyone,
but he refers a lot of questions to City Engi-
neer Robert C Levy, who said the city is con-
sidering a whole galaxy of plans including
sewage caverns, mini-treatment plants, shore-
line sewage holding ponds, and, if worst
comes to worst, maybe a big pipe out into the
ocean
San Francisco's fundamental problem is an
antique design which combines sewage and
storm water runoff in a single pipe system
which, in diy weather, delivers sewage lo
three treatment plants, but which in wet
weather overflows raw sewage through 41 by-
pass pipes along the city shoreline
Tatarian said the plan adopted by the Board
of Supervisors is:
1 By 1975 the city's average daily dry
weather flow of 99 million gallons of partly
treated sewage will be discharged in deep
water tidal channels instead of spilling out
close to shore in brown waves under the
docks near Fisherman's Wharf, in a deadend
creek near the San Francisco Wholesale Pro-
duce Market and directly onto the sands of
Mile Rock Beach near Lands End.
2 By 1981, if all goes well, 12 of the city's
41 wet weather sewer discharge pipes along
the ocean beaches and near Aquatic Park and
the Marina will be fixed so that human excre-
ment will no longer be dumped onto the pub-
lic beaches.
No piovisions were made to fix up the other
29 sewer outfalls along the Bay shoreline
south of Pier 45 (Fisherman's Wharf) This
area includes not only the largest sewers, but
the heaviest population densities in San
Francisco
San Francisco is divided into three "sewer
watershed" zones whose resident populations
are- Richmond-Sunset, 170,000; Southeast
(the industrial district), 161.000; North Point
(including all of downtown) 409,000
By 1981. if the city can meet the official
timetable, all of Richmond-Sunset's wet
weather discharges, plus four of the 20 North
Point Sewers (Baker, Pierce, Laguna and
Hyde Streets) will be fixed No one knows
for certain, but these four sewers apparently
serve about 60,000 persons
This means that the toilet flushings of the
entire Southeast Zone, plus 350,000 residents
of the North Point Zone will continue t.o
pour untreated into the Bay during wet
weather
The current boom in skyscraper office and
apartment houses will increase the aumber
ot toilets in this zone
A 1965 survey by the Northern California
Transit Demonstration Project showed 890,299
daily trips in and out of San Francisco Cen-
tral Business District between 10 a m. and
6 p m on weekdays
This figure can be subjected to wide inter-
pretation because visitors contribute to the
sewers through toilets, restaurant dishwash-
ing and garbage disposal machines
City planning department officials said this
particular study counted commuting workers
on.y once, but downtown shoppers vwice and
also included some of the through traffic j.rom
ihe Bay Bridge that bypassed downtown San
Francisco The figure doesn't include evening
visitors to San Francisco.
But by conservative estimates the figure
could be translated into 450,000 visitors de-
positing into the sewer system
This means that in the North Point and
Southeast Sewer Zones the raw sewage of
almost one million people will continue to
get dumped into the Bay untreated every
time it rains.
The timetable adopted by the Board of
Supervisors and proclaimed as official policy
by Mayor Alioto, makes no provision for
these 29 sewers except to say that the prob-
lem will be considered "as the need arises,"
if and when water contact sports ±acilities
are built along the waterfront.
Tatarian says this means that individual
sewers will be diverted if the city decides
to build a marina or swimming facility at a
spot where a sewer now discharges.
And Tartarian stresses, the multi-million
cost of fixing the sewers will be computed
as part of the cost of the recreation
development
This runs exactly opposite to the policies
of the regional water pollution control
agency, which aims to make all parts of ihe
Bay safe for swimming.
Levy said reconstructing the entire San
Francisco sewer system to modern standards
by putting in separate sanitary and storm
drainage pipes would cost $1 4 billion
He said it would require digging up every
street in the city, and rebuilding the plumb-
ing of every building to separate the sanitary
pipes from the roof rain drains.
Half of the cost would be public money.
The other half would be borne by private
property owners, who would have to pay an
estimated $2,000 per dwelling unit to make
the conversion. Levy said.
"There wouldn't be any money available
for other civic projects," he said.
Tatarian and Levy said various types of
construction could solve a major part of the
sewer overflow problem—mainly sewage re-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1689
tention basins—and might bring San Fran-
cisco into conformity with water quality
control board standards
They said extending dry weather outfalls
into the Bay and making internal treatment
plant improvements would cost $35 million.
Fixing the wet weather outfalls on ocean
beaches and near the Marina District would
cost $45 million Fixing the other 29 wet
weather sewer outfalls would cost $55 million
However, Levy stressed, these are 1968
dollar figures which don't include bond in-
terest costs, inflation or rising land and con-
struction costs, which they said are mcieas-
ing five percent per year
Levy said these cost figures are optimistic
estimates based on tentative conclusions by
consultants working on an experimental de-
sign for a miniature wet-weather ireatment
plant that might meet water pollution
standards.
This pilot plant is proposed for the Baker
Street Sewer outfall next to St Francis Yacht
Club
The success or failuie of this experiment
will affect all future planning to clean up ihe
San Francisco sewer problem
Mr. REID of New York. Mr. Chair-
man, I rise in strong support of H R.
4148, the Water Quality Improvement
Act of 1969.
This measure contains several impor-
tant safeguards to preserve the re-
maining purity of this Nation's water
re-
[p. 9049]
sources and to insure that they will be
free of the pollution that results from
a number of major activities.
In particular, the bill provides strict
controls on oil pollution and establishes
the liability of the owner of the facility
responsible for the oil leak for cleaning
up the water and surrounding beaches
I believe that the civil and criminal pen-
alties in this section of the bill for fail-
ure to comply with these requirements
are fair and necessary in light of the
several recent tragic oil leaks.
There is another aspect of this legis-
lation which I would like to emphasize
briefly. That is section 11 (b) which
requires that any applicant for a Federal
license for an activity that may dis-
charge waste into the navigable waters
of the United States present the issu-
ing agency with certification from the
affected States that the activity will be
conducted in such a manner that it will
not reduce the quality of the water
below the State's accepted standards.
This provision is specifically intended
to require that the Atomic Energy
Commission take thermal pollution into
consideration when issuing licenses for
nuclear generating facilities
This section was included in the bill
over the objections of the chairman of
the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,
who sought to weaken it in several par-
ticulars I applaud the firm stand of the
Public Works Committee in insisting on
these sensible precautions so that the
thermal standards for water quality
adopted by 34 ot the Nation's water
quality jurisdictions will not be mean-
ingless in the eyes of the AEC.
In my judgment, we must give much
more study to the deleterious effects of
thermal pollution While many States
have made progress in adopting thermal
standards for water quality, there are
indications that some of those standards
are inadequate. I feel that we should
effect a moratorium in the construction
of nuclear powerplants until we can be
sure not only that the plants present
no radiological hazards, but also that
they will not reduce the quality of sur-
rounding waters or upsot the ecological
balance in the area. There has been
some indication that the coolant towers
associated with nuclear plants can be a
source of enormous air pollution, and
even cause weather modification in some
instances While these aspects of power
production are not of immediate concern
in connection with this legislation, my
colleagues may wish to bear them in
mind for future discussions regarding
air pollution, nuclear plants, and the
quality of our environment To further
befoul our air and water and retard their
purification in the name of advancing
technology would be folly.
It is my understanding that the gen-
tleman Irom Ohio (Mr. VANIK) will pro-
pose an amendment to this bill, to
-------
1690
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
incorporate the features of H.R 9832, of
which I am a cosponsor. Mr VANIK'S
amendment would provide an emer-
gency fund to provide permanent cor-
rective relief for those areas of the
Nation which are in environmental
crisss. Included among those ''pollution
disaster" areas are the Lake Erie basin,
the great rivers, and other offshore re-
gions. The problems in these areas are
international, interstate, and of such
magnitude that their solution is beyond
the capacity of any single State. I urge
my colleagues to support Mr. VANIK'S
amendment, in order that these areas
may receive the urgent attention which
they need.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, while I com-
mend the committee's comprehensive
approach to the problem of water pol-
lution, I feel that the appropriations
authorized by this legislation are totally
inadequate. It has been estimated that,
to restore this Nation's waters to their
natural s£ate and keep them that way,
we would need to spend $100 billion be-
tween now and the end of the century.
This bill would authorize appropriations
of only $348 million during the next 3
fiscal years. I hope that rny colleagues
will provide full funding for this legis-
lation, will increase the funds for water
pollution control in future years, and
provide funds for sewage treatment in
an additional bill. There is a critical
need for legislation providing for the
treatment of solid wastes.
Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, I am
pleased to join in support of the Water
Quality Improvement Act of 1969 which
promises to be another major step for-
ward in our effort to curb water pollu-
tion and protect our environment for
future generations.
There is a special pleasure in support-
ing this bill because section 18 contains
provisions I had previously introduced
as separate legislation to control sewage
from vessels. I am, of course, gratified
to see my long-standing recommendation
included as part of this omnibus legis-
lation.
It is essential that this legislation
receive our prompt affirmative action.
Every day our waterways are being pol-
luted by waste from vessels, industrial
spillage, oil slicks, and other pollutants
that collectively threaten to permanently
destroy our environment. I have long
felt this is an area, along with air pol-
lution, deserving the highest priorities
of the Federal Government. It is there-
fore reassuring that this legislation is
among the first major bills to come
before the House this year. I trust we
will pass this bill without delay and
declare ourselves firmly in favor of nec-
essary controls on the menace of water
pollution. .
As has been noted in debate the major
provisions of this legislation are designed
as a greatly needed assault on the prob-
lem of pollution from offshore oil drill-
ing and oil leaking from tankers. This
problem has increased sharply in recent
years and reached its unfortunate zenith
in January and February when the
beaches of southern California were
turned into filthy, blackened sponges full
of oil. A repetition of this tragedy,
which killed fish and wildfowl besides
ruining recreational and natural re-
sources for human enjoyment, cannot be
tolerated and I am hopeful this bill
would begin to solves this problem.
I am also impressed by those provi-
sions of the bill requiring assurances
that industries and utilities discharging
wastes into waterways provide necessary
assurances that the waste will not violate
existing guidelines on pollution. This is
a constructive step in the effort to curb
the still unmeasurable impact of thermal
pollution.
As I noted at the outset I am pleased
that the bill contains provisions I had
sponsored previously to control the sew-
age from vessels. As pleasure boating
and commercial usa of the waterways
are growing we must have the necessary
protections to ward off still another
threat to our rivers, harbors, and shore-
line.
This is a good bill that takes a giant
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1691
step in the effort to stem the rising tide
of pollution. With constructive legisla-
tion such as this there is reason to hope
that the great waterways and shorelines
of the United States will be conserved
in a mannar befitting our heritage. I
believe there is little we might do that
is more important than conserving that
heritage so I am pleased to be able to
vote for the Water Quality Improvement
Act of 1969.
Mr. LANGEN. Mr. Chairman, I con-
cur with the basic provisions of the
Water Quality Improvement Act of 1969,
which is before us today. The Commit-
tee on Public Works is to be commended
for directing early attention to the prob-
lems of water pollution, and it is hoped
that these proposals receive favorable
action.
I am most grateful to the committee
for including the basic principles of my
own lake pollution control bill, which I
introduced in 1967. I urge that this
section of the bill be kept intact.
We in Minnesota are particularly
aware of the benefits derived from at-
tractive and clean lakes, since we have
so many of them.
The scenic surroundings and satisfying
recreational and relaxing activities asso-
ciated with lakes will be in ever greater
demand as our population continues to
grow. It is quite a sight to see the cars
stream out of our cities at the end of
the week, all carrying families to a
favorite lakeshore spot that promises
fresh, clean air and pure water for
swimming, boating, fishing, and the
many other activities connected with
our lakes.
Unfortunately, the presence of man in
ever-increasing numbers has aggravated
a problem that threatens the future of
these great resources. This is why many
of us introduced legislation to amend
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
to authorize a comprehensive planning
program in lake pollution prevention
and control. The comprehensive plan-
ning programs called for in the bill
before us today will go a long way to-
ward halting the steady erosion of our
lakes.
The manmade pollution of our lakes
is accelerating the normal aging process
of such bodies of water. Lake Erie is a
conspicuous example, but our smaller
lakes, some in Minnesota, also are dete-
riorating at a rapid pace. Rank vegeta-
tion chokes much of the lake beginning
in July, and restricts fishing, boating,
swimming, and other recreational activ-
ities. Subsequently the mass of vege-
tation begin to rot, creating odor prob-
lems, and lowering the oxygen level so
that fish frequently die.
These conditions might naturally de-
velop through the regular aging process,
[p. 9050]
but it would take thousands of years.
But man has accelerated this aging
process through pollution. It comes
from many sources, such as septic tanks
of the shoreline cottages, sewage from
cities and towns situated on the water-
shed, pollution from livestock on farms,
and draining from fertilized farmlands
Siltation from erosion within the drain-
age area further complicates the prob-
lem. Unfortunately, a lake has rela-
tively little flushing action, and has
much less capacity to dilute introduced
wastes than does a flowing stream.
Greatly expanded Federal, State, and
local research and demonstration pro-
grams are needed to develop practical
and effective methods for improving the
quality of lake waters. The problem
must be attacked on two fronts simul-
taneously. First, we must find ways to
remove or dissipate the existing nutri-
ents. And then we must reduce the
nutrients entering the lake.
The clean lakes section of the bill
before us is a welcome step in the right
direction. It authorizes the Secretary of
the Interior to enter into contracts and
grants with various individuals, agen-
cies, and organizations, for research and
development on the problems of lake
eutrophication and other lake pollution
problems. The Secretary would also be
authorized to develop field laboratories,
-------
1692
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
research facilities, and demonstration
projects We desperately need new and
improved methods for the prevention,
removal and control of natural or man-
made pollution in our lakes This bill
will provide the means of accomplishing
these methods.
Mr. DONOHUE. Mr. Chairman, I
most earnestly urge and hope that the
House will approve this bill before us,
H.R. 4148, as another forward step in the
legislative efforts we have exerted, and
which I have supported, over the last
several years to strengthen the Federal
Government's effectiveness in trying to
prevent catastrophic pollution of our
waterways.
The provisions of this current measure
are designed particularly to help the
various States adequately deal with the
most vexing problem of oil discharge
and spillage by making shipowners
liable for such discharge; establishing a
revolving fund for reimbursing States
faced with sudden and tremendously
expensive cleanups of oil and other
polluted material; initiating a demon-
stration program for effective water
pollution control; encouraging students,
through grants, to undergo training in
water quality control; and authorizing
funds for extending water pollution
control research and development.
Mr. Chairman, the reasons for and the
meaning of these and other provisions
in the bill have been thoroughly and
expansively explained to the member-
ship, and there is no need of enlarging
upon them at this time.
The objectives of the bill are unques-
tionably in the national interest and
the appropriations projected are rea-
sonably moderate in consideration of the
vital importance of removing and pre-
venting the very dangerous and dam-
aging pollution of our national waters.
Therefore, I hope that this Water
Quality Improvement Act of 1969 will
be overwhelmingly adopted.
Mr. EILBERG. Mr. Chairman, I want
to take this opportunity of recording my
unqualified support of H.R. 4148, a bill
which will help solve some of the major
unmet pollution abatement needs of this
country.
There is no question that water pollu-
tion is one of the most aggravating and
S2rious problems of our time. For over
10 years now the Congress has been
studying the facts and enacting progres-
sive legislation to overcome the short-
comings of public and private action.
Nevertheless, our citizens continue to
express deep concern over the slow pace
of cleanup efforts and achievements to
purify the waters of our streams, lakes,
and shoreline.
The Gallup poll, in 1968, issued the
results of a study in which the people
questioned were asked what they con-
sidered the most urgent of environmen-
tal problems. Thirty-two percent said
water pollution. When asked what they
considered the best solution, they re-
sponded that new ways must be found
to stop industrial pollution, existing
laws should be better enforced, and
new legislation passed.
Enactment of H.R. 4148 will be a sig-
nificant step in thesa directions.
The bill provides strong penalties for
discharging oil into the navigable waters
of the United States and also estab-
lishes a program in which the Federal
Government can clean up the oil from a
spill and require that the industry or
person responsible for the spill reim-
burss the Government for costs of the
clean up. In considering this provision,
the House Committee on Public Works
urged that State and local groups al-
ready formed for clean-up operations
be called upon for cooperation and
assistance. In addition, both national
and regional contingency plans are to
be developed to meet all future emer-
gency spillages such as the Ocea?i Eagle
incident off the coast of Puerto Rico.
Wastes from ships and boats with in-
adequate marine sanitation devices are
a major cause of pollution. According
to estimates of the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Administration, the com-
bined waste being discharged from all
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1693
watercraft operating in American waters
approximates the quantity of raw sew-
age that could be discharged by a major
city such as Buffalo or Cincinnati. The
bill authorizes the Secretary of the
Interior, after consultation with other
appropriate departments, to promulgate
Federal standards of performance for
marine sanitation devices The enforce-
ment of these standards would prevent
the future discharge of untreated and
inadequately treated sewage into navi-
gable waters.
Acid mine drainage is still another
major source of pollution. It has been
estimated by the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Administration that each
year over 4 million tons of acid-equiva-
lents are being discharged into streams
from both active and abandoned mines.
These acids can destroy fish and their
habitat, thereby greatly reducing the
recreational value of our Nation's
streams. Experts have indicated that
control methods are not yet known The
bill therefore authorizes the Secretary
of the Interior to enter into agreements
with State or interstate agencies to
carry out demonstration methods and
projects for acid mine water control.
There is urgent need for more skilled
manpower both in research and the op-
eration of treatment facilities. To alle-
viate this need, the bill authorizes an
expansion of the existing training grants
program established under the Water
Quality Act.
Federal agencies which control prop-
erty or issue licenses and permits for
construction or development, have a
major role to play in pollution control,
since many of these facilities and op-
erations affect water quality. For ex-
ample, the dredging and disposition of
spoil in navigable waters is controlled
by the Corps of Engineers. Tho bill pro-
vides that each agency having jurisdic-
tion over property or over the issuance
of permits or licensss must insure that
all operations resulting in pollution ef-
fects, must be carried out in a manner
that will comply with established water
quality standards. This provision sim-
ply means that the Federal Government,
in all of its activities, will lead the way
in preventing pollution.
There are a number of research stud-
ies that must be sustained m the years
ahead if adequate solutions are to be
found to outstanding and poorly under-
stood pollution challenges. For exam-
ple, although some advances have been
made on the problem of lake aging or
''eutrophication," much more knowledge
is required Research is needed on the
control of phosphorus and on the elimi-
nation of pollution from combined storm
and sewer systems. The bill provides
for these and other needs by authorizing
appropriations for 2 additional years at
the level already provided for fiscal year
1969.
Mr. Chairman, the control of water
pollution must be a dynamic effort, re-
sponsive to both old and new problems
stemming from constant technological
change. I have supported the passage
of earlier pollution legislation. I hope
and I am confident that this House will
enact into law this bill before us.
Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Chairman, I
strongly support H.R. 4148, the Water
Quality Improvement Act of 1969.
Adoption of this much-needed protec-
tion is long overdue.
Basically, this legislation takes the ap-
proach of making those who handle oil
and other potential water contaminants
responsible for any damage caused by
these materials. The existing law ap-
plies only to oil damage that is willful
or grossly negligent, but the increasing
complexity of our civilization has pro-
duced many sources of contamination
that did not meet these criteria.
The breakup of the tanker Torrey
Canyon, with its incalculable damage to
the coast of England and its nearly $8
million cleanup costs, and the devasta-
tion of California's beaches this year by
oil from an offshore drilling rig are but
two examples of unintentional but tragic
dam-
[p. 9051]
-------
1694
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
age to wildlife and our natural en-
vironment. Making those who handle
oil and other possible pollutants respon-
sible for the cost of any damage will
provide, a powerful incentive for them
to take ever greater measures of pro-
tection.
One provision of the bill makes ship-
owners liable for oil discharge or spill-
age cleanup costs up to $10 million, or
$100 million per gross ton. It provides
criminal penalties against individuals
operationally responsible for vessels
who fail to promptly report a discharge
of oil or other polluting matter to the
Coast Guard or Secretary of Interior.
It also provides civil penalties against
vessel owners or operators in cases of
willful or negligent discharge. The
measure would authorize the Govern-
ment to recover costs of clearing up dis-
charge or spillage presenting an actual
or threatened pollution hazard if those
responsible are unable or unwilling to
remove it.
But this legislation does not stop in
these major areas of water pollution
concern. It provides protecton against
discharge of inadequately treated sew-
age from vessels, and authorizes a dem-
onstration program on acid and other
mine water pollution control. Research
funds on water quality control are also
provided, and it is hoped that these
expenditures will enable us to do a far
better job of preserving and protecting
our water environment in the future.
Taking all of these things into account,
the legislation is strongly in the national
interest. From my own area's view-
point, it could help prevent the golden
sands of Miami Beach from being de-
spoiled by oil from offshore vesssls—a
tragedy which has not happened so far
only because of good fortune. Inter-
nationally, this bill would help cleanse
the world's waters by encouraging for-
eign nations to follow our example
The increasing size and number of oil
tankers, the growing exploration for off-
shore oil, and the presence of other
pollutants make it necessary that we
impose these new protections. There-
fore, I strongly urge my colleagues to
approve this bill.
The CHAIRMAN. There being no
further requests for time, pursuant to
the rule, the Clerk will read the Com-
mittee substitute amendment printed in
the bill as an original bill for purposes
of amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4148
Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives oj the United States oj
America in Congress assembled, That ihis
Act may be cited as the "Water Quality
Improvement Act of 1969 "
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I move
that the Committe do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and
the Speaker having assumed the chair,
Mr. SMITH of Iowa, Chairman of the
Committe of the Whole House on the
State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under consid-
eration the bill (H.R. 4148) to amend the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended, and for other purposes, had
come to no resolution thereon.
GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to
extend their remarks on the bill (H.R.
4148) and include extraneous matter.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
[p. 9052]
Mr. FALLON. 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 con-
sideration of the bill (H.R. 4148) to
amend the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended, and for other
purposes.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman
from Maryland.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1695
The motion was agreed to.
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Accordingly the House resolved itseli
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further
consideration of the bill H.R. 4148, with
Mr SMITH of Iowa in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN When the Com-
mittee rose on yesterday the Clerk had
read through section 1, ending on page
38, line 17, of the committee substitute
amendment.
If there are no amendments to this
section, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
* # * # #
[p. 9259]
Mr. FALLON (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the remainder of the committee
substitute amendment 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
Maryland?
There was no objection.
AMENDMENTS OFFERED BY MR EDMONOSON
Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, I
offer several amendments, and ask unan-
imous consent that they be considered en
bloc.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. EDMONDSON) ?
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, reserving
the right to object, may we hear the
amendments read first.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re-
port the amendments.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendments offered by Mr. EDMONDSON'
On page 74, strike out line 3, and insert in
lieu thereof the following "adversely af-
fected State or interstate water pollution
control agency as determined by i.he licensing
or permitting agency "
On page 74, line 11, after the period insert
the following "If an affected State or inter-
state water pollution control agency or ihe
Secretary, as the case may be, fails to act LO
certify or refuse to certify within a reason-
able period of time as deteimined by the
licensing or permitting agency after notifica-
tion of such application, the certification re-
quirements of this subsection shall be waived
with respect to such State, agency, or Secre-
tary, as the case may be, with respect to 3uch
application "
On page 74, line 18, strike out "(1)".
On page 74, lino 21, strike out the second
comma and mseit in lieu thereof a period
On page 74, strike out line 22 and all that
follows down through and including the pe-
riod on line 23
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw
my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Oklahoma (Mr. EDMONDSON)?
There was no objection.
Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr Chairman,
yesterday's general debate on this bill
developed some possible grounds for
misunderstanding between the Commit-
tee on Public Works and the Joint Com-
mittee on Atomic Energy with regard to
procedural matters arising from the
technical language of section 11 (b).
These amendments were worked out
last night with a considerable amount of
discussion, and I think very careful con-
sideration by members of our committee
sitting with the chairman of the Joint
Committee on Atomic Energy and with
staff people from both committees.
There as been discussion today by
members on our side of the aisle with
the ranking minority member and with
staff of the minority to resolve these
problems.
The words "affected State or interstate
ater pollution control agency," as used
in the bill originally, left both the appli-
can for a license or permit and probably
the States in doubt as to what "affected"
means.
The amendment makes it clear that it
is the responsibility of the licensing or
permitting agency of the Federal Gov-
ernment to determine, at least initially,
which are the States involved, and it is
!rom the States included in that deter-
mination that the applicant must obtain
us certification.
The Federal agency must also set a
-------
1696
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
reasonable time within which the State
must act, either to grant or to deny, the
certification.
Now it does not have any particular
pressure to compel certification but it is
put in the position with this amendment
to do away with dalliance or unreason-
able delay and to require a "yes" or "no"
and certification by States that are con-
sidered to be adversely affected.
The failure by the State to act in one
way or the other within the prescribed
time would constitute a waiver of the
certification required as to that State.
With respect to the deletion of the
mandatory requirement for a second
certificate prior to issuance of an operat-
ing license the committee recognizes the
possible undue and severe burden that
might arise from potential time delays.
The committee also believes that the lan-
guage of the subsection, as it stands and
without that second mandatory require-
ment, still adequately protects the State,
in that any affected State which believes
its best interest requires that it take a
second look at the contemplated opera-
tion of the facility involved can exercise
its right to do so simply by notifying
the licensing agency that it objects to the
use of the original certification in the
granting of the operating license. That
would then, without further requirement
afford the State the opportunity to re-
view the matter and provide recertifica-
tion or not as it saw fit. It is, of course,
inherent in all of this that full and com-
plete information will be made available
to all the States involved by both the
applicant and the licensing or permitting
agency.
I would like to make it clear that in
giving the Federal licensing agency the
initial responsibility for determining
which are the affected States or the ad-
versely affected States, as this term is
used in the amendment, we in no way
intend to lessen or transgress upon the
right of any State to seek judicial relief if
it feels its best interests warrant such a
move. There is no intent in this amend-
ment to cut off any judicial remedy or
any judicial right that would be avail-
able to the States.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDMONDSON. I am happy to
yield to the gentleman from California.
I want to thank him at this time for the
long period of time after hours yesterday
which he gave to consideration of this
problem, and I recognize the very serious
nature of it in terms of the development
of our nuclear power potential in this
country.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I,
too, wish to support the amendment of-
fered by the gentleman. I also want to
thank the gentleman and the other mem-
bers of the committee and the staff for
spending several hours with us yesterday
working over some of these troublesome
details which I believe the amendments
will cure in the main and that we will be
able to proceed. It is my hope that in the
development of the energy which is
needed in this country that we all realize
that every 9 years we have to double the
electrical capacity of this country, and
it is from that electrical energy that we
will depend for the development of our
industry, our homes, and our whole
society.
Section 3 of H.R. 4143, as proposed to
be amended by the Public Works Com-
mittee, would amend section II of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act to
require, among other things, that any
applicant for a Federal license or permit
to conduct an activity which may result
m discharges into the navigable waters
of the United States to provide the li-
censing agency with a certification from
each State which may be adversely af-
fected by such discharge, or from the
applicable interstate water pollution
control agency, that there is reasonable
assurance that the activity will be con-
ducted in a manner that will not reduce
the quality of the water below applicable
water quality standards. In the event of
a dispute over the question, the Federal
licensing or permitting agency would
determine which states might be "ad-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1697
versely affected" by the discharge Fur-
ther, if an affected State or interstate
water pollution control agency or the
Secretary, as the case may be, fails to
act to certify or refuse to certify
within a reasonable period of time as
determined by the licensing or permit-
ting agency after notification of such
application, the certification require-
ments of the bill would be waived with
respect to such State, agency, or Secre-
tary, as the case may be, with respect to
such application.
One result of this requirement will be
that nuclear powerplants, which of
course are federally licensed and which
obviously must discharge waste heat into
condenser cooling waters for return to
adjoining waterways, will be reviewed
by appropriate State water pollution
control authorities prior to Atomic En-
ergy Commission licensing to see that the
heated liquid effluents discharged from
the facility will not reduce the quality of
adjoining waters below approved water
quality standards.
I believe this preventive aspect of H R
4148 complements the existing thermal
pollution control measures that have
been taken under the Water Quality Act
[p. 9264J
of 1965, and should contribute signifi-
cantly to avoiding situations wherein
after-the-fact abatement actions have to
be instituted to remedy existing pollu-
tion violations.
I believe the committee amendment to
H.R. 4148 is a considerable improvement
over the bill's present language in sev-
eral respects First, it is now clear who
shall determine, in the event of a ques-
tion in this regard, which State or States
are "affected " Also, there must be a po-
tential for "adverse affect," as opposed
to a mere "affect," which as I interpret
the word could mean something as insig-
nificant as 1 B.t u. Third, this amend-
ment guards against a situation where
the water pollution control authority in
the State in which the activity is to be
located, or possibly in some other State,
simply sits on its hands and does nothing.
Any such dalliance could kill a proposed
project just as effectively as an outright
determination on the merits not to issue
the required certificate. Thus while this
bill would still permit one State to make
a decision that would have extraterri-
torial effect upon another, at least now it
cannot do so passively—it has to take
affirmative action to consider the matter
and to decide to withhold the certificate
if it wants to defeat a proposed project.
I therefore thoroughly support the
amendment, and urge my colleagues
with all the powers of persuasion I can
marshal to vote its enactment.
The committee has also proposed an
amendment to H R. 4148 that would help
to alleviate a problem under the bill
caused by the fact that, under the Atomic
Energy Act, nuclear powerplants are li-
censed in two stages: First, a construc-
tion permit must be obtained from the
AEC to build the facility, and then an
operating license must be obtained to
operate the finished facility. As orig-
inally reported the proposed amendment
to section 11 of the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act would have required
an applicant for an AEC license to sub-
mit the requisite certification at both
stages in the licensing process. It seemed
to me that satisfaction of section ll's
requirements at the construction permit
stage should suffice unless subsequent
thereto the license applicant proposed a
material change which would affect the
environment adversely.
The committee amendment to H.R.
4148 proposed today would eliminate the
requirement for dual certification, but
does so in a way that fully protects the
affected State or States. Under the
amendment as I understand it, the cer-
tification obtained at the construction
permit stage would also suffice at the op-
erating license stage unless, after notice
given by the Federal agency concerned,
an affected State, or the Secretary if his
certification is involved, makes written
objection to the agency. In that event
the certification given earlier at the
-------
1698
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
construction permit stage would require
reconsideration.
This amendment is not everything I
would like it to be, since there are not
any real safeguards in the bill to protect
an applicant against arbitrary action by
a State agency after the applicant has
invested vast sums in his facility, but at
least the large potential for delay built
into the reported bill's dual-certification
requirement has been somewhat miti-
gated. I trust, moreover, that, quite
apart from the bill, the normal appeals
procedures to the courts will protect a
license applicant who, in a rare case,
might be prevented from obtaining his
operating license by actions of the State
which are arbitrary or capricious, and
based other than on the technical facts
involved. I, therefore, support the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, 1 have a number of
comments related to the bill itself, but
not to any particular amendments now
under consideration. They relate pri-
marily to section 3 of the bill, and I
would like to include them in the RECORD.
Section 3 primarily concerns thermal,
or heat, pollution of our waterways, a
matter of considerable interest to me I
sponsored legislation in the last session
addressed to the thermal pollution prob-
lem, at least as it relates to nuclear power
plants, and planned to re-introduce the
measure in this session. However, as I
pointed out in a floor statement on March
11, I refrained from doing so in deference
to more comprehensive legislation like
H.R. 4148, which would be applicable to
all Federal departments and agencies
and, in substantial part, to all forms of
steam powerplants—fossil fired as well
as nuclear.
One result of this bill's new require-
ments will be that nuclear powerplants,
which of course are federally licensed
and which obviously must discharge
waste heat into condenser cooling waters
for return to adjoining waterways, will
be reviewed by appropriate State water
pollution control authorities prior to
Atomic Energy Commission licensing to
see that the heated liquid effluents dis-
charged from that facility will not reduce
the quality of adjoining waters below
approved water quality standards.
Because of my interest in the thermal
pollution aspects of this legislation, I sug-
gested several technical amendments for
the Public Works Committee's consider-
ation during its consideration of this
matter. I am gratified that a number of
these recommendations were accepted
by the committee, and that explanatory
comments in the committee report have
further served to clarify the intent of
H.R. 4148
For example, proposed new section
11 (b) of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act has been amended by the
committee to require only that the certi-
fying State agency find that there is rea-
sonable assurance of compliance with
applicable water quality standards. The
earlier version would have required a
virtual guarantee by the State agency
concerned that under no conceivable
circumstances could the facility's dis-
charges violate any of the applicable
water quality standards. The require-
ment imposed by H.R. 4148 would appear
to be considerably more workable and in
keeping with the tests laid down in other
legislative grants of regulatory authority.
Also, under the earlier version of this
bill any affected license or permit would
have been automatically suspended if a
court of competent jurisdiction found
that such licensee or permittee was not
in compliance with applicable water
quality standards. In view of the pos-
sible adverse effect upon the reliability
of a region's electric power supply which
the forced shutdown of a large electrical
generating facility could have, it seemed
to me considerably more advisable to
accord the court discretionary power
to permit continuation of the activity
pending necessary modification of the
facility or its appurtenances, if that is
feasible, or of the operating practices
followed there. This recommendation
also has been accepted.
Another of the concerns which I
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1699
brought to the committee's attention re-
lated to an apparent potential conflict
under proposed new section ll(b) with
the responsibility of the Atomic Energy
Commission to regulate the radiological
effects of source, byproduct, and special
nuclear materials, as these terms are
defined in the Atomic Energy Act. I w?s
gratified to note the statement in the
committee's report to the effect that
nothing in section ll(b) should be con-
strued to conflict with the AEC's pre-
emptive authority under the Atomic
Energy Act Additional clarifying lan-
guage of a somewhat similar nature
appears elsewhere in the report and in
subsections (a) (2) and (j) of proposed
new section 17 of the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Act.
The committee's solution to another
question gives me some cause for con-
cern. Because it would often appear
impractical to require significant changes
in the design of a nuclear facility after
substantial progress had been made in
its construction, and because the impo-
sition of any such requirement could
seriously delay operation of a facility
whose on-line availability was planned
years in advance and probably heavily
counted on by the affected systems, I
recommended to the committee that it
exempt from section ll's coverage those
nuclear facilities for which construction
permits had been issued at the time of
the bill's enactment. The committee bill
has afforded some, but not complete,
relief in such cases
As I understand the committee bill, if
a construction permit has been issued for
a facility and construction of that facility
is actually underway at the time of
enactment of H R. 4148, the certification
called for by the bill would be postponed
for 2 years from date of enactment as to
such facility if during that period the
permittee applies for his operating li-
cense. If at the end of this 2-year grace
period the requisite certification has not
been obtained the operating license
previously issued without certification
would automatically terminate. Thus, as
I understand it, anyone applying for an
AEC operating license after enactment
of the Water Quality Improvement Act
of 1969 who had received his construction
permit and actually commenced con-
struction prior to enactment could re-
ceive such operating authorization
without the certification required by the
act, but his operating license would be
subject to automatic termination 2 years
from the date of the act if within that
time he does not provide the required
certification.
[p. 9265]
To my way of thinking this require-
ment has a certain retroactive tone to it
that normally is repugnant to Congress.
However, the requirement is one that
affected license applicants probably can
accommodate themselves to without un-
due hardship, and hopefully without
unnecessary delays in their operations, if
the law is implemented with reason and
fairness by the State water pollution
control authorities and, where he is
involved, the Secretary of the Interior.
Therefore, rather than offering an
amendment to modify the bill in this
respect I shall simply express the deep
hope and expectation that the States, or
the Secretary of the Interior if he is in-
volved, will implement this part of the
legislation sensibly. If they do not, I
rather suspect that they may find them-
selves carrying on their work by the light
of a flickering candle.
I shudder to think of the adverse effect
upon the reliability of a region's electric
power supply which would be had if one
or more operating nuclear powerplants
in the area were forced to shut down
because it was unable to obtain the
required certification. Most of the newer
nuclear plants are in the 800 to 1,000
electrical megawatt range; each, there-
fore, will be providing a significant share
of the affected system's total power out-
put. In view of this, I think it hardly
necessary to elaborate further on the
consequences of the forced shutdown of
one of these plants after it has been fully
-------
1700
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
constructed and is in operation. Nor
need I elaborate, I suppose, on the eco-
nomic impact of such action on the
Nation's utilities and their rate-payers,
who after all are the people who actually
pay the tremendous sums—in the vicin-
ity of $150 million—represented by each
of these large nuclear facilities.
As you can see, Mr. Chairman, I have
followed the progress of this bill and
substantially similar legislation in the
other body quite closely. I believe, that
for the most part, the Committee on
Public Works has recommended a very
fine piece of legislation. I want to com-
mend the committee for the outstanding
job that it and its staff have done, and
urge my colleagues to vote for the
amended bill's passage.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Oklahoma has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. EDMOND-
SON was allow to proceed for 1 addi-
tional minute.)
Mr. EDMONDSON. I yield further to
the gentleman.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Any unnecessary or
bureaucratic obstruction that we place
in the development of electrical energy
and the development of the capacity to
produce energy will be working, in my
opinion, against the general welfare of
our society. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. EDMONSON. I agree whole-
heartedly with the gentleman. I do not
know of any Member of this House who
has done more through the years to try
to develop the full potential of our coun-
try in terms of electrical power and en-
ergy. I think he has been a stouthearted
champion of measures to develop our
hydroelectric power, our steampower
through fossil fuels, and in the atomic
energy field, and, of course, he is with-
out peer in his efforts in this direction.
This committee respects the merits of
his argument on the subject and is of-
fering these amendments in an effort to
meet those objections to the best of our
ability.
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. EDMONDSON. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Ohio.
Mr. HARSHA. The amendment of-
fered by the gentleman would strike the
language appearing on page 74, line 22,
which would do away with the need of
second certification at the time an oper-
ating license is required; is that correct?
Mr. EDMONDSON. It would relieve
the mandatory requirements in the bill.
It would eliminate the mandatory
requirement for a second operating
certificate.
Mr. HARSHA. Does this apply only to
nuclear generating institutions?
Mr. EDMONDSON. I think the lan-
guage of the bill applies to all facilities.
I do not think it is intended to be re-
stricted to any particular facility, but it
is a particularly sensitive thing for the
nuclear facilities.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Oklahoma has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. EDMOND-
SON was allowed to proceed for 1 addi-
tional minute.)
Mr. EDMONDSON. From the time of
the initial construction permit, in the
case of a nuclear facility, there may be
7 years in construction. They may invest
$100 to $150 million in the facility, and
the requirement that we have, a man-
datory requirement to come back for an
operating permit, even when a State was
not seeking it, and even when a State
was not insisting upon it, seems to us to
be an unreasonable requirement in the
law.
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, is it or
is it not a fact that when we first have a
certification for a construction permit,
that deals with water quality at that
time, and subsequent construction of the
institution or enterprise and placing it
into operation does not change the water
quality standards or the effect upon the
water quality standards?
Mr. EDMONDSON. It is my impres-
sion the obligations assumed in these
permits not to affect the water quality
standards adversely would be continuing
obligations, and then as there is upgrad-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1701
ing of water quality standards, there
would be a continuing obligation on the
facility to comply with the water stand-
ards to the limit of its ability.
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, I think
the gentleman does not understand my
question. My question is, When they ob-
tain this first construction permit and
certification, at that time, that subse-
quent construction of the institution and
placing it in operation does not change
what effect the operation of that institu-
tion will have on water quality stand-
ards from what was certified to at the
initial application.
Mr EDMONDSON. I think certifica-
tion would be given only as to the stand-
ards that were known, and they would
have to be standards that were estab-
lished at that time. But I still have the
opinion that there would be carried some
obligation in the operation to try to up-
grade the pollution prevention to the
limit of the institution's ability.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take
the 5 minutes, but I do want to rise and
ask the gentleman a question. I rise in
support of the objective which the gen-
tleman wishes to preserve. The gentle-
man has advised us of the nature of the
amendments and the specific verbiage.
I am in support of what the gentleman
intends to accomplish
There have been many discussions
about dual certification and I want to
make sure what the gentleman is doing
will accomplish the objective—as I am
sure he does—of making certain that
these certifications result in the opera-
tion of the facility in conformance to
the water quality standards. I ask the
gentleman' Is that not the basic objec-
tive which we all seek?
Mr. EDMONDSON. Certainly there is
no particular value in just getting rea-
sonable assurance they are going to do
something. Our real objective is to get
an operating facility that does not ad-
versely affect water standards.
In this regard all we are seeking to do
with these requirements about certifica-
tion is to get attention early in the con-
struction process to the problem of not
affecting water standards adversely.
The facility should be designed and
engineered from the first to take care
of that problem as the facility is
constructed.
Mr. CRAMER. So the construction, as
it relates to new construction and as it
relates to requiring a Federal license or
certification, is that in a continuing activ-
ity it would require a certification be
granted—and this is the key, as I under-
stand it—what do they have to certify7
As I read it on page 74, line 5, they have
to certify "that such activity will be
conducted in a manner which will not
reduce the quality of such waters below
applicable water quality standards."
So I ask the gentleman: Is it not cor-
rect that the thrust of the initial certi-
fication, for the certification itself under
the gentleman's amendment, is that when
in operation that facility has to conform
to the applicable water standards' So
really if it does not conform, that condi-
tion of the certification itself will con-
tinue to control, making certain that
those standards are conformed to.
Mr. EDMONDSON. That is my un-
derstanding. I would hope that the
licensing and permitting agencies will
have the same feeling about it, that the
certification is a safeguard that assures
early attention to the problems when
they design and build the plant, but that
it is also a continuing safeguard to the
State and that it is a safeguard that is
meaningful to the State. I hope the
licensing and certifying agency would
construe it in that way and undertake to
correct any violations
Mr. CRAMER. With that assurance
and as I read the language of the gentle-
man's amendment, and the basic legisla-
tion before us, I support the gentleman's
amendments offered en bloc.
[p. 9266]
Mr EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman.
Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. Mr. Chair-
-------
1702
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CRAMER. I yield to the gentle-
man from California.
Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. As I under-
stand the objective and thrust of the
amendment offered by the gentleman
from Oklahoma (Mr. EDMONDSON), there
is to be no sacrifice as far as water
quality standards are concerned; it is
principally designed to facilitate the pro-
cedures; is this true?
Mr. EDMONDSON. I believe the ma-
jor problem disturbing the gentleman on
the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy
was the new statutory requirement for a
second certification, involving other
States as well as the State in which the
facility is located.
Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. This will in
fact eliminate the dual certification
requirement?
Mr. EDMONDSON. One of the
amendments will have that effect.
Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. I urge sup-
port of the amendment
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. CRAMER. I yield to the gentle-
man from California.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding.
I believe I support the principle of
eliminating water pollution as much as
any Member of the committee. I am
very much concerned.
It is my understanding also, I might
say, that we are referring to thermal
plants, which include nuclear energy but
also include conventional energy or any
other kind of thermal pollution that goes
into these streams. It is my understand-
ing that all of these facilities—whether
they be conventional, papermill, or nu-
clear—will comply and will be forced to
comply to the applicable water quality
standards of the specific State which
may be involved.
Mr. CRAMER. The gentleman is cor-
rect. It is contemplated before too long
every State will have such standards.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Florida has expired.
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in opposition to the amendment.
I do not believe the full impact of the
amendment is really understood by the
members of the committee. It is in fact
a very dangerous and damaging amend-
ment for those who are seriously con-
cerned about pollution.
I intend to offer, as soon as I can be
recognized, an amendment dealing with
this problem of thermal pollution, be-
cause I do not believe that the legisla-
tion as reported from the committee, as
I mentioned on yesterday during the
general debate, is really strong enough.
The gentleman from Florida says
eventually we are going to have adequate
State standards, but the fact of the mat-
ter is that we do not have them now in
most States, and not even in the State
of New York.
The problem of thermal pollution is a
relatively new problem, and certainly it
is not one that has created the kind of
damage we have seen in oil pollution,
about which we are doing something
now. After the horse is stolen we are
closing the barn door.
Thermal pollution occurs when one
pumps heated water into the small lakes
and streams, which is taken out of the
stream at a cooled temperature and is
used to cool the nuclear reactors, and
then is put back into the lake or stream.
This is now being proposed on Cayuga
Lake, one of the distinguished and beau-
tiful Finger Lakes of New York State.
I quoted yesterday inexactly from the
distinguished alma mater of Cornell Uni-
versity, in introducing my remarks, but
the fact is that far above Cayuga's waters
we do have this problem at the present
time.
Unless we move quickly now to pre-
vent this kind of thermal pollution,
which can destroy wildlife, which can
destroy fish, and which can increase the
growth of weeds, we are going to ruin
a great many of the Finger Lakes, and
ruin other small recreational lakes in the
districts of every one of the Members.
Members have not heard about this,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1703
probably, if they have not begun build-
ing nuclear power plants in their dis-
tricts but as the gentleman from
California and the gentleman from Okla-
homa have said, there will be a -lot of
new plants built in the next few years.
What this amendment proposes is that
if any of the plants get constructed
without cooling towers or cooling basins,
being required, if they can get the con-
struction grant before these State stand-
ards have come in, they can continue to
operate in this way without any necessity
for getting an additional operating cer-
tificate 2 years later.
It will be a long time before we get the
appropriate State standards, and the
plant on Cayuga Lake is proposed for
construction now. The Atomic Energy
Commission may be meeting even later
this spring to act on their application.
Unless we get tough standards in this
bill the damage may already have been
started when that permit is granted.
It would be a sad tragedy if we told
these nuclear powerplants this. Surely,
the gentleman from California wants to
encourage construction of nuclear gen-
erating plants.
I do not object to that. Nuclear power
is here to stay. But let us insist that we
have proper protection against thermal
pollution in these plants. If you do not
do it now, you will be hearing from the
conservationists in your area. The gen-
tleman from New York (Mr. ROBISON)
and I can guarantee you that, because
we have heard.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment should
be defeated.
Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield9
Mr. STRATTON. I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr EDMONDSON. I regret person-
ally that I had not seen the gentleman's
amendment or had an opportunity to
look at it until this minute, and I regret
that I do not have a carefully formed
judgment about it. There may be con-
siderable merit to the gentleman's
amendment.
Mr. STRATTON. What the gentle-
man's amendment would do would even
compound the situation even if my
amendment were not to pass. That is
what disturbs me.
Mr. EDMONDSON. I fail to under-
stand how the gentleman concludes that
it will compound a situation in view of
the fact that the certification that is
originally given on these facilities is a
continuing requirement upon the facili-
ties and it is not something that is
terminated with the construction. Fur-
thermore, the amendments recom-
mended do not affect in any way the
provision on lines 6 to 13 of page 75
requiring certification by States for fa-
cilities on which construction began
prior to passage of this act.
Mr. STRATTON. If the gentleman
will permit me to say it, if this bill will
pass, there is not going to be any require-
ment for certification. If the bill is
passed in the form in which it exists now,
with the gentleman from Oklahoma's
amendment added, there are not going to
be any real binding New York State re-
quirements to deal with thermal pollu-
tion. That means a nuclear powerplant
will be built far above Cayuga's waters
and will be damaging Cayuga Lake and
we will have no opportunity, as the bill
is now written, to come back in 2 years
with a requirement that it cannot con-
tinue to operate under those loose and
ineffective State standards on thermal
pollution.
Mr. EDMONDSON. Will the gentle-
man yield?
Mr. STRATTON. I will be glad to
yield
Mr. EDMONDSON. Of course, if
there are no State standards, then the
Federal Government is at liberty under
this bill to impose standards itself and
require certification by the secretary.
The bill assures against any escape from
certification.
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise
m support of the amendments
Mr. Chairman, I fully appreciate the
gentleman from New York's concern
-------
1704
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
over what he terms thermal pollution.
Almost all economic activities that we
carry on, including the making of ice,
involve some amount of disposition of
heat into the environment. In some
cases you can logically term this thermal
pollution. In other cases you might term
it thermal enrichment because the
warmer waters will enable you to pro-
duce better crops on irrigated land and
to produce larger harvests of fish for
human food consumption in ponds and
so on. So you cannot take this business
of what happens to heat in the abstract
and pin the label "b-a-d" on it and get up
here and legislate against it. Particu-
larly—and this is what I want to call to
the attention of the gentleman from New
York—you cannot consider the matter
of thermal effects in the abstract in an-
other sense. What these nuclear electric
generating plants and conventional elec-
tric generating plants are being built for
is to supply a very critical need by the
American people and the American
economy for an increasing amount of
electric power. We double over every
period of 10 years in this society of ours
our requirements for electric power.
Now, that means if we are going to sup-
port and sustain the type of economic
advancement this country has become
accus-
[p. 9627]
tomed to, we are going to have to find
some place to put the generating stations
And let me say that the conventional
generating stations dissipate heat only
at a fractionally lower amount into the
environment than do the nuclear gen-
erating stations.
We here in Washington cannot be the
arbiter of whether in the State of New
York the need is greater for this added
electrical capacity, or whether the need
is greater to keep Lake Cayuga's waters
on an average annual basis as to tem-
perature—from going 1 or 2 degrees
higher in temperature than it is today.
The people of New York are going to
have to make up their minds as to which
is the most valuable to them. They are
going to have to decide as between the
temperature of Lake Cayuga or possibly
some other lake, and whether they want
to have blackouts in the last half of the
1970's due to the lack of electrical gen-
erating capacity to meet the new load
growth for electricity developing over
that period of time.
I do not believe that we would be
asked by the gentleman from New York
to make that decision here in Washing-
ton despite the fact that the allegation
is made that all the wisdom of the coun-
try resides along the banks of the Po-
tomac. Actually, the gentlemen's people
in New York and in other parts of the
country are going to have to live with or
without electricity, they are going to
have to live with or without a slight
amount of thermal enrichment in some
of the waters of their areas if they are
going to have their electricity require-
ments fulfilled. Therefore, since this is
something that is personal to them and
to their environment, and despite the
fact that the gentleman from New York
is not happy about the status of the law
on thermal pollution in the State of New
York, I do not believe the burden is upon
us here in Washington to attempt at the
present time to make that decision for
them. To do what he suggests would
erect an almost unscalable barrier to in-
stallation of electric generating capacity,
not only against the people of New York,
but against all the people of this country.
I think if the gentleman from New
York is dissatisfied with the standards
that have been established by the State
of New York, as a citizen of the State of
New York he should appeal to his duly-
elected State representatives. They
write him letters as a Member of Con-
gress on Federal issues, so, perhaps the
gentleman can write letters to them with
reference to this matter which is a State
issue.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from California has expired.
Mr. ROBISON. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1705
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield to me in order that
I may respond to the statements which
have been made by the gentleman from
California?
Mr. ROBISON. Yes, I yield briefly to
the gentleman from New York.
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, I
should like to comment upon what the
gentleman from California has said. The
gentleman from California does not un-
derstand that the question of a construc-
tion permit for a plant on Cayuga Lake
could well be settled prior to this legisla-
tion being enacted. The Atomic Energy
Commission has no authority to consider
thermal pollution.
I have no opposition to the develop-
ment of nuclear power-generating fa-
cilities. All I am suggesting is that when
we build them let us build them in such
a manner as not to have thermal pollu-
tion. That can be done, but it will not
be done unless we have some kind of
protective legislation enacted before this
bill becomes law.
Mr. CRAMER Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ROBISON. I yield to the gentle-
man from Florida.
Mr. CRAMER. I think the gentleman
from New York (Mr. STRATTON) is
wrong. I say this for three reasons; First
he wants Federal standards, and I do not
know of anyone else with the exception
of a few, who does. I certainly do not
want Federal standards. That is what
we would have to have in order to ac-
complish the objective which is sought
by the gentleman from New York (Mr
STRATTON) .
Second, he is saying that, perhaps, this
bill will become law before they get a
construction permit. It seems to me that
the gentleman is assuming that is the
case, and I am not willing to assume it.
He is a pretty good long way away from
getting a permit for construction of that
plant. But, assuming that is true, you
still have the requirement of conform-
ing to the standards of that State relating
to thermal pollution, and all other pollu-
tion which is required under the present
law and now in the future So long as
that plant operates it will be subject to
the thermal pollution standards of the
State of New York, and subject to the
court's enforcement powers under the
basic law. If they were to get a permit,
the controlling factor still would be what
that State's standards are with regard to
pollution, and not what the Federal Gov-
ernment says.
Mr STRATTON. Will the gentleman
yield further?
Mr. ROBISON I would like to take
part of my own time now, if I might for
a moment.
Getting back to the issue as I see it,
this is not the time to discuss now
whether we should have Federal stand-
ards or State standards here, but to dis-
cuss this particular amendment, instead
Let me say, in whatever time I have
left, that I am sorry the committee has
seen fit to change its position with re-
spect to dual certifications. It seems to
me it has changed its position for one
reason, at least, that lies at the heart
of this debate over dual certification, in
that it does seem to place an unfair dis-
advantage on those who wish to build
nuclear powerplants while those who
build instead fossil-fueled powerplants
are not required to obtain two Federal
licenses or permits, but at best only one,
and that from the Corps of Engineers,
not the Atomic Energy Commission.
Now, I can see why the committee does
not want—or anyone wants—to put any
unfair barrier in the path of nuclear
powerplants that is not going to be faced
by those who might build fossil-fueled
powerplants. But let me ask this ques-
tion—and I would like to direct it to the
attention of the gentleman from Okla-
homa (Mr. EDMONDSON).
We know all too little yet about ther-
mal effects or thermal discharge, and we
do not know yet even how to define
"thermal pollution '' We are doing a lot
of Federal research into this particular
problem as well as into other aspects of
the water pollution field. If we learn, as
-------
1706
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
a result of this additional research, that
some of the safeguards that are con-
templated as necessary now in order to
prevent thermal effects from becoming
thermal pollution are not adequate, are
we not by this amendment in effect
freezing a State's ability to review and
update its water quality standards in this
respect?
Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROBISON. I yield to the gentle-
man from Oklahoma.
Mr. EDMONDSON. I tried to make it
as clear as I could in my own remarks
that I did not personally have the view
that the gentleman has about freezing
the water standards of a State. It was
my view that a State should be endeav-
oring constantly to upgrade its water
standards, so that there would be in any
of these certificates and in any of these
permits the continuing obligation upon
the operator to try to meet the new water
standards of the State.
Now, if the gentleman just wants to
say that we are not going to build any-
thing that has a remote possibility the
potential of having some adverse effect,
we can stop the construction of every
powerplant in the country. I believe that
could be the effect of what the gentleman
from New York—not the gentleman in
the well—is suggesting here as a pro-
cedural amendment at this point.
But I believe there is a duty on the
part of the committee to enable the coun-
try to go ahead with some construction
permits under the understanding that we
would have a continuing review author-
ity in the issuing agency, and in fact a
requirement for that continuing review.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
(On request of Mr. EDMONDSON, and
by unanimous consent, Mr. ROBISON was
allowed to proceed for 3 additional
minutes).
Mr. ROBISON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman answer another question
I put to him then, in this way: Supposing
the Atomic Energy Commission grants a
construction permit for such a plant, and
then in the intervening 3- or 4-year pe-
riod between the granting of the con-
struction permit and the time when the
plant gets ready to go "on the line," as
they say, and the utility comes back to
the AEC for its operating permit, sup-
posing the condition of the stream that
is to receive this thermal discharge has
changed substantially; supposing the
State now wants to update and review
the certification that it sent down to the
AEC 3 or 4 years ago and now says, "Ad-
ditional safeguards are needed beyond
those that we thought were needed at
the time of beginning construction," this
[p. 9268]
is a theoretical question that I am pre-
senting to you—but what happens then?
Mr. EDMONDSON. That is one of
several possibilities that were discussed
well into the night last night, and chang-
ing conditions could develop in a number
of ways when one of these permits is
issued.
When you have changing conditions
and when you have a different situation
prevailing, I think it would be incumbent
upon the Atomic Energy Commission to
take a second look at the permit that has
been issued.
I think the State also would have the
absolute right, as I read this legislation,
at any time it reaches the conclusion
that there is going to be an adverse ef-
fect from the operation of this facility—
anytime it reaches that conclusion that
its actual conduct of the operation is
not going to measure up to the assur-
ances that were given, I think the State
would have the right to withdraw its
certification.
Mr. ROBISON. Then the State would
have to go to court or the Federal Gov-
ernment would go into court to obtain
a restraining order with respect to this
plant at that point in time, as not being
in conformity with the water quality
standards of the State as then in effect?
Mr. EDMONDSON. I think the right
to go to court would be present at all
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1707
times and is not affected by the statute.
If we are talking solely about nuclear
facilities and the withdrawal of the cer-
tification that the State granted the op-
erator, I believe on withdrawal; the
Atomic Energy Commission would be
obligated to call in the operator and to
advise him the situation should be cor-
rected or he would be required to shut
down the operation.
Mr. ROBISON. I appreciate the gen-
tleman's clarification for the record. I
must say I still regret the change in the
committee's position, and I hope the
amendment is defeated.
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROBISON. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. STRATTON. Would the gentle-
man from Oklahoma agree that the
amendment makes it purely optional
with the Atomic Energy Commission and
puts no mandate on it. As a matter of
fact, knowing the record of the Atomic
Energy Commission with regard to ther-
mopollution, I would not be as optimistic
as the gentleman is.
Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield so that I may
respond to our colleague?
Mr. ROBISON I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. EDMONDSON. I have reached
the conclusion in the period of time that
I have been here that it is almost impos-
sible to mandate any agency to do any-
thing. We are trying within the limits of
our legislative ability to mandate them
to do what is right in this situation.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendments offered by the gentle-
man from Oklahoma (Mr. EDMONDSON).
The amendments were agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MATSUNAGA
Mr. MATSUNAGA Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr MATSUNAGA
On page 55, line 23, immediately after "in-
cludes" insert the following" "the States, Jie
District of Columbia,".
Mr MATSUNAGA. Mr. Chairman,
the amendment I have offered is purely
a technical amendment intended to
provide consistency and uniformity of
language.
The definition of "United States" on
page 39, line 22, of the bill includes the
District of Columbia. However, the Dis-
trict of Columbia is not included in the
same definition which appears on page
55, line 23, purely through inadvertence
according to testimony before the Rules
Committee, of which I am a member.
My amendment would include the Dis-
trict of Columbia in the second definition
to negate any inference that its omission
in the second instance was with a spe-
cific legislative intent.
Mr. FALLON. Mr. Chairman, will the
distinguished gentleman yield?
Mr MATSUNAGA I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. FALLON. Mr Chairman, the
committee on this side accepts the
amendment offered by the distinguished
gentleman from Hawaii.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I have
no objection to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Hawaii ( Mr. MATSUNAGA).
The amendment was agreed to.
AMMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR CLEVELAND
Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr CLEVELAND- On
page 78, after line 22, insert the following
"SEC 8 The Secretary of the Interior shall
conduct a full and complete investigation
and study of the feasibility of any and all
methods of financing the cost of preventing,
controlling, and abating water pollution The
results of such investigation and study shall
be reported 10 Congress no later than Jan-
uary 1, 1970, together with the recommenda-
tions of the Secretary for financing the oro-
grams foi preventing, controlling, and abat-
ing water pollution, including any necessary
legislation "
Renumber succeeding sections accordingly
Mr. CLEVELAND Mr Chairman, the
purpose of this amendment is fairly
clear.
-------
1708
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
We are directing the Secretary of the
Interior to conduct a study as to the
feasibility of any and all methods of
financing federally supported water
pollution programs.
I think most of us realize that over the
years our Committee on Public Works
in connection with various water quality
acts have authorized very substantial
sums, but when it has gotten down to
the actual appropriating process the state
of the budget and the state of the Nation
has not permitted the full appropriation
of the authorizations.
We find again and again as we study
the various States and the various com-
munities that are concerned about this
matter an overwhelming backlog of
projects that have been approved and
cannot be financed. It is causing a
great deal of difficulty in the States and
local communities. I discussed this sub-
ject during general debate yesterday at
some length, and I am not going to
repeat all of that now.
I might say, and I want to make this
particularly clear in the record, that my
own personal recommendation would be
that we establish some sort of trust fund
financed by user fees, taxes, or excises
similar in nature to the highway trust
fund, which has been so notably success-
ful in financing the interstate and the
primary and secondary road networks in
this country. However, my amendment
does not spell out that the study will be
directed only in that direction. It is
much more general. The purpose of this
is to give the Secretary complete latitude
in connection with the studies that we
ask him to make under this amendment.
I think that almost every Member will
find, as he goes back to his State or dis-
trict, that there are a tremendous num-
ber of sewage treatment facilities that are
on the books, that have been approved,
but are awaiting financing. I think it is
fair to say that financing is still the No. 1
issue involved here.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLEVELAND. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Florida.
Mr. CRAMER. I would like to suggest
to the gentleman that I believe his
amendment has considerable merit. I
intend to support it. As the gentleman
knows, we had financing provisions in
the bill last year. For reasons known to
all of us, that type of financing was not
included in this bill. So the point is that
until we get at this problem of financing
sewage treatment plants, we are really
not going down the road of solving water
pollution problems. There is no use kid-
ding ourselves. It takes adequate financ-
ing on the local level, or a partnership on
the local, State, and Federal level; does
it not? Your study would hopefully give
us some guidance.
Mr. CLEVELAND. Exactly. It does
just that. I might also add that—the
gentleman from Florida has been some-
thing of a leader in this regard—tax
incentives to improve or make it more
attractive for industry to build pollution-
abatement facilities is something that the
gentleman from Florida has long urged
and, of course, I think that might be
included in this type of study, or I hope
it would be.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. CLEVELAND. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Michigan.
Mr, DINGELL. I believe the gentle-
man has a meritorious amendment, but
there are some questions I would like
to ask. It may be that there are some
things in there that my good friend from
New Hampshire has not seen. The
amendment states:
The Secretary of the Interior shall conduct
a full and complete investigation and study
of the feasibility of any and all methods of
financing the cost of preventing, controlling
and abating water pollution The results of
such investigation and study shall be re-
ported to Congress no later than January 1,
1970.
One of the critical problems we have
had in this business of water pollution
abatement and water pollution control
[p. 9269]
is that we have not been able to make
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1709
adequate funds available to the States
under Public Law 660, with the result
that many of the State programs are
lagging in cleanup. They are being held
up because of inadequate Federal financ-
ing. What I want to know is whether
the amendment would preclude the Con-
gress from proceeding independently.
Will we be compelled to wait until the
detailed study is completed by the Sec-
retary of the Interior? I think the Con-
gress has some responsibility to move in
this area. I would be loathe>—and I am
sure my friend would be equally loathe—
to have Congress precluded from moving
if and when the Congress might conceive
of an adequate device to finance these
programs. I think the gentleman is well
aware of the fact that the Secretary now
has authority under Public Law 660 as
amended to do precisely what the provi-
sions of the amendment would do.
Though I applaud the amendment, are
we not getting ourselves into a box here?
Mr. CLEVELAND. While we have
authorizations appropriation through the
next fiscal years, I cannot see how we
could be doing that.
Mr. DINGELL. The gentleman knows
that the Public Works Committee in the
past 3 fiscal years has discussed this
subject with everyone—members of the
Department, members of the executive
agency, and individual Members of
Congress.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from New Hampshire has
expired.
(On request of Mr DINGELL, and by
unanimous consent, Mr. CLEVELAND was
allowed to proceed for 3 additional
minutes.)
Mr. DINGELL. It is well known and
everybody is agreed these were sums
that were not feasible but were desper-
ately needed. But to get back to the
point we are talking about, how are we
going to be sure, if this amendment goes
through, that Congress is not going to be
precluded from the possibility of financ-
ing, or will it have to wait to get the
recommendation from the Secretary?
Mr. CLEVELAND. There is nothing
in my amendment that is going to pre-
vent our going right ahead. But our
authorization of $700 million is matched
by a much smaller appropriation request.
Mr. DINGELL. In excess of $214
million?
Mr. CLEVELAND. $214 million. I do
not contemplate the Nixon administra-
tion is going to increase that. I think
they are going to keep it at that figure.
There is nothing in this amendment that
will interfere with that whatsoever.
Mr. DINGELL. The gentleman does
not respond to my question. What is on
my mind is this. Does the gentleman's
amendment say Congress is going to
have to wait until some secretary or
some bureaucrat downtown comes up
with a suggestion as to how we are going
to finance it?
Mr. CLEVELAND. Will the gentle-
man confine his question to one point?
Mr. DINGELL. I tried to.
Mr. CLEVELAND. Then the answer
to the gentleman's question is no.
Mr. DINGELL. The amendment reads
a little differently. It says:
The results of such investigation and study
shall be reported to Congress no later
than January 1. 1970, together with the
recommendations—
Are we going to have to wait, as a
result of this amendment until we have
a recommendation from downtown, or
until there is consideration of it by the
Public Works Committee at some future
time, or will some bureaucrat say, "On
this we have a study going on." Will we
have to wait until that study is com-
pleted? It is well known it is the prac-
tice, when the agencies do not want to
take some action, for them to say, "We
have a study. You wait 2 or 3 years until
our study is completed, and we will give
you some information."
I think, with my friend, this is impor-
tant. In Public Law 660, as amended, we
do have authority for the Secretary to do
what is in this amendment. I think we
are doing something here that will have
results far beyond what the gentleman
-------
1710
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
anticipates. That is, we would be de-
layed in consideration of alternative
methods of financing. These are the
questions I am directing to my friend.
Mr. CLEVELAND. There are a great
many questions there.
Mr. DINGELL. No. It is very simple.
They all revolve around one point.
Mr. CLEVELAND. Then my answer
is "No." There is nothing that would
preclude us from going ahead. If the
gentleman has some ideas, perhaps he
would offer them and I'd be delighted to
support them if they get at this problem
of financing the fight against water
pollution.
Mr. DINGELL. I have considerable
affection for my friend, but I do not
agree with him on this point. I do not
think he is correct.
Mr. GUDE. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. CLEVELAND. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Maryland.
Mr. GUDE. Mr. Chairman, I support
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New Hampshire. This approach
would mean a great deal to my State of
Maryland.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentle-
man for his excellent amendment to this
bill in which he recognizes and points to
the necessity of adequate financing for
the legislative proposals directed toward
controlling water pollution. He specifi-
cally urges a plan whereby the Secretary
of the Interior would conduct investiga-
tions and studies to determine the most
efficacious financing arrangements in
support of pollution control enactments.
I have experienced a similar need as a
Representative of the Eighth Congres-
sional District of Maryland. Maryland
streams including the Potomac and Pa-
tuxent will deteriorate miserably if the
funds are not found to finance our anti-
pollution measures. While Congress has
been quite generous in passing legis-
lation which authorizes substantial
amounts of money to combat pollution,
it has been remiss in making the actual
appropriations of funds when the time
came for coming across with the money
to institute the programs devised. Over
the past 10 years the State Legislature
of Maryland has authorized a $176 mil-
lion debt for water pollution expenses,
$150 million of which has been in the
past 2 years. One reason for the enor-
mity of these debt amounts is because
the Federal Government has not come
through with a proportionately great
enough share. In fact it was reported
only 2 weeks ago that Congress has come
up more than $50 million short on its
promises to share the cost of building
sewage treatment plants in Maryland
under provisions of the Water Pollution
Control Act. The Federal Government
has pledged to contribute $54 million this
year to go along with the $49.9 million
put up by the State; but only $3.9 mil-
lion will come from the Federal Govern-
ment when the fiscal year ends on June
30.
Therefore, I urge adoption of the
amendment of the gentleman from New
Hampshire as a strengthening feature to
the Water Quality Improvement Act of
1969.
I also would like to take this opportu-
nity to express my support for this bill
in its entirety as it speaks to the need
for standards of pollution control on the
navigable waters of the United States
and to the need for sound efficient en-
forcement procedures to cope with any
deviance from those standards. Fur-
thermore, the stance which it permits
the Federal Government with respect
to insuring future progress in pollution
control is most encouraging: research
and vocational incentives will be signifi-
cantly advanced by the scholarship
grants provided for in this Act.
Therefore, I urge adoption of the
amendment and the entire bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from New Hampshire (Mr. CLEVE-
LAND) .
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. STRATTON
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, I
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1711
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. STRATTON On
page 74, line 24, strike out "In" and all that
follows down through and including the
period on line 13 of page 75.
On page 75, line 21, after the period insert
the following. "Nothing in this subsection
shall apply in the case of any applicant for a
Federal license or permit to conduct any
activity which may result in any thermal pol-
lution to which subsection (c) of this section
applies "
On page 75, line 24, strike out the quota-
tion marks and after such line insert ihe
following
"(c) (1) As soon as possible after the en-
actment of this subsection, the Secretaiy,
after consultation with each Federal agency
issuing licenses or permits to which this sub-
section applies, shall promulgate Federal
water quality standards which shall be ex-
pressly designed to prevent thermal pollution
of any waters located in the United States,
by any activity licensed by any Federal
agency or operated under a permit issued by
any Federal agency.
"(2) After the date of the enactment of
this subsection, no Federal agency shall issue
any license or permit to an individual, firm,
corporation, partnership, association. State,
political subdivision of a State, or any other
public body or agency with respect to any
activity which may result in any discharge
into any of the waters of the United States
which may result in the thermal pollution
of such wateis, unless the Secretary, after
[p. 9270]
consulting with the appropriate State water
pollution control agency, and, when appro-
priate, after public hearings, certifies, under
such reasonable terms and conditions as he
may prescribe, to such Federal agency that
such activity will not reduce the quality of
such waters below the Federal standards pro-
mulgated under paragraph (1) Each such
Federal agency shall include in any such li-
cense or permit the terms and conditions
prescribed by the Secretary as he deems ap-
propriate to control the discharges or other
activity in a manner that will not reduce
the quality of the water below such stand-
ards. The Secretary shall establish such pro-
cedures as may be necessary in carrying out
the provisions of this subsection, including,
where appropriate, an opportunity for pub-
lic hearings conducted by him or the Federal
agency issuing such license or permit Each
such Federal agency is hereby authorized to
include in any such license or permit such
terms and conditions as such agency deter-
mines, after obtaining the advice and
recommendations of the Secretary to be ap-
propriate to protect water supplies, fish,
wildlife, recreation, and aesthetic values af-
fected by such activity
" (d) In any case where actual construction
of a facility for the conduct of any activity
has been lawfully commenced prior to the
date of enactment of the Water Quality Im-
provement Act of 1969, no certification shall
be required under subsection (b) or subsec-
tion (c) of this section for a license or permit
issued after the date of enactment of the
Water Quality Improvement Act of 1969 to
conduct such activity, except that any such
license or permit issued without certification
shall terminate at the end of the two-year
period beginning on the date of enactment
of the Water Quality Improvement Act of
1969 unless prior to such termination date
the person having such license or permit
submits to the Federal agency which issued
such license or permit a certification which
otheiwise meets the requirements of subsec-
tion (b) or subsection (c), as the case may
be
"SEC 4 Subsection (a) of section 1 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended, is amended by striking out the
period at the end thereof and inserting in lieu
thereof a comma and the following: 'includ-
ing thermal pollution.'
"SEC 5 Section 13 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended, is
amended by adding at the end thereof the
following:
" '(b) The term "thermal pollution" means
the addition of heat or some heated substance
to any waters, which addition will result in a
reduction in the quality of those waters for
use for public water supplies, propagation of
fish and aquatic life and wildlife, for recrea-
tional purposes, or which may endanger the
health or welfare of any person ' "
And redesignate existing sections 4, 5, 6,
7, and 8 accordingly
Mr. STRATTON (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that 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
New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, I
have already raised in connection with
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Oklahoma this question of
thermal pollution. This is the thermal
pollution amendment which I have re-
ferred to and which I explained very
-------
1712
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
briefly in a letter which should have
been in everybody's office at least by
this morning.
Thermal pollution is a problem cre-
ated when heated water otherwise per-
fectly pure is discharged into a body of
water, particularly a small lake; and
when the temperature is raised by even
a few degrees, so the scientists tell us
and the conservationists and sportsmen
are well aware, this can not only en-
courage growth of weeds, which are a
problem already in many recreational
lakes, but eventually it can kill all the
game fish, so we have nothing but carp
and a few other such fish left in the lake.
This is the problem we face with the
proposed construction of a nuclear
powerplant in Cayuga Lake. The scien-
tists at Cornell University pinpointed
this problem, and they created public
recognition of it, and this led evenutally
to deferral of construction plans by the
New York Electric & Gas Co.
The demand for nuclear powerplants
is going to increase. They are running
out of oceans and fast-running rivers.
If they can construct a plant on Cayuga
Lake they can construct one on Seneca
Lake and they can go to any one of the
1,000 lakes in Minnesota or to any other
State; and we can have a very serious
problem.
I am concerned that we should act to
prevent this problem before the damage
is done rather than moving to act after a
good deal of damage has been done, as
we are doing in this bill with regard to
oil pollution. We are closing the door
after the horse has been stolen from the
barn. I believe we ought to close the
door while the horse still is in there.
What the committee's proposed legis-
lation would do is require certification
depending on the applicable State stand-
ards. The fact of the matter is that at
this particular time there are not any
really binding State standards.
We usually like to think of New York
as the most progressive of the States;
certainly it is, at least in terms of rais-
ing taxes. But when it comes to thermal
pollution, we have very wishy-washy
standards. They have a strong bill
which passed the Assembly, but my in-
formation is that it will not get out of
the Senate, and if it does the Governor
will veto it.
If we are to rely on the State stand-
ards, we may find that the pressure of
the utilities are greater than those of
the people who want to save the lakes.
Although I join the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. CRAMER) in a general ab-
horrence for substituting Federal stand-
ards for State standards, if we are really
to act quickly and to prevent this prob-
lem before it gets started, we ought to
institute the standards. The Depart-
ment of Interior has studied this. They
know the problem. They know the
kinds of standards to set. We ought to
insist that those standards be applied
whenever there is a problem of thermal
pollution.
That is all my amendment will do. It
repeats some of the language there, with
a few changes to put in separate stand-
ards for thermal pollution as against the
other kinds of pollution.
If we wait for the States to be re-
minded that they have to tighten up
their laws, by the Federal Government,
we may find we have waited too long.
Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. STRATTON. I am happy to yield
to my colleague from New York.
Mr. OTTINGER. I should like to con-
gratuate the gentleman on a very im-
portant amendment. It makes a very
significant contribution in this vitally
important field.
We see the danger of thermal pollu-
tion all over the country now. In my
own congressional district the Consoli-
dated Edison Co. of New York has plans
to put five nuclear plants on one very
narrow stretch of the Hudson River.
We may find that this will create a heat
block and result in the killing of all of
the fish life in the Hudson. This would
mean destroying the sport fisheries
business and the recreation business for
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1713
not only the entire Hudson area, but as
far as Long Island Sound.
I, along with other Congressmen and
Senator KENNEDY, have sponsored legis-
lation to provide for siting nuclear
plants for the future to assure placement
of plants so as to minimize both nuclear
and thermal dangers.
I believe the contribution the gentle-
man is making here, requiring Federal
standards until such time as the States
can catch up with this problem, is a
very significant supplementary contri-
bution to resolution of this problem and
I wholeheartedly support the amend-
ment.
Mr. STRATTON. I certainly appre-
ciate the gentleman's support. I know
he has done a magnificent job in fight-
ing the threat of pollution in his area.
Actually, I was not aware of the prob-
lem of thermal pollution until about a
year ago, when the implications of the
construction at Cayuga Lake brought it
to my attention. A lot of the other
Members may not be aware of it. If
they ever start building one of these
plants at a small lake in any district, the
Member will hear about it, and hear
loudly from the conservationists in his
district.
Mr. KEITH. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. STRATTON. I am glad to yield
to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KEITH. I read over a year ago
about thermal pollution on the Hudson
River, I believe. I know of nuclear and
other powerplants on salt water.
Does the amendment in any way af-
fect the plants using fossil fuel instead
of thermonuclear fuel, or running fresh
water for a seacoast plant?
Mr. STRATTON. Yes. It would ap-
ply to any powerplant constructed with
a Federal license anywhere. I am not
enough of an expert, but I assume there
is not so much of a problem with regard
to the ocean, because there is so much
water that the temperature would not
rise appreciably.
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to this amendment because
it would do violence to the whole con-
cept of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act. That act vested the pri-
mary responsibility to fix water quality
standards in the individual States. The
Congress, when it unanimously adopted
this act, recognized the principle that the
States were in peculiar position to pass
[p. 9271]
judgment on this issue. The Congress
determined that they were much better
qualified to determine their own en-
vironment, to determine their own eco-
nomic needs, and to determine their own
industrial demands to determine the ap-
propriate uses of the State waters, and
to determine the needs for water quality
standards and inform the States that
act provided that each State should es-
tablish water quality standards subject
to the approval of the Secretary of the
Interior. If theS2 standards are not suf-
ficient in the opinion of the Secretary of
the Interior, then he can reject those
standards and inform the States that
they should upgrade them. In many
cases this has been done.
So, Mr. Chairman, the Federal Gov-
ernment does, in effect, have some con-
trol over the individual States and the
standards which they adopt. But if we
were to adopt this amendment, we would
be doing complete violence to the theory
and philosophy of the present Federal
Water Pollution Control Act that is that
primary responsibility rests with the
States. We would be taking away from
the individual States their right to gov-
ern their own affairs. For that reason,
I oppose this amendment and hope it is
defeated.
Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr HARSHA. I am happy to yield
to the gentleman.
Mr. LATTA I know that the gentle-
man is very much against any type of
pollution, including thermal pollution.
We must strive to eliminate all pollu-
tion—none must escape our attention.
-------
1714
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
I am wondering whether or not, in view
of the importance of this amendment, it
was discussed and considered in your
committee.
Mr. HARSHA. This particular amend-
ment, as I recall it, I do not believe was
discussed, but the issue of thermal dis-
charge into the waters of the United
States was very thoroughly discussed.
We had a member of the Atomic Energy
Commission before the committee to
testify on this subject. There is general
disagreement as to whether or not this
thermal discharge is thermal enhance-
ment or thermal pollution. We are not
far enough advanced in our research
and studies to recognize it unequivocally
as thermal pollution.
Mr. LATTA. As I understand it, the
Atomic Energy Commission requires
these plants to meet the water quality
standards of the States before permits
are issued? Is this not correct?
Mr. HARSHA. They are required to
meet the water quality standards estab-
lished by the individual States.
Mr. LATTA. Is this not being done in
New York State?
Mr. HARSHA. The objection here
was that in the opinion of the author of
the amendment he did not think the
State standards were stringent enough
and he wanted Federal standards super-
imposed upon them.
Mr. ROBISON. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to take the
time of the Committe to further discuss
this troubling problem of thermal pollu-
tion, but I think we could stand to con-
sider it for a few minutes longer.
It would be accurate to say that we
stand on the threshold of a new era
in the production of electric power in
our Nation. As our Nation grows and
its people's standard of living improves,
we can expect, as someone said a mo-
ment ago, to see the demand for elec-
tricity go on doubling as it has every
10 years and, as potential hydropower
sites are used up, more and more of this
demand for electricity will nave to be
met by steam generating plants, some
of which will be fossil fueled while oth-
ers will be nuclear fueled. These plants
will require enormous quantities of
cooling waters. The waste heat, called
thermal discharges, from such plants
now affects something over 7 percent of
all of the available fresh water runoff in
the 48 contiguous States, a figure which
has been projected to rise to more than
16 percent by 1980, and on to about 50
percent by the year 2000, if conventional
"once-through" cooling procedures were
still in use at that time.
Mr. Chairman, even if the waters of
our lakes and streams were now as clean
as they ought to be, it is obvious that
this situation would pose an environ-
mental and ecological challenge of mas-
sive proportions.
Mr. Chairman, with 44 nuclear power-
plants moving now toward construction
here and there around the Nation, and
some 42 more in the planning stage, it
also would be obvious that action may
be fast outrunning our ability to apply
reasonable environmental controls and
safeguards, especially since such power-
plants use far more cooling water than
conventional fossil-fueled powerplants.
It has been estimated, for instance, that
the proposed nuclear powerplants on
Cayuga Lake in New York to which the
gentleman from New York (Mr. STRAT-
TON) has made repeated reference, will
circulate through its cooling system
about one-quarter of Cayuga's volume
of water each year. When one relates
that fact to the further fact that Cayuga,
one of the so-called Finger Lakes, is a
deep but relatively small lake—the
smallest for which such a powerplant
has been proposed—and is also what is
called a "stratified" lake in the summer
months, with "slow-flushing" charac-
teristics, it becomes clear why concern
has been expressed over what effect
such huge discharges of hot water into
it may have.
Now, certainly, the States should be
permitted and encouraged to establish
reasonable safeguards against such
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1715
plants adversely affecting the quality
of the waters receiving their thermal
discharges—safeguards against those
discharges becoming what some people
call thermal pollution.
Mr. Chairman, this bill addresses it-
self to this problem, and it does en-
courage the States to act.
Mr. Chairman, New York State has
moved in the proper direction. Our
Water Resources Commission has com-
pleted public hearings around the State
on definitive new criteria in this respect,
having done so under existing author-
ity derived from article XII of the New
York State Public Health law. As might
be expected, the utility company in-
volved suggests that those criteria are
too restrictive in some respects, while
others say they are not strong enough.
There is no point here in going into
the details of that debate, for it will be
settled by those technically competent
to judge its pros and cons. But what
this situation does illustrate is the fact
that the States will move into this pic-
ture, are moving into it now, and I
submit can be trusted to deal as effec-
tively and wisely with this new newly
recognized problem of thermal pollution
as they have in other water pollution
areas.
Now, my colleague, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. STRATTON) urges
Federal standards, instead. He is, of
course, entitled to his opinion as to the
necessity for that as I am to mine that
it would be best to maintain, here, that
same careful balance between State and
Federal interests in this area of con-
cern as was achieved on passage of the
Water Quality Act of 1965.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot help but re-
member that my distinguished col-
league, the gentleman from New York
(Mr. STRATTON) , appeared in the well
of the House here in July of last year,
inveighing and protesting against cer-
tain Federal standards as promulgated
by the Department of Transportation
relative to billboard controls under au-
thority of the Highway Beautification
Act of 1965. Perhaps, there is an ade-
quate reason for his change of attitude;
I do not know. I am sure there is in the
mind of my colleague. But I do not
believe that Federal standards in just
one water quality area, would be wise
or workable or necessary.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I hope the
amendment will be defeated and the
position of the committee sustained.
Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. ROBISON. I yield to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Chairman, I
should like to commend the gentleman
in the well for pointing out these facts,
lest there be a misunderstanding that
our States are not moving ahead. Cer-
tainly the State of New York, in the
matter of dealing with thermal dis-
charge, has, as the gentleman just
pointed out. The New York State
Water Resources Commission has just
concluded hearings during this past
month, and it is my opinion that we
can anticipate in a very short time
standards to be established in that State,
and I am sure other States will follow.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from New York has expired.
Mrs. GREEN of Oregon. Mr. Chair-
man, I move to strike the requisite num-
ber of words.
Mr Chairman. I rise to direct some
questions, if I may, to the author of the
section beginning on page 67 of the bill.
This has to do with training grants and
contracts. It is my understanding—and
I would like to ask the chairman of the
committee or any other member of the
committee who wants to answer this
question—Is it the Secretary of the De-
partment of the Interior who will be the
[p. 9272]
one who determines the grants to in-
stitutions, the scholarships and stipends
that are going to be given to undergrad-
uate students; is that correct?
Mr. CRAMER. If the gentlewoman
will yield, there is a present provision
-------
1716
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
in the legislation, and under the present
law that provides for precisely the same
procedure for a similar purpose, but not
so broad as this, and in my opinion it
would not accomplish the objective, so
it amends present section 5(d) which
provides presently that the Secretary
can provide training in technical mat-
ters relating to the" causes, prevention
and control of water pollution to person-
nel of such agencies and other persons
with suitable qualifications. This is
being done presently under the present
water pollution control act, and this is
an extension of that authority.
Mrs. GREEN of Oregon. It extends it
to the tune of $62 million for the next
3 years
Mr. CRAMER. For the next 3 years.
This is as a result of the report of the
Senate relating to the subject matter of
personnel in order to accomplish ade-
quate water pollution control. This is
based Upon their findings as to the nec-
essity for, the number and the estimated
costs.
If the gentlewoman would consult the
RECORD of yesterday she will see where
I placed in the RECORD a synopsis of that
report.
Mrs. GREEN of Oregon. Would the
gentleman further advise me if there
were any hearings on this particular
section where people from higher edu-
cation were called in? I would also like
to know specifically: Is it not true that
the students who might go into this kind
of training are presently eligible for all
of the other programs that are now
available for our college and university
students? And specifically would not
students now being included in this pro-
gram be eligible for the work-study
program? Are they not now eligible for
economic opportunity grants? NDEA
student loans, guaranteed student loans?
Is it not true they they are now eli-
gible for all these present forms of stu-
dent financial aid financed by the Fed-
eral Government?
Mr. CRAMER, I will say to the gen-
tlewoman that the report I referred to is
Senate Document No. 49 of the 90th
Congress, first session, at which time it
was found that there are not adequate
laws available to accomplish this, and
there are not adequate trainees in train-
ing or programs available to train them
for the purpose of this particular sub-
ject.
Mrs. GREEN of Oregon. Mr. Chair-
man, I believe that in almost every area
where professionally trained people are
needed there is a shortage, but I have
ssrious question about setting up an-
other program in terms of scholarships,
in terms of financial aid programs, in
terms of work-study for a particular
purpose. On page 63 I notice there is a
provision to pay part of the compensa-
tion of students employed in connection
with the operation and maintenance of
treatment works. It is not true that any
students who are in colleges or univer-
sities today would be eligible for the
work-study programs and that such
students who are working could be paid
by the college or the university under
federally financed programs?
Mr. CRAMER. May I say to the gen-
tlewoman that I do not believe there is
an adequate program under existence,
moneywise or otherwise, to accomplish
the purposes of this section, or I would
not have introduced it in order to ac-
complish that objective, pursuant to the
Senate report and printed document that
I have referred to.
Mrs. GREEN of Oregon. Would the
gentleman advise me if he called for
hearings of any people in the field of
higher education to find out the ques-
tion of eligibility, for programs and for
student financial assistance?
I would say to the gentleman that the
students who are in the colleges and
universities are eligible for work and
study programs, which is exactly what
this outlines on page 68.
I also have serious question about the
scholarships. There is no reference in
the bill that I can find as to the amount
of scholarships that any student would
receive. The bill provides 4-year schol-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1717
arships with no ceilings and no require-
ment based on "need." Also it occurs to
me that the students of those institutions
of higher education who would be eligi-
ble for the program outlined here would
not come under the provisions which
were adopted last year by this Congress
in regard to disruption of colleges and
universities. At the present time the
Committee on Education and Labor is
looking into this whole matter of stu-
dent assistance, financial aid to the stu-
dents at the undergraduate level, and at
the graduate level. At a time Congress
is reviewing all of the student financial
aid, it seems questionable to approve of
a further proliferation under another
agency of Governments.
I also notice that there is a provision
that you are going to try to attract sec-
ondary students with a promise of finan-
cial aids. Is this going to be another
upward bound program as talent search
program duplicating again—programs
that are already in existence?
I just do not understand the reason
for this proliferation of financial aid
programs. I see this happening more
and more often on bills coming from the
various committees.
We put in so many financial aid pro-
grams that nobody in Congress can
keep track of them.
I hope the committee will reconsider
and reject this part of the bill. The
money could be better spent on other
parts of the program so necessary in
water pollution control.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, it is
painful to me, in one very important
sense, to oppose the amendment offered
by my good friend, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. STRATTON) .
Were I knowledgeable of the specific
local situation about which he is con-
cerned, I might quite well sympathize
with his position concerning the estab-
lishment of a powerplant on Lake
Cayuga.
In another sense I feel almost like an
example of those fools who rush in
where angels fear to tread—into the
middle of this obvious New York flight.
But I think it is necessary to state the
committee's position in opposition to the
amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York (Mr. STRATTON) .
Basically, the reason we oppose the
amendment is that we do not believe it
would be wise to change the well-estab-
lished rules simply to achieve a desired
result in one specific case.
The gentleman from New York would
create an entirely different procedure
with respect to thermal pollution, which
after all is only one, although admittedly
one important phase of pollution, from
these procedures we have uniformly ap-
plied with respect to all sorts and types
of pollution since the beginning of the
program.
I think it would be unwise for us to
change this delicate balance that we
have carefully and purposely created
and preserved between the States and
the Federal Government. The States
promulgate their own standards, but the
Federal authority must review and ap-
prove those standards. There were
specific reasons for this arrangement,
and it appears to be working well.
I think that this balance has done
some very good things by encouraging
the States and indeed requiring them
individually to come up with State
standards on all phases and facets of
pollution. We have stimulated a very
great deal of activity on the part of the
States to help us to fight this great
menace.
If the gentleman were simply to offer
an amendment to require the Secretary
in evaluating State's standards to take
specific account of the adequacy of those
State standards with respect to thermal
pollution, I think there would be no ob-
jection on the part of the committee.
Such an amendment would not be nec-
essary in my opinion, as the Secretary
already takes this into account. But,
you see, the States fix the water quality
standards initially. The gentleman's
amendment would set up Federal stand-
ards for this one type of pollution and
-------
1718
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
place it in a completely different cate-
gory from all other forms of pollution.
We feel that the State should draw the
standards. But the gentleman's amend-
ment would direct that the Secretary
shall promulgate "Federal water quality
standards, expressly designed to prevent
thermal pollution." It seems to me con-
sistent with the entire philosophy of our
efforts heretofore to abate water pollu-
tion that we should require with regard
to thermal pollution exactly the same
situation that we have required with
regard to other types of pollution.
The gentleman's State should be re-
quired to set standards in that regard.
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WRIGHT. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, the
gentleman earlier in his remarks sug-
gested that this situation applied to New
York and would not apply anywhere else.
As a matter of fact I feel there is nothing
unusual here that could not occur in
many other states. The only point is that
New York has apparently been selected
as the best bet when it comes to large
[p. 9273]
companies establishing a plant on a small
lake, a very small one.
There are a lot of other lakes and
there is no question there are lakes in the
gentleman's home State. So it is not a
unique situation and we are not dealing
with a new problem.
While I recognize the need in general,
if we are going to set standards, they
should be set by the agencies that have
done the research on thermal pollution
and the States have just not done this
research. Would it not be best in dealing
with this problem if we write in protec-
tive legislation that we need in the situ-
ation, now before it takes place, rather
than after the pollution damage is done
and require the Federal Water Pollution
Control Administration to set the stand-
ards, since they have done the research
and are expert in the field.
Mr. WRIGHT. I appreciate the gen-
tleman's concern, but in response to the
gentleman's question I think it is neces-
sary to point out that thermal pollution
is not a new problem. Thermal pollu-
tion has existed, for example, here in the
nearby estuaries in Maryland. It has
occurred in Chesapeake Bay. Thermal
pollution has probably been responsible
there for the destruction of a number of
former oyster beds and other shellfish
habitations. I do not think that it is a
new problem. I do not believe that the
gentleman is quite accurate when he de-
clares that the States are not conver-
sant with this problem. I would be very
much surprised were I to discover that
the great State of New York, as pro-
gressive as it is in so many, many ways,
and as interested as the people in
New York and the leadership in New
York have been with respect to water
pollution, would not have had some
standards developed, and would not be
interested actively in preventing exces-
sive thermal intrusion into its waters.
Mr. STRATTON. We have standards,
but in New York State hearings are go-
ing on to decrease these standards now
so as to permit those plants to be built.
Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
As I indicated before, I support the
amendment offered by my distinguished
colleague from New York (Mr. STRAT-
TON) and I congratulate him for his
work in this area. He has performed a
very valuable service.
Thermal pollution, which can be
caused by both nuclear and fossil fuel
powerplants, presents us with a peculiar
problem. Although the Federal Govern-
ment licenses atomic plants that cause
the problem, no agency accepts respon-
sibility for it. The Atomic Energy Com-
mission has specifically stated that it
has no jurisdiction over thermal pollu-
tion and does not want it. The AEC's
sole concern is for safety.
The AEC relies on the State conserva-
tion agencies to pass upon the effects
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1719
that a plant has on natural resources
and experience doesn't indicate that that
is a very effective method.
The Federal Power Commission, which
does get involved in the environmental
problems caused by projects under its
jurisdiction, is restricted to hydroelec-
tric projects and has no authority over
either nuclear or fossil fuel plants. We
propose to change this in the Electric
Reliability Act, which is now before the
Communications and Power Subcommit-
tee of which I am a member. We want
to retain AEC jurisdiction over safety
and give the FPC authority to pass on
other problems. But this is going to take
time.
At the present time, the Federal Gov-
ernment is licensing and, in fact, pro-
moting the development of atomic power
plants and not doing anything about the
serious problem of thermal pollution
which these plants and fossil fuel plants
cause.
Now this is not a case where the Fed-
eral Government is being asked to create
standards which will supersede State
standards. It is a case where Federal
agencies are being asked to set stand-
ards to protect from adverse effects
Federally licensed projects. The States
cannot be relied on to carry the ball.
Much to my sorrow, I have to report
that the State of New York does not have
a very good record in this regard. In
reply to my good friends and colleagues
from New York (Mr. McEwEN and Mr.
ROBISON) I must point out that while
New York established good thermal pol-
lution standards at the beginning, the
State has recently moved to change those
standards. The hearings to which they
referred are not to strengthen those
standards nor to see that they are more
effective, but, at the behest of the utility
companies, to change the definitions so
that in at least one area, tidal estuaries,
the standards are substantially lowered.
I don't know what the motivation behind
this change was, but the effect has been
to make it easier for Consolidated Edison
Co. to build a number of nuclear plants
in the lower portion of the Hudson River,
a tidal estuary. I am afraid there will be
many situations with respect to federally
licensed facilities where the pressure on
the States from the utilities is just too
great.
Mr. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. OTTINGER. I yield to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr. MCCARTHY. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding. I think it should be
pointed out here that while New York
State has set those standards, they really
do not become operative until the Secre-
tary of the Interior approves them. So
that this is an additional protection here.
I think it should also be pointed out
to our other distinguished friends from
New York that if the State failed to es-
tablish standards—and I am thinking of
other cases beyond Cayuga Lake—that
the Secretary of the Interior could, in-
deed, intervene at that point and estab-
lish standards so that in terms of the
gentleman's amendment, you already
have a dual Federal involvement here.
They can set standards, the Federals, if
the State does not act within 2 years,
and the Secretary of the Interior, in
Washington, has to approve those stand-
ards or they do not become established.
Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Chairman, what
I would like to point out to the gentle-
man is that we held hearings with re-
spect to massive fish kills caused by
thermal effects of the Consolidated Edi-
son plant at Indian Point, N.Y. These
hearings were before the Fisheries and
Wildlife Conservation Subcommittee of
the Merchant Marine and Fisheries
Committee Interior officials come to that
committee and said that no agency of the
Federal Government has jurisdiction
with respect to thermal pollution from
nuclear plants. They conceded that the
problem is serious, that thermal pollu-
tion is destructive of natural resources
and should be stopped, but, they said
there was not anything they could do.
They do not have the authority. The
AEC does not have or want the author-
-------
1720
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
ity. The Federal Power Commission
does not have authority. There is a void
with respect to Federal licensing of
facilities that cause thermal pollution
and it should be taken care of.
This is particularly important, because
so many thermal nuclear powerplants
are being presented as alternative
sources of power to reduce air pollution.
This is a big problem and it's going
to get bigger. The Office of Science and
Technology warned President Johnson
that the bulk of the new generating
facilities in this country over the two or
three decades will be nuclear. They
estimated that at least 250 new plants
will be built and the plants will be a lot
bigger, too. Each will have a capacity
between 2,000 and the 3,000 megawatts
as against 700 to 800 megawatts of today's
plants.
Experts have estimated that within 10
years nuclear generating facilities will
be using one-fifth of the total water run-
off in this country. They will be using it
for cooling and the effect of dumping the
very, very hot water back into* the lake,
river or stream from which it came could
be devastating. With the cooling devices
now advocated, I am told that the water
may still be as much as 25 degrees hotter
than the stream. Furthermore, it will be
dead water, deficient in oxygen and rich
in the nutrients that foster the rampant
growth of noxious algae that can "kill" a
river or lake.
Nuclear plants have a lot to offer as
new sources of energy. But we ought to
be careful, before these huge investments
are made, that we do have the necessary
authority to regulate their operation so
as to prevent destruction of our fish and
wildlife.
Mr. Chairman, I support the amend-
ment.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I
wonder if we might get some agreement
on a limitation of time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there further
discussion on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from New York?
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment conclude in 10 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Texas.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from New York (Mr. McEwEN) is recog-
nized.
Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the amendment offered
by the gentleman from New York (Mr.
STRATTON) .
Mr. Chairman, I yield to my colleague,
the gentleman from New York (Mr.
ROBISON) .
[p. 9274]
Mr. ROBISON. Mr. Chairman, I ap-
preciate the gentleman from New York
yielding.
I would like to respond to what my
colleague, the gentleman from New York
(Mr. OTTINGER) , said a moment ago with
respect to the opinion he has that the
New York State Water Resources Com-
mission is moving to decrease or to erode
or to weaken whatever water quality
standards we have covering thermal
pollution.
Here is a copy of the statement by
Mr. Alfred W. Eipper, who is an as-
sociate professor of fishery biology and
leader of the New York Cooperative
Fishery Unit at Cornell University, and
chairman of the Save Cayuga Lake
Committee, as presented to the Water
Resources Commission public hearing
in Syracuse in March. Among other
things Professor Eipper says:
My compliments to the Water Resources
Commission on both its timely recognition
of the need lor such criteria—
And the "criteria" referred to is the
commission's proposed thermal pollution
criteria—
and its solicitation of public opinion on them.
These criteria seem to provide a good frame-
work for regulating thermal discharges in
ways that will avoid serious damage to
aquatic environments, without excessively
restricting the producers of heated effluents
in most situations.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1721
Then the professor goes on to make a
couple of recommendations for changes
in those criteria, and then he says:
In combination with the presently pro-
posed 3-degree, 300-foot criterion, these
should effectively safeguard New York's deep
stratified lakes from thermal damage.
This clearly indicates New York is
moving to strengthen, not weaken, its
control standards against thermal pol-
lution, even though the ultimate deci-
sions have yet to be made.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from New York has expired.
The gentleman from Michigan ( Mr.
DINGELL) is recognized.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from New York (Mr, OTTINGER) is recog-
nized.
Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Chairman, I
yield back my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from New York (Mr. STBATTON) is
recognized.
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, let
me just indicate that this amendment is
a very simple test of whether we are
really interested in doing something
about thermal pollution. We could talk
about the philosophy of Federal versus
State standards, but the fact of the mat-
ter is the only effective work that has
been done, has been done by the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration.
The only real concern has been ex-
pressed by the Department of the
Interior.
If we give the job of certifying to these
agencies, we can prevent this menace of
thermal pollution before it gets under
way. If we do not, it clearly is going to
be eroded in New York, in spite of what
the gentleman from New York (Mr.
ROBISON) says. The word around Al-
bany is that the tough bill that went
through the assembly is not going to get
through the senate, and if it does, the
Governor is going to veto it, because
they are more interested in building
nuclear powerplants than they are in
protecting our small recreational lakes.
If this happens to Cayuga Lake, and
if Cayuga Lake goes the way of Lake
Erie—I am surprised the gentleman who
fought so hard to end pollution on Lake
Erie is not on my side on this question—
then many other lakes are going the way
of Lake Erie and we are doing permanent
damage to the recreational environment
of America.
The CHAIRMAN, The time of the
gentleman from New York has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. HARSHA) .
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, the im-
portant fact of this total argument is
being completely overlooked; that is
the States must establish water quality
standards and they must be approved by
the Secretary of the Interior.
After all the scientists and engineers
and qualified experts in the Department
of the Interior review these standards, if
they find they are not acceptable or do
not meet the water quality standards
that should be established in that area,
then they make recommendations to the
States to upgrade these water quality
standards. Certainly, with all the know-
how in the Department of the Interior,
they are not going to permit the State of
New York to permit thermal pollution if
it can be avoided.
The argument that the State is going
to turn its back on the people of New
York and allow a company to pollute
Cayuga Lake, I believe, is a fallacious
one. Certainly the Department of the
Interior will not do it should the State
decide to do it.
Assuming that the gentlemen are cor-
rect, that there is a hearing going on
now—I am not aware of this, but assum-
ing there is a hearing going on—to
modify the State standards, already ac-
ceptable, these modifications must in
turn be approved by the Department of
the Interior, by the Secretary of the
Interior. He is not going to permit any
thermal pollution of this lake. But to
the contrary assure that they meet ac-
ceptable water quality requirements.
-------
1722
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
As an added fact let me point out to
the committee that the company con-
structing the utility in this area has vol-
untarily stopped construction until this
whole question of thermal pollution can
be more adequately studied. I believe
there is adequate time here to make this
determination before we would see any
pollution of Lake Cayuga. I urge the
defeat of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman from Ohio has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. WRIGHT) .
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from New York (Mr. STRATTON) .
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the last word.
I take this time in order to yield to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. ECKHARDT),
so as to get a clarification of the mean-
ing of language in one of the definitions.
Mr. ECKHARDT. Mr. Chairman, I
should like to ask this question, of a
knowledgeable member of the commit-
tee.
First I should like to recognize the
committee's excellent work on this bill,
which seems to me a broad and intelli-
gent approach to the questions involved.
There is one area in this bill which
touches my area closely, and I believe
also may affect other portions of the
country.
The report, on page 2, under the head-
ing "Oil Pollution," deals with oil and
matter, and refers to some 200 sub-
stances which conceivably the Secretary
of the Interior might define as sub-
stances in which prevention of pollution
could apply.
The point I wanted to be clear about
is that these substances, under the defi-
nition of "matter" on page 38 of the bill,
would include such things as very fine
washings, for instance, from a dredge
producing shell as an industrial product.
I wanted to be sure that the term
"dredged spoil" which is exempted from
the term "matter" did not exempt this
type of substance.
Subsection 2 says:
"Matter" means any substance of any de-
scription or origin, other than oil—
And then the words "dredged spoil"
are used.
So "dredged spoil" would be excluded
from the definition of matter. However,
Webster's Third International Dictionary
defines "to dredge" as "to deepen with
a dredging machine: excavate with a
dredge." It defines "spoil" as "a material
(as refuss, earth, and rock) excavated
usually in mining, dredging, or excavat-
ing," and gives the example of an arti-
ficial island built with spoil from
dredging operations. I assume that the
term "dredged spoil" would mean that
spoil which is removed from a dredge
cut, as where a channel is being deep-
ened, and then the spoil is moved to a
spoil island or dump in whole, as a waste
product, rather than something which
might be washed overboard from what
really amounts to a floating manufac-
turing plant.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I think
if the gentleman would accept my re-
sponse, that the gentleman from Texas
and the author of the Webster's diction-
ary and the committee are all in agree-
ment. I think we intend to include in
our use of the term "dredged spoil" pre-
cisely what the gentleman assumes we
intend to include; that is, material moved
from one place to another for the pur-
pose of creating a navigation channel or
for other such purposes that may require
the removal of earth from one place to
another. I would not believe, and I do
not think the committee would believe,
that the type of operation which the
gentleman describes as a floating factory
and the refuse that is spewed out from
that kind of an operation would be
exempted under the term "dredged
spoil." I do not believe that that type of
activity would be summarily exempted
as dredged spoil. The extent that the
[p. 9275]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1723
refuse from such an operation would be
prohibited as "matter" defined by the
Secretary would be, of course, up to the
Secretary to determine. However, I
think it is clear that such refuse from
such a manufacturing operation could
be included by the Secretary in his list-
ing of hazardous and harmful matter
and would not be summarily exempted
from such a listing under the guise of its
being dredged spoil.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. HORTON
Mr. HORTON. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. HORTON: On
page 75, after line 24, insert the following:
"SEC. 4. Section 12 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended, is
amended by adding at the end thereof the
following:
" ' (f) It is the purpose of this subsection
to authorize a program which will provide
official recognition by the United States Gov-
ernment to industrial firms and to political
subdivisions of States which demonstrate
excellence in their waste treatment and pol-
lution abatement programs. The Secretary
shall, in consultation with the appropriate
State water pollution control agency, estab-
lish regulations under which such recogni-
tion may be granted.
" '(A) The Secretary shall award a certifi-
cate or certificates and a flag or flags of suit-
able design to each industrial organization
or political subdivision which qualifies for
such recognition under regulations estab-
lished by this subsection.
" '(B) The President of the United States,
the Governor of the appropriate State, the
Speaker of the House of Representatives, and
the President pro tempore of the Senate shall
be notified of the award by the Secretary, and
the awarding of such recognition shall be
published in the Federal Register.
" ' (C) Beginning on the day following the
awarding of such recognition, the recipient
industry or political subdivision is authorized
to display publicly the flag and certificate,
including the display of the flag insignia and
{he receipt of recognition as part of advertis-
ing and other material which is publicly dis-
tributed or broadcast.' "
And renumber succeeding sections and
references thereto accordingly.
Mr. HORTON. Mr. Chairman, my
amendment to H.R. 4148 provides for a
program of Federal recognition awards
to private industry and local govern-
ment which demonstrate excellence in
the fight against pollution of our water-
ways.
Every once in a while it is refreshing
for the Federal Government to help solve
a pressing national problem with a pro-
gram which does not cost millions of
dollars to launch, and which is relatively
free of bureaucratic redtape.
In the summer of 1966, the National
Resources and Power Subcommittee of
the Committee on Government Opera-
tions, chaired by our able colleague,
Congressman ROBERT JONES of Alabama,
held hearings on pollution problems in
Monroe and Wayne Counties in the State
of New York. It was during these hear-
ings in Wayne County that a constituent
of mine, County Clerk Leonard Schlee,
called me aside and made the suggestion
that an effective way to encourage pri-
vate initiative in improving waste treat-
ment and eliminating pollution would be
to institute a nationally publicized "clean
water" award, similar to the "E" awards
given to defense plants during World
War II. This award would be given by
the Federal Government to industries
which took exemplary initiative in solv-
ing pollution problems, through im-
provement of waste treatment methods,
or through installation of modern waste
treatment facilities meeting the stringent
standards of the award.
Upon returning from those hearings
almost 3 years ago, I submitted legisla-
tion which authorized the Secretary of
the Interior to grant such awards to pri-
vate companies and local governments.
Since that time, the problems of pollu-
tion in this Nation have, despite great
effort on many fronts, grown worse. The
Federal Government, because of huge
budget commitments to the war and to
other domestic needs, has not been able
to supply enough antipollution dollars,
nor even all of the funds Congress has
authorized to help State and local gov-
ernments attack pollution. We have not
yet been able to act on a plan of tax
incentives for industries which invest
in antipollution facilities.
-------
1724
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
I believe that a nationally publicized
and carefully administered program of
Federal "Clean Water" awards could
provide some of the needed incentive to
get industry and local government to re-
spond positively to the sorry state of too
many of our lakes, rivers, and streams.
My amendment springs from the idea
that one of the foundations of private
initiative is the desire for public recogni-
tion and community approval. Business
recognizes the importance of public good
will as a necessity for building markets
and for obtaining and retaining compe-
tent management and employees. East-
man Kodak Co., in Rochester, has
demonstrated its awareness of the im-
portance of this factor. This firm, which
is in the process of building a modern
secondary treatment plant for its chemi-
cal and industrial wastes, has publicly
contracted with a little goldfish, to test
the purity of its treated effluent—using
the health of this lively creature as testi-
mony to the company's efforts to elimi-
nate water pollution.
A program of "clean water'' awards
would provide a double incentive, at
very little cost to the Government. It
would serve to encourage companies and
localities which have taken very little
initiative in cleaning up their wastes to
get on the stick and do their part to at-
tack this problem. It would also serve
to publicly recognize those cities and
towns and industrial firms which have
already expended millions of dollars to
provide truly exemplary waste treat-
ment facilities, or to develop needed im-
provements in waste treatment tech-
niques.
Mr. Chairman, I think this amend-
ment would sharply focus on the high
priority that our Government gives to
correcting the pollution of our environ-
ment. Even at & time when the truly
massive appropriations necessary to lick
the pollution problem are beyond our
reach, a well-administered and well-
publicized program of awards for excel-
lence in pollution control would stimu-
late the conscience of America, and I
believe, would help to stimulate action
on the part of both public and private
organizations to do their part in this
fight.
I urge each of my colleagues to sup-
port this measure.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HORTON. I shall be glad to yield
to the gentleman from Alabama.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Chair-
man, I know of no one who has served
with more diligence and who has gained
more knowledge in water resource de-
velopment than the distinguished gen-
tleman from New York (Mr. HORTON) ,
who has just offered this amendment.
It is my opinion that the amendment
is one that is of great value. It could be
utilized by industries which are making
a great effort to meet the problem of
water pollution and to increase the qual-
ity of water from which withdrawals are
made. Therefore I believe the gentle-
man's amendment would grant recogni-
tion to these vast industrial efforts, and
for that reason they would play a much
greater role in seeking an answer to the
solution of a major public endeavor, and
that is to clean up the waters of our
country. Consequently, I hope that the
Committee will accept the amendment,
because I feel it has great value.
Mr. HORTON. I certainly thank the
distinguished gentleman from Alabama
(Mr. JONES) . It was a real pleasure to
work with the gentleman on the Natural
Resources and Power Subcommittee of
the Committee on Public Works. I am
sure that through the efforts of that
subcommittee and the hearings which
we held throughout the country, we did
much to bring to the attention of the
American people the work that is being
done by private industry, and by many
local governments, to abate pollution.
We found little public recognition for
vast expenditures by private industries
and for great courage by local elected
officials to institute expensive local pro-
grams to solve pollution problems.
A program such as proposed here
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1725
would give some Federal recognition
which would not be in terms of any
monetary value, but an award which
would represent recognition on the part
of the Federal Government for outstand-
ing anti-pollution programs which in my
opinion would certainly be warranted
and advisable.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, would
the gentleman yield?
Mr. HORTON. I yield to the gentle-
man from Michigan.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding. I be-
lieve the gentleman has a good idea here
Because this amendment was not read
in full, we have no understanding of the
limitation that would be imposed upon
this award. I am more than satisfied
that the gentleman from New York con-
tends that the award would be made
only to persons who are deserving, in-
dustries, municipalities, and others who
have done something in terms of clean-
ing up our streams, and would not be
something that would be handed out
merely at the whim or caprice on the
part of someone, or without due consid-
eration to the efforts which have been
made by the parties involved.
Mr. HORTON. I did terminate the
reading of the amendment. However, I
[p. 9276]
have sent a copy of this amendment
around to all Members There would be
no caprice or whim in the selection of
industries, businesses, or governments to
receive these awards. The essential part
of the amendment reads as follows:
(f) It is the purpose of this subsection to
authorize a program which will provide offi-
cial recognition by the United States Gov-
ernment to industrial firms and to political
subdivisions of States which demonstrate
excellence in their waste treatments and pol-
lution abatement programs The Secretary
shall in consultation with the appropriate
State water pollution control agency establish
regulations under which such recognition
may be granted
Thus, regulations would be required
on which to base recognition and grant-
ing of awards.
Then it goes on to point out that cer-
tificates shall be awarded and that the
people, the industry or the munici-
pality
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. HORTON
was allowed to proceed for 3 additional
minutes.)
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, in or-
der to conserve further discussion on
the point raised by the gentleman from
Michigan, and on the amendment itself,
the committee does accept the amend-
ment.
I would like to have the RECORD show
that the author of the amendment made
a very impressive and persuasive pres-
entation before the committee. He had
an amendment that showed a great deal
of consideration had been given to it. It
was reviewed by the staff, both the ma-
jority and the minority participating,
and suggestions and modifications were
made to it.
We do accept the amendment sub-
mitted by the gentleman from New York.
Mr. HORTON. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from New York (Mr. HORTON) .
The amendment was agreed to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. VANIK
Mr. VANIK Mr Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr VANIK On
page 78. after line 17, insert the following
'•SEC 6 (a) The Congress hereby finds and
declares—
"(1) that because certain waters of the
Nation which have been subject to increasing
pollution over the years may become en-
vironmental disaster areas in which the water
of the region is in immediate danger of be-
coming unsuitable or possibly harmful to che
population of the area Therefore, Congress
resolves by this section to provide an 3mer-
gency fund to provide permanent corrective
relief for those areas of the Nation which are
in environmental crises
"(b) As used in this section—
"(1) The term 'Commission' means the
Pollution Disaster Commission authorized by
subsection (c) of this section.
-------
1726
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
"(2) The term 'pollution disaster area'
means any area of the United States, the
Continental Shelf, or the Great Lakes, in
which the water has become or is in danger
of becoming unsuitable or harmful for the
uses to which it has been traditionally used
in that area because of the accumulation of
pollutants or other induced changes in the
environment and ecology.
"(3) The term 'fund' means the Pollution
Disaster Fund authorized by subsection (d)
of this section.
" (4) The term 'waste treatment works'
means the various devices used in the treat-
ment of sewage or industrial wastes of a
liquid nature, including the necessary inter-
ceptor, outfall, storm, lateral, collector, sew-
ers, pumping, power, and other equipment,
and their appurtenances, and includes any
extensions, improvements, remodeling, addi-
tions, and alterations thereof.
"(5) The term 'Secretary' means the Sec-
retary of the Interior.
"(6) The term 'person' means any indi-
vidual, corporation, company, association,
firm, partnership, society, and joint stock
company.
"(c) (1) There is hereby established a
commission to be known as the Pollution
Disaster Commission.
"(2) It shall be the duty of the Commis-
sion to establish those areas in the United
States, the Continental Shelf, and the Great
Lakes which are pollution disaster areas for
the purposes of this section.
"(3) The Commission shall be composed
of seven members appointed by the President
by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate, four of whom shall be recognized
experts in the fields of biology, ecology, and
conservation and the remainder of whom
shall be representatives of the general public.
No member of the Commission shall be a full-
time officer or employee of the United States
" (4) Members shall serve at the pleasure
of the President.
"(5) Members of the Commission shall
each be entitled to receive $100 for each day
(including traveltime) during which they
are engaged in the actual performance of
duties vested in the Commission.
"(6) While away from their homes or reg-
ular places of business in the performance
of services for the commission, members of
the Commission shall be allowed travel ex-
penses, including per diem in lieu of subsist-
ence, in the same manner as the expenses
authorized hy section 5703 (b) of title 5,
United States Code, for persons in the Gov-
ernment service employed intermittently.
"(7) Four members of the Commission
shall constitute a quorum.
"(8) The Chairman and Vice Chairman of
the Commission shall be elected by the mem-
bers of the Commission.
"(9) The Commission may appoint and fix
the compensation of such personnel as it
deems advisable. Such personnel shall be ap-
pointed subject to the provisions of title 5,
United States Code, governing appointments
in the competitive service, and shall be paid
in accordance with the provisions of chapter
51 and subchapter III of chapter 53 of such
title relating to classification and General
Schedule pay rates.
"(10) The Commission may for the pur-
poses of carrying out its duties under this
section hold such hearings, sit and act at
such times and places, take such testimony,
and receive such evidence as the Commission
may deem advisable.
"(d) There is hereby established In the
Treasury of the United States a fund to be
known as the "Pollution Disaster Fund."
There is hereby authorized to be appropri-
ated such funds as may be necessary to ini-
tially establish the fund at $100,000,000 and
to replenish it thereafter to maintain it at
such amount. The Secretary, acting through
the Federal Water Pollution Control Admin-
istration, is authorized to expend moneys
from the fund in accordance with subsection
(e) of this section.
"(e) (1) Whenever, in carrying out its du-
ties under subsection (c), the Commission
determines that an area of the United States,
the Continental Shelf, or the Great Lakes, is
a pollution disaster area, and of such dimen-
sion that solutions are beyond the capability
of any single individual state, the Commis-
sion shall notify the Secretary of such deter-
mination and the Secretary is authorized to
take such action as may be necessary in the
case of a pollution disaster area, to provide
permanent corrective relief for the pollution
disaster area as authorized in paragraph (2)
of this subsection.
"(2) In the case of an area declared to be
a pollution disaster area, the Secretary is
authorized to make grants from the fund
to any State and to any political subdivision
of such State, and to any interstate agency
created by such State and one or more other
States, for any activity designed to provide
permanent corrective relief to such area, in-
cluding, but not limited to, the construction
of waste treatment works within the pollu-
tion disaster area. A grant for construction
of waste treatment works shall not exceed
90 per cent of the reasonable cost of such
construction. The Secretary is also author-
ized to purchase evidences of indebtedness
and to make loans (including participations
in loans), and to guarantee loans, from the
fund to aid in financing any projects by pri-
vate persons for the construction of any
waste treatment facility or any other related
facility. Financial assistance authorized by
this paragraph shall be on such terms and
conditions as the Secretary determines are
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1727
necessary to protect the interests of the
United States and carry out the purposes of
this section Loans and guarantees under
this paragraph shall be at low rates of inter-
est as determined by the Secretary
" (3) The Secretary shall, in any case where
there is more than one pollution disaster area
requesting assistance under this section, give
priority to those areas containing the highest
concentrations of population and having
economies dependent upon the threatened
natural resources, and to those areas where
the polluted waters are interstate waters or
waters along the boundary between this
country and Canada, and between this coun-
try and Mexico "
Mr. VANIK (during the reading).
Mr. chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the amendment be considered as
having been read.
I have sent copies of the amendment to
both sides of the committee.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Ohio?
There was no objection.
Mr. VANIK. Mr. Chairman, this
amendment before the committee at the
present time provides for the establish-
ment of national pollution disaster areas,
and for this purpose I have requested an
appropriation of $100 million which will
be directed toward the really massive
pollution problems of the United States.
Mr. Chairman. I have always sup-
ported pollution proposals which were
authorized or which were brought to the
Congress by this committee. In my pe-
riod of time as a Member of the Congress
I have joined in authorizing and spon-
soring and in supporting over three bil-
lion dollars in water pollution control
legislation, of which $1.5 billion has been
appropriated.
Today, after the expenditure of this
kind of money, we along the shores of
Lake Erie find ourselves in a situation
which is worse than it was when we first
started these programs. It is said that
Lake Erie is a dead body of water. And
we do have a body of water which is de-
teriorating so rapidly that it has indeed
become the Nation's greatest pollution
disaster area.
[p. 9277]
We are likely to become the Nation's
first manmade depressed area, because
of the pollution problem. There are
other parts of America that have a com-
parable problem. There is a problem in
northern New Jersey, and southern New
York, along the Hudson River. We have
the problem that occurs along southern
Lake Michigan, along stretches of the
Mississippi River, and along the coast of
California.
I believe that it is time that we should
consider approaching the problem of
pollution on a regional basis, in a mas-
sive way, to meet these problems
For example, in Lake Michigan we
find that out of $51 million that was
allocated to Illinois from Federal funds,
only $12 7 million has gone to Cook
County.
Detroit, which pours its waste into
the Detroit River, which runs into Lake
Erie—probably the largest single source
of our pollution—out of $47 million al-
located to the State of Michigan in the
last 13 years only $8 million has been
spent in Wayne County.
We have the same problem in Ohio.
Although we have had almost $49 mil-
lion provided in Federal funds, we find
that these moneys have been scattered
throughout the State in small but neces-
sary projects, which help, but the great
source of pollution, the great polluted
area of Lake Erie, receives no consid-
eration at all related to its need.
A great many other grants have been
made which are really in the form of
economic development. We find a lot of
these resources being allocated by the
several States, not to clear up existing
pollution, but to provide for sanitary
systems and sewage disposal systems,
which make it possible for new indus-
tries to locate in these areas.
In testimony before the Committae on
Public Works, the Assistant Director of
the General Accounting Office indicated
the use of U.S -financed waste treatment
works for the sole treatment of private
industrial wastes might become common.
So what we need is a task force ap-
-------
1728
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
proach—something that will be directed
regionally to the area of need.
My legislation is directed toward that
end. I think about Lake Erie. Some of
my colleagues may think about disasters
of those proportions that affect their
communities. But I say that our Lake
Erie problem is international. It is
interstate. It is completely beyond the
capacity of any single State to solve.
Therefore, it is a national problem. It
requires a special approach which is not
available under existing law.
I cannot just stand by and see Lake
Erie and the Lake Erie problem over-
looked. I cannot give up on Lake Erie.
I feel that we ought to perform a trans-
plant to bring back life, to the lake in-
stead of trying to perform an autopsy on
something that is dead and gone.
I have not given up hope on Lake Erie
and I plead with my colleagues in the
House of Representatives and on this
Committee to provide the help that is
needed on this most critical problem.
Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. VANIK. I am happy to yield to
my distinguished colleague, the gentle-
man from Illinois.
Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I
congratulate the gentleman on his
amendment and I certainly would like to
support him.
I think the gentleman is giving the
House an opportunity in this bill to deal
with the specific isolated problems of
greatest need. The whole approach of
specifying disaster areas and moving in
with assistance is not new. We do it
under the Economic Development Act
and we do it with various other proce-
dures.
The gentleman is proposing the ma-
chinery that would permit the Federal
Government to move in with substantial
resources when a problem starts to de-
velop which could become an ultimate
disaster.
The bill we have before us provides
aid across the board to all communities
and deals with a broad stroke in dealing
with the problem.
What the gentleman is proposing here
makes a great deal of sense and there are
certain potentials for great disaster in
this country affected by pollution.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
(Mr. VANIK asked and was given
permission to proceed for 5 additional
minutes.)
Mr. PUCINSKI. There is no greater
problem right now than Lake Erie. So
it seems to me that we should recall the
wise words of perhaps one of the most
expert Members of the Congress in this
field, the gentleman from Minnesota,
who yesterday said:
Some scientists have suggested as Mr.
WRIGHT said, that it may already be, in a
sense, a dead lake, in that unless massive
measures are undertaken immediately, the
problem may be almost irreversible.
Then he said:
Not only $100 million but several hundreds
of millions of dollars will be required in order
to clean out and to reverse the situation ex-
isting in Lake Erie so as to restore it to an
acceptable level of quality and maintain it in
accordance with the standards in existence
now.
Certainly, we have here a situation
where it will take millions upon millions
of dollars to restore Lake Erie. If there
had been available an apparatus such as
the gentleman is now proposing in this
amendment 5 years ago or 10 years ago,
Lake Erie would not be the disaster area
that it is today.
So for that reason, I will support the
amendment.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. VANIK. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. BLATNIK. I want it to be clear
that if it were not for the negligence of
the States bordering on the lake in the
first place at anytime in the last 50 years,
they could have stopped the pollution
and we would not have that problem on
the floor of the Houss here today before
us. I want the record to show that. It
was not because of any neglect or delay
on the part of this body.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1729
Mr. PUCINSKI. I would not quarrel
with the gentleman's statement in that
regard. He is an expert in this field and
I respect his good judgment. But the
fact remains that what the gentleman is
proposing is the creation of an agency or
an apparatus that would be able to deal
effectively with these problems, these
huge problems that often go beyond the
scope of the legislation now before us.
I think it makes a great deal of sense
This is the way to approach the prob-
lem. The gentleman has said, "Let us
set up a fund of $100 million so we can
move in and deal effectively before it
spreads and affects the whole commu-
nity." For that reason, I think it is an
imaginative amendment. It would be
my hope that the Committee would
accept it.
Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. VANIK. I yield to my colleague
from Ohio.
Mr. FEIGHAN. I wish to commend
my colleague for his foresight in bring-
ing forth this amendment. It is my hope
it will be adopted. I think it is patently
clear to everyone that Lake Erie is just
one of many unfortunate situations that
exist in the Nation with reference to the
pollution of rivers, lakes, and recrea-
tional areas. As an example, Cleveland,
Ohio, voted a $100 million bond issue for
air- and water-pollution control It
seems to me absolutely necessary that
this Congress cooperate with the citizens
of our country, not only those bordering
on Lake Erie, or other great lakes, and
offer them an opportunity to match
funds in some manner or other to clear
up this pollution which, in the cas3 of
Lake Erie, is creating almost a dead lake.
I certainly urge adoption of the
amendment I understand there have
been considerations of other methods by
which this serious condition may be met
and eliminated. I would rather have this
amendment accepted than to try to wait
for other crash programs later.
Mr. Chairman, the creation of a na-
tional pollution disaster fund, will pro-
vide a much needed stimulus to the
water quality of the Great Lakes and
other national waterways.
This amendment will authorize an
appropriation of $100 million for the es-
tablishment of a pollution disaster fund
within the Treasury Department. To
channel these moneys into needy areas,
a seven-man Pollution Disaster Commis-
sion will be created. Four of its mem-
bers shall be acknowledged experts in
the fields of biology, ecology, and con-
servation and the remaining three per-
sons will be repressntatives of the
general public. All members will be ap-
pointed by the President with the con-
sent of the Senate and will have as their
task, the allocating of Federal funds to
areas of the United States, Great Lakes
and the Continental Shelf which have
been subject to increasing pollution and
whose waters are in imminent danger of
becoming unsuitable or harmful to the
population.
These areas will be designated as en-
vironmental disaster areas and as such
will be eligible for Federal aid through
the pollution disaster fund, to take what-
ever action necessary to correct the in-
adequate and substandard condition of
their waters
Ninety percent matching grants will
[p. 9278]
be made by the Secretary of the Treas-
ury in coordination with the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration,
to any State or political subdivision for
any activity designed to provide per-
manent corrective relief to the disaster
area, including the construction of ap-
propriate waste treatment works
The amendment also authorizes the
Secretary to make and guarantee loans
to any individual, association, or com-
pany for the construction of any waste
treatment facility.
This amendment is offered in direct
response to the rapidly deteriorating
conditions of our Nation's waterways.
Waters such as Lake Erie, where people
at one time could freely enjoy the pleas-
-------
1730
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
ures it offered, but now the water is con-
taminated to such an extent that it is no
longer a center for recreational activity.
People have been forced to consider the
harmful effects the impure waters have
on their health and well-being. Plant
and animal life have suffered untold
damage because of the inferior quality
of such waters.
In Cleveland, where the voters re-
cently approved a $100 million antipollu-
tion bond issue, this amendment will
demonstrate that the Federal Govern-
ment shares their commitment to clean
water and is anxious to provide them
with the much-needed assistance in get-
ting the job done. Similar areas
throughout the country will benefit from
this amendment and I urge my col-
leagues who share our commitment to
clean water, to join in support of this
amendment.
Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. VANIK. I yield such time as he
may desire to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. EDWARDS of California. I thank
the gentleman. I congratulate the gen-
tleman from Ohio for bringing this
amendment to the floor of the House.
I note that yesterday the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. VANIK) , asked if any
other water pollution problem in the Na-
tion matched that of Lake Erie. I for
one hate to brag—at least in the area of
claiming the most polluted body of water
in the Nation—but I must confess I be-
lieve San Francisco Bay matches, if not
exceeds Lake Erie in the complexities of
the pollution. We have sewage and in-
dustrial wastes of all types pouring into
the bay at a rate now exceeding that of
the fresh water flow in major portions
of the bay. At the same time the Federal
Government and the State of California
are further cutting the fresh water flows
into the bay while building additional
pollution pipelines to the bay.
If San Francisco Bay is not now an
environmental disaster area, it soon will
be. We too need far more help than is
offered in this bill, and we need it now.
In the future I would hope to brag about
the beauties of San Francisco Bay, not
its problems, and my contests with the
gentleman from Ohio will be in compar-
ing the delights of Lake Erie with those
of my bay. I believe I will win hands
down.
Mr. STOKES. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to join my
colleagues in supporting the amendment
to H.R. 4148 which would establish a spe-
cial $100 million fund to be used to com-
bat pollution in areas which have be-
come, in every sense of the word, natural
disaster areas. I have joined with 28
other Members of this Chamber in spon-
soring, as separate legislation, a bill to
provide relief for pollution disaster
areas. It is my hope that that bill will
be accepted as an amendment to the
legislation before the House today.
The congressional district which I
represent touches on the waters of Lake
Erie—the lake which has, as members of
the distinguished House Public Works
Committee have said, a pollution prob-
lem unmatched in the Nation. The
Cuyahoga River, one of the major tribu-
taries of Lake Erie, flows through my
congressional district in the city of
Cleveland. This river is so polluted and
so covered with chemicals and oils that it
periodically catches fire. It has been
called "the only body of water ever
classified as a fire hazard." Because of
unavoidable age and overloading, the
city of Cleveland's sswer system has suf-
fered several recent breaks. For half a
year in 1987 and during the last half of
1968, 30 million gallons of raw sewage a
day flowed into the Cuyahoga River
while sewer lines were under repair. Is
it any surprise that the coliform count
at the point where the river enters Lake
Erie is 1,200 times the bacteria level al-
lowed for safe swimming? Not only is the
river totally unsafe for humans, but it
is unable to support any form of marine
or aquatic life.
The voters of the Cleveland area have
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1731
just approved a massive $100 million
bond issue to be used in Cleveland's
anti-pollution crusade.
Yet the problem of Lake Erie, and even
of the Cuyahoga River, is too big for a
single community to solve. The major
source of Lake Erie pollution is, as a
matter of fact, the Detroit River. Ob-
viously, help from the Federal Govern-
ment is needed in problems as large as
that of the interstate and international
waters of Lake Erie.
But the legislation before us, H.R. 4148,
does nothing to help solve the critical
pollution problems of areas like Lake
Erie, the Hudson River, San Francisco
Bay, and lower Lake Michigan. During
yesterday's debate on this bill, it was
pointed out by members of the commit-
tee that the bill does not provide for a
broad assault on the existing pollution
in lakes such as Lake Erie.
The amendment offered by my col-
league from Ohio (Mr. VANIK), and
which I am supporting, does offer hope
to areas like Lake Erie which have be-
come pollution disaster areas. The
amendment will provide that once a
water area has been determined by a
commission composed of conservation-
ists and ecologists to be in ssvere eco-
logical danger, to be so polluted that it
is unusable and a danger to health,
grants and loans from a $100 million
fund will be available to communities
and residents of the area for assistance
in constructing pollution control devices
Only a concentrated attack, such as
this amendment provides, can save for
ourselves and our children these bodies
of water, our most precious natural re-
sources.
I urge support for this amendment.
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words.
Surely every member of the Commit-
tee is fully sympathetic with what the
gentleman from Ohio desires to do He
appeared before our committee and dis-
cussed his proposal in eloquent detail
Certainly Lake Erie is the most advanced
case, among the other great lakes, of the
debilitation of a great body of water.
Certainly a massive assault should be
made upon the pollution of this great
natural resource.
I refer the gentleman to some lines I
wrote back in 1965. I wrote a book that
was published in which I pointed out:
Lake Erie is not only blighted by municipal
and industrial waste from those communities
which border its shrinking shore line, but it
is also defiled by more than 20 grossly pol-
luted streams. One of them, the Cuyahoga
River, was recently found to contain 4 times
the bacteria count expected in a stream of
raw sewage.
So, as the gentleman can see, I have
been actively concerned about this prob-
lem for years.
I simply raise this question: Sympa-
thetic as all of us are, desirous as all of
us on the committee and hopefully in
the entire Congress are to make the
assault necessary to clean up this great
body of water and the other great lakes,
I wonder if the gentleman has any
thought that the Congress in the present
budgetary situation is going to be able
to appropriate $100 million more, as he
asks?
Four years ago we approved a massive
program to assault pollution on all
streams and all bodies of water in the
United States. It was the boldest, brav-
est, most forward-looking program that
ever had been offered in this field. It
passed this House and the other body
unanimously. There was not one single
vote against it.
That bill authorized this kind of es-
calation in expenditures' $450 million
for 1968, $700 million for 1969, $1 bil-
lion for fiscal year 1970. That is already
authorized. We passed that authoriza-
tion without a dissenting vote in either
House.
But what have we done? Have we
made that money available? No, we
have not. In 1968 we made less than
half the $450 million authorized avail-
able. We made $203 million available
by appropriation. In 1969 we made less
than one-third the $700 million avail-
able. We appropriated $214 million.
-------
1732
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
For 1970 the administration recommends
that we again appropriate $214 million.
This is less vhan one-fourth the amount
this Congress authorized, unanimously,
for fiscal 1970.
If the gentleman from Ohio wants to
put on the books a suggestion that we
will authorize for the Great Lakes an-
other $100 million in addition to this
$1 billion we already have authorized
for the whole Nation including those
streams that flow into the Great Lakes,
then, fine, we could do that. But, my
friends, would it not be meaningless
when we cannot get Congress to appro-
[p. 9279]'
priate more than $214 million for the
whole Nation, for every community be-
set by pollution, for every stream that
is defiled?
What good is an authorization with-
out an appropriation? A total of $214
million for the whole program—that is
all we appropriated last year and that
is all we are being asked to appropriate
this year. That much for the whole
Nation. I think it would be a cruel
deception to pass a bill that would say
we are going to put up $100 million for
this additional purpose and then not do
it.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WRIGHT. I yield to the gentle-
man from Alabama.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Chair-
man, the testimony before the commit-
tee was that it would take us 92 years to
bring water quality up to the established
standards that we expected in all the
bills we have passed. So we are putting
a disproportionate amount on a single
project. The total aim of all this legis-
lation is to make geographical distribu-
tion of the money so that all the streams
may have some proportionate share.
I will say the gentleman from Texas
nobody has done more than I and the
subcommittee with which I have been
associated as chairman to bring about
improvement in and to draw public at-
tention, to the state of deterioration in
Lake Erie and the other lakes, but I do
not think it is necessary for us to take
a disproportionate amount of the money
and apply it to one single body of water
and to the exclusion of the others. We
all know, as we have pointed out, we
will not be able to have sufficient money
to do all the urgent tasks and studies
that confront us to eliminate and arrest
pollution throughout the country.
(Mr. MINSHALL asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD.)
Mr. MINSHALL. Mr. Chairman, I
have listened for 2 days to the debate
over amendments to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act. I shall, of course,
vote for it, just as I have supported anti-
pollution measures time after time in
the past. I will dedicate every effort in
my House Committee on Appropriations
to see that every cent we authorize to-
day is appropriated.
But, I am discouraged after all these
years that the pollution of Lake Erie
and funds to save the lake should still
be a subject for debate. When all the
sound and fury dies down, we who come
from States bordering this most polluted
body of water in the world still are given
only a trickle of money to fight pollution
in Erie.
In order to adequately express the
emergency nature of the Lake Erie
crisis, therefore, I have today written
Governor Rhodes asking that he, in
accordance with title 42, section 1855, of
the United States Code, ask the Presi-
dent to declare Lake Erie a national
disaster area. I also am advising the
White House of my action and I would
urge those of my colleagues from other
States bordering Lake Erie to take simi-
lar action.
For the situation in Lake Erie is just
that: a national disaster, as defined by
law, just as real as if the area had been
stricken by flood, tornado, or blizzard.
Federal funds and forces are immedi-
ately mobilized when calamities such as
these strike. The disaster of Lake Erie,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1733
the decay which is inexorably leading
to its death, has been gradual. Perhaps
because its destruction has not been as
quick or dramatic as a flash flood or
forest fire that it has not captured the
imagination or inspired the sympathetic
indignation of a broad spectrum of
Americans. But it is a disaster of the
first magnitude jeopardizing the health
and the jobs of millions of citizens who
live and work on its borders. The lake
is literally rotting away and taking with
it priceless fishing and recreational
areas. Erie's commercial fishermen are
suffering severe financial losses, with
their total catch down by more than 50
percent. Not a Clevelander who pours
a glass of tap water but is reminded by
its sickening discoloration of the con-
tamination of the lake.
In 1967 I extended an invitation to
then President Johnson to fly over Lake
Erie to see for himself the tragic condi-
tion of that once beautiful body of water,
where more than 4,000 square miles of
Erie are absolutely dead, all life stran-
gled by algae. I wanted him to see, too,
the miles of beaches closed because the
water is unsafe for swimmers.
I extend that invitation again to Pres-
ident Nixon or to those officials who he
may designate to make the same flight
over the lake, the same visit to the
shoreline. I do not think they could fail
but agree that this is, indeed, an excep-
tional pollution case, a national disaster.
My concern and sympathies are ex-
tended to my colleagues who argue that
Lake Erie is but one of many polluted
bodies of water in our Nation. I agree
that pollution is a national problem,
one of the greatest domestic issues con-
fronting us. But I would suggest that
they, too, might see for themselves the
incredible conditions of Erie. I believe
they, too, would be convinced that this is
a special, a unique, case requiring na-
tional emergency action.
As regards the bill before us today, I
would like to point out that I have both
in this Congress and in the 90th Con-
gress introduced legislation to curb
dumping of dredging into Erie and other
navigable waters by the Corps of Engi-
neers. It is ironic that we hand out
millions of dollars to combat water pol-
lution on the one hand, the corps and
other Federal agencies are among the
major offenders in contribution to the
pollution. I also would like to mention
that in this and in the last Congress I
also sponsored legislation of the type
incorporated in today's bill to eliminate
the type disaster witnessed in the Torrey
Canyon incident in England. I am
pleased that both pieces of legislation
are incorporated and enlarged upon in
H.R. 4148.
At this point in the RECORD I wish to
include my letters to Governor Rhodes
and to the President requesting that
Lake Erie be declared a national dis-
aster area:
APRIL 16, 1969.
Hon. JAMES A. RHODES,
Governor, State of Ohio,
Statehouse, Columbus, Ohio.
DEAR GOVERNOR RHODES: Inasmuch as the
pollution of Lake Erie continues unabated,
constituting a continued serious threat to
the health, recreation and economy of the
State of Ohio, and, inasmuch as the impact
of the deterioration of the lake failed to im-
press the last Administration and now ap-
pears unlikely to receive sufficient support
from the present Congress, I strongly urge
you to ask President Nixon to declare Lake
Erie a disaster area. In making this request,
I cite the following Federal statute:
"Title 42, Section 1855, Declaration of Con-
gressional Intent
"It is the intent of Congress to provide an
orderly and continuing means of assistance
by the Federal Government to States and
local governments in carrying out their re-
sponsibilities to alleviate suffering and dam-
age resulting from major disasters, to repair
essential public facilities in major disasters,
and to foster the development of such State
and local organizations and plans to cope
with major disasters as may be necessary."
"Title 42, Section 1855a. Definitions.
"(a) 'Major disaster' means any flood,
drought, fire, hurricane, earthquake, storm,
or other catastrophe in any part of the
United States which, in the detemination of
the President is, or threatens to be, of suffi-
cient severity and magnitude to warrant dis-
aster assistance by the Federal Government
to supplement the efforts and available re-
sources of States and local governments in
-------
1734
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
alleviating the damage, hardship, or suffer-
ing caused thereby, and respecting which the
Governor o{ any State (or the Board of Com-
missioners of the District of Columbia) in
which such a catastrophe may occur or
threaten certifies the need for disaster assist-
ance under this chapter, and shall give as-
surance of expenditure of a reasonable
amount of the funds of the government of
such State, local governments therein, or
other agencies, for the same purposes with
respect to such catastrophe "
I do not need to elaborate to you, who are
so mindful and concerned regarding the crisis
situation of Lake Erie, the paucity of funds
granted under the last Administration lor
the fight against pollution to the State of
Ohio I am urging colleagues from other
States bordering the lakes to call on their
State Governors to take similar action, but
I would of course be proud to see you in the
lead.
I am certain you agree that conditions in
Erie constitute a "national disaster" which
has not been brought fully or dramatically to
the attention of the Nation as a whole. Per-
haps this will be the vehicle by which we
can bring its plight to the public and enlist
the aid of conservation and economy-minded
citizens in saving Lake Erie,
A copy of this letter is being sent to Presi-
dent Nixon, along with an invitation to the
President or any official he designates to
join me in flying over the lake to survey the
dead portions, to tour the beaches closed be-
cause of health hazards, and to discuss the
problem in specific terms This invitation is,
of course, also extended to you
With warm personal regards,
Sincerely yours,
WILLIAM E MINSHALL,
Member oj Congress.
APRIL 16, 1969.
The PBESIDENT,
The White House,
Washington, D.C
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: Conditions in Lake
Erie have reached such a critical point, and
past Federal assistance to alleviate the pollu-
tion so sparse, that I have written to Gov-
ernor James A. Rhodes urging him to ask
you to declare Lake Erie a national disaster
area.
As stated in my attached letter to the Gov-
ernor. I feel that Lake Erie qualifies as a
disaster area as denned under Title 42 Sec-
tion 1885a(a)
Not only the economy of the states border-
ing the lake, but the health and recrea-
[p. 9280]
tional facilities of its millions of residents, are
in the gravest jeopardy I do not believe full
realization of this threat has been brought
home to most American citizens, despite the
shocking fact that Lake Erie is conceded to
be the most polluted body of water in the
world Its death would have an economic
impact reaching much farther than the states
sharing its shoreline
It would be my pleasure to personally show
you, from the air, the thousands of square
miles of Erie which are absolutely dead, all
life strangled by algae, and the thousands
more miles under immediate threat. I invite
you to inspect the deplorable condition of
lake beaches, many closed because they are
unsafe for swimming. And I call your at-
tention to the severe financial losses suffered"
by the fishing industry, where the catch is
down by 50 percent. It is not necessary to
point out that the death of Lake Erie would
be a virtual death-blow to lake transport as
well as to local industry.
If it is not possible for you to make such
an inspection trip, I respectfully request that
you designate appropriate officials from the
Departments of Health, Education and Wel-
fare, Commerce, Interior and the Army to
join me.
With highest regards,
Respectfully,
WILLIAM E MINSHALL,
Member of Congress.
Mr BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in oppositon to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, as was made abun-
dantly clear, factually, and realistically
by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
WRIGHT), and by our respected friend
and colleague, the gentleman from Ala-
bama (Mr. JONES), we are not only
aware of, but quite knowledgeable
about, and truly and earnestly sympa-
thetic—and I mean sympathetic—with
the plight and the problems existing
particularly but not only with respect
to Lake Erie, which problems are cer-
tainly enormous—monumental and com-
plicated. We agree we should begin to
work on this large and complex prob-
lem, but we cannot approach it on a
scale as large as that proposed by the
gentleman's amendment.
In fact, I urge this body to vote down
the amendment, in a friendly and under-
standing manner, with the understand-
ing that a subsequent modified version
will be worked out by the gentleman
and his colleagues from Ohio and mem-
bers of the committee and staff, and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1735
which will then be submitted to the
House for consideration. I am confident
that a proposal applicable to all the
Great Lakes, and in line with the gen-
eral provisions of the mine-acid pollu-
tion section is worked out, that we can
agree to such an amendment and work
on the Lake Erie problem can be gotten
underway, as well as work on remedy-
ing pollution problems elsewhere on the
Great Lakes.
I do urge that this amendment be de-
feated and that the gentleman from Ohio
be recognized next to submit the modi-
fied amended version.
Mr. McCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, as a member of the
Public Works Committee from a district
on the shore of Lake Erie I feel com-
pelled to speak on the amendment of-
fered by the gentleman from Ohio.
I have cosponsored the bill which the
gentleman from Ohio offered. And I am
very hopeful that the committee, aftar
this valuable debate, will seriously con-
sider the gentleman's bill and hopefully
will hold hearings, possibly on the shores
of Lake Erie. I believe we need the bill.
In response to the gentleman from
Alabama, while we certainly want to
clean up all the streams in the country
there are some pollution disaster areas
Just as in the Appalachian approach we
recognize there are depressed areas in
the United States, so also there are acute
disaster areas in terms of pollution.
We have a crisis here, a national crisis
which really affects our viability and our
future as a society, in terms of pollution.
I do not see how we are ever going to
really deal with this program until we
reorder our national priorities.
This committee has done a tremendous
job, I believe, under the leadership of
our distinguished chairman and the
chairman of the subcommitte, the gen-
tleman from Minnesota. We have
brought excellent legislation to the floor
and seen it passed. Today's bill is an-
other major step forward.
As the gentleman from Texas said, a
billion dollars has been authorized for
next year for a nationwide attack on
pollution, yet the Bureau of the Budget
comes in with a recommendation for
$214 million. That is about 20 percent.
We should contrast that by just tak-
ing one item from the budget for the
Department of Defense, for germ and
gas warfare, $350 million. Many items
in the chemical and biological category
we never even voted on knowingly.
They are effectively buried in the De-
fense budget. Now contrast that $350
million with bills passed by the other
body and by the House unanimously, to
attack this crisis of water pollution, and
we see how inverted are our priorities.
We do not have the money Where is
the money going to come from? One
way is somehow to come to grips with
the gargantuan defense budget in an
effort to realistically and prudently trim
it back so that we have some resources
to utilize in an an attack on these grave
domestic problems.
I can assure the Members, coming
from Buffalo, that this is a crisis. This
is a major crisis. It affects the future
of our area. The same is true for De-
troit and Cleveland and all around the
lakes. This is of major national impor-
tance. And we are putting "peanuts"
into this program.
I do not believe, in fairness to the gen-
tleman from Ohio, we can kid anybody
and suggest we are going to pass any
authorization, because the crunch comes
in the Appropriations Committee.
Until we can muster the determina-
tion to reorder our national priorities
we are not going to attack the problem
of water pollution or any of the other
urgent domestic problems.
Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. McCARTHY. I am happy to yield
to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. ROBERTS. I appreciate the gen-
tleman's yielding.
I agree, certainly, with some reorien-
tation of our priorities, but I believe we
-------
1736
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
have overlooked one thing.
When the distinguished gentleman
from Ohio was before our committee he
testified that the city of Cleveland had
passed a $100 million bond issue to help
clear up its own sewage problem, but
that there were 25,800 able-bodied men
on welfare. So let us reorient it and do
a public works project, where we can
let those people work for the city of
Cleveland or somewhere else on a pub-
lic works project, instead of passing out
these grants.
I appreciate the gentleman's state-
ment.
Mr. PRICE of Illinois. Mr. Chairman,
I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment offered by the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. VANIK) . It is identical
to the bill that I and a number of others
are cosponsoring with him. Our grow-
ing concern about the Nation's pollution
crisis is the basis for this action, and it
is our hope that the amendment will be
adopted.
Ample evidence has been presented to
show the need for the disaster pollution
fund. The California oil leak disaster,
still fresh in everyone's mind, and the
increasing pollution of the Great Lakes,
and the Mississippi River are prime ex-
amples of the need for emergency ac-
tion. It should be noted, too, as the gen-
tleman from Ohio has pointed out, that
the pending amendment does not waive
the polluter's liability; it merely makes
available the needed funds to get the
job done.
Some may argue that $100 million is
too much money, that the budget cannot
stand it. Well, I think it is time to re-
flect on what we want this country to
be. If we can spend $80 billion a year
on defense, we can certainly afford to
authorize an additional $100 million to
protect our air and water—the two es-
sential ingredients for sustaining human
life. It is an investment that will reap
dividends far beyond the original cost.
The quality of human life is at stake
here, and it is ridiculous to put a ceiling
or price tag on it.
One other point should be discussed.
Last month in testimony before the
House Public Works Committee the
gentleman from Ohio brought out some
very interesting statistics, indicating
that an inordinate number of water pol-
lution control grants were going to less
populated areas. I have no argument
with these areas receiving equitable
amounts of Federal assistance, but I do
object to the fact that our populated
areas are shortchanged in the process
Gentlemen, we live in an urban society;
over 70 percent of our people live in
urban areas. It would stand to reason
that our populated areas must be served
adequately and effectively.
The basic purpose of the amendment
is just that. To protect and to reclaim
our air and water so that our growing
urban population can enjoy these vital
resources.
Mr. WALDIE. Mr, Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I had intended to offer
an amendment, but on discussing this
with the members of the committee I
have refrained from doing so.
[p. 9281]
However, I wish to call the attention
of the Committee to a problem that I
think has not been sufficiently dealt with
in this particular measure under con-
sideration. This is the problem of con-
trolling the influx of salt water into
fresh water bodies and particularly into
estuarine systems.
The existing act already indicates the
national intention to designate these
waters as dessrving and worthy of con-
siderable protection, but there is nothing
in the act which deals with the threat to
an estuarine area jeopardized by the
intrusion of salt water—an intrusion of
salt water into an estuary means there is
a major decrease of inflow of lifegiving
fresh water into the estuary—there is
nothing in this act which determines
that that decrease of fresh water flow
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1737
into the estuary constitutes a pollution
of the estuary and a lessening of the
water quality in the estuarine system.
I can suggest to you that in San Fran-
cisco Bay, for example, where the pro-
posal is to divert 80 percent of the only
fresh water flow into San Francisco Bay
and to divert it to other uses before it
gets into the estuarine system, the prob-
lem will be not only a remarkable dim-
inution in the beneficial aspects of the
estuary, but the very great area of that
estuary will be reduced to a minimal
size because of the reduction of 80 per-
cent of the fresh water inflow and the
increase in the intrusion of salt water
from San Francisco Bay into that sys-
tem. This intrusion of salt water and
reduction of fresh water, will practically
destroy the existing estuary. In addi-
tion, the ability of the San Francisco
Bay water system to dispose of the pol-
lutants placed into that system will be
remarkably diminished because of the
decrease in the oxygen content in San
Francisco Bay, which is a necessary
factor in the reduction of wastes trans-
ported into water systems. The oxygen
in San Francisco Bay is only found in
the fresh water that flows into the bay,
and if the oxygen is diminished further
by a reduction of 80 percent of the pres-
ent fresh water flow in the bay, then this
means that you will diminish the ability
of the water in the system to oxygenize
the wastes transported into that system
by a considerable amount. So you will
add to the pollution by permitting salt
water intrusions by reason of the dimi-
nution of the fresh water flows and their
oxygen contents.
Mr. Chairman, I am suggesting con-
siderable attention should be given to
the possibility of requiring the respec-
tive States and not permitting them to,
as is the case in the present act, but
requiring them to adopt as a water qual-
ity standard a criteria that affects all
of the estuarine systems within their
particular borders as it involves salt
water intrusion. This would not be a
remarkably difficult thing for the State
to do and would be consistent with the
indication of Congress that the estuaries
are deserving of protection in order to
preserve the water quality of these bod-
ies of water. It would also be consistent
with our desire to preserve existing
water quality and with our belief that
pollution of existing water quality sim-
ply means a deterioration of existing
water quality by active dumping into
that water of pollutants or by an indi-
rect action of depriving that water body
of a fresh water flow into the system
itself.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Ohio (Mr. VANIK) .
The amendment was rejected.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. STEIGER OF
WISCONSIN
Mr. STEIGER of Wisconsin. Mr.
Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. SIEIGEH of Wis-
consin- On page 65, strike all from line 21
through line 25 on page 72.
Mr. STEIGER of Wisconsin. Mr.
Chairman, the gentlewoman from Ore-
gon (Mrs. GREEN) raised with the com-
mittee some questions regarding this
section of this legislation. The provision
now before us which my amendment
would strike is a provision which was
incorporated in separate legislation and
which the Committee on Public Works
decided to make a part of this bill. Its
major sponsor is my distinguished col-
league and friend, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. CRAMER), and therefore, I
have some hesitation about entering into
this field at this time to raise some
questions about what I recognize is a
very critical need—how we train per-
sonnel, how we bring them into the anti-
pollution treatment field, and how we
bring in the quality and numbers of
those who are to operate and man the
sewage treatment plants which this
country so desperately needs.
But, Mr. Chairman, this provision of
-------
1738
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
this bill would propose that over the
next 3 years we authorize $62 million,
and we are going to authorize it in such
a way that, in my judgment at least, we
are opening up serious questions as to
the efficacy and the viability of a pro-
gram of this kind without adequate
safeguards which have been made appli-
cable to other kinds of training pro-
grams which are available.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from
Florida inserted in the RECORD yesterday
at pages 9022-9023 a detailed analysis
of the manpower requirements which
would be involved in this program.
Let me suggest to the Members that
in part that answers some of the ques-
tions which are raised by this amend-
ment. There are two major problems
with our present effort. One of them is
the fact that we are not training enough
people. The other is that we are not
adequately inducing those in other fields
to enter the water pollution field. Well,
let me run through this.
First of all, FWPCA, according to this
information, has already been awarded
a grant of something like $1,032,000, a
grant under the Manpower Develop-
ment and Training Act for the training
of waste treatment operators; that is,
those in the waste treatment field who
are now employed in waste treatment
plants.
Second, it has entered the camps sys-
tem which will for the first time, accord-
ing to this information, make it possible
to offer the opening for the training of
those who are not currently employed as
operators.
Third, there is no limitation that you
have to train only those presently em-
ployed in this field.
Fourth, there is a rather significant
program, one which represents several
millions of dollars, called the new
careers program which makes avail-
able the training of people for upgrad-
ing their skill in areas of public service.
Clearly waste treatment operators would
be, in my judgment at least, one of those
fields that would be eligible for new
careers funding. Therefore, I question
whether or not the committee has de-
termined whether that would be avail-
able to them.
Last, let me say—before I yield to the
gentleman from Iowa, as I see him on
his feet and shall be glad to yield to him
shortly—I have some serious questions
simply with reference to the language
itself.
We are here making awards for schol-
arships. Are we to award them for
waste treatment operators only but not
to sanitation engineers?
Second, there is the question of the
definition of "institution of higher edu-
cation." Yet the report in the RECORD of
yesterday clearly indicates that the
major thrust will be in 2-year colleges
for this type of training.
Third, we are making the grants avail-
able on a consistent basis with those for
other comparable programs.
I am not quite sure what that is ex-
cept that I am guessing, based on infor-
mation available, that it is going to cost
$1,000 per year for students at all levels,
which is the amount used in calculating
the total amount to be authorized.
In all of this I want to make it clear
to all of the Members that I am con-
cerned and recognize the need for the
training of personnel for treatment plant
operators. I doubt seriously that this is
the method that ought to be used. It is
for that reason that this amendment is
offered, in order to perhaps get some
clarification or find out if there are some
facts which are not now available.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment
at the desk which is exactly the same as
that offered by the gentleman from Wis-
consin. We are rapidly approaching a
point at which our student-aid program
in institutions of higher learning is cate-
gorized subject matter. It has been too
much proliferated.
Mr. Chairman, the general education
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1739
funds available to our college students
will be cut this year far below the point
that I would like to have them cut.
In evidence of good faith, insofar as
education generally is concerned, I
would say that if this amendment of-
fered by the gentleman from Wisconsin
is adopted, I will then, when the general
college aid program comes before us
for debate, seek to add as much to that
program as we take out of this one.
I doubt that this bill provides the way
we should approach the problem of find-
ing personnel. I rather believe that
when the salaries for the positions about
which we are talking here reach the
point where they should be, commen-
surate with their importance, that we
will have a suffi-
[p. 9282]
cient number of under-graduate and
graduate students in training for those
jobs.
Mr. Chairman, there is one further
point. Categorical subject matter grants
to college students in the past have not
proved that they fulfill the purpose for
which they were established
Mr. STEIGER of Wisconsin. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KYL. I yield to the gentleman
from Wisconsin.
Mr. STEIGER of Wisconsin. I appre-
ciate the gentleman from Iowa, yielding
to me. I certainly would join the gen-
tleman from Iowa in urging that when
we have the higher education programs
before us, that we make provision for
this. I believe it would make sense
I would join with the gentleman from
Iowa in that approach.
Would the gentleman from Iowa be
willing to perhaps join with me in sug-
gesting that our problem is that the sal-
ary level may be less than a college-
trained person may be interested in, so
that the inducements in this bill are not
guarantees that they are going to go
into the field and stay there? Also
that those who could go into this field
are eligible now for work-study pro-
grams, for scholarship, and loan provi-
sions, which are applicable to all col-
lege students, even those who are train-
ing in this field?
Mr. KYL. I would further state, Mr.
Chairman, that in the State of Iowa,
where we have more complete sewage
treatment plants in our municipalities
than in any other State of the Union,
we have not had exceptional difficulty
in finding qualified people to run those
plants.
There is nothing magical about the
operation of these plants any more than
any other kind of industrial facility. It
certainly does not take a specialized col-
lege education. That is not where this
training ought to be placed. We do need
more science students in the field of
eutrophication and other allied fields
connected with the business of antipol-
lution, but when we get the salaries for
those positions to the point they should
be we are not going to have any trouble
finding students to go into that field of
education.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Wisconsin (Mr. STEIGER) .
The question was taken; and the
Chairman being in doubt, the Commit-
tee divided, and there were—ayes 7,
noes 29.
So the amendment was rejected.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. VANIK
Mr. VANIK. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment
The Clerk read as follows:
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR VANIK
On page 65. after line 20, insert the
following:
"GREAT LAKES WATER POLLUTION CONTHOL
DEMONSTRATIONS
"SEC 20 (a) The Secretary, in cooperation
with othei Federal agencies, is authorized, to
enter into agreements with any State, polit-
ical subdivision, interstate agency, or other
public agency 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 demon-
-------
1740
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
strate the engineering and economic feasibil-
ity and practicality 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 effec-
tive and practical methods of water pollution
elimination or control.
"(b) Federal participation in such projects
shall be subject to the conditions—
"(1) that the State, political subdivision,
interstate agency, or other public 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, personal property, or sevices, the
value of which shall be detemined by the
Secretary.
" (c) There is authorized to be appropriated
$20,000,000 to carry out the provisions of chis
section, which sum shall be available until
expended."
And renumber succeeding sections and ref-
erences thereto accordingly, including any
other necessary technical amendments
Mr. VANIK (during the reading). Mr.
Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that
the amendment be considered as read
and printed in the RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection,
it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. VANIK) is recognized.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. VANIK. I yield to my distin-
guished chairman, the gentleman from
Minnesota.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, as I
stated earlier after consultation with the
author and several of his colleagues
from Ohio and our own committee, we
now have a modified version of his ini-
tial amendment which provides for a
20-year program of all Great Lakes
water pollution control demonstration.
This is consistent with other provisions
in water pollution control legislation
which treats the Great Lakes as an
entity and it is very similar to the acid
mine drainage proposition.
So we do accept the amendment and
urge its adoption.
Mr. VANIK. Mr. Chairman, I would
like to point out that the amendment
I have submitted provides a $20 million
authorization for Great Lakes demon-
stration projects to develop techniques
and preliminary plans to remove pol-
luted matters and abate new pollution.
It is cosponsored by my distinguished
colleagues, the gentlemen from Ohio
(Mr. HARSHA) who is a member of
this distinguished committee and Mr.
FEIGHAN. I now yield to my colleague
from Ohio.
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Chairman, I cer-
tainly want to join the distinguished
gentleman from Ohio in offering this
amendment and in support of this effort.
Certainly the Great Lakes situation is
one of dire need and demands special
attention.
We do have in this bill provision for
some demonstration projects in the lake
area. But this is of such a severe nature
and the need is so great, I think it merits
pinpointing and placing additional em-
phasis on the dire situation in the Great
Lakes area.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from
Ohio appeared before our committee
and gave very persuasive testimony of
the needs of Lake Erie and other Great
Lakes. He pointed out in succinct terms
the unfortunate condition that exists
there. He has discussed this grave
problem on several occasions with me
and other members of the committee,
imploring the committee to take positive
action to help alleviate this tragic situ-
ation that exists in Lake Erie. And it
was through his leadership that we have
devised this amendment.
I might add that Mr. FEIGHAN has like-
wise discussed this problem with me
a number of times and has arranged
meetings with interested industry in an
effort to help resolve this pressing
problem.
Mr. Chairman, I also would like to call
to the attention of the Congress that Mr.
MINSHALL from Ohio has likewise ex-
pressed deep concern over Lake Erie
and requested the committee and me to
assist him in finding solutions to the
situation.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1741
Lake Erie is a great natural resource
and an avenue for extended commerce,
as are all of our Great Lakes, and unless
we take positive immediate action to
preserve them we may lose them, I
congratulate the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. VANIK) on his leadership and am
happy to join him in cosponsoring this
amendment. I urge the committee to
adopt it.
Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. VANIK. I yield to the gentleman,
rny distinguished colleague from Ohio.
Mr. FEIGHAN. Mr. Chairman, I
wholeheartedly rise in support of the
amendment which I cosponsored with
the distinguished gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. VANIK) . The situation involving
the Great Lakes, and particularly Lake
Erie, has been one which has given me
a great deal of concern over the last
several years. I have consistently urged
this distinguished committee which has
reported this bill, the Committee on
Public Works, do whatever is humanly
possible to expedite action for the reso-
lution of the problem affecting the Great
Lakes. I appreciate all of their efforts
to date and I also appreciate the fact
that the amendment which is being pro-
posed here which would authorize a
sum of $20 million to be used to direct
the Secretary of the Interior in coopera-
tion with other Federal agencies and all
State and local agencies to carry out
meaningful demonstration projects for
the elimination or control of pollution
within the Great Lakes and the water-
sheds adjoining thereto will be accepted
by the committee
I would hope that all those interested
in resolving the problem involving five
of the great natural wonders of the
world will cooperate in this effort and
that as these demonstration projects are
worked out and point the way toward
a final resolution in cleaning up the
waters of the Great Lakes that this Con-
gress will and it must, I believe, find the
funds sufficient to fully accomplish that
purpose in the immediate future.
Mr. DINGELL Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last word.
[p. 9283]
Mr. Chairman, I rise to direct the at-
tention of my good friend, the gentle-
man from Minnesota (Mr. BLATNIK) to
several points that I would like to dis-
cuss with him with regard to language
appearing on page 74.
If I may have the attention of my
good friend, I would like to raise some
questions with regard to the points
raised by our good friend, the gentle-
man from New York (Mr. STRATTON)
in his recent colloquy.
I would not like the record of the
debate on this particular proposal to
indicate that there is no power here in
the Federal Government and the State
government under this legislation and
under Public Law 660, as amended, for
there to be adequate action where there
is a proposed construction of a thermal
releasing generating plant which will
release thermal pollution into our water-
ways. I note particularly lines 7 through
11 on page 74, which deal with the ques-
tion, and I note here that it states as
follows:
In any case where such standards have
been promulgated by the Secretary pursuant
to section 10 (c) of this Act, or where a State
or interstate agency has no autboi ity to give
such a certification, such certification shall be
from the Secretary
My question to my good friend is as
follows: Am I not fair in inferring that
where a State has not acted to establish
standards regarding thermal pollution,
or where its water quality standards
have not been submitted to the Secre-
tary, or where they have not been
approved by the Secretary because of
failure to adequately cover the problem
of thermal pollution, then the Secretary
becomes the licensing agency, and in
effect requires compliance with water
quality standards not only by the person
who would be constructing the plant
but also by the other Federal agencies
which would be authorizing some kind
-------
1742
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
of license for construction of either a
thermal or a thermal-nuclear plant?
Am I correct in my understanding?
Mr. BLATNIK. The gentleman is ab-
solutely correct. We do agree with his
interpretation of that language.
Mr. DINGELL. The point raised by
my good friend from New York (Mr.
STRATTON) has troubled me for some
time. One of the things I have been
interested in is the generating plant to
which he alluded. I wonder if it will be
possible for the Committee on Public
Works to request the staff of that very
fine committee, the very able staff, to go
into this matter to ascertain whether the
provisions of Public Law 660 regarding
the establishment of water quality stand-
ards appropriate to preserve the quality
of water are being adequately handled
by the State of New York.
Mr. BLATNIK. We certainly shall.
We assure the gentleman that we are
well aware that thermal pollution is not
only a serious problem, but it is growing
in seriousness and magnitude year by
year because the heavy demands for
power are outpacing our control. I as-
sure the gentleman and the gentleman
from New York who presented the
amendment that the staff will give us a
full, detailed report on the status of
thermal pollution abatement control in
the State of New York and elsewhere,
because this is an area that we want
to get into and can get into.
Mr. DINGELL. The reason I have
taken this time is that I have been par-
ticularly concerned with the situation to
which my friend from New York alluded.
I am satisfied that if the staff of the
committee goes into this matter, we will
have an adequate and proper report to
assure that the situation to which our
friend from New York alluded is being
properly handled by all agencies con-
cerned, both State and Federal. I thank
my good friend from Minnesota
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Ohio (Mr. VANIK).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I yield
to the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. KEITH) with the explanation for
the record that we have unintentionally
made things extremely difficult for him.
He has had a commitment for the past 2
hours, so I am pleased to yield to the gen-
tleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. KEITH. Mr. Chairman, I appre-
ciate that consideration very much.
The CHAIRMAN. For what purpose
does the gentleman from Massachusetts
rise?
Mr. KEITH. Mr. Chairman, I rise to
ask questions to establish some legisla-
tive history as to the purpose and mean-
ing of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is
recognized.
Mr. KEITH. I note that in the bill the
Secretary is given authority to establish
ways and means of overcoming the prob-
lem of oil pollution. I notice further that
$65 million is authorized, among other
things, for research to determine how
pollution may be avoided. I am con-
cerned particularly with oil spills such
as that which occurred off Santa Bar-
bara. In July 1967, I filed a bill which
would have established a marine sanc-
tuaries concept. It would have author-
ized the Secretary of the Interior to
study certain ocean areas and determine
whether or not their best possible use
might be fishing or perhaps even recrea-
tion rather than for oil exploration and
exploitation.
Officials of the Department of Interior
testified then that they did not have
sufficient funds to study this so-called
marine sanctuaries concept. So I ask, is
the legislation before us sufficiently
broad to permit the Secretary of Interior
to study the relative merits of the alter-
native uses of marine areas which fall
under Federal jurisdiction? Can the
Secretary of Interior study specifically
whether or not the ocean off Cape Cod
would be more advantageously used for
recreation rather than for oil explora-
tion and exploitation? I might point out
that Cape Cod and the Santa Barbara
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1743
channel have very much in common.
My hope is that we can study the off-
shore area of Cape Cod and present the
problem that exists now off the shore of
Santa Barbara from ever occurring
there. If I could, I would like to have
the chairman comment on that.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, we
have discussed this problem with the
gentleman. It is a very pertinent prob-
lem. It is pertinent to the legislation
we have here.
While the language may not on the
surface appear at first glance to cover
the problem, on page 77, beginning with
line 3, we deal not only with research
work and studies and experiments and
demonstrations as the Secretary may
deem appropriate relative to the re-
moval of oil, but also with the preven-
tion—and we use that word. It certainly
was the intent of the committee to give
perhaps more latitude than the language
itself may imply. Speaking for myself,
after consulting with our general coun-
sel, chief counsel of our committee, the
answer would be "Yes." The intent is
certainly there and we believe the lan-
guage can be interpreted to cover the
problem the gentleman raises.
Mr. KEITH. Mr Chairman, I have
one additional question. Can the Sec-
retary similarly study whether or not the
Georges Bank area is more valuable for
fishery purposes rather than oil explo-
ration? In this case we have fishery
resources versus oil rather than recrea-
tional purposes versus oil.
I would like the Secretary to study
whether or not it is better for that pur-
pose rather than oil exploration and
exploitation.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr Chairman, I yield
to the ranking minority member on that.
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I am
sorry it took so long to get to these
questions, because they are important.
I think an important additional answer
to the first question of the gentleman is
that the Secretary of Interior does have
jurisdiction to issue licenses for explor-
ation. It is my opinion certainly he has
the authority, prior to doing that, to
determine whether in a given area it
should be used for fishing or oil, and
make whatever studies are necessary,
such as the gentleman suggests, off the
coast of his district, to determine
whether that present fishing ground
should be maintained as a fishing ground
and therefore oil exploration licenses
should not be granted That is a neces-
sary condition precedent to granting any
permit to exploit for oil purposes.
Mr, KEITH. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman very much. Yesterday,
he, the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
CRAMER) , very kindly commented on my
foresight in regard to the Santa Barbara
incident.
As I said earlier, I have been very
much concerned about the whole ques-
tion of oil pollution, particularly as it
pertains to our coastal waters.
We first became concerned in my dis-
trict some time ago after fishermen re-
turning from their grounds reported that
acres of dead fish had surfaced as a
result of the seismic tests being used by
oil exploration teams. Now, after the
alarming tragedy off Santa Barbara, we
are more concerned than ever as the
prospect of oil rigs some day rising from
the waters off Cape Cod continues to
grow.
Mr. Chairman, as a result of the leg-
islative history we have written here
today, I will write to Secretary Hickel
asking him to begin at once to study and
protect the esthetic values of the Cape
[p. 9284]
Cod shoreline and the fisheries resources
of Georges Bank.
May I mention in passing that fish
consarvation as related to this bill is also
a problem. At this moment in the wa-
ters off Cape Cod, the problem is not
only pollution, although the threat of it,
of course, hangs over us constantly
There is another perhaps even more
serious: Fishermen's nets no longer
bring up haddock as they did in the past.
Time magazine has made the crisis
-------
1744
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
clear in its issue this week:
In New England fishing states, the total
share of the catch to local fishermen dropped
from 93% to 3570 in the last recorded five-
year period Much of the reversal was due
to those well-equipped, hungry Soviet fisher-
men, who, in 1964-65 virtually depleted the
Georges Bank area of haddock in )ust one
expedition.
And so, Mr. Chairman, clean water is
not enough; we must also begin to man-
age our fisheries resources better.
Getting back to this legislation, there
are some other aspects of the bill before
us today on which I would like to
comment.
I am glad to find that under H.R. 4148
the Coast Guard has been given the au-
thority to deal with the whole pollution
problem.
I know when I went to look at the
Ocean Eagle disaster in Puerto Rico
and I asked who was in charge of the
cleanup operations, the port captain, a
Coast Guard officer, looked around the
room in which several interested parties
were gathered and said, "Well, I suppose
I am." This illustrates the lack of or-
ganization, the fuzzy areas of command
which have existed until now and which
this bill seeks to eliminate.
May I say further that section 18 is a
good answer to the question of pollution
from small boats. But I would like to
emphasize that regulations and stand-
ards should not be written without
lengthy consultation with the boating
industry. The economic costs involved
and the limits of available technology
cannot be determined without consulta-
tion with those who know most about
them—the boat manufacturers and
owners.
And, too, these are people who are
vitally interested in preserving marine
ecology. After all, they are also fisher-
men who want clean water to fish in,
sailors who want clean water to sail in,
and occasion swimmers who want clean
water to swim in.
Also, Mr. Chairman, section 20, call-
ing for assistance to institutions of higher
education in their efforts to study water
quality, goes to the heart of what has
been missing for some time—and on-
going supply of the most up-to-date
information about pollution and its
clean-up. I commend the committee for
making certain that this provision was
included.
There are some weaknesses in this
legislation, of course, and I am sure that
we can all name one or two of them. But
on balance it is an excellent step toward
a solution to what we all know is an
extremely complicated problem—how to
control the pollution of our natural
environment.
In the future, let us hope that we
can also consider farseeing conservation
legislation. We cannot only react to
crisis. We must also plan well ahead if
we are to keep the possibility of a bright
future before us. And so, Mr. Chairman,
I want to join with my other colleagues
in congratulating the committee for fac-
ing up to the serious matter of water
quality control. It is something which
has been crying for attention for years.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. HUNGATE
Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. HUNGATE. In
section 18 (f), page 59, line 8, after the words
"waters of such State", insert a period and
strike the remainder of line 8, and line 9
Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the distinguished committee and
my colleagues for the consideration they
have given this very important question.
I have an amendment offered on page
59. If the chairman and members of the
committee will check this, it seems to
me it reads a State may prohibit dis-
charge of untreated sewage from a ves-
sel in intrastate waters in a State only
if discharges from all other sources are
prohibited. This would mean, as I read
this bill, and going back to page 57 and
commencing on line 13, section (c)(l),
that within 2 years or not earlier than
December 31,1971, new vessels will have
to be equipped with machinery to treat
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1745
sewage that they discharge into the
water. Existing vessels would have 5
years in which to perfect some sewage
treatment program.
This means that for a period of 2 years
on new vessels or 5 years on existing
vessels raw sewage could be discharged
from the vessels into intrastate waters.
As I understand it, sewage can be dis-
charged raw; can be discharged after
primary treatment, which is a little bet-
ter; or can be discharged after secondary
treatment, which is better still.
According to the way this bill now
reads, as I read it, if there is a village or
a hamlet or a city or a factory located
along an intrastate stream or an intra-
state lake which has the highest form of
treatment, secondary treatment, one
could not regulate vessels discharging
untreated sewage into that intrastate
lake or stream for a period of at least 2
years in the case of new vessels or 5
years in the case of existing vessels.
To me, to put a "period" there, to per-
mit a State to prohibit this discharge of
untreated sewage from a vessel within
all or a part of the intrastate waters of
the State would mean they could regu-
late that, whereas now they cannot do
so unless they also eliminate any fac-
tories along the bank which have a high
level of treatment, like secondary, or any
small cities or villages that might have
secondary treatment.
My amendment would permit a State
to regulate the discharge of untreated
sewage from a boat within this 2- or 5-
year period to which I have alluded.
Otherwise they would not be able to do
so unless they excluded the discharge of
all sewage into that stream even though
it had secondary treatment.
This would raise the water quality
standards, and I urge support for my
amendment.
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the amendment.
Again, I am sympathetic to and un-
derstanding of the intention of the gen-
tleman, but the amendment would cause
problems I know he does not want to
cause. Frankly, it is not satisfactory.
Until the standards are set on the
abatement of discharges and the dis-
charge from vessels the States will have
authority in this field. They will con-
tinue to have authority for 5 years for
old vessels and 2 years for new vessels,
even after the standards are established
But once the standards are established
it is essential that the Federal Govern-
ment preempt the field. We would re-
serve some rights to municipalities, but
it is necessary to preempt the field, first,
to have effective enforcement of dis-
charges or pollution control in these in-
stances and, second, to have uniformity.
There are vessels which go from har-
bor to harbor, whether they are recrea-
tional or commercial vessels. If they
have different circumstances and differ-
ent rules in each harbor there will be a
real hodgepodge and an unworkable
situation. Frankly, it would be an un-
reasonable situation.
I do urge that the gentleman's amend-
ment be defeated.
Mr. CRAMER Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BLATNIK I am pleased to yield
to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. CRAMER I might say I agree
with the gentleman's explanation, and I,
too, oppose the amendment.
Mr. McEWEN Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield9
Mr. BLATNIK. I am pleased to yield
to the gentleman from New York.
Mr McEWEN. I also agree with the
gentleman's views.
I can say to my good friend from Mis-
souri, the committee gave extremely
careful attention to this subject. We
heard from many representatives of the
small boaters concerned about regula-
tions among the States.
As I believe the gentleman from Min-
nesota pointed out, this will not take ef-
fect until after the regulations are estab-
lished, so this is some time away. Then,
a body of water that is protected from
all other sources of pollution could be
protected by the State.
-------
1746
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
Mr. HUNGATE. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr McEWEN. I am happy to yield.
Mr. HUNGATE. At that point, if there
is a plant which has been there, let us
say, 20 years, or a village which has
been there 20 years, which has second-
ary treatment, the highest form of treat-
ment, could they regulate the boats on
the intrastate waters on the discharge of
sewage they make without prohibiting
that plant or that village from making
any discharge into that intrastate water?
Mr. McEWEN. No. The gentleman is
correct.
Mr. HUNGATE. To me the boatowner
[p. 9285]
is getting a better break. There will be
plants and villages which have put in
secondary treatment which will have to
stop when this takes effect, also.
Mr. McEWEN. I would say to the gen-
tleman that I think what the committee
carefully considered was the amount and
the seriousness of the pollution contrib-
uted by shoreside facilities and a
relatively small amount of vessels, rec-
ognizing that if a State wanted to shut
off all sources of pollution in a body of
water, they would have to do the same
with all vessels.
Mr. HUNGATE. Once again let me
ask, they could not require everyone to
have secondary treatment and treat the
boatowner and the village to the same
degree. If they will require any treat-
ment of the boatowner, then they must
prohibit the discharge of sewage from
any other source as well.
Mr. McEWEN. I would say that the
gentleman is correct.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Missouri (Mr. HUNGATE).
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, if I may have the at-
tention of the able gentleman from
Texas, a member of the committee (Mr.
WRIGHT) , let me say first of all that I
wish to commend the distinguished com-
mittee for bringing this measure to the
floor of the House.
It so happens that I have at least 20
miles of beaches in my congressional dis-
trict, most of which are occupied by
hotels and motels. If the operator of a
vessel were either willfully or negli-
gently to drop oil from that vessel into
the water and this oil would be pushed
ashore by waves and winds, this could
do a great deal of damage not only to
the beaches but to the private institu-
tions that operate along them. I wish it
were possible for the bill to have covered
damage to private property as well as to
the beaches and the shorelines, but I do
realize that you would have had prob-
lems in including such a provision in this
bill.
I wish to direct the attention of the
able gentleman to page 52, beginning on
line 16, where it says:
(i) Nothing in this section shall affect or
modify in any way the obligations of any
owner or operator of any vessel or onshore
facility or offshore facility under any pro-
vision of law fo damages to any publicly or
privately owned property from a discharge
of oil or matter or from the removal of any
oil or matter
Am I correct in assuming that your
able committee did not intend by that
provision of this bill to impair, diminish,
or enlarge in any way any private right
that the public owner of a facility or the
private owner of a property might have
in order to recover damages under the
general law other than by the provisions
of this bill?
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. PEPPER. Yes.
Mr. WRIGHT. The gentleman is en-
tirely correct. The purpose of this sec-
tion cited by the gentleman from Florida
is to protect the private right to recover
damages exactly as it exists today. This
bill—while it creates maximum liabilities
and requires proof of financial respon-
sibility on the part of vessels, of onshore
and offshore facilities, in amounts ade-
quate to reimburse the Government for
any claim that the Government may be
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1747
required to undertake as a result of
negligent or willful discharge—this bill
does not seek to alter, modify, or change
or dimmish or enlarge in any respect the
responsibilities that one individual or
one firm may have under the law to
some private individual damaged by his
negligence.
Mr. PEPPER I thank the very able
gentleman from Texas.
If he will allow me one other inquiry
under another subject he mentioned, re-
ferring you to page 53, where it says that
the owner of a vessel is required to main-
tain assets and—
Shall establish and maintain under legisla-
tions to be prescribed from time to time by
the appropriate delegate of the Piesident,
evidence of financial responsibility to meet
the maximum potential liability to the
United States which such vessel could be
subjected under this section for willful or
negligent dischaiges ot oil or matter
Now may I ask the able gentleman
from Texas this question: It is not, as I
understand it, the intention of this dis-
tinguished committee to provide that
these assets that you require to be made
available and maintained by the owners
of the vessels shall be subject only to a
claim of the United States? They are
general assets, if I understand the situ-
ation correctly, of the company that
operates the vessel, and they would be
liable to satisfy a judgment of a private
owner claimed in private litigation as
well as to satisfy a claim by the U.S.
Government for the removal of oil or
the matter to which I have previously
referred?
Mr. WRIGHT. In response to the gen-
tleman from Florida, if I understand the
gentleman's question, it presupposes a
condition in which the owner of a vessel
might spill oil or other matter and be
required by the Government to reim-
burse the Government for the cost of that
spillage. It also raises the further prop-
osition that perhaps such spillage may
have caused damage to a third party, a
private party, and a third party might
bring suit in a court to recover those
damages.
I would say that the purpose of the bill
is simply to require evidence of financial
responsibility in an amount adequate to
compensate the Government for the
maximum amount to which the individ-
ual might be liable for reimbursement of
a claimant However, it would be my as-
sumption that these assets, as any other
assets owned by the firm or the individ-
ual involved after the satisfaction of any
claim to the Government would be liable
to a judgment of a court of competent
jurisdiction in a suit by a person dam-
aged other than the Government.
Mr. PEPPER. I thank the able gentle-
man for his response to my questions.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. PUCINSKI
Mr PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows'
Amendment offered by Mr PUCINSKI On
page 79, after Line Seven (7) , the following
"SEC 9 Section 4 of the Act entitled 'An
Act to make appropriations for the construc-
tion, lepair. and preservation of certain pub-
lic works on livers and barbel's, and for other
purposes, approved March 3, 1905 (33 USC
419), is amended by adding at the end thereof
the following 'Nothing in this section, or
any other provision of law, shall authorize
the Secretaiy of the Army or any official 01
any agency of the Government to dump or
permit the dumping of the spoil from any
dredging opeiation, or any other earth, gar-
bage, or refuse material, into the Great Lakes
Any authorized dumping areas in the Great
Lakes established under the provisions of ihc
Act of March 3, 1905, or any other Act are
hereby abolished ' "
Mr. PUCINSKI Mr. Chairman, this is
a simple amendment, yet it is broad and
far-reaching. It repeals the act of 1905
when the Congress of the United States
designated about 120 dumping areas in
the Great Lakes for use by the Corps of
Engineers.
In 1905 that was a perfectly logical and
good move. They were dredging from
the rivers and harbors and canals rela-
tively clean silt mostly involving sand,
and it did not affect anyone and did not
create any problems. But in 1969 we
have an entirely different matter.
We have heard here today and heard
yesterday the distinguished gentleman
-------
1748
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
from Minnesota (Mr. BLATNIK) tells us
that it would perhaps take hundreds of
millions of dollars to save Lake Erie. I
do not intend to let that happen to Lake
Michigan or any other of the Great
Lakes if I can prevent it.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment, if
adopted, would not bar the Corps of En-
gineers from dredging. I realize that
they have to dredge. Of course, they
have to keep these rivers and harbors
and canals free for navigation, and I do
not propose anything to interfere with
or stop that. What we are saying is that
the Corps of Engineers will have to find
other ways of disposing of the dredging
and there are other ways of doing it.
Last year when I asked the Command-
ing General of the Corps of Engineers
whether or not he would be for this
amendment to bar the dumping of
dredged materials into Lake Michigan
and other Great Lakes, he said "Yes,
we would be for this amendment if
you would find us funds for alternate
methods."
They have alternate methods.
So what we are really talking about
here now is money. We are not stopping
anybody from doing anything. And as
the Members of the House have said on
many occasions since President Nixon
has been in the White House, there is
going to be a revision of priorities. I
agree—and one of those revisions of
priorities happens to be in the Corps of
Engineers
If the Members of the Congress will
go along with this amendment and bar
the dumping in the Great Lakes by the
Corps of Engineers of dredged materials
and other materials, then the Corps of
Engineers will find other methods to
handle this material. They have those
methods now. They are using other
methods.
Just the other day they stopped dump-
[p. 9286]
ing off the shores of Chicago, and they
plan to dump this dredged material on
land. In many other cities they are
building dikes and filling them with such
material.
I want to emphasize here, because the
opponents of this amendment are going
to try to confuse you and say that if this
amendment is agreed to, all dredging is
going to stop tomorrow. Nothing is go-
ing to stop tommorrow except the pol-
luting of Lake Michigan, because the
Corps of Engineers has a whole series
of alternate methods available to them.
And I suggest to the Members, and I
submit to the Members, that whatever
the additional costs will be—and it has
been estimated that it would cost some
$100 million if they would have to cease
the dumping of dredged materials into
the lakes and go to a land fill process
operation—I am sure that is a fair price
to pay.
The only people who are objecting to
my amendment are the barge owners
who today are hauling this stuff out into
the Great Lakes and dumping this ma-
terial, and polluting the lakes.
Mr. Chairman, I have some reason to
believe that these barge owners are not
even going all the way out to the desig-
nated areas, because the authorized areas
are not marked off, there are no buoys
around them, or anything else, to desig-
nate these areas. I have reason to be-
lieve that some of these barge owners are
not even going to these designated areas,
as I say, but are going just halfway, and
dumping the stuff belter skelter in the
Great Lakes.
Further, Mr. Chairman, since 1905,
when this legislation was adopted, the
floor of Lake Michigan alone has risen
10 feet Lake Michigan formerly was 113
feet deep, and today it is 103 feet deep.
So, Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues
to join me in taking the first determined,
deliberate move. I call upon the courage
of the Members to support this amend-
ment, and to say to the Corps of Engi-
neers that we cannot get everybody else
to enforce antipollution laws if Uncle
Sam is going to be the No. 1 polluter.
We have evidence, and ample evi-
dence, in the reports on that desk, to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1749
show the degree of pollution that the
Corps of Engineers is dumping into Lake
Michigan. The amendment offers us n
means to try to save the Great Lakes,
and not go the route of Lake Erie.
We heard the eloquent plea of the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. VANIK) tell-
ing us about what has happened to Lake
Erie. We have heard from the gentle-
man from Minnesota, who has told us
why it happened.
I do not want to challenge the state-
ment of the gentleman. I think I have to
agree with him. It was purely neglect on
the part of a lot of people that killed
that lake.
So I say to my colleagues who are on
the floor of the House at this moment,
if you really want to give meaning to
this act—if you want to save one of
the greatest natural resources of mid-
America—then you will support this
amendment
Mr. BLATNIK. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, again I must use the
same phrase, and I hope it does not
sound trite, because it is said as abso-
lutely sincerely as it is humanly possible
for one individual to say it, and that is
that we are completely in sympathy with
the problem presented by the gentleman
from Chicago, but all of us who come
from the Great Lakes, or all of those in
whose districts are the mouths of rivers,
where this type of pollution occurs,
where there is a discharge into a bay, or
into an ocean, or into a gulf, are faced
with this problem.
But this has been one heck of a prob-
lem. There is not going to be an easy
answer We could appropriate $200 mil-
lion right now and the Corps of Engi-
neers would still have difficulty in
dealing with this problem.
Probably the one subject that came up
the most often during our hearings was
the question of the disposition of dredged
spoil in the Great Lakes, and more spe-
cifically, in Lake Erie and Lake Michi-
gan, and, I might add, no subject gave
us more concern during our discussions
in drafting this legislation which we have
brought to the floor.
Disposition of dredged spoil is cur-
rently the most highly publicized of the
possible sources of pollution from a Fed-
eral activity. Research is underway
seeking to determine whether dredged
spoil is in actuality an active pollutant
and, if it is, to what extent its introduc-
tion into any given body of water does in
fact lower the quality of that water. In
addition, the Corps of Engineers and the
Federal Water Pollution Control Admin-
istration are conducting a pilot study to
determine alternatives to open lake dis-
posal. A draft of the tentative report on
this study was sent to the Governors of
the Great Lakes States and to other ap-
propriate Federal agencies earlier this
month As evidence of our very real
concern in this matter the Committee
obtained a briefing on this subject from
the reporting agencies several weeks
ago. We would hope to receive the re-
port and the administration's recommen-
dations based on the report at an early
date.
Whatever the answers are, the con-
tinuing viability of the rivers and har-
bors that produce the spoil are essential
to the economics of the region they serve
and hence to the total national interest.
For over 100 years the Congress of the
United States through River and Har-
bor Acts has authorized the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers to build and main-
tain the harbors and waterways of the
Great Lakes through which flow the
commerce of the Great Lakes, so vital
to the strength and prosperity of this
Nation.
The vast water area of the Great
Lakes, joined by improved connecting
channels, provides a low cost transport
artery that permits movement of ma-
terial and products in huge quantities to
advantageously located industrial areas.
In the calendar year 1967, waterborne
commerce at Great Lakes harbors and
channels totaled 217.2 million tons of
traffic. Controlling depths in both up-
bound and downbound connecting chan-
-------
1750
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
nels are 27 feet or more.
The Great Lakes are connected with
the Gulf of Mexico by means of 9- to
12-foot barge navigation on the Illinois
Waterway and Mississippi River. Con-
nections with the Atlantic Ocean are
provided by the New York State barge
canal system and Hudson River and by
the 27-foot St. Lawrence Seaway.
In order to maintain this great eco-
nomic area with its marvelous waterway
system, it is necessary to dredge about
10.8 million cubic yards of material each
year from Great Lakes harbors; 6.7 mil-
lion cubic yards from Lake Erie harbors
alone. In all, 115 harbors on the Lakes
must be dredged, although not all in any
one year.
The need for maintenance dredging
results primarily because harbors of the
Great Lakes are located predominately
at the mouth of rivers flowing into the
lakes. As a result of waste discharges
and soil erosion, heavy sediment loads
are carried into the harbors by rivers
Also, littoral drift of bottom material
and storm-generated currents redistrib-
ute the deposited sediments into previ-
ously dredged areas in the form of
shoals. This requires periodic mainte-
nance dredging to remove sediments to
maintain established navigation depths
For more than a century most of the
dredged material has been placed in dis-
posal areas in the deep water areas of
the lakes. In 1966 the Corps of Engineers
investigated the possibility of a 4-year
program to construct diked disposal
areas for the 15 most critically polluted
harbors on the Great Lakes. The pro-
gram was estimated at that time to cost
$95,000,000 and the annual dredging
costs would have been increased $3,000,-
000. The magnitude of this cost led to
the pilot study to study alternatives to
open lake disposal and to evaluate the
public benefits to be derived from using
the alternate disposal practices.
If open water disposal operations were
to be prohibited, restricted, or controlled,
as I understand the gentleman's amend-
ment would do, prior to the planned and
orderly process now being pursued, the
economic consequences will be cata-
strophic. Trade, commerce, and indus-
try in the United States dependent on
our waterways will be severely affected.
Rsilroads, steamship lines, oil companies,
steel firms, and other large industrial
concerns would be unable to get to or to
utilize their dock facilities for loading
and unloading cargo at about one-quar-
ter of all ports.
Allow me to include a list of examples
of the harbors that would be affected and
eventually closed down:
Cleveland Harbor, Ohio
Toledo Harbor, Ohio.
Detroit River, Mich
Buffalo Harbor & B.R C , N Y.
Saginaw Harbor, Mich.
Sandusky Harbor, Ohio
Fairport Harbor, Ohio.
Rochester Harbor, N Y
Erie Harbor, Penn
Lorain Harbor, Ohio.
Rouge River, Mich.
Ashtabula Harbor, Ohio.
Calumet R & H , 111. & Ind
Huron Harbor, Ohio.
Monroe Harbor, Mich.
Indiana Harbor, Ind
Green Bay Harbor, Wise
Chicago River & Harbor, 111,
[p. 9287]
Conneaut Harbor, Ohio.
Harbor Beach Harbor, Mich.
Oswego Harbor, N Y.
Milwaukee Harbor, Wise.
Two Rivers, Wise
Grand Haven Harbor, Wise.
Michigan City, Ind
Manitowoc Harbor, Wise.
Holland Harbor. Mich
Waukegan Harbor, 111
St Joseph Harbor, Mich
Racine Harbor, "Wise.
Kenosha Harbor, Wise.
Sheboygan Harbor, Wise
South Haven Harbor, Mich.
Frankfort Harbor, Mich
Menominee Harbor, Mich
Transporting the spoil to available
land disposition sites is extremely ex-
pensive; the land is costly and the trans-
portation is costly. In many cases, the
States and localities have indicated their
preference to pressrve their land for
more economically productive use. The
Federal Government must allocate its
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1751
available tax revenues among a great
many equally vocal public demands
The dilemma is clear; the attainable
solutions are dimly seen at this point.
This is not the case of one Federal
agency trying to circumvent the water
pollution control program. This is an
out-and-out case of financing appropri-
ately our wants and needs.
Most people would probably agree
that the best solution would be the con-
struction of diked disposal areas, which
would require a determination that the
benefits to be gained would equal or
exceed the additional expense. The
pilot study should determine this once
and for all time. In my judgment, the
benefits are there but they must be
quantified and a determination must be
made as to who shall bear the burden of
the considerable additional costs.
I have been advised that additional
authorizing legislation is not needed at
this time. The basic authority for con-
struction of the diked areas exist. How-
ever, money to undertake this expensive
proposition at more than a few locations
is not available.
Mr FALLON. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. BLATNIK I yield to the distin-
guished chairman of the committee,
the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
FALLON) .
Mr. FALLON. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman.
The gentleman from Illinois may have
given the membership this afternoon the
impression that the Army Engineers arc
the people who are polluting the lakes
or the Great Lakes The impression
that you might have been given, that
the Army Engineers are getting some
polluted material someplace and dump-
ing it into Lake Michigan is just not the
case. When the Army Engineers pick
up polluted material, it is polluted al-
ready and in the lake when they get
there, and they are moving it out some-
place elsa in order to keep the channels
open for commerce In other words,
the pollution was already there before
the Army Engineers got there.
You talk about Lake Erie being a dead
lake If that is so, then it has not hap-
pened in the last 5 years. It has hap-
pened over the last 100 years. Certainly,
if you want to put the blame where the
blame should be, then it is on the people
who polluted the lakes—the people who
live around the lakes and on the lakes.
It is certainly not the Engineers because
they are trying to keep the channels of
commerce open m trus country on our
waterways.
Mr. PUCINSKI Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. BLATNIK. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, the
gentleman in the well and the very dis-
tinguished chairman of the subcommit-
tee for whom I have time and again
expressed my deep respect are the great
experts of this Congress in this field. He
told about the problems that the Corps
of Engineers will have if my amendment
were to prevail But yesterday he de-
scribed the problems that we are having
in trying to save Lake Michigan. He
said, on page 9038 of the RECORD:
Not only $100 million but several hundreds
of millions of dollars will be required in
order to clean out and to reverse the situa-
tion existing in Lake Erie so as to restore it
to an acceptable level of quality and maintain
it in accordance with the standards in exist-
ence now
If you think the Corps of Engineers
is going to be faced with problems now,
you have not seen anything that will
compare with the nroblems we will face
when huge Lake Michigan, with 25,000
square milss, becomes the kind of cess-
pool that Lake Erie is today.
I am not suggesting that this amend-
ment is going to save Lake Michigan,
but it is the first step, and you can then
put some meaningful law into all your
other efforts once you have proven to
the communities on the Great Lakes that
the Government itsslf is not going to be
permitted by law to pollute that lake.
The chairman of this distinguished
-------
1752
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
committee says that the lake had al-
ready been polluted. I think that is a
misstatement. We are not transferring
polluted soil from one spot to another.
We are taking pollution dredgings from
harbors and rivers and transferring
them into the clean waters of Lake
Michigan. And let there be no mistake
about this. I say this to my colleagues,
and I would like to hear my colleague's
reaction. The only thing we are talking
about here is money.
Mr. BLATNIK. That is not correct.
Mr. PUCINSKI. There is no other
issue. The Corps of Engineers has a
whole series of alternatives they can use
right now in disposing of these dredg-
ings, either on land, in mine quarries,
in dikes. They are doing so in Cleve-
land. So what we are talking about
here is money. It means the Corps of
Engineers will have to come before Con-
gress and say, "You have barred us from
this way of disposing of dredgings. We
now need additional funds to do it in a
different way." I say to you that I will
support that kind of appropriation if
it means saving the greatest national
resource in America, and I say to you
you cannot underestimate the contribu-
tion that the Corps of Engineers, through
their dredging and their dumping, are
doing toward polluting that lake. Is that
not a fact? Is it not a fact that we are
talking only about money?
Mr. BLATNIK. No, we are not. I
made that clear. And it is neither our
committee nor Congress but the Bureau
of the Budget that originally asked for
a review, a reappraisal of this whole pro-
gram, and a study of alternatives. It is
not only a question of money; it is also
a matter of engineering feasibility. You
can build a bridge or any other struc-
ture perhaps in a hundred different
ways. But the question is, what is the
best way to build it to make it most
effective for the dollar value?
Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words.
What the gentleman is suggesting, in
my opinion, would kill the public works
projects of the Corps of Engineers in
that area of this country, because to be
feasible a project must have a 1-to-l
cost-to-benefit ratio. You say the prob-
lem is only money. If this means a sub-
stantial additional cost on the cost side
as compared to the benefit side, and it
is suggested that it will cost 10 times as
much to do these projects with an on-
shore method as compared to an offshore
dumping, then I am saying to the gen-
tleman that in my opinion you will be
killing—and if the gentleman wants to
take the responsibility for doing that,
that is his privilege—but he will be kill-
ing all public works projects under the
Corps of Engineers dealing with this
subject of dredging in that area of the
United States of America.
The second point is that in addition
to the fact that it is being studied as to
how it can be done, we just adopted an
amendment which had as its purpose the
spending of $20 million in the Great
Lakes area for the purpose of finding
out how pollution of all types can be
prevented, including the type of thing
the gentleman is complaining about. So
how far do we have to go?
We have millions of dollars of studies
under the pressnt law for the lakes. I
just do not understand. I understand
the gentleman and my objectives of
cleaning up the lakes, but I do not think
the gentleman understands the outflow
of what the gentleman is proposing.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Illinois (Mr. PUCINSKI].
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I take this time to ask
the chairman of the committe a ques-
tion. Yesterday the trustees of the sani-
tary district had a big meeting. They
were discussing the fact that where
there is a huge disaster, such as an oil
spill or a ship breaking up in the Great
Lakes or somewhere else, under the
present system there is no way of coor-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1753
dinating immediately.
I would like to ask who is going to
move with such emergency measures?
There are many agencies, but there is
no single agency in charge' Is there
anything in this act that would help deal
with this problem of trying to set up
more meaningful and more coordinated
activities in the event of a major disaster
such as an oil tanker breaking up in the
[p. 9288]
Great Lakes or some other place? Is
there anything in the bill that would
bring some relief in this area?
Mr. FALLON. Mr Chairman, is the
gentleman talking about pollution m the
lakes?
Mr PUCINSKI. About oil spills or
oil slicks or anything else.
Mr. FALLON. Mr. Chairman, there is
a contingency plan in the act that pro-
vides for immediate action in such cases.
This is under the direction of the
President.
Mr. PUCINSKI. Just for the record
and so Members arid I will know, who
would activate such emergency action?
Mr. FALLON. The President or his
delegate. The bill provides a method by
which the President would delegate to
the responsible agencies involved such
as the Coast Guard authority to take
charge of any removal action under the
other provisions of the bill. This dele-
gation takes place 90 days after enact-
ment.
MR. PUCINSKI. The moving party
then would be the Secretary and the
Coast Guard and all other agencies
could go m and cooperate with them?
Mr. FALLON. That is right, That is
on page 50.
Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman will yield, is it not true that
every agency involved could simultane-
ously move in the emergency that exists,
so it is not necessary for anyone to take
the lead If one recognizes the need, it
could move in without having neces-
sarily any agency coordinate.
Mr. PUCINSKI And they do But
the question is, Who initiates the coordi-
nation? I think the chairman has an-
swered that. As I understand it, in this
bill there is a fund and the Secretary
could go to the Coast Guard to start
bringing quick and immediate relief.
That is E.S I undei stand the chairman's
explanation.
Mr. COLLIER. But they could start
moving in without waiting for coordi-
nation.
Mr. PUCINSKI. The question is, Is
there some apparatus for immediately
coordinating movement, and I believe
the chairman has answered the question.
(Mr OLSEN asked and was given
permission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD.)
Mr. OLSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to-
day in support of H.R. 4148, the Water
Quality Improvement Act of 1969. As
a member of the Committee on Public
Works I have been particularly gratified
during my service with that committee
to participate m legislation which has
continuously moved forward a vitally
needed program of cleaning up the
Nation's waters.
H.R. 4148 is another step in that direc-
tion. It faces head-on, and properly so,
the question of what is important at the
present time—oil spillage, sewage from
vessels and thermal pollution.
For the first time this legislation will
place on the books a meaningful ap-
proach to the question of averting such
disasters as the Torrey Canyon and the
Ocean Eagle For the first time it recog-
nizes that the many vessels, large and
small, which ply our waters can, if not
properly supervised, contribute to the
pollution of our rivers, lakes, and
streams, and coastal waters, and for the
first time it faces the fact that a new
and vital industry, nuclear plants devel-
opment industry, which is much-needed
to provide power also must be properly
supervised so that by its operations
through the heat of the waters it may
not have an adverse effect on the waters
which are needed to cool its processes.
I regret exceedingly that the question
-------
1754
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
of necessary funding for this program is
not contained in this legislation. How-
ever, it seems to me that by the passage
of this program, and by the prior acts
of 1965 and 1966, we have placed on the
books the tools that are needed to com-
bat the pollution of our waters. We
must now, before too much time is lost,
find ways to provide proper financial
help for the implementation of the laws
we have enacted and also provide the
necessary properly trained personnel to
carry out the operations of our water
pollution control programs.
I have merely touched the highlights
of H.R. 4148. There is also contained
therein a study of acid mine drainage
pollution, continuance of the many nec-
essary and needed research programs
now underway or to be initiated by the
Federal Water Pollution Control Ad-
ministration.
Mr. Chairman, I have listened today as
several of our colleagues have expressed
their views that this legislation does not
go far enough. I agree. I believe we
should have stronger water pollution
standards. The fact of the matter is that
we were limited in how far we could go
and still retain the support necessary to
pass the bill out of the committee.
In Montana we have the highest water
pollution standards in the Nation. We
would like to see the rest of the Nation
enjoy equally high standards, and I hope
we can take action in the future to as-
sure this.
Nevertheless, this is good legislation.
It is meaningful legislation. I urge its
adoption.
Mr. TUNNEY. Mr. Chairman, recent
events off the coast of Santa Barbara
have called attention to what may be
the single greatest potential for pollu-
tion of the Nation's water resources.
Oil may be discharged from vessels,
refineries, terminals, storage facilities,
barges, and offshore drilling operations.
The breakup of the Torrey Canyon off
the coast of England in 1967 was the first
of a series of spectacular events which
brought home to the American public
the possibility that such an event can
happen anywhere at any time.
The Torrey Canyon's oil cargo de-
spoiled the coastlines of two nations for
miles and wreaked havoc with the
aquatic life of the entire area. The en-
suing attempts to control and eliminate
the oil were more noted for activity than
effectiveness. The cost of the cleanup
operation of the Governments, private
interests, and citizens of France and
England has been estimated at around
$8 million.
It also served to point up the fact that
under current law such a catastrophe
would be beyond the capability of the
United States to cope.
Unexpectedly such a catastrophe has
occurred in U.S. waters. In the Santa
Barbara Channel off the California coast
an offshore drilling rig blew out in late
January pouring many thousands of gal-
lons of oil to form an 800-mile oil slick
and blackening 25 miles of southern
California's recreational beaches.
It will be some time before there is a
full accounting of the damage, despite
the best efforts of Federal, State, and
local agencies.
Possible sources of oil pollution are
many. There were on January 31, 1969,
7,837 drilled wells on the Continental
Shelf under Federal lease. Thousands
of other wells and drilling operations are
to be found in offshore areas under State
jurisdiction.
Hundreds of tankers travel the water-
ways and territorial waters of the United
States. An alarming development is
their increase in size to 200,000 tons, with
300,000 tons on the horizon. Together
with smaller tankers and barges engaged
in trarsporting billions of gallons of oil
and petroleum products they are poten-
tial victims of accident, of collision, leak-
age, spillage or running up on reefs or
ashore.
Under present law it has been almost
impossible to fix responsibility for dam-
age due to oil discharge. Gross or will-
ful negligence must be proved. This, the
Department of Justice reports, is ex-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1755
tremely difficult and few prosecutions
have been undertaken.
H.R. 4148, the Water Quality Improve-
ment Act of 1989, now before the House,
will repeal the Oil Pollution Act of 1924,
as amended. Instead it provides a well-
balanced law which will fix responsibil-
ity for oil discharge, provide penalties
for offenders and make violators respon-
sible for the cost of cleanup up to $10
million, or $100 for each gross ton for
vessels and up to $8 million for onshore
installations and those within the 3-mile
limit.
As the bill makes the Federal Govern-
ment responsible for the cleanup, it es-
tablishes a revolving fund of $20 million
with costs to be recovered from offend-
ers and if necessary a lien may be
placed on the vessels and their further
use inhibited until their liability is pro-
vided for.
The Secretary of the Interior is to
establish regulations for environmental
criteria relative to methods and proce-
dures for removing oil and the Coast
Guard will specify the actual procedures
and equipment which may be used to
prevent discharges as well as those to be
used for removal of oil.
Any vessel of 100 gross registered tons
will be required to establish financial re-
sponsibility to meet the maximum liabil-
ity in instances of willful or negligent
discharge.
A study of other measures to provide
financial responsibilities and liabilities
with regard to vessels and onshore and
offshore facilities by the Secretary of
Transportation in consultation with
other Federal agencies and industry, is
to be completed by 1971.
The total effect of the discharge of
wastes from watercraft into the Nation's
waterways, estuaries, ports and harbors
is enormous. There are over 8 million
recreational vessels, 110,000 commercial
vessels, 1,500 Federal vessels as well as
40,000 foreign vessels. These are all
highly mobile and constitute a serious
[p. 9289]
source of pollution, and one which is
growing rapidly.
Most vessels are not equipped to pro-
vide even minimal treatment of sanitary
waste and there is little control of the
disposal of other waste matter from
vessels.
H R. 4148 is designed to correct this
by authorizing the Secretary of the Inte-
rior to issue standards of performance
for marine sanitation devices, and the
Coast Guard to issue regulations relative
to the design, construction, installation,
and operation of the devices. This would
apply to new vessels within 2 years and
to existing vessels within 5 years.
Standards and regulations for Depart-
ment of Defense vessels are to be issued
by the Secretary of Defense.
Certification of acceptable devices is
to be by the Coast Guard, and without
such certified devices no vessel may be
operated on U.S. waters after the lapse
of the applicable time established by the
act. Penalties are provided for violation.
The Secretary of the Interior may
cooperate with State or interstate
agencies in a research and demonstration
program aimed at eliminating or control-
ling acid or other mine water pollution.
Appropriation of $15 million is author-
ized for Federal participation in costs
not to exceed 25 percent for each project.
This is a problem which has been in-
creasing of late as previous measures to
control have proved inadequate and the
volume of such drainage is increasing at
an accelerating rate.
Twelve million dollars for fiscal 1970
and $25 million for fiscal 1971 and 1972 is
authorized for the purpose of grants or
contracts with institutions of higher ed-
ucation to assist them in carrying out
programs to tram undergraduates for
careers in design, operation, and mainte-
nance of waste treatment works.
The shortage has been a serious prob-
lem and such a program is badly needed.
All Federal officers with jurisdiction
over real property or facilities, which
may discharge matter into navigable
waters, are directed to insure compli-
ance with applicable water quality
-------
1756
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
standards in the administration of the
property or facility within budget limi-
tations.
Federal agencies issuing licenses or
permits to conduct an activity which
may discharge into navigable waters are
directed to require certification that
operations will not reduce the quality of
water below applicable standards before
issuance of licenss or permit. This is
particularly important.
I feel that there now exists sufficient
technical and administrative expertise
to eliminate the problem and hazards of
oil and other hazardous substance pol-
lution. This legislation will ssrve to
integrate and effectuate this expertise in
a comprehensive manner.
Passage of H.R. 4148 will insure ad-
vances in several phss;s of the vital
battle against the deterioration of the
Nation's natural environment. I strongly
urge its approval.
The pivotal question for the future,
however, is whether the hazards to con-
servation outweigh the benefits re-
sulting from oil and other resources
development on the Continental Shelf
and other areas? I believe more re-
search on this question is needed before
areas are indiscriminately opened up for
resource development.
America has abundant natural re-
sources. However, pollution is rapidly
eroding these resources. The preserva-
tion of our natural resources cannot
await tomorrow—for if we fail to act
quickly to preserve our environment
there will be no tomorrow.
Mr. SCHADEBERG. Mr. Chairman, I
am proud to rise today in support of the
Water Quality Improvement Act of 1969.
This bill has been the subject of ex-
tensive hearings before the Public Works
Committee, of which I am a member,
and I have participated in and followed
them with great interest. The testimony
presented has substantiated the ssrious
need for this legislation, particularly in
view of the recent harbor and shoreline
incidents involving oil pollution. As a
co-sponsor of water quality improve-
ment legislation, I am satisfied that H.R.
4148 is a compreher.sive measure incor-
porating the basic requirements for
meeting our water pollution difficulties.
Water pollution is one of the most im-
portant problems facing us today. In
spite of efforts at all levels, from that of
the Federal Government right down to
that of the private citizen, our water-
ways, streams, rivers, lakes, seas, and
oceans have not been cleaned out. In
my own State of Wisconsin we have been
plagued year after year by fish carcasses
being washed up on our lake shores.
Our citizens have been offended by the
stench and the sight of this debris, our
beaches have been abandoned, our
fishermen, sportsmen, and boating en-
thusiasts have been impeded in their ac-
tivities. The provisions of the legislation
before us will ass.st directly and indi-
rectly in combating this unhealthy and
bothersome nuisance.
Another problem whoss solution will
be attempted through provisions of this
bill is sewage discharge from vessels.
Ships and boats of all sizes which release
waste pollutants into our waters will be
required to meet marine sanitation
standards to be established by the Sec-
retary of the Interior.
The Water Quality Improvement Act
will make a significant difference in our
approach to the pollution difficulties we
face.
Mr. MONAGAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise
today in support of H.R. 4148, the Water
Quality Control Act of 1989.
Oil and waste pollution of our coast-
lines and waterways presants a very real
threat, not only to our personal physical
well-being, but also the ecological bal-
ance of our environment.
The advent of the combustion engine
signaled more than an era of mass trans-
portation, the attendant vast utilization
of oil also started a slow but steady dele-
terious encroachment upon the ecologi-
cal constitution of our environment.
What victory will we have if we suc-
ceed in mastering the forces of nature if
the leisure time we gain must be spent in
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1757
a wasteland?
To date we have experienced only the
immediate and obvious effects of oil and
waste spillage—the dead fish, crusta-
ceans, and plant life. The long-range
damage remains to be seen. I think the
actual and potential damage is sufficient
justification for this legislation.
We have had experience with oil pol-
lution in Connecticut, and I have intro-
duced remedial legislation in this area.
From my experience gained from serv-
ing on the Government Operations Sub-
committee on National Resources, which
in 1983 inspected the Connecticut shore-
line and held hearings in Hartford, I
have maintained a keen awareness of
the problem presented by water pollu-
tion. I am gratified to note that this bill
authorizes the Secretary of the Interior
and the Coast Guard to carry out a
program controlling sewage discharge.
The focus which this bill places upon
oil pollution is responsive to the serious-
ness of the threat. The provisions of the
bill which fix responsibility and limit
liability in the event of negligent or will-
ful oil waste discharges indicate that a
realistic appraisal has been made of the
problems created by oil transport in ves-
sels. Also the civil and criminal pen-
alties provided in this bill force higher
protective standards upon oil carriers
and oil drilling facilities so as to avoid
environmental tragedies similar to the
Torrcy Canyon and the Santa Barbara
Channel.
Another prudent section is 11 (b)
which requires applicants for Federal
offshore drilling licenses to conform to
State water quality standards. This
provision will encompass not only oil
and waste discharges, but also thermal
pollution, a more subtle but no less dan-
gerous form of water pollution.
I am particularly pleased with the
provisions of the bill establishing a re-
volving fund in the Treasury for the
reimbursement of a State or locality that
assists in oil waste removal. This provi-
sion serves to guarantee swift and effec-
tive remedial efforts since the affected
States can undertake costly cleanup
operations with the assurance that their
expenditures will be reimbursed.
I look upon a vote for this bill not only
as a vote to enact a necessary remedial
measure to meet a growing menace, but
also as a vote for long range conserva-
tion, for if we do not act now the prob-
lem will woisen and the funds necessary
to meet the necessities will continually
increase.
I regret that because of the present
world situation and pressing domestic
problems we cannot provide more funds
for antipollution measures. I look for-
ward to the day when this will be pos-
sible, but meanwhile this bill constitutes
a good start on this problem.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, the
stresses on our physical environment im-
posed by human societies are reaching
critical proportions. Many elements of
the environment upon which man is de-
pendent are becoming polluted with
dangerous chemicals and other sub-
stances which threaten to make our air,
water, and soil not only less usable to
living things, but potentially quite dan-
gerous to life. Perhaps no element of
the environment has been more misusad
than our water, and it is of utmost im-
portance that we devote as much effort
as is necessary to insure that our water
resources are made pure again and kept
[p. 9290]
that way for both recreational and
drinking purposes.
The Water Quality Improvement Act,
H.R. 4148, presently before us provides
for several badly needed improvements
in our capacity to prevent and deal with
pollution of our water resources.
The amendment offered by my col-
league from Ohio (Mr. VANIK), which is
substantially the same in effect as his
bill, H.R. 9382, of which I am a cospon-
sor, points up one major approach to
water pollution control and prevention
that has not been included m this legisla-
tion—Federal ass.stance for waste treat-
ment and pollution cleanup facilities.
-------
1758
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
I am greatly disturbed by the fact that
crucial time is slipping by without any
major effort being undertaken by the
Federal Government, to begin to help
clean up certain specific bodies of water
already heavily polluted and growing
more polluted every day. Many scien-
tists feel that some of these bodies of
water are nearing the point of no return
—that they are becoming so polluted
that they may never be adequately puri-
fied or that their purification may have
to be measured in centuries rather than
years or decades. I, along, with Mr.
VANIK and other Members of this body,
am particularly concerned about such
bodies of water as Lake Erie, so impor-
tant to the citizens of western New
York.
Mr. VANIK'S amendment would allow
bodies of water like these, which are ter-
ribly polluted, to be declared "pollution
disaster areas", which indeed they are.
Federal funds would be authorized to be
provided to State, local, and interstate
agencies in jurisdictions bordering on
such "pollution disaster areas" to help
them provide "permanent corrective re-
lief" facilities, such as more adequate
waste treatment works and sewer sys-
tems.
Inadequacy of State, local, and private
waste facilities, and the inability of local
governments to improve these facilities
and to enforce regulations due to lack of
funds, are major causes of continued
pollution of many bodies of water.
A broad program of Federal assistance
for improvement of such facilities is
badly needed, but has been omitted from
this legislation awaiting further study by
the Nixon administration and the rele-
vant congressional committees. But
conditions in some bodies of water, like
Lake Erie, are so critical now, and these
bodies of water are so near total destruc-
tion, that I do not feel we can wait any
longer. The provisions of the Vanik
amendment would permit us to launch
a concerted effort to stop further pollu-
tion and begin the clean-up work on at
least the worst and most seriously
threatened cases of pollution among our
many polluted water sources, and would
pave the way for a more detailed and
comprehensive program. In short, the
Vanik amendment provides for the
emergency steps that must be taken im-
mediately in the absance of a full-scale
Federal program of financial assistance
for pollution control. And I strongly
urge its adoption.
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Chairman, it
is indeed encouraging that Congress has
again recognized the need for new hori-
zons and new innovations to meet this
Nation's water needs.
By passage of H.R. 4148, the Water
Quality Improvement Act of 1969, we
have a logical extension in the area of
water pollution control. Congress en-
acted the first water pollution general
legislation in 1948, and the Water Qual-
ity Act of 1965, together with the Clean
Water Restoration Act of 1963, signaled
a new era for water pollution control in
the United States.
Of all our natural resources, undoubt-
edly the most abusad is water. So long
as our streams, rivers, and lakes could
cope with the ever-increasing loads of
pollution and waste, we were content to
let them struggle along. But, suddenly
and dramatically, as in the oil pollution
disaster in Santa Barbara, Calif., and the
Torrey Canyon catastrophe, we find the
load is too much.
H.R. 4148, the landmark legislation we
consider today, provides for the exten-
sion of ressarch, development, and tram-
ing program of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Administration; covers
rules and regulations concerning the
effect of Federal activities and Federal
licenses or permitted activities on our
Nation's waters; establishes a new train-
ing program designed to provide more
efficient waste treatment works both at
the municipal and industrial level and
provides for proper control of pollution
from the various types of water craft
that move through our Nation's lakes,
streams, and waters A major provision
of this bill is the placing of responsibility
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
1759
for cleaning up after a pollution disaster
wherever it occurs in our Nation's wa-
ters. In order to provide a more positive
emphasis to the program, the legislation
would change the name of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration
to the National Water Quality Adminis-
tration.
Hopefully, this legislation will help to
curb the ever-growing contamination of
our precious natural water resources,
and I urge the passage of H.R. 4148 by
the House.
Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Chairman, the bill
now before us—the Water Quality Im-
provement Act of 1969—would correct
some of the errors of the past as well as
lay the foundation for more fruitful re-
sults in the continuing fight against
water pollution.
We are in an ungainly financial pos-
ture at present that inhibits real progress
in this battle—unless, of course, the Con-
gress as well as those in lesponsible po-
sitions throughout the Nation utilize all
of the authority and technical knowl-
edge available. This, quite plainly, still
hinges on the availability of adequate
funding.
This bill before us corrects one griev-
ous error in existing law. The Oil Pollu-
tion Act of 1924, recently amended,
makes it unlawful to discharge oil from
any vessel in the navigable wateis of the
United States and requires any who do
to remove it. However, gross or willful
negligence on the part of the owner or
operator of the vessel or of the installa-
tion must be proven before punitive
action may be taken, or responsibility
fixed.
This has proved so difficult to do that
the Department of Justice has prosecuted
only a handful of cases. The result is
that oil spills, leakage, and accidental
discharge have occurred in many and
widely dispersed areas almost with
impunity.
One resort has been to resuscitate the
so-called Trash Act of 1899—that is, to
treat the discharge of oil as any waste
material. The Corps of Engineers has J
striven to enforce this act but with
wholly unsatisfactory results.
H.R. 4148 would remove this obstacle
by repealing the entire Oil Pollution Act
of 1924, as amended, and by substituting
a comprehensive and orderly program.
It fixes responsibility for spillage—
whether willful or not—and enumerates
every known source of oil pollution and
every possible means. It extends appli-
cation to vessels, onshore and offshore
installations, and includes inland waters,
lakes, harbors, estuaries, and all terri-
torial waters of the United States.
Penalties are specific and procedures
are outlined in explicit detail.
In the interest of speed and assurance
that the cleanup will be immediate a re-
volving fund of $20 million would be
established.
A study of other measures and possible
changes or improvements in the act
would be undertaken by the Secretary
of Transportation in consultation with
all concerned interests.
A growing menace to the Nation's
waterways is the burgeoning fleet of rec-
reational boats, very few of which have
means of disposing of sanitary waste.
Commercial and Government vessels,
moreover, have inadequate facilities for
this purpose. H.R. 4148 would require
every boat and ship to be equipped with
such facilities within 2 years for existing
vessals, and 5 years for new vessels In
cooperation with the Coast Guard their
character and capability would be estab-
lished under this act. And certification
of the efficacy of the equipment would
be required of all vessels operating in
U.S. waters.
Still another growing menace to water
resources exists in the rapidly swelling
drainage from mining activities, pressnt
and past. The act would authorize $15
million for Federal participation—up to
25 percent of the cost of a cooperative
program of research and demonstration
aimed at controlling or abating this
problem.
There is an acute shortage of trained
personnel to operate and maintain the
-------
1760
LEGAL COMPILATION—WATER
many new and enlarged water treatment
plants This Act would authorize $12
million for 1970, and $25 million over the
next 2 fiscal years for grants or contracts
with educational institutions to estab-
lish programs for training undergradu-
ate students interested in a career in this
field. Scholarships would be available
for these students.
The lakes of the Nation, notably sev-
eral of the Great Lakes and many
smaller ones, are recipients of nutrient
waste matter which is prematurely aging
them. Some are being referred to as
"dying." In any event, their continued
existence is threatened by pollution. A
program of contracts and grants would
be authorized for the Secretary of the
Interior to undertake research and de-
velopment on the lake eutrophication
and other problems of the lakes.
Other research and demonstration
programs contained in this bill are for
the purpose of developing field labora-
tories, research facilities, experiments
[p. 9291]
and research in the prevention and con-
trol of oil pollution, and removal of oil
discharges.
It has been demonstrated that Federal
installations are among the worst of-
fenders and that many deleterious activ-
ities are undertaken under license or
permits granted by Federal agencies.
Many of these installations discharge
pollutants into rivers and streams. H.R
4148 would make it imperative that in
the administration of their activities that
they, within budget limitations, insure
compliance with applicable water qual-
ity standards. Federal agencies, before
issuing licenses or permits, must obtain
assurance that any activities pursued in
accordance with the license or permit
have been certified by the appropriate
State or interstate water pollution con-
trol agency, and that any resultant
discharges into water courses will not
reduce the quality of the water below
the applicable standards.
This act is not a panacea, of course,
but it would correct some of the major
blunders of the past and would author-
ize several new programs that hold great
potential for future progress in the con-
trol of water pollution.
Mr. McGREGOR. Mr. Chairman, on
October 19, 1987, I introduced a bill en-
titled "The Clean Lakes Act," whose
purpose was the prevention and control
of lake pollution. This bill provided for
comprehensive pilot programs in lake
pollution prevention and control. I am
greatly pleased that this proposal has
been incorporated into H.R. 4148, the
Water Quality Improvement Act of 1969
passed by the Housa on April 16, 1969.
Section 4 of this bill grants to the Sec-
retary of the Interior the authority to
enter into contracts with, or make grants
to, public or private agencies and orga-
nizations and individuals for the purpose
of developing and demonstrating new or
improved methods for the prevention,
removal, and control of natural or man-
made pollution in our lakes. In adopting
this provision, the House has authorized
the expenditure of $65 million for the
1970-71 fiscal years.
Pollution of our inland lakes has ac-
celerated with the tremendous increase
in lake usage during the last few years.
What we are witnessing in many lakes is
a greatly accelerated rate of maturation
causad by man's activities. Without
man, it might have taken thousands of
years for some lakes to reach extinction.
This problem is, of courss, of particu-
lar concern to my State of Minnesota,
which contains within its boundaries
over 15,000 lakes larger than 10 acres.
While Minnesota has been a leader in
saeking answers to these problems, what
America has needed is the kind of com-
prehensive research program contained
in the Water Quality Improvement Act.
Mmnesotans are anxious to pres2rve
priceless natural inland water resources
not only for themsalves, but for the en-
joyment of the ever-growing number of
tourists coming from all parts of the
country for Minnesota vacations.
Indicative of my State's concern in this
&US. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE-1974 O-469-516 (Vol 3)
-------
-------
------- |